Los Angeles County reinstates mask mandate

Here's the video:

And here is the LA Times' take on the order. KTLA (small-time corporate TV news) ran a piece which says that:

Officials say that about 99% of the people getting sick are unvaccinated. This mirrors trends seen nationwide, as more than 97% of COVID-19 patients entering hospitals across the country are unvaccinated, according to Dr. Rochelle Walensky, director of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Meanwhile, L.A. County Sheriff Alex Villanueva said Friday that his department will not enforce the new mandatory indoor mask requirement.

The mass media are also spreading vague notions of who in LA County is vaccinated and who isn't. This piece by Comcast/ NBC makes me want to guess that LA County has a class divide: white-skinned property-owning vaccinated, versus brown-skinned working-class unvaccinated. Since I haven't lived there in nearly three years, I really don't know if such a generalization conforms to reality, except that if they're getting vaccinated in Palos Verdes Estates and in San Marino and not in Compton or the north end of Long Beach, that should tell you something.

Here's the story I keep repeating to myself: So, instead of stopping capitalism in its tracks and saying "hey, we have to deal with this virus first," you know, kind of like what they did in South Korea, what they did was to rush a vaccine into distribution because lots of people dying of COVID-19 was a messy inconvenience for business as usual. This was especially the case given the screwed-up health-extortion health care system in the United States. Perhaps the Powers That Be were scared that people would think about bankruptcy when they're wheeled into hospitals, or something like that. In the meantime, during the pandemic you had the President of the United States encouraging populations of vaccine deniers to spread "misinformation" about the vaccines, while at the same time you had and have corporate mass media stooges complain of "misinformation," which is really rich given they themselves misinform everyone now and then depending upon what the corporate orders are at any place or time. Juan Guaidó is the true and rightful leader of Venezuela or maybe he's not or something like that.

Meanwhile the righteous are running a national protest for Medicare for All which gets no publicity, happening on Saturday. I hope you can join the one in your neighborhood!

The vast populations who were tossed out of their jobs (and perhaps out of their homes too, soon), and who received half-baked subsidies from the IRS now and then according to the political whims of those running for office, well, let 'em twist in the wind. Oh, also, let people who work in universities twist in the wind too. Educated people, who needs 'em. 'Murica's proud of its ignorance.

The fact that the vaccines are imperfect and basically corporate rush jobs meant to preserve capitalism notwithstanding, I have yet to hear or read any convincing excuses not to get vaccinated. I received my second dose of Pfizer on May 19. Is there a vaccine against capitalism? I want that one too.

Share
up
11 users have voted.

Comments

Dawn's Meta's picture

I am having trouble finding information on French media. Hmmmmm

So here is NPR of all things:

Manifestations heating up in France

up
9 users have voted.

A society grows great when old men plant trees in whose shade they know they shall never sit. Allegedly Greek, but more possibly fairly modern quote.

Consider helping by donating using the button in the upper left hand corner. Thank you.

Cassiodorus's picture

@Dawn's Meta about a year ago, from a friend who was living in Montpellier and working with them.

One need not believe that vaccination is worse than disease to oppose unjust government.

up
4 users have voted.

"Freedom is always, and exclusively, freedom for the one who thinks differently.” -- Rosa Luxemburg

Dawn's Meta's picture

@Cassiodorus Jilets Jaunes, but there was or is a mix of the political spectrum. Some of those opposed to the gas tax were rural people who saw Macron penalizing their cost of transport and fuels for agriculture while shoveling money to big corporate interests.

The little guys against big fossil fuel and other industry groups.

up
4 users have voted.

A society grows great when old men plant trees in whose shade they know they shall never sit. Allegedly Greek, but more possibly fairly modern quote.

Consider helping by donating using the button in the upper left hand corner. Thank you.

when one is dealing with an experimental therapy or drug. Without informed consent a mandate to coerce participation in a medical experiment sounds very much like the situation that brought Nazi doctors to the dock for war crimes. How is this any different?

I would refuse to comply, as the French protesters are, regardless of the matter of safety or efficacy. I would refuse a mandate even if it put me at increased risk of illness. I do not cede my right to control what goes into my body. There will be no turning back if we agree to submit, that slippery slope is a step I will never willingly take.

up
13 users have voted.

