The Publication of Fraudulent Ivermectin Trials by the High Impact Medical Journals - Part 1

Ok, so where were we? Oh yeah, I recently covered the rejections and retractions of positive ivermectin studies by the Editorial Mafia that control the high-impact medical journals. Now let’s go over the trials that they did publish on ivermectin. Note the very first play from the Disinformation Playbook , a tactic created and perfected by the Tobacco Industry over decades:

 The obverse of censorship is propaganda ( or vice versa ) as Professor Marc Crispin Miller says. Big Pharma Disinformation campaigns against repurposed drugs in COVID employed both tactics equally. Again, I have already detailed the high-impact journal censorship of studies supporting repurposed medicines in this 3 part series .
 Professor Miller’s definition of propaganda is “a story or message that gets you to think or act in a certain way. ” In this post I want to focus on how all the propaganda used to steer the U.S population away from ivermectin was created. None of it would have been possible without the complicity of the high-impact medical journals. It laid the foundation upon which all the propaganda rested upon. None of it would have been possible without first establishing “the Science” showing ivermectin to be ineffective. This was established solely via the high impact journal publication of fraudulent and/or severely/willfully flawed studies.
 Remember, the entire objective of Big Pharma Disinformation campaigns is to counteract " science that emerges which is inconvenient to Industry interests. ” The tactics to accomplish this was invented by a PR firm working for Big Tobacco in the 1950’s . That PR firm still exists today. No wonder that PR firm still thrives. They literally were able to suppress and distort the evidence of lethality and toxicity of tobacco for 50 years in the service of that Industry. That “science” supported an insane winning streak in lawsuits against them for 40 years, until they finally succumbed with the 1998 “ Master Settlement Agreement ” reached with the attorney generals of 46 states, putting an end to a lot of their malevolent chicanery (but not really).
 Big Pharma learned from Big Tobacco that you can prevent ivermectin science from emerging by censoring the “inconveniently positive” studies while only publishing “conveniently negative” studies , you could destroy the idea that repurposed drugs are effective in the pandemic. I have said it many times but never have two generic drugs (HCQ and IVM) presented a greater threat to their goals and profits within the largest new marketplace that has ever been created for their products.
 The “negative” studies they published are what fueled the massive media and health agency Disinformation campaigns (false narratives) against ivermectin. Make a special note of how to identify “narratives,” i.e propaganda campaigns. A friend of mine has a rule he calls the “2 by 4.” If the story runs for 2 weeks on 4 different media or TV channels , not only is it a narrative (not always a false one but rarely if ever totally accurate) but more importantly, it is what takes hold of the minds of the majority of the country and becomes “mainstream” thinking. 2 by 4. Remember that. Although not every one of these trials triggered a 2 by 4, each time the papers and television stations across the world trumpeted the “negative” study results over at least the next several days after publication. The real “2 x4” propaganda campaign was the “horse dewormer” one which was triggered, not by a publication, but by a massive rise in U.S ivermectin prescriptions in mid-August of 2021. More on that soon.
 The propaganda was disseminated to the average citizen through major (corporate/legacy) media, and to the physicians and health systems through the high-impact medical journals. Let’s not forget that physicians also consume lots of media so they were double whammy’ed and thus became some of the most ferocious attackers of “ivermectin advocates.” Poor things. Me and the FLCCC were initially hurt by these attacks, but that feeling quickly turned to a deep sadness as we watched medical professionals the world over act out against ivermectin after being fed outrageous “scientific” lies. I must say that the despair I felt over their behavior paled in comparison to how I felt over their vaccine behavior, none more so than when doctors across the world literally mandated and/or strongly recommended vaccinating people who had just recovered from the disease they were vaccinating against. Using the most lethal and toxic medical intervention in modern history. Let’s not go there right now.
 The publication of the numerous fraudulent or severely flawed studies supposedly “proving” ivermectin ineffective in COVID then launched massive negative PR campaigns using almost every communication medium possible - social media, newspapers, radio, televisions news programs, late night talk shows etc. They all told identical “stories” or “narratives.” The average American citizen (and physician) reading or listening to these stories found their thoughts directed as follows;
 Ivermectin is a dangerous medication suitable only for deworming horses.

 Positive studies of ivermectin were all low quality, poorly designed, or outright fraudulent and thus cannot be trusted.

 The only positive ivermectin studies occurred in areas where parasitic infections were endemic.

 Physicians claiming ivermectin is effective do not know how to interpret studies correctly and rely on “bad science.”

 Physicians cannot tell if a drug they gave to a patient with an acute viral syndrome is effective unless an RCT is done to “prove it.”

 Ivermectin “advocates” are ignorant of the “real Science” and thus have a religious or political belief in the medicine rather than a scientific one.

 Those who interpret ivermectin studies as supporting its use in COVID are misguided, not credible, ignorant, or are “anti-vax” conspiracy theorists.

 In contrast to the low quality studies showing ivermectin to be effective, the “real” studies, i.e. “well-designed,” “rigorous,” “large,” “properly done” trials instead proved it is ineffective in the treatment of COVID.

 That studies of its use in prevention should be ignored since the vaccines have already been proven to be “safe and effective.”

 All of the above engendered “thoughts” quickly directed people’s actions in the following ways;
 Made health care providers refrain from treating COVID patients with ivermectin.

 Made patients avoid seeking an ivermectin prescription from a health care provider.

 Made patients refuse a prescription for ivermectin if offerred one by a health care provider.

 Made pharmacists unwilling to fill a prescription for such a dangerous, ineffective medicine.

 Made hospital and pharmacy administrators remove the dangerous, ineffective drug from hospital formularies.

 Made health care leaders propose policies and/or legislation to disallow providers from treating patients with such a dangerous, ineffective medicine.

 Made U.S Customs willing to search for and confiscate incoming shipments of such a dangerous, ineffective medicine.

 Supported health agencies in formulating recommendations against use of such a dangerous, ineffective drug.

 Made medical boards investigate and de-license physicians who prescribed ivermectin to their patients.

 Again, although many societal forces participated in censoring data and disseminating propaganda on ivermectin, none of their actions would have been defensible or possible without the supporting “science.” The problem is that the only “science” that society seems to pay attention to or be guided b y is that which appears in high-impact medical journals.
 Thus, if you control the high-impact journals, you control the “science.” The Pharmaceutical Industry figured this out long ago, and is a reality that has been written about extensively , often by previous high-impact journal Editors like Dr. Marcia Angell and others. Despite their efforts in exposing this truth, the implicit faith and trust in the wisdom and quality of the science in those journals has still not been shaken. Not by the media, the doctors, or the laypeople. Especially the doctors. They revere those journals and do exactly what those journals tell them to do.
 Remember that the worlds highest-impact medical journals are the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), NEJM, The Lancet, the British Medical Journal (BMJ), and the Annals of Internal Medicine (Cochrane Library is the top journal of systematic reviews/meta-analyses). Although the definition of “high-impact” is a scientific one, i.e. that the papers in those journals are the most cited among all scientific manuscripts, I interpret the term differently. High-impact to me means that when a study is published in those journals, it can immediately drive news headlines . The press is alerted prior to publication of any new important study finding, whether positive or negative. Science reporters (which technically do NOT exist anymore) get to ask the study investigators questions about the study design, conduct, or conclusions and thus they can write up newsworthy headlines and articles which appear on the same day as the study’s publication. Since the world’s eyes were on ivermectin as a possible treatment, the studies appearing in those journals made big headlines. It should go without saying that the positive studies published outside the high-impact journals, no matter how large or high quality, never generated any headlines in major media outlets .
 Anyway, the point of this post is to compile the fraudulent studies and meta-analyses of ivermectin that launched all the headlines supporting the Disinformation campaigns. These five are emblazoned in my memory:

 Remember that these were only 5 trials out of a massive evidence base of 92 controlled trials, the summary of which finds consistent and often large efficacy in all important outcomes.

