Source: Trial Site News

John W. Swanson, an 81-year-old farmer from Stafford, New York, a rural area east of Buffalo, was infected with COVID-19, on a ventilator, and according to a legal affidavit, ‘on death’s doorstep’ at United Memorial Medical Center (part of Rochester Regional Health). 

Apparently, the patient was given one dose of ivermectin, which immediately had a positive impact, as he started breathing again. But in what is becoming a similar New York State story, the hospital’s doctors then refused to give follow-up doses of ivermectin. And the patient’s family moved swiftly for justice. 

Swanson’s wife Sandra hired the same attorneys that were able to convince other New York State judges to compel other hospitals to administer ivermectin to dying patients, which as TrialSite reported on has appeared to save lives.

In this case, it appears to be working again as Sandra Swanson recently told the Buffalo News: “I definitely think the ivermectin is helping him.” She also told the local press that the hospital has been denying her any visitation with her husband. Veronica R. Chiesi, a spokesperson for United Memorial Medical Center, declined to comment on the Swanson case.

Read below about the unfolding ivermectin saga, including growing evidence of censorship and an introduction to the rapidly advancing TrialSite platform for biomedical research-oriented social engagement.

Thanks to the reporting of Dan Herbeck at the Buffalo NewsTrialSite learned of yet another New York State case where rural or regional hospitals are denying COVID-19 patients ivermectin treatment at the request of families and their doctors.  Thanks to a savvy law firm there, Judges are ruling on the side of the patient.

What’s going on in New York?

There is at least three cases now that TrialSite has reported on in New York State where the family of elderly or seriously ill COVID-19 infected patients were denied ivermectin treatments. 

While dozens of studies from around the world show overwhelmingly positive results, regulatory authorities and apex research bodies are hesitant to accept any of the positive data yet and have pounced on any data that shows neutral results.  

In New York, TrialSite is aware that the ongoing reporting by this media platform, the outspoken Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) and other reports of the accumulating positive data associated with ivermectin research around the world, have been reviewed by family members.

Not easily dismissed by hospitals that refuse to treat the elderly patients, New York families have turned to a couple of attorneys, including Ralph C. Lorigo and Jon F. Minear, both with West Seneca, New York-based Law Office of Ralph C. Lorigo

In one case, Lorigo’s firm got to work to secure a Judge’s declaration that the Millard Fillmore Suburban Hospital treat an 80-year-old New York State patient staring at death from COVID-19 with ivermectin. Thanks to this lawyering work, Supreme Court Judge Henry J. Nowak aligned with the family and compelled the providers to care for Judith Smentkiewicz. The additional treatments helped as she rapidly improved thereafter.

TrialSite followed this patient: thanks to the ivermectin-based intervention, she was able to recover and go home. TrialSite asked why did it resort to this?

TrialSite reported for a second time that a New York judge made a similar order to help save a patient. In this case, Judge Frank Caruso, New York Supreme Court, Orleans County, made a preliminary move for the plaintiff, Robert Dickinson—a physician and husband of the plaintiff—in his perfectly legal request to use ivermectin off label. Rochester General Hospital was compelled to follow the physician and allow the ivermectin treatment.

Hospital Won’t Let Wife See Husband

Sandra Swanson’s next obstacle is to see her husband. She told Mr. Herbeck recently, “They held the phone to his ear, and I read to him a long list of people who are praying for him every day, about 20 people,” she said. “But I need to see him.” At this stage, there’s no way to allow the patient’s wife to at least come to the door to see her husband. 

Off Label Use

Ivermectin, a medicine for parasites, has been around for four decades.  While not authorized for use against COVID-19, dozens of studies show materially positive results. 

At well-established human dosage levels, the drug is safe: hundreds of millions of people are treated with it every year mostly in the tropics for various parasite-borne diseases, such as River Blindness in Nigeria.

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) in 2020 smartly changed their position on the drug to neutral—meaning they don’t recommend for or against in the context of COVID-19. Importantly (and humanely), TrialSite applauded their position: while they won’t accept the compounding positive data from dozens of studies, they also saw enough to adjust their recommendations.

While on the one hand, NIH conveniently hedges its position on the other given what other agencies and regulatory bodies are doing, TrialSite acknowledges NIH as indicating to the market the off-label use scenario. For that, they are to be commended.