“Without a diversity of opinions, the discovery of truth is impossible.” - Alexander von Humboldt

Cassiodorus's picture

@ovals49 COVID-19 has killed more than 600,000 people. How many people do you figure will be killed by the vaccines? What are the results so far?

up
1 user has voted.

"Freedom is always, and exclusively, freedom for the one who thinks differently.” -- Rosa Luxemburg

@Cassiodorus
I’ve had many vaccinations and ‘the jab’ AND I have continued to mask up indoors without exception. I have no problem with mask mandates for all, provided they are commensurate with the risk of catching or spreading COVID.

The vaccines remain experimental, the long term effects are unknown, and the VAERS data is raw and opaque at best. I do not have a problem if someone prefers not to accept the vaccine. Hopefully most of the unvaccinated will agree to wearing a mask around others, though there is surely a subset that believes nothing the government says and will act accordingly.

I look forward to the day that preventative therapies are adopted and endorsed as enthusiastically as vaccines are now being promoted. In the meantime we are stuck with a vax only policy that many will understandably resist.

up
10 users have voted.

“Without a diversity of opinions, the discovery of truth is impossible.” - Alexander von Humboldt

Pluto's Republic's picture

@ovals49

...that are deeply resentful that research was forced into vaccines rather than treatments and cures, which were generally suppressed or ignored.

There are an amazing array of preventives and first aid to treat accidental exposure.Some of these are quietly used by certain specialists in high risk practices — but not discussed or shared with the public. Medications and protocols are privately compounded, as needed.

Everyone assumes this coronavirus was an accident. And they assume it was a new virus. Those assumptions help explain the stalling and buffoonery that took place in the US after China sequenced the virus and announced it to the world. In the US, months of lying about masks and the risks took place, followed by the failure of batch after batch of diagnostic tests, which blocked Americans from being diagnosed for additional months.

Was the US really that medically stupid and incompetent during those early months of foot-dragging — while other nations had all the tests and masks they needed?

Somehow, Americans find this chaotic failure to be very believable, if not comforting. No one is seeking a better explanation for this and other strange, uncharacteristic anomalies. In fact, questions and speculation about this are viciously silenced and heavily punished.

The deadline that triggers the production of catastrophic of superviruses is a well-known fact among virologists, especially following the use of antibodies or vaccines against the virus. This is why Asia moved heaven and earth to stamp out the virus altogether in their countries. They are holding the line with constant mass testing and enforced isolation, and are giving away vaccines to poor countries so they can do the same. But with the massive medical failure in the West to contain the virus, virus-containment in Asia is only a temporary solution now. With the West being stingy about giving away free vaccines to vulnerable nations, certain doom lies ahead. The West continues to allow the virus to mutate wildly and spread among their own populations — who are dumbed-down and belligerent toward science and each other as a result of government brainwashing and propaganda that is used daily to manipulate them.

Thus, the vaccine walls cannot hold for long against the supervirus mutations and are beginning to crumble.

At the root of all this, there's a real explanation that makes a lot more sense.

up
4 users have voted.

Add some Truth to your daily news. CGTN — See the difference!

zed2's picture

@Cassiodorus

Vaccines aren't killing the people who still get sick, abnormally high doses of Covid are. Say somebody with an activecase of the most contagious delta variant sneezes ner you. That high dose of virus might overwhelm your immune system's capability to create an adequate response at that moment.

Vaccine likely did its job which is reduce the strength of the resultant illness . Maybe they may suggest booster shots every year, like with the flu.

But will they be free?

up
1 user has voted.

Can be found here. The summary conclusion, for those who won’t likely click the link to the longer version, is:

In conclusion, I agree that constant, ubiquitous mask wearing does not make sense in almost all outdoor settings, but they are absolutely critical in nearly all indoor spaces. This is unless the space is some large, cavernous, uncrowded space, and/or you are there for a brief period, and/or it is a very well-ventilated space. But making rules for each space would be far too complicated, and dangerous mistakes would inevitably be made. Thus, it is best to err on the side of safety and wear your masks indoors, people.

up
11 users have voted.

