(07-29-2020 04:33 PM)bobdizole Wrote:  

(07-29-2020 04:25 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-29-2020 03:44 PM)bobdizole Wrote:  From the FDA themselves Link

Quote:June 15, 2020 Update: Based on ongoing analysis and emerging scientific data, FDA has revoked the emergency use authorization (EUA) to use hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine to treat COVID-19 in certain hospitalized patients when a clinical trial is unavailable or participation is not feasible. We made this determination based on recent results from a large, randomized clinical trial in hospitalized patients that found these medicines showed no benefit for decreasing the likelihood of death or speeding recovery. This outcome was consistent with other new data, including those showing the suggested dosing for these medicines are unlikely to kill or inhibit the virus that causes COVID-19. As a result, we determined that the legal criteria for the EUA are no longer met. Please refer to the Revocation of the EUA Letter and FAQs on the Revocation of the EUA for Hydroxychloroquine Sulfate and Chloroquine Phosphate for more information.

Hambone, you certainly seem to be very knowledgeable in the field of medicine and I promise I'm not trying to be contrarian. I am genuinely curious to see if I am misunderstanding their statement. Does the bolded part from their decision to reverse the EUA not say they determined it was ineffective? Or are they simply saying due to the risk of complications it has been deemed ineffective for PCPs handing them out as prophylactics and it should only be used in a controlled environment?

I answered this in an earlier post... but look at your quote... the key comment is:
FDA has revoked the emergency use authorization (EUA) to use hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine to treat COVID-19 in certain hospitalized patients when a clinical trial is unavailable or participation is not feasible.

I'm trying to be as brief as I can. Let me give an example...

Fluzone is a medication that has been approved by the FDA for use to shorten the duration of flu symptoms 'if administered within iirc, 48 hours of the first symptom'... That is the 'on-label use'. The OFF label use might be to prescribe it anyway to someone who is 49 hours in... and an EUA might approve trying fluzone for terminal covid patients who don't have access to clinical trials.

Because this is an 'emergency' action that 'ignores' the rules of the FDA, the EUA requires a few things.
1) it requires no additional comorbidities... and a few were found. They don't know without more testing if those were related to covid, or the medication.
2) it requires pretty significant efficacy.

The lack of significant efficacy on this population doesn't mean it didn't work at all. It just means that it didn't work well enough on this population for us to ignore the potential risks. The drug could easily be approved if we discover that those new risks were related to the disease, not the drug. It also doesn't mean that it wouldn't work better on a different population... hence more studies.

This is about liability and safety which is the FDA's job... not 'patient treatment' which is doctor's job. The whole idea of 'well, if they're terminal anyway' is what allows EUAs... and not merely 'let's try it on otherwise healthy people'.... EUA's are like allowing drug companies/scientists to use people as guinea pigs without the normal processes and protections of a clinical trial.... which is a MAJOR breach of their practice. The revocation of the EUA merely means that doctors can do so, and formal trials can do so... but not just anybody.

+2 Thank you for the explanation

So in short, when they say it isn't effective it isn't to say it isn't effective at all, just not up to the standard to keep the EUA in effect

It is/was not effective after a certain point in the patients decline. It doesn’t prevent imminent death.

When administered early, it does show some usefulness in keeping some patients from reaching that point in the first place.
Also has shown to shorten recovery times for some.

Is every drug a silver bullet for whatever they are given for? Well of course not. Can they work better or more effectively for some and not for others? Well of course yes.
Anyone who has ever known someone battling a serious disease and recovering has seen it happen, similarly those who have seen someone succumb after every possible path has been tried.

Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

(07-30-2020 08:24 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(07-29-2020 04:33 PM)bobdizole Wrote:  

(07-29-2020 04:25 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-29-2020 03:44 PM)bobdizole Wrote:  From the FDA themselves Link

Quote:June 15, 2020 Update: Based on ongoing analysis and emerging scientific data, FDA has revoked the emergency use authorization (EUA) to use hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine to treat COVID-19 in certain hospitalized patients when a clinical trial is unavailable or participation is not feasible. We made this determination based on recent results from a large, randomized clinical trial in hospitalized patients that found these medicines showed no benefit for decreasing the likelihood of death or speeding recovery. This outcome was consistent with other new data, including those showing the suggested dosing for these medicines are unlikely to kill or inhibit the virus that causes COVID-19. As a result, we determined that the legal criteria for the EUA are no longer met. Please refer to the Revocation of the EUA Letter and FAQs on the Revocation of the EUA for Hydroxychloroquine Sulfate and Chloroquine Phosphate for more information.

