When Nature Calls: Care Of The Critically Ill Orangutan. A Case Report

A good friend of mine was searching for an old email in her inbox when she came across one from me from years ago where I related a story that had just happened to me. She re-read the email and laughed so hard she cried.. again. She immediately called me and demanded me to do a Substack post about it because, “It. Is. My. Favorite. Story. Ever.”
 Even though I am the butt of this joke of an episode in my life, it’s a welcome change from my usual drum-banging around Covid corruption and medical system insanity. I trust it will bring a smile and even a few laugh-tears to my dear subscribers. We sure could use one in light of the fact we are about to lose all sovereignty to Tedros and the WHO. See, I couldn’t even let up for even one post. Yeesh am I tiresome.
 Anyway, here goes. Please note all names and places have been changed to preserve anonymity.
 I was once in charge of the ICU of a large hospital as well as one of the leaders of a training program for doctors wanting to learn the specialty of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine. At one point, I was working closely with a medical device representative as I was trying to build a custom insertion kit to help my critical care fellows and medicine residents to place central venous catheters in as sterile and efficient a way as possible. Placing such catheters is one of the foundational procedures that a critical care physician must master, and maintaining a sterile field during an ongoing resuscitation of crashing patients is paramount to avoid blood stream infections. This isn’t what this post is about though.
 One Sunday morning, I received a call from the device rep. I was pretty shocked because device reps usually don’t call ICU Directors… on a Sunday morning (I was not working that day either).
 He started by apologizing for bothering me on a Sunday, but we were pretty friendly, so I asked him, “what's up, how can I help you?” He then started telling me about how his wife is one of the operational leads at the local zoo. I wasn't really sure where this was going, but then he began to explain that the zoo needed my help.
 The zoo had a very sick teenage orangutan named Winaka who was suffering paralysis, and the veterinarian team thought she was sick with tetanus. They needed to get nutrition as well as medicines into Winaka because she could no longer raise her arms to feed herself or even hold herself up. He said the veterinarian team requested an expert at putting in a central venous catheter and wondered if I would be able to help because the veterinarians never place them in their practice.
 As tired as I was on that morning, I immediately jumped up, as the opportunity to be involved with caring for a critically ill orangutan was beyond exciting to me. Let alone the fact my Hippocratic oath dictated that I help anyone in medical need when asked (not sure if the Hippocratic oath mentioned orangutans but you get it).
 So I said “absolutely, I'll go over there right now, let me just pick up my equipment from the hospital.” He laughed and explained it could not be today because they needed to get a whole bunch of stuff in place. Apparently you can’t just walk into a cage with an orangutan and ask them to lay quietly while you insert a central line into their femoral vein. In fact, no human ever enters their cage because they can snap your arm off when scared or excited, except perhaps in cases like you see on TV where they know you from birth etc.
 He explained that in the morning they would first sedate Winaka, bring her into the treatment room at the zoo, then an Anesthesia team from the hospital would be there to intubate her and attach her to a ventilator so that we could place the central venous catheter. He put me in touch with the veterinarian, we discussed the case at length (I probably asked a hundred questions as I was endlessly fascinated by this case). I became quite intrigued, not only with the medical history but with the history of this orangutan.
 Winaka was apparently a very smart, and very suspicious orangutan. They had never been able to secret pills or medicines in any food, not even yogurt or ice cream because she would NEVER touch anything they messed with. This was their standard approach to administering needed medicines to all their animals but Winaka never fell for it. Other weird stuff in her history was that she once had a baby, but didn't like the baby and was mistreating it so they had to take the baby away. Apparently this happens sometimes with young teenage mother orangutans. Also, orangutans apparently spend the first 8? months of their life draped on the chest of their mother.
 Problem: they had to take the baby away from Winaka. So what did they do? They hired staff who worked in shifts, holding the baby orangutan on their chest, wearing like a fur vest, and they bottle fed her that way. When I met one of the “surrogate orangutan mom’s”, they told me that the shifts were hard because they had to hold their pee for hours because if they went to pee it required peeling the baby orangutan off their warm chest and this was very distressing to the baby orangutan. The team was very proud of their efforts, especially the ending where they ended up bringing the baby to a zoo across the country where a mother orangutan had recently lost their child (I think) and when they presented the baby orangutan to the adopted mom, apparently it was a match made in heaven and they have lived closely and happily together ever since.
 Let's get back to the story at hand. As soon as I got off the phone with the rep, I sent a group text to all my fellows (senior physician trainees in critical care medicine), when they immediately started to blow up my phone, all begging to be chosen to come with me to the zoo. My favorite was one of my fellows, who was on vacation across the country at the time stated that “he was getting on a plane right now.” Anyway I selected two of my fellows and we all made plans to go down there in the morning with our ultrasound machine and equipment.
 Fast forward to the next day, the team of anesthesiologists were already there, as well as a neurology team (they were there to do a spinal tap, also something not commonly done by veterinarians). The anesthesiologists were already working on inserting a peripheral IV to administer medicine to perform the intubation.
 I will just leave you pictures of that day and then we'll get to the meat of the story.
 Picture #1: An anesthesiologist is looking for a vein to insert a peripheral IV

 Photo #2. The anesthesiologist is “pre-oxygenating” Winaka in preparation for insertion of an endotracheal tube

 Photo #3. Anesthesiologist is opening the jaw in preparation for insertion of the laryngoscope

 Photo #4. The anesthesiologist begins to open the jaw with the laryngoscope in order to visualize the vocal cords for placement of the endotracheal tube.

 Photo #5. We splay open Winaka’s legs to prepare the field for insertion of the central venous catheter in the right femoral vein (in the right groin)

 Photo #6. My fellow placing the central venous catheter. Winaka is chilling out under Anesthesia.

 Photo #7. The neurologist is performing a lumbar puncture (spinal tap) to obtain cerebrospinal fluid for analysis.

 I will say that all procedures were successful, Winaka was immediately administered critical antibiotics with other medicines as well as nutrition. All teams were quite proud of our work.
 I got consulted multiple other times on various aspects of Winaka’streatment, none more memorable than when they called to tell me Winaka’s right leg was double the size her left. Ugh. Deep venous thrombosis (DVT). I again went down there with my ultrasound machine, diagnosed the DVT and we started her on blood thinners. I also had to counsel the veterinarian team on what to do if Winaka “threw the clot to her lung." This is called a pulmonary embolus and can cause a medical emergency or even cardiac arrest. We arranged to get some clot busting medication to have on hand in the event it were to happen. Another day in the life of a critical care orangutan doctor.
 Now, please realize, we are not at the funny part yet. What happened next is that my team (which included a partner of mine) wanted to write up the case and publish it as a “case report” for an upcoming national conference we were all going to. We thought it interesting to discuss the application of ultrasound in the diagnosis and treatment of a critically ill orangutan. Plus the pictures were cool :). Anyway, we asked the veterinarians to co-author with us, they were excited to write it up as well, however they told us we needed to get permission from the zoo first. This is what happened next (note I have changed or redacted all names and emails).
 From:  Dr. Smith
 Sent:  Thursday, October XX, YYYY
 To:  Deputy Zoo Director
 Cc:  Pierre Kory ; Dr. Jones
 Subject:  Abstract Request
 Dear Deputy Zoo Director,
 We are part of the ICU Medical team that evaluated and helped treat your orangutan, Winaka, several weeks ago for her quadriparesis and deep vein thrombosis. We were thrilled to have the chance to interact with Winaka and hope we were able to contribute to her wonderful recovery.
 Use of ultrasound is increasing amongst ICU physicians but remains underutilized, particularly for identification of deep vein thromboses. We hoped to submit an abstract describing Winaka’s case at one of our pulmonary and critical care meetings (American Thoracic Society) with the hopes of increasing excitement and use of bedside ultrasound. The fact that she is an orangutan will undoubtedly increase interest and we hope will stimulate improved uptake of ultrasound technology. I have attached the abstract, which we hope to submit October 29, for your review to ensure it maintains confidentiality of the Zoo and accuracy of the case. We have already had it reviewed by the veterinarian team doctors.
 Thank you for your consideration. We would love to assist with any future cases if we can be of service.
 Drs. Smith, Jones, and Kory
 On Oct 17, , at 5:54 PM, Deputy Director of the Zoo wrote:
 Dr. Smith,
 The entire Zoo is grateful for the support and expertise shared from the local medical community during our time of need and uncertainty. It goes without saying, the intent of everyone’s focus was to improve Winaka’s quality of life. And as a result, a community of likeminded professionals and talents came together for one common goal. There is still a lot we don’t know, and a lot we still need to discover. Over the next several months the zoo’s leadership team will be working closely with the Orangutan Species Survival Plan (SSP) and the Association and Zoos and Aquariums (AZA) steering committees. Our zoo’s Executive Director, who leads one of these committees, will establish message points and timelines for how information regarding Winaka’s case gets released, and for what purposes.
 At this time we cannot approve this abstract for submittal. This is not to say future considerations won’t be accepted, but for the moment we’ll need to put this on pause.
 As the Zoo establishes best practices in medical care for our collection, we are also putting together a comprehensive plan of how to communicate, educate, and teach these practices. We hope you understand our decision at this time; furthermore, know that the success of Winaka’s recovery, and all of our zoo’s collection, relay heavily on our community’s continued support.
 Respectfully,
 Deputy Zoo Director

 Here is where.. I fucked up. I ended up “replying all” when I meant to just send to my two colleagues. It ended up landing in the inbox of the Deputy Zoo Director. Whoops.

