Current Events > Clown in Texas argues with Pharmacist who refuses to fill Ivermectin for COVID.

(+) Yeah! (+)

kingdrake2 posted...

myself i don't have a problem with it. however if he takes up a hospital bed because of an overdose i'm not going to be pleased.

He's not going to overdose if he's taking human dosage.

I agree that there's no clinical proof that ivermectin is an effective treatment for covid, but it's also relatively harmless as well.

---

toyota posted...

But you can apply that logic to any medicine. "Lets not give them these anti-biotics in case they take the whole bottle thinking it will heal them faster as opposed to the 1 tablet, 2 times a day over 7 days instructions"

Im sure for the most part the doctor would have given him a regular normal dose, and if not, the pharmacist will notice if a dosage was off or incorrect.

The normal correct dose for ivermectin is like a couple pills very short-term.

The COVID prescriptions have not been that. The doses are way over.

---

Solid Snake07 posted...

He's not going to overdose if he's taking human dosage.

I agree that there's no clinical proof that ivermectin is an effective treatment for covid, but it's also relatively harmless as well.

COVIDiots aren't been prescribed 2 pills. They get shit like "Take 6 a week for 8 weeks"

---

Solid Snake07 posted...

but it's also relatively harmless as well.

Thats what i mean. When i first saw ivermectin on the news, it sounded so familiar then i found my old script and remembered I had taken it before and didnt see what the whole hype was with everyone acting like its solely just a horse medication and had no other use beside being a de-wormer for horses.

Sure there were dumbasses who were probably taking rotten animal versions of the medication and taking their dosages but the whole painting it as this big gross, dangerous medication was really misleading and weird.

Solid Snake07 posted...

He's not going to overdose if he's taking human dosage.

I agree that there's no clinical proof that ivermectin is an effective treatment for covid, but it's also relatively harmless as well.

Stop. The prescribed dosages for covid are much much higher than the safe dosages for parasites. Meaning they are much more dangerous and don't help.

---

hockeybub89 posted...

COVIDiots aren't been prescribed 2 pills. They get shit like "Take 6 a week for 8 weeks"

So doctor's are knowingly overprescribing? How is that not malpractice?

---

kingdrake2 posted...

myself i don't have a problem with it. however if he takes up a hospital bed because of an overdose i'm not going to be pleased.

Not just that. You dont take "safe" medicines just cause either. No medicine is perfectly safe, just cause it is fda approved for a certain issue, doesn't mean it is safe for you to take it if you do not have such an issue.

---

toyota posted...

But you can apply that logic to any medicine. "Lets not give them these anti-biotics in case they take the whole bottle thinking it will heal them faster as opposed to the 1 tablet, 2 times a day over 7 days instructions"

Im sure for the most part the doctor would have given him a regular normal dose, and if not, the pharmacist will notice if a dosage was off or incorrect.

Thats the part I dont understand. How did the pharmacist know it was an 'off-label' prescription? Did they just assume then causing a drama over it? Can pharmacists even ask what their condition is and all sorts of private info out in the open (remember, doctors consult you in private rooms behind closed doors), besides asking them if they had taken the medication before? Thats what I find so odd.

When I had ivermectin years ago I dont recall a pharmacist asking me what its for. I dont recall a pharmacist ever asking me the reason why i was taking any prescription I had.

The patient may have told him what it was for or called the doctor to verify the diagnosis (or the diagnosis may have just been written on the prescription). The company I work for has us verify diagnosis for all ivermectin prescriptions and if we're not comfortable filling it for COVID, then we don't have to. We are also professionally responsible for the patient's well being and recklessly dispensing medications because it was "written by a doctor" does not excuse us from liability.

Also you took ivermectin for an FDA approved indication (scabies?) which is usually 2 doses separated by 1 week and then you're done. I've seen prescriptions for COVID prevention of people taking these doses daily. There have been reports of people going blind and/or going into liver failure because of it. Why should a pharmacist have this on their conscience/be liable for someone else practicing recklessly?

Solid Snake07 posted...

So doctor's are knowingly overprescribing? How is that not malpractice?

Not exactly, it is the dosaging that has been tested for covid. It should be malpractice though since it puts the patient at risk for side effects with no known benefit.

---

hockeybub89 posted...

COVIDiots aren't been prescribed 2 pills. They get shit like "Take 6 a week for 8 weeks"

Are they really? Or is the patient just somehow getting prescribed the meds then trying to follow some random dosing they see on social media. Because purposefully deviating from it and documenting that on a prescriptions sounds like some straight up malpractice thing. A doctor wouldnt be that dumb to purposefully overprescribe

Doctors and Pharmacists have medication books/guides all about dosing. There is no reason why they would deviate from that, and if they do, it most likely be a mistake. Thats when pharmacists pick up on it.

