They're [often] using the horse formulation because their doctor said no.

This is such a hypothetical. How many people got ivermectin against their doctor prescription, and how many got adverse effects from that? 1 in 100M?

Who said anything about adverse effects?

GGP: ivemectin has some unpleasant and dangerous side effects in some people rarely. [...] people are taking a risk of having a horrid side effect with no chance of the pill working.

GP: All of this is for the patient and their doctor to decide.

P: They're [often] using the horse formulation because their doctor said no.

X: How many got the horse formulation and how many got adverse effects from [horse formulation]?

C: Who said anything about adverse effects?

It this human brain on Twitter? We can't possibly read 4 short stanzas in a row and keep the context?

Farm supply stores are out of stock from idiots buying livestock formation. Some are now requiring proof of horse ownership to buy it.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/news.yahoo.com/amphtml/vegas-st...

I agree about the pharmacist - but the drug regulator really does have to have a role. There is a serious information imbalance between patients and doctors and both big pharma and lunatic talkshow host millionaries. Regulation is important to help prevent junk getting pushed into kids arms to make bastards money. It's not perfect and they get a lot wrong, but without it you and I are at the mercy of some very mercy short people.

Pharmacists are not there to blindly dispense drugs.

They have a legal and moral obligation to understand how those drugs are going to be used and whether the patient is at risk for taking them.

My understanding is that - depending on the jurisdiction - a pharmacist is allowed to refuse filling a prescription if:

- They are morally opposed to the medication, ex: "abortion pills"

- They know that the patient is taking another drug that would result in a deadly interaction

- The patient is drug-seeking a scheduled drug, ex: they've brought multiple valid prescriptions for opiates, but from different doctors

The pharmacist doesn't know why you've been prescribed Ivermectin. They can ask, but you're under no obligation to tell them. Maybe you need it for river blindness. Unlikely, but it's none of their business.

I guess a pharmacist could claim moral opposition to filling an Ivermectin prescription if they believe that sans Ivermectin the patient would instead get a COVID vaccine. That makes sense to me. But it's a slippery slope I'm uncomfortable with.

> All of this is for the patient and their doctor to decide.

> Not the pharmacist. Not the FDA.

In case you don't know,the FDA is the US regulatory body whose mission is to " [protect] the public health by ensuring the safety, efficacy, and security of human and veterinary drugs, biological products, and medical devices;"

In the US, doctors only prescribe drugs that have been verified by the FDA, and pharmacists only distribute drugs approved by the FDA.

If not the FDA, who do you think is responsible in the US to ensure a drug works and is safe?

The FDA is pretty much the US instition devoted to anti-quackery and anti-fraud. Why is this a problem?

I know what the FDA is, what they do, and I agree it is necessary.

The FDA has approved the use of Ivermectin in humans. We're not talking about like, heroin, or some toxic chemical that isn't even a drug.

1 in 5 prescriptions are off-label.

Meaning, to treat conditions that the FDA has not approved the drugs for. This idea that doctors are only allowed to prescribe drugs for FDA-approved use is just like, incorrect.