Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Tharsheblows

  1. Like I said, to each their own, I'm just glad I don't live there. You're probably glad I don't live there too. I think many people around the world would argue that there is a sense of proportionality that is missing in the decision to implement mandatory quarantine facilities for people who were exposed to but tested negative for a disease which now has a 99%+ recovery rate for the vast majority of people (excluding the elderly and those with some comorbidities). Australia seems to have a deep willingness to comply with fairly serious government controls. I must admit that I was a
  2. Fair enough, I personally feel that is quite a bit too far given what we now know about COVID but to each their own. I think its amazing how this whole pandemic has exposed the general character of various nations.
  3. Quibbling over what the article called it seems to be sidestepping the point. The facility does exist and it appears that it is not voluntary. Are those "accommodations" a step too far or an appropriate exercise of government authority in the name of health?
  4. Is this too much? No? https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/12/shocking-hidden-camera-footage-inside-forced-internment-camps-australia-video/
  5. I think the problem we are discussing is not people "intentionally" getting close to orcas... its orcas getting close to people. And yes, I agree, in California you would likely get in more trouble for hurting an Orca than you would for hurting a person. Those videos posted by Ncik (and others) lead me to believe that the "attacking" orcas are probably just playing, even if their play is scary and destructive. Maybe, if you made yourself less fun to play with it might solve the problem. "Annoying" them might not have to be harmful (like m80's) it could be a submersible speaker that m
  6. Yes, I'm looking for a daysail...if the weather permits. I know its starting to get cold there.
  7. I'm going to be in Annapolis for a few days. Does anyone know of a bareboat charter company that charters for one day or just a few hours?
  8. It sounds like you are mostly referring to a pharmacy that is switching to a generic version of the prescribed drug or a drug that is accepted as interchangeable rather than disagreeing with the doctors prescription/medical advice. There was a lot of litigation over this issue a few years back because of pharmacies refusing to sell “plan b” pills. Some states have passed laws that prohibit pharmacies to refuse to fill a prescription (because they disagree with the doctor’s medical advice). Other states allow pharmacies to refuse but only if they provide the patient with an acceptab
  9. I believe a pharmacist that refused to fill a prescription for a vaccine written by a doctor would be out of bounds too. (although vaccines aren't typically picked up at a pharmacy) The doctor has gone through far more medical training than a pharmacist and in many cases a prescription is being written by a specialist that has gone through far more medical training in their particular field than the average doctor. The doctor has earned a certain latitude to experiment or "practice medicine" with the voluntary informed consent of their patient. The pharmacist's job is dispense the p
  10. Yes, plenty of people get medical licenses that are cranks, quack, and outright crooks, but that issue is for the AMA and each state's licensure board to deal with. There are also many very smart doctors who prescribe drugs off-label, which their license allows them to do, because they have a hypothesis they want to test or "try" with the voluntary informed consent of their patient. If it works well they share their results with others. Many times this is how the "standard of care" is actually developed. It is absolutely not the place of the pharmacist who has not received the same
  11. Nope, I'm not saying the insurance companies have to cover off-label prescriptions. The pharmacists can charge the full $1.85 it costs for Ivermectin if they like. But if you don't have a problem with insurance companies and pharmacists trying to control the doctors (individuals that actually went to medical school and have a license to practice medicine) then you are seriously short sighted. The next drug that might be politically unpopular might be one that you agree with. Would you be OK with evangelical pharmacists not filling prescriptions for birth control?
  12. All doctors have the authority to prescribe "off label" which means prescribing an FDA approved drug for use other than what its approved for. The pharmacist would not face liability for this. And while pharmacists are professionals in their own field, they do not often if ever have equal expertise as the treating physician that examined the patient. This practice usurps the authority of the doctor to practice medicine and should offend those who have worked hard to earn a medical license.