Censorship of Ivermectin & other Repurposed Candidates

TrialSite affiliated journalists, such as Mary Beth Pfieffer, have reported on the growing censorship afflicting the land.

The social media companies are at work, possibly in concert with government agency interests and industry to thwart any mention of this drug to the public. Why would that be? The drug is approved for many years as an antiparasitic treatment and very safe.

In fact, the two academics that discovered the drug won Nobel Prizes in medicine. 

TrialSite’s documentary about ivermectin use in Peru, a balanced, totally unbiased film shot completely in that South American nation, was recently taken down by YouTube. Up for ten months with no problems, this documentary is apparently clear that all the physicians involved declared more research was needed. 

TrialSite investigation into its rapidly growing YouTube content library found that Google is actually hand selecting videos involving ivermectin for de-emphasis and hence less or no advertising remuneration. Moreover, Facebook has systematically identified any news coverage of ivermectin as misinformation. But its Facebook that’s now the culprit of propagating misleading information by not letting their viewers hear the truth.

For example, when TrialSite reported on Slovakia’s health authority approving off label use of the ivermectin for COVID-19 as a fact, which it is, Facebook punished those that posted that news link. Now, they claim that the news item was misleading, but it isn’t at all—it was and is fact.

This means that there is a significant misinformation agenda now underway, led by social media companies but reinforced by the interests of at least some pharmaceutical companies and kindred spirit in the regulatory bodies.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) recent warning targeting ivermectin referred to reports of safety problems but didn’t share any examples. TrialSite acknowledges the FDA as not only representing the law of the land when it comes to food and drugs but also the Gold Standard for research quality and controls. It was disappointing as they included no details in their edict—the timing and the lack of substance raised more questions than answers for many.  It was timed close to the report from the Missouri Poison Center (picked up by Business Insider) that there was an increased reporting of overdoses or abuse of the drug. TrialSite pondered all of this in “FDA Now Cautions against Ivermectin: The Vested Interests are Circling the Wagons.” 

TrialSite on multiple occasions tried to reach the medical lead and communications director employed by the Missouri Poison Center to find out more information. Like how many calls relating to ivermectin did they receive? What was the nature of the calls? What was the result or outcomes? We recieved crickets in response. 

Of course, TrialSite’s position is that ivermectin needs more research and that a licensed physician and consenting patient should be able to make a decision on their own if ivermectin is an acceptable treatment for a particular COVID-19 case. Based on mounting data, the regulatory authorities should have considered some form of emergency use—but they didn’t. 

TrialSite’s disappointment with the regulatory and research institute’s lack of interest in ivermectin despite so many positive studies doesn’t damper the spirit at all. Any good and just cause, taking on special interests for example in a highly influenced and compromised society, won’t be easy nor popular. But life’s too short to not take a stand. 

Related: USA: Judge orders Batavia hospital to treat coronavirus patient with Ivermectin

Dr. Peter McCullough blames high COVID death toll on massive censorship of effective early treatment protocols such as hydroxychloroquine & ivermectin


Argentina Ministry of Health Clinical Trial: Ivermectin Shows Benefit Treating Outpatients with Mild COVID-19

Top Yale Doctor/Researcher: ‘Ivermectin works,’ including for long-haul COVID

Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on whatsapp
On Trend

Latest Stories

Dr. Harvey Risch: Hydroxychloroquine, Ivermectin, and Other Therapeutics Highly Effective in Early COVID Treatment

I’ve railed against this in the media that we are a part of, and the way that the propaganda reacts to this is, “Ignore it. Ignore all of this.” I’m saying this now because the general public has to be the one that gets angry. The general public should be furious at the way people have been treated in the country by suppression of these drugs, by that kind of website that suppresses the ability of doctors to practice medicine.

Read More »

A Judge Stands up to a Hospital: “Step Aside” and Give a Dying Man Ivermectin

The judge’s finest moment may have been when he dashed the most glaring myth about ivermectin—that it is not safe, despite decades of use that shows otherwise. Noting that all drugs have side effects, Judge Fullerton listed ivermectin’s effects from a government website.
“(N)umber one, generally well tolerated; number two, dizziness; number three, pruritus; number four, nausea/diarrhea. These are the side effects for the dosage that’s being asked to be administered,” he said. “The risks of these side effects are so minimal that Mr. Ng’s current situation outweighs that risk by one-hundredfold.”

Read More »