 From:  Pierre Kory <>
 Sent:  Thursday, October 17, 8:21 PM
 To:  Deputy Zoo Director
 Cc:  Dr. Smith, Dr. Jones
 Subject:  Re: Abstract Request
 That reads as if it was written by a professional spokesperson/press agent/lawyer. And I think it’s crap because at the end of the day a little abstract at a medical Society meeting is not a big deal. They fucked up, they forgot to give Winaka her tetanus shots and now they look stupid. At least that’s my take on it :)
 Hilary, let’s write an email to this guy every month just to see him twist and turn in his replies. It will keep us entertained while we wait to publish Winaka’s case report. :) -P

 Ouch. Not good. I actually realized I had sent a reply all by accident… like within minutes. I immediately called my colleagues asking for help in trying to claw back/delete/rescind an already sent email. They were of little help, in fact, one colleagues husband was like an IT guru and he quickly explained to me that it is very rare and very difficult to be able to prevent an email from reaching it’s destination once you click “send.” Ugh. I was so embarrassed and began dreading the reply. It came late the next morning.

 From: Deputy Zoo Director
 Date:  Friday, October 18, at 11:30 AM
 To:  Pierre Kory <>,
 Subject:  RE: Abstract Request
 Dear Dr. Kory, Dr. Jones and Dr. Smith:
 The intent behind this email response is twofold: the Zoo wants to be clear on our position regarding your abstract request, titled, “ When Nature Calls: Care of the Critically-Ill Orangutan, ”  and to share with you my displeasure regarding the email response from Dr. Kory.
 As stated in my email of October 17, the Zoo  does not  approve the submittal of the above mentioned abstract at this time. If future considerations are made for publication, or variations of it, please feel free to contact me so that we can consider them. If approved, the the zoo will draft a formal letter stating it has authorized publication. I have copied our legal counsel in my response to answer any questions you may have about our decision or the approval process.
 As stated above, I was shocked and disappointed with Dr. Kory’s unprofessional and crude response to my email. During my career, I have worked to ensure all animals under my supervision including the animals at the Zoo have the best care possible. This sometimes requires the help of community professionals with the expertise and technology to aid in this care. My professional agenda has always held only one purpose: improving animal welfare.
 You can imagine my surprise when I received Dr. Kory’s email which explicitly describes an effort designed to intimidate me for entertainment. I do not understand how a professional email exchange between two individuals could devolve into the aggressive, crass and expletive filled email response that Dr. Kory sent.  In order to preserve the mutually beneficial relationship between our organizations, I ask that greater care be taken in your communications.
 Moving forward, and keeping animal welfare at the forefront of this message, we appreciate all the help and support that was received involving this animal’s case, and would like to ensure professional conduct is maintained at the highest level.
 Respectfully,
 Deputy Zoo Director

 I was so ashamed. I immediately wrote back with the below.

 From:  Pierre Kory <>
 Date:  Friday, October 18, at 11:38 AM
 To:  "Deputy Zoo Director” “Dr. Smith”, Dr. Jones”
 Subject:  Re: Abstract Request
 Dear Deputy Zoo Director,
 I completely agree with your assessment of my email as crass with expletives and I recognize what an unfortunate choice of words I used but please know my suggestion that we entertain ourselves was a poorly worded joke, there was no absolutely no serious intent behind it. Either way, this was, I hope, a new low in regards to my attempts at humor/expression and hopefully will never be repeated. I am truly ashamed of any hurt/offense I have caused. Respectfully and apologetically yours, Pierre Kory
 The saddest part of this whole story.. is my career as a critical care orangutan doctor came to a crashing halt. Forever.
 P.S. Winaka ended up making a full recovery! It was fascinating and incredibly satisfying to watch the daily videos of her recovery sent to me by the veterinarian team. She never threw a pulmonary embolus either despite the fact she never took her blood thinners once she went back into her cage (every time they put it in any food, she wouldn’t touch it).

 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: Channeling my best Robert Malone, I decided to do a variation of his "Friday Funnies", except this one I will call "Monday Madness"... except in my version, I am the cartoon.


I Published An Op-Ed Addressing Party Politics in COVID. Yikes.

My deep identification with Elon Musk’s below tweet of a diagram depicting recently shifting political spectrum dynamics is what inspired the Op-Ed.

 I would love to claim that, as a physician, I publicly avoid political statements, not only because I am not deeply studied on the topic, but largely to avoid harming my newfound ability to disseminate sound, pragmatic, and impactful medical evidence to the greater public. As practical as that aim sounds, it became rapidly elusive during COVID. Much to my surprise, the medical expertise gained by the FLCCC in COVID therapeutics seemed to be sought after and disseminated almost solely by media on the right side of the political spectrum.
 “Conservatives” were suddenly the ones questioning authority and asking the tough questions about the health agencies miserably failing COVID policies? Left-leaning media were writing headlines with public health guidance from pharmaceutical company executives? Wait, what?
 The reason why I found this so politically disorienting is that I had always thought of conservatives as those with implicit trust in and willingness to maintain the power of societal institutions. I probably overlooked the influence of the Tea Party movement, what with their desire to attack the “liberal” government of Barack Obama by aiming to severely lower taxes and/or limit the power and size of government. More in word than in deed IMO, but conservative’s willingness to challenge the current government led to their championing of what turned out to be data-driven, fact-based health policies during COVID (i.e the opposite of what our captured agencies were doing).
 Any entity that questioned, pushed back, or disagreed with policies emanating from health agencies in a state of total regulatory capture was gonna get it correct. Whether the political right adopted the appropriate policy stance simply due to their natural opposition to a liberal government or because they more openly entertained and thoughtfully considered a diversity of scientific opinion, it didn’t really matter.
 The right was getting it right in COVID. But hey, even a broken clock is right twice a day, so I am not saying I now agree with them on everything. It is just that my COVID expertise led me to discover that the HHS was being run by pharmaceutical and vaccination companies exerting their influence via Anthony Fauci, rapaciously putting profits ahead of public health at every turn. And my aversion to the current government’s COVID policies existed even before their obscene Misinformation boards (Ministry’s of Truth) started to become a thing.
 I am embarrassed to remind myself that, at the start of this pandemic, I was like any other “liberal”, thinking Fauci was a sympathetic fella, doing the best he could in a tough spot with a lot of critics. It took me longer than it should have to understand that he is almost certainly a sociopath, having led the U.S biomedical industrial complex for the last 40 years. Almost singlehandedly causing untold misery, morbidity, and mortality across generations of increasingly sick Americans, especially children. I don’t think anyone can consider themselves truly informed on the topic of public health if you have not read “The Real Anthony Fauci” by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Then, almost as a coup de grace nearing the end of a horror show of a career, Fauci’s Big Pharma slavish COVID policies caused millions more preventable deaths, not only in the U.S but around the world.
 The destructive and demonstrably non-scientific U.S COVID response became the most important humanitarian fight of not only my adult life, but in my career as a physician. I was going to join with whomever would fight alongside me and the FLCCC in getting life-saving medical information out to the public. If that desire landed me amongst folks whose other political beliefs did not align with mine or ours, so be it. Let’s just save as many lives as we can and sort out the rest later.
 Funny thing is, the day before I published my Op-Ed, I got attacked in a hit piece as some sort of “Right-Wing Rising Star”. What? It was published in the Pharma rag called MedPage Today (it hits the daily inbox of many doctors in the country). Me, Paul Marik, and the FLCCC have long been their punching bags. They even led off with a quote of mine which they essentially characterized as “dangerous ideology.” I happened to have made that statement at the Defeat the Mandates Rally in LA last month, solely as my deeply studied assessment on the the media and medical sciences over the last 2 years. It was not a judgement.. it was an observation. I love how they said that many of us docs “have given up our careers in mainstream medicine.” It wasn’t voluntary ya shmucks, but then again, you knew that.
 However, at this point, I no longer lament my excommunication from academia as I am quite fulfilled in my private tele-health practice. Problem is that I am not sure how long I can continue practicing medicine given the the Medical Board complaints about my public medical opinions keep pouring in.
 Here’s the first few paragraphs of the MedPage article:

 Contrast the above with my Op-Ed published by Fox News. For those familiar with my writing style, it should be easy to tell by the measured, thoughtful tone… that I got some help writing it :).
 I did not choose the headline, although I can’t say I disagree with it. Enjoy.

 The high-profile back-and-forth between Elon Musk and Twitter has jump started a national conversation about the broader re-alignment of our cultural priorities and ideology. In the face of blowback from progressives, Musk has argued that today’s Democratic Party, "has been hijacked by extremists," morphing fellow center-left liberals like myself to align with current perspectives of those held by conservatives.
 He's right—and the Democrat party’s newfound and aggressive affinity for censoring debate and strong-arming doctors is making many of us rethink our political allegiance.
 ELON MUSK LIGHTS UP TWITTER AFTER DECLARING HE'LL VOTE GOP NEXT ELECTION

 A nurse holds the hand of a COVID-19 patient at St. Luke's Boise Medical Center in Idaho on Aug. 31, 2021. (AP Photo/Kyle Green)
 I’m a lifelong Democrat. I voted for Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden. I used to have an inherent aversion to Republicans, as I joke with colleagues, similar to how the vaccinated feel about the unvaccinated today. (The original line was “I used to hate Republicans like the vaccinated hate the unvaccinated.” It’s true.) But as the pandemic unfolded, and I discussed with doctors across the country and around the world my experience treating patients, I met many new conservative colleagues and friends who put politics aside to focus on doing our best at the bedside. It made me more tolerant and understanding of their worldviews.
 At the same time, I used to view Democrats, and the center-left more broadly, as the champions of free speech both in civil society and in our professional institutions. But now, as with today’s progressive political movement, medical boards are adopting policies that censor opinions, defining such speech as mis- or disinformation, especially scientific opinions around COVID. Medical professionals who refuse to toe the party line risk censorship, cancellation, and even the loss of license—a fate far worse than getting banned from Twitter.

