Opinion
Featured Image
 Andrij Vatsyk / Shutterstock.com

(LifeSiteNews) —Seriously ill patients facing death from late stage COVID infection are increasingly at the mercy of hospital protocols that have a terrible record of saving lives. In fact, nearly all such patients die. This explains why over 1,200 Americans are dying every day from COVID. In a week, more people die from late stage COVID than died in the 9/11 attacks, and yet this is not major news on mainstream media outlets. Getting used to COVID deaths has produced complacency rather than rage.

As we approach 800,000 COVID related deaths in the US, it is important to note that many and probably most of these occur in a hospital. The evidence clearly shows that approved hospital protocols for seriously ill COVID patients in ICUs are ineffective.

Patients suffer on a ventilator, getting oxygen, perhaps a steroid, often with pneumonia and in an induced coma, and worst of all being given remdesivir. Remdesivir has a terrible track record, does not save lives, and has deadly side effects.

Some may ask why doctors are not standing up and fighting for these patients, fighting to save their lives. A physician in Hawaii whom I greatly respect and with first-hand experience of the successful use of ivermectin (IVM) recounted how he wanted to help a family. They had a loved one in a hospital on induced sedation with a ventilator for 3 weeks. He tried to get IVM used. The doctor at the hospital said they had their own protocol, the usual government one, and would not consider using IVM. The family could not get local lawyers to put in the paperwork for a court action. Nor could they find a local independent doctor. And the doctor who told me about this situation worked for a big organization that would not allow him to intervene.

He discovered the reality that no doctors were brave enough to stand up against the entire medical establishment to administer IVM to a dying patient. The patient died a few days later without ever getting a dose. My doctor said it was “[h]eartbreaking. I am afraid the successful stories are the exception. Sad.”

His story is true for almost all US physicians in hospitals. They have capitulated to the evil, ineffective public health system. They would rather let their COVID patients die than truly follow the science and save their lives. So, below is the scientific case for this use of IVM.

The behavior of hospitals themselves is even worse. Attorneys working for families trying get a hospital to allow use of IVM face awful legal tactics to defeat or just delay favorable court decisions until the deathbed patient succumbs. They file endless motions and sometimes go to an appeals court. Anything to fight use of IVM and nothing really effective is done to save lives. Many weeks in an ICU means big hospital bills.

Late stage COVID disease improves due to one special feature of IVM

Patients and their families desperate for a better outcome often find evidence for using IVM. This usually happens after they see their relative getting worse and worse in the ICU as the hospital keeps using the government approved protocol.

In fact, there is some solid medical research that supports using IVM for late stage COVID disease. Peter McCullough, the preeminent medical expert on COVID, agrees there is a valid scientific explanation of why IVM works in late stage COVID infection. Beyond its anti-viral character, it is also an anti-inflammatory medicine.

Here is the title of an April 2021 medical research study: “Anti-inflammatory activity of ivermectin in late-stage COVID-19 may reflect activation of systemic glycine receptors.” It noted that “the clinical utility of ivermectin in the cytokine storm phase of COVID-19 reflects, at least in part, an anti-inflammatory effect.”

An earlier study stated that “[i]vermectin may be a clinically useful anti-inflammatory agent for late-stage COVID-19.” It noted that “it is reasonable to suspect that, in doses at or modestly above the standard clinical dose, ivermectin may have important clinical potential for managing disorders associated with life-threatening respiratory distress and cytokine storm—such as advanced COVID-19.”

Dr. Pierre Kory, widely seen as a leading expert on IVM, has said: “In more advanced stages, the drug is useful thanks to its anti-inflammatory properties. Contrary to many other drugs, ivermectin is beneficial in all stages of the infection.”

Yale University professor and renowned cancer researcher Dr. Alessandro Santin said that he “has seen ivermectin work at every stage of COVID.” He is positive about hospitalized patients receiving treatments like steroids and oxygen also getting IVM. He noted that it can work “quelling the destructive cytokine storm in late infection.” He said, “Ivermectin can really be the game-changer against COVID-19” and reported seeing cancer patients “radically improve their shortness of breath and oxygenation” within 24 to 48 hours of their first dose.

A  medical study of patients hospitalized with confirmed severe acute COVID respiratory syndrome at a four-hospital consortium in South Florida was published in 2021. There were 280 patients with 173 treated with IVM and 107 in the usual care group. There were lower mortality rates in the group treated with IVM as compared to the group treated with usual care: 15.0% vs 25.2%, respectively, a big reduction in deaths. Mortality was even lower for a subgroup of patients with severe pulmonary involvement (whom most court cases are about): 38.8% vs. 80.7% for IVM and usual care, respectively, a very significant result. The study said: “We showed that ivermectin administration was associated significantly with lower mortality among patients with COVID-19, particularly in patients with more severe pulmonary involvement.”

