Suppression of Free Speech on Covid

[Unfettered]

How is this known?

If it were a crime, would I not have been directed to contact the justice system?

 

[Revoltingest]

If it were a crime, would I not have been directed to contact the justice system?

You shouldn't reach such a conclusion
from my stating that a licensing board
sanctions licensees. This doesn't mean
other authorities can't enforce the law.

 

[Unfettered]

You shouldn't reach such a conclusion
from my stating that a licensing board
sanctions licensees. This doesn't mean
other authorities can't enforce the law.

No, I'm certain it was not a criminal situation. A licensed doctor may prescribe FDA-approved pharmaceuticals for off-label use as part of his practice. Ivermectin is no different. That said, some medical boards abused doctors for doing so during the COVID panic; I'm guessing the lawsuits have started by now against the perpetrators. Other doctors lost their jobs; again, I'm guessing the lawsuits have begun. They'll all be vindicated. And for a time even the FDA showed that they were not immune to the fear and hype, trying to squelch doctors' use of Ivermectin to treat COVID-19. But they walked that back under pressure and acknowledged that doctors are free to prescribe Ivermectin to treat COVID-19 under their licensure. Makes one wonder why they were so assertive when they knew they were wrong?

So as the dust settles, society sees that many people did wrong when they claimed they were doing right, and practiced tyranny when they claimed they were practicing medicine or science. Still, there are those who don't acknowledge the abuses. That's just life, though.

 

[Revoltingest]

No, I'm certain it was not a criminal situation. A licensed doctor may prescribe FDA-approved pharmaceuticals for off-label use as part of his practice. Ivermectin is no different. That said, some medical boards abused doctors for doing so during the COVID panic; I'm guessing the lawsuits have started by now against the perpetrators. Other doctors lost their jobs; again, I'm guessing the lawsuits have begun. They'll all be vindicated. And for a time even the FDA showed that they were not immune to the fear and hype, trying to squelch doctors' use of Ivermectin to treat COVID-19. But they walked that back under pressure and acknowledged that doctors are free to prescribe Ivermectin to treat COVID-19 under their licensure. Makes one wonder why they were so assertive when they knew they were wrong?

So as the dust settles, society sees that many people did wrong when they claimed they were doing right, and practiced tyranny when they claimed they were practicing medicine or science. Still, there are those who don't acknowledge the abuses. That's just life, though.

Ivermectin is FDA not approved for treating Covid 19.
It's ineffective for treating Covid 19.
A doctor who prescribes the wrong drug for a disease
has some splain'n to do.

 

[Unfettered]

Ivermectin is FDA not approved for treating Covid 19.
It's ineffective for treating Covid 19.
A doctor who prescribes the wrong drug for a disease
has some splain'n to do.

To whom does a licensed practitioner operating within the bounds of his license owe any 'splainin'?

 

[Revoltingest]

To whom does a licensed practitioner operating within the bounds of his license owe any 'splainin'?

The licensing board.
Let's consider another prescription of an ineffective
drug, one that's unrelated to the emotionally charged
Covid 19 issue....

If you had brain cancer, & your doctor prescribed birth
control pills (which are FDA approved) do you think
this should be investigated for malpractice?
Or is it the doctor's right to prescribe anything
that's FDA approved for any condition, even
if ineffective?

 

[Unfettered]

The licensing board.
Let's consider another prescription of an ineffective
drug, one that's unrelated to the emotionally charged
Covid 19 issue....

If you had brain cancer, & your doctor prescribed birth
control pills (which are FDA approved) do you think
this should be investigated for malpractice?
Or is it the doctor's right to prescribe anything
that's FDA approved for any condition, even
if ineffective?

I think we're going in circles. Once a pharmaceutical is approved by the FDA, a licensed practitioner may prescribe it for off-label use if in his medical judgment he has cause to believe that it may be an effective treatment, particularly when there does not exist an FDA-approved pharmaceutical for that disease or syndrome, as was the case with COVID-19. He owes no explanation to the medical board for his decision; they have already licensed him to do exactly what he is doing in prescribing the treatment. The boards that abused doctors for practicing medicine as they were licensed to do are now being held accountable. As I said, the dust of panic is settling, and what was right and moral all along is being vindicated.

 

[metis]

Oh? I was not aware that executive-branch agencies were given authority to advise either the legislative or judicial branches. Again, can you point me to where this is found in the law?

Government agency - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[metis]

Montana still has 75 mile an hour speed limits on some freeways; was just over there last month.

Yes, but the old signs said "Safe & Prudent" with no stated limit.

 

[metis]

But it's FOX "News." Murdoch, et al. The tabloid guy.

And that's a serious problem as it was created by Murdoch to reflect "conservative values", which obviously implies that objectivity is not first and foremost. The problem I've seen personally is that some mainly or only get their national news from Fox, and it is common knowledge today that Fox repeatedly defends Trump and the MAGAs no matter how perverse they may act.

 

[Little Dragon]

When citizens who were repressed during times of panic win post-panic lawsuits for damages done to them by the repression, what does that say about the lawfulness of the repression? I am talking specifically about losses due to discrimination for non-compliance with vaccine mandates, etc.