“Without a diversity of opinions, the discovery of truth is impossible.” - Alexander von Humboldt

@ovals49 wrt those indoor settings, I felt that it was safe enough when everyone wore a simple or surgical mask. Now with a high percentage of people skipping the mask, I'm returning to wearing an N-95 in those places. Mostly because the anti-maskers would be the first to ditch the masks and the least likely to be vaccinated and the most likely to lie about it.

up
8 users have voted.
CB's picture

@ovals49
and the fit for many is atrocious. I see people with their noses hanging out and big gaps around the periphery. Many are just using inexpensive cloth masks - commonly known as "Face Diapers". Fool

Keep in mind that surgical masks are primarily designed to protect the environment from the wearer.

up
3 users have voted.

@CB
you will find that N95’s have their place in Dr. Kory’s recommendations, but that in many situations lesser masks are sufficiently protective, assuming they are worn properly. He explains it much better than I could

up
4 users have voted.

“Without a diversity of opinions, the discovery of truth is impossible.” - Alexander von Humboldt

zed2's picture

@CB @CB @CB Dont use the kind with a valve in the center. They dont filter exhaled air at all, in fact they may even concentrate it in a nozzle like effect. So you walk right through your own exhaled air. But they are worse than no mask to medical professionsls who know that they have this big problem. They are made for painting and construction.

The typical masks are not so good.

If you are wearing a plain procedure mask tie the two loops to make the fit tighter around the ears. (shorten the ear loops) This is so the air soesnt just go around the sides.

They dont have much filtration.

. I find the Kimberly-Clark's N-95 masks design works the best for me.

They look like a loose paper bag with a rubber band attached to them. They have an advantage of better fit The procedure masks dont filter much they have too much leakage. The K-C masks make you look like a duck, kind of.

Thats the one to buy. Unlike the others It fits tight around the sides.

I have health issues that make me a very knowledgeable mask wearer. If my mask is not working, my body tells me about it in no uncertain terms. You dont want to be like me. But when it comes to masks and COVID, thats invaluable experience.

I wear a mask when vacuuming.

up
3 users have voted.
zed2's picture

@ovals49 @ovals49 @ovals49 @ovals49 I think hat if you are near people in any place outdoor or in you should wear a mask. I carry one when I go out foldd up in a plastic bag. .

Of course The mask is mostly to diffuse your exhaled air.

You could look at computational fluid dynamics (CFD) software.

A few years ago I was able to find a ready to go model to model airflow and particulates and various kinds of weather in an area to present my argument that smells from a nearby nuisance were bothering me and others. It let me make some pretty pictures which made the point very well.

you can model the behavior of aerosols and COVID.

You can download CAEinux which is set up to do science like CFD, its a live DVD.

https://www.caelinux.com/CMS3/

It has many different kinds of tools for doing all sorts of comp-vis tasks and they include CFD tools.

Here are some examples of science thats slightly relevant to this kind of application.

As yo see government agencies are ther to help with things like this, they may even already have created tools to do this exact thing. This is what computers are made for doing, don't re-invent the wheel. Copy somebody elses wok, and that will save you time..

https://aaqr.org/articles/aaqr-20-08-covid-0531

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41810-020-00057-3?

https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2020/06/nist-airflow-model-could-h...

If you have a specific project iin mind,contact people who have published research on aerosols and COVID. I know that LBNL (the Berkeley Lab, formerly Lawrence Livermore Lab,-Berkeley, has an aerosols branch.

If you have a desktop or laptop with a good graphics card that will help a lot.(Nvidia or Radeon r Intel) A 3D accelerator like used in gaming.

CAELinux liveDVD has a wealth of tools and drivers. All pre-installed.

I would start there.

up
1 user has voted.

The fact that the vaccines are imperfect and basically corporate rush jobs meant to preserve capitalism notwithstanding, I have yet to hear or read any convincing excuses not to get vaccinated.

It's not an "excuse" but the reason I haven't gotten any shots is because I'm a cancer patient with a history of autoimmune disease, possible Guillain Barre, and a shitton of weird allergies including metal and adhesive. I've also had bad reactions to immunizations so for many years I've been limiting them. As a kid after the MMR I had to be on a machine (not a ventilator) to help me breathe for a few days. Because of this complicated medical history, and because I tolerate certain immunizations well, it seems like Novavax is my least risky shot choice, and it's not available yet.

