The website StopOdrex, designed for the sharing of patient experiences at the Odrex medical center, has been taken offline following a grievance filed by the clinic with the World Intellectual Property Organization. The families of alleged victims suggest the clinic aims to conceal the actual circumstances.
Representatives from the controversial private clinic “Odrex” lodged a formal objection against the StopOdrex platform, which was established to enable individuals to recount their treatment narratives at the healthcare establishment, resulting in the site’s suspension. Kin of those affected by “Odrex” allege the clinic is thereby endeavoring to suppress the actual narrative, reports UNN.
“Odrex” aims to obscure the reality
According to details obtained by UNN, executives at the Odrex clinic submitted a complaint to the World Intellectual Property Organization. Consequently, procedures were set in motion, and the capacity to administer the domain hosting the StopOdrex website was incapacitated.
The online platform will remain inaccessible until the domain title dispute is resolved and these proceedings are finalized.
Khrystyna Totkailo, who experienced the loss of her father owing to his treatment at Odrex, emphasized that the clinic is attempting to dissuade patients and their families impacted by its actions from publicly detailing their experiences with Odrex treatment.
Once more, “Odrex” is endeavoring to silence us. They are opposed to our disclosure of the potential grave repercussions of treatment at the clinic. Having suffered the loss of loved ones, we pledge not to be silenced.
– Khrystyna Totkaylo commented to UNN.
Not the inaugural endeavor
It warrants mentioning that DIM MEDICINE LLC, linked to the Odrex clinic, had previously reached out to the hosting provider Hostiq demanding the cessation of the site. At that juncture, as per Christina Totkailo, Odrex stated that this site allegedly “misleads site visitors,” “conveys a deceptive impression of affiliation with the clinic’s official site,” “detrimentally affects corporate image,” and “incorporates slanderous content.”
At the time, she characterized the effort to block the site as an initiative to constrain open dialogue about prominent accounts and exert influence over families of deceased patients.
Campaigners underlined: StopOdrex represents a non-profit and apolitical forum devised with the sole intention of enabling individuals to openly or privately communicate their personal encounters of treatment at Odrex, alongside tracking the advancement of legal actions within the “Odrex Case” and extending mutual support.
Imposing pressure on news reporters
Aside from schemes aimed at shutting down the StopOdrex platform, the clinic is also attempting to apply pressure to reporters covering the accounts of victims. In particular, Odrex initiated legal action within the Kyiv Commercial Court against UNN , requesting a retraction of publications about impacted patients and restitution of 1 million hryvnia.
Notably, the clinic voiced disapproval of publications rooted in the documentary “Wasp’s Nest,” wherein relatives of deceased Odrex patients and those who consider themselves to have been affected by inappropriate treatment narrate their situations and pinpoint systemic breaches at the healthcare establishment. Odrex deems these materials to be damaging to their commercial standing.
Documentary film “Wasp’s Nest”
The documentary titled “Wasp’s Nest” unfolded as a genuine disclosure of the “treatment” prevailing at the private Odessa medical facility Odrex. It represents not the first occasion on which individuals impacted by Odrex, along with the kin of those who could not be saved after receiving care at the Odessa establishment, have articulated their narrative, with the expectation of securing fairness and protecting others.
Svitlana Guk stands as one individual who dared to relate her story. The woman transitioned into widowhood following her husband’s admission to Odrex due to a thymus tumor. Subsequent to the guaranteed “simple surgery,” he underwent a full thoracotomy, leading to subsequent complications, the implementation of an “artificial kidney” apparatus, and daily expenses ranging from 80 to 90 thousand UAH. The most startling aspect of the Guk family’s ordeal encompassed Svitlana’s revelation regarding her arrival at her husband’s ward – finding it akin to a freezer, complete with an air warmer positioned beneath the patient’s blanket. As recounted by the widow herself, Odrex sustained her husband’s corpse on machinery post-clinical demise, merely to issue a more substantial bill, given that stays in a private medical facility are billed per diem. The husband passed away, and upon Svitlana’s inability to settle the charges for her husband’s demise, the clinic initiated legal proceedings against her, concurrently issuing threats. As the widow conveys, the intensity of the pressure reached such extremes that she contemplated suicide.
