States Finding Ways to Support Ivermectin Treatment for COVID-19
Oklahoma, Kansas, and New Hampshire lawmakers show there is now a preference cascade toward early treatment options for covid.
Legal Insurrection readers will recall that I covered Senator Ron Johnson’s (R-WI) “Second Opinion” panel, including doctors, bioscientists, and other experts who have valid concerns about aspects of the federal government’s COVID-19 pandemic policy.
One of the issues brought up was the manipulation of Big Media to suppress information related to repurposed drugs that could be used as effective early treatment options for covid. For example, Dr. Pierre Kory is the former Chief of the Critical Care Service and Medical Director of the Trauma and Life Support Center at the University of Wisconsin and an expert in the use of ivermectin. He detailed studies across the globe, including the success of its use in a Brazilian city and Uttar Pradesh, India (news of which has been hidden or dismissed by the press).
Now it appears some states are making it easier for doctors to utilize the drug, which had been widely and safely used in humans to treat parasites before being smeared as a mere “horse dewormer.” Oklahoma Attorney General John O’Connor says his office does not plan to discipline doctors for prescribing certain medications, including ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, to treat covid.
While approved ivermectin to treat animals and people for some parasites, lice and skin issues, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration hasn’t approved it for COVID-19. O’Connor said in a news release that his office finds no legal basis for a state medical licensure board to discipline a licensed physician for prescribing a drug for the off-label purpose of treating a patient with COVID-19.
The Oklahoma attorney general said he stands behind doctors who believe ivermectin is in their patients’ best interest.
“I stand behind doctors who believe it is in their patients’ best interests to receive ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine,” O’Connor said in a statement. “Our health care professionals should have every tool available to combat COVID-19. Public safety demands this. Physicians who prescribe medications and follow the law should not fear disciplinary action for prescribing such drugs.”
Pro-ivermectin measures recently passed through the Kansas state senate.
…Senate health committee member, state Sen. Mark Steffen successfully pushed a proposal that would require pharmacists to fill prescriptions of the anti-worm medication ivermectin, the anti-malaria drug hydroxychloroquine and other drugs for off-label uses as COVID-19 treatments.
Steffen is among the Republican-controlled Legislature’s biggest vaccine skeptics and a critic of how the federal government and Democratic Gov. Laura Kelly have handled the coronavirus pandemic.
And New Hampshire representatives are trying to make ivermectin easier to obtain in the state.
House Bill 1022 would allow pharmacists to dispense the drug by means of standing orders, the report said.
Newsweek said the plan is to let pharmacists dispense the treatment under the “delegated prescriptive authority of the physician” and more.
The report noted, “The pharmacist would also be required to provide any patients who receive ivermectin with a ‘standardized information sheet written in plain language’ that provides health care referral information and notes the importance of follow-up care.”
And the lawmakers are proposing that, “Nothing on the information sheet shall discourage the recipient from using ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19.”
Newsweek noted, “Republican State Rep. Leah Cushman, a sponsor of the bill and registered nurse, told Newsweek that she wanted to make sure residents of the state ‘have options for treatment of COVID-19.’ She also said that the burden of the virus on hospitals needs to be curbed, ‘and right now there are no early treatments being offered by most doctors.’”
It appears not only is there a preference cascade for the removal of covid restrictions, but one developing for the use of early treatment options that have been smeared.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Every state needs to do this.. every
I’d love to see new york, california and other liberal bastions be forced to allow it.
I disagree. No blue state citizen should be able to use the nasty “horse dewormer” to attempt to save their democrat lives. They should just die in a $20,000.00 a day ICU on a ventilator and $5000.00 a treatment Remdesivir which is completely useless.
F’ em. They chose their path.
Your a hate filled moron aren’t you. Chances are the people you are referring to will have been vaccinated and therefore will be very unlikely to be hospitalised.
