Federal courts side with pharmacists who refused to fill Ivermectin prescriptions

A few of these cases are ongoing. Most have been settled. You'd be hard pressed to find a case where the courts didn't rule in favor of the pharmacists.

in one of the more famous cases, a pharmacist not only refused to fill a patient's Ivermectin prescription, the pharmacist called the patients doctor and "lectured" them over their ignorance for prescribing a drug "not approved" for Covid 19. Federal Court Sides With Pharmacists in Ivermectin Case

Seeing early on that there were politics (and big pharma) at work, lawyers for some of the Ivermectin-seeking patients came up with a good plan. They produced reports that showed Ivermectin to be not only safe, but effective in fighting Covid. Reports like this one: Use of Ivermectin Is Associated With Lower Mortality in Hospitalized Patients With Coronavirus The lawyers also argued that the patient should have the right to take it, especially if it was being prescribed by a licensed M.D.
That didn't matter. The courts invariably replied that the pharmacies had the right to refuse the prescriptions.

We all saw what transpired. Anyone who so much as mentioned the vile "horse de-wormer" was branded a disinformation spreader, and needed to be cancelled.

The Ivermectin demonization is still happening. Last summer the FDA reported Ivermectin is still not approved.
So last fall, an Iowa doctor filed this motion to force pharmacies to fill Ivermectin prescriptions.


Now here's the kicker:

ivermectin has been here for 50 years. It's safe, and it's been touted as a wonder drug. Yet pharmacists refuse to fill prescriptions, singing their mantra "it's not approved for Covid".

But Ozepmic, on the market for less than 10 years, is being prescribed willy-nilly as a weight loss aid. It was made to treat diabetes, but I don't hear anything about pharmacists refusing to fill those presriptions. Millions of them!

Wow, Ozempic can have some serious side effects. It appears death is one of them. Side effects

a reply to: ColeYounger2
I needed ivermectin for a parasite disease I had a few years back (well I thought I did...I needed albendazole it turned out). But both those medications as well as all antibiotics, penicillin, amoxicilin, sulfamethoxazole, CIPRO, Bactrim, you name it...they are all available at your local.horse feed store. That's how I keep my stock of it all and don't let anyone tell you the pills are bad. They're the exact same pill, color, strength, etc you get fromm a human pharmacy. And it's so much easier when you have a toothache to just go buy some antibiotic lol

I would just buy ivermectin for pets


PetMectin


BACK IN STOCK -- PetMectin: Pharmaceutical Grade Pure Ivermectin

I recently got a prescription with no issues from the pharmacist getting it filled or refilled.

Pharmacists should not be questioning doctor's orders or provided care. They are not privy to the same information about the patients, for starters.

If a pharmacist gives you or your doctor a hard time, I would suggest going to another pharmacy.

Who knows better, DARPA or brainwashed pharmacists?

DARPA knew that ivermectin was a curative for all phases of covid as early as April of 2020.

a reply to: AlexandrosOMegas

Remember folks.

DO NOT take horse dose.

a reply to: IndieA

Pharmacists are more knowledgeable about the drugs you're being prescribed than the doctor that's prescribing it. The doctor will also often include a diagnosis code on the prescription (for insurance purposes), so the pharmacist also knows why you're being prescribed the drug.

If the doctor is prescribing a drug for off label use, especially if there's no studies supporting that off label use, they are well within their right to question the doctor.

At the end of the day, it's their license on the line if they dispense something they know isn't cleared to treat a certain illness and something happens to the patient as a result.

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: IndieA
If the doctor is prescribing a drug for off label use, especially if there's no studies supporting that off label use, they are well within their right to question the doctor.

At the end of the day, it's their license on the line if they dispense something they know isn't cleared to treat a certain illness and something happens to the patient as a result.

Surely you have ample evidence that pharmacists are liable for off label use side-effects for drugs they dispense and that there is a requirement, or ever even frequent addition, of diagnostic codes for what drugs are prescribed for?

An alt-left propagandist would never just make things up out of thin air with no evidence, about things they never bothered to educate themselves on, would they? I'm shocked.