Additionally, I've been in imaging studies since May and have more coming up soon to check for cancer metastasis and/or recurrence, and all of the currently available shots are causing inflammation in the lymph nodes. This isn't a big deal in general or in a healthy patient, many immunizations cause swollen lymph nodes as the immune system responds appropriately, but in a breast cancer patient that inflammation means a painful and expensive biopsy, or else being terrified that you needed a painful and expensive biopsy you didn't get. So literally my entire cancer team of MDs has been telling me all summer some variety of, "You made an excellent decision to wait on shots until after all your scans. When the first round of breast cancer patients got shots the inflammation was a huge pain in the ass because you really can't tell the difference on scans between that and cancer." They also all support me waiting on the Novavax because they know my history and they have seen some of the allergic responses during surgery and treatment.

I'm not an antivaxxer and I've been in quarantine since this thing started, as well as wearing a mask whenever I'm at doctor's offices, which are the only places I've been outside the house in a year and a half.

up
8 users have voted.

@Reverend Jane Ignatowski It is so ridiculous that anyone who has been advised to wait for the Novavax is nevertheless viewed as a Trumpster/antivaxxer/killer. We seem to have lost the ability to allow any individual the right to do what is best for themselves, given all the available facts, and in the current circumstances.
I wish you the very best.

up
8 users have voted.

@on the cusp

I appreciate that very much. It's been frustrating but I keep trying to explain to people why I'm making decisions this way. If it can help anyone relax a little bit about how different people sometimes need different treatment protocols, it's worth the hassle.

And I'm so glad to have run into you so I can wish you a hearty congratulations on your recent nuptials! Such a delight reading about your adventures. May the two of you be set to enjoy the happiest years of your lives, even considering all of the everything going on.

up
7 users have voted.
Dawn's Meta's picture

@Reverend Jane Ignatowski catstrophe. Un couchemar (nightmare).

People with Rheumatoid Arthritis, Crohn's, Interstitial Cystitis, Cancers, Auto-immune (MS, ALS, Herpes of many kinds already (re)activated), hyper/hypo immune function (allergies), Lupus, and many more are very reasonable to be wary. Many doctors advise against vaccines for these groups. What percentage of the population now falls into these categories? In our toxique world the numbers continue to increase.

Add to those, people who have had chemical exposures such as house painters (we have two friends who have Peripheral Neuropathy and MS diagnoses from paint), ag workers and people around sprays and other toxins which overload the immune system.

I give up. (L'aissez les bras!)

up
5 users have voted.

A society grows great when old men plant trees in whose shade they know they shall never sit. Allegedly Greek, but more possibly fairly modern quote.

Consider helping by donating using the button in the upper left hand corner. Thank you.

I am hoping the Novavax will be approved asap. I am depending on it to give me and my husband maybe 15 years of our extended honeymoon!
Thanks for the well wishes. We couldn't have picked a better time to have someone close by.

up
6 users have voted.

@on the cusp
Dr. Malone is involved in the Novavax development in some capacity or other. Although he was directly involved in developing early mRNA delivery methods for the purpose of exploring possible applications for vaccines in 1989 as a grad student, he warned against the speedy rollout of COVID mRNA vaccines. His interview with Katya Txi is a fascinating discussion of the mechanisms of these vaccines, important questions yet to be answered and some recent information on bio accumulation of vaccine components in organs with cytotoxicity of unknown duration. These are valid questions with no clear answers at this time.

up
6 users have voted.

“Without a diversity of opinions, the discovery of truth is impossible.” - Alexander von Humboldt

@ovals49 I did read the third and final trial is completed, and that the application for FDA approval is imminent. The encouraging news is that no side effects beyond site soreness and slight fever, have been noted.

up
3 users have voted.
CB's picture

@ovals49

https://www.fulcrumnews.com/blog/2021/7/18/mrna-expert-dr-robert-malone-...
July 18, 2021

"The man who invented the mRNA technology used in some coronavirus vaccines says he was censored by YouTube for sharing his concerns on the vaccines in a podcast."

I was permanently banned this morning from a major Reddit community for mentioning Malone's concerns.

https://news.yahoo.com/single-most-qualified-mrna-expert-173600060.html

If it's so safe and effective, why all the punitive bans and censorship? And why do the VACCINATED need to fear the unvaccinated - at all - if it's a vaccine that confers immunity in greater than 95% of cases?

Something still doesn't add up.

up
3 users have voted.

