United States: Nebraska breaks taboo and authorizes early treatment

 Publié le 28/10/2021 à 21:34

Doug Peterson conducted a full-scale investigation Twitter DP

Thunderclap in the State of Nebraska! A careful investigation led by Attorney General Doug Peterson denounces the fraudulent practices of the behemoths of the pharmaceutical industry and the questionable links with regulatory agencies (FDA, CDC). After having analyzed at length the many scientific studies on early treatments and observed the action of these molecules against Covid 19, he gives doctors the freedom to prescribe hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin.

At the request of the Nebraska State Department of Health, on October 15, Attorney General (equivalent to Nebraska State Minister of Justice) Doug Peterson issued a legal opinion that doctors can legally prescribe ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine for treatment against Sars-CoV-2, provided the informed consent of the patient is obtained.

A careful investigation that preceded the decision

Few topics have sparked as much controversy as early treatment with ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, two inexpensive and long-standing drugs, widely used with success in many parts of the world for the prevention and treatment of Covid 19. These two molecules unleashed passions. To lose the reason. The publications are numerous and some doctors still administer them in the United States, even if the regulatory agencies still do not recommend these two drugs while some practitioners are sued for having prescribed them.

Despite this situation, some scientists have published studies in which they provided evidence of effectiveness and the media coverage of some of them showing good results led Dannette Smith, head of the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services ( Uniform Credencial Act) to ask the Attorney General’s office whether doctors could prescribe ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine.

Before making his findings, prosecutor Doug Peterson took the time to conduct a real investigation into these early treatments. For this, he chose to limit his conclusions to the two molecules most used in the world, namely hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, without excluding the possibility that other unauthorized drugs could prove to be promising in prophylaxis or in treatment against Sars-CoV-2.

SEE : Steve Kirsch offers 2 million euros to those who can prove that the treatment recommendations of the WHO and the NIH are correct


During his investigation, he began by taking an interest in the famous article published in the Lancet which denounced the dangerousness of hydroxychloroquine in May 2020. By the discovery of erroneous statistics fabricated by authors who refused to provide analyzed data, he understands that this study is fraudulent. A fraud also recognized by the editor in person who admitted that the article was a “fabrication”, a “monumental fraud” and a “shocking example of research misconduct” in the midst of a global health emergency. Unfortunately, despite the retraction of the authors and the media coverage of its withdrawal, the damage was done since several countries were going to stop treating with this molecule and many clinical trials were canceled or interrupted.

Returning to previous clinical studies, the prosecutor continues his investigation by analyzing a 2004 laboratory study which revealed that chloroquine was “an effective inhibitor of the replication of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) in vitro” and that for this action, it should “be considered for immediate use in the prevention and treatment of SARS-CoV infections”. In 2005, a new clinical trial showed that chloroquine had potent antiviral effects against SARS-CoV infection and was effective in preventing the spread of SARS-CoV in cell cultures.

Citing similar results regarding hydroxychloroquine – a derivative less toxic than chloroquine – widely used since its approval by the FDA in 1955 for the treatment of malaria, he cites several studies showing that hydroxychloroquine not only exhibits capable antiviral properties. inhibit the entry, transmission and replication of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, but also anti-inflammatory, which help to regulate pro-inflammatory cytokines.

On the possible side effects of hydroxychloroquine, he is very reassuring after reading the reports of a group of researchers who conducted a review which found that people who take hydroxychloroquine in appropriate doses “are at very low risk of experiencing adverse cardiac effects, particularly when administration is short-term”.

Indeed, concerns about the safety of this drug are largely due to erroneous data from the fraudulent Lancet study which incorrectly claimed that hydroxychloroquine increased the frequency of ventricular arrhythmias when used for the treatment of Covid. . The researchers recalled in passing that the Covid itself can cause heart problems, and that there was no reason to believe that this drug had changed after 70 years of widespread use and that it could even be prescribed to pregnant women.