 I can recite the above five studies without thinking because the day each appeared on the website of their respective medical journal, I had to wake up to the FLCCC team’s numerous emails, texts, and phone calls letting me know we “had to do something” because with each publication and the media storm that ensued, the FLCCC was asked to defend our position or were condescended to as “you guys got it wrong.”
 Each day was a PR crisis in terms of having to defend our credibility and treatment recommendations. I hated each and every one of those days. Hundreds of doctors arrogantly tweeting and posting “see I told you it didn’t work”, journalists writing hit jobs, calling us “advocates” or worse, “fringe anti-vaxxers” etc. It was a shit show. And it was exhausting beyond belief.
 Notice the dates of publication of these trials. I point this out because it seemed to me, with my front row seat, that these studies and mass media campaigns were spaced out in timed intervals. It was like a cannon firing every few months, with each propaganda round sounding louder and traveling farther… until everyone in the world thought the same thing, “ivermectin doesn’t work.” This hypothesis might explain why the TOGETHER trial (the most fraudulent and impactful of them all) took literally 9 months to appear after the study was terminated and the preliminary results were announced in an NIH presentation. I think they held on to it in order to time its impact for whenever there was a “dry spell” of bad news against ivermectin. Pharma knows how to conduct Disinformation campaigns.
 To wit:
 March 2021 - Lopez Medina/ JAMA .
 April 2021 - WHO Guideline.
 July 2021 - Vallejos/ BMC Infectious Disease .
 February 2022 - Loon Lim/ JAMA .
 May 2022 - Reis, NEJM .
 Now, one of the main issues with all of the high-impact journal trials that were purportedly negative, and which escaped the attention of the entire world is that… most were done in South American countries where ivermectin was not only available over the counter but its efficacy was increasingly recognized by word-of-mouth and through social media and even media and some governments.
 There is abundant evidence that the control groups were not only taking ivermectin but also that the pharma-conflicted study investigators were literally taking little to no action to identify those taking ivermectin and to exclude them from participation. Which makes it very very hard to prove that ivermectin is more effective than ivermectin . With both groups getting ivermectin, this led to very few hospitalizations or deaths, and thus what is called an “underpowered trial.” By definition, when a study is underpowered, most differences between treatment groups will not reach statistical significance. Double whammy. With rare exception, these limitations were not mentioned in the manuscript and especially not the conclusion. Yet, each time they were published, the uncritical news media went wild screaming “ivermectin doesn’t work.”
 Watching those trials get published, then heralded as “large, high quality, rigorous trials” celebrated across academia and media has been one of the great sadnesses of my life. Hundreds of thousands of doctors across the world who were using ivermectin and knew it was efficacious had to witness the same thing. I had to observe entire societies where ivermectin then literally became either outlawed (Australia), removed from hospital formularies (entire U.S), and/or restricted in use while case and death counts rose in massive waves (most of the world).. all as a result of counterfeit or mis-interpreted science.
 Complaints about the innumerable flaws in study design and conduct fell on deaf ears, found zero media traction (shocker), or were dismissed as the whining of sore losers or some such. Yet these flawed design tactics kept re-appearing and re-appearing, as if from some sort of trial design playbook called “how to design a trial to show a lack of treatment effect.” Design flaws such as:
 Avoiding the application of strict criteria to identify and exclude subjects taking ivermectin from the control/placebo groups.

 Enrolling only mildly ill, young, or otherwise healthy patients with a primary endpoint of measuring differences in hospitalization while so few went to the hospital.

 Administering as low of a dose or for as short a duration as possible.

 Administering ivermectin on an empty stomach despite knowing concentrations are higher with a meal.

 Placing arbitrary, made-up, unprecedented weight limits to dosing such that the highest risk patients (obese) were under-dosed. To wit, the only trials with such weight limits were the ones described as “large, high-quality, rigorous” trials: ACTIV-6: 87.5kg, TOGETHER: 90kg, PRINCIPLE:100kg, COVID-OUT:157.5kg

 Enrolling patients many days into the disease, after their trajectory was already set.
 This study design feature was the opposite of what Pfizer did in their Paxlovid trial where all subjects were treated within 3 days of onset of symptoms .

 This study design feature was the opposite of what Merck did in their Molnupiravir trial where they literally enrolled 25,000 patients a median of 2 days from first symptoms. Please read that again. Meanwhile almost all of the “large, high-quality, and rigorous” ivermectin trials allowed up to 7 days to enroll in the study, and the most farcical is the Oxford PRINCIPLE trial which .. allowed enrollment up to 14 days from first symptoms. Yup. Note both trials have the same principal investigator.

 Also note that the PRINCIPLE results have not been released yet, despite having completed enrollment in July of 2022. Crickets from that trial despite their beginning enrollment in the ivermectin arm in May of 2021, now nearly 18 months ago. Look at this awesome table by the superlative c19early.com group. Again, the Principal Investigator Chris Butler (I am not calling him a Professor) is the same for both trials and thus was involved in the design of both. Hey Chris, why were the study designs so different?

 Insanely obvious no? My list from above were not the only tactics and flaws we identified, but they are the main and most consistent ones. Despite these repeated actions, in their papers the study authors consistently concluded, often definitively, that ivermectin had no efficacy or went further with blatantly idiotic policy-making statements such as “these findings do not support the use of ivermectin for treatment of mild COVID-19.” Pure propaganda. But only a tiny sliver of doctors read beyond the abstract conclusions. Heck only a minority of doctors read the journals. From what it looked like to me in COVID, most were learning about COVID, ivermectin, and the vaccines through the media. Pharma knows this.
 Ok, lets go briefly through the trials and their ensuing media campaigns “debunking” the ivermectin “craze.” Notice how vaccines were never described as a “craze” by the media and they definitely don’t work.
 JAMA, March 4th 2021, the “Lopez-Medina” trial:

 Short take of issues :
 Done by deeply Pharma-conflicted Investigators who gave ivermectin too late, on an empty stomach, in mildly ill, healthy patients with most of the control group already on ivermectin . Despite these shenanigans, the study found a lower mortality, lower disease progression, lower treatment escalation, and faster resolution of symptoms with treatment, without reaching statistical significance .
 Longer take :
 One hundred doctors wrote an open letter to JAMA pointing out its almost innumerable flaws and asked for a retraction. It was ignored.