Hambone, you certainly seem to be very knowledgeable in the field of medicine and I promise I'm not trying to be contrarian. I am genuinely curious to see if I am misunderstanding their statement. Does the bolded part from their decision to reverse the EUA not say they determined it was ineffective? Or are they simply saying due to the risk of complications it has been deemed ineffective for PCPs handing them out as prophylactics and it should only be used in a controlled environment?

I answered this in an earlier post... but look at your quote... the key comment is:
FDA has revoked the emergency use authorization (EUA) to use hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine to treat COVID-19 in certain hospitalized patients when a clinical trial is unavailable or participation is not feasible.

I'm trying to be as brief as I can. Let me give an example...

Fluzone is a medication that has been approved by the FDA for use to shorten the duration of flu symptoms 'if administered within iirc, 48 hours of the first symptom'... That is the 'on-label use'. The OFF label use might be to prescribe it anyway to someone who is 49 hours in... and an EUA might approve trying fluzone for terminal covid patients who don't have access to clinical trials.

Because this is an 'emergency' action that 'ignores' the rules of the FDA, the EUA requires a few things.
1) it requires no additional comorbidities... and a few were found. They don't know without more testing if those were related to covid, or the medication.
2) it requires pretty significant efficacy.

The lack of significant efficacy on this population doesn't mean it didn't work at all. It just means that it didn't work well enough on this population for us to ignore the potential risks. The drug could easily be approved if we discover that those new risks were related to the disease, not the drug. It also doesn't mean that it wouldn't work better on a different population... hence more studies.

This is about liability and safety which is the FDA's job... not 'patient treatment' which is doctor's job. The whole idea of 'well, if they're terminal anyway' is what allows EUAs... and not merely 'let's try it on otherwise healthy people'.... EUA's are like allowing drug companies/scientists to use people as guinea pigs without the normal processes and protections of a clinical trial.... which is a MAJOR breach of their practice. The revocation of the EUA merely means that doctors can do so, and formal trials can do so... but not just anybody.

+2 Thank you for the explanation

So in short, when they say it isn't effective it isn't to say it isn't effective at all, just not up to the standard to keep the EUA in effect

It is/was not effective after a certain point in the patients decline. It doesn’t prevent imminent death.

When administered early, it does show some usefulness in keeping some patients from reaching that point in the first place.
Also has shown to shorten recovery times for some.

Is every drug a silver bullet for whatever they are given for? Well of course not. Can they work better or more effectively for some and not for others? Well of course yes.
Anyone who has ever known someone battling a serious disease and recovering has seen it happen, similarly those who have seen someone succumb after every possible path has been tried.

Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

^^^ is my take based on conversations with local MDs... the bold perfectly sums up the difference between the donks vs. cons....

that's what's really sad in all this bs...

fwiw, my daughter and roomie are doing just dandy after testing covid+....

#happydad

Yup!

Sons GF was exposed at a friends house (Son not there) so when they found out the two of them went to get tested.

She came up POS., he was Neg. she felt kinda crappy about two days later and was recovering within 4 days of that, about a week total. He never caught it.
When all this started son and daughter were both here when schools closed. We all 4 started taking an Airborne type product, though a little different version, but basically higher dose of Vit C and Zinc. We also added a D3 to that.

The GF got sick, he didn’t and let’s just say they weren’t exactly social distancing... so, yea. One little instance, but pretty compelling IMO.

If one of these commies on here had COVID and they were deathly ill in the hospital and the doc came in and said we can try a medicine that has shown promise in some patients.... they would take it in a minute.

Dummies, doctors try various drugs daily for a variety of illnesses and they work for some and not others.... whats the difference here? Ill hang up and listen.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

(07-30-2020 09:20 AM)maximus Wrote:  If one of these commies on here had COVID and they were deathly ill in the hospital and the doc came in and said we can try a medicine that has shown promise in some patients.... they would take it in a minute.

Dummies, doctors try various drugs daily for a variety of illnesses and they work for some and not others.... whats the difference here? Ill hang up and listen.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

The truth is if Trump had never mentioned the drug the left would have no issue with it being used. It really is as simple as that.