Hahahahaha the irony of being confronted by Liberal hatred is lost of fatkins you useless simgle celled amoeba 🤣🤣
Your comment makes little to no sense – confronted by liberal hatred eh. Well given the supposed example was restricting access to treatments that don’t work and the response is to literally wish all of a much broader group to die in hospital. Seems to me you don’t know what irony actually is. The actual irony is that the fact its the unvaccinated who have been dying and severely ill in hospital.
You sound defensive mailman, making up for something perhaps. When you demonstrate you actually have a brain then come back and try and insult me.
Yah try again with your “facts”…vaccinated MORE likely to get sick and evidence from countries NOT playing games with their stats MORE likely to be hospitilized. As for hate filled…you and your ilk are calling for medical services for any reason to be denied to those who refuse to be lab rats…also to deny ability to earn a living and even buy food and supplies and get an education and exist in society. Over half of you want those refusing the vaccine…which does NOT stop you from getting it or spreading it or keep you out of hospital to be put in prisions or what amounts to concentration camps. Its beyond obvious your side has the hate filled market cornered.
“Yah try again with your “facts”…vaccinated MORE likely to get sick and evidence from countries”
Can you justify that? All the data points to far higher hospitalization rates for the unvaccinated
“As for hate filled…you and your ilk are calling for medical services for any reason to be denied to those who refuse to be lab rats”
Not lab rats the vaccines have been thoroughly tested, that’s vs Ivermectin which absolutely has not. If you are going to have a standard why aren’t you applying it to ivermectin?
“also to deny ability to earn a living and even buy food and supplies and get an education and exist in society” That’s the protestors choice not to get vaccinated, and the reasoning not too is spurious to say the least. Not being vaccinated has been until recently a very real risk to other people. Its not unreasonable to say that people should take reasonable measures not to spread a dangerous virus. Society imposes these measures all the time.
Question are you in support of the original comment about vaccinated people dying in hospitals?
Wow, you are such a liar.
Ivermectin and HCQ have both had decades of testing, plus decades of field experience being used in humans.
The COVID “vaccines” were literally created a year ago.
@henrybowman
What? Ivermectin has been used for specific uses for years sure, not for Covid, same with HCQ. Are you that stupid to realise that you need to show efficacy for the actual use intended?!
As for the vaccine the data sets are enormous, Billions of jabs, and the processes are well understood which have been around for a decade or more.
I note your avoidance of the questions I’ve asked
“All the data points to far higher hospitalization rates for the unvaccinated”
“data points”, those are the ones you pull out of your ass. In fact, where reliable data is available it’s clear the clotshot recipients are being hospitalized at higher rates than those intelligent enough not to participate in a medical experiment.
Fatkins is a big fat liar on every level. What’s the going pay rate for your level? Five bucks an hour? Or are you a foreign desked individual working for five bucks a day?
@Barry
You’ll have no trouble providing a source for those stats then will you
“Are you that stupid to realise that you need to show efficacy for the actual use intended?!”
Stop moving the goalposts. We’re not talking efficacy, ya big sealion, and you know it. We’re talking safety.
It’s safe. Whether or not it’s effective is not the government’s damn business.
If you are not free to choose wrongly and irresponsibly, you are not free at all.
–JACOB HORNBERGER (1995)
““Are you that stupid to realise that you need to show efficacy for the actual use intended?!”
Stop moving the goalposts. We’re not talking efficacy, ya big sealion, and you know it. We’re talking safety.
What? Your comment made a broad statement trying to show Ivermectin is a great drug by moving the goal posts to a claim no one has made. Wow that’s dumb you managed to name the fallacy that you yourself have just committed. Even if I were being generous to say what you meant was the safety record what’s that got to do with how effective the drug is in relation to Covid.
It’s safe. Whether or not it’s effective is not the government’s damn business.
That presumes the correct doseage and we know from people self medicating that a number of hospitisations were caused by that self medication.