 Alexandros Marino’s “deep dive” uncovered even more fraudulent actions, s ee my post of his analysis of this trial .

 The c19early.com groups take, brilliant and comprehensively detailed as always . A master class really.

 PR Campaign that the study launched : (notice that Pharma does not have to do anything once a trial like this is published in these journals - the PR campaign writes and conducts itself through uncritical, obsequious media). Not one criticism of the trial.

 WHO Guideline Committee meta-analysis, March 31, 2021.

 My short take on the corrupt actions by the WHO:

 I spent weeks writing a white paper on this atrocity. Again, had the WHO instead issued a “conditional” recommendation, which the evidence at that time fully supported, the entire trajectory of the pandemic would have been altered. Public health my ass.
 More negative PR against ivermectin flies around the world:

 BMC Infectious Diseases, July, 2021

 Short Take : very low dose (0.15mg/kg) with only 2 days of treatment . Overall low-risk patients, only 7% hospitalized, thus trial underpowered. Literally, you cannot make this up: 74 patients had symptoms for >= 7 days. Most importantly: 55% of potential subjects were excluded for taking ivermectin within 7 days. Problem with this: those that took ivermectin prior to 7 days does not completely remove its efficacy. Whatever. Just subtle trial criteria nonsense that no-one, and I mean non-one (except for me and other ivermectin experts) pay attention to or let influence how they interpret the trials conclusions. Again, they do not have to be subtle. The only thing that matters is what the study abstract conclusions says. Get this - the trial s till found a reduction in hospitalization , not statistically significant of course, thus the abstract conclusion that ivermectin doesn’t work. So tiresome.
 Longer take: As usual, the obsessively detailed brilliance of the c19early.com group here.

 I-Tech Trial, Malaysia, JAMA, February 18, 2022

 Short take and long take : I did a deep dive on the absurd discord between the positive, supportive data for ivermectin that were found in this trial with how it was “presented to the world” in the journal I call “ PHAMA ”, not JAMA. You may have read my post on this absurdity back then, but go re-read it again, here. Might make more sense now.
 PR Campaign it launched : please pay particular attention to this “fact-checking” article going after John Campbell who rightly emphasized the proper way to interpret its willfully limited findings here . The most enraging article was this one here , invoking the mantra of “evidence based medicine” to disprove all the “advocates” etc. Again, exhausting and tiresome.. and deadly.
 PR Campaign: note the synchronous outcries from Medpage today, WebMD and Medscape, hitting almost all U.S doctors:

 Despite the near statistically significant reduction in mortality, the lead author wrote the below, even taking a personal dig at me for my unfortunate use of the term “miracle drug” in my Senate testimony (for the record I never called it a miracle drug, but rather I spoke about its “miraculous efficacy” and immediately followed that with “and I don’t want to be sensationalized by that statement.” But, you know, just facts.
 “Essentially, our study findings have dismissed the notion of ivermectin being a ‘miracle drug’ against COVID-19. Individuals infected with COVID-19 should not resort to self-medication with ivermectin. Having a false sense of recovery while taking an ineffective drug could lead to delay in seeking appropriate medical care, thus resulting in poorer outcomes.”
 I wish I could give him a good slap in the face. Sorry if that sounds immature but geez, I need to slap someone. Maybe I will slap Ed Mills instead, he lives closer. Remember Ed? He is the mastermind behind the most fraudulent trial of them all, a trial which sailed through peer-review to land on the front page of the highest impact journal in the world, the New England Journal of Medicine. See below.

 I have written a ton about this bad boy, compiling not only my own analysis, but those of my deeply expert colleagues. My three part series on just this one trial is here , here , and here . The last one details numerous atrocious and disturbing comments uttered by the investigators of that trial. Bastards.
 My analyses admittedly were written emotionally as well as scientifically. If you prefer a more “sober”, “objective” analysis, please read this review of the trial published by the Cato Institute. It is masterful, and almost looks like they re-wrote my own review but in a more “academic” fashion and tone. Check it out. They did not conclude with having a desire to slap the Principle Investigator Ed Mills but they seemed close.
 The most hilarious and deeply troubling outcome of this trial was when it won the “Trial of the Year” by the Society of Clinical Trials. This celebratory article was published on Ed Mill’s company page, Cytel, a contract research organization that literally works for pharmaceutical companies to “gain approval” of their products. Good times.
 The PR campaign it launched was, in my mind, the final nail in the coffin of ivermectin. Headlines are painful. One included a picture of Trump holding a mask. What?

 Ok, so we covered the fraudulent “rigorous” trials that were published in the high-impact journals. In Part 2, I will cover the meta-analyses and editorials published by the same journals. In terms of brazen fraudulence, things get worse, like way worse.

 I just want to say thanks to all my subscribers, especially the paid ones! Your support is greatly appreciated as it allows me to devote what is often large amounts of time I spend researching and writing my posts, so again, thanks.
 Subscribe now
 P.S. I opened a tele-health clinic providing care not only in the prevention and treatment of acute COVID, but with a specialized focus on the study and treatment of both Long-Haul and Post-Vaccination injury syndromes. If anyone needs our help, feel free to visit our website at www.drpierrekory.com.
 P.P.S We held the world’s first conference on understanding and treating Spike protein induced disease this past weekend (i.e long haul COVID and vaccine injury syndromes). All the recorded lectures will be available for download later this week on the FLCCC website. Link in my next post.

 P.P.P.S. I am writing a book about what I have personally witnessed and learned during Pharma’s historic Disinformation war on ivermectin.  Pre-order here for:

 223 likes


The High-Impact Journal Editors Harassment Of The World's Leading Clinical Researcher of Repurposed Drugs in the COVID Pandemic - Part 3

You really need to read the first two posts ( here and here ) in this series to fully comprehend the scope and scale of harassment of Dr. Flavio Cadegiani and his colleagues.

 So you think the BMJ story is over after they published an attack piece on him in the journal after rejecting the proxalutamide manuscript? Not even close. Get this, two months later, out of nowhere, an editor at The BMJ writes to Flavio to ask him to consider “appealing” the earlier rejection of his trial manuscript .