For any of you clowns putting your unwavering support behind the FDA there are thousands of instances where they have ****** up so bad it killed or permanently injured many many patients.

Wacth "The Bleeding Edge" thats a good place to start.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

(07-29-2020 10:38 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(07-29-2020 09:09 AM)Garrettabc Wrote:  They might all be nut jobs, but they seem more believable than the current group of nut jobs telling us that hydroxychloroquine is ineffective.

maybe to a bunch of biased loons...as for me, I'll trust the FDA and CDC.

The most encouraging words I’ve seen written here lately.
(Although I don’t want anyone to get this virus.)

You nuts do realize the CDC has already admitted lying to you don’t you?

(07-29-2020 04:33 PM)bobdizole Wrote:  So in short, when they say it isn't effective it isn't to say it isn't effective at all, just not up to the standard to keep the EUA in effect

You summed it up perfectly.

(07-29-2020 05:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Fauci continues to reference studies. But both studies he references are flawed. The Lancet study has been retracted and repudiated. The Brazil study only used late stage patients treated with Hydroxychloroquine and then in doses which Bayer had deemed potentially lethal. This is why this continues to be a disingenuous issue. And waiting for more studies when the countries using Hydroxychloroquine have actually faired better on both infection rate and morbidity than have the Western European countries and the U.S. who have delayed, defrayed, or discouraged its use.

But towing the party line of whatever corporation sounds reasonable, but whether it is or not is wholly dependent upon what studies they will acknowledge and which ones they won't. It doesn't change the political football nature of this matter at all. What is especially confounding the ignoring of data that has come from actually treating the virus.

Yes. Far too many people either ignorant of the meanings of words or willing to forget them if they think they know the answer.

(07-29-2020 06:41 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  “The FDA has a responsibility to regularly review the appropriateness of an EUA, and as such, the agency will review emerging information associated with the emergency uses for the authorized products. Recent results from a large randomized clinical trial in hospitalized patients, a population similar to the population for which chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine were authorized for emergency use, demonstrated that hydroxychloroquine showed no benefit on mortality or in speeding recovery. This outcome was consistent with other new data, including data showing that the suggested dosing regimens for chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine are unlikely to kill or inhibit the virus that causes COVID-19. The totality of scientific evidence currently available indicate a lack of benefit.“

Will they close the door... no. Have clinical trials proven hydroxychloroquine to be ineffective in fighting Covid? Yes.

https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-an...oquine-and

I understand that you think this... but the bold is just flat wrong.

Key words... While not a clinical trial, the members of the cohort for which this EUA was applied showed efficacy consistent with A clinical study on a similar population.... and other data suggesting the dosing regimens are unlikely to benefit....

Also note from Fauci's comment listed above regarding the Brazil study... that they are apparently using what Bayer, in their APPROVED uses of the drugs calls a 'lethal dose'. So dosing seems to be a key driver, and all this proves is that at 'this' dose (which is the 'on-label dose' for another disease) is not effective in treating 'this' population. I suggested this in my first response, so it's clear that I saw this because I do this... and you apparently still haven't.

Getting approval for an EUA requires using approved dosing... otherwise as anyone with a brain would expect, the FDA is going to want to test specifically that higher dosing... which is NOT part of an EUA.... it would be part of a clinical trial.

The best example would be someone asking for an Emergency Use Authorization to treat people with Pancreatic Cancer with Aleve (it's OTC but pretend it isn't... I'm trying to use a drug I'm sure you're familiar with). Let's say the approved dosing of Aleve for muscle pain is 220mg... and 220mg is ineffective against Pancreatic Cancer in people 65+. Other studies may show that 440mg is effective against a general population or against people under 65... but a dosing of 440mg is not authorized under an EUA... and a population of people under 65 was not provided in the EUA. And of course, 440mg may be considered 'too dangerous' to treat muscle pain, but perhaps its negative effects would be authorized for say... pancreatic cancer (something much more deadly). But the FDA requires an actual clinical study of those things and not an EUA.

You need to quit reading such technical writing with your preconception already in your mind. It's poisoning your ability to reason... and I'm doing you the favor of thinking this just isn't your area of expertise.

(07-29-2020 10:38 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  as for me, I'll trust the FDA and CDC.

As long as people actually understand and accurately report what they're saying.

See Mensa here... he 'thinks' the CDC is saying something they haven't.

