Nebraska Attorney General Doug Peterson said on Thursday he will take no legal action against doctors who prescribe two off-label drugs to treat or prevent Covid-19, as long as doctors get patients to sign an informed consent release and don’t also break any laws while in the process of treating patients for Covid.
Ivermectin, a drug used to treat parasites, is now being used increasingly for Covid, and hydroxychloroquine, a malaria drug, have become a flashpoint of controversy, with some calling the drugs helpful, while others mocking their use. Many doctors will not prescribe the drugs, while many people who have recovered from Covid credit the medications for their ability to overcome the virus.
Ivermectin is used worldwide for humans, but the liberal intelligensia has branded it “horse medicine,” as it is used widely in the U.S. to treat horses that have parasites. Conservatives have been more open to the use of the medications, and former President Donald Trump was treated with hydroxychloroquine when he got Covid-19 last year.
In a memo to Nebraska’s Health and Human Services chief executive, Peterson wrote that consumers and health care providers continue to be inundated with information and opinions regarding Covid-19 treatment and prevention. He noted that the sheer volume of conflicting information and demands from the public informed the need to make a decision about whether doctors could prescribe these repurposed uses for the two medications.
“After receiving your question and conducting our investigation, we have found significant controversy and suspect information about potential COVID-19 treatments. A striking example features one of the world’s most prestigious medical journals—the Lancet. In the middle of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Lancet published a paper denoun- cing hydroxychloroquine as dangerous? Yet the reported statistics were so flawed that journalists and outside researchers immediately began raising concerns. Then after one of the authors refused to provide the analyzed data, the paper was retracted, but not before many countries stopped using hydroxychloroquine and trials were cancelled or interrupted. The Lancet’s own editor in chief admitted that the paper was a ‘fabrication,’ ‘a monumental fraud,’ and ‘a shocking example’ of research misconduct in the middle of a global health emergency,” Peterson wrote in his advisory opinion to the State.
Peterson noted that his opinion applies only to repurposing of ivermectin and hydroxycholorquine for unconventional uses for Covid treatment, but he also said other drugs might prove to show promise for treating Covid, and he might rule on those at another time.
“But in doing so, we do not mean to rule out the possibility that other off-label drugs might show promise—either now or in the future—as a prophylaxis or treatment against COVID-19. Also, because our investigation has revealed that physicians who currently use hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19 do so as either a prophylaxis or an early treatment for outpatients (as opposed to a late treatment in hospitalized patients), we will confine our consideration of hydroxychloroquine to those two uses.
“In addition, we note that there are treatment options the FDA has approved, either through an Emergency Use Authorization (“EUA”) or through the regular FDA drug—approval process, for COVID-19 prophylaxis or treatment. These include monoclonal antibodies, vaccines, and remdesivir. We do not take any position on those options because they are outside the scope of the question asked,” Peterson wrote.
“In the end, as we explain below, we find that the available data does not justify filing disciplinary actions against physicians simply because they prescribe ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine to prevent or treat COVID-19. If, on the other hand, healthcare pro- viders neglect to obtain informed consent, deceive their patients, prescribe excessively high doses, fail to check for contraindications, or engage in other misconduct, they might be subject to discipline. But based on the evidence that currently exists, the mere fact of prescribing ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19 will not result in our office filing disciplinary actions. While ourterminology throughout this opinion focuses on physi- cians prescribing these medicines, what we conclude necessarily applies to other licen-
sed healthcare professionals who prescribe, participate in, or othewvise assist with a treat- ment plan utilizing these medications,” Peterson wrote.
Hundreds of Alaskans are now ordering these drugs through doctors providing telemedicine services at Frontline Covid Critical Care Alliance in Florida, a group offering off-label use of these medications and a pantry of supplements, such as quercetin, zinc, vitamin D, and vitamin C, in an effort to help people boost their immunity.