 Wait, what? The BMJ rejected the manuscript after full peer review, and now, two months later, they ask him to submit it again? While, in the interim, they publish a hit-job editorial attacking him for ethical violations and suggesting he was responsible for the deaths of patients in his fully IRB approved, monitored, and well-conducted trial where control group patients were all given standard early treatments instead of placebo. Placebo controlled trials are unethical in the midst of a novel, deadly, viral pandemic. Shocker to hear this I know.
 Quick interlude and foreshadowing here, but I am just going to come right out and say it. The BMJ was NEVER going to publish his trial, period. What they were doing here is trying to delay its publication to the world. And that is exactly what they proceeded to do. With this and the below ensuing actions, they ended up further delaying publication.
 How do I know this is what they were doing? Recall from my earlier post that the Chief of the Frontiers journals, Dr. Frederick Fenter, tried to do the same thing to us after he retracted our review paper on ivermectin. He too followed that action by inviting us to re-submit to his journal for another full peer review. We thought that was hilarious, quickly declined the “offer,” and began a search for another journal to publish in. Flavio and team unfortunately (and naively) took the bait here. They, like the FLCCC, still retained an implicit faith in “the system” of Science and its “trusted” institutions.
 I will just quickly summarize what happened next. The paper was re-submitted, this time with documentation of a commissioned, third-party review by three different scientists that Flavio and his team had requested to review independently. The paper was then accepted by the original four peer reviewers. Good to go, no? No.
 A fifth peer reviewer was then assigned to analyze the raw data. He did the review and recommended acceptance. Good to go, no? No.
 Then they invited two more peer reviewers. My God. I hope I do not need to explain how absolutely unprecedented this BMJ clown show was. The sixth peer reviewer was the BMJ’s Statistics Editor, who also reviewed the paper and the IPL data and almost recommended acceptance, instead leaving a “concern” over a ridiculous issue around how they randomized the patients (this overblown issue will come up again and again).
 The seventh peer reviewer was supposed to do a “statistical analysis” of the paper, whatever that means as it had already been reviewed by six peer reviewers and the BMJ Statistics editor . This peer reviewer preposterously declared “ no conflicts of interest. ” Wait for it. Wait for it. Here is his bio:

 First, COVAX. It is the vaccine pillar of the ACT Accelerator program, an effort that is almost entirely staffed and run by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation .
 Now, CEPI:

 It’s really known as a Gates initiative though. From two other articles:

 If it can’t get any worse, check out Professor Evan’s comment to Dr. Fauci:

 Here is Evans being trotted out to the press to deflect the early concerns over the safety of the mRNA injections:

 Anyway, as you might expect at this point, the review by Evans is beyond nuts. First off, he makes numerous comments and concerns on the wrong paper (the outpatient study, not the inpatient study which was the paper under review). Was he drunk or distracted or just could care less? Second, he, like reviewer number six, offerred pseudo-expert mumbo jumbo amplifying what is essentially a minor concern, and certainly not one that would support rejecting the paper. But reject it they did. Many months after first submitting. After five peer reviewers accepted it, they brought in two (yes, two more) bagmen to carry out the hit. Done.
 Flavio rebutted by arguing that these “concerns” were actually standard practices within trials and not valid to support such a rejection. He got no reply.
 Flavio and his team then submitted their paper to a mid-level journal called Cureus where it successfully passed peer-review and was published .

 Submission of The Outpatient Study of Proxalutamide: Frontiers in Medicine
 The approach taken to retract their other study paper testing proxalutamide in outpatients at Frontiers in Medicine was almost identical to BMJ’s tactics above (and similar to the retraction of our FLCCC review paper on ivermectin at Frontiers in Pharmacology) . Apropos of nothing, I point out the following unrelated fact about the Frontiers journals:

 I trust I have provided enough evidence to prove that their approach appears to be right out of a playbook that high-impact journals use to get rid of studies that are inconvenient to their Pharma and BMGF masters.
 As per my earlier post on the actions taken against Professor Paul Marik by the Sentara Health System , this process is analogous to what is called “sham peer review,” used by hospitals to get rid of any physician on staff whose views become “inconvenient to their interests.” This is what they do. After all the peer reviewers are satisfied, they bring in an anonymous “expert advisor” who concludes the study is invalid by using pseudo-expert sounding mumbo-jumbo statistical concerns that are overblown and yet somehow relied upon to invalidate the study’s findings and support a rejection.
 To wit, after the outpatient trial manuscript passed peer review, they did just that. Frontiers in Medicine again brought in an anonymous “outside expert” whose critique made no scientific or statistical sense. It was completely baseless and easily refutable. The mathematician and statistician Dr. Daniel Tausk did a brilliant takedown of this “expert advisors review” here. Complex but masterful.
 The authors again rebutted, pointing out to the editors how preposterous and unfounded his/her analysis was. Didn’t matter. Retracted.

 Both their  outpatien t and  inpatient  studies have now been published in Cureus . The inpatient study took 18 months after first submitting the results to the NEJM. 18 months of a lot of people dying while a highly effective drug had been found that could have been used in outpatient as well as inpatient treatment to great effect.
 Now, interestingly, Cureus is the same journal that formerly had harassed us when we published our first paper on Itajai’s ivermectin prevention program there. How did they harass us you ask?
 Well, after publication, presumed Pharma rats tried to get them to retract our paper by writing to the journal accusing us of not reporting our conflicts of interest . What conflicts of interest you might ask? We wondered the same. Turns out it was that I/we did not disclose our membership in a non-profit medical education and research organization called the FLCCC alliance. A non-profit that does not manufacture, distribute, or sell ivermectin. Another conflict was my private medical practice because I prescribe ivermectin as one of many therapeutics in the care of patients with long haul and vaccine injury syndromes (I do not sell or distribute ivermectin here either). The editors actually took this accusation seriously and threatened to retract. We finally negotiated the following “Correction” that now appears above the article. Check it out (note the “paid consultants” statements of Dr. Cadegiani and Kerr were for minimal amounts and that Dr. Cadegiani had immediately donated):

 We really should have just disclosed that we were paid consultants for Pfizer, Merck, Janssen, Boehringer Ingelheim from the start and we would have been fine. You really, really cannot make this stuff up. Check out this comment attacking me under the article by a complete ignoramus who has no idea as to the complexity nor the time that me and my partner devote to the care of our patients. I included a rare but much appreciated defense. Thanks Simon Reich whoever you are.

 If this episode has not reached the absolute height of absurdity and corruption, sorry folks, but I am about to take it a step further. Three months ago, right around the same time that Flavio and team finally published their proxalutamide study, the New England Journal of Medicine published a pharmaceutical company sponsored trial (Veru Inc) of a patented drug called sabizabulin. Wanna guess how that drug works? Yep, you guessed it, it blocks androgen activity. They reported a massive reduction in mortality with its use (20.2% vs 45.1%). They also found a reduction in ICU days, mechanical ventilation days, and hospital days. They also found fewer adverse events compared to placebo (?) . Question: did the NEJM review Veru Inc’s IPL data? My god. The only thing left to wonder is how much money Biden will pay for this drug.

