I'm don't like interacting with people in a professional role. I'm fine meeting socially though.
As for Ivermectin the health authorities would get far better cooperation and respect if they took the approach that anyone who wanted to take ivermectin was free to do so provided they got it from their doctor and not from a vet.
It's safety profile at the proper human dosages is on par or better with many other approved drugs.
Constantly advising against it does nothing but add fuel to the conspiracy theorists. It also drives people to seek the drug from unapproved sources which just adds to the danger.
Me too. Interacting with people in a professional role means they want something from me, and I am obliged to help them but at the same time constrained by regulations.
Patient autonomy right? Non maleficence right? So if patient wants something.....and it is not totally unheard of like say me prescribing Jublia for Erectile Dysfuction, and it wont cause harm......why not?
I know many people keep saying oh Ivermectin dose has to be sooo high it will cause problems (says what study? and what dose is it anyway?)
What if drs tried prescribing Ivermectin at the safe doses used for worm infections? How much harm will it cause? Is no benefit a harm if there is no known treatment for something anyway? What is the harm in trying a treatment which has some possible theories could help but does not help anyway but also does not cause harm? Mind you we are talking about diseases that have no known successful treatment as yet. Not things that have ready evidence based other treatments that work well.
Instead it is all based on big shot Drs and figures giving their more expert opinion. Often these complaint cases arise because Dr A is giving treatment X and Dr B disagrees with using treatment X. Patient says I tend to prefer Dr A and treatment X. Gives Dr B headache and difficult patient. Dr B is more senior and is a specialist and feels he or she "knows better" than Dr A. Dr B complains to college. College sides with the more senior and specialist Dr B of course. Dr A is asked to back off and apologize. Dr A accedes since he still needs to work anyway.
Anyway a good example of this politicking you can read about Dr Erwin Kay
https://www.healthprofessionals.gov...-kay-aih-boon-erwin-(210902)---anonymised.pdf
https://www.healthprofessionals.gov.sg/docs/librariesprovider2/published-grounds-of-decision/year-2021/03-smc-announcement-on-ioc's-orders-for-dr-kay-aih-boon-erwin_final-230721.pdf
https://www.cadth.ca/media/pdf/htis/L 0170 - Fluconazole for Autism final.pdf
CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR DECISION OR POLICY MAKING: The efficacy of antifungal agents for the treatment of autism has not been demonstrated in published clinical trials or observational studies. A report published by the Australian Department of Health and Aging (2006)2 and a recent review5 of complimentary and alternative medicine for children with autism spectrum disorders both noted that the use of treatments for yeast overgrowth (e.g., probiotics, antifungals, and yeast-free diets) remain a popular option despite the paucity of clinical evidence. Neither publication provided evidence such as utilization data to support the popularity of these strategies. Considering the results of the parental medication and diet survey,8 the statement regarding the popularity of this treatment strategy may not be applicable to the use of anti-fungal agents, as fewer than 2% of parents reported the use of any gastrointestinal medications. Due to the lack of relevant published literature,
no conclusions can be drawn on the clinical benefits and harms of antifungal agents or pharmacological suspensions free of inactive ingredients in the treatment of children with autism