Federal courts side with pharmacists who refused to fill Ivermectin prescriptions

originally posted by: Threadbarer
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.

So. Again. Where were the boards and you when OxyContin was bringing in huge profits?

Some of America's biggest pharmacy chains have gone on trial this week for the first time, accused of fuelling the country's opioids epidemic.

www.bbc.com...

But a pharmacist got $issy because an antiviral medication was prescribed as an antiviral medication?

I didn’t know prescriptions also included full medication disclosure why it was being prescribed?

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.

Not always the case. Pharmacies operating under an MD license are not beholden to Board of Pharmacy regulations. I certify pharmacy clean rooms and equipment for a living and get to see the most egregiously low standards one could imagine on a regular basis, and the BOP can’t do a thing about it.

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.

Did I work for the pharmacy board?

Lol, did you?

I first worked for a atate department of health under the authority of the surgeon general. Then I worked for an independent jurisdiction under a director and health officer.

Another poster has already mentioned that pharmacies are not stellar performers on inspections. In my experience they failed in excess of 50% of their inspections. Not based on my off the cuff biased estimates, but based on retrospective analysis. Usually this was failure to maintain documents or inappropriate storage/disposal of sharps. Medical errors, many times involving the dispensing of medications, are -very quietly- acknowledged to be around third place in cause of death. I understand they're overworked and never have enough staff, but that makes their interference on behalf of the medical establishment and pharmaceutical profiteering even more egregious. They have better things to worry about, like failing regulatory inspections and contributing to the third leading cause of death, than trying to offer unsolicited second opinions on the clinical decisions made by a doctor who has given their patient informed consent.

Feel free to flesh out how Ivermectin's 4,297 reports of adverse events in 27 years offers a higher risk than a vaccine with over a million reports of adverse events in the first year of population-wide approval. If pharmacists are denying Ivermectin because it's too dangerous, why are they injecting kids at near zero risk of COVID complications with a "vaccine" that has more event reports by several magnitudes... in just a small fraction of the time? Ivermectin is safer than acetaminophen at normal therapeutic doses, so this liability claim has a real deep hole to climb out of.

Acetaminophen toxicity is the second most common cause of liver transplantation worldwide and the most common cause of liver transplantation in the US. It is responsible for 56,000 emergency department visits, 2,600 hospitalizations, and 500 deaths per year in the United States. Fifty percent of these are unintentional overdoses.

link
You can further support this claim by showing how dangerous Ivermectin is in its own dedicated thread.

The FAERS data base covers drugs the same way VAERS covers vaccines. Federal agencies use slow and difficult to export proprietary systems so you'll have to go to the site if you wish to explore the records in detail. Since 1996 a total of 442 deaths associated with Ivermectin were reported out of 4,297 total and 2,648 serious adverse events.

A convenient thread I made on Ivermectin, that you must have missed in your rush to make things up about it here.

I'm assuming you are also acknowledging your opinion on denying off label gender-affirming pharmaceuticals would further expose your transparent hypocrisy. It's the best choice you've made in this thread. An emotional plea about patient privacy or bodily autonomy probably has no legs given your unwavering support of the party that tried to illegally mandate far more dangerous - and mostly of no clinical benefit to the recipient- "vaccines".

**It's probably a good time to reflect on how making things up to score political points doesn't really advance your goals. The sooner you stop making things up because you're desperate to defend a political narrative, the sooner you can post your propaganda without fear of being called a liar. You could also just admit you have no evidence that this is codified or has been established in case law, that this was a mistake... a biased opinion meant to defend a political narrative, and everybody would probably have a great deal more respect for you. Otherwise, it appears that you are not here for honest discussion... which means you are feeding the rot that destroys serious conversation.**

edit on K401110kAmerica/Chicago10America/Chicago by ksihkahe because: Typo

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: ntech620

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

No, they were not. That was literal propaganda being spread by big harma to scare people away from taking one of the safest drugs on the market that won a Nobel prize for human use. The same drug that darpa admitted was curative for Sars cov 2.

a reply to: v1rtu0s0

It's not outside the realm of possibility, so I wouldn't be surprised if there are those who unwittingly took too much.

Higher doses can cause a certain nervous system disorder and likely other side effects, and not everyone is good at math or measuring.

I would encourage people to consult with doctors, but here's the best source of information that I know about for using ivermectin to treat the various stages of covid.

FLCCC Alliance

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.

Well, I guess you won't be manning up here. It's been over a week and you scurried off. Pretty pathetic. I didn't even get into all of the tripe you posted and you still had to run away. Do you even remember what you said a week ago for your politics? I have a pretty firm belief that you're essentially a political ticker tape.

Do you remember making the argument that pharmacists are well within their rights to refuse to fill scripts for off label uses of drugs for gender-affirming care?

That is the argument you made. You just made the argument about Ivermectin because your political cult demands you have an irrational opinion about a drug that is safer than acetaminophen. It's the same precedent. I don't think you actually believe that pharmacists are fully within their rights to demand a proper diagnosis or refuse to fill. You also threw in a totally unsupported claim about increased risk to the pharmacist if no studies are being done, like pharmacists are following all the studies and the pharmacy board is weighing in on license issues based on studies. Studies are not FDA approvals. It's irrelevant anyway because if you weren't just vomiting political beliefs you'd know there are and have been plenty of studies on using Ivermectin for a range of pathogens from even before COVID was engineered.

I also find it very hard to believe an informed pharmacy tech can be oblivious to the rampant prescribing of drugs for off label uses that get a *wink/nod" from pharmacists and pharma companies. This while the FDA spends their time banning benign natural supplements and profit-sharing with the pharmaceutical companies they approve drugs from. If you really were a pharmacy tech you should be embarrassed for that slipping by without notice. If you noticed the rampant off label use without any institutional policies of denial then you should be embarrassed for being deceitful. It's gross how much fiction and overt manipulation you weave into your transparent political propaganda. It's like you honestly believe that knowing the DNC approved political platform on a topic is the same thing as having knowledge of the topic. It's not.

Here's to another 8 months of you embarrassing yourself though. If you continue to do this in topics I know well then I'm probably going to be more than happy to keep rubbing your nose in it when I see it. Go lie in the meaningless court case threats or go regurgitate your war propaganda in meaningless arguments over who's bomb are morally superior. You've all done more than enough lying about everything surrounding COVID.

THEY LIED TO YOU: New Study Finds People Who Took Ivermectin for COVID Recovered Faster – As TGP Reported Over Two Years Ago!

As The Gateway Pundit reported for years now – There have been over 101 scientific studies on Ivermectin that confirmed the significant benefit of taking the drug in treating COVID-19 in its early stages.

The science is undeniable. Despite this the US government condemned its use for COVID-19. And the government is now responsible for killing tens of thousands of Americans who did not have to die.