 Finally, know that the FLCCC long ago incorporated combination anti-androgen medicines into our protocols for severe cases, or in patients that did not respond to our first line therapies (we added anti-androgens on April 27, 2021 to be exact - the same time as Flavio’s original submission to the NEJM). Although not as individually potent as proxalutamide, by using a combination of anti-androgen medicines we found incredible efficacy in the many outpatient cases I was managing (I cared for hundreds of patients pro-bono over 15 months until I was forced to start a practice to treat long-haulers and the vaccine injured who are far more complex and require ongoing, careful, chronic care).
 In my acute covid patients during that time, androgen-blockade was critical in many cases to keep patients out of the hospital, particularly during what I call “late phase Delta” (the months of September to December 2021) as those patients were quite ill and ivermectin and HCQ alone were not enough to keep them out of the hospital, especially if treatment was started late. For the physicians following FLCCC protocols at the time, they too realized that the anti-androgen therapies saved a lot of lives. With Omicron, until the BA5 variant, the virus was not using the TMPRSS enzyme to enter the cell, so anti-androgens were not needed. They are applicable again with BA.5, but almost never needed as Omicron is a lot easier to treat and first-line therapies work in most. Just never forget the Editorial Mafia blockade of Flavio’s landmark study. Had that been published by the NEJM in when it first passed peer review in June of 2021, it would have saved millions of lives.

 Now, although Cureus was a lower tier journal than NEJM, the two proxalutamide papers start to get noticed. Two countries (U.S and China) began to show interest in evaluating the use of proxalutamide under an Emergency Use Authorization. And that is when things really start to get out of hand. Proxalutamide was threatening to enter the “COVID marketplace” ruled by Big Pharma. Uh oh.
 Part 4 details actions and threats against Dr. Cadegiani that are categorically and substantively of a very different nature than the ones in the first three parts. They are also significantly more troubling and threatening. However, I have just been informed that I cannot at this time publish details of these actions given the current political unrest in Brazil. I fully expect to be able to at some point in the near future. It will definitely be in the book.

 I just want to say thanks to all my subscribers, especially the paid ones! Your support is greatly appreciated as it allows me to devote what is often large amounts of time I spend researching and writing my posts, so again, thanks.
 Subscribe now
 P.S. I opened a tele-health clinic providing care not only in the prevention and treatment of acute COVID, but with a specialized focus on the study and treatment of both Long-Haul and Post-Vaccination injury syndromes. If anyone needs our help, feel free to visit our website at www.drpierrekory.com.
 P.P.S We are organizing the world’s first conference on understanding and treating Spike protein induced disease (i.e long haul COVID and vaccine injury syndromes). Tell your doctor to come. Link below:

 P.P.P.S. I am writing a book about what I have personally witnessed and learned during Pharma’s historic Disinformation war on ivermectin.  Pre-order here for:

Summary: The FLCCC's Flavio Cadegiani performed one of the highest-quality studies in COVID, finding unprecedented reductions in mortality with proxalutamide. He has been under attack ever since.


The High-Impact Journal Editors Harassment Of The World's Leading Clinical Researcher of Repurposed Drugs in the COVID Pandemic - Part 2

In Part 1 , I introduced the mechanisms and importance of the androgen-blocking drug proxalutamide followed by details of the first abuses endured at the two highest-impact journals in the world when Dr. Cadegiani and his team tried to publish one of the highest-quality rated studies in the pandemic. We have two more high-impact journals to go.

 Third Submission: The British Medical Journal , August 2021
 Going down the ladder here to the 3rd highest-rated medical journal in the world . What the BMJ did to Flavio and his team exceeds the previous… by a long shot. They behaved in almost indescribably outrageous ways, with numerous and increasingly absurd machinations that kept the paper hostage for months before finally being rejected. Let’s review the timeline of events:
 Submitted September of 2021. Went out for peer review, again . Four peer reviewers were assigned, numerous comments and suggested revisions were made, Flavio and his co-authors responded to all their concerns and questions.
 Problem: just prior to this period, public attacks on Flavio and his research began appearing in the press. Know that Flavio and team had already posted the paper on a pre-print server (which is what you are supposed to do in a pandemic) and suddenly this article appeared in Science magazine :

 The best part of the article was the quote from your friend and mine, the most destructive “public expert” in COVID, Dr. Eric Topol (everyone, and I mean everyone in my large international network of colleagues formed during COVID absolutely cringes when he says anything related to COVID). His statements appear entirely written by PR departments of big Pharma. Problem - newspapers ask him to say stuff. A lot.
 "These results are too good to be true," says Eric Topol, executive vice president of Scripps Research Translational Institute. "There are almost no medical interventions in the history of medicine that have this magnitude of benefit, no less with COVID-19."
 Compared to most major media articles that I have read concerning “non-approved therapies,” this one wasn’t the worst, but that is still a pretty generous statement. It contained numerous inaccuracies, like at the end when they mention that other studies of androgen blockers did not show benefits (wrong - numerous other studies did). And unsurprisingly, Eric Topol clearly knew nothing about the literature supporting androgen-blocking in COVID but had no problem being quoted on the topic in a news article.
 Anyway, what happened next is that the editor of BMJ relayed the same “concern” as NEJM, again quoting “the results are too good to be true.” So the manuscript was rejected.
 The below letter details the reasons they gave for rejection. Note that their “concerns about the quality and transparency of randomization” had been fully addressed by the team of authors, yet they still rejected it, saying that to fully review all the documents required to resolve their concerns was “not a service the BMJ can offer.” Unreal. I wish a journal had done this to Pfizer’s vaccine trial as many many more young (and old) people would be alive today.

 Political Interlude
 While the high-impact journals were trying to delay and destroy his ability to publish his findings, suddenly events occurred as the result of actions being taken to destroy Flavio’s public credibility and profile.
 Suddenly, in quick succession, completely fabricated stories were posted on two well-read blogs claiming that proxalutamide caused deaths in his studies and that Flavio covered them up. This started a narrative that Flavio was some sort of rogue, unethical, depraved researcher responsible for mass murder. Absolutely disgusting. I don’t know how Flavio dealt with that.
 I say this because I was disturbed emotionally after a far less severe accusation I had to read about me in this hurtful article in the Huffington Pos t which implicated me in the death of a patient unknown to me that had supposedly taken ivermectin when he fell ill with COVID. I was disturbed by that story for days. But those emotions were likely nothing compared to what Flavio was forced to endure.
 The reason why he suffered more severe attacks is that his original study and findings were way more threatening than our review papers. Anyway, these coordinated "internet” media attacks somehow led to the involvement of the United Nations Education, Science, and Culture Organization (UNESCO). They posted a document regarding Flavio and his “possible ethical violations.” A new narrative starts to harden and go global. Uh oh. Flavio immediately wrote to UNESCO defending himself with documents that clearly disproved the allegation. Surprisingly and fortunately, they quickly removed their notice of concern (that is why I have no link to it). Big win. For now.
 Two weeks later, suddenly Flavio then found himself under a political attack from his own government. This was a result of his supposed “association” with President Bolsonaro who had also been publicly supporting early treatment in Brazil. Apparently Bolsonaro had cited the work of Flavio and his team to support some of his statements.
 Suddenly, Bolsonaro’s opposition in the Brazilian Senate decided that promoting early treatment was dangerous misinformation and so they compiled a list of 72 people who had publicly supported such approaches and Flavio was on the list. They required 69 of the 72 to appear in hearings before the Senate. Curiously, Flavio was one of the three that was not required to come before the Senate.
 The Senate then produced a 1,178 page report which recommended to Brazil’s Justice Department that they “begin an investigation” of all the people listed in the report. Flavio was mentioned 11 times in the report. Flavio asked 15 different lawyers to review the document, yet not one could find any evidence or details that could support an investigation. Absurd political theater. Which is what the Justice Department thought as well. They found that the report contained little that could plausibly support the initiation of an investigation so they dismissed the request.
 Does it end there? Nope.
 The Senate then reacted even more stupidly. Infuriated that these “mis-informationists” were not going to be investigated, they then requested that the International Court of Justice (ICJ) at the Hague investigate those on the list for “crimes against humanity.” The ICJ quickly deemed the request illegitimate and dismissed it. But, the press had a field day with these accusations and Flavio’s public persona became even more widely known as that of an “unethical researcher.” Exactly the point. Flavio told me that it was mostly the newspapers that did the hit jobs on him and that he was instead largely protected by the TV stations. Why you ask? Because Flavio had not only been interviewed numerous times on TV over the years but also he had more than a few high-level TV executives and personalities who were patients of his (and he says he has even more now).