A recent medical research article presented very positive information on successful use of IVM. It concluded “large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease.”

To be clear: this controversial generic has been used globally for many years and is very safe and cheap. The official public health system, however, does not support the use of IVM for addressing COVID despite its very wide use globally, including very successful use in India where it has wiped out the pandemic in most of the country. Normally IVM has been used as an early treatment and with very successful outcomes; this is explained by the drug’s ability to kill the virus in the initial stage of COVID infection called viral replication. The protocols of a number of front-line doctors include IVM; they have used it for early treatment to keep patients out of the hospital and alive.

Using courts to fight hospital opposition

Below are some case examples of critically ill patients believed to be on their death bed who were given IVM when hospitals capitulated to court orders sought by family members, and then fully recovered.

In the past year there have been over 100 court cases trying to get access to IVM for very ill patients, usually patients hospital doctors say have little chance of surviving. Sadly, only about 10% of these legal actions have been successful in terms of saving lives. Hospitals are literally killing late stage COVID victims by withholding IVM and then mounting costly court actions. Few judges have been willing to conclude that what hospitals are doing is not saving lives and that it is medically and morally appropriate to give these patients a chance at recovering with IVM use. There seems to be inadequate use of the medical evidence given above.

Nor has there been strong calls for CDC and FDA to sanction use of IVM as compassionate off-label drug use for late-stage COVID patients.

Case of Sun Ng, age 71

In Illinois a court forced a hospital to capitulate to family demands to give a very sick elderly patient IVM. The hospital used the approved ways to treat the patient, including the unsafe and very expensive drug remdesivir, intubation, and ventilator use for a month in the ICU. None of it worked, and Mr. Ng was given only a 10 to 15% percent chance of surviving.

Ng’s only child, Man Kwan Ng, who has a doctoral degree in mechanical engineering, did her own research and decided that her father should take IVM. The hospital refused. The daughter went to court.

Judge Paul M. Fullerton of the Circuit Court of DuPage County granted a temporary restraining order requiring the hospital to allow IVM be given to the patient. As usual, this hospital refused to comply with the court order. But the legal fight continued. One physician who testified described Sun Ng as “basically on his death bed.” The judge was informed IVM can have minor side effects such as dizziness, itchy skin, and diarrhea at the dosage suggested for Ng. However, the judge said that the “risks of these side effects are so minimal that Mr. Ng’s current situation outweighs that risk by one-hundredfold.”

The judge issued a preliminary injunction that day directing the hospital to “immediately allow … temporary emergency privileges” to Ng’s physician, Dr. Alan Bain, “solely to administer ivermectin to this patient.” (As of several months ago, Dr. Bain had treated over 40 patients with IVM.) But the hospital resisted the order. Then the judge admonished the hospital and restated that it must allow Bain inside over a period of 15 days to do his job. Then the hospital filed a motion to stay the order, but Judge Fullerton denied it, again directing the hospital to comply. The hospital finally gave in.

Mr. Eng passed a breathing test that he hadn’t been able to pass in the prior three weeks, looked more alert and aware. The first dose of IVM showed immediate results, and he got it for four days. He recovered from COVID-19 and was discharged by the hospital some six weeks after admission.

The attorney in this case was Kirstin M. Erickson of Chicago-based Mauck and Baker. She worked with Ralph Lorigo, the leading attorney in this area.

New York cases

Ivermectin was at the center of three successful court cases in three upstate counties of New York involving hospitalized COVID patients – 65, 80, and 81 years old. The three patients were in ICUs and on ventilators when given IVM and had little chance of living. All were given IVM under court order, recovered, and were discharged.

The attorney for these cases was Ralph Lorigo. He has helped many families, being involved in about 100 similar cases nationwide. He was the also subject of an article titled “Ralph Lorigo has built a potentially lucrative brand as the go-to guy for desperate people willing to buck science in the pandemic’s fourth wave.”

Lorigo called hospitals “arrogant” in the matter.

They only stick to their protocols,” he said. “It’s like they think they’re gods. They wear white coats, but they’re not God.”

Absolutely correct.

The case that received the most attention was for a 80-year-old Buffalo woman with COVID whose feisty, take-no-prisoners family took a hospital to court.