The trend is forcing doctors who exhibit critical thinking to face an existential choice: join the mob and support what many of us believe are dangerous policies without a sound scientific basis, or stand up and risk losing your livelihood.
 This trend has troubling long-term implications for patients—something all of us will become at some point in our lives.

 Video
 Consider what is happening in California. A bill moving through the State House grants sweeping new powers to the state’s medical board to initiate investigations of doctors whose COVID treatment decisions "departed from the applicable standard of care." While I am all for policies that protect patients from irresponsible doctors, that’s not what this is. In the bill, the definition of "misinformation" is intentionally vague, the consequences are clear and severe, ranging from "disciplinary action" to loss of a medical license.
 Such a policy flies in the face of medical and scientific training. In medical school, we are taught to apply critical thinking and question even established medical protocols and scientific dogma for important reasons—by questioning and researching, we more strongly understand the basis (or lack thereof) which underpin these beliefs. The history of science is replete with established practices being overturned in this way. In medical practice, we are pushed to use all our knowledge to treat patients using our best judgement and abilities and to advance the practice of medicine. The California bill would demolish these tenets in one fell swoop.
 Allowing bureaucrats or politicians to intrude on the doctor-patient relationship inflicts irreparable harm on the practice of medicine. Free thought and expression would be replaced by fear and group think. Many doctors choose to go-along-to-get-along—even with policies they vehemently disagree with—rather than finding themselves out of work and struggling to feed their families.

 Dr. Pierre Kory, associate professor of medicine, testifies during a Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee hearing on Dec. 8, 2020. (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)
 As misguided as the California effort may be, it will set a precedent for other states to follow. Already, similar efforts are afoot at the national level. The Federation of State Medical Boards, a national trade association that represents 71 state medical boards, approved a medical misinformation and disinformation policy at its annual meeting.
 Falling in line with censorious Big Tech companies bottles up potentially game-changing treatments in our ongoing battle with COVID. Cases are rising again, driven up nearly 60 percent nationally by Omicron subvariants, and experts are warning about another surge in the fall. Now is the time to foster—not suppress—creative thinking that could lead to better treatment strategies.
 Science is not static. It is constantly changing. Those who provide treatments need the freedom to do the same. Consider Dr. Anthony Fauci’s statement in January 2022 that COVID will, "ultimately find just about everybody." It is an admission that would have been unthinkable two years ago amid the initial fear of mandatory lockdowns. As facts and science change, so does our collective understand that drives public policy. That is how the system should work.
 Tribalism and polarization have made our political and medical discourse nasty and divisive. Doctors must be kept above the partisan fray, not forced to take sides and pick a jersey. Our jobs are too important, and we need to be apolitical to maintain credibility with everyone who comes to us seeking treatment. Progress and innovative medical breakthroughs in the future depend on freedom and medical choice now.
 Pierre Kory, M.D., is president and chief medical officer of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance.

 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: I called out my (former?) party for having lost its way. Fox News, a website with over 750 million visits a month, decided to publish it. Whoa.


Fraudulent Trial On Ivermectin Published By The World's Top Medical Journal. Big Pharma Reigns - Part 2

In part I of my post on the TOGETHER trial of ivermectin, I presented the context of this trial within Big Pharma’s decades-long Disinformation campaign against “science inconvenient to their interests.” I argued that no science has ever been a greater threat to Pharma than the massive efficacy data of the generic drug ivermectin in COVID-19. I detailed how they have long deployed “studies designed or conducted to fail” and/or “studies manipulated to show positive results.” They do both. Repeatedly. They then publish these studies in a small number of captured high-impact scientific journals which influence the captured media and then are recommended for or against by captured health agencies.
 Note that the importance of the wording of the conclusion in a trial’s abstract, published in a high-impact journal, cannot be overstated. Only a small minority of physicians read and think critically about the full study manuscript. Even less read the full study abstract. Sadly, the overwhelming majority simply read the abstract’s conclusion. In this manner, and particularly in the case of the TOGETHER trial, they can baselessly and erroneously convince the vast majority of doctors and citizens that ivermectin is ineffective. In the case of ivermectin, they did this via less than a handful of severely flawed “Big RCT’s” despite the overwhelming mountain of valid OCT’s and RCT’s and the success of health ministry program success in COVID. The TOGETHER trial on ivermectin was never going to be a positive trial. Ever. That was a foregone conclusion.
 So what I want to do here is break down exactly how they accomplished this feat, using the most brazenly fraudulent conduct of any trial I have studied. This is NOT to say that I have never witnessed fraudulent studies, but this trial displays an unprecedented number of targeted tactics designed to deny, suppress, and distort the evidence of efficacy.
 First off, this trial was designed and conducted by researchers employed by companies with deep ties to Big Pharma (Pfizer specifically) and/or the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF ). Recall the latter essentially defends and represents the intellectual property rights and goals of the entire vaccination industry). The Pharma associations by study investigators are so common that it association is not automatically an indictment (but should be).
 Please realize that the numerous connections to Pfizer are particularly troubling here. Pfizer’s Paxlovid is a direct competitor to ivermectin. Paxlovid stands to make many tens of billions of dollars around the world with no upper limit as the pandemic promises to rage on. Paxlovid is composed of a formulation with a single mechanism shared with ivermectin. Yet, somehow it has important drug interactions with almost every class of medicine known. Ivermectin on the other hand, has many more anti-viral and anti-inflammatory mechanisms, yet has almost no drug interactions. It is one of, if not the safest and most inexpensive and widely available medicines in history. Just sayin’. Note that one TOGETHER trial investigator, Craig Rayner, works for a company that works for Pfizer. What is fascinating is that he published the world’s first “anti-ivermectin” letter way back in June of 2020 after the landmark Monash University in-vitro study found that ivermectin eradicated SARS-CoV2 in a cell culture model. Note that he did so.. before a single clinical trial had been done in COVID. Interesting no? Probably just a coincidence.
 Further, the over a dozen markedly positive trials supporting ivermectin in prevention against COVID-19 make the drug a direct competitor to the vaccines . The 65+ trials showing efficacy in treatment would remove the EUA for the vaccines (if “science” was functioning). Thus, ivermectin is a direct threat to the entire COVID-19 vaccine industry as well. So, to be clear, ivermectin has the largest Big Pharma market forces arrayed against it than any other generic medicine in history . The below chart summarizes the prevention trials (which include multiple RCT’s forthose of you who are RCT fundamentalist church members). This impressive chart is why the captured WHO , in their last guideline document on ivermectin, simply stated, “we did not review trials of ivermectin in the prevention of COVID-19.” How convenient . This is also a new “play” in the Disinformation playbook which I will call “The Ignore.” When inconvenient science like the below pops up, just ignore it.

 Beyond the many concerns I myself identified in the TOGETHER trial and among its investigators, this post also relies on the work of a large network of colleagues and experts. They uncovered even more concerning flaws than I would have been able to do alone. I find their work unparalleled in meticulousness, depth and importance. At the top of those doing “deep dives” (please visit their linked Substacks) are the polymaths Alexandros Marinos and Phil Harper , but the list also includes PhD’s in statistics (David Wiseman) and epidemiology (Harvey Risch), and expert clinicians or researchers (Flavio Cadegiani, Jackie Stone, David Scheim) among others. Also at the top is the expert scientist group c19early.com, as they have the most comprehensive (yet far more concise) list of identified issues here . Reading their take on the trial is shocking, yet their conclusion is too mild for what they found, i.e. “these results are unreliable.” Read their more concise explanations of the 47, yes 47, major concerns, with many being what I call “fatal flaws.” I will go through quite a few of them below before I will stop with exhaustion and disgust. Here is the list from ivmmeta.com:
 Many major issues including multiple impossible numbers, blinding failure, randomization failure, and many protocol violations, as detailed below
 Protocol issues: blinding failure    unequal randomization, significant confounding    unknown onset patients included    widespread community use    DSMC not independent    extreme conflicts of interest    vaccine inclusion changes    analysis company works closely with Pfizer    designed by Cytel    Δ viral load not reported    per-protocol conflict vs. fluvoxamine    multiple conflicting randomization protocols    conflicting dosing    plasma concentration below known effective    primary outcome easy to game    conflicting target enrollment    futility threshold    inconsistent subgroup analysis    missing analysis    missing outcomes    mid-trial protocol changes    imputation protocol violation    single-dose recruiting continued after change    funding list incorrect    SAP after trial start    single dose results not reported    placebo unspecified
 Data issues: unexplained delay    no response to data request    3 different death counts    patient count mismatch    conflicting placebo arm counts    unknown onset results dramatically better    low active arm side-effects    incorrect conclusion    conflicting comorbidity counts    conflicting adverse event counts    screening to treatment delay    missing age information    mean delay likely excluding unknown onset    two different per-protocol counts    3-dose placebo much more effective    dominated by Gamma variant, no discussion
 The deep Big Pharma/BMGF ties of the main study investigators are not a barrier to publication in Big Journals (if anything they’re a boon). However, many of the other flaws are so profound that, if sanity and ethics reigned, the study would never (should never?) have been accepted by a major journal. But lets go anyway:
 The investigators knowingly conducted the trial in an area where ivermectin use was rampant, yet they did not explicitly exclude patients taking ivermectin from the control group. This was done despite all the other ivermectin trials having had this as an exclusion criteria. Excluding patients already on a medicine from an RCT that is studying the medicine is Research Trial Design 101 . Solely on this basis, this study should have been dead in the water upon arrival to NEJM. Fraud or incompetence? You choose. That same question should also apply to all issues following. One investigators defense was “but we carefully screened for ivermectin use.” I am sure you did, but please explain why it was not made an explicit exclusion criteria? Indefensible. Full stop. Again, not subtle folks. The biggest “tell” of fraud. I mean, how can you show efficacy when both groups have access to the same drug? Palm to forehead. See below from Alexandro Marinos’s brilliant thread on this topic:

