At The Blaze, David Horowitz has an interesting piece about what Louisiana’s Attorney General Jeff Landry is doing in an effort to keep ivermectin a viable option for people seeking early-symptom treatment of COVID-19…
“Never have pharmacists been allowed to practice medicine and get between a doctor and his patient,” stated Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry in an interview with TheBlaze. “Most certainly not in middle of a pandemic.”
State attorney general might not be the elected position that comes to mind when assessing the pandemic response, but Landry believes that his counterparts in other states have a vital role to play in ensuring that pharmacies, medical boards, and licensing boards are following the laws.
Earlier this month, Landry became the first attorney general to publicly warn pharmacists against blocking COVID-related prescriptions, particularly for ivermectin. His letter was in response to an August memo from the Louisiana Board of Pharmacy titled, “Do not Use Ivermectin to Treat or Prevent COVID-19.”
In the letter to the board, Landry notes that the FDA has given clear guidance that physicians can always prescribe off-label FDA-approved drugs “when they judge that it is medically appropriate for their patient.” In fact, the FDA has made it clear that there is a particularly strong rationale for prescribing off label if there is no “approved drug to treat your disease or medical condition.” In this case, we are in middle of the pandemic, and pharmacy and licensing boards are not offering patients any other options for treatment of inflammation and thrombosis, two of the main COVID ailments for which there are numerous therapeutics that have been proven effective.
Landry also cites the Louisiana Medical Practice Act, which clearly precludes pharmacists from actively diagnosing and practicing medicine, something many of them have done by asking doctors for a diagnosis before filling the prescription. “Upon reviewing this act, I find nothing that would allow the board to second guess the sound medical judgement of a physician when it comes to prescribing legal drugs to their patients, nor do I see anything that allows pharmacists generally to object to off-label use of FDA approved drugs,” warned the conservative stalwart.
When I brought up with the attorney general the fact that some states have some form of a conscience exception for pharmacists to deny contraception when it violates their beliefs, he found it amusing that suddenly now pharmacists would discover a conscience — against a WHO essential drug in middle of a pandemic. “I don’t know where their conscience was when they were giving out opioids like M&Ms,” retorted the indignant Landry. “Ivermectin is not even a scheduled drug. All of a sudden they found a conscience.”
The whole thing is definitely worth a read, as it brings up an interesting subject. Namely, that licensing boards across the healthcare industry in Louisiana and elsewhere are doing what seems like the opposite of expectations; namely, that they’re attempting to close down personal agency in how to treat the virus.
There are more than 60 studies indicating that ivermectin, which has been prescribed to millions and millions of people for a long time, which won its inventors a Nobel Prize for medicine in 2015, and which is one of the safest drugs on the market, has positive capabilities in treating COVID-19 symptoms and helping people beat the virus.
Which, we would point out, would foster natural immunity to it. That’s something everybody ought to be for, because the more people with natural immunity the closer we get to herd immunity and the faster COVID as a deadly pandemic rather than one more seasonal infection out there will just be a bad memory.
And yet you have these bureaucratic licensing boards out there trying to stop doctors from prescribing ivermectin.
Why?
Well, this is the party line from Big Hospital in Louisiana…
Last summer, there was a lot of talk about if hydroxychloroquine, could be used to lessen your COVID symptoms.
“Is this the hydroxychloroquine of 2021?” questioned WAFB’s Lester Duhe’.
“It is. It’s hung on,” said Dr. Catherine O’Neal of LSU Health. She is also the Chief Medical Officer at Our Lady of the Lake in Baton Rouge.
Dr. O’Neal says she uses Ivermectin to treat people at the hospital.
“I use ivermectin when people come in and I diagnose them with a worm. So, if you have worms if you have parasites in your body, which is fairly rare for the United States, although we see those in other countries,” said Dr. O’Neal.
Ivermectin is also FDA approved for use in animals to prevent heartworm disease.
Dr. O’Neal says, while Ivermectin does have some antiviral properties, the latest studies show it doesn’t work against the coronavirus.
“Through the Spring we got better data. That says it doesn’t. So, now we have to let it go. We’ve tried lots of things during this pandemic, some have worked, some have not. Ivermectin doesn’t work,” said Dr. O’Neal.
