BREAKING: NY Supreme Court Rules ‘Hospital Does Not Receive Immunity Denying Covid-19 Ivermectin’

Peloni:  It is good to see that some fraction of justice might be had for those who were purposefully denied legitimately prescribed early treatments, the consequences of which led to exacerbating health conditions and untimely deaths of the patient.  Indeed, these healthcare providers actively prevented their patient from receiving a prescribed treatment which had demonstrated a clear medicinal benefit to the patient in question.  Such gross and obvious malfeasance is not protected under the law, not even by the PREP Act (which should itself be repealed, but let us not digress) which currently extends liabilty protections to those who administered medical countermeasures such as the toxic mRNA shots, but provides no such immunity to the non-administration of prescribed treatments, the latter being the relevant action taken in this case which led to the premature death of Ms. Bucko.  While this is a civil action, I still look forward to the day in which everyone involved in withholding the prescribed IVM from Ms. Bucko being prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law for having actively obstructed in her treatment.  Still, the precedent established here is quite an important victory for the Medical Freedom Movement.

I am hopeful that this legal principle will soon be extended to also address the gross malfeasance exhibited pharmacists whose overly bold refusal to fulfill legitimate prescriptions led to medical deterioration of patients under the care of their physician. Actions have consequences and these actions led to the coordinated harm of a great many people.

@Andreafreedom76 | X | May 17, 2024

This case presents the background of Deborah Bucko’s emergency room visit and subsequent hospitalization admission after experiencing common Covid-19 infection symptoms. As you will see, Deborah was refused a prescription for ivermectin multiple times even though the few times she was administered ivermectin, her condition vastly improved. She subsequently died after refusal by the hospital to administer ivermectin.

On February 28, 2021, the Plaintiff-decedent, Deborah Bucko presented to the emergency room at South Nassau complaining of shortness of breath, body aches, fatigue and fever. On the same day, the Decedent was admitted to South Nassau with a diagnosis of “suspected COVID-19″ illness, was admitted and standard treatment protocols were administered. Unfortunately, Deborah did not respond to the standard protocol treatment.

On April 7, 2021, Dr. Robert Clark, the Decedent’s treating infectious disease specialist, wrote an initial prescription for the drug Ivermectin for what he concluded was “end stage covid 19.” Notwithstanding, Dr. Clark’s action, this prescription was immediately placed on hold and ultimately rescinded by the “Hospital Stewardship Committee”, which was allegedly comprised “of senior hospital physicians, department chiefs, and/or administrators” all of whom were acting on behalf of South Nassau.

On April 20, 2021, this Court signed an Order to Show Cause under whereby South Nassau was directed to “immediately enforce Doctor Robert H. Clark’s order to administer the prescription Ivermectin to their mutual patient, Deborah Bucko. Deborah received her first dose of ivermectin on April 20 which continued daily until April 24, 2021, during which time she allegedly experienced “significant improvement” and “required significantly less oxygen, vasopressors, and ventilator support.”

On April 27, 2021, Dr. Clark wrote a second prescription for Ivermectin spanning a period of 35 days “with a stop date of May 31, 2021”, which was blocked and ultimately rescinded by South Nassau, the Court signed an Order to Show Cause once again directing South Nassau to “enforce” Dr. Clark’s “second order to administer the prescription Ivermectin” to Ms. Bucko. On May 5, 2021, the Decedent was again receiving Ivermectin, however, rather than the full 35 day course of treatment ordered by Dr. Clark, the prescription was purportedly “changed” and “the second round of ivermectin was stopped on May 10, 2021.” Subsequently, Ms. Bucko’s “condition rapidly deteriorated” and on May 16, 2021, she unfortunately passed away.

On September 15, 2023, the Plaintiff, Scott Mantel, as the Administrator for the Decedent’s Estate (hereinafter the “Plaintiff”), commenced the underlying wrongful death action referable to South Nassau. South Nassau counter motioned and claimed the entity was protected under the “immunity protection” clause of the PREP Act.

