Vaccine Exemption Letter For a 16 Year-Old Camp Counselor

June 6, 2022
 Dear Tall Oaks Band Camp,
 Grace Smith ( not her real name ) is a 16 year-old girl whose parents have asked me to provide guidance regarding the health risks and benefits of complying with the Tall Oaks Band Camp mandate that all counselors be inoculated with the COVID-19 mRNA experimental gene therapy currently existing under Emergency Use Authorization in the United States. Although this medical intervention does not meet the traditional definition of a vaccine, the term vaccine will be employed for ease of use in the below.
 I held a long informed consent discussion with Grace and her parents during which I provided the below data informing my recommendation. Note that the long-held (but now ignored) standard for informed consent requires that I fully disclose the most current and accurate data regarding all potential risks, benefits, and alternatives to COVID mRNA vaccination. Note that my interpretation of the below data was done consistent with the long-held (but pandemic-ignored) Federal regulatory standard that considers any adverse event or death reported in temporal association with receipt of a novel and/or experimental therapy to be caused by the intervention until proven otherwise . I recognize this practice departs from the recently adopted, ethically and morally troubling pandemic standard whereby U.S Federal and State Health Agencies’s dismiss adverse event reports as unrelated to the vaccines until proven otherwise.

 Grace is a healthy teenager without significant past medical or surgical history. She is within normal weight and height for her age. Importantly, Grace has acquired natural immunity to COVID-19 given she tested positive in early March of 2022 after falling ill with fever, cough, sore throat and sinus congestion. Her symptoms began to improve by Day 4 from first symptoms, and by day 8 she felt fully well.
 In the following, I will provide documentation of the informed consent discussion I held with them regarding a decision on whether to pursue COVID-19 mRNA vaccination. In the following, I solely relied on the most current, available data regarding;
 1) risks associated with receipt of a COVID mRNA vaccination
 2) efficacy of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine in preventing illness
 2) efficacy of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine in preventing transmission
 3) efficacy of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine in preventing hospitalizations and death
 4) efficacy of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine compared to the protection offered by natural immunity
 5) efficacy of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine in the prevention of “long-haul” COVID
 6) the risks of a healthy child suffering hospitalization and/or death from COVID
 7) the efficacy and safety of alternatives to vaccination (i.e. reliance on effective early, anti-viral, and anti-inflammatory combination therapy)
 As is standard in informed consent discussions, I first began with a review of the risks of COVID-19 mRNA vaccination.

 1) RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH RECEIVING THE COVID mRNA VACCINE
 Based on the below data compiled from peer-reviewed papers, Life Insurance Industry reports, and analyses of the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) database, it is my conclusion that a humanitarian catastrophe is occurring. This resulted from the rapid deployment of a raft of barely-tested mRNA vaccines in an illogical attemp t to counter a fast-mutating coronavirus. I acknowledge that this assessment contradicts current “medical consensus,” which is that the vaccines are “safe and effective” and that vaccinating against a coronavirus is the dominant public health strategy across much of the world. There are a few reasons which may explain the discord between my personal recommendations and those of health agencies across numerous advanced health economies like the United States.
 One is the dissymmetry between the data that I have painstakingly compiled and analyzed compared to the selective and near uniformly favorable data being disseminated across media, social media, and numerous high-impact scientific journals. One explanation for this discord can be found in recent FOIA-obtained evidence which revealed that $1 billion dollars was paid by the Department of Health and Human Services to U.S media companies to (blindly) support a media campaign to build public confidence in and uptake of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines.
 A second contributing factor to the lack of scientific recognition of this catastrophe is that as of this writing, although over 1,650 case reports and small cases series of adverse events have been published in the medical literature, review papers reporting summary analyses of either the toxicity or poor real-world efficacy of the vaccines have been consistently rejected upon submission to medical journals, particularly high-impact ones. In addition to the rejecting of such studies, a number of journals have also illegitimately retracted papers that reported on the scale of adverse events despite those papers having successfully passed expert peer-review. The few published, peer-reviewed summary analyses that reported on either a lack of efficacy or on the excessive risks of the vaccines have generally appeared in lower impact journals that are systematically ignored by media outlets and academia. I chose to not only include, but to emphasize these important data sources as will be seen below.
 In the setting of such widespread media, social media, and scientific journal propaganda/censorship of adverse vaccine data, the following information is unlikely to be known by the average citizen or physician in the United States. I invite any who want to challenge or validate my interpretations and conclusions to more deeply explore the underlying data sources using the hyperlinked references below.
 Peer-Reviewed Literature
 In this published pape r analyzing data from the pivotal clinical trials used to support the novel mRNA vaccines (i.e. Moderna, Pfizer, and Janssen), Classen compared “all cause severe morbidity,” defined as “severe infections with COVID-19 and all other severe adverse events between the treatment arms and control arms respectively.” His analysis found a statically significant increase in all cause severe morbidity occurred in the vaccinated group compared to the placebo group.
 In this paper by Walach et al , they calculated the Number Needed to Vaccinate (NNTV) to prevent one death from a large Israeli field study. They then accessed the Adverse Drug Reactions database of the Dutch National Register (Lareb) to extract the number of cases reporting severe side-effects and the number of cases reporting fatal side-effects.
 They found the NNTV to be between 200 and 700 to prevent one case of COVID-19 by Pfizer’s mRNA vaccine product.

 The NNTV to prevent one death was between 9,000 and 100,000 (95% confidence interval), with 16,000 as a point estimate (as you will see below, for younger healthy people, this estimate would tend to the higher end of a NNTV of 90,000-100,000 to prevent a single death) .

 They calculated that for every 6 deaths prevented by vaccination, there were approximately 4 deaths reported associated with vaccination, yielding a potential risk/benefit ratio of 2:3 (note that deaths are consistently under-reported to such databases, thus a more accurate risk/benefit ratio for death would likely be inverted).

 They concluded that, “although causality between individual reports of adverse events and vaccination has not been established, these data indicate a lack of clear benefit, which should cause governments to rethink their vaccination policy”.

 In this published paper by Jessica Rose , a world-expert analyst of the VAERS database, she found that, based on the ratio of expected severe adverse events to observed adverse events in VAERS for a number of conditions, the “underreporting factor (URF)” for COVID vaccine-associated deaths was 31. Using this URF for all VAERS-classified severe adverse events, as of October 2021, vaccines were associated with 205,809 deaths, 818,462 hospitalizations, 1,830,891 ER visits, 230,113 life-threatening events, 212,691 disabled and 7,998 birth defects."
 This paper by Ronald Kostoff et al was retracted despite passing peer-review. However, in a personal review of the correspondence between the author and Journal Editor, neither I nor my colleagues were able to find a valid criticism of the underlying data analysis or conclusions. Therefore, I have incorporated this valuable study whereby they used a novel, best-case scenario, cost-benefit analysis which showed conservatively that there were five times the number of deaths attributable to each inoculation vs. those attributable to COVID-19 in the most vulnerable 65+ demographic. The risk of death from COVID-19 decreased drastically as age decreases, and the longer-term effects of the inoculations on lower age groups “may increase” their risk-benefit ratio (although this has not been demonstrated to date as can be seen below).
 VAERS Data
 As of April 22, 2022, in the United States alone 5,309 cases of myocarditis, 782,665 adverse events, 151,796 severe adverse events, and 14,613 deaths have been recorded in the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System following COVID-19 vaccination in the USA. It should be appreciated that the VAERS databases’s main limitation is that of underreporting, by a factor of at least 30-fold . The most concerning implication of under-reporting is in regards to the exponential increases in actual reports of death after vaccination in the past year compared to prior years of all vaccines combined.

 Even more damning is the temporal relationship of these reports to the date of the individual’s vaccination, which some authorities have attempted to dismiss as simply representing “background” deaths. The fact that the reporting of deaths decrease over time from date of vaccination (seen below), infers a worrying causal relationship whereas erroneously reported “background deaths” would instead appear in similar numbers each subsequent day after the date of vaccination.

 Statisticians and analysts working with the Vaccine Safety Research Foundation (VSRF) have estimated the total number of deaths in the U.S caused by the COVID-19 vaccines based on the numbers reported to the U.S Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System. In their white paper , they employed 9 different statistical prediction models and found that as of December of 2021, total deaths associated with the vaccines ranged from 148,000 to 216,000. Using the same methodology for the 14,613 COVID-19 vaccine associated deaths in the U.S reported as of May 16, 2022, the updated point estimate is approximately 599,000 deaths. The data and conclusions from these publications above provide support for identifying the vaccination campaign as the primary cause of the massive increases in Life Insurance claims among working-age Americans beginning in the second half of 2021, as will be detailed below.
 Life Insurance Industry Data
 Most concerning is a recent report of a large, unexplained rise in U.S life insurance claims amongst working age Americans of ages 18-64 beginning in early to mid-2021, timed with the vaccination campaign rollout. In a press conference , the CEO of One America, the $100 billion Life Insurance giant, publicly stated;
 “ what we saw just in third quarter, we’re seeing it continue into fourth quarter, is that death rates are up 40% over what they were pre-pandemic.”

 “deaths in this age group is  4 times higher  than what would be seen in a “one-in-200-year catastrophe,” and that, “40% is just unheard of.”