Of course its the governments business! No one wants a free for all with respect to drugs, content, quality, and quality control. Or do you preach big pharma being able to do whatever they want. Daft. Besides which it isn’t banned! What people like me rail against is people using it as if its been proven to be a treatment.
If you are not free to choose wrongly and irresponsibly, you are not free at all.
–JACOB HORNBERGER (1995)
The assumption here is that people have perfect knowledge of all things. Its inevitable that people have to rely on other peoples knowledge which is why we have regulatory bodies to apply actual knowledge. So whilst its great to be free its not great to let idiots kill themselves because they don’t understand something. Like what does to take for Ivermectin for example.
At least we make it to the hospital, as opposed to dropping dead on the playing field, seizing while operating motor vehicles and aircraft, and bouncing off the planks on open mic night.
No Fatkins, I am not.
I believe all should be able to work with their doctor to choose their own treatment plan. You and your side are the “hate filled morons”. Not only are you the “hate filled morons”, you are the criminals who spread this marxist bullshot which has cost people their lives.
Never get this wrong sir, you are the baddies here.
PA is a red state, no matter what fake election results show.
Question did the ‘fake election’ invalidate the senate results too?
UK, Israel, Singapore, Australia, Gilbralter….etc all reporting higher percentage of vaccinated vs unvaccinated hospitalized…but for a guy that seems to be relying on Rachal Maddow for his medical advice I wouldn’t expect you to be any better informed.
@caseofthe blues
Uk – https://www.bmj.com/content/376/bmj.o5
Israel – https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/israel-covid-omicron-unvaccinated-14-adults-100-ecmo-serious-cases-1.10530817
Singapore -https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2748#:~:text=Singapore’s%20health%20ministry%20said%20that,were%200.9%20per%20100%20000.
Australia – https://www1.racgp.org.au/newsgp/clinical/unvaccinated-patients-dominate-covid-deaths-and-ic
Gibraltar is 100% vaccinated so that makes no sense at all
Data doesn’t support your position
My suspicion is that you are misrepresenting the stats. If you talk about vaccinated vs unvaccinated you need to express that as a per x of population in order to compare otherwise you get an erroneous answer if you have a significant difference in population with and without vaccines. Comparing the raw figures would be flawed.
The data absolutely points to the efficacy of vaccines in reducing hospitalization of those with Covid. The data for death rates of unvaccinated is far higher than that of the vaccinated, same with hospitalization and in particular sever cases in hospital.
The quote in the article. “U.S. Food and Drug Administration hasn’t approved it for COVID-19” is very true. However, my understanding is that approval is for the sole purpose of restricting manufacturers ability to market the drug. It has never been that an FDA approval or the absence of one restricted any licensed physician from treating their patients with legal off label medications.
“From the FDA perspective, once the FDA approves a drug, healthcare providers generally may prescribe the drug for an unapproved use when they judge that it is medically appropriate for their patient. …” https://www.fda.gov/patients/learn-about-expanded-access-and-other-treatment-options/understanding-unapproved-use-approved-drugs-label
Off label uses are very common, e.g., perhaps most drugs prescribed for older individuals with neurological and cognitive issues are technically “off label”.
I’m old but unfortunately not old enough to remember when doctors (like lawyers or mechanics) were valuable advisors as to what cures would be beneficial for you to attempt… not gatekeepers tasked with preventing you from being empowered to stray from a federal medical orthodoxy.
The trials against IVM and HCQ were flawed. Tamiflu would have failed the trial model. We can hope that the reason to eliminate these drugs was solely for money… and not population control… like I said…hope.
Dream on
Hard to miss the “paste” form in the photo rather than pill form used around the world and considered only second to the discovery of penicillin in the history of medicine.
Par for the course for “professional” news whores who routinely show clips of people firing machine guns whenever a bill is in the hopper that would ban Granddad’s standard-issue WWII infantry rifle.
The flaws were almost certainly deliberate.
