2 ms·
The linked blog post talks about historical FDA prestige (the title is The Forgotten Side of Medicine) but should be leading up to ivermectin: A small number o
by ttyprintk 2y ago
The linked blog post talks about historical FDA prestige (the title is The Forgotten Side of Medicine) but should be leading up to ivermectin:
A small number of capitalists did get rich selling ivermectin. We all noticed the emergent social media energy toward ivermectin and someone was going to sell it at a profit.
The FDA noticed that this had stature on algorithmic social media and made the mistake of trying to also get on social media. FDA does not prevent doctors from picking a treatment. FDA does not criminalize anything. But FDA is required to try to protect people even if they don’t believe in the FDA.
A small number of doctors sued because of that social media messaging. Not because ivermectin was better than or safer than a vaccine.
- cempaka 2y agoSending out not-so-subtle "hints" to pharmacies not to fill prescriptions for off-label uses of a particular drug, and encouraging medical boards to discipline doctors who write such prescriptions, is exactly the same thing as "preventing doctors from picking a treatment." One of the most infuriating things about COVID was seeing this sort of passive-aggressive buck passing raised to an artform. In my kids' school district, no one individual could be assigned responsibility for the fact they had to wear pointless cloth masks across their faces for six hours a day -- the superintendent blamed the state health department, the state health department blamed the governor, the governor blamed the CDC, the CDC blamed state health departments, and round and round it went.