HARRISONBURG, VA (LifeSiteNews) — It would normally be a violation of confidentiality to discuss a medical emergency in a public forum. I am writing this article for LifeSiteNews to sound an alarm against a rapidly advancing medical tyranny, and I am using the example of one of the current victims of that tyranny to drive home the life and death consequences of our failure to resist that advance.
On September 30, 2021, John Sauer was admitted to Rockingham Memorial Hospital in Harrisonburg, Virginia, primarily for acute respiratory problems brought on by COVID. John was placed on a ventilator and subjected to the standard COVID protocol employed by Sentara Health Care which controls twelve hospitals in North Carolina and Virginia, including Rockingham Memorial. John’s wife, Cynthia Sauer, asked John’s doctor to modify his course of treatment by employing alternative protocols that have been used successfully with patients in a similar condition. These were mostly rebuffed, even after she requested and was granted an ethics consult with various members of the hospital staff.
Under the Right to Try Act, Cynthia then made a formal request for a systematic course of treatment using Budesonide, which has a proven track record of success in treating patients in a similar condition to John’s. She also informed the hospital administration and staff at that time that she was sending a copy of the request to an attorney. She did not say that she had retained an attorney to represent her family; she merely stated that she would have no choice but to retain an attorney if the hospital denied her legitimate request for a different course of treatment under the terms of the Right to Try Act. As reported in an article in The Daily Press:
Right To Try allows terminally ill Americans to try investigational treatments that have passed Phase 1 of the FDA approval process but are not yet on pharmacy shelves. Right To Try expands access to potentially life-saving treatments years before patients would normally be able to access them.
In John Sauer’s case, the course of treatment requested by his wife had already been proven effective in treating patients in a similar condition. In her demand letter to the hospital administration, she wrote:
We invoke our “Right to Try” rights outlined on this fax according to US law (https://www.fda.gov/patients/learn-about-expanded-access-and-other-treatment-options/right-try). Of course, we hope to get cooperation from the doctors and the hospital for the requested proven and low-risk Budesonide treatments for COVID-19, COPD, and ARDS, as the potential benefits are great, the risks very low, and it represents a reasonable option.
Targeted nebulized Budesonide, as you should know, has four benefits:
- it improves the blood oxygen;
- it shuts off the release of the cytokines (inflammatory chemicals);
- it stops the scarring and remodeling which causes permanent damage to the lungs;
- finally, it stops edema.
It is a common treatment with little or no side effects and is commonly given to emphysema patients (John has emphysema) and those with high altitude disease. John was prescribed nebulized Budesonide three times daily prior to being admitted to RMH on Sept 30. He was receiving more at home than he is currently receiving.
Budesonide has been studied with great success. See the following: 1) The STOIC study (https://www.thelancet.com/article/S2213-2600(21)00160-0/fulltext); nebulized Budesonide greatly reduces the time for recovery and increases survival (not nasal inhalers).
2) Oxford (the oldest and most prestigious institution in the world) BRC and the STOIC trial was also supported by AstraZeneca.
3) The PRINCIPLE Study (https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)01744-X/fulltext)
4) Other international studies as well as countless US case studies reported by physicians nationwide attest to the effectiveness and survival rate for nebulized Budesonide. I can cite doctors and specific cases if needed.
5) Peer-reviewed evidence exists for use of Budesonide in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS, which is also a diagnosis in John’s medical charts and in John’s case the doctor noted Severe ARDS) and acute lung injury (ALI). If this patient has a secondary diagnosis coded for either ALI or ARDS, nebulized Budesonide is within the Standard of Care to treat the condition. (see “Effect of nebulized budesonide on respiratory mechanics and oxygenation in acute lung injury/acute respiratory distress syndrome: Randomized controlled study” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5292862/)
6) John has a diagnosis of severe COPD as noted in his medical charts. COPD study: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29127842/
7) In addition, not only has the NIH’s COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines not recommended against Budesonide (see Guidelines p. 210) but they have also acknowledged Budesonide’s “broad anti-inflammatory properties” (see Guidelines p. 216).
We immediately demand an ethics committee meeting if our demands and rights are not followed.
Therefore, We Demand:
That John Sauer be given 1 mg nebulized Budesonide treatment immediately and every four hours per the previous citations. In addition, we demand a current COVID test to determine whether John has an active infection at this time. Please note that we expect the same parameters of testing allowed by your employees to be used.
The hospital administration responded to Cynthia’s letter by telling her that since she had retained a lawyer—which she had not done and had never said that she had done—all future communication would have to take place between her lawyer and theirs. Meanwhile, John’s health continues to deteriorate under a course of treatment that is grossly inferior to the course of treatment that she has requested, the merits of which she has thoroughly documented.
Since Cynthia has now been unjustly compelled to hire a lawyer to represent her family, I am writing to all friends of God, of life, and of the family, especially in the Shenandoah Valley, to ask for your prayers and financial support so that she can fight not only for her husband’s right but for the right of every patient to receive appropriate individualized medical care that respects the reasonable requests of the patient and his primary care-givers.
John’s treatment reflects a growing trend on the part of hospital administrators to impose one-size-fits-all solutions to medical problems—which are handsomely remunerated by insurance companies or government programs that incentivize the use of those treatments. The same trend tends to restrict the freedom of doctors to give appropriate individualized care to their patients and conditions hospital staffs to adopt a mentality of “following orders” from above, whether or not those orders are in the best interest of the patients they are supposed to serve.
If you would be willing to contribute financially to the cost of the Sauer Family’s legal representation, please go to this link – and please keep John Sauer and all the victims of medical tyranny, especially in the Sentara Health Care system, in your prayers.