Judith Smentkiewicz was on a ventilator when her family was told she’d likely spend another month in the ICU, where they gave her a 20 percent chance of survival. The family did some research and read about IVM’s success. They pressed an ICU doctor to give it and, on day 12 of infection, he did. Within 48 hours of a single dose, Smentkiewicz had improved so much that she was moved out of critical care.

But doctors on the new unit declined to continue IVM even as the woman’s condition declined. The family went to court. The hospital fiercely objected. Smenkiewicz’s personal physician for 20 years was called in.

“We reviewed the limited studies on the use of ivermectin for COVID-19 and recommend she receive 15 mg orally Day 1, Day 3 and Day 5,” wrote Dr. Stephen Scravani in a letter to the court.

The judge ordered the treatment resumed. The result: Smentkiewicz was released to a rehabilitation facility shortly afterwards, recovered from COVID. “

It is a miracle from where she was,” Lorigo said.

— Article continues below Petition —
PETITION: Appeal to Catholic Leaders to reject abortion-tainted COVID vaccines and mandates!
  Show Petition Text
11360 have signed the petition.
Let's get to 12500!
Thank you for signing this petition!
Add your signature:
  Show Petition Text
Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.
Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.

As governments across the globe seek to mandate abortion-tainted Covid-19 “vaccines” on millions of people against their will, medical autonomy continues to diminish worldwide, setting a dangerous precedent for future generations. 

In response, during this Season of Advent, we have an important petition sponsored by Deacon Nick Donnelly of England, which makes the case that reception of the COVID vaccines currently available in the Western World is “morally illicit” for virtually all, if not every individual, in ordinary circumstances. 

The Bethlehem Declaration” has already been initially endorsed by four Catholic prelates, including Bishops Marian Eleganti, Rene Henry Gracida, Athanasius Schneider, and Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, along with ten priests and many scholars, activists and journalists from the United States, Europe, and Australia.

It also provides a compelling presentation, rich with hyperlinked resources documenting that not only are these injections morally illicit, but ineffective, unsafe, and unnecessary.  

Calling mandates for reception of these chemicals “acts of violence” and “criminal,” the document also encourages those facing these difficult situations to exercise the virtue of prudence to the best of their ability while providing plenty of information to assist them in doing so. 

Deacon Donnelly said this manifesto received its name since the Church is presently contemplating the “baby Jesus who manifests the sanctity of life of all babies, created in the image and likeness of God.”  

“Bethlehem is also associated with the massacre of the Holy Innocents by King Herod,” he said. “This petition gives us the opportunity to protest on behalf of these silenced victims of the pharmaceutical industry” who have been exploited and used for the development and testing of COVID-19 vaccines. 

Another signatory, child advocate Elizabeth Yore, called the Bethlehem Declaration “an outstanding document” which serves as “the definitive response to the globalist tyrannical health Madness.”  Encouraging everyone to read it, she said, this petition “must resonate strongly amidst the noisy covid clatter.” 

“I so love the gravitas of this grace-filled and divinely inspired document,” Yore said. 

The Bethlehem Declaration concludes with the following appeal expressing the intention of this petition: 

We therefore respectfully appeal to the Holy Father, the CDF, all Cardinals, Bishops, Priests, lay faithful, and all people of good will to vehemently oppose the reception of these morally tainted, dangerous, and ineffective products, along with the gravely unjust mandates for their reception being imposed upon millions of students and workers across the Christian West. 

 

The Bethlehem Declaration:  
Challenging the moral liceity of the abortion-tainted experimental injections for COVID-19 and calling for universal opposition to ‘vaccine mandates’ 

 'For by His incarnation the Son of God has united Himself in some fashion with every man’ (GS 22). 

 

Whereas the Second Vatican Council rightly summarized the horror of abortion classifying it as an “abominable crime” which also encompasses a “supreme dishonour to the Creator” (GS 51 § 3; 27);  

Whereas St. John Paul II taught all must oppose such deliberate “murder” of the most vulnerable with “maximum of determination” (EV, 58; CL, 38); 

Whereas, the sanctity of pre-born babies, created in the image and likeness of God (Gen 1:27), is gravely violated by their utilitarian exploitation and commodification; thereby furthering the descent of the human race into “a civilization of ‘things’ and not of ‘persons’, a civilization in which persons are used in the same way as things are used” (St. John Paul II, GS, 13);  