 Ok back to academia where his situation at the BMJ became rapidly worse. Flavio and his team had earlier submitted a manuscript to a BMJ journal called BMJ Case Reports . The report was about a case of a bodybuilder on anabolic steroids who was extremely ill (testosterone excess is not good in COVID) yet was successfully treated with proxalutamide as evidenced by an extremely rapid recovery. It passed through peer review and was published.
 All of a sudden, out of nowhere, BMJ published a commissioned “ hit job” of an article on Flavio and his team, literally continuing this newly established narrative that he was an unethical (murderous?) medical researcher. It is an absolutely disgusting read given that every single claim made by the author is easily and provably false:

 All of a sudden, out of nowhere, BMJ published a commissioned “ hit job” of an article on Flavio and his team. Check this out, it is absolutely disgusting to read as every single claim made by the author is easily and provably false. It is very hard for me to even read the title:

 Based on the accusations in the article, the BMJ set about retracting the case report. Also, this article, which BMJ admits was commissioned, claimed that Flavio’s trial was unethical and that he had not obtained prior and appropriate research ethics committee approval or proper patient consent (100% false statement).
 Further, it quoted a “regulator” from UNESCO’s Network of Bioethics who later publicly objected to the included statement given they never said it. What is worse is that the “journalist” (a sports journalist - I am not making this up) had submitted questions to Flavio and his team prior to publishing the article in order to clarify the made-up accusations that were in his article draft. Flavio refuted all the accusations with numerous pieces of documentation. The “journalist” ignored all submitted evidence clearing him of these accusations and the article was published in the BMJ. High-quality journal eh?
 Flavio was devastated as it was a vicious attack on his reputation and was now being propagated in one of the top journals in the world. That this happened to someone who is, to me, of the absolute highest caliber in terms of integrity, ethics, professionalism, and research expertise is a tragedy. Note that Flavio was the youngest and fastest to obtain a PhD in the history of his University. He is a world expert in the study and treatment of the devastating “over-training syndrome” amongst elite athletes. He is often interviewed on television across numerous related health topics. His clinical research output and publications thus far in his career dwarfs that of most physicians and he is just 36 years old.
 Further, he personally funded his trials to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars. An “investigator-funded study” is almost unheard of. In fact, I have never heard of it. In the FLCCC member’s careers, our research has been either externally funded, or we funded it with the brute force of the time we spent gathering and analyzing data while caring for the patients. Flavio was trying to solve COVID and was willing to put his personal money towards supporting that effort.
 I have donated immense time to research, but never personal money. One reason is that I became a doctor late in life (at the age of 29) after having worked in the restaurant business throughout my 20s to put myself through graduate school. When I finished training at the age of 38, I had two kids and no money. Nothing saved for retirement. Noth-ing. No money in any education fund for my rapidly growing children. I luckily was able to borrow money for a used car and a down payment on a house from my parents so me and my wife could move out of NYC the day I finished my fellowship.
 Numerous emails then ensued between Flavio’s research group and the editorial board of The BMJ as the team was justifiably furious at this article. They sent documentation disproving every inaccuracy and accusation in the article and asked for it to be retracted. The BMJ reluctantly only published a few of the many corrections needed and the article remains published online. The BMJ also never answered the team’s question about “who commissioned this article?” See below where the editor admits the story was commissioned. Absolutely nuts.

 Flavio writes to his team to inform them of the news.

 My subscribers should know by now who I think commissioned the article. Yup, you nailed it. Check out the editorial team’s lame corrections under the article, not nearly as lengthy as the evidence dictated:

 So, Flavio’s study manuscript was submitted to the three highest-impact medical journals in the world and sent out for peer-review at all three. Despite none of the peer-reviewers recommending rejection, the editors all rejected the paper for novel and/or absurd reasons. The BMJ episode is not over yet though, as it reaches even more farcical heights. Read all about it in Part 3 .

 I just want to say thanks to all my subscribers, especially the paid ones! Your support is greatly appreciated as it allows me to devote what is often large amounts of time I spend researching and writing my posts, so again, thanks.
 Subscribe now
 P.S. I opened a tele-health clinic providing care not only in the prevention and treatment of acute COVID, but with a specialized focus on the study and treatment of both Long-Haul and Post-Vaccination injury syndromes. If anyone needs our help, feel free to visit our website at www.drpierrekory.com.
 P.P.S We are organizing the world’s first conference on understanding and treating Spike protein induced disease (i.e long haul COVID and vaccine injury syndromes). Tell your doctor to come. Link below:

 P.P.P.S. I am writing a book about what I have personally witnessed and learned during Pharma’s historic Disinformation war on ivermectin.  Pre-order here for:


The High-Impact Medical Journal Editors Harassment Of The World's Leading Clinical Researcher of Repurposed Drugs in the COVID Pandemic - Part 1

If you’ve read my first 3 posts on the corrupt actions of the high-impact journal ‘Editorial Mafia’ ( here , here , and here ), buckle up, because the attacks on researchers of repurposed drugs gets way worse. None more so than the numerous academic, political, psychological, and legal actions taken against Dr. Flavio Cadegiani. The next four posts will detail both the fragmented and co-ordinated attacks on Flavio and his team as they researched numerous therapeutics during COVID, but none triggered more harassment than their work on the drug proxalutamide. This series will culminate in the detailing of severely threatening actions taken against him in Part 4 .

 Although I will focus on the harassment of Flavio Cadegiani, I do want to mention the impressive team of researchers he worked with on their studies of anti-androgens as they too have suffered harassment. The co-authors are listed in his two proxalutamide publications here and here .
 I focus mostly on Flavio as he was both the lead author and had the most prominent public profile, thus the attacks have largely targeted at him. The corruption of the high-impact journal actions against proxalutamide not only exceed those of any of my prior posts on their actions against ivermectin, but after the proxalutamide papers were finally successfully published in a lower-tier journal, the attacks went beyond the journals into political, personal, and physical harassment. Let’s go.