Dr. Aldo Russo over at Ochsner Baton Rouge agrees.
“It appeared to have some sort of effect on the virus in-vitro, meaning in the lab. Now when the research continued in humans with COVID-19, the medication was not beneficial at all,” said Dr. Aldo Russo, Regional Medical Director for Ochsner Baton Rouge.
Let’s remember that Louisiana’s hospitals rushed every COVID patient they could get onto ventilators at the beginning of the pandemic, when the federal government was paying some $39,000 per ventilated patient, and the death rate for those people was apocalyptic. Finally, they stopped doing that.
Now, they’re saying you’ve got to have the vaccine and ivermectin doesn’t work.
But we know the vaccine isn’t really a vaccine. It’s a treatment. It seems to reduce symptoms, though there do appear to be lots of “breakthrough” cases of COVID in vaccinated patients. What the vaccine doesn’t do, which a vaccine is supposed to do, is stop the spread of the virus.
Meaning it might be a better treatment than ivermectin. We’re prepared to believe that.
But why wouldn’t you allow people to choose both?
Particularly when there is evidence out there that Drs. O’Neal and Russo of Big Hospital might be wrong. From another piece Horowitz wrote at The Blaze…
Uttar Pradesh might sound obscure to most Americans, but it is the most populated state in India, with urban areas that rival the most densely populated cities in the U.S. Yet, miraculously, despite housing a population of 240 million people, this northern state has been averaging only 24 cases and 0-2 deaths per day in recent months. Despite its size — roughly 73% of the U.S. population — it ranked dead last in cases per capita last week among India’s 36 states. What gives?
The answer likely lies in the 10-letter “I-word” that you are not allowed to mention on social media: ivermectin. Evidently, the global medical junta doesn’t like the over 60 studies vouching for the efficacy of ivermectin against SARS-CoV-2, especially when used early, but there is something better than a study: pure reality of lived experience.
Last year, the northern state of Uttar Pradesh began dispensing ivermectin liberally and encouraging people to take it early on and even preventively. As Trial Site News reported earlier this year, “By the end of 2020, Uttar Pradesh — which distributed free ivermectin for home care — had the second-lowest fatality rate in India at 0.26 per 100,000 residents in December. Only the state of Bihar, with 128 million residents, was lower, and it, too, recommends ivermectin.”
As you can see, COVID has been dead in Uttar Pradesh with the exception of a very brief six-week spike in the early spring. Uttar Pradesh likely would have been the first world experiment of what a given area would have looked like had they been taking ivermectin from day one before a wave hit. Unfortunately, hundreds of thousands of seasonal migrants fled Mumbai and other big cities when the Delta wave hit and all settled back in their villages in Uttar Pradesh, giving them the same spike that every other state got because those people were not on ivermectin. As the AP reported in mid-April, during the surge in Uttar Pradesh, many of these seasonal workers who work half the year in the big cities returned home to their villages. They were likely not taking ivermectin.
But when the state began distributing the drug to everyone, cases plummeted quicker and sharper than anywhere else we’ve seen in the world, and the gains have held for months with record low cases. Dr. Surya Kant Tripathi, head of the Respiratory Medicine Department, King George Medical University, Lucknow, told the Financial Express Online in April that the state began giving ivermectin to everyone who was in home isolation (rather than telling them to do nothing until they can’t breathe, like we do here in the United States).
What Landry is saying is that if people want to try ivermectin and a doctor is willing to prescribe it to them, pharmacists ought to respect that choice. It comes from an evidentiary basis even if Big Hospital doesn’t favor it. And he’s not wrong when he points out that the pharmacists were perfectly willing to fill all those opioid prescriptions for all those years that particular deadly epidemic was blowing through this state and others; that means we’re really not that interested in hearing how the pharmacists have a perch on a high horse from which to lecture us about responsibility.
Science should be encouraging people to try all kinds of things with an evidentiary basis behind them as treatments for COVID-19. If some of them which aren’t harmful don’t work, then fine – try something else. But we’ve talked to far too many people who had COVID and went to the hospital, only to be given Tylenol. We haven’t heard an explanation for why HCQ or ivermectin are snake oil but Tylenol is good medicine for COVID, and frankly we’re not impressed.
