Vaccine mandate ethical dilemma

[Chuck Naill]

Perhaps it is time to provide full disclosure. If I post something here I attempt to be factual/evidenced based or admit I have no idea and that it is purely anecdotal. While options exist for treating COVID-19, one should only consider those which have been tested. And, in the spirit of freedom, it is your body, do whatever is best for you. I have no personal need to sell you on something.

[dneal]

Chuck, perhaps you should revisit post #145.

Chuck, honest question. Why are you so anti-ivermectin? If it works, and there is growing evidence it does; then that should be a good thing. If it doesn't, and does little to no harm; what's the problem with experimenting with it?

And your response in #146.

Did you answer the question?

I am reading your posts. I'll summarize your non-answer of #146:

- "flying by seat of pants" and "lol"
- Questions in bold on what dosage I would recommend, and others not answering my question.
- No way to say it works beyond anecdotal. (Not accurate, ignores studies we both have posted; but at least it's a semblance of an answer)
- Side effects (maybe an answer, but is about overdoses and not clinical prescription from a doctor. A variation of the "horse-dewormer" hyperbole argument).
- No known therapeutic doses (patently false, and more hyperbolic type argument)
- Tylenol metaphor and bleach-drinking. (More hyperbole.)
- The military influenced...
- 700 Americans died of covid, anti-vaxxer preacher, Trump and more hyperbole.
- A summary that is a misrepresentation of my "advice" (I gave none), and a claim that you want evidence (of which I've posted plenty of but you ignore - perhaps because of a "blind-spot").

Chuck, that all demonstrates precisely my point. Whenever "ivermectin" is mentioned, it triggers you into a hyperbolic rant.

I tried to ask why this is, and suggested you have a blind-spot with regard to it. I read your post, and you reinforced my supposition.

Whether vaccines, Trump, ivermectin or other topics you have a strong opinion on; your responses remind me of Bloom County's "Bill the Cat", and a very lengthy version of "Ack!". Yes, that characterization is not flattering; but it's not written as some internet insult. It's what prompts me to ask why you do that. I hoped the reasonable Chuck could answer reasonably. I was wrong, I suppose; and it seemed to have triggered the "other" Chuck. That's unfortunate.

[Chuck Naill]

Your question was more an responded toward. You dodged my questions, being central to issue of using an unapproved medication.

So, if you got COVID, what dose of ivermectin would you take? Maybe I was too academic for you .

[dneal]

You still continue to dodge, but that's par for the course.

I would take whatever dose my doctor recommended, if he recommended it.

Hypothetical for you then:

You contract a breakthrough case of Covid, and your doctor (based on recent studies) tells you that his prescribed dosage of ivermectin will save your life. Do you take it? or do you shout "TRUMPIST" and "HORSE-DEWORMER" at him?

[Chuck Naill]

You still continue to dodge, but that's par for the course.

I would take whatever dose my doctor recommended, if he recommended it.

Hypothetical for you then:

You contract a breakthrough case of Covid, and your doctor (based on recent studies) tells you that his prescribed dosage of ivermectin will save your life. Do you take it? or do you shout "TRUMPIST" and "HORSE-DEWORMER" at him?

My posts are a testament that I didn’t dodge, but if it makes you feel special…..

Would your doctor recommend? She or he pays malpractice insurance, BTW. There is a penalty for prescribing off label with no clear path toward a pathology. Just saying.

Monoclonal antibodies would most likely be prescribed.

[dneal]

Your dodging of my hypothetical is yet more evidence that you do, in fact, dodge.

My doctor would recommend, and the "penalties" originate from political hysteria - not science. Feel free to cite the law that penalizes off-label prescription of ivermectin for treatment of covid though.

Monoclonal antibodies have an EUA for prophylaxis post-exposure. Practicing physicians who have successfully treated covid infections and contributed to successful treatment protocols note that monoclonal antibodies are helpful within the first 7 days of symptoms, but harmful in later stages. Ivermectin is recommended throughout infection. Neither are approved by the FDA for treatment of COVID, so monoclonal antibodies being used for treatment is "off-label" too.

[Chuck Naill]

You demonstrate again your total ignorance, my friend. Please stop embarrassing yourself.

[dneal]

So your answer to my ivermectin hypothetical is...?

You can't even say you would take the i-medicine if your doctor said it would save your life, in a simple hypothetical.

Blind-spot.

[Chuck Naill]

So your answer to my ivermectin hypothetical is...?

You can't even say you would take the i-medicine if your doctor said it would save your life, in a simple hypothetical.