What flaws?
Using the treatment when it was inappropriately late in the treatment cycle fatty.
The trials were set up to fall from the get go.
Nope not true, HCQ was advocated as a treatment option the UK recovery trial for example indicated the following “‘A total of 1542 patients were randomised to hydroxychloroquine and compared with 3132 patients randomised to usual care alone. There was no significant difference in the primary endpoint of 28-day mortality (25.7% hydroxychloroquine vs. 23.5% usual care; hazard ratio 1.11 [95% confidence interval 0.98-1.26]; p=0.10). There was also no evidence of beneficial effects on hospital stay duration or other outcomes. “
All of which means squat if you start the medication too late in the disease cycle. Which they did, every time. By the time you’re hospitalized, it’s too late.
Stop lying to us. We aren’t your stupid tavern mates.
By the way, all this is documented up the wazoo in plenty of places on the Intertubez. Here’s one of the most recent.
@henrybowman
That makes literally no sense, you’d expect a treatment to have some effect on a large sample size even when you get to the stage of hospitalization. We aren’t talking about a virus that kills you in minutes it takes quite a protracted period of time. The vague claim that its not been used early enough is just complete rubbish. In fact thee have been trials in relation to early treatment with HCQ and the results were the same no meaningful effect https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2779044
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanam/article/PIIS2667-193X(21)00058-2/fulltext
With respect to your citation. But disrespect but the study is worthless. Its not even a pre print, never been vetted, data never scrutinized. The methodology is crap – it lumps together multiple treatments as part of ‘protocol 1’ including dexamethasone which has been shown to reduce death rates amongst the hospitalized by a third. Protocol 1 is a mass of treatments and there isn’t the vaguest attempt to sift through what actually might have efficacy just a mindless assumption that its HCQ.
and why the hell do you imply intent on my part I’ve pointed out reasons and facts. Just because it runs counter to your viewpoint. It doesn’t follow that because some ones view is different that they are automatically lying. To be honest you sound pretty triggered.
Perhaps you should be pickier with your sources, reading any old crap does you no credit
“on my part I’ve pointed out reasons and facts.”
Ha, ha, ha, thanks for the laugh fatso.
@Barry
I’ve yet to see anything remotely of substance from you. Getting the strong impression you don’t actually have a clue. As such I’m probably going to ignore you from now on, your a waste of time.
Greed and incompetence are always the most likely culprits.
From the FDA:
“Ivermectin tablets are approved by the FDA to treat people with intestinal strongyloidiasis and onchocerciasis, two conditions caused by parasitic worms. In addition, some topical forms of ivermectin are approved to treat external parasites like head lice and for skin conditions such as rosacea.”
In other words, Ivermectin was a perfectly normal and widely used drug until Trump mentioned it. Suddenly, its very name became politically toxic, even though it was perfectly safe for human use.
The left and their MSM propaganda arm are responsible for the needless suffering and deaths of many thousands just to score political points.
Don’t tell Fatkins. His head will explode. Then he’ll tell you you’re wrong.
Yes, it was.
The only reason anyone brought it up in the first place is that it shows some further effectivness as a protease inhibitor. The protease inhabition was nothing new to these pharma companies as they are currently getting rich on anti-HIV drugs which they have been selling for decades. To stop people from dying of HIV/AIDS they created protease inhibitors, which have been a success as they stop viral spread.
Trust the “SCIENCE” commies. Not just the “POLITICAL SCIENCE”, and you might even become human again.
“The left and their MSM propaganda arm are responsible for the needless suffering and deaths of many thousands just to score political points.”
Nope the left wants decent evidence for its efficacy with COVID. There have been a lot of issues with the trials pre prints and so on for ivermectin making the case difficult to analyse. Presently the standard opinion isn’t that ivermectin doesn’t work it’s that the evidence for it is limited or not rigourous enough.