Whereas all of the experimental COVID-19 gene-based vaccines currently available in the Western world, are abortion-tainted having been tested or developed through the abuse of stolen fetal cells from the bodies of murdered pre-born children… 

 

TO CONTINUE READING THE BETHLEHEM DECLARATION AND SEE ITS INITIAL SIGNATORIES CLICK HERE 




**Photo Credit:  Mike Baumeister on Unsplash

  Hide Petition Text

Texas case

A 74-year-old man battled his COVID infection for almost a month and was put on a ventilator. Pete Lopez was previously prescribed IVM at a VA hospital but was hospitalized before he was able to take it. The family won a court order against Memorial Hermann in Sugar Land, Texas to treat him with IVM, but the hospital refused to administer the drug. And so, Lopez died. 

Pennsylvania case

Keith Smith, 52, was on a ventilator in a medically induced coma with COVID. His wife got a complicated court order to force the hospital to give IVM, but there were two frustrating days of lawyers negotiating its implementation.

The brief order denied the request for an emergency injunction to force UPMC [hospital] to administer IVM. However, the order directed UPMC to allow the doctor who had prescribed the drug or another physician or registered nurse to administer it under the doctor’s “guidance and supervision.” Like most situations there was a legal battle. After too long a delay, about a month, Smith, who was getting dialysis treatment received his first dose of IVM. Sadly, he died.

IVM works, but if major body organs are devastated with use of the standard protocol, it can be too late for IVM to save the patient’s life.

Virginia case

Kathy Davies was hospitalized for several months. Her treatment included being placed on a ventilator and given remdesivir. Remdesivir has a terrible record compared to IVM. According to attorney Thomas Renz, the death rate for COVID patients prescribed remdesivir (26%) exceeds the fatality rate of COVID patients prescribed ivermectin, which is recorded by the CMS database at 7.2%.

Davies’ family fought for several weeks for her to get IVM. The hospital doctors refused, so the family hired a legal team. The court hearing the case said the patient had the right to try IVM, if it was prescribed by her doctor. But the hospital blocked the doctor.

According to a report from Just the News, the hospital in Warrenton, Virginia, was held in contempt by the court that had authorized the use of IVM treatment for Davies. Fauquier Health had been ordered to provide the dose authorized by the court or it could be fined. Supposedly the hospital agreed to comply following a week of arguing with the court. But it did not.

Next, as the report confirmed, “Judge James P. Fisher, of the 20th Judicial Court of Virginia, agreed with the arguments presented by the Davies family attorney and ruled to hold the hospital in contempt of court and compel the $10,000 a day fines, which could be applied retroactively. The hospital, at this point, complied and allowed the Ivermectin to be administered to the long-suffering patient.”

After 41 days on a ventilator, Kathy received her first dose of IVM and continues to receive it.

Florida case

In November it was reported that a Florida teacher who attracted national attention for trying to get a hospital to give her IVM died from COVID. Tamara Drock, 47, died 12 weeks after being admitted to Palm Beach Gardens Medical Center for treatment. Her husband sued the hospital in an attempt to require it to administer IVM.

“If she had walked out of the hospital, she could have had the medication. Every person in Florida has a constitutional right to choose what is done with their own body,” he said.

A doctor at Palm Beach Gardens Medical Center agreed to give Drock IVM, but the family’s attorney, Jake Huxtable, said the proposed dosage was too low.

Palm Beach County Circuit Judge James Nutt rejected the initial lawsuit. This case brought up ane option that has not been widely seen, namely late stage COVID patients leaving the hospital if they can arrange for an independent doctor to provide them with IVM.

Montana and Idaho conflicts

One Montana hospital went into lockdown and called police after a woman threatened violence because her relative was denied IVM.

Another Montana hospital accused public officials of threatening and harassing their health care workers for refusing to treat a politically connected COVID patient with IVM or hydroxychloroquine; the 82-year-old patient died.

In neighboring Idaho, police had to be called to a hospital after a COVID patient’s relative verbally abused a dcotor and threatened physical violence because she would not prescribe IVM or hydroxychloroquine.

These three conflicts occurred from September to November.

Several Illinois cases

In May, a DuPage County judge ordered Elmhurst Hospital to allow a comatose COVID patient to receive IVM after none of the hospital’s physicians agreed to administer it. The patient’s daughter said she improved and ultimately returned home after an outside doctor gave her the drugs.

A Springfield judge reached a different conclusion, ruling against a woman seeking to force Memorial Medical Center to provide IVM to her 61-year-old husband, who reportedly had been hospitalized with COVID for nearly six weeks.