 “every single other insurance company has also reported seeing the same – what’s most worrisome though, is that the biggest increase in excess deaths has come from traditionally healthier working-aged individuals under 65 – and not the elderly, who are the most susceptible to the Covid-19 virus.”

 “we are seeing, right now, the highest death rates we have seen in the history of this business – [and] not just at OneAmerica, the data is consistent across every player in that business.”

 Financial analyst and former Blackrock Managing Director, Edward Dowd, reported similar historic increases in death claims over the same time period from discussions with major U.S life insurance industry executives; 57% for Lincoln National, 41% for Prudential, 32% for Hartford, 24% for MetLife and 21% for RGA.
 In line with these data, a publicly available quarterly report by the Group Life Insurance Industry, covering roughly 90% of the employer-based policies, reported on Page 23 that younger age groups were suddenly dying at historically unprecedented rates beginning in Q3 of 2021.
 The timing and magnitude of the historic rise in death and disability are also seen in  German health insurance  claims data and  Medicare billing data .
 Epidemiologic Data
 An article published in the journal Nature reported:
 increases of over 25% in the number of ambulance calls in response to cardiac arrests (CA) and acute coronary syndromes (ACS or “heart attacks”) for young people people in the 16–39 age group during the COVID-19 vaccination rollout in Israel (January–May, 2021) compared with the same period of time in prior years (2019 and 2020).

 a robust and statistically significant association between the weekly CA and ACS call counts and the rates of 1st and 2nd vaccine doses administered to this age group. Note they found no observed statistically significant association between COVID-19 infection rates and the CA and ACS call counts .

 findings that aligned with previous studies showing that increases in overall CA incidence were not always associated with higher COVID-19 infections rates at a population level, and that the stability of hospitalization rates related to myocardial infarction throughout the initial COVID-19 wave compared to pre-pandemic baselines in Israel.

 findings that mirrored reports of increased emergency department visits with cardiovascular complaints during the vaccination rollout in Germany as well as increased EMS calls for cardiac incidents in Scotland .

 In line with the above, as a result of a FOIA application in the state of Massachusetts, an analysis of the now publicly available death certificate data found that during 2020, the predominant cause of rises in all cause mortality were due to “ respiratory causes ,” (i.e. excess mortality from COVID-19) while in 2021, the predominant causes were “ cardiovascular .” The analyst concluded, “the official Massachusetts database of death certificates contains proof that C19 vaccines killed thousands of people in Massachusetts in 2021.”
 Equally alarming are the massive rise in deaths among healthy, young professional athletes from around the world. Since the vaccination campaign was initiated, and as of June 4, 2022, there were approximately 1,090 athletes that suffered a cardiac arrest, with 715 of them dying as a result. The majority of arrests occurred in competition or training. The frequency of these events in comparison to historical data is highly concerning. In a 2009 review of professional athletes deaths , published in a prominent European Cardiology journal, they found that from 1966 to 2004, there was an average of only 29 sudden athlete deaths per year worldwide . Compare this number to just the month of January 2022 alone where 127 collapses and 87 deaths among professional athletes were reported. Overall, these athlete deaths reflect an approximately 22-fold increase in the year after the introduction of COVID vaccines, to date unexplained by other identifiable causes.
 On March 10, attorney Matt Staver of Liberty Counsel presented data in court showing 127 VAERS-reported COVID vaccine-related deaths in the military in 2021. That is more than  the 93 reported COVID deaths  in the military since the beginning of the pandemic. Note that COVID deaths tend to be overestimated, while VAERS-reported deaths, especially in the military, are severely underreported.
 The CDC data provided in this article shows the timing of the start and the steady rise in all-cause mortality of working-age adults in the U.S, both overlapping with the start of the mass vaccination campaign. Although alternate causes of this historic rise in death have been considered, (i.e. COVID deaths, deaths of despair etc), the number of deaths from these causes is insufficient to explain the overall rise.
 Rises in Disability
 Associated with the massive rises in death claims are disability claims. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) surveys 60k households monthly to estimate the unemployment rate, and in this survey, asks households about disabilities as well. From the BLS data , for Americans over the age of 16:
 * After declining in 2020 (and stable for five years prior), in Dec 2020 there were 29.9 million Americans disabled. This is a disability rate of 11.4%.
 * At year end 2021, there were 32.4 million Americans disabled. This is an increase of 2.5 million people and a disability rate of 12.4%. This is a record number and record percentage rate.
 * As of May 2022 there were 32.7 millionAmericans disabled. This is an increase of 2.9 million people since Dec 2020, the start of mass vaccinations. This is again a record number and percentage rate.
 If you look at the charts below you can see that 1.8 million of the increase came in spring 2021 with another increase in fall 2021.  Given the strong overlap with the broad vaccination campaign in spring of 2021 followed by vaccine mandates in fall of 2021, it is consistent with the vaccine injury hypothesis as detailed in the data above.

 In particular, the increase of 2.9 million disabled since December of 2020 represents more than 1% of the 263 million Americans over age 16. These Americans were all newly disabled in 2021 from some injurious societal or environmental develo[ment or exposure beginning in 2021, and not in 2020. It should be noted that these data reflect only a portion of the extent of injuries occurring given that it is likely that far more Americans suffered less debilitating adverse consequences.
 On Feb. 10, the Israeli Health Ministry  published  the results of a survey of adverse events among roughly 2,000 random Israelis who received booster shots. Although many could be thought of as minor, it is concerning that 51% of the women and 35% of the men who experienced a side effect reported that, as a result, they had difficulty performing daily activities. A total of 4.5% of those who received booster doses reported neurological side effects.
 Further, in the documents related to a recent FOIA request, in the Pfizer informed consent document ( p. 5 ) it was revealed that the company recognized the risk of myocarditis to be as high as 1 in 1,000. In 2022, with many fewer vaccines administered compared to 2021, the rate of myocarditis  reports to VAERS  is averaging 245% higher than last year. The myocarditis is overwhelmingly found in young adults like Grace.
 In addition,  military whistleblowers leaked data from a Department of Defense database, showing major increases in a large number of diagnoses in 2021 compared to the stable average over the years 2016-2020. They found that in 2021, among military service members, there was a 988% increase in all diseases and injuries, a 218% increase in cancer diagnoses, a 374% increase in female infertility, 221% increase in dysmenorrhea, and a 183% increase in spontaneous abortions, with these latter findings of great concern to the future reproductive health of a young woman like Grace. Later claims by the Department of Defense that the prior year illness frequencies were erroneous and caused by “data corruption during a server migration” is simply not credible given this supposed error was “corrected” only after the whistleblowers reported. Further, these morbidity increases are consistent with all the other data sources presented above.

 2) EFFICACY IN PREVENTION OF COVID-19
 Using up-to-date data (i.e. last 3-6 months to today) from a wide selection of public health sources including the U.S, Denmark, Israel, Australia, and the UK, the current estimate of the protective efficacy from contracting COVID is one of either “negative efficacy” or rapidly waning efficacy such that potential benefits, if any, are demonstrably short-lived. Further, given the above alarming estimates of the real-world risks of the vaccines, I focused on the most conservative data estimates of efficacy to determine “the minimum of what COVID-19 vaccinations can achieve.” I base this approach on the fact that Grace is young and has both natural immunity and a robust health status.
 It must be acknowledged that accurately interpreting epidiomiologic data to determine the relationship between vaccination status and the risk of contracting COVID is both challenging and complicated given;
 1) the unmeasured confounding variables associated with an individual’s vaccination status (i.e. age, co-morbidities, behaviors)
 2) the rapidly changing and often inconsistent definitions of what it means to be vaccinated (dependent upon varying numbers of vaccinations during different periods, varied vaccine types and schedules, and varied time windows from last vaccination).
 3) the definition of a COVID case (tested, untested, false positive, false negative), the definition of a COVID death (“with COVID” vs. “from COVID,” with the latter likely overestimated due to hospital financial incentives created during the Pandemic).
 4) the exclusion from efficacy calculations of the surprisingly large numbers of COVID infections and deaths suffered by the recently vaccinated (i.e. within 14 days of vaccination).
 With the above caveats in mind, my best assessment of the below data indicate that vaccinated individuals are more likely to fall ill with the variants now in circulation. This may not have been the case earlier in the global vaccination campaign but is unfortunately the case now. There are several possible explanations for this finding. Chief among them is that the current mRNA vaccines were formulated using the genetic sequences of the original “Wuhan” strain of SARS-CoV2 from over 2 years ago. Given SARS-CoV2 is a highly mutagenic virus, many dozens of variants have since emerged, with several strains exhibiting sudden, multiple, and major pathogenically important mutations, particularly within the original spike protein to which the mRNA sequences are directed.
 The major mutations have been “named” and each have many subvariants. The Delta variant phase in the U.S ran from approximately June of 2021 to January 2022, after which the Omicron variant has predominated, and we are currently seeing rising cases from sub-variants of this strain. Omicron deserves mention as it is phylogenetically different from both Delta and the original Wuhan strain. This is likely the most accurate explanation as to why, in the setting of what are now “non-neutralizing” antibodies, this paradoxically makes “Wuhan strain” vaccinated individuals more susceptible as follows;
 Stanford researchers found  that “prior vaccination with Wuhan-Hu-1-like antigens followed by infection with Alpha or Delta variants gives rise to plasma antibody responses with apparent Wuhan-Hu-1-specific imprinting manifesting as relatively decreased responses to the variant virus epitopes compared with unvaccinated patients infected with those variant viruses.”
 From a Public Health England vaccine surveillance report in the U.K., government researchers asserted ( p. 23 ) that their serology tests were underestimating the number of people with prior infection due to recent observations from UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) surveillance data that “N antibody levels appear to be lower in individuals who acquire infection following 2 doses of vaccination.”
 Dr. Paul Offit, Chair of the FDA Vaccine Advisory Board conceded in a  letter to the New England Journal of Medicine that there is a real concern of the shots inducing a form of immune suppression known as original antigenic sin.
 In this peer-reviewed paper, “ Increases in COVID-19 are unrelated to levels of vaccination across 68 countries and 2947 counties in the United States ,” they found that at the country-level (and U.S county level), there appears to be no discernable relationship between the percentage of the population fully vaccinated and new COVID-19 cases as seen below. In fact, the rising slope of the relationship in both graphs below suggest that mass vaccination policies may paradoxically lead to more cases, with Israel serving as a worrying outlier.