 To paraphrase Alexandro’s words, we really do not have to go farther to call foul on this trial. It’s what is called a fatal flaw ( or fatal fraud) . The consequence of not specifically and primarily identifying people on ivermectin is that they run the welcome risk of comparing those taking ivermectin… with many/most/all in the control group who were also taking ivermectin. It is hard to prove that a medicine is better than itself. It’s almost as if they wanted the control group to take ivermectin . But here’s the thing, they don’t need everyone in the control group to be on ivermectin in order to bury the efficacy signal, they only need enough to.. avoid a statistically significant benefit. Mission accomplished. Indeed, the reality of this trial is that, in the duplicitous words of the Principal Investigator Ed Mills, “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.” Yet while he said this privately, what he said to the newspapers was ,“ there was no indication that ivermectin is clinically useful. ” He wrote the conclusion as “ treatment with ivermectin did not result in a lower incidence of medical admission to a hospital due to progression of Covid-19. ” Yet, buried in the supplementary appendix is the result of a complex statistical method (Bayesian analysis), which most statisticians consider to be the most robust at determining efficacy. That analysis found a 79.4% probability of the superiority of ivermectin. Shocking I know.
 Then, beyond conducting a trial of ivermectin in an area rife with use of a government recommended, widely available, over-the-counter (OTC) medicine while not having a clear exclusion criteria for use, it gets flagrantly worse (if that’s possible). The placebo tablets were not identical to the ivermectin tablets. Bottles yes, tablets no. There was only one manufacturer of ivermectin in Brazil at the start of the trial, you could buy the brand everywhere OTC, yet matching placebo tablets were not produced. Note they used tablets instead of capsules. To explain, active medicine and placebo capsules can be made to look identical to each other very easily (just a different powder inside) whereas tablets cannot unless the ivermectin tablet manufacturer makes the same tablet but without ivermectin. They chose to use publicly recognizable tablets while the placebo group got tablets that did not look like Brazilian ivermectin. Don’t you think that every trial participant was dying to know whether they got the real stuff or the placebo? Research Design 101, once again. Incompetence or fraud?
 More evidence that the placebo group took ivermectin is in the manuscript, which reported less gastrointestinal side effects in the ivermectin arm . For comparison, there was a 3.6 times greater incidence of diarrhea in the ivermectin treatment arm in the recent media misreported Malaysia trial. This finding also reminds me of the first Pharma bomb dropped on ivermectin, published in the high-impact journal Clinical Infectious Disease, where they found largely equal rates of common ivermectin side effects in the placebo group such as blurry vision and diarrhea. That study was done in Colombia, another country where ivermectin use was rampant during a time of massive fear-mongering and death. Anyone want to be the placebo in the midst of a catastrophic threat to your life?
 The next issue, for me personally, betrays fraudulent intent like no other. That is the repeated, aggressive, and overt attempts to limit the dose and duration of ivermectin. The reason why this is as telling of fraud as the above, is that this tactic has long been Pharma’s main, time-honored approach when trying to disprove generic treatments (like Vitamin D or Vitamin C). They conduct a trial using either too low of a dose, for too short a duration, or at the wrong time-point in the disease. But here’s the deal. They do not have to be subtle . They just have to get it published in a high-impact journal and the headlines get written. Since the NEJM was such a wide-open non-gate keeper for all these flaws, err, I mean frauds, they sailed through to publication. But check out these insanely obvious, patented, dosing shenanigans:
 They started the trial with the ivermectin arm getting a single dose only , at a time when almost all treating clinicians around the world, including the FLCCC, were using multi-day regimens, and would treat up to 5 days or until recovered. One investigator tried to defend this by stating that they adopted the same dosing approach as with parasites. Yet, in their introduction, they report on the the ten years of anti-viral activity found among in-vitro studies as explored in our (and others) review paper .

 They then increased the duration of treatment, after it started to dawn on them that they couldn’t “disprove” or “prove” anything using an incredulous single dose. But, get this, they then only extended the duration to 3 days. Again, no other anti-viral is used for 3 days - Molnupiravir and Paxlovid are 5 days (with the Boston Globe now reporting that patients are falling ill again after stopping Paxlovid, with the CEO of Pfizer flippantly saying, “ just take a second course .” Acyclovir (7-10 days), Tamiflu (minimum 5 days), Ganciclovir (7-10 days). So why just 3 days against a deadly virus with one of the safest drugs known? Further, the senior author has given contradictory statements as to how they chose the dose. He wrote it was based on “feedback from advocacy groups.” I happen to know it was done due to pressure from one of the funding organizations of the trial who called foul on the one-day dose gimmick. Calling them “an advocacy group” is an insult. If he means the FLCCC is the “advocacy group”, I can vouch that we never talked to any investigator before they made that change. But in an email reply to someone who asked about the dosing, The Principal Investigator wrote a bunch of lies about how he proudly collaborated with me and the FLCCC to arrive at the dose. Bullshit. I will go into this nonsense in more detail in Post 3 of this farce of a trial where I will compile all the duplicitous, false, and sinister statements by these investigators.

 The other most blatant dosing shenanigan is when they attached an unprecedented and inexplicable “weight limit” of 60kg to the initial 0.4mg/kg single dose protocol - meaning the more you weighed over 60kg (the equivalent of only 132 lbs!) you smaller dose you would get per body weight. It’s not like they knew the obese fare worse in COVID or anything, right? Also, where the hell is this weight limit from? Totally invented. When treating parasites, there is NO weight limit. None. Ivermectin distributes to fat tissues. You need to dose to actual body weight. The investigators even foolishly cited studies using single doses up to 800 mcg/kg as being safe in their ethics approval application.

 They then apparently had second thoughts on this low, ridiculous, and arbitrary weight limit of 60 kg because when they changed the protocol to 3 days only, they reset this novel limiting of weight to a 90 kg limit (still only 198 lbs). Problem: 50% of people in the trial had a BMI over 30, thus the majority of these patients got an even lower dose per body weight. They did whatever they could to give as little as possible . Not subtle. Also, our Brazilian colleagues battling the extremely high viral loads of gamma were using 0.6-1.0mg/kg which is roughly DOUBLE their dose, for TEN days, which is roughly TRIPLE their dose. Further, the “real doctors” on the ground in Brazil during gamma, amidst the dying and deteriorating, were combining ivermectin with nitazoxanide (an equally effective repurposed anti-parasite drug) and other anti-inflammatory and/or anti-androgen therapies. Talk to Dr. Flavio Cadegiani, a doctor who actually figured out how to treat the gamma variant. Wait, I’m sorry, doctors don’t know what they are doing anymore, it is the big captured federal agencies, full of Gods of Science and Knowledge whom we should be listening to. Sorry Flavio.

 It gets worse folks. They also recommended that subjects take their dose on an empty stomach, knowing full well that concentrations would be higher if taken with a full stomach . What is even more disturbing about this recommendation is that one of the more Pfizer-conflicted investigators of the trial, Craig Rayner, published the first “anti-ivermectin” Letter to the Editor for COVID-19 in June of 2020, as I mentioned previously. I repeat. In June of 2020. He was the world’s first published ivermectin naysayer . Again, before any clinical trials had even been done in COVID . I suspect Pfizer must have really wanted to get ahead of any enthusiasm for ivermectin. The letter attempted to mitigate the excited global response and media fanfare that erupted after the publication of the highly positive in-vitro ivermectin SARS-Co-V2 experiment by Caly and Wagstaff from Australia’s Monash University. Rayner knew higher concentrations could be achieved because in that letter he writes “ Merck's product information reports that administration of 30mg ivermectin following a highfat meal resulted in an approximate 2.5-fold increase in bioavailability relative to administration of 30mg ivermectin in the fasted state." What is hilarious is that he did not know then that he would be part of a trial which stipulates that subjects take the drug.. on an empty stomach .