  13. How do you feel about pharmacies double guessing (refusing to fill) the prescriptions of doctors? https://www.yahoo.com/news/lawmaker-doctor-says-prescribed-ivermectin-200642085.html
  14. I think your approach regarding your personal practice is exactly correct (in my humble opinion). And, yes, telling the doctor what you want them to prescribe or do defeats the purpose of requesting their expertise (although you shouldn't necessarily blindly follow it either...which I think you basically said) The FDA is in a bit more difficult of a position because they are responsible for communicating to the public regarding the generally accepted state of science. It very important that they don't lie or even overstate what they know or don't know, even though they are an executive
  15. Make fun of it all you want but when you ask "Why don't people trust the FDA, CDC, NIH," etc... its because they have been caught promoting lies. No matter who you are, the more often you get caught promoting lies, the less credibility you have. Serious scientific professionals will recognize that their reputation for honesty and integrity is paramount, whereas political hacks and grifters have a very casual relationship with the truth. Whatever you choose, people eventually figure it out. I would prefer an FDA with integrity and that could be trusted as an honest purveyor of the
  16. Apparently you didn't watch the Joe Rogan clip. CNN flat out lied and said Joe Rogan was taking horse dewormer while their respected medical correspondent Sanjay Gupta stays silent. This coupled with the FDA website showing a horse when you look up Invermectin on their website and is tweeting about you "not being a horse or cow." https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/why-you-should-not-use-ivermectin-treat-or-prevent-covid-19 If I look up antibiotics such as amoxicillin there isn't a picture of a farm animal or a dog. Why? because while amoxicillin is given to many anima
  17. These comments all make good scientific sense. However, I would like to add that the "danger" of people self administering Ivermectin (which implies improper dosage) or worse (using the veterinary version of the drug) skyrockets when lay people catch medical professionals (and news organizations) telling outright lies about the drug. Their lies may be routed in a well-meaning attempt to discourage people's interest in a drug but the effect is to erode people's trust in the professionals. A more productive approach to a patient asking for the drug might be "It might not help you very muc
  18. While many people on this thread resort to ad hominem attacks, I have no doubt that your goal and motivation for discussing the new therapeutic is the interest of ending this pandemic and the benefit of humanity (regardless of how much money Merck stands to make). However, I think you should admit that the non-scientific lies told about Ivermectin by many in the medical establishment undermine the trust and credibility of those "professionals." Here is Sanjay Gupta smirking and calling it "snarky" that the FDA sent out a tweet implying that Invermectin is not a human drug. Despite the f
  19. For better or worse, it is absolutely true that Sweden imposed less Draconian measures than most first world countries. Half the conversation about Sweden over the last few years has been criticizing them for being irresponsible for doing so. Sure, you can point to differences in culture and compliance behavior and hypothesize that that's the reason why they fared better than countries with more restrictive policies ...but such hypotheses are pretty hard to prove because there are probably many contributing factors. Spin it how you want but the statement that: "Sweden imposed less
  20. However, the fact that Sweden fared better than about half of the countries in the European Economic Area should soften the confidence of those who belive the more draconian lock-down measure were necessary. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1111779/coronavirus-death-rate-europe-by-country/
  21. No, that's not what I said. I said "the country that probably took the least draconian measures of the first world countries." I did not say" Sweden did not have lockdowns." Also, I did not say that Sweden's death rate was great or that Sweden fared well. I merely stated that "I believe he was questioning where you got the assumption that 0.27 percent of the population would die by implying that that number is higher than the death rate of Sweden" Soo...no...nothing I said was wrong. Whether you like Sweden's strategy or not, it is true that they took less precautions
  22. I think your number is reasonable for being a educated guess. I think the problem with the excessive draconian lock-down approach is that it has no good exit strategy now. As soon as they lift the lock-down and mix with the world COVID will come rushing in. While I personally never liked the strategy, it made some logical sense when they were waiting for the vaccine to be developed or waiting for everyone to get a chance to get vaccinated. Now what are they waiting for now? The whole world to be vaccinated? Isn't it obvious that will never happen with the vaccines la
  23. I believe he was questioning where you got the assumption that 0.27 percent of the population would die by implying that that number is higher than the death rate of Sweden (the country that probably took the least draconian measures of the first world countries). I'm not weighing in on the accuracy of his comment, just that the relevance of mentioning Sweden is fairly apparent.
  • Create New...