Scott Mantel alleges, with particularity, that South Nassau “acted wrongfully and negligently, by repeatedly refusing to administer ivermectin to Deborah Bucko. Notwithstanding, “having been prescribed” by Dr. Clark and “despite clear evidence in the medical records that Deborah was improving, The factual claims alleged in the complaint, which must be accepted as true and afforded the benefit of every favorable intendment, are unequivocally based upon South Nassau’s “non-administration” of Ivermectin and accordingly the immunity afforded under the PREP Act is inapplicable, the Honorable Randy Sue Marber, J.S.C. NY Supreme Court ruled today.

This is a major win for the untold countless people who were denied affordable, “safe and effective” off label treatments that rightfully could have saved incalculable numbers of human beings. Attached is the NY Supreme Court brief.

May 18, 2024 | 6 Comments »

Subscribe to Israpundit Daily Digest

Leave a Reply

6 Comments / 6 Comments

  1. @Felix

    this is not science.

    You are correct, it is not scientific dogma of which this case is focused, but upon the medical care of a specific patient, who was under the care of a specific physician, and whose specific medical treatment which had been accepted by the patient was thwarted by individuals who had no doctor-patient relationship with the patient, and therefore lacked both the competence and authority to change Ms. Bucko’s treatment plan.

    Also, the doctor in question is not a quack as you suggest, or he would have been removed from his duties by the very hospital in which he was employed as Ms. Bucko’s physician. Indeed, the hospital’s counter suit was based upon the misinterpreted authority of Prep Act which does not apply in the withholding of treatment from a patient.

    Additionally, the law is quite specific as to the use of Off Label drug usage, which includes an overwhelming basis in the drugs which are prescribed routinely for most conditions. Hence, again, there is no basis for the hospital to have left Ms. Bucko to suffer needlessly in the absence of the treatment prescribed by her doctor, who the hospital employed.

    Consequently, there is really nothing more to be proven in this case by the Estate of Ms. Bucko.

    The only remaining questions are how big the judgementmight be against the hospital, and whether the individuals who violated Ms. Bucko’s rights will be held criminally responsible for the crimes they committed.

  2. Peloni

    I guess Sebastien could find a video of two to explain quack doctors and doctoring

    As in

    Quote

    “his case presents the background of Deborah Bucko’s emergency room visit and subsequent hospitalization admission after experiencing common Covid-19 infection symptoms. As you will see, Deborah was refused a prescription for ivermectin multiple times even though the few times she was administered ivermectin, her condition vastly improved. She subsequently died after refusal by the hospital to administer ivermectin.”

    Peloni this is not science.

    You could visualise a thousand reasons why she felt improvement separately from Ivermectin

    That’s why we use science

    Everyone who isnt impressed with Pelonis rhetoric point to me where Wilson lies in 40 minutes video

    Science tested the guts out of this drug

    1
    1
  3. @Felix
    Neither Wilson, nor his guests, nor you, nor I should have any input into what a doctor prescribes for his patient. It is the responsibility of a doctor to care for his patient and it is the responsibility of the patient to be comfortable with the explanations and advice provided by their doctor, but no third party has any authority to come between a doctor and his patient, absolutely none. And this is what is being discussed here. A doctor prescribed a treatment for his patient and his prescription was delayed and truncated by a committee which had no doctor-patient relationship with the patient. There can be no greater evidence of gross and willful malfeasance than this. Full stop!

    In addition to this, however, and more relevant to your off topic comment, Ms. Bucko showed significant improvement after only 4days of treatment, despite the fact that she had been expected to die prior to the IVM treatment. Notably, there is plenty of good evidence supporting the use of IVM as a Covid prophylactic, but it is much better evidenced as a useful treatment for Covid, to which your voodoo critics would prefer no treatment over the use of a known safe and demonstrably effective drug.

    In any event, as I noted, this is irrelevant to the fact that Ms. Bucko’s doctor, who was intimately aware of Ms. Bucko’s condition and the potential benefit of IVM, prescribed this treatment for her. No one else can have any input greater or more authoritative than this, and yet a board of bureaucrats chose to replace Ms. Bucko’s prescribed treatment with nothing. In fact, they let her suffer a prolonged and difficult death while her doctor’s prescription was literally left sitting on the shelf. These are the acts of psychopaths enchanted by such fool’s tales as was put forth by the FDA and its minions of disinformation which I would include your sources. Their efforts to prevent her treatment is a crime and I look forward to Ms. Bucko and her family one day receiving the true level of justice which is due for her murder.