 A study prepared by Humetrix for the Department of Defense called "Project Salus," monitored 20 million Medicare beneficiaries from January to August of 2021 and found that the vaccinated share of the COVID hospitalizations rose steadily with both vaccines after three to four months and sharply after six months (as the Israelis found). By late July, 71% of all cases and 61% of all hospitalizations were among vaccinated individuals.
 More current data from the Walgreens chain of pharmacies finds that in the U.S, over the last several months, fully or partially vaccinated individuals are testing positive at higher relative rates than the unvaccinated.
 According to Cornell University’s faculty, an outbreak in December of 2021 which forced the school to switch to online learning was driven exclusively by the vaccinated. "Virtually every case of the Omicron variant to date has been found in fully vaccinated students, a portion of whom had also received a booster shot," said Vice President for University Relations Joel Malina  in a statement .
 On December 31, 2021, the UK’s Office of National Statistics  released  an “Infection Survey” of 1,701 individuals who tested positive for COVID between Nov. 29 and Dec. 12, of whom 115 tested positive for the Omicron variant. The agency found a clear correlation between the number of vaccinations and the likelihood of an Omicron-positive result. The odds ratio of testing positive for Omicron with two vaccinations was 2.26; for the triple-vaccinated, it was 4.45.
 According to the  latest U.K. health surveillance report , roughly 95% of those over 70 are double-vaccinated and about 90%-93% of the age cohorts over 70 are boosted. Just 1.6% of the senior cases between weeks 7 and 10 of this year were among the unvaccinated, which is below the 5% share of the population they compose. The triple-boosted actually made up 90% of the cases.

 The respected  Robert Koch Institute  reported that among the 4,206 Germans infected with Omicron for whom their vaccination status was known, 95.58% were fully vaccinated. More than a quarter of them had booster shots. Given that the overall background rate for vaccination in Germany is 70%, this suggests an -87% effectiveness rate against Omicron.
 As of Dec. 31, 2021, in Denmark, 89.7% of all Omicron cases were among the fully vaccinated with just 8.5% of all cases in Denmark among the unvaccinated , according to the Statens Serum Institut . Overall, 77.9% of Denmark was fully vaccinated at the time, and Omicron is more prevalent among younger people for whom there is a greater unvaccinated pool, which again support a negative efficacy. Even for non-Omicron variants, the unvaccinated composed only 23.7% of the cases.

 As mentioned above, assessing the true relationship between vaccinations and the risk of infection must also consider the shocking numbers of COVID infections and deaths occurring during the first 14 days after vaccination. The argument to include these data is supported by the biological plausibility based on the studies presented above finding that the outdated vaccines are inducing an immune suppression favoring infection with newer variants. It is my opinion that these cases and deaths should not be excluded given the below examples (there are many more) of record rises in cases (and deaths) proximate to the start dates of various country-wide vaccination rollouts.

 The examples below include countries that initiated the most aggressive mass vaccination campaigns in the period from late December, 2020 to January, 2021. Note these countries are from different regions of the globe, however the rollouts were all followed by large increases in cases and deaths.

 3) EFFICACY IN PROTECTION FROM SEVERE DISEASE
 In part I of this post , I documented the details of an informed consent discussion I held with a 16 year-old prospective camp counselor and her parents. The post was too long, so I include the second half of the discussion with my summary recommendation below.
 3) EFFICACY IN PROTECTION FROM SEVERE DISEASE
 In Ireland, in March of 2022, during the milder Omicron variant wave, there were more people in Irish hospitals  than at any point in the previous 12 months. This occurred despite the fact that nearly 95% of all adults in Ireland are fully vaccinated, and  nearly 100% of seniors are vaccinated and boosted .
 In Scotland, on page 29 of their recent national COVID-19 report , the data revealed that the vaccinated were dying and being hospitalized at higher rates than the unvaccinated. Note that Scotland has since made the decision to no longer publish these comparative data for “concerns that they are being misinterpreted”. Although it is true, as I noted above, that numerous variables beyond vaccination status may contribute to explaining these differences, I find it troubling (similar to the Department of Defense actions mentioned above) that the decision to stop publishing these data occurred only after a negative efficacy against severe disease and death was found.
 In Israel, the Director of a major hospital recently declared that the fully vaccinated are not protected against severe illness.
 NSW Health in New South Wales, the most populated of Australian states at 8.1 million inhabitants, reported that 97 out of 98 COVID-19 deaths occurring over the previous two weeks involved fully vaccinated persons. Moreover, those that had three doses appeared most at risk for hospitalization admission, ICU transfer, and death.
 These data are consistent with the recent report published in the New York Times which stated “despite strong levels of vaccination among older people, COVID killed them at vastly higher rates during this winter’s Omicron wave than did last year, preying on long delays since their last shots and the variant’s ability to skirt immune defenses .” I must add that these higher rates of death in the elderly are also seen in the boosted.
 The conclusion of a recent  Danish study  in the prestigious Lancet found that in long-term follow-up of over 74,000 adult participants in the Moderna and Pfizer trials there was no all-cause mortality benefit from the two mRNA shots.
 In a recent, large Veterans Administration study , investigators discovered disturbing evidence: by month six after a SARS-CoV-2 infection, beyond the first 30 days of illness, vaccinated persons with breakthrough infections were at higher risk of death (hazard ratio (HR) = 1.75, 95% confidence interval: 1.59,1.93).
 The implications of the vaccine’s diminished ability to protect against severe disease among more recent variants is now playing out in real-time. On June 5th, 2022, analyst Igor Chudov posted a 2 country comparison of the current cases and deaths being reported from Portugal and S. Africa, two countries undergoing similar waves of infection from the emerging B4/5 sister variants. South Africa is only 35% vaccinated and 5% boosted whereas Portugal is 95% vaccinated and 70% boosted. These variants are now driving a deadly wave of Covid in highly-vaccinated Portugal, with deaths among the Portuguese nearing their January peak and still rising as seen below.

 Thus, in terms of benefits, based on the most up-to-date data, the current crop of mRNA vaccines against Omicron confer either rapidly waning efficacy or negative efficacy, and not only do they no longer protect against severe disease, my interpretation of these data is that they appear to be raising the risk of severe disease and death. I would advise extreme caution given that, currently, in the U.S, the prevalence of the B4/5 variant appears to be doubling every week in the past month, now comprising approximately 8% of cases.

 4) BENEFITS IN REDUCING TRANSMISSION TO OTHERS
 Current data do not support this claim. The CDC Director herself has reported that vaccinated individuals are now well known to carry equal or greater viral loads than the unvaccinated, and thus transmit at equal or higher rates, for physiologic reasons detailed above, most concerning being the negative efficacy of the vaccines against Omicron. This has also been reported by seminal nosocomial outbreak papers by  Chau et al . (Health care workers (HCW) in Vietnam), the  Finland hospital outbreak  (spread among HCWs and patients), and the  Israel hospital outbreak  (spread among HCWs and patients).
 A new large study from Quatar in the  New England Journal of Medicine by Weil Cornell Medicine  found that the Pfizer vaccine protection waned after four months. By seven months, when adjusted for those who already had prior infection, the Pfizer shot was -4% effective against transmission. Also, effectiveness against asymptomatic infection was -33% after seven months, which suggests that the vaccinated become more likely to spread COVID-19 over time.

 5) BENEFITS IN REDUCING THE RISK OF LONG-HAUL COVID SYNDROME
 Again, from the large Veterans Administration study , investigators discovered disturbing evidence: by month six after a SARS-CoV-2 infection, vaccinated persons with breakthrough infections were at higher risk of long COVID (HR = 1.50, 95% CI: 1.46, 1.54). When including the earlier time periods, the COVID-19 vaccines only reduced the risk of long COVID by approximately 15% compared to the unvaccinated, a level of estimated protection far less than the increased risk of death found in the same study as mentioned above.

