Yes it is.

In many cases as "... more than two 500mg Tylenol used it "off-label" but they did not use it wrongly..." it is used wrongly, it is just not harmful.


 Incorrect This is because "harmful" is not the defining factor for the words "Off" and "Label" when used specifically and in exclusivity to describe drugs used "Off label".    Off-label is not "wrong" it is only the practice of use outside the scope of FDA assessment.  It's too time consuming and costly to approve a drug for every known use.

 Using a drug outside of FDA approval is not "wrong", it is actually "right" to use a drug that is effective.  



"... if the intent is to try to compare this to ..."
Cover the Azz of the drug company's  
"... then sure spin it however you want..."

 They don't need to have their Azz covered since it's not "wrong" to use drug off-label.  It's completely legal.



Sign says speed limit  55, Could be compared to, '"on-label"  Use !
Someone going 65, could be compared to ,"off-label" Use !

 Poor comparison as it is actually against the law, or "wrong" to go 65 in a 55 zone.  Off label use is like saying a person is walking on the sidewalk in a 55mph zone.  Completely legal, not "wrong".




"A gun, by a person not in the military, "ON-label" would be shooting something like a target, animal, defense, etc.

A "off-label" use would shooting/killing a innocent person for no reason."

 Poor comparison because "Off-Label" is not illegal, wrong, bad, unauthorized etc.  It's legal.  "Off label" would be using a legally owned pistol to shoot at a legal authorized target at a long-range.  Perfectly legal, just not what a pistol was made for.

You keep comparing "Off label" to crime.  Its not a crime, its legal, perfectly allowed, accepted.  It's fine to do.
 

Eegore wrote on 01/07/24 at 16:37:03:


OK then.
Just change all, ‘off-label’ use of drugs,
And you will stop all crimes, committed because of drugs.

“…Poor comparison…”
Sure just like  banning a red car,
because it was used in a  bank robbery.
Because it will stop  Bank robbery’s !

      Oh BTW,
how is that longest war
the US has, progressing ?

Eegore wrote on 01/07/24 at 16:37:03:

I seem to remember, a drug was used, ‘off-label’,
And their was a whole bunch of people that said,
        IT was Wrong !
When other people said it was effective.

Really ?

Firearms were made for DEFENSE,
   not offense.
Go go back in history.

Oh Wait, the Socialists have REMOVED History !


 A pistol's geometric design is not for long range shooting like a rifle's.  You are intentionally spinning the obvious comparison specific to the range of the weapon to avoid addressing that you are comparing crimes to a completely legal activity.  Some might call that deflection.
 Off-label is legal, not wrong and has nothing to do with harm.

 So let's say a pistol, used ONLY as defense, is not geometrically designed to defend the defender, in the act of defense, at a long range that a rifle, used in defense, could reach when a defender is defending themselves.  A rifle, used in defense, to defend a defender in the act of defense is not geometrically designed to defend at a close range that a pistol is, when used ONLY as defense.

 A rifle used at close range, to defend, is used off-label.

 A pistol used for long range, to defend, is used off-label.

 None of those are crimes.  All of your "off-label" comparisons are crimes.  You use poor comparison because you insist off-label means wrong, when it only means it is not used specific to it's original FDA purpose.


 

Yes.  For the most part, what I have seen is chemists, psychologists, medical professionals in different areas including neurologists, and law enforcement.

I hate this saying but it fits here: I’m from Missouri so Show Me.

Where is this list of prescriptions from the Nashville shooter for example and convince me this includes any and all prescriptions given to her.

As far as doubting official explanations, pretend I’m an old school journalist, not a modern day political advocate posing as a journalist, and convince me the data you’re getting hasn’t been edited. And I’ll save you the time, you can’t. We’re all at the mercy of suspect information. All we can do is sift what data we can get through our own BS filters and arrive at some version of the truth.

The fact the  Nashville shooter’s writings have been kept secret with only a couple pages leaked should be a concern. If those in charge believe even a redacted version isn’t “appropriate” then how could I possibly believe a list of prescriptions is accurate? We just had the President of Harvard resign because the reality that she was never competent became too hard to hide, but a week ago we were told how amazing, smart and competent she was. And now we’re told it was racial animus that drove her out, and not incompetence.

People in charge lie. They lie to protect themselves, they lie to protect the message, they lie to protect approved speech. They lie. The vast majority of all the information we get is full of certain percentage of lies. That’s the truth.

Call this the law of Webby: The percentage of untruths vs truthful “facts” in a statement or news story is proportional to the potential damage inflicted to the reputation of a liberal talking point.

I’m sure there’s an inversely proportional part to that law as well. I’ll work on solidifying this law and post in its entirety later. I got work to do right now.

How many people take a baby aspirin daily to ward off heart disease?  Recommended by their doctor BTW
They aren't babies... and they don't have headaches.

Lock'em up!