  4. Ivermectin just another con job..
    .fq

    Welcome to this episode of the Aussie English podcast!

    We got another man of science in the podcast today!

    This guy like me is another science lover – he got his bachelor’s degree in Biotechnology and Molecular Biology from Clarion University and his PhD in Molecular Biology from Carnegie Mellon University.

    Meet Dr. Dan Wilson, creator of the YouTube channel Debunk the Funk with Dr. Wilson!

    In his channel, he debunks the claims of anti vaxxers, the covid deniers, and various misinformation that’s circling the Internet.

    This is part three of a four part series, so if you missed the first two episodes, go back and listen to those first!

    Today we talk about the controversial drugs, ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, and what the science says about whether or not they are effective in the treatment of COVID 19.

    We talk about the ethical and moral responsibility of celebrities, with huge audiences hosting controversial figures on their platform who’ve been shown to spread misinformation about COVID in the past.

    We also talk about the recent episode with Robert Malone on the Joe Rogan Experience podcast – they talked about so much misinformation about Covid and Covid vaccines that music artists on Spotify protested against their controversial episode!

    We talk about Pierre Kory and Peter McCullough turning up on the Dark Horse podcast with Bret Weinstein as well.

    We talk about if there’s ever a limit of freedom of speech, particularly when facing something like a pandemic.

    Could it be that politicians and other political figures and public figures are intentionally lying to the public in order to try and achieve a good outcome? — Remember when Dr Anthony Fauci of the US claimed that masks didn’t work early in the pandemic so that he could save masks and other PPE for medical workers.

    https://www.everand.com/podcast/565419490/AE-1123-Interview-Ivermectin-Hydroxychloroquine-the-Ethics-of-Leaders-Influencers-with-Big-Audiences-with-Dr-Access-full-transcripts-bon

    https://www.everand.com/podcast/565419490/AE-1123-Interview-Ivermectin-Hydroxychloroquine-the-Ethics-of-Leaders-Influencers-with-Big-Audiences-with-Dr-Access-full-transcripts-bon

    Lasts 40 minutes

  5. @stevenl

    Crimes Against Humanity were committed!

    The problem with that phrase is that it denotes requiring a greater level of evidence than murder, and history has proven that the judgements are politically motivated and the penalties all too often attenuated. It also suggests a need for something beyond a court of peers, something dependent upon a higher authority than the laws of a single nation, when in fact, there is no authority which should be legitimized to have a higher authority than a state, and all justice removed from the locality in which the crime is committed only provides for a distant justice which explains the imposition of politics into the judgements and the attenuation of the penalties. If a man is guilty of a thousand murders is it really a single crime against a thousand men, or is it a thousand crimes against individual men.

    Hence, when you say this is a crime against humanity, I would ask you, in what court would such villains be tried? Would it be the Hague or its like, where greater crimes are committed in the name of political interests and are disguised as justice? Personally, I would strongly argue against such a thing. Furthermore, the supranational authority of such transnational organizations as the Hague should be shunned rather than empowered. No, I would argue that the likes of Fauci, Ferrar and Collins, of Bright, Woodcock and Gates, should never be so privileged as to place their fate in the hands of anything so remote from the crimes for which they will hopefully someday be charged. Accordingly, as Ms. Bucko was targeted for death by the Hospital Stewardship Committee in NY, I would argue that this locality is where these villains should be charged, and for every life lost, another charge of murder should be preferred against them in the locality where the victim was slain to gain a fair remedy by all parties victimized by these crimes.

    Indeed, I would not support any reenactment of the trials at Nuremberg, for there was too little justice to be found in that ruse of a courtroom, just as there were far too few defendants standing trial in the first place. The slaughter of millions were laid at the feet of so few, and those not sent to the noose were in large part subject to sentence reductions which betrayed what little justice was initially borne from the ruse which later gave rise to the corrupt and morally deficient United Nations.

    Indeed, for the culprits who committed these crimes, their trials should be kept close to the communities which suffered the ill effects of the crimes which were committed, where people can judge right from wrong and good from evil much more efficiently than some international tribunal which has no interest in seeing justice served but every interest in being influenced by political considerations and minimizing the exactment of just remedies for all who were involved.

    Or so I would argue, in any event.