- MemberNovember 18, 2021 at 10:36 am
This is important, so I posted it again.
“Pfizer requests Emergency Use Authorization for blah blah blah…”
Emergency use authorization…is it evolved to the fullest, best expression of practical medical response by authority?
What about a single patient in CCU in a hospital’s request? A plea for a life saving interception by the DEFENSE team consisting of a compassionate physician and an attorney?
Pfizer is a corporate person who has no more rights than a single patient trying to find a way to stay alive.
Pfizer had no right to an
“EUA access” more than a natural person.
An Emergency Use Authorization is a cookbook response with risk/benefit ratio. Pfizer has no constitutional rights to have preferred approval for use of a treatment.
An EUA is an EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE response in the worst way…who came up with, “we can’t authorize medical treatments in an emergency if there are EUA-authorized treatments” (instigated by Pfizer, Modern, J&J, Merck, and the Referring maker, for example)?
Who invented the notion that if there is no approved cure for COVID-19, that NO cure could be used without FDA/CDC/NIH/HHS approval?
The”EUA” concept should be disassembled and reborn as a constitutional right for individual patients instead of a national POLICY.
This is how it works:
Rights of patients are already existent, natural – in pursuit of life, and liberty from disease, (I.e., the ESCAPE from COVID-19, and the right to choose a life-saving medicine and an anti-viral method of treatment).
An EMERGENCY USE AUTHORIZATION CAN BE A PHYSICIAN’S PRESCRIPTION FOR THE INDIVIDUAL PATIENT.
That simple. THANKS for listening.
Ivermectin would be approved at the physician’s authority to practice emergency use.