Landry is correct on this. It’s time there were some question asked to the Powers That Be in healthcare in Louisiana. Hopefully the state legislature gets curious and begins to hold hearings on the subject. And people with COVID need to be given the freedom to try things which might alleviate their suffering.
<
>
@Michael
Here is a list of private physicians, and 4 are listed in Oregon:
https://aaps.wufoo.com/reports/z1tdq8q714w7gyj/
A more comprehensive listing of telemedicine and doctors associated with AAPS, who strongly support early treatment, can be found here:
https://c19protocols.com/physicians-facilities-offering-early-treatment/
There is also these:
https://myfreedoctor.com/
https://americasfrontlinedoctors.org/2/treatments/how-do-i-get-covid-19-medication/
I am not sure how any of these will work with your insurance, of course, but hopefully some of them will.
The SDS were known to me as MSDS as well, but when the international community adopted them, they were renamed as SDS – I don’t believe there is any difference between them, except now the Europeans use the same ones as the US. Very standard in any company with toxic products on site.
It wasn’t my intention to warn you off the IVM, just to give you all the info I had on it so you could make a sound judgement, as I see you have. Also, if you note the dose amount for the LD50, it is enormous…100ml/kg for Compound A, LOL, that is a lot of paste…
Regarding the pharmacies, there is also a link below to help with pharmacists who think they are physicians:
https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Overcoming-Pharmacy-Barriers.pdf
This is a useful guide to give some talking points to use as pushback on the pharmacist obstructionsf, but in the end it is going to be a state issue, I think, and Oregon is Oregon.
You might also check this out
It is from the link just above. They may be able to help direct you to one of their local suppliers…it might help you overcome any issues you might have with the local pharmacists. No one can afford to have a problem with their supply chain.
Also, I agree with your concerns about India, but generic medications such as IVM are marketed worldwide by a few companies. There isn’t much $$ in them. So HCQ is almost exclusively manufactured out of India, even if it is sold at a local pharmacy. The source for IVM is not known to me for certain, but I know that it is partially produced out of Mexico and India. I am not sure if the US has a local producer for it, but given the pricing difference between the sales in the US and that in India, I would bet against it. Just an FYI.
Also, there are other pharmacies listed on the pharmacy site with Indiamart that appear a bit less, well, Indian in nature. Again, just another FYI.
Sorry, it is a lot to go through, but hopefully some of these will be helpful.
Hi, Peloni. Before I get into the issue of the SDS (We used to call them MSDS, in the resin and paint industry), I checked one of the links you provided. The first one that had an outlet in Oregon was:
https://dir.indiamart.com/
It’s a company in India, that supplies machinery, plastic products, etc. At the moment, I am more confident in the word of a local farm and feed dealer, than in some general firm in India. Nobody here has the flu; we simply want to have a store in hand in case someone gets symptoms; and if it comes to that, I am not afraid to use the horse version.
For prophylactic purposes, though, I would like the “human” version. I don’t know how to get a supply for this. The website at
https://covid19criticalcare.com/pharmacies/
tells me about all the “rights” I have, and all the legal options available to me; but seeing that I do not eveh have a primary care physician (our insurance arbitrarly dropped him, and the one we were seeking to replace him is not taking patients), and my wife’s primary care NP has only seen her once, I don’t know what chance we have of getting a prophylactic prescription. Any help in this department would be appreciated.
Concerning the safety information for “secret” ingredients A, B and C,
1. I assume they showed the product to be safe for use by horses;
2. No toxicity information is given for A, B and C
3. The warnings against ingesting the product are typical SDS overkill. Obviously, it is safe for horses to take medicinal doses.
4. Concerning the 1.86% Ivermectin itself, it was tested on rats, who are anatomically and genetically closer to humans than to horses.
@Michael
I am not acquainted with the horse dosing or the actual compounding details involved in the horse paste, to be honest – I had a horse many years ago but it was kept on a farm with a relative, where I rarely saw it and I was never responsible for its medical care. I know many people are likely employing this avenue, and if they were dropping like flies, we would all be aware of it. Still there are medical issues that could arise subtly and which could appear over time given what is not known. Hence, I would not feel comfortable advising people how to use the horse paste, and I have been asked by a couple of friends on the topic. I will share with you what I did share with them on information that I thought might be of some relevance, all of which is readily available online for anyone to read a understand, to some extent.