@CB
offense on multiple social media platforms, regardless of the expertise and CV of the critic. Biden is suggesting that spreaders of so called “misinformation” are murderers. His Press Secretary is calling for automatic deplatforming of offenders across multiple platforms once any single platform drops the ban hammer on someone. Total banishment, and Dems are lining up to support this insanity. This suppression of social/scientific discussion of ‘unapproved’ subjects, opinions or questions could quickly progress far beyond anything we have yet experienced in this country.

I’m beginning to believe that this swing away from defending First Ammendment rights is about much more than just the current vaccine push, and we’re not going to like where we’re headed. At all.

up
7 users have voted.

“Without a diversity of opinions, the discovery of truth is impossible.” - Alexander von Humboldt

@ovals49 Gaia help us all.

up
5 users have voted.
zed2's picture

@CB Look up the 百花齊放,百家爭鳴

up
1 user has voted.
CB's picture

@zed2
Let the arts have free expression

up
1 user has voted.
Dawn's Meta's picture

persons getting COVID most likely Delta. One is member of the House around Nancy Pelosi and her staff. It seems they are all 'vaccinated' who are getting COVID.

Another was a local report out of Oregon either a hospital, oh wait, it's SW Washington. Peace Health Medical Center in Vancouver. The new COVID group are vaccinated community spread infections.

Here are longish videos I'seen some have trouble unless viewed on Chrome. I use Brave with no trouble now they have their bitrate lower.

This is Drs Kory and Marik interviewing Bret Weinstein just after the Guardian piece.

I coudn't embed so...
https://odysee.com/@FrontlineCovid19CriticalCareAlliance:c/Weekly_Update_SupressionofGoodScience:3?src=open

The best one is Bret Weinstein interviewing Dr. Tess Lawrie the WHO independent analyst heading up the meta analysis with a questionable study in the mix.

She has very logical, calm comments about the study from Egypt in question; she has very good graphics on the methods of studies and some possible new approaches to meta-analysis.

She has graphics which show the study results with the questionable study removed. Her comments regarding questions to the researchers and ratings of studies on confidence of data and presentation are very helpful.

Towards the end Bret asks her about anything similar for the 'vaccines' themselves. Very cautious but clear answers from her on this. It seems the Ivermectin trials which proved its safety years ago are fine. It isn't a question of safety but efficacy. So even if the data are small (which apparently they are not) the efficacy for many illnesses is also already studied and ok it is down to interacting with COVID or acting, more importantly, as a prophylactic.

These people are all shaken by the power and viciousness of the blackout around early treatment protocols.

I couldn't embed as a video, so...
https://odysee.com/@BretWeinstein:f/TessLawrie:0?

Some are having trouble if they try to skip ahead to a specific portion. It is long, but I put it on while doing chores so I could listen and quickly jump to see the graphics.

I could write more but the people are good at presenting their information.

up
6 users have voted.

A society grows great when old men plant trees in whose shade they know they shall never sit. Allegedly Greek, but more possibly fairly modern quote.

Consider helping by donating using the button in the upper left hand corner. Thank you.

@Dawn's Meta
around any and all suggestions of alternate and preventative treatments. It seems that the US commitment to vaccination ONLY is monomaniacal, in spite of the well known effect of antibody dependent enhancement of viruses that can be triggered by vaccination itself. Nobel laureate Luc Montagnier has declared mass vaccinations in the midst of a pandemic “unthinkable” because of this risk. Dr. Robert Malone, pioneer of mRNA vaccine technology has pointed out early indications of unexpected general mobility and bio accumulation of vaccine spike proteins in reproductive organs and circulating in the blood. These vaccine components were designed to stay at the injection site, but research indicates that they don’t.

We are about to lose these important voices to censorship, leaving only the evidence free assurances promulgated by regulating authorities that there is no long term risk to the mRNA vaccines and that they offer the one and only hope to end this pandemic. Any discussion that challenges that official narrative is now clearly in the crosshairs of the the censors.

up
7 users have voted.

“Without a diversity of opinions, the discovery of truth is impossible.” - Alexander von Humboldt

Dawn's Meta's picture

@ovals49 The first video has a mix of science, medicine and social commentary. All three lament the silent and cowed who quietly express misgivings and support for early treatment of which Ivermectin is but one. Their comments indicate that it is a substantial number.

24 July the FLCCC and the UK BIRD Group going to have worldwide Ivermectin Day. The BIRD group says that there are affiliates of these two world-wide and the members are fighting (as they did in Mexico and won) and begging their governments to let them treat the sick as early as possible with as much as they can do.