LightHawKnight posted...

Not just that. You dont take "safe" medicines just cause either. No medicine is perfectly safe, just cause it is fda approved for a certain issue, doesn't mean it is safe for you to take it if you do not have such an issue.

This. You dont just give a patient a drug because eh fuck it its not gonna hurt them. Because theres always a chance that it WILL hurt them and if it does guess whos liable? The pharmacist for letting that shit go out the door.

No pharmacist worth their salt is going to fill an off label, non-CDC recommended or FDA approved prescription when there is a safer, approved alternative (vaccine).

---

I thought it was gonna be someone dressed as a clown. TC disappointed me.

---

toyota posted...

Are they really? Or is the patient just somehow getting prescribed the meds then trying to follow some random dosing they see on social media. Because purposefully deviating from it and documenting that on a prescriptions sounds like some straight up malpractice thing. A doctor wouldnt be that dumb to purposefully overprescribe

Doctors and Pharmacists have medication books/guides all about dosing. There is no reason why they would deviate from that, and if they do, it most likely be a mistake. Thats when pharmacists pick up on it.

Guy, look, you are in over your head on this argument and have no idea what you're talking about. Quit while you're (somewhat) ahead

Nobody going to say anything about the doctor who wrote the prescription?

---

segasaturn posted...

I thought it was gonna be someone dressed as a clown. TC disappointed me.

There's a couple posting in this topic

---

Video unavailable

---

AngelsNAirwav3s posted...

Is it legal for a pharmacist to just refuse to fill a prescription from a doctor?

Why would a pharmacy have a horse drug in stock anyway?

toyota posted...

Are they really?

Yes.

---

toyota posted...

Thats the part I dont understand. How did the pharmacist know it was an 'off-label' prescription? Did they just assume then causing a drama over it? Can pharmacists even ask what their condition is and all sorts of private info out in the open (remember, doctors consult you in private rooms behind closed doors), besides asking them if they had taken the medication before? Thats what I find so odd.

When I had ivermectin years ago I dont recall a pharmacist asking me what its for. I dont recall a pharmacist ever asking me the reason why i was taking any prescription I had.

It's not a violation for a doctor and pharmacist to discuss a patient's medical information, especially when the prescription is for an irregular dosage. That kind of thing is exactly what a pharmacist is for.

---

BlueBoy675 posted...

@OrangeWizard You do realize that pharmacists are doctors too right?

No I did not.
---

A lot of JAQing off going on here.

---

OrangeWizard posted...

This seems like the reason that makes the most sense. "It's the law", so that's just how it is.

So like what are you advocating pharmacists to commit crimes because someone found a doctor willing to prescribe a 9 month supply of opioids?

---

Tyranthraxus posted...

So like what are you advocating pharmacists to commit crimes because someone found a doctor willing to prescribe a 9 month supply of opioids?

I'm not advocating anything.
---

The denial of therapeutic effectiveness is quite strange. Ivermectin has long been known to have antiviral properties, and there is evidence that it may stop viral replication of covid, if taken in the early stages of the disease. It's not a magic bullet, but results are promising. Look into the research done on ivermectin / doxycycline / zinc treatments. Ideally, more clinical trials will be conducted in the coming months.

OrangeWizard posted...

I'm not advocating anything.

You've been arguing in this thread for 100 posts so that's obviously false.

---

Tyranthraxus posted...

You've been arguing in this thread

What position have I been arguing for?
---

OrangeWizard posted...

What position have I been arguing for?

That pharmacists should fill ivermectin prescriptions if a doctor prescribes it despite the fact that it's not approved to treat COVID.

---

Serious Cat posted...

That pharmacists should fill ivermectin prescriptions if a doctor prescribes it despite the fact that it's not approved to treat COVID.

And in which posts did I argue for this position? Where did I ever say "pharmacists should be able to..."?
Show me the post(s) where you think I did this, and I'll clear up the misunderstanding.
---

ImperialScrolls posted...

The denial of therapeutic effectiveness is quite strange. Ivermectin has long been known to have antiviral properties, and there is evidence that it may stop viral replication of covid, if taken in the early stages of the disease. It's not a magic bullet, but results are promising. Look into the research done on ivermectin / doxycycline / zinc treatments. Ideally, more clinical trials will be conducted in the coming months.

No, ivermectin is not an antiviral.

---

Video not available, wtf?

---

I should grift these right wing psychos for easy money.