Blind-spot.

Dr. Johnson would never prescribe. I knew him as a resident in the ‘90’s. He’s always practiced evidenced based medicine.

[dneal]

Still dodging. You are presented with a hypothetical that most people would simply answer "yes" to.

You can't, for some reason. Must be that Emersonian "foolish consistency" Chip correctly quoted in a different thread. Your hobgoblins are perhaps indicative of a little mind. Just sayin'...

[Chuck Naill]

What dose?

[Chuck Naill]

What’s the ivermectin dose for active covid? If your on hypertension meds, what precautions exist?

[dneal]

Ask your hypothetical doctor.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

Actually there exists a residual harm from trying something that is untested or unproven to work. It may deflect a person or persons away from legitimate known treatments (if there are any, or if any become known in due course). This is one of the issues that dogged the pseudo-science of homeopathy.

[Chuck Naill]

True EOC.

[dneal]

Actually there exists a residual harm from trying something that is untested or unproven to work. It may deflect a person or persons away from legitimate known treatments (if there are any, or if any become known in due course). This is one of the issues that dogged the pseudo-science of homeopathy.

Like a Covid vaccine? Do we know the residual harm? The knife cuts both ways.

Ivermectin has a very thorough set of safety data. It has been used as an antiviral.

Doctors prescribe various medications to treat symptoms, regardless of cause. Steroids for inflammation, for example. Antihistamines are used to inhibit the body’s response to allergens, whether ragweed pollen to food allergy reactions.

You imply that the selection is haphazard, which I don’t believe to be the case.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

I appreciate that doctors do this, and I have no problem with drugs being used (under prescription from a qualified HCP) for purposes other than what the FDA approved them for. Happens all the time, and when a HCP prescribes it is not haphazard. The problem is when people who are patently unqualified take it upon themselves to make a decision on taking a drug, a decision that may well be based on information that will later lead them to reject a proven treatment. Then it is haphazard.

Yes, the knife cuts both ways. There will be deaths among both the vaccinated and unvaccinated, and for the most part these will not be directly due to the vaccine itself.

Note that I am not saying the ivermectin is not useful, but I think it would be foolish for anyone to stake their life on it alone.

[Chuck Naill]

Is there anyone reading besides me and GI Joe? If so, I’d appreciate your constructive comments.

[dneal]

I appreciate that doctors do this, and I have no problem with drugs being used (under prescription from a qualified HCP) for purposes other than what the FDA approved them for. Happens all the time, and when a HCP prescribes it is not haphazard. The problem is when people who are patently unqualified take it upon themselves to make a decision on taking a drug, a decision that may well be based on information that will later lead them to reject a proven treatment. Then it is haphazard.

Yes, the knife cuts both ways. There will be deaths among both the vaccinated and unvaccinated, and for the most part these will not be directly due to the vaccine itself.

Note that I am not saying the ivermectin is not useful, but I think it would be foolish for anyone to stake their life on it alone.

This will trigger Chuck to post something that should be entertaining, but you might find This Document interesting, specifically the treatment protocols.

For Chuck - the site links to an international cabal of nefarious physicians spreading disinformation to kill people with "horse-dewormer" and other "off-label" / illegal use of drugs. Their efforts have seemed to backfire, unfortunately.

[Chuck Naill]

I appreciate that doctors do this, and I have no problem with drugs being used (under prescription from a qualified HCP) for purposes other than what the FDA approved them for. Happens all the time, and when a HCP prescribes it is not haphazard. The problem is when people who are patently unqualified take it upon themselves to make a decision on taking a drug, a decision that may well be based on information that will later lead them to reject a proven treatment. Then it is haphazard.

Yes, the knife cuts both ways. There will be deaths among both the vaccinated and unvaccinated, and for the most part these will not be directly due to the vaccine itself.

Note that I am not saying the ivermectin is not useful, but I think it would be foolish for anyone to stake their life on it alone.

I would be surprised to here ivermetin is being prescribed for anything other than worms and parasites. Off label prescribing has to follow a reasonable pharmacologic path and not because a patient is making a requiest. There is a legal liabilty attached to off label use.

For example the h2 blocker Tagamet is used for wart in pediatric patients. The drug is know to stimulate t-lymphocytes which can cause the warts to disappear.

And, other medications like monoclonial antibodies have been successfully use to treat the virus.

However, the overarching question is to reasonably ask why anyone would opt out on a free preventative innoculation and experiment with medications which have not been studied and shown to be effective. I believe there is a psyshosocal explaination for why people are avoiding vaccines.