 6) BENEFITS OF NATURAL IMMUNITY
 Grace’s natural immunity provides robust protection, not only from contracting the COVID-19 a second time, but also against hospitalization and death. The most recent review of data supporting the protection of natural immunity, compiled from over 150 research studies, found that natural immunity provided equal or superior protection against not only contracting the disease, but also against hospitalization and death.
 Further, vaccinated individuals are far more likely to get re-infected with COVID compared to those with natural immunity. A  new preprint  study from Bangladesh found that among 404 people re-infected with COVID, having been vaccinated made someone 2.45 times more likely to get re-infected with a mild infection, 16.1 times more likely to get a moderate infection, and 3.9 times more likely to be re-infected severely, relative to someone with prior infection who was  not  vaccinated. Although overall re-infections were rare, vaccination was a greater risk factor of re-infection than co-morbidities.
 A new study from Harvard, Continued Effectiveness of COVID-19 Vaccination among Urban Healthcare Workers during Delta Variant Predominance , tracked vaccinated and unvaccinated Massachusetts healthcare workers and showed 0 infections in 74,557 person-days for previously infected patients compared to 49 infections out of 830,084 person-days for fully vaccinated patients.
 A study published in the New England Journal of Medicine assessed a cohort of 1,304 patients meeting a very strict definition of “re-infection.” In this cohort, there were no deaths and no ICU admissions during reinfections while 7 deaths and 28 ICU admissions occurred during the primary infections. Overall, there was a statistically significant 90% reduction in the composite outcome of severe, critical, or fatal disease during reinfections

 7) BENEFITS OF CURRENT HEALTH STATUS
 Grace is a healthy young woman of normal body weight. Her youth and body habitus combined with an absence of co-morbidities essentially ensures that she has a near-nil risk of a severe outcome. I base this on data compiled during a prior, more deadly variant where the CDC published a report on the incidence of death from COVID-19 prior to September of 2021 in people less than 21 years of age. At the time of that report, 190,000 deaths from SARS-CoV-2 had been recorded in the general population. Although people less than 21 years of age represent 26% of the population, only 0.08% (121) of all COVID-19 deaths were reported in this age group. In other words, more children died from influenza during the previous epidemic season than from SARS-CoV-2.
 Several other observations were of interest:
 about 75% of those under 21 who died had at least one underlying medical condition; 45% had two or more conditions.

 minority groups were disproportionately represented among the deaths in young people. Among those who died, 45% were Hispanic, 29% were black, and 4% were American Indian or Alaskan Native persons. Although Hispanic, Black and Native populations represent 41% of the U.S. population less than 21 years of age, these groups accounted for 75% of the deaths.

 In July of 2021, Dr. Marty Makary of Johns Hopkins University and Editor in Chief of MedPage today, reported that over the course of the pandemic, 49,000 Americans under the age of 18 had died of all causes, according to the CDC . Only 331 of those deaths were from COVID — less than half as many as that died of pneumonia. The risk of children was dramatically smaller still than that CDC baseline; according to one, much-cited paper , the infection fatality rate for those aged 5 to 9 is less than 0.001 percent. A large new study from the U.K. examining the fatality rate among all those under 18 found it only fractionally higher there — 0.005 percent. Overall, 126,000 Brits have died of COVID since the onset of the pandemic; just 26 of those were under the age of 18.
 These data presented above must be further interpreted in the context of the current Omicron variant, a variant with markedly lower risk of leading to hospitalization and and/or death among the unvaccinated.
 8) ALTERNATIVES TO VACCINATION: EARLY TREATMENT OF COVID-19
 The alternative to vaccination would be to ensure provision of early treatment with a select combination from what are now dozens of medicines, nutraceuticals, and therapies with proven efficacy in COVID-19. I am willing to prescribe the medicines that cannot be obtained over-the-counter, however, I must emphasize the need to have this treatment kit prepared and “on-hand” to take upon first symptoms of any viral syndrome like illness. The importance of early treatment can be seen in the graph below, showing diminishing efficacy of treatment with each day of delay. Note the near 100% efficacy if treatment is started within 24 hours of symptoms.

 As of May 2022, massive evidence bases support numerous generic, repurposed drugs with excellent safety profiles that act with either anti-viral, anti-inflammatory, or immunomodulatory properties have been compiled. The medicines shown effective can be seen below. I have circled only those medicines that have received Emergency Use Authorization status by the FDA or recommended by the NIH. Note that these “officially approved” medicines consist solely of novel pharmaceutical industry products that can generate massive profits, an obvious feature of our health care system in the United States. Off-patent, generic or over the counter therapies are not recommended, despite often higher amounts of trials evidence for their use. Note that the grey font indicates medicines with less than 5 trials to support.

 Ivermectin has the highest potency amongst the medicines sufficiently studied. Ivermectin’s evidence base now consists of 84 controlled trials, 34 of them randomized, and include a total of 129,000 patients. Summary analyses of the data from these trials find large, statistically significant reductions in time to clinical recovery, time to viral clearance, hospitalizations, and death as seen on the right of the below graphic.

 Similarly, hydroxychloroquine has 347 controlled trials which involve almost a half-million patients. The studies show consistent, reproducible reductions in the incidence of all outcomes, particularly when given early, similar to ivermectin.

 Nigella Sativa, a widely available “nutraceutical” used in many countries around the world, has also shown repeated, high efficacy as below.

 Numerous other medications and compounds have demonstrated efficacy, such as the use of povidone-iodine nasal drops and mouthwashes, as well as medications like fluvoxamine. The protocol I use can be found on the website of the Front-Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance , a 501c3 non-profit organization I help lead whose mission has been to develop the most effective combination therapy protocols to treat COVID-19 in all it’s phases. Any combination of these therapies, started early or in the context of good health and natural immunity would result in a near nil risk of Grace developing any mild or severe complication related to COVID-19 illness.
 Summary and Recommendations. In summary, based on Grace’s current robust health status, normal body habitus, and natural immunity to COVID, she has a near-nil risk of the most severe outcomes from COVID. Risks of Long haul or prolonged illness would be further reduced with adoption of almost any early treatment strategy. Further, the totality of current evidence finds either a rapidly waning efficacy in protection against COVID-19 or a rising negative efficacy in protection from both COVID and its more severe outcomes. Finally, given the highly concerning, excessive rates of adverse events, disabilities, and deaths found in the vaccine trials data and in association with the mass vaccination campaign, it is my professional opinion that the risks of COVID-19 mRNA vaccination for Grace far outweigh the negligible or “adverse” efficacy currently being measured. I therefore offer my strongest recommendation that she avoid COVID-19 mRNA vaccination… at all costs .
 Sincerely,
 Pierre Kory, MD, MPA
 Board Certified in Internal Medicine, Pulmonary Diseases, Critical Care Medicine

 I just want to say how much I appreciate all the subscribers to my substack, and especially the paid ones! Your support is so greatly appreciated.
 Subscribe now
 P.S I have recently entered private practice and opened a tele-health clinic providing care not only in the prevention and treatment of acute COVID, but with a specialized focus on the study and treatment of both Long-Haul and Post-Vaccination injury syndromes. If anyone needs our help, feel free to visit our website at www.drpierrekory.com.
 P.S.S I am getting professional help (hah!) to write a book about what I have personally witnessed and learned during the Pandemic war on ivermectin.  Pre-order here  for:

Summary: Parents have consulted me on the health risks and benefits of complying with summer camp vaccination mandates. Here is my letter documenting the informed consent discussion I held with one family.


The False, Sinister, and Duplicitous Statements of the TOGETHER Ivermectin Trial Investigators

This is my third and last post on the fraudulent TOGETHER trial and it’s investigators as I am just done with it. I hope that the my global network of colleagues trying to expose this fraudulence have better success than I had so far.
 Anyway, in Part 1, I introduced the trial in the context of a decades-long Disinformation war waged by Big Pharma (using tactics pioneered and perfected by Big Tobacco) against generic, repurposed drugs like ivermectin. In Part 2 , I detailed the most brazen of a multitude (47 to be exact) of actions consistent with the aim of producing a “negative trial”, with these actions committed in both the design and conduct of the TOGETHER trial, by a group of the most deeply Pharma-conflicted study investigators of any trial in the pandemic. They brought out the superstars for this one.
 I have long wondered how the investigator’s conduct can be so blatant and obvious. I only recently concluded that it is because… they don’t have to be subtle. It just doesn’t matter. The newspaper headlines are out across the world and the NIH has quietly changed its recommendation from neutral to now “ against the use of ivermectin outside a clinical trial.” Which leaves us arguing over the bomb fragments of a massive detonation of what could have been world-changing and life-saving Public Health policy.
 I remind all, again, that my accusations of fraud could be easily refuted or clarified, simply by an open sharing of the patient-level data by these investigators. That they refuse, even with their own outside colleagues, despite promising repeatedly to do so, is to me, damning and definitive evidence of massive fraud. What is hilarious is that instead of sharing with the public, they instead claim to have parked the data behind an organization called ICODA… funded by Bill Gates. See below. What is even more telling.. is that on the ICODA website, the trial is not even listed. Again, not subtle.