 Note Rayner’s letter literally invented the first anti-ivermectin narrative that “standard dosing in humans could never reach effective blood level concentrations required in the in-vitro monkey kidney cell model. ” We in the FLCCC fought that one for many months. Please note, doses used in-vitro often bear little resemblance to human dosing, yet this narrative was hammered for many months through media and academia . Read this excellent post from Joomi where she explores how erroneous such reasoning and claims are. My favorite is this quote:
   Ivermectin’s mode of action against parasites in the human body remains to be clarified. There is a substantial disparity between maximum plasma concentrations after ivermectin administration and the concentrations needed to induce paralysis in microfilariae .
 This “impossible dosing” narrative was then joined by others like “it only works in places with endemic parasites/worms” and “all the positive trials are too small or too low quality to rely on” and “many trials were suspected to be fraudulent.” Let’s not forget about the hurtful and insulting narratives targeting clinicians and researchers trying to bring evidence of efficacy to the masses (Paul Marik, myself, and the FLCCC). Insinuations that we should not be taken seriously, how we have a “religious” belief in ivermectin, or how we are simply an “advocacy group” instead of a highly published group of experts and researchers with decades of experience and deep expertise in many aspects of COVID. The biggest gun in those attacks was the Big Pharma rag called MedpageToday.com which published numerous derogatory headlines and articles with insulting quotes by physicians no-one has ever heard of. Sorry for I digress.
 Building these narratives is a critical tactic in their global Disinformation campaign. These propagandized “narratives” have been parroted to the press by several of the TOGETHER trial authors to the press. This interview with ED Mills, the senior author of the TOGETHER trial is full of them . The NEJM TOGETHER trial manuscript even includes a paragraph of propaganda narrative right in the introduction, for all the zombie, read-the-abstract only doctors:
 More than 60 randomized trials of ivermectin for the treatment of Covid-19 have been registered, and findings have been reported for as many as 31 clinical trials. The results have been discordant, and various review groups interpret the evidence differently — some advocating for benefits of ivermectin, and others reticent to conclude a benefit. However, most trials have been small , and several have been withdrawn from publication owing to concerns about credibility .
 Now check out the stuff spewing out of this Ivory Tower Canadian researcher below. This is what a victim of medical journal and mass media propaganda will say (taken from a review by the excellent ivermectin researcher Mikka Turkia ):
 “Canada research chair in Health Law and Policy at the University of Alberta wrote about ’why the Covid cult of ivermectin won’t die ... the debate over its use is really about ideology and in-group signaling — not science ... one of the most nonsensical storylines in a sea of nonsensical storylines . . . the ivermectin bunkum continues . . . there have been s everal recent large, well-done, clinical trials, including one published in the New England Journal of Medicine on Wednesday, that definitively show, a ccording to one of the study’s authors, “there’s really no sign of any benefit. ” The author mentioned demands for retraction, smuggling ivermectin into hospitals inside teddy bears, legal cases demanding administration of ivermectin for inpatients, and the use of ivermectin to treat parasites in horses ( this part is actually all true and I am fiercely admiring of all those who did what they knew their loved one needed ) . He wrote that research had shown that people who believed this kind of misinformation were ‘less likely to adopt preventive strategies, such as wearing masks, physical distancing and, of course, getting Covid vaccinations’, adding that ’the ivermectin believers never really address the conceptual inconsistency of why it makes sense to advocate for an unproven pharmaceutical treatment with known side effects over a vaccine that has a mountain of evidence demonstrating efficacy and safety’ . He concluded that ’a vaccine that is given free by the government for the benefit of the entire community smells like socialism , I guess. While taking an unproven therapy is something individuals do for themselves. Freedom !’ Astonishing display of the wicked power of propaganda. Wow.
 OK, back to this damn trial. Another action they took was a llowing subjects to enter the trial.. up to 7 days from symptom onset, and then allowed another day to get randomized and medicine delivered. And then it gets even worse - they didn’t exclude from analysis the subjects who needed hospital within 24 hours like they did in the other arms of this trial . Why have a different approach in the ivermectin arm? Weird no? Note that by doing this, they hurt only the ivermectin arm. Placebo patients were going to go to the hospital anyway.. because they got placebo and it was not going to change their trajectory. Ivermectin, if it worked and was going to change the trajectory of a patient away from the hospital, would need at least a day to do so. But no, in this arm of the trial, with this particular medicine, they removed the 24 hour exclusion period where the hospitalization would no longer be counted. Thus, by doing this, you can selectively increase the number of hospitalizations that counted in the ivermectin arm. Clever no?
 Remember, ivermectin is an anti-viral. Anti-virals work best in the first days of symptoms. The trial was held during the rapidly sickening gamma variant where some patients were entering hospital within 3 days of symptoms. Here, you could start treatment up to 8 days from first falling ill, and if you landed in the hospital within 24 hours.. it counted. Brilliant. Note how in the Paxlovid trial their cutoff was that treatment had to begin within 3 days of symptoms . It’s nice to be Big Pharma where you know how to design a trial when you want to show something works (and you know how to design a trial when you want to show something supposedly doesn’t work).
 So, time from first symptoms within 7 days was an inclusion criteria . Yet in the manuscript, they are missing the “time from symptoms” for a whopping 317 patients . How can you know whether to include a patient in the trial if you don’t know the time from first symptoms? How can this data be missing? It gets worse. Guess how well the ivermectin group with missing data did? By “reverse” calculating, David Wiseman found a statistically significant reduction in need for hospital of 49% among those missing patients. Yup.
 Have you had enough yet or should we we keep going? Fine, lets push on but if you want to take a break I will understand as this gets tedious and infuriating at the same time because you are literally watching a mass murder unfold.
 Now, they knowingly conducted the trial in a country that is the single largest buyer of pharmaceutical products in the world. This is because Brazil has the world’s largest national health system and it buys all of its medicines en masse. Do you think that might invite corruption around the pharmaceutical industry? Unsurprisingly, the contract research organizations (CRO’s) that conduct pharmaceutical research trials in Brazil are also notoriously corrupt and/or corruptible. To wit, in the multi-country trial of Merck’s molnupiravir, it was found to be effective in only one country . Guess which country? BRAZIL! The CRO that conducted this trial is headed by the first author. His CRO has long conducted only Big Pharma trials, never having done one on any generic drug. At minimum, one can ponder what his future opportunities for Pharma contracts would be like if he killed the industry with a positive ivermecitn study. Ugh.
 Next, the complex design and opaque manner in which they assigned patients to different medicines and different placebos made it very difficult to identify the egregious nature of this next action. We only know it due to the incredible work of Alexandros Marinos , Phil Harper , and the expert scientist group c19early.com .
 From Alex Marino’s deep dive, he found that they could not have enrolled ivermectin and placebo patients at the same time, as they claim they did . In fact, the ivermectin group was enrolled far, far more frequently at the beginning and during the gamma surge, a variant 4 times as deadly as the others. There was no way this should have ever happened, and it contradicts the manuscript and their public statements. The investigators repeatedly stated that they enrolled patients to the various medicines and placebos equally and concurrently, in what is called a 1:1:1:1 ratio. Fluvoxamine and ivermectin and their placebo arms ran concurrently. Yet, suddenly, as death rates started to climb due to gamma, they started to enroll far more patients into the ivermectin treatment arm than fluvoxamine or any other placebo arm. Hmm. Just bad luck for ivermectin I guess.
 Next, for unclear reasons, the 3-day, fully compliant placebo group of the ivermectin arm of the trial outperformed the other placebo groups of the other medicines enrolled in this trial. Stroke of bad luck for ivermectin or a cherry-picked placebo group? This is insane.
 The last two issues are only possible because of this largely novel trial design with so many different placebo groups - i.e. there were 1,3,10,14 day duration placebo groups assigned to different study medicines at overlapping times. This type of complicated trial, in my mind, literally created a screen for them to manipulate which patients they wanted to compare. Not saying they did (fuck it, maybe I am), but it is damn curious how the best performing placebo group of all the medicines studied.. was the ivermectin-specific placebo group. Oh yeah, I know why, it’s because that placebo group was not excluded from taking ivermectin. Whoops, I forgot.
 Another curiosity is that the findings of this trial differed markedly from a larger Brazilian study done by researchers devoid of pharmaceutical company financial ties ( Lucy Kerr, Flavio Cadegiani et al ). In that study, they meticulously analyzed the prospectively compiled data by the city of Itajai as it conducted a city-wide prevention program with ivermectin which included 159,000 inhabitants. Among the 113,000 that took ivermectin regularly, massive reductions in cases (-49%), hospitalizations (-68%), and death (-70%) were recorded. Note that was a study of using ivermectin only in prevention. The small minority of Itajai’s inhabitants who did go to hospital were not treated with ivermectin . Thus that massive study shows the bare minimum of the true effectiveness of ivermectin if used in both prevention and treatment . Min-i-mum.
 The inarguable reality is that ivermectin is a wickedly effective drug in COVID. Yet, the TOGETHER trial, using a hyper-complex, multi-concurrent, multi-arm trial fraught with a willful inability to truly blind the study, successfully managed to conclude it is not effective. Go figure. I maintain that the complexity and non-transparency of the trial made it a perfect vehicle for these Pharma-conflicted investigators to commit fraud. But let’s say there was no fraudulent intent. Then I would maintain that due to the 47 major concerns identified by the c19early.com group above, this was the most incompetent and sloppily conducted trial ever. Enough with that. This atrocity was a screaming fraud. If they want to plead incompetence it would be tough. The main investigators are from some of the top research institutions in the world and they literally call themselves “trialists,” given they do this for a profession. They have one job. Design and conduct a good, clean trial because the fucking world depends on it. Do a trial like Dr. Flavio Cadegiani’s proxalutamide trial, the highest-quality graded large trial done in the pandemic to date. That trial found a statistically significant, massive mortality benefit of an $11 medicine. The British Medical Journal has been sitting on his study for almost a year now, refusing to publish or reject it to date. I am not making this up.
 This trial should be called out as a fraud by the wider scientific community, not just me and the several dozen top researchers I have the honor to work alongside. Many of these colleagues have been relentlessly attacked and discredited for trying to bring out various truths. Again, this “Diversion” tactic is not new. See my “addendum” below which contains a review of the same tactics pulled with regard to suppressing the efficacy of Vitamin D over decades. That review was compiled by Dr. William Grant, one of the world experts in Vitamin D. Pharma HATES vitamins. Dr. Grant recognized that Pharma was pulling the same stuff in COVID in regards to ivermectin that he had witnessed during his career in regards to Vitamin D. So, in early 2021, he sent me “the Disinformation Playbook” article from the Union of Concerned Scientists, warning me what was going on. I received that email at a time of my life and that of the FLCCC that was going sideways fast. I/we just could not understand what the hell was going on. We had identified a solution to the pandemic and not only was no-one listening, they were attacking our findings, our paper, and our credibility. Then I read that article and.. Everything. Started. To. Make. Sense .
 Again, what I find hilarious is that despite these maneuvers they still reported reductions in hospitalizations and mortality. Most of my colleagues feel the size of the reductions have been purposely misrepresented or even fabricated to ensure a finding that was not “statistically significant.” Their critique of this trial will be made public soon, but the most damning “tell” of fraud is that the study investigators, in their original study protocol, stated that “the individual patient level data (IPL)” will be publicly available at the completion of the protocol. I cannot emphasize the critical importance of study data transparency and availability. This is what the FLCCC’s Flavio Cadegiani has done with all his trials data. Immediate and public availability of IPL data. He then responds to all concerns, critiques, and queries from the public with thoughtful and clarifying responses. His intelligence, efforts, integrity and courage throughout the pandemic has been unparalleled. The attack on him by the BMJ was astounding in its falsity and depravity. Good guys can’t win apparently.
 This public data transparency (which Pharma trials now apparently only do under court order) is also what Tess Lawrie and the World Council for Health have long recognized as one of the most important requirements to restore integrity to the scientific process. With the TOGETHER trial, the investigators initially promised immediate release of IPL data upon completion of the study (August 5, 2021). After this was quickly revealed as empty “virtue signaling,” they then promised to share the data publicly after publication. Almost 2 months now. No data. Numerous interested observers and researchers as well as the funders have asked to see the data. They now state that “IPL data is being held by a third party (ICODA),” and that those interested in obtaining the data can apply to them. A URL provided was dead. The TOGETHER trial website contact gives an auto-reply. I do not believe the data will ever be made public (they would have to do massive manipulation in order to clarify, explain, or defend what we know are fatal flaws in the conduct of the trial. I would be sad if I wasn’t so fucking furious. Bastards. Ed Mills, the Principal Investigator, has also stopped answering questions from interested scientists who have collegial relationships with him. He initially answered a few questions with deliberate misrepresentations and obfuscations and then went dark and has not answered a single follow-up question from anybody since. Quiet as a churchmouse.
 I know he and his colleagues are sweating hard. I just don’t think they ever imagined going up against the brilliance and obsessiveness of guys like Alexandros Marinos, Phil Harper, David Wiseman, and David Scheim. Alex was next-level meticulous, devoting dozens of hours to poring over and comparing the timing and recruitment of each study arm’s protocols, dissecting charts and graphs on slides from their public presentations, extensively reading all the supplementary appendices etc. As a result of that herculean effort, Alexandros compiled detailed and extensive evidence that the investigators published data directly conflicting and/or contradicting their public statements. Busted. In order for the data from the paper and the methods in the paper to be consistent with their public statements, they would have to walk back the statements or revise the paper. They are doing neither.
 Clearly Big Pharma “gets the win” here. The NIH quietly changed their recommendation back to “do not use outside of a clinical trial”. Read the below and weep for all those getting sick without knowledge or access to effective early treatment.