I know some drugs are formulated differently for animals, but I am not sure of the details of the IVM paste used with horses, though I have read of it several times, as we all have. Given the current political environment with the censorship and villianization of IVM and general disinformation, I am uncertain where I would find the truth about the concerns relating to the horse medication beyond the Safety Data Sheet(SDS). Anyone who worked in a medical practice, or other trades associated with toxic compounds, will be familiar with these, unless they slept thru the employee orientation, which, unfortunately, many do.
The SDS are an incredibly useful breakdown on a medication that warns the owner and employees of the medical hazards associated with a drug or substance. Looking under section 3.1 of the SDS associated with the Bimectin Paste 1.87% (Ivermectin Paste 1.87%), for instance(https://www.durvet.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Ivermectin-Paste_Bimeda_112015_SDS.pdf), you will see that there are 3 proprietary(read as ‘secret’) ingrediants beyond IVM, which only comprises 1.87%. Proprietary Compound A makes up 80% of the paste. The Secret Compound A, for example, has no GHS classification, ie they are not telling us what type of concerns might be associated with an exposure to the toxic levels of this compound. The same is true for Secret Compound B & C.
Under Section 11.1 there is a chart showing the toxic levels associated with these compounds. The LD50 is the level at which 50% of all the subjects, rats in this case per the chart, actually die from being exposed or ingesting this level of the drug.
So, it’s just information on toxicities and not dosing, sorry. While it’s not the advice you were looking for, hope it helps.
Thanks again, Peloni. I see that a supplier in India ships to Oregon. We will consider this source. At the moment, we have veterinary Ivermectin, which we have been able to obtain locally. We were told that the same dose/body weight ratio used for horses is applicable to humans.
Opinion?
@Michael
Sorry, I lost track where you posted this and it took me a minute to rediscover it. There are a few sites to try to get a prescription filled. The best is likely FLCCC. Here is the link:
https://covid19criticalcare.com/pharmacies/
They list a lot of cooperative pharmacies including some that ship internationally. I will note that I recently read something about issues occuring when shipping IVM to Canada, so for those north of the border, I am not sure if these will help or just create new problems. I suspect that the article was written to intimidate people from doing so, but then again, these people in power are quite fanatical about limiting the use of IVM.
There are two sources of IVM that have recently dried up do to US measures to tighten access to IVM. Also there is currently discussions by the FDA to revoke its approval entirely. That would be a revolutionary step and I believe it is all talk, but with the current crew in power, you really never can be sure. So, I hope this helps.
Thanks, Peloni.
I may have asked this before, but can you provide a URL for ordering Ivermectin (other than horse Ivermectin)? If not, we will just stock up on the horse stuff.
@peloni1986 Thanks very much!
@stevenl
I have a background in the medical field which I left sometime ago, and a little experience in research, so much of the topics discussed on the vaccines and the virus are quite rudimentary to me. I have since pursued a business venture with with moderate success til the pandemic, but my greatest interests lie in studying history. I regret that I have found it important to set aside my ever expanding pursuits in history to parse such daily chores as the stagnating death rate in Israel or the plummeting infection rate in India, but I find it mentally challenging and helpful to follow these matters as they occur rather than reading some corrupt charlatan reporter’s claim about what took place while I wasn’t looking.
My intended purpose here has been to participate in an open dialogue on these matters and help people understand the difference between many nuances of medicine and immunology/virology as best I can, as well as to give light to such things as the consequences of masks and lockdowns. Such medical nuances can carry quite serious connotations, and I know few have the knowledge or background to easily overcome the intimidation of such heafty topics to understand much of what is being discussed. Indeed, much of it is intentionally talked over them – which is too often the point, eg the plied use of Relative Risk Reduction to imply an effective vaccine. I believe knowledge is a powerful tool that should be shared, and I have always bristled at people being talked over to gain their compliance, something that is too commonly demonstrated in today’s society, especially as it relates to the question of the virus and vaccines.