 Now, to the point of this third post. In the past year, I have been privy to comments uttered or written both publicly and semi-privately by several investigators of the TOGETHER trial. I will present them here. I believe they add another pillar of evidence supporting the conclusion of fraud as they lend disturbing insight into the people who designed and conducted the trial. Liars at a minimum. You be the judge for whatever else you think they are. So buckle your seatbelts because it gets weird, disturbing, and infuriating.
 First, who are these investigators? From the C19early.com group:
 Possibly the largest financial conflict of interest of any trial to date. Disclosed conflicts of interest include: Pfizer, Merck, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Australian Government, Medicines Development for Global Health, Novaquest, Regeneron, AstraZeneca, Daichi Sankyo, Commonwealth Science and Research Organization, and Card Research. Many conflicts of interest appear unreported. For example, Unitaid is a sponsor [ Harper , togethertrial.com (B) ] .
 Analysis done by a company that receives payment from and works closely with Pfizer. All analyses were done by Cytel. Cytel is a statistical modelling company that helps pharmaceutical companies get approval — they work very closely with Pfizer [ cytel.com ] . Cytel's software and services are used by the top 30 pharmaceutical companies [ cytel.com (B) ] .
 A co-principal investigator (Ed Mills) works for Cytel and the Gates Foundation [ empendium.com ] : "The majority of the time I work for a company called Cytel, where I design clinical trials, predominantly for the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation".
 The first author (Gilmar Reis) runs a company that survives on contracts from pharmaceutical companies. His research company has never done a trial on any generic drug. Note that, per the c19early.com group, “ independent investigators without conflicts of interest) tried to participate in the trial but were denied [ odysee.com (B) ] . “The independent, non-conflicted investigator who was denied participation in the trial was none other than the FLCCC’s Dr. Flavio Cadegiani. I wonder if it was his integrity, ethics, professionalism, humanity and intelligence that disqualified him? Or was it the fact he was treating the COVID gamma variant with double the dose of ivermectin for three times as long as the study’s protocol? Again, from the c19early.com group:
 The Gates Foundation is a founding partner of GAVI , which took out Google ads telling people not to use ivermectin [ twitter.com (V) ] , and a major funder of Unitaid, which (my words here)… modified the results of the Hill meta analysis in a way that prevented adoption [ c19ivermectin.com , c19ivermectin.com (B) , twitter.com (C) ] .
 Associated with MMS Holdings. The trial is associated with MMS Holdings [ dcricollab.dcri.duke.edu ] , whose mission includes helping pharmaceutical companies get approval and designing scientific studies that help them get approval. One of their clients is Pfizer [ mmsholdings.com ] .
 Certara. One of the senior investigators was Dr. Craig Rayner, President of Integrated Drug Development at Certara - another company with a similar mission to MMS Holdings. They state on their website that: "Since 2014, our customers have received over 90% of new drug and biologic approvals by the FDA." One of their clients is Pfizer [ certara.com ] . Craig Rayner  has had previous financial relationships with: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation ✔ Medicines Development for Global Health ✔ Novaquest ✔ Regeneron ✔Merck ✔ Astrazeneca ✔Pfizer ✔ Daichi Sankyo ✔ Commonwealth Science and Research Organization ✔
 I wonder what all these investigators’ prospects are for future pharmaceutical company contracts if they blow up a 100 billion dollar market for COVID-19 vaccines and pharmaceuticals by proving the preventive and therapeutic efficacy of a generic drug?
 I should remind myself here that some supporters have told me to be careful because I am “poking the 100 billion dollar bear” with these posts. It’s not that I am brave in that way, but rather that I think they would have taken me out long ago and that now it no longer matters because Big Pharma just doesn’t give a shit anymore about ivermectin. They already won the battle, the TOGETHER trial was just the final blow - no advanced health economy in the world recommends it. The NIH just reversed the “neutral” recommendation that Paul Marik and myself got them to make. To see just how wickedly effective this Disinformation campaign was, check out this recent editorial in the Annals of Emergency Medicine . One of the top-rated journals in that field, regurgitating propaganda with zero awareness. If they ever start wondering why everyone I meet is terrified about going to an establishment doctor or hospital, I will point them to this editorial.

 OK, so let’s review the lies, attacks, and duplicitous statements made by some of these folks, in particular those of Ed Mills, David Boulware and Craig Rayner.
 Let’s start with the duplicitous statements about the trial conclusions, uttered by Ed Mills and David Boulware. I don’t want to spend too much time on this as the brilliant journalist/filmmaker Phil Harper already nailed them for these in his substack called “The Digger,” where he argued that their statements are 100% in-line with a public relations campaign against ivermectin. Although this characterization is completely unsurprising to me, what I find intriguing is that their private, conflicting, positive statements supporting ivermectin (i.e. duplicitous) just might reflect a conscience. However weak or remote it may reside in their soul. Or it could just be they are trying to feign some sort of intellectual honesty among their academic colleagues to preserve their professional reputations. Yeah, let’s go with that one.
 Let’s start with what Ed Mills told a colleague named Marc Rendell, an exchange published by Steve Kirsch in his substack post on the TOGETHER trial (I will tell you that this is the very last correspondence between Ed Mills and Marc Rendell, given that all subsequent emails from Rendell to Mills have gone unanswered). Hmm. Anyway:
 Here’s the reply from Ed Mills to Marc Rendell on April 3, 2022:
 Hi Marc
 I hope you are well. Thank you for your email. You have been the only person courteous enough to ask the questions.
 I don’t understand the psychology of the ivermectin advocates . They fail to see the positive in this study and just focus on it not being overwhelmingly positive . I actually think it is quite positive.
 I presented this a couple weeks ago at the NIH Collaboratory Rounds and, if they listened, I advocate that actually, there is a clear signal that IVM works in COVID patients, just that our study didn’t achieve significance. In particular, there was a 17% reduction in hospitalizations that would be significant if more patients were added . I really don’t view our study as negative and, also in that talk, you will hear me retract previous statements where I had been previously negative . I think if we had continued randomizing a few hundred more patients, it would have likely been significant .
 The idea that Mills might have a conscience also stems from another exchange after his NIH presentation. Frank Harrell, a Professor of Biostatistics asked Mills, “ When you have a confidence interval that goes all the way down to a 30% reduction in relative risk, the question of whether the trial was stopped too early in light of the political ramifications of needing to demonstrate that the efficacy is really unimpressive, it really could be raised as a logical question…. ”
 “Any reaction to that?” asked the host.
 “ I totally agree with Frank, ” Mills said.
 What? He “totally agrees” with a statement suggesting that stopping the trial early could have been the result of political motivations? He is the Principal Investigator! Wow, he must have been given truth serum before that presentation because this is what he and Boulware told the newspapers instead:
 “ Ivermectin did not result in a lower incidence of medical admission to a hospital, ” Edward Mills in TOGETHER paper, March 30th 2022.
 Here is the headline that statement generated:

 Also, he said this to another newspaper:
 “ There was no indication that ivermectin is clinically useful ”, Edward Mills quote March 18th 2022
 In the New York Times: “ There’s really no sign of any benefit ,” said Dr. David Boulware, an infectious-disease expert at the University of Minnesota.
 I guess David wasn’t paying attention during the NIH presentation. “ No sign of ANY benefit? ” Maybe he and Mills should get their stories straight. Or not. Seems it was best for them to tell the papers one thing and the exact opposite to the academic community.
 Boulware goes even further to try to destroy ivermectin. In that same article, the NY Times quotes him as follows, “ Now that people can dive into the details and the data, hopefully that will steer the majority of doctors away from ivermectin towards other therapies, ” Dr. Boulware said.
 Umm, diving into the details and the data actually finds that there are tons of evidence to show they buried, hid, and manipulated the evidence of efficacy to show their non-statistically significant evidence of benefit. My colleagues (chief among them being Alexandros Marinos whose posts on the TOGETHER trial are a masterwork ) have done deep dives into the data by scouring the published manuscripts, protocols, and presentations of all the repurposed medicines studied in the TOGETHER trial. Their conclusion, based on the blatantly withheld data along with the to-date-unrefuted evidence of manipulation of multiple control groups in violation of the study protocol, is that the investigators are hiding the finding of a massive benefit of ivermectin. Boulware’s invitation to “ dive into the details and the data ” is a farce. What data David? You mean the data you are having Gates hide for you behind ICODA?

