Posted on 10/18/2021 10:23:43 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
Few subjects have been more controversial than ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine — two long-established, inexpensive medications widely and successfully used in many parts of the world for the prevention and treatment of COVID.
By contrast, the use of both medications against COVID has been largely suppressed in the U.S, where doctors have been threatened and punished for prescribing them.
On Oct. 15, Nebraska Attorney General (AG) Doug Peterson issued a legal opinion that Nebraska healthcare providers can legally prescribe off-label medications like ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine for the treatment of COVID, so long as they obtain informed consent from the patient.
However, if they did neglect to obtain consent, deceive, prescribe excessively high doses or other misconduct, they could be subject to discipline, Peterson wrote.
The AG’s office emphasized it was not recommending any specific treatment for COVID. “That is not our role,” Peterson wrote. “Rather, we address only the off-label early treatment options discussed in this opinion and conclude that the available evidence suggests they might work for some people.”
Peterson said allowing physicians to consider early treatments will free them to evaluate additional tools that could save lives, keep patients out of the hospital and provide relief for our already strained healthcare system.
The opinion, based on an assessment of relevant scientific literature, was rendered in response to a request by Dannette Smith, CEO of the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services.
Smith asked the AG’s office to look into whether doctors could face discipline or legal action under Nebraska’s Uniform Credential Act (UCA) — meant to protect public health, safety and welfare — if they prescribed ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine.
(Excerpt) Read more at noqreport.com ...
“Smith asked the AG’s office to look into whether doctors could face discipline or legal action under Nebraska’s Uniform Credential Act (UCA) — meant to protect public health, safety and welfare — if they prescribed ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine.”
__________
Instead of Smith’s question, the AG’s office needs to look into whether doctors could face discipline or legal action under Nebraska’s Uniform Credential Act (UCA) — meant to protect public health, safety and welfare — if they refused to prescribe ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine.
And soon enough people are going to demand a real investigation into the lies and BS of the Covid pandemic and the guilty ones who pushed it AND THE VACCINES into the world if found guilty SHOULD BE EXECUTED!!
Good news. Make it go global.
The hundreds of thousands (including those in nursing homes) who were DENIED this effective treatment, and died are, sadly, unavailable for comment.
😩
Peter Griffins dog should be along shortly to let us know how mistaken we are.
On Oct. 15, Nebraska Attorney General (AG) Doug Peterson issued a legal opinion that Nebraska healthcare providers can legally prescribe off-label medications like ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine for the treatment of COVID, so long as they obtain informed consent from the patient.
That has been the rule for 5+ decades:
However, if they did neglect to obtain consent, deceive, prescribe excessively high doses or other misconduct, they could be subject to discipline, Peterson wrote.
I sure hope you’re right.
Along with the gassy one.
I continue to speak out and fight for those innocents.....even though it costs me Facebook jail constantly.
Guillotine is so French.
The manner is not as important as the trial and sentence.
Fauci should have to answer in court for funding the development of this chimera coronavirus.
At the very least someone should ask hm if he still thinks it was worth the risk, as he said in 2012.
Every time you log on you make Zuckerberg money that he uses to rig elections.
Good luck finding it for sale.
Good luck finding a physician that will prescribe it.
That's the problem. The US doesn’t have a “private” health care system.
It's a pseudo government run system with a private store front.
Physicians simply follow a “standard of care,” but it's the government, big pharma and insurance companies which define this standard. In America you get conveyor belt health care, flow charted care, where some bureaucrat in DC decides that now gender dysphoria is a real disease and they create a diagnostic code, and suddenly every insurance company covers it. Meanwhile, you can be a woman and have low testosterone levels but not get that covered UNLESS you want to be a man, and then they would pay for it!
I think Fauci and the rest of them knew this all along. Thousands died needlessly. How about the governors that banned Hydroxichloroquine in their states? Cuomo? Crimes against humanity.
Yup. Need some gas x or beano.
I just realized I know the AG.
Or rather knew him back in the day. Good guy. Dad used to visit him on occasion.
God bless you!!
in related news:
Horowitz: The $cience of remdesivir vs. ivermectin: A tale of two drugs
“A tale of two drugs. One has become the standard of care at an astronomical cost despite studies showing negative efficacy, despite causing severe renal failure and liver damage, and despite zero use outpatient. The other has been safely administered to billions for river blindness and now hundreds of millions for COVID throughout the world and has turned around people at death’s doorstep for pennies on the dollar. Yet the former – remdesivir – is the standard of care forced upon every patient, while the latter – ivermectin – is scorned and banned in the hospitals and de facto banned in most outpatient settings. But according to the NIH, a doctor has the same right to use ivermectin as to use remdesivir. And it’s time people know the truth.
Although the NIH and the FDA didn’t officially approve ivermectin as standard of care for COVID, it is listed on NIH’s website right under remdesivir as “Antiviral Agents That Are Approved or Under Evaluation for the Treatment of COVID-19.” It is accorded the same status, the same sourcing for dosage recommendations, and the same monitoring advice as remdesivir … except according to NIH’s own guidance, remdesivir has a much greater potential for severe reactions in the very organs at stake in a bout with acute COVID.
As you can see, they admit that remdesivir causes renal and liver failure! One of the symptoms is “ALT and AST elevations,” which are indications of liver damage. Is that really the drug you want when someone is at risk for a cytokine storm and thrombosis? They even have a monitoring requirement for these side effects. Also, it does have some drug interactions as well.
Now, let’s move on to the ivermectin side effects.
Notice how the NIH is essentially saying it has no side effects by the fact that it prefaces the section by noting the drug is “generally well tolerated,” a distinction not accorded to remdesivir. Then it proceeds to list the same boilerplate GI and nausea warnings on every drug under the sun. There are almost no drug interactions and ZERO specific guidance for monitoring!”
https://ugolini.co.th/ugolini/horowitz-the-cience-of-remdesivir-vs-ivermectin-a-tale-of-two-drugs/
But will still be casting votes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.