 One difference with Dr. Flavio Cadegiani’s four ( yes, four ) high-impact journal rejections/retractions is that the studies did not involve ivermectin. Instead, his studies involved a novel prostate cancer medicine called proxalutamide that inhibits testosterone, a mechanism that was highly effective in the prior variants when SARS-CoV2 relied on an enzyme (TMPRSS2) stimulated by testosterone to enter the cell.
 Flavio and his colleagues figured out that if you blocked any hormone with testosterone activity, you blocked SARS-CoV2’s entry and replication. He first tested this hypothesis in a series of observational studies, where he consistently found a correlation between “androgen blocking” (testosterone and its metabolites) medicines and improved outcomes. Conversely, in these studies, the team also found that androgen excess led to worse outcomes. They were onto something and they knew it. They had identified an important pathophysiologic mechanism which was then further supported by robust observational studies indicating that hormonal blocking would act as a potent therapeutic in both men and women ill with COVID-19.
 Flavio and team did everything they could to prove, in a rigorous (and I mean rigorous), prospective manner, the efficacy of a drug with strong anti-androgen activity. The reason they chose to study proxalutamide was that it was the only medicine they could obtain without spending their entire life savings and that also had a physically identical placebo tablet (this is really important when conducting blinded clinical trials). Just ask Ed Mills and the rest of the corrupt NEJM TOGETHER ivermectin trial investigators or the corrupt JAMA Lopez-Medina trial investigators if their placebo tablets looked like their active study drug tablets. The idea that these guys are supposedly respected trialists is absurd.
 Curiously, the only drug they could study came from a non-Western Pharma company called Kintor. All of the western Big Pharma companies (Jannsen, Pfizer and others) refused to support his study and Flavio told me that at one point they tried to discourage him from studying anti-androgens at all.
 As any reader of mine knows by now, the modern rules of medical science state that to “prove” something works, you need a “Big RCT” (randomized controlled trial). Although this “requirement” is based on a scientific myth, it is unfortunately a political truth. The Pharma-conflicted masters of “evidence-based medicine” have inculcated this notion into what is now three generations of physicians. But since them’s the rules, Flavio and his colleagues knew they had to play by them. Their observational studies , as convincing or numerous as they may have been, were not going to move the needle. At all.
 So they set up conducting the highest quality trial in the pandemic (based on the most established grading scale of clinical trials), as it was a prospective, multi-center, double-blind, randomized controlled trial (PMCDBRCT). The rating of this trial was done by COVID-NMA, an international initiative led by a number of supposedly august institutions:

 Here is their grading, taken from a slide talk that Flavio gave:

 Even Ed Mill’s University (McMaster) gave it a superb quality rating.

 Their study was supposed to have been an evidence-based maniac’s wet dream. Especially since it found that treatment with proxalutamide led to massive improvements in survival, hospital length of stay, and recovery rate. Proxalutamide-treated patients had an 8.0% mortality vs. 39.2% in the placebo group. The same benefits were found in men and women.
 This was an almost unheard-of improvement in survival difference amongst the medicines and diseases that I have studied. The “number need to treat” (NNT) to save one life comes out to 3.2 patients. This rivals the potency of defibrillating someone who is in the midst of a cardiac arrest ( NNT = 2.5 - a lower number reflects higher potency).
 I say the NNT is almost unprecedented because the difference in mortality that they found is identical to the mortality difference found by Dr. Paul Marik in his 2017 observational trial of IV Vitamin C in severe sepsis patients (8.5% vs 40.4%). Not so fun fact: Professor Marik’s study is currently in the process of being retracted by Paul’s ex-hospital as the result of complaints from people who have been attacking ivermectin. This retraction is underway, now 5 years after publication and despite the fact his co-authors still work for the hospital. As below, “they” will do everything they can to ruin our credibility and career accomplishments.
 In comparison to Paul’s study, Flavio’s trial was a larger, prospective, randomized trial which included 778 patients. It was conducted in Brazil during one of the most violently virulent variants (a mouthful I know) in the pandemic. Fortunately, the Gamma variant “burned itself out” in South America without spreading globally to an appreciable extent given that Gamma was up to four times more lethal than Delta. Whoa. If it had spread internationally to a significant extent, it would have caused a global apocalypse given that most of the world still relies on an absence of early treatment, an anemic dose of corticosteroids, and an absurd reliance on hospital-phase infusions of Run-Death-Is-Near. The lethality of the variant explains the high mortality rate of 3,500 to 4,000 deaths per day in Brazil during the study time period.
 Three factors turned the Gamma variant into a national catastrophe for Brazil but not the world. Gamma had lower transmissibility and Brazil’s borders were closed at the time. But, they were forced to transfer severely ill patients nationally out of Amazonas after Gamma emerged there due to the fact that the Amazonas health system had been over-run and was in a state of collapse.
 Prior to designing and conducting his study, Flavio negotiated with the manufacturer that if the drug proved beneficial, the company would agree to sell the drug for just $11 a dose. Instead of receiving money from the company to conduct the trial, he understood that during a global health emergency crisis, saving lives mattered more than making money and he agreed to conduct the trial for free. Let that sink in for a second . He paid, from his own pocket, all the operating and hospital costs of the trial using only minor donations from local businessmen. Kintor did donate the supplies of the medicine, but again, the arrangement was contingent on the fact Kintor was obligated to keep it affordable on a worldwide level.
 Notice this approach is the opposite of what typically happens in medical research. Normally Pharma pays off investigators to manipulate trials into showing their drug works and then they charge exorbitant prices to governments and health systems around the world.
 Another important action that Flavio and his study team must be commended for is that they immediately made public the de-identified individual patient level (IPL) data of all the subjects in their study (they do this with all of their studies). This action is what experts have mandated for decades but absolutely no pharmaceutical company ever does. Ever. Remember the TOGETHER ivermectin trial ? Those investigators wrote over and over in their protocols and publications that their IPL data would be made public immediately upon completion of the study. Not-so-fun fact: they immediately backtracked after publication in the NEJM and now refuse to make their data public despite repeated requests by researchers from all over the world.
 If you knew Flavio, you would know his entire mission and focus during COVID was in figuring out which drugs worked (and he found, studied, and “proved” the efficacy of a number of them). Just look him up on Pubmed . My guess is that he is the most diversely published clinical researcher on therapeutics in COVID in the world. But he didn’t care about any single drug. Although he is a world expert on ivermectin in COVID and knows it works, he also knows a lot of other compounds that work too. This is why his original protocols in Brazil, like those of the FLCCC , the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons , and Truth For Health , have always employed combination therapy protocols. It’s not just about ivermectin and it never was.
 What follows is a highly detailed compilation of the numerous corrupt actions by four different journals — including three of the highest-impact journals in the world . Numerous emails will show the brazen and unprecedented actions taken to both delay and avoid publishing the results of his trial. Ultimately, the cumulative actions delayed publication for 18 months until it was finally published in a lower-tier journal that has been largely (but not completely) ignored. Mission accomplished.