 This post has gone on long enough and I am exhausted with this travesty of a mockery of a sham of a depraved fraud of a trial. But I ain’t giving up the fight. However, if anyone feels like they can stomach more “research fraud porn,” I am including even more crazy stuff from the expert c19early.com group in my addendum below. And if anyone is still convinced this trial was conducted in a good faith effort to find out if ivermectin “really works,” instead of a brazenly fraudulent action by the rapacious pharmaceutical industry, then I got a bridge to sell ya’ as they say. Would be funny except for all the fucking millions of dead people.

 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. To put Part 1 and 2 of my posts of the Together Trial in context, I invite you to read Professor William Grant’s original “Disinformation Playbook” analysis article on Pharma’s shenanigans with trials of Vitamin D, written in 2018. Identical research fraud.
 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:

 Also, check out my other posts in the “Global Disinformation Campaign Against Ivermectin” series:
 Part I - Introduction to the Disinformation Playbook
 Part II - Exposing the Corrupt Disinformation Campaign on Ivermectin
 Part II - Ivermectin - An Attack by New York State’s Attorney General
 Part III - Ivermectin - Lawyers Helping Doctors be Doctors
 Part IV - Ivermectin - Saturday Night Fight At The Pharmacy
 Part IV - Ivermectin - JAMA’s “Diversion Tactic “- the HITECH Trial
 Part VII - Op-Ed on Fluvoxamine
 Part VIII - Op-Ed on Remdesivir
 Part IX - Ivermectin - “The Fix“ of Andrew Hill - Chapter 1
 Part X -Ivermectin - “The Fix” of Andrew Hill - Chapter 2
 Part XI- Big Pharma’s “Diversion” - The TOGETHER Trial Published in the New England Journal of Medicine

 Also (wow this is getting long), please Register for Tess Lawrie et al’s World Council For Health “Better Way” Conference here where I am honored to be a member of one of the many speaker panels. This solutions-focused event brings together leaders from around the world for three exciting days of learning , exploring, creating, and collaborating toward a healthy new paradigm rooted in freedom , empowerment , education , and integrity .

 And for those of you looking for more evidence of fraud in this trial, read these telling excerpts from this comprehensive analysis by the c19early.com group:
 Delayed >6 months. The paper was delayed over 6 months with no explanation. The companion fluvoxamine arm, completed at the same time, was published Aug 23, 2021. The paper was submitted to NEJM in Sep 2021 [ vimeo.com (B) ] . COI forms suggest that additional authors were added after submission and the corresponding author changed from Prof. Mills to Dr. Rayner [ doyourownresearch.substack.com ] , whose conflicts include Pfizer, Merck, the Gates Foundation, and the Australian Government.
 Data Safety Monitoring Board was not independent. Reviewer 1 of the protocol notes that the DSMC is not independent [ gatesopenresearch.org ] . Prof. Thorlund is Vice President of the contract research organisation (CRO, Cytel), professor at the sponsoring university, and an author of the protocol. Dr. Häggström is an employee of the CRO. [ doyourownresearch.substack.com (C) , twitter.com (B) ] reveals many other conflicts. Prof. Thorlund has written >100 papers with Prof. Mills. Prof. Singh has written 29 papers with Prof. Mills. Prof. Orbinski has written 9 papers with Prof. Mills. The first version of the web site showed Prof. Mills and Prof. Thorlund as joint leads. Emails pointed to a company MTEK Sciences, founded by Prof. Mills and Prof. Thorlund (MTEK is hypothesized to stand for Mills, Thorlund, Edward, Kristian). MTEK received grants from the Gates Foundation. MTEK also employed Dr. Häggström. MTEK was acquired by Cytel in 2019. Dr. Häggström works for the Gates Foundation. Two members of the DSMC have published a paper with members of a well known anti-ivermectin research group [ Thorlund ] and Dr. Hill, whose meta analysis has reports of external influence [ c19ivermectin.com , c19ivermectin.com (B) , twitter.com (C) ] . The trial protocol reports that "an independent DSMC will be established, composed of scientists of unrivalled reputation and expertise, without involvement with this research protocol."
 Incorrect conclusion. The conclusion states that ivermectin "did not result in a lower incidence of [hospitalization] or of [ER observation >6hr]" . This is incorrect, hospitalization was 17% lower, which is not statistically significant with the sample size and typical statistical analysis. For the Bayesian analysis the authors use, the ITT probability of superiority for ivermectin was 79.4%, which is a positive result, the opposite of the conclusion.
 Bayesian probability of superiority hidden in appendix. The bayesian probability of superiority figure, featured in the main paper for FLV, MET, HCQ, was hidden in the appendix for IVM [ twitter.com (W) ] .

 Conflicting target enrollment. There are conflicting target enrollment numbers. The protocol showed 800 patients per arm as of Mar 21, 2021 (after the trial started) [ static1.squarespace.com , twitter.com (L) ] , the co-principal investigator reported 800 per arm in an interview published June 14, 2021 [ halifaxexaminer.ca ] , and the protocol changed to 681 on June 22 [ static1.squarespace.com (B) ] . However, the trial record from Jan indicates 2724 (681*4) patients [ clinicaltrials.gov (C) ] , suggesting that the 800 goal was later, and was kept for fluvoxamine but reverted for ivermectin. The fluvoxamine arm which started two months earlier was terminated at the same time, and was terminated due to superiority [ Reis ] after 741/756 patients. Note that Gamma was declining significantly around the termination point, which likely favors improved efficacy if the trial continued, given the late treatment and dosage used.
 Reportedly terminated for futility although futility threshold not reached. The trial was reportedly terminated due to futility [ twitter.com (M) ] , 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 DSMC was not independent as below.
 Inconsistent subgroup analysis. The presented subgroup analysis is inconsistent with plans and with the fluvoxamine paper, including not presenting pre-specified subgroups, presenting subgroups that were not pre-specified, presenting different subgroups to the contemporary fluvoxamine paper, and modifying subgroup definitions [ twitter.com (P) ] .

