Discover more from The Pulse
Ivermectin Appears To Save Man’s Life After Judge Orders Hospital To Treat His Severe COVID
In early November, a Chicago family won a legal battle to give a father access to Ivermectin to treat his COVID-19. Sun Ng, 71 and a Hong Kong resident, travelled to Chicago to celebrate his grandaughters birthday in early September.
Ng came down with COVID and was hospitalized on Oct 14th. Within 4 days he was put on a ventilator.
After treatments did not appear to be working, the Ng family sought the help of Dr. Alan Bain, a Chicago Internal Medicine Specialist. Dr. Bain wanted to give Ng Ivermectin but the hospital refused. Dr. Bain was also not vaccinated against coronavirus and therefore could not gain access to the hospital.
With no options left, Ng's daughter, Dr. Man Kwan Ng, who has a PhD in Mechanical Engineering, sued Edward-Elmhurst Health.
In court, judge Paul Fullerton asked the hospital, “what’s the downside” to using Ivermectin?
Edward Hospital's lawyers offered three arguments as to why 71-year-old Sun Ng should not be given Ivermectin:
1. There could be side effects.
2. Ordering Ivermectin would violate its policies.
3. Forcing the issue would be “extraordinary” judicial overreach.
One doctor from the hospital even testified that a risk was that there would be no benefit from Ivermectin use.
In his November 5th decision, judge Paul Fullerton firmly disagreed on all counts and stated,
“I can’t think of a more extraordinary situation than when we are talking about a man’s life, I am not forcing this hospital to do anything other than to step aside, [...] I am just asking—or not asking—I am ordering through the Court’s power to allow Dr. Bain to have the emergency privileges and administer this medicine.”
Judge Paul Fullerton
When discussing the side effects of Ivermectin the judge said,
“Number 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, [...] The possible benefit this Court sees is helping save Mr. Ng’s life with this drug."
Judge Paul Fullerton
Following the court order, the hospital allowed Dr. Alan Bain to administer a five-day course of 24 milligrams of Ivermectin, from November 8 through November 12.
After just 5 days, Ng was improving significantly. In fact, he removed his endotracheal himself and left the ICU Nov. 16th. Within five days, he was breathing without any supplemental oxygen on a regular hospital floor.
According to Dr. Alan Bain who administered the Ivermectin,
“Every day after ivermectin, there was accelerated and stable improvement, [...] three times we’ve shown something, there’s a signal of benefit for ventilator patients.”
Dr. Alan Bain
Lawyers for the hospital continue to contend that Ng had been improving prior to the treatment. In fact, they appealed the court decision even as Ng was getting better following Ivermectin treatment.
Sun Ng's daughter stated in a sworn court affidavit that doctors at the hospital told her that,
“He has been in the same state for many, many days…critically ill, [...] someone in his condition being on a ventilator like that has a 10 or 15 percent chance of survival,”
Edward Hospital Doctor
A nurse at the hospital followed up with similar sentiments,
“Stop all this aggressive care and let [her father] die naturally.”
Edward Hospital nurse
The decision by hospital management to appeal the court decision makes you wonder whether they are worried about their patient's health, or protecting their own egos?
The Ng family lawyer, Ralph Lorigo, said this about the case,
“That’s a terrible set of circumstances that people have to hire a lawyer to save a loved one’s life, that is a crime.”
Lorigo had been in a previous trial against Edward-Elmhurst Health system last spring. It was also an Ivermectin case.
The daughter of a 68 year old fought to have her mother given ivermectin. Desareda Fype, won the case and her mother, Nurije Fype, made a full recovery after treatment.
In both cases above, lives were saved that would most likely have been lost, by using a drug with minimal side effects.
World health authorities maintain Ivermectin should not be used to treat COVID.
It's tempting to say the takeaway message here is that Ivermectin undoubtedly works to treat COVID-19 in all cases - but this would not be entirely fair. We cannot know if this treatment would work on everyone else. But that's what open-hearted observation and study is for, and it's not being done at wide-scale right now.
However, it seems rather obvious that Ivermectin did work in the cases discussed. These cases happen to sit alongside thousands of anecdotal cases doctors have been reporting since fairly early in the pandemic .
Given that there is no real downside to using Ivermectin when all else is not working, it seems silly that a potentially helpful drug would be held back from patients who want to use it.
Further, it seems irresponsible and corrupt for many mainstream media outlets and Big tech companies to blindly go along with the fear campaigns being put forth about Ivermectin and its dangers.
We've all heard it be called a horse dewormer many times, yet we never hear of all these court cases where hospitals block the use of Ivermectin, only to have a judge order use of Ivermectin and then the patient returns from near death. Why do we not hear about this?
Have a look at YouTube's policy on talking about Ivermectin and what will be censored or flagged:
"Content that recommends use of Ivermectin or Hydroxychloroquine for the treatment of COVID-19.
Categorical claims that Ivermectin is an effective treatment for COVID-19.
Claims that Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine are safe to use in the treatment COVID-19.
Content that recommends use of Ivermectin or Hydroxychloroquine for the prevention of COVID-19.
Claims that Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine are safe to use in the treatment COVID-19."
What happens when you even mention Ivermectin on YouTube? You can have your video or entire channel deleted. We know because we had ours removed for simply talking about how CNN said Joe Rogan used Horse-Dewormer.
The general public is in the dark because mainstream media won't talk about Ivermectin in good faith, and it appears Big Tech is taking orders from someone to block most content from people who are.
Why is there such a push to not want to save lives when we have something that could help?
What we have done, though, is wait for Pfizer and Merck to develop their own expensive versions of antiviral drugs that happen to do virtually the same thing Ivermectin does, even though they are chemically different.
Even if government wanted to hand over billions of dollars to pharmaceutical companies for creating COVID antivirals, if they cared about people, wouldn't they have given a greater chance to Ivermectin when all else was failing and when nothing else existed?
Of course people will say the science on Ivermectin's effectiveness in treating COVID is unclear. The debate generally consists of people either saying it undoubtedly works or people saying it has no real benefit and is nothing but snakeoil. Both positions are objectively wrong, as this is a more complicated story than that.
Why can't it be that we are still figuring this out? And if we are indeed in a time of crisis, should we not be trying all that we have at our disposal? Afterall, it's not like modern medicine has developed a good standard of care for COVID.
Ivermectin has been shown to be safe for decades. Even if governments were unsure of possible unintended side effects, they seemed to have no issue administering billions of doses of experimental vaccines that we have no long-term safety profiles on.
In both cases mentioned in this piece, families did not have the right to decide how their loved ones could get medical care. Luckily, these families fought to have their personal decision upheld. Sadly, it cost them a great deal in engaging with expensive legal systems that not all would even have access to.
The lack of common sense seen in what the world is doing forces one to have to consider what corrupt agendas might be at play.
Hat tip to journalist Mary Beth Pfeiffer for excellent investigative work on this case.