I guess the good news is that this means pharmacies so inclined can now start denying off label spironolactone and other pharmaceuticals used in gender affirming care.

You're cool with that too, right?

a reply to: ksihkahe

I worked as a pharmacy tech for years. I have first-hand experience in how pharmacies operate and the regulations they must adhere to.

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: AlexandrosOMegas

Remember folks.

DO NOT take horse dose.

Of course not. The horsepaste is actually designed for all sorts and sizes of animals. So you dose by weight.

How do the pharmacist know why a drug has been proscribed to a patient?

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: IndieA

Pharmacists are more knowledgeable about the drugs you're being prescribed than the doctor that's prescribing it. The doctor will also often include a diagnosis code on the prescription (for insurance purposes), so the pharmacist also knows why you're being prescribed the drug.

If the doctor is prescribing a drug for off label use, especially if there's no studies supporting that off label use, they are well within their right to question the doctor.

At the end of the day, it's their license on the line if they dispense something they know isn't cleared to treat a certain illness and something happens to the patient as a result.

We all know damn well it was political. The medical establishment was towing the party line. If it was just a matter of questioning Ivermectin's effectiveness, they could have just said as much. Why did they have major meltdowns at the very mention of Ivermectin? Why did the big name medical schools like Stanford and Harvard attack Ivermectin? Why did they go as far as saying that those recommending Ivermectin should be jailed?

It was a giant psy-op, and TPTB sat back and watched. They wanted to see how compliant the citizens would be with the
marching orders. And they wanted to see how blindly people would follow the narrative. They even got Neil Young, an 80 year old hippy, to buy into their scam!

a reply to: ntech620

Exactly. However some people were doing the horse dose and getting sick.

a reply to: grey580
Well thebivermectin alone you measure out yourself by every 100 pounds. I took two doses which is for 200 pounds. But you can't OD on it. You can take like 5 times the recommended amount and it is still free of side affects docs say. All other mods are the exact pills humans get tho.

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: ksihkahe

I worked as a pharmacy tech for years. I have first-hand experience in how pharmacies operate and the regulations they must adhere to.

I used to inspect pharmacies and cite them for violations. Public health regulators have long arms, sunshine. The violations I cited for were found in laws and rules, not in pharmacy tech's heads.

So, your attempt to deflect from that ridiculous lie with an appeal to your self-proclaimed authority kinda backfired.

When first we practice to deceive... well you know the rest, from lived experience.

Typically those regulations you mentioned have to be codified into law or be found in agency rules and would be something I could read. Otherwise, you could point me to the relevant precedent in case law for your claim. Unless you just made it up because you thought it was a quick and easy point on your imaginary political scoreboard.

You also failed to address the widespread use of drugs for off label "gender affirming" care and your position on pharmacists declining to fill them without being given a valid diagnostic code under their approved uses.

Your partisan hypocrisy is legendary. I'm guessing as a super serious person, that we should take super seriously, your reaction to all this will be to move along to the next thread... as super serious people do when caught making things up.

originally posted by: ColeYounger2

But Ozepmic, on the market for less than 10 years, is being prescribed willy-nilly as a weight loss aid. It was made to treat diabetes, but I don't hear anything about pharmacists refusing to fill those

Higher profit margins. Shrugs.

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: ksihkahe

I worked as a pharmacy tech for years. I have first-hand experience in how pharmacies operate and the regulations they must adhere to.

Then you were part of the OxyContin settlements?

a reply to: ksihkahe

So you worked for the pharmacist board? If not then you have no insight on this. They are the ones that issue and revoke licenses.

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: ksihkahe

So you worked for the pharmacist board? If not then you have no insight on this. They are the ones that issue and revoke licenses.

if you just cite the law, you win. If you can't, you really should admit you made it up. Rule of holes states, when you find yourself in one, stop digging.

a reply to: network dude

The laws vary state by state as pharmacy board operate on a state level, much like the Bar Association.

Here is West Virginia's law that grants authority to the board to suspend and revoke licenses. Most states have similar laws.