The big lie about Hydroxychloriquine (sp?) is that it was test as a single agent. As several including Dr. Bruce Patterson, have said treatments are rarely used as a single agent. The meds for cancer are suites of medicines and counter-medicines.

Usually studies of single chemical or medical substances are most often for safety. Then the combos are tested for efficacy.

The big swept-under-the rug item about Ivermectin/Stromectin is that it was RCT (randomized control trialed) for safety years ago. And since the adverse events have been track by WHO especially. Along with other agencies they find that Tylenol has a higher adverse and death rate than Ivermectin. I would need to look for that quote, but it is stuck in my mind.

Evidence and Study-based hierarchy of results
https://ebm.bmj.com/content/21/4/125

Off label use of medications

NEWSLETTER
What to know about off-label drug use
Reasons for use
Examples
Benefits and risks
Considerations
Ethics
Summary
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approve drugs for certain health conditions. When a doctor prescribes a drug off-label, they are prescribing it for a different condition or at a different dosage than the FDA have approved.

Off-label prescribing is common. According to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, around 20% of all prescriptions in the United States are for off-label use.

Taking a drug for an off-label use can be safe and effective. However, there may also be certain risks involved.

This article describes why doctors prescribe drugs off-label and lists some examples of drugs that have off-label uses. It also outlines some of the benefits and risks associated with off-label drug use.

Why do doctors prescribe them?
A doctor may prescribe a drug off-label if a person does not have access to a particular FDA-approved drug.
The FDA are the agency responsible for approving and legalizing drugs in the U.S.

For a drug to gain FDA approval, the company that make it must send certain information to the FDA. This includes clinical trial information on the following:

health conditions that the drug can effectively treat
the dosage that people can safely take
the populations that they have tested the drug in, such as adults, females, or children
evidence showing that the drug is both safe and effective, including the adverse events and side effects it can cause
If the FDA approve the drug, doctors may then prescribe it to their patients. However, a doctor does not have to prescribe the drug only for the uses the FDA approve. Doctors have the ability to prescribe drugs for other uses if they feel that it will benefit the patient.

Below are some reasons a doctor may prescribe a drug for off-label use:

There is no FDA-approved drug available to treat a person’s condition.
The drugs that the FDA have approved for a particular condition have not been effective for the person.
The drugs that the FDA have approved for a particular condition are too expensive or otherwise inaccessible.
A person is unable to take the FDA-approved drug due to side effects or possible interactions with other drugs they are taking.
The doctor has seen evidence that a certain drug works well for a particular off-label use.
Examples of off-label drug use
Doctors prescribe many different drugs for off-label use. Historically, some off-label uses have proven ineffective or harmful. However, others have proven effective and even life changing.

The table below lists some FDA-approved drugs alongside their FDA-approved uses and their common off-label uses.

FDA-approved drug FDA-approved use Off-label use
tamoxifen treating breast cancer treating certain causes of infertility in females
spironolactone treating high blood pressure, heart failure, edema, and Conn’s syndrome treating acne vulgaris in females
modafinil improving wakefulness in people with narcolepsy, obstructive sleep apnea, or shift work sleep disorder treating depression
escitalopram treating depression treating bipolar disorder
amitriptyline treating depression treating fibromyalgia
fluoxetine treating major depressive disorder (MDD), panic disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and bulimia nervosa treating fibromyalgia
venlafaxine treating MDD, panic disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, and social anxiety disorder treating fibromyalgia
beta-blockers treating high blood pressure, abnormal heart rhythms, angina, coronary heart disease, heart attack, migraine, and glaucoma treating anxiety
READER SURVEY
Please take a quick 1-minute survey
Your answers will help us improve our experience. You’re the best!

Benefits and risks
A review from 2006Trusted Source notes that off-label drug use can be a safe and effective treatment option.

Even without FDA approval, there may be clinical trials and other evidence demonstrating that a drug works well for an off-label use.

This can happen if the drug company decides not to pursue additional drug use approvals due to cost or lack of resources, or if the drug is in the process of receiving FDA approval but they have not yet finalized it.

However, off-label prescribing is not always safe. This is especially true if there is a lack of evidence about a drug’s off-label use.