Its way way more rigorous than ANY evidence for the “vaccines”…so theres that
Nope, not even close. Extensive double blind trials with multiple authorities have validated the full process for the vaccines. Ivermectin cant make the same claim in relation to data and testing. As I pointed out in a comment below there are numerous issues with many of the studies re ivermectin.
Oh, bullshit. The left doesn’t give a damn about evidence. If they did, you’d be hearing nothing but bad news about the side effects of the jab.
Go away.
“The left and their MSM propaganda arm are responsible for the needless suffering and deaths of many thousands just to score political points.”
The left murdered 150 million + people in the last 100 years. You’re a lefty. That makes you complicit in the deaths of millions. It’s what you are, it’s what you do.
It’s why you leftists sent sick individuals to the nursing homes, to make sure the patients already on deaths door died from/with the china/fauci virus. Just common murderers, every one of you.
An interesting article for those who are a bit more critical of ivermectin studies
https://www.statnews.com/2021/08/25/ivermectin-for-covid-19-abundance-of-hype-dearth-of-evidence/
If that’s your standard wait until you hear about the abundance of deaths from the Chinese virus vaccine 🤣🤣
You’d have to compare the Chinese vaccines (there are two) vs other vaccines and unvaccinated. I note the lack of stats or evidence generally.
Yeah my standard is actual facts, with critical inspection of data. Unlike you.
Take all the coof vaccine you can handle, Fatkins. You can have all of mine, no charge. That tingling in your arm is just the vaccine working. Chest pains mean you’re totally safe.
“The reality is Democrats have no need for an early prevention treatment that would stop people dying” Well statistically its the unvaccinated who are dying from Covid and that disproportionately means its republican voters. Its more the case that republicans are shooting themselves in the foot.
“I’m the third world (Africa, India etc) where treatments like HCQ and Ivermectin are widely used for everything its interesting that in spite of vax rates being <10% that deaths due to the Chinese virus are also fucking low."
Do you anything about why that might be? Of course you merely assert its the vaccine because you don't think about anything merely follow like a sheep. Do you know what the median age in Africa is, or the ventilation of buildings, or what measures have been taken?
"Yet instead of helping and encouraging people to get fit and healthy every fucking" and how does that help with the immediate issue? That's a long standing problem in the west, what policy proposals are you advocating, do you favor a sugar tax for example? Saying to people in the midst of a pandemic that if you are old, fat, unhealthy or have an immune disorder that they should get fit doesn't seem very practical.
"totally ignored early prevention" Its called a vaccine
"vaccine that doesn't stop transmission, hospitalization and death and increasing a form of treatment with worrying severe side effects for everyone who takes it"
Actually it does prevent death and hospitalization. The death rates for the unvaccinated are far higher, and the side effects are pretty limited / uncommon. The data absolutely does not support your position.
"while being effective at only killing economies" Actually the economies that had stricter measures have overall performed better economically and done better with respect to mortality/case load
You’re really triggered by other people’s choices, aren’t you?
“Well statistically its the unvaccinated who are dying from Covid and that disproportionately means its republican voters.”
Then take a clue from Napoleon and STFU.
Can you people disagree without being disagreeable? We never talked to each other on this site like you’re doing now.
You must of never read the comments until today then. We get infections of marxist trolls like fatso. They should never be treated with anything but contempt.
“disagreeable”?
Yes, highly. I am disagreeable with the butchers and murderers of millions.
@JoAnne
Apologies if I come across in a poor light. I have a temper and don’t suffer fools gladly.
I have a sense of who is at least not worth replying too now so I’ll try to be calmer in my responses.
Late to the party (because I had to research this short story I remember reading over 50 years ago), but here it is.
It’s titled Behind The Sandrat Hoax (full text available free online). It’s an entertaining 5- to 10-minute read.
Tell me you don’t recognize our government’s fraudulent dismissals of Ivermectin and HCQ almost verbatim starting in chapter IV.