 Now, lets examine the numerous statements that Ed Mills has given in defending the 3-day dose used in the trial.
 What follows is that Ed Mills, a year ago, wrote that they changed the protocol from one day only (I laugh each time I read that) to three days only, and that this decision was based on Andrew Hill’s work because he had shown a “dose-response” in his early pre-print posted on January 19th, 2021 (i.e. “dose-response” means that the higher the dose, the more potent the benefit).
 To wit, see his email below to Steve Kirsch and Filipe Rafaele in March of 2021 , two deeply researched observers and/or funders of therapeutic trials (Kirsch) in COVID. Note that I am cc’ed on a number of these emails). I have redacted all email addresses but in this one below, Mill’s email was literally one ending with @cytel.com. Hilarious.
 From:  Edward Mills <>
 Sent:  Saturday, March 6, 2021 4:48 PM
 To:  Steve Kirsch
 Cc:  filipe rafaeli Pierre Kory Patrick Collison
 Subject:  Re: IVM under dosing in Brazil trial
 We are doing three days of dosing. The original protocol had one day of dosing, which was used back in January, when we submitted this for approvals at the ethics and national bodies. It then changed to three days of dosing after an amendment based on emerging trials from Andrew Hill’s synthesis . I have already explained that on several occasions.  Thats what is being administered. Clinicaltrials.gov   needs to be updated.  Clinicaltrials.gov  is not a protocol, its a registry. Gates funded the first part of this trial, when we evaluated HCQ and lopinavir vs placebo
 Editorial interlude (PK): Of course Gates did - HCQ was actually the “OG” (original gangster) of repurposed drugs in COVID, and man did they murder that drug using a submachine gun of fraudulent trials). Back to Mills:
 Thats why they are on the website. Again, this has been clearly explained in the past.
 We will do an interim analysis after 800 patients. We aren’t making any changes until then.
 Ed

 Text within this block will maintain its original spacing when published Quick word about Filipe Rafaele - he had been in repeated contact with Mills given he was equally disturbed as I was, from the beginning, in regards to the issue of trials of repurposed, generic drugs that were “designed to fail.” Filipe had closely followed the hydroxychloroquine frauds, and was “fighting the good fight” as they say. He is a prolific and talented writer and filmmaker among other pursuits. His essay " The day I understood 'the Good German " is stunning in power, and a required reading to best understand the times we are living through. Here is just one paragraph in the introduction to that essay that ends in a telling description of the frustrating role that me and my colleagues have found ourselves in (colleagues such as Robert Malone, Peter McCullough, Paul Alexander, Harvey Risch, Aaron Kheriaty, Ryan Cole, Richard Urso, Kat Lindley and others).

“.. the almost unlimited powers of big pharmaceutical corporations over science, creating what the BMJ - British Medical Journal, calls " The illusion of evidence based medicine ". This article explains that academia has been corrupted, research has been corrupted, regulatory authorities have been corrupted, and dissenters are persecuted . I have also written long pieces about this and understand that the communicators cannot give voices to the dissident scientists, the only ones left to tell the truth about these issues.
 Anyway, back to the emails. Filipe replies:
 On Mar 15, 2021, at 11:00 AM, filipe rafaeli <> wrote:
 Hello Edward,

Nine days ago, you said: "There will be an updated protocol on the website in the next few days that is far more elaborate". https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04727424?cond=Covid19&intr=ivermectin&draw=6&rank=49 . In the website, it is still saying that is single dose: "Drug: Ivermectin Tablets - 06 mg oral tablet: Three tablets if weight 40 - 60 kg, single dose; Four tablets if weight > 60 kg, single dose". Do you have any news about this?

Filipe
 Ed Mills writes back.
 Em ter., 16 de mar. de 2021 às 02:35, Edward Mills < escreveu:
 I have come across your previous articles and I abhor your views on everything.     Your admiration for Josef Mengele is disgusting.
 I have no sympathies for nazis, under any circumstances. Never, ever. These were people that were killed, I knew them and I knew their families.  Your views disgust me. I suggest no-one else on this email thread supports you either, Please, never contact me again. Your hate will not win.
 Fuck you
  Ed

 Whoa. Crazy town. Filipe goes on to school him below. Note how at the end, in his post-script, Filipe predicts the exact nonsense that Ed will pull in his hydroxychloroquine trial.
 Em ter., 16 de mar. de 2021 às 03:54, filipe rafaeli <> escreveu:
 Edward,

If you understood, after reading the entire article, that I am an admirer of Mengele, you are either illiterate or cognitively impaired.

I have no admiration for Mengele. I am a Latin American leftist. I am a socialist. Here I know what fascism is. Here I know what dictatorship is. I am an anti-fascist. My grandfather was arrested during the Brazilian dictatorship (64-85). By the fascist military with machine guns. I have friends who were tortured.

Do you want to know why I mentioned Mengele? Because I remembered him.

I remembered Mengele when I read "studies" by "scientists" with hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin.

I remembered Mengele when I saw "scientists" administering low dose or overdose. "It doesn't work."

I remembered Mengele when I saw "scientists" giving medicines at the time of extreme unction. "It doesn't work."

I remembered Mengele seeing "studies" that stopped when they were partially positive, before statistical significance. "It doesn't work."

I remembered Mengele when a fake study was published which justified stopping several studies with HCQ when they were partially positive. And after the hoax was revealed, I remembered Mengele again because those studies were not resumed.

I remembered Mengele when Kory and Marik's study was censored after peer review.

All by coincidence, of course.

And I always remember Mengele every time I see a "scientist" seeking power, positions, and money instead of saving lives.

Read the entire article, word for word, twice, and do your work.

PS: I am curious about the result with your HCQ study. I saw that you are very excited.
- I hope it is not too small (Impossible to achieve statistical significance this way)
- I hope it is not "early treatment" after 5 - 7 days of symptom.
- I hope it is not in patients outside the risk group.
- I hope it wasn't at too low a dose (Impossible to achieve statistical significance this way).

Filipe

 After Mill’s HCQ trial gets published in JAMA, Filipe wrote again. Check it out:

 Date: sáb., 24 de abr. de 2021 às 17:26
Subject: Re: IVM under dosing in Brazil trial
To: Edward Mills < Cc: Steve Kirsch, Pierre Kory

 Hi Edward,

I have just read your article carefully. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2779044
You should probably be receiving effusive congratulations. You will have a brilliant career.
Risk of death reduced by 66%.
Risk of hospitalization reduced by 24%.
But it was not statistically significant (it doesn't work).
 Too bad.
[Remember that] on March 16, I played Nostradamus here:

Oh dear, unfortunately it was *finished early*. It was too small, 200 patients! So it was not statistically significant.
Oh dear, unfortunately *more than 80%* of people were
randomized after 5 days of symptom onset.
Oh dear, unfortunately *it was in monotherapy*.

Comment by covid crusher:
“Do not expect the authors to point out that those hospitalization results are entirely and remarkably consistent with the other 4, all identically underpowered, HCQ outpatient RCTs, homogenously pointing to 30%-ish hospitalization benefit”.

My congratulations, Edward. History will be very kind to all the scientists working on this pandemic. I am now waiting for your study with ivermectin. For sure it will be a success!

 Filipe

 Before we move on, I recommend you read Filipe’s brilliant summary of the “murder” of HCQ in 2020 from his substack “ Pandemia ”.
 Pandemia
 Yes, hydroxychloroquine is scientifically proven against COVID-19

 “He was capable of being so kind to the children, to have them become fond of him”, reported a witness about this man, with a shy smile, from the photograph. With a degree in medicine and a doctorate in anthropology, he was a famous scientist, productive and internationally renowned…
 Read more
 6 years ago · 15 likes · 15 comments · Filipe Rafaeli

 Now let’s get back to Mills and his other, conflicting statements about how he chose the 3 day dosing. This next one is a brilliant lie and it occurs at the end of a disturbing email exchange with a Canadian pastor (name/email redacted) who had been following ivermectin and was trying to educate his congregation about it.

 On Mar 7, 2022, at 6:01 AM, the Canadian Pastor wrote:
 Hello Dr Mills,
 You may have heard of the interview from Dr Tess Lawrie with Dr Andrew Hill and the suppression of the Ivermectin back in January 2021.
 https://rumble.com/vwfia3-a-letter-to-andrew-hill-dr-tess-lawrie-oracle-films.html
 Unitaid was the shadow author of Hill’s conclusions.
 I hope that in some way the truth of this coverup will come to light.  To think again that hundreds of thousands of lives could have been saved.
 XXXX (Pastor)

 On Mon, Mar 7, 2022 at 10:19 AM Mills, Edward <> wrote:
 Can you please stop emailing me? You have no right to study details any more than anyone else does.

 The Pastor replies:
 On Mar 7, 2022, at 10:37 AM, XXX> wrote:
 I will Dr Mills. Not sure what you meant by having no right to study the details. It doesn’t make sense.  If this Together Trial has been in the same vein as Dr Andrew Hill and the suppression of truth then you and the team are responsible.  If people would step forward and tell the truth.

 Ed Mills suddenly attacks the Pastor.
 On Mar 7, 2022, at 10:39 AM, Mills, Edward <> wrote:
 Fuck off. Pray to your stupid god for insights.

 The Pastor sends Ed Mills Alexandros Marino’s post on the TOGETHER trial.
 On Mar 20, 2022, at 5:16 PM, XXXX wrote:
 Do Your Own Research
 What Went Wrong With the TOGETHER Trial?

 This article is part of a series on the TOGETHER trial. More articles from this series here. The TOGETHER trial is a trial testing multiple treatments for COVID. It's got a fascinating "adaptive platform" design that allows it to efficiently evaluate many interventions and absorb findings from global research as it goes. So far so good…
 Read more
 4 years ago · 55 likes · 18 comments · Alexandros Marinos

 The Pastor writes again to Mills.
 On Mar 22, 2021 at 7:58 AM XXXX wrote:
 Hi Dr Mills,
 Thank you for taking on the together trial study at McMaster. We've been praying for this and looking forward to hearing results. Dr Carvallo's study with great results appears on NIH's website with no results to show.  It seems that the doctors who are finding the results are forced underground to give their findings.  Hoping this is not the case here.
 The Pastor again writes to Mills.
 On , Mar 22, 2021 at 8:39 AM <XXX > wrote:
 Hi Dr Mills,
 Dr Carvallo from Argentina forwarded to me his studies/articles. I thought you may be interested. As a Christian, I'm praying that lives will be saved versus needlessly dying.
 Ed Mills writes back, and just starts making shit up. Check it out.