One 2009 reviewTrusted Source states that off-label drug use can put people at risk of receiving ineffective or even harmful treatment. To avoid these risks, the authors suggest that doctors only prescribe drugs off-label when they have solid evidence that the benefits outweigh the risks.

What to consider
When discussing off-label drug use with a doctor, a person should keep the following points in mind:

The FDA have not investigated how well the drug works for their particular health condition.
There may not be strong medical evidence that supports using the drug for their particular health condition.
People with their condition may experience unique side effects while taking the drug.
People should also be aware that doctors are not obligated to tell a patient when they are prescribing a drug off-label.

Because of this, a person may want to ask their doctor the following questions when receiving a prescription drug for the first time:

What does this drug have approval for?
What are the benefits of taking this drug over a drug that has approval for my condition?
What scientific evidence is there to show that this drug could work for my health condition?
What kind of results should I expect to see while taking this drug?
What are the side effects of this drug?
What dosage should I take?
Will this drug interact with other drugs, supplements, or herbs that I am taking?
What are the other options for treating my condition?
MEDICAL NEWS TODAY NEWSLETTER
Knowledge is power. Get our free daily newsletter.
Dig deeper into the health topics you care about most. Subscribe to our facts-first newsletter today.
Is it ethical?
Off-label prescribing is legal in the U.S. Doctors can prescribe FDA-approved medications for purposes that are not on the label if they feel that it is appropriate and beneficial for the patient.

The practice of prescribing drugs off-label is neither ethical nor unethical. It depends on the doctor’s reasons for off-label prescribing.

For example, people may consider it to be ethical if they are unable to take the FDA-approved treatment options for their condition due to side effects or possible interactions with other medications, or if they have exhausted all other FDA-approved treatment options for their condition.

The doctor should discuss any potential side effects with the patient. Both parties should agree that the potential benefits of taking the drug off-label outweigh the risks. The doctor should also be willing to change the dosage or change the drug entirely if it proves ineffective or harmful.

Summary
There are many reasons a doctor may prescribe a drug off-label. For example, a person may not have access to a particular FDA-approved drug, or they may have exhausted all other FDA-approved treatment options for their condition.

Taking a drug off-label can be beneficial, but there may also be certain risks involved. A person should discuss the potential benefits and risks with their doctor before starting a new drug off-label.

A person should also tell their doctor if they experience side effects while taking a drug off-label. The doctor may recommend changing the dosage or changing the drug altogether.

Last medically reviewed on June 30, 202

Medically reviewed by Dena Westphalen, Pharm.D. — Written by Jennifer Berry on June 30, 2020
Latest news

up
5 users have voted.

A society grows great when old men plant trees in whose shade they know they shall never sit. Allegedly Greek, but more possibly fairly modern quote.

Consider helping by donating using the button in the upper left hand corner. Thank you.

QMS's picture

@ovals49

then ramping up operation warped seed
but the show must go on!

up
3 users have voted.
zed2's picture

One of the best things they could do to reduce covid is ventilate- exchange fresh air aggressively especially in the winter. People should also wear masks when they are indoors and put bariers in workplaces to reduce the risk of aerosol transmission.

Its unavoidable tthat there will be more variants and that they will become more transmissible. people should continue to take every possible precaution. Be consistent. Wash hands when you return home from going out if you touch anything.

Parents with children, try to train your children to take precautions too.

up
2 users have voted.
zed2's picture

Please consider, if you write Congresspeople Please only ask them for SINGLE PAYER and also it has to be completely free. We should be asking for a totally decommercialized healthcare system Here is why..

In order to be publicly subsidized, a requirement of any service at all where the government contributes money is that it be supplied in the exercise of governmental authority.