(07-30-2020 10:04 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-29-2020 04:33 PM)bobdizole Wrote:  So in short, when they say it isn't effective it isn't to say it isn't effective at all, just not up to the standard to keep the EUA in effect

You summed it up perfectly.

(07-29-2020 05:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Fauci continues to reference studies. But both studies he references are flawed. The Lancet study has been retracted and repudiated. The Brazil study only used late stage patients treated with Hydroxychloroquine and then in doses which Bayer had deemed potentially lethal. This is why this continues to be a disingenuous issue. And waiting for more studies when the countries using Hydroxychloroquine have actually faired better on both infection rate and morbidity than have the Western European countries and the U.S. who have delayed, defrayed, or discouraged its use.

But towing the party line of whatever corporation sounds reasonable, but whether it is or not is wholly dependent upon what studies they will acknowledge and which ones they won't. It doesn't change the political football nature of this matter at all. What is especially confounding the ignoring of data that has come from actually treating the virus.

Yes. Far too many people either ignorant of the meanings of words or willing to forget them if they think they know the answer.

(07-29-2020 06:41 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  “The FDA has a responsibility to regularly review the appropriateness of an EUA, and as such, the agency will review emerging information associated with the emergency uses for the authorized products. Recent results from a large randomized clinical trial in hospitalized patients, a population similar to the population for which chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine were authorized for emergency use, demonstrated that hydroxychloroquine showed no benefit on mortality or in speeding recovery. This outcome was consistent with other new data, including data showing that the suggested dosing regimens for chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine are unlikely to kill or inhibit the virus that causes COVID-19. The totality of scientific evidence currently available indicate a lack of benefit.“

Will they close the door... no. Have clinical trials proven hydroxychloroquine to be ineffective in fighting Covid? Yes.

https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-an...oquine-and

I understand that you think this... but the bold is just flat wrong.

Key words... While not a clinical trial, the members of the cohort for which this EUA was applied showed efficacy consistent with A clinical study on a similar population.... and other data suggesting the dosing regimens are unlikely to benefit....

Also note from Fauci's comment listed above regarding the Brazil study... that they are apparently using what Bayer, in their APPROVED uses of the drugs calls a 'lethal dose'. So dosing seems to be a key driver, and all this proves is that at 'this' dose (which is the 'on-label dose' for another disease) is not effective in treating 'this' population. I suggested this in my first response, so it's clear that I saw this because I do this... and you apparently still haven't.

Getting approval for an EUA requires using approved dosing... otherwise as anyone with a brain would expect, the FDA is going to want to test specifically that higher dosing... which is NOT part of an EUA.... it would be part of a clinical trial.

The best example would be someone asking for an Emergency Use Authorization to treat people with Pancreatic Cancer with Aleve (it's OTC but pretend it isn't... I'm trying to use a drug I'm sure you're familiar with). Let's say the approved dosing of Aleve for muscle pain is 220mg... and 220mg is ineffective against Pancreatic Cancer in people 65+. Other studies may show that 440mg is effective against a general population or against people under 65... but a dosing of 440mg is not authorized under an EUA... and a population of people under 65 was not provided in the EUA. And of course, 440mg may be considered 'too dangerous' to treat muscle pain, but perhaps its negative effects would be authorized for say... pancreatic cancer (something much more deadly). But the FDA requires an actual clinical study of those things and not an EUA.

You need to quit reading such technical writing with your preconception already in your mind. It's poisoning your ability to reason... and I'm doing you the favor of thinking this just isn't your area of expertise.

Talk about a misleading erroneous assumption, those using hydroxychloroquine successfully have been using the correct dosage. The key is that they started using the drug in combination with zinc and/or azithromycin as soon as symptoms were showing.

The problem with the Brazil study is that the drugs weren't given until the late stage and then the dosages were raised above the limits given by Bayer.

So citing a misuse of a drug as a reason not to give it approval for treating COVID 19 when approved dosages are working just fine in many countries outside of the U.S. and Western Europe is must more jackassery by the FDA and Big Pharma.

I once again point to the infection rate and morbidity rate that can be found in the statistics of the nations which gave this drug early and used normal dosages, but gave it in concert with zinc (a known virus blocker) and azithromycin.

So Hambone to say the drug was rightfully not cleared for COVID because lethal doses were administered in the Brazil study is clearly misleading and was cited by design by Fauci who knows better. He simply didn't want to cite the proper material from the nations using it correctly. He is clearly picking only examples that make his preconceived case. So you have a repudiated study behind the Lancet which was the FDA and Fauci's first example, a case in which there was an obvious hatchet job because of the total lack of methodology, and a second case where the drug was given too late and in too large a dose.