Everything I have stated on this site is publicly available knowledge and freely accessible to anyone on the internet, ie I have no secret inside contacts feeding me facts or info(LOL). It does require the ability to read and understand the journal articles, something I have done since college. It also requires the ability to compare the data and analyze it, something that is not innate to everyone but many here can easily do this as well as I. I also have no difficulty in understanding these matters and how they relate to the immune system or human physiology as it converges with disease progression(pathophysiology, which was always my favorite topic). There is a great deal of information discussed publicly by the physicians and scientists on the two opposing sides of this topic of vaccines. There is also a great deal of information out there that is discussed or displayed in such a way which is intended to mislead people, and sometimes badly mislead them as has been the case with many of the studies supporting the safe and effective vaccines. I wish this was not the case, but it has reliably proven to be so, unfortunately.
treatearly.org
I wonder who is “Peloni 1986” Background?.
Got a lot of info!
The Good, the Bad and the Ugly!
Is Ivermectin more, the same or less controversial than HCQ? A repeat of the HCQ story?
One sure thing, the MSM are complicit in the death of many thousands of people denied access to certain meds!
Who will make them accountable?
@Elijah
There are. I am not sure of your background so I’ll give you a few to choose from.
Here is a list of all the actual controlled studies with IVM, and it has a color coded bar graph denoting the positive/negative findings complete with the associated p-value.
https://c19ivermectin.com/
If you click on the bar graph it will take you to a list of all the actual studies and they can be found broken up into studies that were used in early treatment, late treatment, or prophylaxis. The site has a dizzying amount of info in which you can spend a great deal of time. It is very useful concentration of data.
There is a new meta-data analysis that reviews and analyses the data at the highest level to assess the findings of data on a given subject. Here is the conclusions of the latest meta-analyis on IVM which concluded:
Here is the link for the meta-data analysis updated on Aug. 8:
https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/fulltext/2021/08000/ivermectin_for_prevention_and_treatment_of.7.aspx
There is an organization called BIRD which was formed following an analysis of the cumulative data on IVM last Dec/Jan. The organization that did the analysis is responsible for routinely reviewing medical literature and writing the medical guidelines that can be used to prosecute or defend a doctor when he is sued for medical malpractice in any court of law in the world. The organization works for the WHO in writing such medical guidelines and is still doing so. They were disturbed that their findings were dismissed without comment in England, where they are based, and elsewhere such as the US or Israel. Their concerns grew further when the WHO refused to consider their findings without comment as well. So, they formed an advocacy group called BIRD to expose the very strong evidence for the use of IVM. In any event that is the background for them and here is their site with a great deal of info on it regarding ivermectin:
https://bird-group.org/health-professionals-resources/
Hope this helps. There is a lot to wade through.
those who can think BACK…a few hundred years ago there were
outposts in each north/south/west area ! many families ate whatever made it to
the table ! It tasted pretty good not knowing just what was in it ! a little twig,
bit of a stem,berry,root……families grew strong and look where we are now !
each family had a drug dealer who cared ! Our mothers took good care of us !
they cared lots more for us than the major pharmacies do !
the only outfit that can help us take care of ourselves is SMITH&WESSON !
Eddie
Is there a link for the studies that show that Ivermectin helps people beat the virus?
Very important move Louisiana Attorney General to which everyone of the other AGs should add their support. There is a very important role here to be played by a state attorney general which could have an effect beyond just Louisiana. In support of this, anyone who lives in the US should write your AG a letter supporting such a move as this – regardless of the state politics. These things can have an effect if large enough.
No pharmacist should be allowed to dictate to a MD as to what prescriptions should or should not be filled. They lack both the education and the legal authority to practice medicine. The context offered by their role in the opioid crisis was a very appropriate adjunct. The action here by Louisiana AG could influence the Pharmacy Board itself to change their dogmatic instructions to not dispense IVM, but not likely I believe. It will likely require a judgement in court and that means it really just depends what judge gets assigned to the case, such an unfortunate state of fluctuating standards by which laws are ‘interpreted’ in today’s society.
There is currently a lawsuit by the FrontLine Doctors on behalf of people being precluded from filling legally prescribed prescriptions for the drug by physician in good standing. If anyone has had an occasion in the US to have their prescriptions denied by a pharmacist, they should contact the Frontline Doctors to be added to the suit. This lawsuit will of course greatly benefit from the support of the Louisianna AG as well as any others who might take up such actions as well. Like I said this could have an impact beyond Louisiana.