On hydroxychloroquine, Mr Peterson wrote that “numerous large observational studies suggest that hydroxychloroquine significantly reduces the risk of hospitalization and death when given to ambulatory patients particularly at high risk in early treatment of COVID-19 ”and that based on its review of the evidence, his office did not find clear and convincing evidence that would justify preventing doctors from prescribing hydroxychloroquine for the disease. prevention or early treatment of Covid, after obtaining the informed consent of the patient “.


The same investigative work is being done for ivermectin.

Its investigation is not limited to the only American territory since its conclusions also relate to data coming from various states, countries or regions of the world. To do this, it draws on studies from a group of academics who compared the figures for Covid patients from countries that routinely administer ivermectin for prophylaxis and figures from countries that do not. These researchers showed that there was “a highly significant correlation in a global context but also by comparing” African countries which regularly administer ivermectin against parasitic infections as prophylaxis and African countries which do not. ” Based on these positive results, the researchers speculated that these results could be related to the ability of ivermectin to inhibit SARS-CoV-2 replication, which likely results in lower infection rates. “

If he began research on verifying the effectiveness of ivermectin against Sars-CoV-2, the prosecutor then went back a few years to find clinical studies that confirmed the antiviral activity of ivermectin. against several RNA viruses by blocking nuclear trafficking of viral proteins.

Struck by the drug’s effectiveness, Attorney General Peterson is also checking the findings of studies on side effects and finding them to be minimal and transient. The latest statistics available through VigiAccess report only 5,674 adverse reactions to ivermectin between 1992 and October 13, 2021, an “incredibly low” number considering that 3.7 billion doses have since been administered. the 1980s, writes Peterson.

As he had done for hydroxychloroquine, Doug Peterson examines the scientific studies with negative results and finds that they contain a great deal of perceptual bias and fraudulent elements. He points in particular to studies on ivermectin which have shown negative results by providing “flawed data which present unsubstantiated claims about adverse reactions” and those which excluded “most of the available evidence”.

From this very careful investigation, the opinion of the Attorney General, based on an assessment of the relevant scientific literature, was issued. He found that most publications showed very significant results for these two drugs since mortality would be reduced by 75% or more when the molecule is used as part of early treatment or sometimes as prophylaxis.

An authorization that comes under the reminder of Nebraska law

While early treatments including hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin are allowed, the Attorney General’s office stresses that it is not up to him to recommend treatment against Covid 19 in particular. However, allowing them to prescribe allows doctors to evaluate other lifesaving tools, preventing patients from being hospitalized, which will take the strain off the already strained healthcare system.

These authorizations are accompanied by a series of warnings to physicians, in particular the obligation to obtain the informed consent of their patient and warnings against the prescription of excessively high doses, reminding that these faults could be the subject of disciplinary measures.

LINK : Senator Ron Johnson and Dr Harvey Risch: “They will never admit their wrongs!”

The attitude of the authorities singled out by the prosecutor

Nothing escapes the eye of prosecutor Doug Peterson who, after a positive opinion on these two molecules, calls on the FDA and Dr.Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases (NIH), on their hypocritical attitudes not hesitating to denounce the inconsistencies of their statements.

When on August 29, Dr Anthony Fauci announced on CNN that there was “no clinical evidence” of the efficacy of ivermectin for the prevention or treatment of Covid, the prosecutor wrote that “this definitive statement contradicts directly the recognition by the NIH that “several randomized trials … published in peer-reviewed journals” have reported data indicating that ivermectin is effective as a treatment for COVID-19 “.

For this, he returns to the change in attitude of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) which now adopts a neutral attitude by proposing no standard of recommendation or non-recommendation – a change from its position of January 2021 where it advised against the use of the drug for the treatment of Covid.

About this he writes :

“The reason for this change is that the NIH has acknowledged that several randomized trials and retrospective cohort studies of the use of ivermectin in patients with COVID-19 have been published in peer-reviewed journals. And some of these studies have reported positive results, including a shorter time for resolution of disease symptoms that have been attributed to Covid-19, greater reduction in levels of inflammatory markers, shorter time for clearance. viral, and lower death rates in patients who received ivermectin than in patients who received another medication or placebo.”

