My last post suggested that it was very risky for physicians to prescribe Ivermectin and HCQ because the standard of care is against their use for covid, and pharmacists can and are reporting physicians who so prescribe to the medical boards.
The conceptually simple but practically hard solution to this problem is to bar the medical board from disciplining (or investigating) a physician for this conduct and 2. allowing pharmacies to dispense these drugs without a prescription.
And that is what the New Hampshire house has done on March 17, 2022. Here is an article describing the bill and other freedom of choice issues decided by the New Hampshire legislature. https://theohiostar.com/2022/03/21/new-hampshire-house-passes-bill-allowing-pharmacists-to-dispense-ivermectin-without-a-prescription/.
This is a purely partisan issue. Republicans are for it. Democrats oppose it. The bill now goes to the New Hampshire Senate, but the Republicans control the Senate and there is a Republican Governor, so it’s a very good chance the bill will become law.
If so, the Ivermectin access problem in New Hampshire will be completely resolved.
There are other states which have already or are considering doing the former (making prescribing Ivermectin not sanctionable by the board). I suspect (and hope) more states will do so. Some states have gone the other way making it disciplinable conduct.
It would be very nice if California passed a bill similar to this New Hampshire bill, but since the Dems have a supermajority, that might be wishful thinking. I haven’t kept track to see if such a bill has been introduced by a California Republican legislature, but if not, it should be done soon, to raise the issue.
I suspect that if more states pass laws like New Hampshire’s bill, access will increase even for Californias via market forces. And that would be a very good thing for physicians in hard-left Democratic states like California. It would be one less thing for them to worry about as it would eliminate the internal conflict between protecting their medical licenses versus doing what they think is best for their patients.
Good for New Hampshire! I’m looking forward to seeing more states follow suit. This should be high on the health freedom advocates’ legislative agenda as it is a direct attack on the public health/pharma controlled narrative. I think it will be easier now that a year ago because of some new recent studies showing the efficacy of the product, which also supports the narrative that the drug is being actively suppressed in favor of more expensive treatments and to help sell the need for continued boostering of the vaccines. So I think this type of legislative effort is a very, very big thing. Further, I think it might even have even broader appeal than anti-mandate legislation; it might even work in some purple states. This can definitely be turned around!
Rick Jaffe, Esq.