The following is an excerpt from the article : "What is a "service supplied in the exercise of governmental authority" under
Article I:3(b) and (c) of the General Agreement on Trade in Services?" by Eric Leroux.
(Article from: Journal of World Trade (Law­Economics­Public Policy) | June 1, 2006 | Leroux, Eric H)
I. INTRODUCTION
One of the most sensitive issues under the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) is what constitutes a "service supplied in the exercise of governmental authority"?
The GATS applies to measures of World Trade Organization (WTO) Members affecting trade in any service, except those services supplied in the exercise of governmental authority. (1) This reflects the delicate balance between what pertains to trade and commerce, where trade
liberalization rules should apply, and what pertains to the "public" sector, that is, that area of governmental activity that does not effectively relate to trade and commerce and should therefore remain the prerogative of governments (free of trade liberalization constraints).
The manner in which this issue has been addressed in the GATS reflects its complexity, that is: how and where do you draw the line between the two? Uruguay Round participants drew that line as follows, when defining the phrase "service supplied in the exercise of governmental
authority" in Article I of the GATS: a service which is supplied neither on a commercial basis, nor in competition with one or more service suppliers, is excluded from the scope of the GATS. (2) While this definition clarifies the intention of the negotiators, the use of concepts such
as "on a commercial basis" and "in competition with" still leaves much room for interpretation. As such, the definition of "service supplied in the exercise of governmental authority" can be said to be yet another example of "constructive ambiguity", whereby recourse to imprecise
terms or concepts represents the only way to achieve consensus among a large number of negotiators. When a dispute arises, panels and the Appellate Body are then faced with the difficult task of fleshing out the proper meaning to be ascribed to these terms and concepts,
generally without even the benefit of meaningful travaux preparatoires shedding additional light on the intention of the negotiators. The purpose of this article is to offer a positive and useful contribution in terms of identifying the main parameters or criteria that are likely to
guide the interpretation and application of the GATS exclusion for services supplied in the exercise of governmental authority. This should prove a worthy exercise considering the importance of this exclusion for many Members, the absence of case law on the subject and the
scarcity of meaningful literature on the issue.

II. SCOPE OF THE GATS AND THE EXCLUSION FOR SERVICES SUPPLIED IN THE EXERCISE OF GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITY
The scope of the GATS is defined in Article I. It applies to "measures by Members affecting trade in services". (3) This phrase has been
interpreted as giving a broad scope to the GATS. (4) The term "services" is defined as "includ[ing] any service in any sector except services
supplied in the exercise of governmental authority". (5) The expression "services supplied in the exercise of governmental authority" is
defined as follows in Article I:3(c): "a service supplied in the exercise of governmental authority" means any service which is supplied neither
on a commercial basis, nor in competition with one or more service suppliers.
A service "supplied in the exercise of governmental authority" does not fall within the scope of the GATS and, therefore, is not subject to any of its disciplines. (look at the standstill here, effective date Feb 26, 1998)
To date, the expression "service supplied in the exercise of governmental authority" found in Article I:3 of the GATS has not been the subject of dispute settlement in the WTO. Hence, there is no judicial WTO precedent that provides guidance on the meaning to be ascribed to this
concept. Accordingly, one must use the applicable rules of treaty interpretation in order to determine that meaning. It is now a WTO acquis
that those rules are found in Articles 31 and 32 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties ("Vienna Convention"). (6) For convenience, these are reproduced here:
Article 31
General rule of interpretation
1. A treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context
and in the light of its object and purpose.
2. The context for the purpose of the interpretation of a treaty shall comprise, in addition to the text, including its preamble and annexes:
(a) any agreement relating to the treaty which was made between all the parties in connection with the conclusion of the treaty;
(b) any instrument which was made by one or more parties in connection with the conclusion of the treaty and accepted by the other parties
as an instrument related to the treaty.
3. There shall be taken into account, together with the context:

Z:(the first paragraph here should be looked at carefully because it poses a GRAVE danger to Medicare if Medicares scope is enlarged to any more than those in our "statutory system of social security") It would lose its subsidy. Yes, we did give the final authority over all our financial services to the WTO, in the 1990s. I dont recall the country and its people ever having been told this then, except perhaps if one reads the actual documents on the WTO web site in Geneva. This is not disinformation, this is a binding international treaty thats been widely criticized all around the world for this very same ambiguity issue that I am trying to explain to you here. We've been lied to by legislators likely for their own reasons . es, we need single payer It must become noncommercial so that it passes this important two prong test. BUT PLEASE TRUST ME WE MUST USE A DIFFERENT NAME THAN MEDICARE FOR ALL, I SUGGEST SINGLE PAYER. Because thats what it needs to be. And totally noncommercial to escape this trap. . Yes, we need a national healthcare plan we dont need to be led into a trap. Thats whats happening if we follow he instructions of one senator, one Congressperson and one President. Read the plain text, its what the rules say the rules must be. .

up
3 users have voted.