Read the attorney general’s opinion below:
Finally we have someone with Brains. The new Merck Drug Molnupiravir is very similar to the Ivermectin. Merck received $2.9 billion to produce the new medication. The cost is $70 a a pill for the Molnupiravir and approximately 53 cents for the Ivermectin. After months of research on the vaccines my son and daughter in law decided to forgo the vaccines. They both came down with Covid, however, they took ivermectin and had mild cases. and recovered in a few days. Not that it is for everyone, however, we know the money that is made in the pharmaceutical industry. Oh and aren’t many of us tired of Dr. Fauci. If the NIH and CDC placed value on the health of the American public they would get their act together before taking away our freedoms with mandates. Oh yes, I remember Dr Fauci saying : Masks don’t work.Wonder how much he and Bill gates are making off their investments in the mask industry.
I always say you want to know why they prescribe one method of treatment follow the money. Fauci should be charged with conspiracy to commit fraud and jailed.
Actually I just heard Dr. Kelly Victory talk about ivermectin, what it is, what it does and how it compares with Merck’s new drug. I suspected it might essentially be ivermectin re invented. But from what she says the two drugs act totally different in the body and the new drug has more potential issues than ivermectin, of which ivermectin essentially has no issues for the average person. I recommend the interview with her which can be found on Michael Savage’s website, podcast titled “Ivermectin : pros-cons. Does it work? Is it safe? Why is the government against it?” came out Oct. 12 of this year. She runs a website earlycovidcare.org. It might be run in conjunction with other docs, I didn’t really pay attention to that part.
You can order Ivermectin off of the internet. 200 pill doses for $104.95. Just under 48¢™ per pill. Supply coming from India. Reliable and safe.
It is very questionable for the entire medical complex to suppress any use, study or discussion of inexpensive treatments for the virus.
Other countries have been using Ivermectin very effectively to reduce hospitalizations and illness to near zero cases and deaths. It is also very economical, Nobel Prize winning product, with known safety data. Billions of people have been prescribed this drug over decades.
If we are experiencing a “pandemic” and eliminating safety test trials for genetic therapy drugs on emergency basis, why not do effective do no harm strategies?
Type “Table 2c. Ivermectin: Selected Clinical Data” in to any search engine. The table describes numerous studies and their methods, the results, and the limitations and interpretations. There clearly have been studies of Ivermectin and based upon these studies the NIH had the following recommendation:
.
“There is insufficient evidence for the COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel (the Panel) to recommend either for or against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19. Results from adequately powered, well-designed, and well-conducted clinical trials are needed to provide more specific, evidence-based guidance on the role of ivermectin in the treatment of COVID-19.”
.
They based their recommendation on the following rationale:
.
“Ivermectin has been shown to inhibit the replication of SARS-CoV-2 in cell cultures. However, pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies suggest that achieving the plasma concentrations necessary for the antiviral efficacy detected in vitro would require administration of doses up to 100-fold higher than those approved for use in humans. Even though ivermectin appears to accumulate in the lung tissue, predicted systemic plasma and lung tissue concentrations are much lower than 2 µM, the half-maximal inhibitory concentration (IC50) against SARS-CoV-2 in vitro. Subcutaneous administration of ivermectin 400 µg/kg had no effect on SARS-CoV-2 viral loads in hamsters. However, there was a reduction in olfactory deficit (measured using a food-finding test) and a reduction in the interleukin (IL)-6:IL-10 ratio in lung tissues.
.
Since the last revision of this section of the Guidelines, the results of several randomized trials and retrospective cohort studies of ivermectin use in patients with COVID-19 have been published in peer-reviewed journals or have been made available as manuscripts ahead of peer review. Some clinical studies showed no benefits or worsening of disease after ivermectin use, whereas others reported shorter time to resolution of disease manifestations that were attributed to COVID-19, greater reduction in inflammatory marker levels, shorter time to viral clearance, or lower mortality rates in patients who received ivermectin than in patients who received comparator drugs or placebo.
.
However, most of these studies had incomplete information and significant methodological limitations, which make it difficult to exclude common causes of bias. These limitations include:
.
The sample size of most of the trials was small.
.
Various doses and schedules of ivermectin were used.
.
Some of the randomized controlled trials were open-label studies in which neither the participants nor the investigators were blinded to the treatment arms.
.
Patients received various concomitant medications (e.g., doxycycline, hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, zinc, corticosteroids) in addition to ivermectin or the comparator drug. This confounded the assessment of the efficacy or safety of ivermectin.
.
The severity of COVID-19 in the study participants was not always well described.
.
The study outcome measures were not always clearly defined.”
