Doctors are getting angry at their patients

[mystery-ak]

October 7, 2021
Doctors are getting angry at their patients
By Pandra Selivanov

One of the more bizarre twists in the saga of the COVID pandemic has been doctors growing increasingly frustrated and even angry with patients asking for medical treatment rather than wholesale vaccination. We have been told for almost two years that COVID is a deadly disease. Naturally, when people test positive for COVID, they want to be treated to avoid serious illness. Instead, they are sent home to quarantine, with no medical treatment until they become seriously ill.

Some patients take exception to this approach and ask for ivermectin, which is being used outside of the United States to treat early COVID. There is a significantly lower incidence of serious cases of COVID in countries that use ivermectin for early exposures.

Doctors are not taking kindly to the suggestion that patients should have access to medication that can prevent serious illness. They are denouncing ivermectin as a veterinary drug as if they were not aware that it was developed for human use, that the FDA approved it for human use back in the 1990s, and that almost 4 billion doses have been administered around the world in the past 30 years. It’s true ivermectin was developed to treat parasites, not viruses, and that it is used for livestock as well as humans. However, there are a number of life-saving medications that are not being used for their original purpose.

more
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2021/10/doctors_are_getting_angry_at_their_patients_.html

[Kamaji]

October 7, 2021
Doctors are getting angry at their patients
By Pandra Selivanov

One of the more bizarre twists in the saga of the COVID pandemic has been doctors growing increasingly frustrated and even angry with patients asking for medical treatment rather than wholesale vaccination. We have been told for almost two years that COVID is a deadly disease. Naturally, when people test positive for COVID, they want to be treated to avoid serious illness. Instead, they are sent home to quarantine, with no medical treatment until they become seriously ill.

Some patients take exception to this approach and ask for ivermectin, which is being used outside of the United States to treat early COVID. There is a significantly lower incidence of serious cases of COVID in countries that use ivermectin for early exposures.

Doctors are not taking kindly to the suggestion that patients should have access to medication that can prevent serious illness. They are denouncing ivermectin as a veterinary drug as if they were not aware that it was developed for human use, that the FDA approved it for human use back in the 1990s, and that almost 4 billion doses have been administered around the world in the past 30 years. It’s true ivermectin was developed to treat parasites, not viruses, and that it is used for livestock as well as humans. However, there are a number of life-saving medications that are not being used for their original purpose.

more
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2021/10/doctors_are_getting_angry_at_their_patients_.html

There aren't just "a number" of medications that are used for something other than their original purpose, there are tons of such medications.  The practice is known as off-label use, and it is a "very common" practice:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Off-label_use

So, even if Ivermectin was originally intended for use against certain parasites, using it as an antiviral is a perfectly acceptable off-label use so long as the risks are understood and appreciated.

Doctors who are claiming otherwise have perverted and prostituted their medical licenses for a sick political agenda.

[EdinVA]

I have to wonder tho...

Is it legal, medically or legislatively, to prescribe some of these solutions?  Are doctors in the middle of a political fight and no matter which choice they make they will lose, either in prosecution or licensing...

[Kamaji]

I have to wonder tho...

Is it legal, medically or legislatively, to prescribe some of these solutions?  Are doctors in the middle of a political fight and no matter which choice they make they will lose, either in prosecution or licensing...

If the compound is subject to prescription rules, then so long as it has been approved for use in humans, it can be prescribed for off-label usage, and the issue is only whether the prescribing physician understands the risks the compound poses to its users - almost nothing is 100% risk-free, not even something as innocuous as aspirin - and whether the physician is being candid with the patient about what's being prescribed, and why, and that the use is off-label.

Doctors who are getting angry with patients who are asking about these politically disfavored treatments are either no-nothings covering up their ignorance with bluster and ego, or else they're putting their political preferences ahead of their patients' well-being.  Both are technically violations of the Hippocratic Oath.

[Cyber Liberty]

These are the same "doctors" who hate patients who read WebMD articles.  They are a proud bunch who fly off the handle whenever they are questioned, and think they are God.

[libertybele]

These are the same "doctors" who hate patients who read WebMD articles.  They are a proud bunch who fly off the handle whenever they are questioned, and think they are God.

Amen!  Doctors have the mindset that they are never ever wrong and  will come up with every excuse that they can when they're wrong.  They hold the keys to treatment unfortunately with the insurance companies. Even though we have private insurance and can go to any doctor, that doctor still has to approve or suggest treatment and the insurance company decides whether or not they agree with treatment and if they will pay for it.  It's difficult to go up against an insurance company unless you can get a lawyer that practices out of the area.

[Kamaji]

If our experiences with doctors and hospitals viz. my FIL in his last days have taught me anything, it's to not take anything they say as truthful until and unless I've double-checked it myself.

As a layperson, you always have to be very careful about assuming you know what is meant when you start reading medical journals and studies, but at the end of the day, with enough patience and effort, you can get the essential gist of it.

My view is this:  until you've figured out the money angle for the doctor or hospital administrator you're talking to, you haven't figured out what's really going on.

[Bigun]

These are the same "doctors" who hate patients who read WebMD articles.  They are a proud bunch who fly off the handle whenever they are questioned, and think they are God.

They aren't too proud! If they were they would be rasing hell about politicians practicing medicine without a license!

[Cyber Liberty]

They aren't too proud! If they were they would be rasing hell about politicians practicing medicine without a license!

They are incapable of getting mad about that because they are heavy imbibers of the Kool Aid.