From:  Ed Mills  <(t his email was an MTEK sciences email address! See Alexandros Marinos substack here for his deep dive on MTEK ’s conflicts of interest) .
Date: Mar 22, 2022 at 8:45 PM
Subject: Re: Study
To: XXX
 Thank you for your email. We appreciate your interest in clinical trials relevant to COVID and we hope that together, we can identify cheap and effective interventions that can safely help patients in the outpatient setting.
 As you are likely aware, this is the largest placebo-controlled clinical trial for COVID. We have successfully identified 11 different interventions in the trial and identified two that are effective – fluvoxamine and peginterferon lambda. We did not find important benefits from ritonavir-lopinavir, hydroxycholoroquine, doxasozin, ivermectin (low and high dose), metformin, or placebo. We are currently evaluating fluvoxamine plus budesonide and fluoxetine plus budesonide versus matching placebos.
 For those interested in ivermectin, we greatly appreciate your interest in this important human drug. We appreciate the feedback received by entities such as the FLCCC, early treatment for COVID group, and the thought leaders in those networks. In particular, champions such as Dr. Pierre Kory  have frequently commented on our trial and we particularly appreciate their advice.  They helped advise on the choice of drug dosage, duration, and concomitant medication use. Without their help, perhaps our findings would have been uncertain.  Thanks to FLCCC and the Early Treatment for COVID group we successfully chose their recommended dose, duration and follow-up. Thank you to those entities for your leadership in this area. Without their important questioning of so many pharmaceutical led trials, we would have uncertain evidence. We appreciate the endorsement now of groups such as FLCCC and look forward to working with them closely in the future.  We agree with them that as, as the evidence seems to no longer support ivermectin, other options are, thankfully looking applicable.
 All manuscripts will be published in the future in peer-reviewed manuscripts and will be freely available. We cannot provide preprints of the manuscripts or respond to individual requests for data from trials until they are made public. Data may occasionally be made available via academic presentations.
 We are grateful for your support of the trials.
 The TOGETHER Trialists Collaboration
 The largest placebo-controlled trial of COVID in the world.
 Glory to Satan.

 “Fuck you?” “Glory to Satan?” “Fuck off?” “Go pray to your stupid God?” Calling someone a Mengele sympathizer? These comments are disturbing enough but the gratuitous nonsense about him working with the FLCCC is both hilarious and a 100% falsehood. I have never spoken to him or been consulted on anything to do with the TOGETHER trial or it’s investigators. That guy is hallucinating..and lying. I was asked about dosing by David Boulware, a TOGETHER trial author, way after the trial protocol had been set. Note this is the same Boulware that David Wiseman, with me as co-author, wrote a Letter to the Editor of JAMA about, busting him for false data reporting regarding the dates of (late) delivery of HCQ in his trial. The Letter didn’t get published. Shocker. So we published it on a pre-print server instead. We also attacked the TOGETHER hydroxychloroquine trial, for essentially the same stuff they pulled with ivermectin. It again wasn’t accepted as a Letter, however, they did allow it as a comment under the on-line JAMA publication (go to comments, can find it as the 2nd one down). They all use the same tired playbook. Over and over.. and no-one in academia notices.
 Why Mills would write that fantasy about working with the FLCCC to a random pastor is beyond me. Complete and total fabrication. Note that the definition of liar is someone who tells a lie. He even makes it sound like we were invited to and participated in a nuanced committee discussion of dosing strategies. I have never talked to Ed Mills in my life. I have only observed him from afar as I have been privy to way more of his anti-ivermectin comments than I am including here, out of respect to some of my colleagues desire for confidentiality. What is even more hilarious, is that he must have forgotten the relentless attacks on the FLCCC and ivermectin that he spewed in this interview from June 14, 2021 in the Halifax Examiner . In summary, he says that the journal that our comprehensive review paper was published in was “ low quality” (it is not), and that the FLCCC “ overcalled the importance of our paper ,” and, ” that group is actually making it much more difficult to make the science be believed because they’re overcalling the importance of what they’re doing. They should just leave the science to the scientists and allow the clinical trials to complete”. I love it, we should leave the “ science to the scientists?”
 Let’s talk about Science. The FLCCC’s Paul Marik, Umberto Meduri, Joseph Varon, Jose Iglesias and myself have collectively done research over decades, conducted many trials, and have published over 1,500 peer-reviewed papers in medical journals. But we should leave the science to him? Does that remind anyone of Fauci saying “I am Science?”Also in that interview he said that papers such as ours are “ easy to write, ” but “ good science (what he does) is harder to do. ” I don’t think he knows the hundreds of hours of research, scouring of databases, pre-print servers, and reading of papers that went into our review paper. He then invents that the FLCCC has “ a well understood agenda promoting ivermectin, and no amount of evidence is likely to change their mind. ” Well understood agenda? WTF? If my agenda was to destroy my career. then mission accomplished Ed. I am really good at what I set my mind to apparently.
 Now, let’s go to Mill’s third lie about dosing, written right in the damn manuscript, showing that the study is not worth the paper it is printed on. In the sixth paragraph of the manuscript posted on the New England Journal of Medicine website, he again lies, “On the basis of feedback from advocacy groups, we modified the protocol to specify 3 days of administration of ivermectin.”
 This statement is consistent with what he told the pastor, i.e. the FLCCC “advocacy group” informed the dosing. I have already stated above that this is false, but it also conflicts with what he told Filipe Rafaele and Steve Kirsch long ago (also above), about how Andy Hill’s work prompted them to change the dosing. It also conflicts with what is the actual truth , which is that the group that got Mills to change the duration of dosing was actually… one of the funders of the trial. Calling them an “advocacy group” is an insult, but let’s say that was who he was referring to in that sentence. Why didn’t he just write the truth, which was “ on the basis of feedback from the trial funders? ”
 I will tell you why. He wanted to be able to defend the dosing decision by saying it is what the FLCCC recommended. This guy lies like a rug. But I am sure he is telling the truth about the rest of the trial. I mean, it was probably just that one little white lie.
 Unfortunately he is not a very good liar. My email exchange on dosing with Boulware occurred on May 13th of 2021 . Way after the TOGETHER dosing was set. And nowhere do I say it should be limited to just 3 days in an RCT, or that there should be some fraudulent, totally invented 90kg weight limit to the dosing which is one of their most brazen dose-limiting tactics. See my email exchange with Boulware in May, 2021:
 From:  David Boulware <>
 Date: Thursday, May 13, 2021 at 8:19 AM
 To:  Pierre Kory <>
 Subject:  Re: Positive Mongolia study on fluoxetine (Prozac) for COVID
 Pierre,
 What's a reasonable dose for ivermectin for early mild disease?
 RCTs are testing 400 mcg/kg/day x 3 days.
 Reasonable?  Too low? Too high?
 David

 On May 27, 2021, at 8:46 PM, Pierre Kory <> wrote:
 400mcg for 3 days is totally reasonable.. but I would go 5 if they did not have a sufficient response/resolution by day 3 . My issue with RCT’s is that they treat too late by definition in almost all acute illness models – for every day later you treat, you need to be more aggressive. So 400mcg is fine for me as a doc when a patient calls me or I get word someone is sick.. but by the time a sick patient is enrolled in an RCT who knows
 Other issue is I believe any further placebo controlled RCT’s are unethical – but understand others don’t see the world  that way.. not a surprise - Pierre
 Pierre Kory, MD, MPA
 President & Chief Medical Officer
 Front-Line Covid-19 Critical Care Alliance

So, both Mills and Boulware try to defend the TOGETHER trial dosing by misrepresenting this email exchange. See these tweets below where Boulware actually claims that they received my input in February of 2021. Another blatant lie? Or perhaps he just innocently “misremembered?”

 He not only misrepresents what I actually wrote which was that 400mcg/kg for 3 days was perfectly reasonable if I myself was treating them early… and that for a late treating RCT, “who knows what the right dose is” - clearly implying it would have to be higher. He also omits the part about treating for 5 days if not recovered by the 3rd day. He also avoids mentioning that his question to me was posed pre-delta variant in the U.S. We changed our dosing for Delta not long after that email, and even at the time of the email, our dosing was already 0.3mg/kg for 5 days ! Also, the U.S dosing had no relation to what Brazilian early treatment docs were doing during the gamma variant, which was already the predominant variant in Brazil when the TOGETHER trial switched their dosing. Note that Gamma was a variant 4 times as fatal with way higher viral loads.
 They also ignore the fact that in the same email I tell them that more placebo-controlled trials were unethical. And again, nowhere do I suggest they should put in a 90kg weight limit which would result in a large under-dosing of all overweight (highest risk) patients in the trial. Whatever. Here is Boulware peddling even more nonsense on Twitter just last month.