The insecurity of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on the ivermectin file is also exposed when taking advantage of the stories of people who had used the animal form of ivermectin, the FDA, on one of its pages web, had not hesitated to condemn any use of ivermectin to treat Covid 19, acknowledging on this same page that it had not reviewed the data to support the use of ivermectin in patients with Covid 19. Therefore, “we do not see on what basis the FDA relied to denounce ivermectin as a treatment or prophylaxis of Covid-19” wrote the prosecutor.

On that same web page, the FDA said: “Ivermectin is not an antiviral,” which contradicts another of its web pages which cited a study in Antiviral Research that identified ivermectin as a drug ‘which Broad spectrum antiviral activity has already been demonstrated. ” The prosecutor said in passing that the FDA has since removed the line indicating that ivermectin is “not ‘antiviral”.

Finally, Doug Peterson returns to the FDA’s most controversial statement when on August 21, it posted a link on Twitter to its “Why You Shouldn’t Use Lvermectin” webpage with this statement: “You are not. not a horse. You are not a cow. Seriously, everyone. Stop that. ” Peterson denounces “disturbing message not only because the FDA takes a serious matter lightly, but also because it inaccurately suggests that ivermectin is only for horses or cows”.

In general, he deplores the attitude of this regulatory agency which ignores several randomized controlled trials and at least one meta-analysis which concludes that ivermectin is effective against Covid 19. He also regrets that the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have taken a similar stance – unsupported by scientific evidence – and that the media has fueled confusion and misinformation about this drug.

Voir aussi : Ivermectine, de l’indifférence scandaleuse au mensonge criminel

Links of interest between regulatory agencies, professional associations and pharmaceutical companies

The American & nbsp; and international trade associations have issued unfavorable opinions on ivermectin. Relying solely on the suspect positions of the FDA and CDC, the American Medical Association (AMA), the American Pharmacists Association (APHA) and the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP) published in September a statement strongly opposing the ordering, prescribing or dispensing of ivermectin to prevent or treat COVID outside of a clinical trial.

In their statements, these associations referred to a statement by Merck – the original patent holder – opposing the use of ivermectin for Covid due to a “worrying lack of safety data in the majority of studies “.

When asked why the original patent holder for ivermectin would go to great lengths to question this drug by giving the impression that it might not be sure, the prosecutor sees two plausible reasons:

“Firstly, ivermectin is no longer under patent, so Merck no longer benefits from it. This probably explains why Merck refused to ‘conduct trials clinics’ on ivermectin and COVID-19 when given the opportunity. “

” Second, Merck has a significant financial interest in the medical profession rejecting ivermectin as a treatment early stage of COVID-19. [The US government has agreed to pay [Merck] about $ 1.2 billion for 1.7 million doses of its investigational COVID-19 treatment, if it is proven to work in a large-scale trial by course and if cleared by US regulators. “

Merck’s treatment is known as “molnupiravir” and is aimed at preventing the progression of COVID when given at an early stage of the disease. When Merck announced on October 1 that preliminary studies showed molnupiravir halved hospitalizations and deaths, the drugmaker’s share price immediately jumped 12.3%.

“So if cheap ivermectin works better than molnupiravir, or even the same way, it could cost Merck billions of dollars,” Peterson wrote.

Very favorable reactions to the decision of prosecutor Doug Peterson

In admiration of the work done, Robert Kennedy said, “We finally have a leader who places constitutional rights, peer-reviewed science and human health above the profits of industry. Doug Peterson is unwavering and unwavering – a true “hero on horseback” for all Americans “.

“Every citizen – Democrat or Republican – should be thankful for Doug Peterson’s thoughtful and courageous counteroffensive against the efforts of Big Pharma, its captive federal regulators, and their allies in media and social media to silence doctors. and deny Americans life-saving treatments, ”Robert F. Kennedy Jr, president of Children’s Health Defense, told The Defender by email.