Steve,
Keep typing into search engines and select the data you prefer.
There are 194 countries and there are many strategies being used across the globe to deal with the US/CCP joint venture viral bio weapon we call SARS-CoV-2.
You did not read I suggested different strategies, plural, because u stroked out and ceased up when u read “Ivermectine” and go into half ass attack mode to “disprove” the efficacy of something you have no first hand experience with.
Health officials in countries that are not bought off and strong armed by US based pharma companies have been working with preventative and immediate symptom treating drugs to considerable success, one of which is Ivermectine.
When the trial size is in the hundreds of millions of patients in trial size, it is worth looking at.
Brian,
I went in search of information, you don’t really provide much if any of that. You provide talking points that I’ve already heard. I am not here to prove or disprove anything. If Ivermectin works then great, I will get aboard the bandwagon, but I have yet to see any actual proof or any actual studies that suggest it works for combating covid. There are a lot of people who ‘believe’ but precious little in hard data.
And I’m not sure how you would possibly imagine that you would know if I have any first hand knowledge with Ivermectin or not, but you do you and just make whatever information up that you want to serve your chosen talking points…don’t let facts get in your way.
More of Steve-O’s bias confirmation masquerading as research. #CNN
This doctor goes through some of the studies/papers on ivermectin and also some of the conclusions other doctors drew from such studies. Short is that it’s very, very safe and effective.
“https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_blbVs8eBUk”
If I make a youtubes does that make me right? Will I get a following and revenue stream to boot?
.
I don’t doubt that Ivermectin is safe, given the correct dose for the treatment. I doubt that it is effective in treating covid, I have yet to see any actual proof…even though anecdotes are plenty. I also doubt the effectiveness of the numerous vaccines, that’s why I research the numbers to see how they are working. I am a skeptic by nature, I don’t swallow any nonsense that comes along the way that some do. I actually do my research, as flawed as it may be…but I don’t accept word of mouth or anecdotal information as fact the way some here do. I demand actual proof, something that those claiming Ivermectin is the cure for covid seem to be in short supply of.
Steve-O wrote:
.
If I make a youtubes does that make me right? Will I get a following and revenue stream to boot?
.
Another condescending comment from you.
.
“https://www.youtube.com/c/NIHVideoCast”
Again with your typical disingenuous and evasive comments, Steve.
.
Your wall of text here, seemingly impressive at first glance, is irrelevant for the very simply reason that ivermectin has been PROVEN to be highly effective, repeatedly and conclusively, in numerous real-world applications around the world when administered early in the infection. But facts that are inconvenient to your invariably pro-establishment political agenda are always conveniently ignored.
Dunning-Kruger demonstrating more confirmation bias by quoting Fauci’s own NIH reference Ivermectin’s viability. #lackingcriticalthought
Definitely a lot of Dunning-Kruger Effect taking place here. Since I know precious little about medicine and pandemics, or pretty much anything, I search out information so I can inform myself. Others here listen to whoever supports their viewpoint and declare that what they heard is fact, FACT!, as if they are medical experts beyond reproach…know anyone like that, Eric?
Steve-o Wrote:
.
Others here listen to whoever supports their viewpoint and declare that what they heard is fact, FACT!, as if they are medical experts beyond reproach…know anyone like that, Eric?
.
Steve-O
Also, Steve, I have noticed your trite and oft-repeated comment that you are “not taking any position on COVID-19 mandates and treatments, but only trying to get people to make an informed decision.” Yet when that informed decision is informed by data or facts that run contrary to the tightly-controlled official narrative, you invariably either attack it or glibly dismiss it.
.
Let’s be frank, Steve: it is clearly your purpose here to steer the conversation, and people’s choices, AWAY from anything that does not fit the official narrative, and that does not fit the official agenda.
Jeff,
When you figure out how the use of quotations work, let me know. You can’t just say what you want, put it in quotation marks and claim somebody said it…that’s not how it works, at all. You continually lie about my positions on these issues, why do you do that? I’ve spelled out my positions for you and you continue to misrepresent them, is it because you cannot actually support your opinion and simply rely upon others to form your opinion for you so when you are challenged you deflect? Have you ever read any of these studies, Jeff? We know you never read a definition before you repeatedly and incorrectly said that these vaccines weren’t vaccines because they didn’t meet any “standard definition” of a vaccine…and the same regarding immunity. Your credibility is really taking some hits here big guy.