In another case, friends and supporters of Veronica Wolski besieged Chicago’s Amita Health Resurrection Medical Center with hundreds of calls and emails demanding that Wolski, who was hospitalized with COVID-related pneumonia, be given IVM. The hospital said it did not use IVM to treat COVID, and Wolsk soon died.

In another DuPage case, court documents show thewinding road that led Leslie Pai, a 68-year-old photographer, to Advocate Condell’s intensive care unit.

According to the lawsuit, Pai entered NorthShore Glenbrook Hospital with COVID-19 on August 31. She was already taking IVM as a preventive measure and brought some to the hospital. But, according to the complaint, officials there threw it out, saying it was not allowed in the facility.

The staff at NorthShore Glenbrook wouldn’t budge in their opposition to IVM, the complaint said, so on September 11 the patient’s daughter Tiffany Wilson had her mother transferred to Advocate Condell, where she was placed on a ventilator and put into a medical coma. Advocate Condell doctors weren’t willing to give her IVM, either, so Wilson filed suit in DuPage County, home of the hospital’s parent company. Hayes granted a temporary injunction allowing an outside physician, Dr. Alan Bain, to give Pai the drug.

But things did not go well because hospital doctors said Pai had harmful effects from IVM.The hospital’s lawyers said Pai had received a “mega dose” of the drug, but Jon Minear, one of Pai’s attorneys, said doctors misunderstood the dosage Bain prescribed. He added that her medical records indicated that her condition had improved. In an affidavit, Wilson said her research into IVM led her to believe its risks are “infinitesimally small” and that it offers her mother an excellent chance at a full recovery. The hospital maintained its opposition, and the legal battle continued.

Kentucky case

A judge denied a request to force doctors at a Louisville hospital to treat a COVID patient with IVM. Angela Underwood filed a lawsuit in Jefferson County Circuit Court to compel doctors at Norton Brownsboro Hospital to give her husband Lonnie IVM; she represented herself in the case.

“As a Registered Nurse, I demand my husband be administered ivermectin whether by a Norton physician or another health care provider of my choosing including myself if necessary,” Underwood wrote in her complaint. It was later amended to request her husband be treated with “intravenous vitamin c.”

Jefferson Circuit Judge Charles Cunningham wrote in a ruling that the court “cannot require a hospital to literally take orders from someone who does not routinely issue such orders.”

Cunningham added that Underwood could try to find a hospital that “believes in the efficacy of these therapies.”

“This is impractical because it is likely that no such hospital in the United States, or certainly in this region, agrees with Plaintiff,” Cunningham wrote.

“Moreover, her husband’s medical circumstances may make such a transfer unjustifiably risky.”

Interestingly, initially Circuit Court Judge Judith McDonald-Burkman did order the hospital to treat Underwood with IVM “if medically indicated and ordered by an appropriate physician,” and that judge granted “emergency injunction to administer intravenous Vitamin C.” But Cunningham stepped in as judge at some point.

Ohio case

An Ohio judge ruled that a local hospital cannot be compelled to give IVM to a COVID patient. Common Pleas Court Judge Michael Oster Jr. issued the ruling as a 14-day temporary injunction granted by a different judge expired.

Julie Smith had asked for an emergency order for the use of IVM for her husband Jeffrey Smith, 51. He was in the intensive care unit of a Butler County hospital for weeks. Initially, Judge Gregory Howard gave the go-ahead to Dr. Fred Wagshul’s prescription of 30 milligrams of IVM daily for three weeks, as requested by his wife.

However, the second judge wrote that Smith and her lawyers did not overcome the high burden needed to maintain the injunction. Oster said there no clear evidence that IVM is effective against COVID-19 was presented in court and that he must also consider the rights of the hospital and the impact that forcing a hospital to give a drug could have.

“The FDA, CDC, AMA, and APhAA and the doctors of West Chester Hospital do not believe that ivermectin should be used to treat COVID-19,” Oster wrote.

He said that Jeffrey Smith could be moved to another hospital where the drug could be administered. Kelly Martin, spokeswoman for UC Health which operates West Chester Hospital, said “We do not believe that hospitals or clinicians should be ordered to administer medications and/or therapies, especially unproven medications and/or therapies, against medical advice.”

Texas case with overturned trial court decision

This is one of the most disturbing cases. A three-judge appellate panel overturned a trial court injunction requiring a Fort Worth hospital to allow a dying patient to be treated with IVM.  