Summary: The New England Journal of Medicine published the fraudulent TOGETHER trial, designed and conducted to launch anti-ivermectin headlines across every major media outlet across the world.


Fraudulent Trial On Ivermectin Published By The World's Top Medical Journal. Big Pharma Reigns - Part I

Big Pharma (Pfizer and Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) from what it looks to me) dropped another nuclear bomb on ivermectin 3 weeks ago with their publication of the fraudulent Brazilian TOGETHER trial. They did it in one of the world’s top read and rated medical journals, the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), a journal born in the year 1812, but captured by Pharma for who knows how long now. This is an open secret as per former Editor Marcia Angell in the book Drug Companies & Doctors: A Story of Corruption :
 “It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.”   - Dr. Marcia Angell
 First off, the saddest part of this fraud is that the TOGETHER trial’s published conclusion brazenly contradicted the data within the manuscript as it actually showed an 81% “Bayesian” probability (a sophisticated form of statistical analysis) of the superiority of ivermectin. But media and science reporters no longer critically analyze the data or questions the abstract’s conclusion, instead they all trumpet headlines in unison that “ivermectin doesn’t work in COVID.” Further contributing to the catastrophic toll of human life due to yet another deployment of “the Diversion,” a Disinformation tactic that Big Pharma employs when “science inconvenient to their interests” emerges. Their first successful Disinformation campaign was against hydroxychloroquine in 2020, and despite Robert Kennedy’s in-depth, highly referenced and detailed exposing of the numerous sinister actions against HCQ in his best-selling book called “The Real Anthony Fauci ,” they are again having success against ivermectin (just not as much - I would credit the work of the physician leaders and science experts of numerous non-profit, non-conflict-of-interest groups such as the US’s FLCCC , American Association of Physicians and Surgeons, Truth For Health , Covid Early Treatment Fund , South Africa’s Transformative Health Justice , UK’s World Council for Health , the Canadian COVID Care Alliance , and the anonymous C19early.com group among others).
 Yet real people, real families, across the world destroyed each day by a lack of access to or support for safe, effective, early treatments with repurposed, generic medicines such as ivermectin, fluvoxamine, or hydroxychloroquine. All a direct result of Big Pharma and BMGF tactics like this one. Time to remind ourselves that BMGF is not a philanthropic organization but rather a corporation with massive investments in vaccines (and many other problematic industries ) that has been corrupting public health the world over in service of the vaccine industry for decades now, none more so than in the last two years. By the way, what kind of philanthropist organization.. increases its wealth in a global pandemic?
 I think they may be in trouble though because some heavy hitters on Wall street and the life insurance industry are now calling attention to evidence that the vaccine escapade is both an immense fraud and a humanitarian catastrophe - just like the TOGETHER trial.

 Some of my colleagues might disagree or feel premature regarding my diagnosis of fraud in regards to this trial. Whatever. The study investigators have not only carried out a series of severely biased and duplicitous actions with deliberately withheld data such that fraud at this level, in my mind, is definite. But let’s say, for argument’s sake, that it is instead just a severely biased trial by severely biased and financially conflicted researchers whose careers are dependent on contracts from massively powerful agencies and corporations whose interests are decidedly anti-ivermectin - see this description of the trial by the impressively expert C19early.com group :

 If that ain’t enough for you, then what I will call fraud is the insanely incompetent peer review and publication by the NEJM. No way should this manuscript ever have been published in any purportedly credible medical journal without extensive revision and mandated reporting of critical absent data, given the litany of inconsistent, missing, and manipulated data alongside numerous unexplained design protocol changes aimed at trying to ensuring the lowest dose possible was used. The fact the NEJM reviewers allowed the manuscript to not include a standard limitations section calling attention to the “possibility” of the failure of blinding given massive evidence for this is one of the more brazen frauds I have seen in a medical journal.
 Now, if people feel that the peer review was just benign incompetence rather than a fraudulent overlooking of these major issues (NEJM? Never!), then the fraud next lies with the newspapers prostituting themselves to ensure a constant stream of pharmaceutical, BMGF, and vaccine company advertising dollars by blaring out ivermectin disinformation headlines. That last one is inarguable. So, take your pick from these possible sources of fraud, and if you choose all three, I am right there with you.
 Now look at the media bloodbath unleashed the day of publication of the TOGETHER trial:

 Ya gotta laugh at that last little jab by “one expert.” Hilarious.

 This one..simply goes too far, yeesh.

 The LA Times propaganda even uses Trump! Masterful really. Note that sufficient ivermectin trials data emerged well after Trump stopped caring or talking about COVID given he was solely focused on the election in the fall of 2020 and I don’t believe he never mentioned ivermectin before leaving office (although I have a highly reliable and connected source who informed me that then-President Trump was treated with ivermectin when he was sick with COVID).
 Please realize that the Disinformation tactic called “the Diversion” is flat-out the most effective tactic Pharma deploys. Invented by Big Tobacco and used by that industry for decades, the Diversion also has a more specific definition which is “manufacturing uncertainty where there is little to none.” Recall that the massive evidence base below demonstrating the life-saving properties in COVID of the low-cost, safe, and widely available ivermectin is about as “ inconvenient” a science to Big Pharma that has ever existed, given it threatens the entire COVID-19 mRNA vaccine market along with all competing, novel, and highly profitable oral and IV COVID medications. The sum of the potential and already realized profits of these products total in the hundreds of billions of dollars. But this Diversion tactic works… like really well.

 The reason why it works so well is that, despite the above evidence base, the media instead focuses on only one “high quality,” “high-impact journal” study at a time, all mandated and by design (purportedly), “statistically negative” trials. And they blast these out in 2-3 month intervals, likely explaining why they held on to this one for the past 7 months, coming on the heels of the last JAMA bomb on ivermectin. Note the TOGETHER trial results were initially presented by the investigators in August yet it was just published three weeks ago. The Fluvoxamine arm finished at the same time and was published.. months ago. In the past year I have had to wake up to this nightmare of a Groundhog “Diversion” Day on ivermectin at least 4 times. However, as flawed or corrupt or as non-statistically significant as TOGETHER was, it is still just one trial and any non-captured science writer worth their salt would know this.
 One of the worlds leading, independent, conflict-of-interest free evidence-based medicine experts, Dr. Tess Lawrie (who some rightly call “the Conscience of Medicine”), properly added this trial to just the RCT evidence base in her recent substack and reported that it actually SOLIDIFIED the already overwhelming signal of benefit from trials data, just like all the other “high-impact but statistically negative” beneficial ivermectin publications (but the media, the journals, and her long-time clients such as the NHS and the WHO continue to ignore and dismiss her “inconvenient” work in the pandemic). Below I circle the TOGETHER trial results which add a benefit found in 1300 more patients.

 Also recall that from the UCS’s 2017 article describing the tactics used to “manufacture uncertainty,” besides “commissioning scientific studies with flawed methodologies biased toward predetermined results” (i.e. the TOGETHER trial) they also “selectively publish negative results while underreporting positive results.”
 In regards to the latter tactic, note this happens “behind the scenes.” I am one of the few to have witnessed in depth the “underreporting of positive results” tactic above in regards to ivermectin, given my growing network of independent, ethical, non-conflicted ivermectin trial investigators who have provided me with a large number of rejection letters (or post peer-review retractions) from journals like the NEJM, JAMA, and the Lancet soon after submitting their “positive” studies of ivermectin or other repurposed drugs (more than a few were even what are often perceived as “high quality,” double blind RCT’s). The FLCCC’s Dr. Flavio Cadegiani just yesterday publicly exposed the current NEJM editor Eric Rubin ’s email correspondence with him where Rubin openly deploys this tactic in regards to Cadegiani’s markedly positive RCT of the drug proxalutamide.
 Now, if you are still with me (sorry, this is a long one), let’s go a little deeper into an even bigger problem in the medical sciences, as this affects the thinking of many well-intentioned, highly “trained” (THAT’s the problem) physicians inhabiting the Ivory Towers of the world. The problem stems from essentially two pervasive fallacies that have been slowly integrated into medical school education which lead most doctors, medical educators, Alex Berenson, and even purported “evidence based medicine” experts to enthusiastically join what I call the “ church of Big RCT Fundamentalism .” Adherents firmly believe that any evidence not coming out of “Big RCT’s” are “low quality” or “too small” and “can’t be trusted.” Hmm, I wonder if such a theoretical construct benefits the committed, independent clinicians and researchers whose funding limits them to such trials? Or does it cement the dominance of Big Pharma/Big Agency RCT’s? Valid? Coincidence? Con-game?
 Fallacy #1: Results from retrospective observational controlled trial results.. cannot be trusted to guide policy. This is tragically false. The data actually show that OCT’s reach the same conclusions as prospective RCT’s, on average, in almost all cases (except in the cases of HCQ and IVM not-so-curiously). This fallacy of RCT dominance was long ago disproven in a comprehensive Cochrane Library review as well as in this policy paper by the American Thoracic Society among many other reviews. Yet this theory continues to be propagated and practiced widely by national and international health agencies, with the encouragement of Big Pharma. This is why Senator Ron Johnson boldly decided to hold his historic hearings in May and December of 2020 and more recently in his COVID-19: A Second Opinion expert panel . He did this to allow the public to directly hear from COVID experts without conflicts of interest bring forth real world scientific data without the corruptive filter of the journals and the agencies and the overwhelming dominance of Pharma funded RCT’s. Yet the agencies continue to ignore such data despite the U.S CURES act of 2016 which mandated they do so. Regulatory capture on full display. Maybe the below “inconvenient” paper is why BMGF decided to start donating to Cochrane?