Blah blah blah, more misdirection, more obfuscation, more dishonesty, more evasion, more disingenuousness.
.
What is it that scares you all so much about the free exchange of ideas and information? Have any of you actually read the studies that were cited in table 2c, have you read any studies? Or are you all simply repeating sound bites that you heard somebody say?
And have YOU, Steve-O, read ANY of the innumerable reports and studies on the proven effectiveness of ivermectin against the early stages of the Wuhan Virus? If so, you very conveniently ignore them, or just dismiss that mountain of evidence with a wave of the hand.
.
Your desperate pro-Establishment-narrative campaign of misinformation and disinformation here will simply NOT be swayed, will it? Trying to argue intelligently and HONESTLY with you is like trying to teach algebra to a coconut.
Jeff,
Why am I not surprised you haven’t actually read a single study? The number of studies isn’t innumerable and the number of studies that claim Ivermectin has a “proven effectiveness” against covid is even smaller. Had you taken the time to read any of these studies you might know that. There are a small handful of studies that show Ivermectin is beneficial in treating covid, most of those have some serious issues and a few have been completely withdrawn because of these issues, the vast majority show no effect and some show a negative effect.
.
Don’t trust me though, read for yourself, inform yourself. I believe in the free exchange of ideas and I, unlike you, do not feel the need to shout down those who disagree with me. When you can do that, maybe you can have an intelligent and honest conversation.
I’ve wondered that too Steve-O. Guys like Jefferson are angry and arrogant and need to prove it.
And here comes the second coconut.
.
Sorry, algebra lessons are over for the day.
Evan,
Wonder no longer, some of the people who are telling us how well Ivermectin works to cure covid have never read a single study on the subject for themselves. They just repeat what someone else told them…sad.
You faux-neoliberals do bring out the best in people.
It’s a shame and a sham that this even has to be a headline topic.
I don’t know, but when I asked a local pharmacist about filling a prescription she said that if she did that the DEA threatened her federal license. She said that she could fill the same strength and amount for my dog, but not for a human. Anyone else getting prescriptions filled?
Yep, pharmacists are letting themselves be cowered into complying with something that isn’t even a law. If the reports by thousand of doctors along with several provinces and countries on the effectiveness of ivermectin are right, then it would have saved hundreds of thousands of American lives and these pharmacists and others suppressing it have blood on their hands.
If you’re interested, American’s Frontline Doctors will prescribe hydroxychloroquine and have a pharmacy that will mail it to you (the whole process takes at least 3 weeks as demand is phenomenal). They’ve also prescribed ivermectin but have been out of supply for many months now.
Oh, and lest you not forget that “Last Mile of the Way,”
NO HOSPITAL ALLOWED.
They won’t give you ivermectin. No hydrocloroquine there. Monoclonal antibodies are made from HUMAN EMBRYONIC TISSUE. You DEFINITELY don’t want that. (Besides, it’s so expensive. If you really cared about small government (and anti-abortion) you would have taken the $8.00 vaccine instead of the $2,100 antibody cocktail anyway.) DO, however, put picketing Mayor Bronson’s new Monoclonal Antibody Center on your Bucket List!
Carrs told me they would not fill Ivermectin if it was for Covid. Fred Myers just confirmed that I knew what doses to take and promptly filled it. That’s my experience .
But where the heck did you get a prescription?? I can’t find one locally in Fairbanks. I have a laundry list online, some get it in India; some have customs problems.
America’s Frontline Doctors is where you can get HCQ but the demand for ivermectin has been so high they’ve been out for months. It’s $90 for a doctor’s consultation and will take probably 3 weeks or more to get HCQ. The Michael Dukes show also had a awesome guest on Monday 10/18, Dr. Kristen Coletti-Gkesler. She is somewhere on the Peninsula and I think she says she can do consultations long distance (I haven’t looked into how yet but plan to). She also said she knows of a pharmacy that will send ivermectin.
Wait, they are profiting off of medication?!?! Aren’t we supposed to be mad at the big pharma bros because they are profiting off of medication?