Children’s Health Defense President Mary Holland echoed the doctors’ mission: “This advice from the Attorney General of Nebraska allows doctors to become doctors again, without being subject to the influence of government, pharmacists and other people who interfere in the crucial relationship between doctor and patient ”.

This crisis has placed doctors in working conditions that break with the normal mode of care which enshrines freedom of prescription. This freedom, far from being new, has always been enshrined in the highest instances such as the Supreme Court of the United States, which has affirmed that “the use not indicated on the label of medical devices” is an “accepted and necessary practice”. And the FDA has maintained this position for decades that “a physician may prescribe a drug for uses or in treatment regimens or patient populations that are not included in the approved labeling.”

By opposing the economic model of the global pharmaceutical giants and the regulatory agencies that respond more to the demands of financial markets than to public health concerns, Attorney General Doug Peterson is giving medicine back its full place in a reasonable approach to its health. practice.




Finding inspiration and meditation in our 120 m2 villa, nested in the green, with a total privacy. Two spacious bedrooms with one king size and one single bed and seating area. Two bathrooms with shower and hot water. The main bathroom include a full size bathtub. The villa offer a 30 m2 saloon terrace with refrigerator, tables, seats and sofas. Private Wifi.

Photo by Alexandr Podvalny on


Surrounded by plants, flowers and trees this cottage, was built of teak and merbau wood. You will enjoy its numerous carving and “old living wood”. Facing the river, you have direct access to our waterfall dominated by a wooden deck. Adults will enjoy natural water massage in the stream, children having clear small spring water pool to swim and play.

Infos and direct reservation: 0813 3147 6879 or


De nos jours, la population ne cesse d’augmenter avec aujourd’hui plus de 7.78 milliards d’habitants ( 2020). Le nombre de naissances toujours supérieur au nombre de morts montre que la tendance mondiale ne va pas changer d’ici peu. Or, la planète possède un nombre limité de ressources et la surpopulation peut avoir de nombreux impacts sur celles-ci. Certains territoires comme la Chine ou l’Inde possèdent une surpopulation bien supérieure à d’autres territoires et ont déjà dû réfléchir à des solutions pour la réguler afin d’éviter certains problèmes inévitables si la population ne cesse d’augmenter. Préserver notre environnement, notre planète, et les futures générations sont maintenant au cœur des discussions et il est nécessaire de trouver des solutions face à la surpopulation pour les années à venir.

Ne plus avoir d’enfant serait-ce l’acte le plus écolo à l’heure actuelle ?


According to the WHO, 4,682,000 people have died from the pandemic in 20 months. To date, the number of deaths due to covid-19 is 0.036% of the world population over 12 months. We can only be sad for them, but most of these victims already suffered from comorbidities, obesity, cancer, diabetes, etc. and 65% were over 80, many of them had only one or two years of life expectancy.
The social and economic consequences have affected 99.96% of the world population, confinements, curfews, bankruptcies, suicides, distress, job losses, other illnesses not treated in time, deferred surgeries, psychological shock of young children. Is there something wrong in today’s world? Are leaders aware of the damage caused by their decisions? Are they at the mercy of big pharma, and gafas, big winners of the event and their diktats? Do we have the right to ask the question whether private or superior interests have presided over all this maze of decisions and counter-decisions? Most have spent their time copying each other like bad students. Is it foolish or conspiratorial to think that policymakers are simply not up to the task?

Should large and powerful groups be prohibited from owning more than a small percentage of newspapers and other media groups? Because we must realize that they have played a major role in the struggle of ideas, the “good” against the “bad” … often according to their own criteria, see those of their owners. The populations have been mistreated, their rights confiscated, their opinion ignored, brandishing the specter of their responsibility over the course of the events. They were treated like irresponsible children.
Are there not reasonable voices to question those sometimes inaudible or untrue of those who organize the destinies of women and men on this planet?

Subsidiary question: is it not curious (according to the WHO map) that the people least severely affected are precisely those where malaria is frequent? Would there be a link with the prevention of malaria, chloroquine for example?