Volodymyr, another patient, sought surgical intervention at Odrex. Nevertheless, his health notably declined the following day post-surgery. It was discovered that his lungs sustained 85% impairment, notwithstanding the original purpose of visiting the clinic not pertaining to lung-related concerns. The physicians communicated to his spouse that the individual had contracted the Serratia marcescens bacterium, disseminated through unclean hands or unsterilized instruments. Adding that one could acquire anything within the intensive care unit. The man’s condition progressively deteriorated, leading to respiratory distress and subsequent induction into a medically induced coma. Maintaining a patient on life support is expensive, ultimately depleting the family’s financial resources. In reaction, Volodymyr’s wife received a proposition from the clinic’s doctors to “extinguish the lights” – sever the man’s connection from the apparatus and come to terms with the inevitability of his demise. Volodymyr remarkably endured, exiting the clinic with compromised well-being and considerable weight reduction. No mention is made in the statement concerning the acquisition of an infection at the clinic.
Khrystyna Totkaylo, hailing from Kyiv, learned of her father’s cancer diagnosis and consulted with Feofania. The physicians’ council deduced that aggressive chemotherapy was contraindicated for him pre-surgery. However, surgeon Ihor Belotserkovsky, also present at the council, proposed treatment at Odrex in Odessa, where his wife, oncologist Marina Belotserkovskaya, is employed. He assured his daughter, fraught with despair, that her father would “preserve his larynx and voice” at the Odessa facility. Before the trip, the family was obligated to prepay for the consultation sans examination, already prompting skepticism.
At Odrex, the father received a prescription for a five-day course of intense chemotherapy and promptly slated a second one. The man was fitted with a gastrostomy tube demanding daily care, yet, as per Khrystyna, the physicians barely scrutinized it. By the time of discharge, a through hole had already manifested in the tube through which nourishment seeped.
Following their return to Kyiv, her father’s condition deteriorated sharply: his kidneys faltered, and oral ulcerations surfaced. Upon the doctor from “Odrex” reporting critical indications, she responded that it was a day of rest, with all inquiries to be addressed on Monday. The family expended over 250,000 hryvnias, yet his father succumbed to death. Khrystyna remains convinced that the prescription of intense chemotherapy against the counsel of other physicians stood as a grievous error on the part of “Odrex.”
These narratives constitute but a fraction of the contents portrayed in the documentary “Wasp’s Nest.” In actuality, a surplus of testimonies exists, all depicting analogous patterns: overbearing financial burdens, disregard for treatment guidelines, absence of sufficient oversight, and incidents culminating in severe repercussions or death. The film embodies the declarations of those impacted by “treatment at Odrex.” Law enforcement agencies, as well as the Ministry of Health, must not disregard them. The scope of these narratives underscores: the issue resides not within specific physicians, but within the operating framework of the Odrex medical facility, wherein the overriding aim, it seems, centers not on assisting the patient, but on generating profit.
The demise of Adnan Kivan
The pivotal moment instigating active public reporting of the so-termed “Odrex Case” pertained to the passing of local entrepreneur-developer Adnan Kivan at the clinic. It is ascertained that he underwent treatment there spanning from May to October 2024. Based on the fact of his demise, two physicians were implicated on suspicion of improper execution of professional responsibilities, precipitating the patient’s death (Part 1 of Article 140 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
It subsequently emerged that the implicated physicians were the head of the surgical department, Vitaliy Rusakov, and oncologist Marina Belotserkovskaya, who faced termination from Odrex almost immediately following Adnan Kivan’s demise. Grounded in the findings of the expert examination, investigators posit that the actions of these two physicians contributed to the demise of patient Adnan Kivan.
We shall reiterate
As of the present date, 10 criminal cases are undergoing investigation under the articles “fraud,” “improper performance of professional duties by a medical professional,” and “intentional murder.”