Thx for the info. It is good for future preparation. But I do think the COVID wave is passing and in a few months will be gone. But good to prepare for the next fake crisis/manufactured virus.
I ordered both IV and HC online myself, no prescription. It’s over the counter in a lot of countries as it’s safer than most off the shelf pain meds. I also take Zink sulfate and D3 every day. I have IV and HC in case I need it. The Zink stops viruses from replicating making it easy to kill off. It’s actually better than the vaccines, you just have to keep taking it. Search on Duckduck for Dr. Vladimir Zelenko. I will see if the link here will work for you. Take care. “https://www.herald.ng/new-york-doctor-treats-350-patients-with-chloroquine-after-trump-endorsement-reports-0-deaths/”
I’ve considered that. Btu, other than the US and Canada the regulatory structure of too many nations can be questionable and too many unscrupulous people will package anything for a buck. I think of the garden scene in the movie Secondhand Lion.
Perhaps she just didn’t want to fill your prescription and wanted to give you an excuse that wouldn’t generate a CUSTOMER COMPLAINT!
Most pharmacist bonuses are tied to customer service.
Additionally, the DEA acts slow as hell they take YEARS to build cases against even the most egregious cases. Not chance they would swoop in and yank her license. Further, most retail pharmacists are LICENSED BY THE STATE
So either you misunderstood her or she was lying
As an example look at the opioid epidemic how did people get the prescription only fentanyl and OxyContin? It started with the pharmacists filling a questionable RX in the first place. Not many or any Alaska pharmacists were punished for this as far as I know
I should know…I was a farmacyst up here for almost 30 years
It may be anecdotal, Buford, but when I was told my Ivermectin request would not be filled, I asked why. She stated that the lead pharmacist has a policy and authority to NOT fill it if it is for Covid.
I then asked if they had any Ivermectin. She confirmed they did, but it is NOT for Covid, she emphasized again. This was Carrs on Abbott. I reported this in email form to management locally and nationally. It was two months ago. No response.
Since ivermectin is an FDA approved drug, under what imaginary law could these doctors be prosecuted under???
So-called “off label use”.
If you Google “Is off label use illegal” it says:
The practice, called “off-label” prescribing, is entirely legal and very common. More than one in five outpatient prescriptions written in the U.S. are for off-label therapies. “Off-label” means the medication is being used in a manner not specified in the FDA’s approved packaging label, or insert.
The hydroxychloroquine paper is the tip of the iceberg, no, the drop in the bucket, no, the grain of sand on the beach, compared to the actual “monumental fraud” that is taking place right now.
It is entirely within a physician’s ethical and clinical prerogative to prescribe ivermectin for patients. A pharmacy has no authority to question the physician’s prescription.
We should demand to know why the federal government is so obsessed to suppress any alternative CCP virus therapeutics? I would bet there are two reasons: (1) corner the market and require expensive experimental drugs in lieu of inexpensive and just as effective therapeutics (2) control people to gain compliance by fear about a contagion that has 99%+ survival rate in most demographics.
We live in a time when today’s Conspiracy theories are tomorrow’s reality.
Follow the money. Merck dissed its own drug (IVM) knowing that their new pipeline drug (Molnupiravir), chemically similar while not as effective, would soon hit the market at 100+ times the price. Remember that the approvers at FDA rush in and out of the revolving door from government to industry and back, and too many in key positions have fingers in the kitty (Fauci). It is all about the money and American lives mean nothing compared to the dollars that they can generate for the fat cats.
Not true. A pharmacist outranks a Dr. when it comes to Rx’s. Originally intended as a sort of check and balance. It is correct that a Dr. can ethically prescribe for off label use.
Andrew, with all due respect that’s Bravo Sierra. A pharmacist’s role is to keep track of meds and alert the doctor if a patient takes things that do not work together. That’s it! The prescribing privilege belongs to the physician alone and the doctor can override a pharmacist at any time. This isn’t co-equal here, the doc who knows the patient is in charge.
Well, perhaps bravo sierra is a bit strong, but I guess it would depend on whether or not it is considered a controlled substance. According to the DEA website
“the law does not require a pharmacist to dispense a prescription of doubtful, questionable, or suspicious origin. To the contrary, the pharmacist who deliberately ignores a questionable prescription when there is reason to believe it was not issued for a legitimate medical purpose may be prosecuted along with the issuing practitioner, for knowingly and intentionally distributing controlled substances.” I’m not saying I agree with it, I’m just outlining the system as it is currently being used.