 Oh, and before we move on, let’s just finish with a doozy of a recent attack by Ed Mills on the Pastor. Apparently the Pastor had been tweeting about the Together Trial, asking when results would be coming and also suggesting that the results wouldn’t be accurate. The tweets are not that offensive or accusatory at all actually ( I am not posting to preserve anonymity of the pastor) but here comes Mills out of nowhere, like 6 months after the last tweet, citing a stupid article about how “well-intentioned” researchers like Mills are getting abused on social media. Too funny.
 Mills, Edward  <>
 Fri, Mar 25, 10:21 PM
 You are one of these fuckers Pastor. You are a disgusting human being.  Should I tell your congregation? You fucking asshole.   https://www.science.org/content/article/overwhelmed-hate-covid-19-scientists-face-avalanche-abuse-survey-shows

 The Pastor Replies.
 Thu, Apr 14, 9:36 AM to Edward
 Wow, to whom should I relay this disgusting email from a professional?  Tracking with Phil Harper's detailed description of all that has gone on. .

 This next issue is another doozy. Colleen Aldous, a colleague of mine who is a nationally renowned scientist and ivermectin expert in South Africa, wrote to Mills after the NEJM publication. Here is what she wrote:
 I have two questions that I cannot work out from the paper and wonder if you can answer them.
 There are four sample size numbers provided for the placebo group, 679 ITT, 675 modified ITT, 288 per the protocol and lastly, 587 who stayed per protocol. What is the difference in the make-up of the per-protocol group and the group who stayed per protocol? Were the 299 that make the difference from the other protocols of the TOGETHER trial, as it is implied they were not necessarily the three-day placebo group?
 The placebo group mortality is 24. When I work out the RRR I get the same answer as offered in the paper if I use the ITT number. However, it is not clear to me where the 24 deaths actually come from. How many of the 24 reported deaths in the placebo group occurred among the 288 patients who stayed per-protocol? It is reported how many of the placebo group's hospitalisations occurred in the per-protocol group but not the mortality.
 Here is Mills's answer:
 Hello
 Question 1. The 288 are patients who received the identical 3-day placebo. Because this is a platform trial there are multiple placeboes used, proportionately equivalent to the number of active arms at any time.
 Question 2. I’m not interested in this question as its not the correct way to interpret the outcome.
 Regards Ed
 Mills's response to Question 1 is brazenly incomplete, given that it doesn’t answer Professor Aldous’s question. At all. For you non-data geeks, the opaqueness of the control group Colleen is referring to has bothered many an analyst of the TOGETHER trial’s shenanigans. Not one TOGETHER investigator has presented the data that can answer her question fully. It’s because Colleen is “over the target” and Mills knows it, so he tries to blow her off with a half answer, essentially pretending to not understand what she is really asking, i.e. the exact numbers of 3 day placebo patients that started and the final number that stayed per-protocol and how many died in the 3 day “per-protocol” placebo group. He is basically skirting the issue by implying that 288 patients were assigned 3 day placebos.. and thus, 288 patients were 100% compliant. This is so over-the-top absurd given that no randomized controlled rial EVER has had no drop-out in any assigned group. Like I said.. over the target .
 Beyond this absurdity above, what is even more damning is that Ed Mills just flat-out refuses to answer the 2nd question. Busted again. The published NEJM paper offers a per-protocol analysis of hospitalization by reference to the 288-person (3-day) placebo group.  But Mills is somehow saying that the exact same analysis would  be incorrect for mortality .  Bottom line: he refuses to answer the simple question of how many of the 24 reported placebo deaths occurred in the 288-person per-protocol group.
 God this post is never ending. Unfortunately, there is even more. We still have to look at Mill’s statement as to why the trial suddenly ended when it did. Just like the above in regards to how he chose the dosing, he again makes three different statements in regards to the decision to stop the trial in his recent NIH presentation. He is the dumbest liar ever. Let’s move on:
 First, from the C19early.com group which called out the TOGETHER investigators for stopping the trial at a time that was not pre-set by their published and Ethics Board Approved protocol:
 Text within this block will maintain its original spacing when published Reportedly terminated for futility although futility threshold not reached. The trial was reportedly terminated due to futility [ twitter.com (O) ] , however the futility thresholds were 20%, 40% and 60%, and all published probabilities are >60% (ITT 79.4%). Additionally, the fluvoxamine arm did not have the higher 60% threshold, only using 40%. Note the Data Safety Monitoring Committee (DSMC) was not independent.
 Please understand, the non-independence of the DSMC is an outrageous violation of research practice and ethics. From Alex Marinos’s brilliant substack on this issue , there were two scientists tasked with evaluating the TOGETHER protocol before the study commenced , and who openly objected to the appointed chair of the DSMC . Again, this objection was lodged prior to the trial, due to the proposed Chair having deep and long-standing professional and financial relationships with the study investigators. The investigators, instead of removing their conflicted colleague, just made him a non-voting member. Good to have some eyes and ears at the head of the committee apparently.
 Now, lets get back to Mill’s statements as to why they stopped the trial when they did.
 Remember that Mills, above, stupidly admitted to Marc Rendell, “ In particular, there was a 17% reduction in hospitalizations that would be significant if more patients were added.”
 Here are the reasons he gives as to why the trial was stopped when it was.
 “ I don't call the shots when to stop the trial, the Data Safety Monitoring Committee (DSMC) decides”
 Not true, because later he says:
 “ The DSMC makes a recommendation to the steering committee” (which Mills is on).
 At another point he says they stopped the trial because “ they ran out of funding, ” and bizarrely mentions that the trial was “ funded by a 32-year-old billionaire. ” There are a number of problems with this statement. First, what does the billionaire’s age have to do with anything? And how a billionaire whose main philanthropic goal is to fund trials rapidly in COVID (his organization is literally called Fast Grants) yet could have limited resources beggars the mind. Also, his statement deliberately hides the fact that the other funding organization was the massive Rainwater Foundation, and that they have said they would have given more money to finish the trial if the investigators had asked. Busted.
 And then here is the best statement as to why he ended the trial:
 “ We were being abused by the community, I lost interest because of attacks we were receiving.”
 You ended the trial because you “lost interest?” Whatever Mills.
 Now, let’s move on to another investigator named Craig Rayner. I already mentioned him in Part 2 but I did not explicitly call attention to his conflicts. Shall we review them? Again, from c19early.com:
 Text within this block will maintain its original spacing when published Craig Rayner  has had previous financial relationships with: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation ✔ Medicines Development for Global Health ✔ Novaquest ✔ Regeneron ✔Merck ✔ Astrazeneca ✔Pfizer ✔ Daichi Sankyo ✔ Commonwealth Science and Research Organization ✔
 Not only is he one of the most Pharma-conflicted investigators, but he is also on record as the first researcher in the world to publish a Letter to the Editor in June of 2020 calling for caution in thinking ivermectin could be effective in COVID, reacting to what must have been very unsettling to him and his Pharma sponsors - the enthusiastic global response to a wickedly positive in-vitro study at Monash University in Australia. His letter essentially launched the first of many anti-ivermectin narratives across media and medical journals. This narrative appeared in major newspapers across the world for over a year. The media kept stating that standard doses of ivermectin could never achieve the tissue concentrations used in a test-tube experiment of monkey kidney cells. The idea that effective concentrations found in an in-vitro cell culture using monkey kidney cells directly relate to live human dosing has been repeatedly shown to be unreliable.. at best. But this is what they do.
 Although Rayner did not know this in June of 2020, there is NO way the investigators were unaware that by January 2021, Paul Marik, Andrew Hill and myself had presented to the NIH the results of an updated (at the time unpublished) experiment from Leon Caly and Kylie Wagstaff (authors of the original study from Monash University) that showed standard dosing did in fact achieve effective concentrations in lung and fat tissue . In fact, the aforementioned “narrative” was peppered throughout Andy’s manipulated-by-Unitaid (err, BMGF) pre-print, two weeks after we presented these data to the NIH. Those manuscript statements are what caused Paul and I to initially suspect scientific misconduct was occurring because we knew Andy had in his possession the results of Caly and Wagstaff’s updated experiment, yet he refused to include it in his paper (one can always reference unpublished work as “unpublished work” or as “personal communication” with an expert..especially in a pandemic costing millions of lives). Andy chose to do neither and we were furious at him because we knew he was deliberately perpetuating a harmful and inaccurate narrative.
 I also note that 16 months later.. that updated experiment from Monash University has still not been published . Curious no? I would ask Caly and Wagstaff myself but I already know the answer. Careers dependent on continued grant funding make folks shy away from publishing inconvenient science. Hey Kylie, Leon, if I got this wrong and the reality is that you have been trying to publish but keep getting rejected, then I retract (hah!) my insinuation. I know you to be good people.. but even the good people get cowed in this game. Still would be nice to get a little help out here.
 THE END.

 I just want to say how much I appreciate all the subscribers to my substack, and especially the paid ones. Your support is so greatly appreciated.
 Subscribe now
 P.S I am getting professional help (hah!) to write a book about what I have personally witnessed and learned during the Pandemic war on ivermectin.  Pre-order here  for:

Summary: Numerous disturbing, inconsistent, and false statements have been collected and documented by multiple researchers, journalists, and observers in communication with the TOGETHER trial investigators.