Subscriber-unavailabile said:
In reply to Toyman01 (Moderately Supportive Dude) :
Sadly from my understanding doctors who are prescribing certain meds that are know to be beneficial fighting this are being flagged and fought. Even pharmacies are told to block certain meds even though they've been around a long time and are safe.
I know a few people that are in the medical world that are on same page as something more is going on.
Having been married to someone in the medical field, this is not uncommon in the least. It happens daily with a few hundred thousand illnesses. Doctors might prescribe a drug for something that they know will be effective even though the FDA, manufacturer, and the "rules" say that it isn't indicated.
It's the equivalent of what we normal people do every day. Read the instructions for a Bic lighter. No where does it say that Bic lighters are indicated for use as a bottle opener, and it probably says something like "do not use for anything other than lighting cigarettes." So every time we use it to open a beer, or (god forbid) light a candle instead of a cigarette, we're breaking the rules.
First, a definition. An indication is the ailment's suggested treatment. Indicated describes the drug useful in treating the ailment. For instance, Diabetes is an indication for Insulin. Insulin is indicated for Diabetes.
The difference is between what's called "labeled indications" and "off-label indications." For instance, a labeled indication might be prescribing Pseudoephedrine (Sudafed) to reduce mucous production in the sinuses when you have a cold. That's why it was invented, that's what the manufacturer says it should be used for, and that is on of the official FDA-approved use of the drug. An off-label indication would be to prescribe a decongestant like Sudafed as a diuretic since one of the things a typical decongestant does is to reduce the production of the hormone that tells your body to retain water (ADH). In either case, the doctor has the freedom to prescribe whatever medication he/she sees fit. The consternation and conflict comes from whether or not it makes scientific sense, and doctors are constantly under scrutiny for these choices.
There are plenty of examples in which a drug has augmented its indicated scope. A good example is Aspirin. For 80 years, aspirin was used as a pain reliever. Then after millions of doctors over decades of observation, it was noticed that it was also a blood thinner. So, for many years, doctors prescribed it as a blood thinner and heart attack prevention as an off-label indication. Finally, after about a decade, the FDA finally did the research, compiled the data, and changed the indications for using Aspirin to include vascular-related heart problems.
If you haven't watched it, the movie "Awakenings" is not only a brilliant movie, it is based on a true story, and perfectly depicts one of those times a doctor went WAY off-label and had some success. In that case, it involved extensive research, a valid theory, and years of study and careful testing by a highly-respected and brilliant doctor. Contrast that with (an example that is fresh in my memory) something like Hydroxychloroquine. It is a medicine used to treat a parasite that a bankrupted casino owner haphazardly suggested on Twitter that we should try it for a virus. Understandably, a few doctors tried it, because who wouldn't trust the medical advice of a bankrupted casino owner, right? Obviously, millions of mainstream doctors went bat-E36 M3 crazy - the same way I might go crazy if an interior designer suggested that a good way to increase the performance of my Miata was to paint my living room purple. Great choice for someone renovating their living room, but their effectiveness at offering automotive performance advice is not something I trust.
So, doctors understandably don't get criticized for being innovative and suggesting slightly off-label indications that are based in logical, tested, fact-based theory, but when they try to treat a virus with a drug that has known dangerous heart side-effects, used to treat a parasite, and has zero scientific data to suggest that it helps in viral infections, yes... they will be scrutinized and questioned.