The case involved Jason Jones, 48, a Fort Worth-area police officer who was hospitalized with COVID in late September. Texas Health Huguley Hospital refused him conventional treatments, including the antiviral drug remdesivir. He had spent about six weeks hospitalized, was in an ICU, on a ventilator, and in an induced coma.

His wife found Mary Talley Bowden, a Texas physician, who prescribed IVM and testified that “this man is dying.” The trial judge instructed Bowden to apply for temporary privileges at Huguley and ordered Huguley to grant them. Instead, the hospital appealed to the higher court.

Kansas case

“A Kansas man’s family is suing a Johnson County hospital and asks for a court to issue an emergency order that would allow his personal doctor to give him a controversial medication to treat COVID-19,” stated the media.

Deke Belden, 41, was diagnosed with COVID-19 and was taking Ivermectin with several other drugs in November to treat the illness. The lawsuit says his personal physician in Olathe prescribed the treatment.

On November 27, Belden was admitted to Olathe Medical Center, suffering from pneumonia related to COVID-19. The lawsuit says Belden asked to continue receiving ivermectin while in hospital, but doctors and nurses there denied his request.

The filing shows Belden’s parents brought doses of ivermectin to his room, but hospital staff wouldn’t allow them to give it to their son. Belden’s family said his condition has gotten worse since he quit taking the medication, and he was sedated at the time.

Olathe Medical Center also states that hospital policy prevents it from granting Belden’s wish to take the medication, according to the lawsuit, even it if it doesn’t prescribe or administer the medication. 

Belden’s family disagrees, according to the lawsuit, and believes ivermectin is his best chance to survive.”

Conclusions

There is no consistency among all these cases—with one exception. Hospitals invariably fight all attempts by families, attorneys, and courts to get IVM to seriously ill COVID-19 patients. They are totally on the side of the government and refuse to acknowledge benefits from IVM use in late stage COVID-19 disease. Like government agencies, hospitals are unwilling to follow medical science, even in the face of failure of government approved protocols for such patients.

While there has been some success with patients recovering because of IVM, in many cases patients die because they get IVM too late or not an effective dose of it.

Most judges seem unwilling to see the near certainty of death being outweighed by the possibility that IVM can save a life. They are stubbornly wed to the idea that hospitals and their doctors know what works best despite the very high death rate for late stage COVID patients put on the normal protocol.

Hospitals should be required to give the courts the statistics on how many COVID patients die after more than a week in an ICU and how many of those were on a ventilator.

The courts need to see that hospitals are not using medical actions that save most lives of people suffering with late stage COVID disease. Courts must see the use of IVM as a chance to save lives being lost by normal hospital protocols and that medical science supports use of IVM.

Emergency preparation

More people should think about taking these actions:

  1. Have a stock of IVM in your household.
  2. Line up an independent physician who does not work for any hospital or health care corporation, even if available only through telemedicine.
  3. If a loved one is stricken with late stage COVID, is seriously ill, hospitalized and given the standard care protocol, be prepared to take that person out of the hospital (without hospital approval), to your home where IVM can be administered, preferably with guidance on dosage from a pro-IVM physician. This should be considered after just a week or so in an ICU and preferably before being put on a ventilator.
  4. This sounds drastic, but staying in the hospital on a ventilator for weeks in an ICU is in almost all cases a death sentence.

 

Dr. Joel S. Hirschhorn, author of Pandemic Blunder and many articles on the pandemic, worked on health issues for decades.  As a full professor at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, he directed a medical research program between the colleges of engineering and medicine.  As a senior official at the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment and the National Governors Association, he directed major studies on health-related subjects; he testified at over 50 U.S. Senate and House hearings and authored hundreds of articles and op-ed articles in major newspapers.  He has served as an executive volunteer at a major hospital for more than 10 years.  He is a member of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons and America’s Frontline Doctors.

 LifeSiteNews has produced an extensive COVID-19 vaccines resources page. View it here.

Comments

Commenting Guidelines

LifeSiteNews welcomes thoughtful, respectful comments that add useful information or insights. Demeaning, hostile or propagandistic comments, and streams not related to the storyline, will be removed.

LSN commenting is not for frequent personal blogging, on-going debates or theological or other disputes between commenters.

Multiple comments from one person under a story are discouraged (suggested maximum of three). Capitalized sentences or comments will be removed (Internet shouting).

LifeSiteNews gives priority to pro-life, pro-family commenters and reserves the right to edit or remove comments.

Comments under LifeSiteNews stories do not necessarily represent the views of LifeSiteNews.