 Fallacy #2: Studies judged to be at“high risk of bias” should not be trusted to guide policy. Note, as per Dr. Tess Lawrie, this departs from decades of guideline development practices by the WHO. But no longer, supposedly because the conclusions are somehow more likely to be inaccurate. In the words of Harvey Risch, one of the world’s leading epidemiologists from Yale University;
 Risks of bias in studies, even if accurate, are not evidence of bias, nor estimates of actual bias.

 Risks are subjective and scored according to epidemiologically irrational ad hoc principles ( and are inconsistent between expert s ) (Hartling et al. 2013)

 They introduce random information that makes the observed adjusted results even more imprecise.

 THEIR ADJUSTMENT DO NOT GENERALLY ALTER RESULTS (Bae, 2016). - I highly suggest that any EBM geeks read this paper , it further smashes the fallacy that clinical RCT’s are needed to determine benefits, and shows that studies with supposed “high risks of bias” are not associated with incorrect conclusions.

 Now, check out this paragraph from the NY Times about the TOGETHER trial, showing how Fallacies #1 and #2 above has taken residence among science writers and doctors:
 “On their second review, Dr. Hill and his colleagues focused on the studies least likely to be biased. In that stricter survey, ivermectin’s benefit vanished. Still, even the best studies on ivermectin and Covid were small, with a few hundred volunteers at most. Small studies can be vulnerable to statistical flukes that suggest positive effects where none actually exist ( I would actually agree with this in regards to a single or just a few small studies.. but from 81 of them ) . But larger studies on ivermectin were underway at the time, and those promised to be more rigorous.”
 This NPR story is an absolute master class in both Pharmacademia’s masterfully constructed “false narrative” - i.e. “ivermectin studies were not peer-reviewed (false), one was found fraudulent (unproven to date), many had “problems” (unlike the pristinely conducted trials by Pfizer for instance), lead (captured) researcher Dr. Andrew Hill removed the “problematic RCT’s” and miraculously found “no benefit in mortality” in the ones (only 4!) left remaining. Further Hill then cries about being “attacked by zealots online.” My favorite narrative that they have tried to construct is the “IVM only works in studies in countries with parasitic infections.” There is actually a meta-analysis which concludes this - hilarious. And then always back to the “larger, more rigorous trials” fail to find benefit etc. Almost every article in major media parrots one or multiple of these tropes.. over and over and over again. Works really well.
 Note this tactic can be deployed in the promotion of a drug as well. How else can we as a nation be subjected to a system employing the completely ineffective ( and manipulated data for) remdesivir and molnupiravir, along with the dangerous and unnecessary paxlovid while ignoring the profoundly positive “Big RCT” data on fluvoxamine, the latter a result of philanthropist Steve Kirsch’s funding and tireless advocacy (I talked with Steve for months while he knocked on every door of every agency and numerous academic medical centers asking why they were not recommending it for early treatment while hundreds of thousands of Americans were dying). Whoops, I forgot to mention the fraudulent trials supporting the vaccine escapade. Science is one big mess yet the masses continue to trust in the “Gods of Science and Knowledge” as Paul Marik once quipped (i.e. the FDA, NIH, CDC).
 Again, contrast the fate of fluvoxamine (still not recommended outside a clinical trial by our health agencies despite two positive high-quality study, high-impact journal RCT publications) with the fate of the above novel, high profit Pharma drugs and spike protein shots mentioned above - those are instead met with media fanfare and agency approval and massive government purchases after just one high-impact journal study was published, or pre- promoted in an Oval Office Press Conference , or featured in a State of the Union Address or in some cases just from a non-data-supported press release . I repeat.. press release.
 What I am trying to tell the world in my little substack (and upcoming book ), is that the most powerful forces in medicine and society right now- Big Pharma/Big Media/Big Social Media/Big Agencies (all co-owned/influenced by a small cabal of investors) Do. Not. Care. This. Is. What. They. Do . If they have to destroy the knowledge of efficacy of an off-patent medicine to protect a market, even in a pandemic, such actions, as considered by Big Pharma, are simply standard operating procedure. They have been doing this for decades . In previous posts I have put forth evidence that the pharmaceutical industry can credibly be viewed as a criminal enterprise given that in their last 20 largest settlements, with every major player appearing on that list, over $12 billion in civil penalties and over $11 billion in criminal penalties (I include the deferred Perdue opioid judgement) have been exacted from them.
 Again, it is within this context that I feel morally and ethically obligated to expose everything they have done to cause the millions of unnecessary deaths that could have been avoided if we had globally and systematically deployed ivermectin based on the incredible results from bold health ministry programs around the world like the city of Itajai, India’s Uttar Pradesh , Mexico City , Japan , the Argentinian states of La Pampas and Misiones , Peru , Phillipines , and Honduras among others.
 Conversely, what I find almost funny (nothing is funny though) is that ivermectin is so effective that the TOGETHER trial is now the fourth severely flawed but high-impact journal Pharma bomb on ivermectin, yet when the non-statistically significant benefits from just these 4 are combined (what agencies and academics are supposed to do, i.e. combine data from multiple studies rather than rely on a single one) they actually produce a statistically significant benefit in mortality ! Despite all having strong evidence of being “designed to fail,” by purposely using IVM in low doses, in mild/young patients who are going to do well anyway, limiting treatment for short durations, late after disease onset, or most importantly, in areas where control groups had easy access to OTC ivermectin.
 These studies so obviously showed intent to influence readers to believe non-efficacy that after the first JAMA publication below, an open letter by hundreds of US doctors argued for it’s retraction. JAMA ignored them. I am privy to several groups of doctors and scientists doing the same again with the TOGETHER trial and NEJM. Never gonna happen, although one can hope, and we must all document this corruption anyway. But people are getting so played by Pharma, have always been played by Pharma, it makes me sad (Hi Alex B!). Yet even Big Pharma can’t completely hide “the signal of efficacy” as even in just these 4 high-impact trials, they found
 March 2021. Lopez-Medina, JAMA : ivermectin treated patients recovered in 10 days vs. 12 days in controls (not statistically significant)

 July 2021. Vallejos et al. BMC Infectious Disease : 5.6% of ivm treated patients went to hospital vs. 8.4% of controls (not statistically significant)

 February 2022. Loon Lim et al. JAMA. Although ivermectin treated patients ended up needing “oxygen supplementation?” slightly more often (21.6% vs. 17.3% (not statistically significant), they needed less mechanical ventilation (1.7% vs. 4.0%, p=.17), icu admission (2.4% vs. 3.2%) and death (1.2% vs. 4.0%, p=.09 - this latter difference is striking..and almost reaches statistical significance).

 March 2022. Ries et al. NEJM. Found that ivermectin treated patients went to the ER for > 6 hours or were hospitalized less than controls (14.7% vs. 16.3%) and died less than controls (12% reduction).

 To be fair, I would agree that one small OCT or even an RCT won’t cut it to prove efficacy. But collections of small studies analyzed together in summary analyses amplify and solidify efficacy if it exists. Which these now 81 trials have done over and over, with the mountain of data growing ever higher. So despite the fact modern academic beliefs are fallacies, they guide the behaviors of high-impact journals and health agencies and academic medical centers.. and the majority of academics and educators and trainees and all of mass media. The journals dismiss, ignore, or reject anything but “Big RCT’s” funded by “Big Pharma” or “Big Agencies” (same thing). In this way, the medicines that get studied in Big RCT’s, the Big RCT’s that get published, and the resulting medicines that get approved (or not approved), are all determined by the pharmaceutical industry. Hence the shocking lack of early treatment recommendations while propagating the remdesivir, vaccine, molnupiravir, and paxlovid fiascos.
 Lets just take a brief moment to see the somersaults the U.S government is doing to “promote” the use of molnupiravir and paxlovid. I just got this last week from a high ranking member of the military. When I read the below, I imagined the word “ivermectin” instead of “oral anti-viral medication”.. and it almost made me cry. Soo close. But not really.

 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. If not yet a subscriber, subscribe to get Chapter 2 where I will dissect and detail the most brazenly fraudulent actions of the TOGETHER trial investigators. Should be out tomorrow.
 The Global Disinformation Campaign Against Ivermectin Series:
 Part I - Introduction to the Disinformation Playbook
 Part II - Exposing the Corrupt Disinformation Campaign on Ivermectin
 Part II - Ivermectin - An Attack by New York State’s Attorney General
 Part III - Ivermectin - Lawyers Helping Doctors be Doctors
 Part IV - Ivermectin - Saturday Night Fight At The Pharmacy
 Part IV - Ivermectin - JAMA’s “Diversion Tactic “- the HITECH Trial
 Part VII - Op-Ed on Fluvoxamine
 Part VIII - Op-Ed on Remdesivir
 Part IX - Ivermectin - “The Fix“ of Andrew Hill - Chapter 1
 Part X -Ivermectin - “The Fix” of Andrew Hill - Chapter 2
 Subscribe now
 P.S.S I am getting professional help (hah!) to write a book about what I have learned during COVID in regards to ivermectin.  Pre-order here  for:

Summary: The New England Journal of Medicine recently published the fraudulent TOGETHER trial, designed and conducted to launch anti-ivermectin headlines across every major media outlet across the world.