Pandemic Timeline

Judgments

Ohio judge orders hospital to treat a COVID-19 patient with ivermectin

Tags:

Butler County Common Pleas Judge Gregory Howard ordered West Chester Hospital, part of the University of Cincinnati network, to treat Jeffrey Smith, 51, with Ivermectin.

Everyone seems to be missing the fact that the NIH has made ivermectin an acceptable option for use in COVID-19.  In the current climate, that could not have happened without compelling evidence in favor of doing so.  Ivermectin was approved for human use in 1996.  It is not just a veterinary drug, as some seem to want us to believe.  Ivermectin is on the WHO’s list of essential medicines.  Prior to the COVID-19 narrative, ivermectin was considered to be one of the safest drugs available.  Ivermectin is used for prevention as well as treatment in some protocols.

On September 6, Jeffrey Smith was still alive.  The original order was for 14 days and needed to be renewed.  Butler County Judge Michael Oster refused to renew the order.  He is not the same judge as the one who made the original order.

From the renewal case:

Attorneys for the Smiths argued Ivermectin appears to be working on Jeffrey Smith.

“Over the last three days, his vent setting has dropped. Before Ivermectin, his vent setting was at 100%. His vent setting has now dropped to 50%,” said Ralph Lorigo, Smiths’ attorney.

Judge Oster said Jeffrey Smith can be safely moved to a hospital where prescribing physician Dr. Fred Wagshul has privileges if continued use of Ivermectin is desired.  Dr. Fred Wagshul is a pulmonologist in Centerville, Ohio.  Dr. Wagshul practices about half an hour away from the West Chester hospital, so this is a seemingly viable option for the Smiths.

Remdesivir, the only drug currently being used in most hospitals for COVID-19, is NOT FDA approved.  It is available by Emergency Use Authorization only.  Hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin are both FDA approved and have long track records of safety.

Perhaps it is notable that a “Wrap Up” Smear attempt against Ivermectin took place at about the same time that the renewal case was in process?

The inflammatory nature of the negative reporting in articles about this case goes far to prove an agenda to discredit anything that is not a vaccine in spite of evidence that other options exist.  Pfizer’s Emergency Use Authorization acknowledged that other options existed, but they had not been specifically approved for the treatment of COVID-19.  They used this technicality to push through the approval of the EUA anyway.  It takes time to complete such approvals.  Given the timeframe and apparent motivations, would such approvals have been possible?

Sources:

Related:

See also, on this site:

Comments are closed.