---

Let me explain it like this: if you were having heart problems and asked a dermatologist for advice, what would they do? They would give an opinion, but they would refer you to a cardiologist. Because while the dermatologist is also a doctor, they arent an expert in matters of the heart. A pharmacist is a doctor who specializes in pharmacology. They are the expert opinion when it comes to drug use, not the prescriber.

---

<a onclick="return show_quoted_message(400, 79719470, 959218123, 'e40dd674');" href="/boards/400-current-events/79719470/959218123">OrangeWizard posted... </a>

What position have I been arguing for?

That is the question I am asking you.

Maybe a more abstract version here is why did you post #62?

---

Tyranthraxus posted...

That is the question I am asking you.

I'm not advocating for or arguing for any position.

Tyranthraxus posted...

Maybe a more abstract version here is why did you post #62?

To rephrase and explain my thinking for a question to BroodRyu and to agree with you as to the likely reason why you can't just skip the doctor and go straight to a pharmacist.
---

WeeWeiWiiWie posted...

No, ivermectin is not an antiviral.

Very few argue that ivermectin is an "antiviral" -- it's a broad-spectrum anti-parasitic that has been demonstrated to halt viral replication of several DNA and RNA viruses. Research in relation to covid has been mixed, but mostly reassuring, and continued drug trials should be encouraged.

ImperialScrolls posted...

Very few argue that ivermectin is an "antiviral" -- it's a broad-spectrum anti-parasitic that has been demonstrated to halt viral replication of several DNA and RNA viruses. Research in relation to covid has been mixed, but mostly reassuring, and continued drug trials should be encouraged.

you know what else has actually been demonstrated to protect against and slow the spread of Covid? The fuckin vaccine and a mask...But none of that matters to these people.

---

ImperialScrolls posted...

Very few argue that ivermectin is an "antiviral" -- it's a broad-spectrum anti-parasitic that has been demonstrated to halt viral replication of several DNA and RNA viruses. Research in relation to covid has been mixed, but mostly reassuring, and continued drug trials should be encouraged.

Ivermectin works by binding to a chloride channel that only exists in certain parasites and that fucks with the nervous system leading to death. It works to reduce replication of viruses in vitro at extremely high, physiologically unsuitable, doses, likely due to off target binding.

The data show that it simply doesn't work as a treatment for covid. Anything that has found otherwise has been shown to be desperately fraudulent.

---

WeeWeiWiiWie posted...

The data show that it simply doesn't work as a treatment for covid.

I'm not advocating or arguing for the use of ivermectin to treat covid, but the studies I've seen say that there is "little evidence that it does work", and "more studies are needed" as opposed to "it doesn't work".
---

BlueBoy675 posted...

They are the expert opinion when it comes to drug use, not the prescriber.

They are not physicians.

It is laughable that you think a physician is not an "expert" when it comes to drugs. Like what do you think they go to school for? Why give them the pad? Do you think prescriptions are just suggestions or some shit?

---

OrangeWizard posted...

I'm not advocating or arguing for the use of ivermectin to treat covid, but the studies I've seen say that there is "little evidence that it does work", and "more studies are needed" as opposed to "it doesn't work".

Casual reminder that we shouldn't keep investigating a remedy just because it's the political magic cure du jour.


---

It's disingenuous to call it horse medicine

---

I w3as really expecting a full on clown. Disappointed.

C_Pain posted...

It's disingenuous to call it horse medicine

And ironically not filling a human dose probably leads to more people eating the version that is meant for horses.

---

C_Pain posted...

It's disingenuous to call it horse medicine

You should see what anti-vaxxers call ingredients like Potassium Chloride

---

yemmy posted...

They are not physicians.

It is laughable that you think a physician is not an "expert" when it comes to drugs. Like what do you think they go to school for? Why give them the pad? Do you think prescriptions are just suggestions or some shit?

Obviously physicians know how drugs work. But a pharmacist is a specialist in that field.

---

OrangeWizard posted...

I'm not advocating or arguing for the use of ivermectin to treat covid, but the studies I've seen say that there is "little evidence that it does work", and "more studies are needed" as opposed to "it doesn't work".

Not sure I've ever seen anyone write a manuscript that doesn't have the phrase "more studies are needed" at the end of it.

The fun trick you people do is to wash normal scientific hedging into whatever narrative you want. If it's an effect you don't like, point out how unsure the scientists sound. If they don't find the effect you were hoping for, point out how the uncertainty seems to suggest hope for future studies.

---

DarkRoast posted...

You should see what anti-vaxxers call ingredients like Potassium Chloride

Whataboutism, two wrongs don't make a right, etc.

---

Huh, who would've guessed that the usual suspects have convinced themselves that pharmacists are nothing more than bottle-filling drones who wouldn't know their asses from a hole in the ground?

---