Get a snack, a Beer and read!

Horowitz: FDA allows pharmacists to practice medicine while banning doctors from practicing
Daniel Horowitz
A pharmacist can now practice medicine, but a doctor will lose his license for treating COVID patients and vaccine injuries.

In 2021, we witnessed one of the most remarkable dynamics unfold in the history of American medicine. An order came down through the corporate pharmacy cartel to start illegally practicing medicine by denying prescriptions written by doctors to treat COVID patients who lacked any other options. It wasn’t just ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, but doctors had prescriptions for antibiotics, steroids, and nebulizer treatments denied because “there are no treatments for COVID.”

Never mind the fact that having no approved treatments was all the more reason to prescribe off-label to treat thrombosis and pulmonary inflammation, the latter of which we deal with all the time in asthma, COPD, and pneumonia with some of the drugs these brave doctors were prescribing.

Fast-forward to July 2022, and the FDA approved on Wednesday any pharmacist to “prescribe” Pfizer’s Paxlovid on the spot without a prescription! Suddenly, the establishment finds a sense of urgency to get people treatment early when it comes to greasing the skids of Pfizer.

The juxtaposition of banning doctors from prescribing long-standing approved and safe drugs with allowing pharmacists to prescribe novel and experimental drugs is astounding. Say what you want about drugs like hydroxychloroquine, but if you wanted to venture into the uncharted waters of pharmacists prescribing (not just dispensing) drugs, a drug like that would be a good candidate. But to start this precedent with Paxlovid?

There are no long-term safety studies on this drug. It is mixed with a heavy-duty AIDS drug – ritonavir – which has an FDA black box warning for potential death when prescribed with several fairly common drugs that seniors might be taking. Worse, Paxlovid is contraindicated with 33 common classes of drugs, many of which most seniors vulnerable to COVID are already taking, including statins and steroids. Most seniors are on some form of statin.

Furthermore, the drug’s efficacy, especially for the current variants, is particularly dubious given that it now has a common “rebound” effect, in which symptoms come back even worse, as in the case of Dr. Fauci himself. There is also a common complaint of “Paxlovid mouth,” in which people have a lingering metallic taste in their mouths for a long time after taking the drug. Finally, there are growing concerns based on studies that Paxlovid is creating mutations in the virus. So, if we are seeing these problems up front, can you imagine what we don’t know about its long-term safety profile?

To take a drug like this and allow pharmacists to prescribe it while empowering the same pharmacists to block doctors’ prescriptions of budesonide and azithromycin is simply astounding. Consider the fact that so many vulnerable people have contraindications with Paxlovid. Some might suggest, “Well, aren’t pharmacists who are versed in pharmacology even more astute to contraindications?” However, those touting this talking point are forgetting that if most people have a contraindication, what do you think the pharmacist is going doing about it? Either they are overlooking it, or they are unilaterally making the decision to take the patient off the other drugs for that week. That is a decision that requires a knowledge of the patient, pathophysiology of the other ailments, and a risk-benefit analysis against COVID. That can only be done by a doctor. Pharmacists can now illegally practice medicine, but doctors are blocked from doing so.

The lesson of this juxtaposition is clear. If a certain product becomes part of the “spirit of the age,” all laws, prudence, science, and medical norms are thrown out the window in order to promote the new idol – be it Pfizer’s shot or therapeutic. This is why they are now allowing Pfizer to produce endless products without proper control groups or even clinical trials and foist them upon babies. However, if a product might challenge the idol of the age, then no law, social norm, or medical norm will stop them from banning the drug. Hence, a Nobel Prize-winning wonder drug can’t even be prescribed by a doctor, but a new, risky half-AIDS drug can be prescribed by a pharmacist.

We witnessed this trend throughout the mass vaccination regime in the pharmacies. I had pharmacists admit to me they were vaccinating age cohorts for initial doses or boosters before they were officially approved. Again, these are novel products that, at a minimum, are associated with over 1 million adverse events composing over 14,000 categories of injury on VAERS. Just myocarditis alone has over 40,000 reports, and CDC researchers admitted in JAMA that it’s “likely” underreported. Yet that was totally OK. No shots are turned down. Say what you want about the off-label drugs the patriot doctors are using, but they are definitely safe and are not associated with myocarditis, paralysis, and autoimmune disorders.

The upshot of this decision is that big pharma gets what it wants all the time. The FDA is completely compromised. As Dr. Pierre Kory, co-founder of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance, told me, “We must start advocating for a pathway for repurposed medicines to be evaluated and approved by independent experts who are free of any ties to the pharmaceutical industry. This would dramatically increase the number and efficacy of treatment options for not only COVID, but many other diseases.”