Nebraska AG's devastating critique of the suppression of effective COVID therapies
Legal opinions usually aren't terribly fun to read, but if you've been an ivermectin and/or hydroxychloroquine advocate for use against Wuhan Plague, this one definitely will bring you much joy.
It's a rather lengthy and full spectrum opinion issued by Doug Peterson, Nebraska's Attorney General, in response to a query from the state's Department of Health and Human Services as to whether physicians can be persecuted and tormented for prescribing ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine to patients sick with the China Flu. What the AG's response amounts to is a full and complete takedown of the conspiracy to suppress cheap and effective early Covid-19 treatments.
All the players -- FDA, CDC, Fauci, Big Pharma, the media, all of them -- get a glorious and swift kick in the rear end. Portions of it even made me laugh out loud. As far as legal documents go, it's definitely easy reading and understandable to everyone. It seems clear that the AG's office went to some trouble to layout the whole saga in a way the masses can understand without translation by legal scholars.
What follows are some of the most relevant parts (at least in my sometimes-humble opinion), but it really is in everyone's best interest to personally read the opinion in full. People must individually understand what's actually happening for themselves. This is what will enable We The People to course correct and divert from the ruinous path set for us by the overlords.
As to the question of ivermectin as a treatment option:
The Mahmud study–a CRT that explored ivermectin as an early treatment for 363 individuals–concluded that “patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 infection treated with ivermectin plus doxycycline recovered earlier, were less likely to progress to more serious disease, and were more likely to be COVID-19 negative on day 14. And Niaee’s research team found that ivermectin can help even hospitalized patients. That group conducted a “randomized, double-
blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter clinical trial” with 180 hospitalized patients diagnosed with COVID-19. They concluded that ivermectin “reduces the rate of mortality and duration of hospitalization in adult COVID-19 patients,” and the improvement of other clinical parameters showed that the ivermectin, with a wide margin of safety, had a high therapeutic effect on COVID-19.
What initially made ivermectin a target for all the inexplicable slander?
Why would ivermectin’s original patent holder go out of its way to question this medicine by creating the impression that it might not be safe? There are at least two plausible reasons. First, ivermectin is no longer under patent, so Merck does not profit from it anymore. That likely explains why Merck declined to “conduct clinical trials” on ivermectin and COVID-19 when given the chance. Second, Merck has a significant financial interest in the medical profession rejecting ivermectin as an early treatment for COVID-19.
As to the question of hydroxychloroquine as a treatment option:
In 2004, long before the COVID-19 pandemic began, a lab study revealed that chloroquine "is an effective inhibitor of the replication of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) in vitro" and thus that it should be "considered for immediate use in the prevention and treatment of SARS-CoV infections". The following year, another paper explained that "chloroquine has strong antiviral effects on SARS-CoV" and "is effective in preventing the spread of SARS[-]CoV in cell culture."
It is widely recognized in the medical community that hydroxychloroquine is generally safe, so safe in fact that it may be prescribed to pregnant women and "children of all ages."
What made hydroxychloroquine controversial in the first place?
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 denouncing 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."
Interesting note about ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine hesitancy:
As for professional associations' and physician groups' views on hydroxychloroquine, it appears they generally adopt the same position they did on ivermectin. Those like the AAPS who support ivermectin as an option for early COVID-19 treatment generally support hydroxychloroquine too, while those like the AMA, APhA, and ASHP that oppose one typically resist the other.
The AG's conclusion:
Allowing physicians to consider these 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.
To comment, you can find the MeWe post for this article here.