It doesn't take too much of an investigative nose to smell a rat on this one!

Perfect example where even people who agree can misinterpret. JR, you have COMPLETELY misunderstood what I said.

It is true that the EUA was revoked. What I said is that an EUA is not 'standard' FDA approval. It is an approval under emergency circumstances that has very specific guidelines. They revoked it NOT because it was determined to be generally ineffective, but because it was determined to be specifically ineffective (at least relative to potential increased risks) against a specific population under specific dosing and conditions... and we both alluded to some of those differences present in other studies that showed efficacy. Standard FDA approval requires more time, and that time is being given. Pretty clearly, if no efficacy were shown anywhere and it had in fact been determined to be ineffective as is claimed... they wouldn't allow clinical trials to continue.

The left has tried to claim that this revocation demonstrated that it doesn't work. That is precisely what Mark has claimed. That is not in any way shape or form, factually correct. If you want to claim this is being driven by forces... that's fine... I take no issue with that... I merely present the fact that what the left is claiming the revocation means is absolutely NOT what the revocation means.

There is a big difference between a study or even 100 studies declaring a drug effective and 'safe', and the FDA declaring it so. Drugs like this (off-label use or combinations of existing drugs as opposed to 'new' drugs) are often in use for years after the studies show them to be effective before the FDA clears them. When it is cleared, doctors will be prescribing 'Provasic' which is merely a $50/dose single pill combination of 2-3 existing generic drugs that cost $2, but are potentially harder to administer.

Simple test. How many Lupus patients and Malaria patients that are taking HCQ have gotten Covid-19? There is your test group. Sub-Sahara Africa would be a good place to start. How many other times in history has a Generic FDA approved drug been denied for use for a condition while not being completely removed from the market by the government?

(07-30-2020 12:06 PM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  Simple test. How many Lupus patients and Malaria patients that are taking HCQ have gotten Covid-19? There is your test group. Sub-Sahara Africa would be a good place to start. How many other times in history has a Generic FDA approved drug been denied for use for a condition while not being completely removed from the market by the government?

#wisdom en macro...

(07-30-2020 12:06 PM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  Simple test. How many Lupus patients and Malaria patients that are taking HCQ have gotten Covid-19? There is your test group. Sub-Sahara Africa would be a good place to start. How many other times in history has a Generic FDA approved drug been denied for use for a condition while not being completely removed from the market by the government?

You're saying 'other times', but it hasn't happened here either.

I know I'm posting a lot and saying the same thing and I'm sorry... but it seems even people who are 'correct' are sometimes accepting falsehoods as truths.

-The drugs have not been removed from the market. This is not true,
-The FDA has NOT told doctors using it for 'off-label' uses to stop
-FDA approval for an off-label use is NOT a legal requirement... it is doctor's discretion
-The FDA has not stopped any existing clinical trials of the drugs, and continues to fund new studies into the drugs.

The CDC HAS asked physicians and people not to stock-pile the drugs in a prophylactic manner so that we don't face shortages for those who need it.

That's about it.

(07-30-2020 12:16 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-30-2020 12:06 PM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  Simple test. How many Lupus patients and Malaria patients that are taking HCQ have gotten Covid-19? There is your test group. Sub-Sahara Africa would be a good place to start. How many other times in history has a Generic FDA approved drug been denied for use for a condition while not being completely removed from the market by the government?

You're saying 'other times', but it hasn't happened here either.

I know I'm posting a lot and saying the same thing and I'm sorry... but it seems even people who are 'correct' are sometimes accepting falsehoods as truths.

-The drugs have not been removed from the market. This is not true,
-The FDA has NOT told doctors using it for 'off-label' uses to stop
-FDA approval for an off-label use is NOT a legal requirement... it is doctor's discretion
-The FDA has not stopped any existing clinical trials of the drugs, and continues to fund new studies into the drugs.

The CDC HAS asked physicians and people not to stock-pile the drugs in a prophylactic manner so that we don't face shortages for those who need it.

That's about it.

which your arguments display as accurate, but not to the masses via 'disinformation' via the msm...

that was his point....and we are easily on the same side of 'justice'...

