• State legislatures in Louisiana and New Hampshire are considering bills to make Ivermectin more accessible without a prescription, primarily for treating COVID-19.
• The push for easier access is driven by beliefs that Ivermectin was unfairly restricted during the pandemic and that it offers a safe and effective treatment option, despite the lack of widespread medical consensus.
• Medical experts and some lawmakers oppose these bills, citing a lack of FDA approval for Ivermectin in treating COVID-19 and concerns about potential health risks associated with its use.

Several state legislatures are debating the accessibility of Ivermectin, an anti-parasitic drug, particularly in the context of COVID-19 treatment. Bills have been proposed or are under consideration in states such as Louisiana and New Hampshire to allow pharmacists to dispense Ivermectin without a prescription under certain conditions, like a standing order from a doctor. This move is supported by some lawmakers and even medical professionals who believe the drug was unfairly restricted during the pandemic and offers a viable treatment option. However, this push is met with opposition from other lawmakers and medical experts who cite a lack of FDA approval for using Ivermectin to treat COVID-19 and express concerns about potential health risks and the reliance on anecdotal evidence.

• What: State legislatures are considering bills to allow easier access to Ivermectin, particularly for treating COVID-19, despite a lack of FDA approval for this use.
• Who: Key individuals include Louisiana Surgeon General Ralph Abraham, Louisiana State Senator Michael Fesi, State Representatives Yuri Polozov, Gary Woods, Linda McGrath, Mark McLean, Lucy Weber, Jessica Lamontagne and Sue DeLemus, and former New Hampshire Governor Chris Sununu.
• When: The legislative efforts are occurring in 2025, building on debates and actions taken during the COVID-19 pandemic (2020-2022).
• Where: The main locations are the state legislatures of Louisiana and New Hampshire.

The debate surrounding Ivermectin highlights a broader conflict between political ideologies, trust in medical establishments, and individual autonomy in healthcare decisions. Supporters of these bills often frame the issue as one of patient freedom and access to medication, while opponents emphasize the importance of evidence-based medicine and regulatory oversight. The FDA's stance against using Ivermectin for COVID-19 treatment adds further complexity. The push for easier access, despite scientific consensus, raises concerns about the potential for misinformation and the erosion of trust in public health institutions. The outcome of these legislative efforts could have significant implications for healthcare policy and the balance between individual rights and public safety.

I look at it as a patient-freedom-type-choice and again, they have been getting this drug from some pharmaceutical either in state or out of state or from their veterinary store. And they are taking it daily. My concern as a family doc is if they are going to take it, I want to be part of that conversation.

It is one of the safest medicines available so allowing physicians to do this makes sense.

Let’s really follow the science in this situation. I understand the emotion behind it. I would like to do something that is simple. If your doctor wants to, he or she can write a prescription. We do it all the time, off label. We don’t need to or should legislate that.

Making Ivermectin over the counter will ensure access to the human form of the medication in safe dosing from a pharmacy for its varied uses.

The news media and the government agencies were telling people if you used ivermectin, it was a horse medicine and you were an idiot. And I thought, that’s not right.

State legislatures in Louisiana and New Hampshire are actively debating bills that would expand access to Ivermectin, driven by a mix of patient freedom advocacy and skepticism toward medical establishments. While proponents cite potential benefits and safe usage, opponents emphasize the lack of FDA approval for COVID-19 treatment and potential health risks. These legislative battles reflect a deeper ideological divide and raise crucial questions about healthcare policy, individual rights, and public safety. The outcomes remain uncertain and will likely depend on further debates and potential gubernatorial actions.