By TONY MOBILIFONITIS
THE battle against the suppression of ivermectin, probably the most effective treatment for “SARS-Cov-2” (or any variant of corona virus), has stepped up in New York state with at least three families winning court actions to force hospitals to administer the drug to loved ones suffering infections. The recoveries have been remarkable.
The court actions fly in the face of the Biden administration’s Federal Drug Administration, which has issued a blatantly dishonest statement that ivermectin “can be very dangerous”. Oh sure, if you take a livestock-level dose of ivermectin, squirt it on your back like a bull, and you could die. But the drug has been given to humans for 33 years in billions of doses and was awarded a Nobel Prize for annihilating parasitic illness.
Big tech companies Facebook and YouTube and mainstream media are also actively and criminally suppressing videos and other information on a treatment shown to be literally a life-saving medical intervention.
Freelance journalist Mary Beth Pfeiffer, writing for the medical website Trialsitenews.com, says the FDA statement is the lynchpin of COVID policies worldwide and “purports to protect the public from taking over-the-counter ivermectin meant for animals”.
Pfeiffer has also reported on the Yale University professor and renowned cancer researcher Dr Alessandro Santin, who has studied the COVID-19 literature and treated several dozen patients. The practicing oncologist and scientist who runs a large laboratory at Yale believes firmly that ivermectin could vastly cut suffering from COVID-19. How about that for a story BBC, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN etc?
But not all media is willingly blind to life-saving truth. In New York state Dan Herbeck at the Buffalo News reported on the case of John W. Swanson, an 81-year-old farmer from Stafford, east of Buffalo, who was infected and placed on a ventilator, a dangerous and frequently fatal treatment. According to his affidavit he was ‘on death’s doorstep’ at United Memorial Medical Center. When Swanson was given one dose of ivermectin, he started breathing properly again.
But the doctors, probably acting on orders from above, then refused to give follow-up doses. Swanson’s family moved swiftly for justice and his wife Sandra hired the same lawyers who convinced other New York State judges to compel other hospitals to administer ivermectin to dying patients.
TrialSite staff have reported at least three cases where families of elderly or seriously ill COVID-19 infected patients were denied ivermectin treatments. While dozens of studies (see meta-analysis below) 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.
They also carried ongoing reporting on the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) and other reports of the accumulating positive data associated with ivermectin research around the world. This data has apparently been reviewed by family members involved in the New York cases. The families have turned to attorneys including Ralph C. Lorigo and Jon F. Minear of the West Seneca-based Law Office of Ralph C. Lorigo.
In another case, Lorigo’s firm secured a Supreme Court Judge Henry J. Nowak’s declaration that the Millard Fillmore Suburban Hospital must treat 80-year-old New York State patient Judith Smentkiewicz with ivermectin. The additional treatments helped as she rapidly improved, recovered and went home, TrialSiteNews reported.
TrialSite further reported a New York Supreme Court judge Frank Caruso making a similar order for the plaintiff, Robert Dickinson, a doctor and husband of the plaintiff, in his legal request to use ivermectin off label. Rochester General Hospital was compelled to follow the physician and allow the ivermectin treatment.
Ivermectin, a medicine for parasites, has been around for four decades. While not FDA-authorized for use against COVID-19, the drug is legally available in the US and Australia for “off-label” use, i.e. available as a prescription-only treatment for conditions other than those listed on the label.
Eminent Australian professor, Thomas Borody of Sydney, released a triple therapy protocol with ivermectin, zinc and doxycyline in August 2020, but was ignored by medical authorities. However, at the time inquiries for the treatment were received from 57 Australian GPs, 30 doctors from overseas, 184 members of the public.
TrialSite said the US National Institutes of Health “conveniently hedges its position” on ivermectin but does acknowledge the off-label use scenario. “For that, they are to be commended,” TrialSite staff stated.
But they also noted high-level efforts to suppress mention of the drug on media including social media, when their documentary about ivermectin use in Peru was taken down by YouTube. They further discovered that Google was hand-selecting videos involving ivermectin for de-emphasis and hence less or no advertising remuneration, while Facebook had identified any news coverage of ivermectin as “misinformation”.
“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,” TrialSite reported.
“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.”