(07-30-2020 12:16 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-30-2020 12:06 PM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  Simple test. How many Lupus patients and Malaria patients that are taking HCQ have gotten Covid-19? There is your test group. Sub-Sahara Africa would be a good place to start. How many other times in history has a Generic FDA approved drug been denied for use for a condition while not being completely removed from the market by the government?

You're saying 'other times', but it hasn't happened here either.

I know I'm posting a lot and saying the same thing and I'm sorry... but it seems even people who are 'correct' are sometimes accepting falsehoods as truths.

-The drugs have not been removed from the market. This is not true,
-The FDA has NOT told doctors using it for 'off-label' uses to stop
-FDA approval for an off-label use is NOT a legal requirement... it is doctor's discretion
-The FDA has not stopped any existing clinical trials of the drugs, and continues to fund new studies into the drugs.

The CDC HAS asked physicians and people not to stock-pile the drugs in a prophylactic manner so that we don't face shortages for those who need it.

That's about it.

I agree. That's why I asked how many times has an FDA approved generic drug that has NOT been completely removed from the market been "outlawed" for use by doctors treating their patients? Never. But that is EXACTLY what happened here. Ohio and New York state RX boards "outlawed" the use of this drug for Covid patients. New York made them get admitted to a hospital before it can be diagnosed. Once they reach the hospital it is typically too late. How many people died due to these "rules"?

(07-30-2020 12:54 PM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  I agree. That's why I asked how many times has an FDA approved generic drug that has NOT been completely removed from the market been "outlawed" for use by doctors treating their patients? Never. But that is EXACTLY what happened here. Ohio and New York state RX boards "outlawed" the use of this drug for Covid patients. New York made them get admitted to a hospital before it can be diagnosed. Once they reach the hospital it is typically too late. How many people died due to these "rules"?

Sorry... it was the use of the term 'other' that had me concerned. That was all.

I haven't read those 'outlaw' rules... Pharmacies apparently have at least some ability to decide to fill or not any prescription they choose... under the guise of 'protecting the supply for on-label users'... which of course can easily be abused.

Of course, the idea that the drug companies haven't or can't ramp up production of generic drugs is silly. If there is demand for it, the companies should produce it... and if they're producing it, pharmacies would be stupid not to sell it. You can always buy it from Canada or even out of state. The Feds don't enforce laws against such drugs in 'personal quantities'.

(07-30-2020 02:11 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-30-2020 12:54 PM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  I agree. That's why I asked how many times has an FDA approved generic drug that has NOT been completely removed from the market been "outlawed" for use by doctors treating their patients? Never. But that is EXACTLY what happened here. Ohio and New York state RX boards "outlawed" the use of this drug for Covid patients. New York made them get admitted to a hospital before it can be diagnosed. Once they reach the hospital it is typically too late. How many people died due to these "rules"?

Sorry... it was the use of the term 'other' that had me concerned. That was all.

I haven't read those 'outlaw' rules... Pharmacies apparently have at least some ability to decide to fill or not any prescription they choose... under the guise of 'protecting the supply for on-label users'... which of course can easily be abused.

Of course, the idea that the drug companies haven't or can't ramp up production of generic drugs is silly. If there is demand for it, the companies should produce it... and if they're producing it, pharmacies would be stupid not to sell it. You can always buy it from Canada or even out of state. The Feds don't enforce laws against such drugs in 'personal quantities'.

I need quantified evidence a pharmacy can deny....

if = 1, eweston, we have a fk'n problem...we're not talking narcotics...

(07-30-2020 02:16 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  I need quantified evidence a pharmacy can deny....

if = 1, eweston, we have a fk'n problem...we're not talking narcotics...

I can't give that to you. I've never seen it.

It's been reported on here by people who claim to work in the industry... but more significant, I've not seen that it keeps anyone from transferring it from WalMart to CVS and getting it filled, or as I suggested, filling it online.

(07-30-2020 02:20 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-30-2020 02:16 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  I need quantified evidence a pharmacy can deny....

if = 1, eweston, we have a fk'n problem...we're not talking narcotics...

I can't give that to you. I've never seen it.

It's been reported on here by people who claim to work in the industry... but more significant, I've not seen that it keeps anyone from transferring it from WalMart to CVS and getting it filled, or as I suggested, filling it online.

my point is you're solid in the field... if true, that's troublesome cruising upstream....

this isn't a troll post, nor response. ...

thx for that info!!!