Verdict over ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine

When the pandemic started, news editors around the world fell into the line that SARS-CoV-2 was an extremely infectious virus and that it gave rise to a new lethal illness named COVID-19 for which there was no cure.

Since then, hundreds of scientific papers have shown that there are dozens of medicines that can be used to cure or mitigate COVID-19. 

All of these reports have been rejected or neglected by the dominant international medical authorities. Even the best results have been dismissed by the easy formula that the reports are based on observational data and that more thorough research is needed. And this dismissal has been reported in media. (The critics demand randomized double-blind placebo-controlled studies, which of course there has not been time to carry out.)

The rejection has been especially strong in regard to the medicines that were used by independent clinics and doctors already in the beginning of the pandemic - Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine. Although these medicines have been approved by some local and national authorities, they are still strongly badmouthed by international authorities and the international media.

The Attorney General of the State of Nebraska in the US has now made a study in the matter. It is a thorough metastudy, i.e., a summary of available scientific evidence, to determine whether there is cause to prosecute doctors who prescribe these medicines. Their conclusion is “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.” This was made official in October 14, 2021.

The verdict is based on thorough medical evidence that shows that these two medicines have few adverse effects and very often are efficient against COVID-19. 

Here is the verdict.