Andrew, controlled substances are whole other kettle of fish. The controlled substance statute schedule I-V applies to narcotics and should not be misused to apply to a medication that has full FDA approval and does not fall under this category. The controlled substance reg you quoted above, is to provide another layer of scrutiny, when some guy shows up at the pharmacy with a script for 200 Percocet written on a prescription pad from an out of town provider or the signature on the script does not look like the one the pharmacist knows from filling other scripts from that doc etc.
Ivermectin is not a controlled substance and therefore should be dispensed as prescribed by the physician without reservation. A pharmacist has no medical information on patients to determine if the prescribed drug is appropriate or not for the patient’s condition. I wonder if there are liability issues for the pharmacy as a patient could argue that the pharmacist is withholding care deemed appropriate by their doc and could be held liable for a negative outcome
AFH… Understood, and thank you. Perhaps the pharmacies refusing to fill these prescriptions could use this clarification as well. Sounds like they are in a tight spot…coercion from the feds on one side, and liability from the Docs on the other.
How about it Dr. Zink? Are you ready yet to take the blinders off and act like a true healthcare advocate instead of a shill for Big Pharma? Why this woman still has a job is beyond reason!
She’s working hard on her twitter account, using her kids to virtue signal, looking for more ways to use her priviledge to flaunt international law and holding dunleavy’s hand. You know, those important things to Big Pharma prostitutes.
Diet, exercise and sleep. Healthy living is the best defense against everything.
Nebraska, the Land of Pie ruled by a good and wise Attorney General.
Lots of farm animals there too.
^^^^This^^^ is why as a nation we can no longer move forward in intellectual discussion. I am attacking YOU, Fire and Greg below, specifically. UNLIKE when you attack the entire state of Nebraska because you disagree with their Attorney General.
As “cute” and clever as you may have just amazed yourself to be, you have dropped to the lowest form of logical fallacy- ad hominem.
Name ANY Alaskan you like or dislike, and I’ll say it’s because of a lot of eskimos. OR it’s because Alaska is the land of moose, or whatever. You wouldn’t give my argument the time of day because it adds NOTHING. But maybe you’ll think I am cute and clever.
In honesty, if we are to ever again move forward as a nation, we must stop with the ad hominem. If we have no argument, then we must stop talking and listen. But if we have one, put it out there well.
I don’t have anything against Nebraska. I found it a little humorous than anything about Nebraska was significant enough for discussion. This coming from a Kansas boy.
NO.
Those who know, know Ivermectin & hydroxychloroquine are successful to treat “COVID”. And, yes, those who know but deny should face criminal charges. They denied their patient(s) something that works.
Falsy Fauci recommended remdesivir which kills about 53% of patients who go that route! NIH has that as their # 1 recommendation & Ivermectin at their 2nd.
I don’t trust government-funded hospitals. They don’t have the best interest of the patient who chose not to take the jab.
My friend at ANMC passed away last night. Her death was preventable! There is treatment.
Research and make sure you’ve gained understanding where we stand. Jabbed or not jabbed. And the treatment of those who chose to vs those who chose not to. One thing I had to examine within is, show the love regardless.
This site has great data to start researching & gain understanding.
h t t p s:// t h e d r a r d i s sh o w. co m /
Patriots, keep pushing back! Pray, give thanks, love the unlovable especially. Love your family, friends, foe. PUSH BACK!
Pathetic that multi decade proven drugs are ignored to prop up big pharma profits. What ever happened to good old fashioned penicillin cure all shots? Oh that’s right, go and get a script for a pill with multiple side effects.?
It was overused and became mostly useless.
We don’t have a pandemic of the unvaccinated in the United States, we have a pandemic of the untreated! There are many Covid therapeutics out there, that has become abundantly clear over recent months. Why American doctors are being forced to ignore them is less clear. Perhaps, a Congressional investigation into this is warranted. When the charlatans in Big Pharma and their shills in the NIH, WHO & CDC are exposed, prosecuted & jailed then perhaps this country can heal.
Y’all should move to Nebraska.
Comments are closed.