Then that's for the litigation courts to determine, in specific cases. As for lawfulness in principle, unless a law is created unlawfully, .i.e. without proper authority or due process etc then everything is potentially legal, if the legislative and executive branches determine it to be necessary. If no national constitutions or international laws are violated in the process. Personally I fully supported the vaccine mandate in the United Kingdom. My home nation. I supported lock down and the criminal laws introduced to punish those that breached the social distancing rules as mandated by a democratically appointed government. I would do so again. I would support the government whenever it tried to mitigate the threat to the lives of citizens. If that makes me 'draconian' or 'authoritarian' then those epithets are acceptable, given the alternative.

 

[Little Dragon]

I am not a government lackey or brown noser. I don't approve of the party, at all, which led (and still remains in power) my government during the pandemic. I always vote against them in any election, general or local. Socialists like me, are the hated enemy of the Conservative party. Which is as it should be. However, they had decided to follow the advice of British and other scientists, and instigate a lockdown protocol and vaccine mandate and so I supported the government. Albeit as strained as 'our' relationship is. My loyalty was is and always will be to the greater good, and by greater good, I mean the happiness safety future and freedom of my fellows.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

To whom does a licensed practitioner operating within the bounds of his license owe any 'splainin'?

The various licensing and oversight boards. And insurance because in the end they have to approve of everything or there is no coverage for treatment.

 

[Revoltingest]

I think we're going in circles. Once a pharmaceutical is approved by the FDA, a licensed practitioner may prescribe it for off-label use if in his medical judgment he has cause to believe that it may be an effective treatment, particularly when there does not exist an FDA-approved pharmaceutical for that disease or syndrome, as was the case with COVID-19. He owes no explanation to the medical board for his decision; they have already licensed him to do exactly what he is doing in prescribing the treatment. The boards that abused doctors for practicing medicine as they were licensed to do are now being held accountable. As I said, the dust of panic is settling, and what was right and moral all along is being vindicated.

What if the prescriber has an erroneous belief of efficacy?
I argue that the licensing board should prevent using
it wrongly.
"Belief" doesn't justify all actions under licensing law.
Eg, a real estate agent might believe that blacks are
worse tenants, but it's prohibited to say so or to act
upon the belief.

 

[Unfettered]

Then that's for the litigation courts to determine, in specific cases. As for lawfulness in principle, unless a law is created unlawfully, .i.e. without proper authority or due process etc then everything is potentially legal, if the legislative and executive branches determine it to be necessary. If no national constitutions or international laws are violated in the process. Personally I fully supported the vaccine mandate in the United Kingdom. My home nation. I supported lock down and the criminal laws introduced to punish those that breached the social distancing rules as mandated by a democratically appointed government. I would do so again. I would support the government whenever it tried to mitigate the threat to the lives of citizens. If that makes me 'draconian' or 'authoritarian' then those epithets are acceptable, given the alternative.

I don't know much about the law in Great Britain, but in the US, our foundation law establishes that government's purpose, and therefore the end of the law, is to protect human rights. It follows, then, than if a person acts in harmony with a policy (or law) against another person and is found liable for damages to that person, the law did not protect the former, which means he had no right to do what he did, even though the policy asserted otherwise. We've seen such transgressions of human rights from the very beginning of our nation, when slavery was lawful. It was always immoral, but it was lawful. It seems, then, that we should always be on our guard, so that we do not allow immorality to get above us as it did then.

 

[McBell]

I don't know much about the law in Great Britain, but in the US, our foundation law establishes that government's purpose, and therefore the end of the law, is to protect human rights. It follows, then, than if a person acts in harmony with a policy (or law) against another person and is found liable for damages to that person, the law did not protect the former, which means he had no right to do what he did, even though the policy asserted otherwise. We've seen such transgressions of human rights from the very beginning of our nation, when slavery was lawful. It was always immoral, but it was lawful. It seems, then, that we should always be on our guard, so that we do not allow immorality to get above us as it did then.

No one has been found liable in the COVID-19 cases.
The one article you presented is a settlement, so no one was found guilty or not guilty.

 

[Unfettered]

What if the prescriber has an erroneous belief of efficacy?

If the doctor's belief constitutes a hypothesis informed by his experience, etc., it does not matter whether or not the efficacy presents because that's what "practicing" medicine is—it is the application of the scientific method, and what his licensure authorizes him to do.

I argue that the licensing board should prevent using
it wrongly.

I appreciate that.

"Belief" doesn't justify all actions under licensing law.

I did not say that it did. Our examination here is confined to the use of Ivermectin in the treatment of COVID-19.

Eg, a real estate agent might believe that blacks are
worse tenants, but it's prohibited to say so or to act
upon the belief.

We're not talking about that.

 

[Revoltingest]

We're not talking about that.

We are because licensing law applies to both professions.
Doctors are required to serve clients. If their wrongful
beliefs harm clients, their license should be ended.

 

[Unfettered]

We are because licensing law applies to both professions.
Doctors are required to serve clients. If their wrongful
beliefs harm clients, their license should be ended.

Understood.

 

[Unfettered]

No one has been found liable in the COVID-19 cases.
The one article you presented is a settlement, so no one was found guilty or not guilty.

Good call; a settlement is not a pronouncement on the question of guilt.