 First Submission: New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), April to June, 2021
 Flavio first submitted his paper to the highest-impact medical journal in the world in April of 2021. Again, his was a high-quality study which found a massive reduction in mortality. Recall that in the original study of Remdesivir, the investigators reported a brief (a couple of days) reduction in hospital length of stay and no impact on mortality. Yet Fauci immediately called an Oval Office meeting, invited legions of the press, and extolled the drug as a “game-change-uh.” This performance was immediately broadcast across the world via the internet, radio, newspapers, and televisions. It even made the front page of the New York Times — all before it was peer-reviewed or published . Fauci effectively launched a global PR campaign for a pharmaceutical company… for free. The US then spent over $3 billion to purchase Remdesivir in its first year. On an anti-viral relegated for use in a phase of the illness where live virus is rarely present. The good ole’ United States of Pharma.
 With proxalutamide, let’s say that things went a little differently (understatement of the century). Given the trial’s size, quality, and magnitude of its findings, the NEJM had to send it out for peer review. Well, let’s not say they “had to” but they did. The peer reviewers began submitting their questions and suggested revisions to Flavio and his co-authors. The team answered all the reviewers’ questions and incorporated the suggested revisions. The reviewers had no more questions. So, accept and publish right? Oh, that’s so 2019. Two months after submission, Eric Rubin, the journal’s Editor-in-Chief, wrote this reply:

 Remember Dr. Rubin? He was the one who told a NYT Magazine writer that I “got lucky” when I testified in Senator Ron Johnson’s first Senate hearings on COVID in May 2020 about how corticosteroids were critical in the treatment of hospitalized COVID patients. Two months later, corticosteroids became the standard of care worldwide. Lucky Pierre.
 Now, not-so-fun fact about Eric Rubin and the NEJM. When Flavio asked if reviewing patient-level data was a routine part of the process for being published in the NEJM, Dr. Rubin admitted that the NEJM had never analyzed the primary raw data of any study before publication in its history. Interesting, no? The standard practice of the high-impact journals responsible for publishing the now-proven fraudulent vaccine trials, as well as those of Paxlovid and Molnupiravir, was to do so without analyzing the patient-level data on which the manuscripts’ conclusions were based. Yet here, suddenly, they “made up a new rule” to reject Flavio’s study of an $11 medicine.
 So, the moral of the story is that the journals trust Pharma… but don’t trust independent investigators without conflicts of interest?
 “Sorry, we are not interested in publishing your study showing a massive reduction in mortality.”
 Flavio wrote back:

 Rubin responded:

 “Too good to be true?” That’s the excuse? Meanwhile, Pfizer can claim an 88% reduction in hospitalization in high-risk COVID patients treated with Paxlovid, but that doesn’t need verifying . Isn’t that curious, given the fact that Paxlovid failed to show efficacy in low-risk patients as well as in prevention but somehow it led to an 88% reduction in high-risk patients? I would think that should have been checked out, no?
 Let’s compare the discordant results among Paxlovid trials with those of proxalutamide. In their other study testing proxalutamide in mild to moderately ill Covid outpatients, the time to clinical recovery was 1.8 days with proxalutamide vs. 12 days with placebo. Whoa. Also, by day seven, 82% of proxalutamide-treated patients were PCR negative, while only 31% of placebo were. Not. Even. Close.
 Flavio decided to make a desperate plea to Rubin, pointing out the most frightening aspect of his and the journal’s action, which is that it would lead to many people dying as a result.

 So, Flavio’s paper passed standard peer review but was instead effectively retracted by the NEJM editor Eric Rubin. Using one of the lamest, made-up reasons to do so. Absurd and laughable, except for all the people who subsequently died because of the suppression of the efficacy of a medication whose “trial results were too good to be true.”
 Recall that the PFDA (the P is not a typo) went to court to hide Pfizer’s vaccine IPL data for 75 years . The judge wasn’t buying it, and mandated the release of the IPL data. Yet, the NEJM had not reviewed Pfizer’s IPL data before publishing. I can also guarantee that the PFDA Committee members issuing the EUA did not review Pfizers IPL data to any significant extent because the EUA was a foregone conclusion, just like their unanimous vote to jab toddlers with COVID mRNA injections (I literally get nauseous every time I think of that vote and the data it was based on). That is why they are called the PFDA. We now know from Ventavia whistleblower Brook Jackson ’s reports as well as the work of Naomi Wolf and the thousands of volunteers at the Daily Clou t, that the study was rife with fraudulent manipulations and obscuring of adverse data.
 So not only did Flavio share his IPL data, but shared it after conducting one of the highest-graded quality trials since the pandemic began (although I champion his achievement, in reality, quality grades have no correlation with the accuracy of a study’s conclusion).
 Rubin’s reply to Flavio’s final plea on behalf of humanity?
 “I am afraid you are going to have to take your work elsewhere.”

 Flavio was NOT going nuts. At all.

 Second Submission: The Lancet - June 11, 2021 to June 22, 2021
 Flavio et al then submitted to the second highest-impact journal in the world . Again the paper was sent out for peer-review (which is the biggest hurdle in publishing manuscripts, and to achieve this feat at the two top journals in the world is beyond impressive, which speaks to the quality and size of his trial).
 Flavio and his team received the reviewer comments very quickly, and before they had an opportunity to respond to them (as is customary) it was rejected at the editorial level. This despite the fact the issues and questions raised by the reviewers could have been easily addressed and further, no peer-reviewer had recommended rejection in their comments (I read their comments). Curious no? The Editors’s reason was that they wanted to give “priority to other manuscripts under consideration.” I am sure those manuscripts also showed massive impacts on mortality in a novel disease engulfing the globe. My God.
 Manuscript reference number: THELANCET-D-21-04718
Title: Efficacy of Proxalutamide (GT0918) in Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients
 Dear Dr. McCoy,
 Thank you for submitting Efficacy of Proxalutamide (GT0918) in Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients to The Lancet. This is an interesting area of research, so we sought external views to add to our own.
 The reviewers' comments were mixed. After discussing the paper further, we were unable make this submission a priority for our general readers when compared with other papers also under consideration. As a result, I regret to inform you that we have decided to decline this submission.
 I am sorry to disappoint you on this occasion and hope that the reviewers' comments, appended below, will help to guide a successful submission elsewhere.
 Yours sincerely,
 The Lancet

 Recall that The Lancet is the same journal that published the fraudulent Surgisphere study of hydroxychloroquine with clearly fabricated data - a scandal that the world has conveniently forgotten about. Good times.

 So, Flavio’s study manuscript was first submitted to the two highest-impact medical journals in the world which was rejected arbitrarily by editors despite the peer-reviewers lack of such a recommendation. The journey of this paper to publication is not over. It simply gets increasingly disturbing. Click here for Part 2 .

 I just want to say thanks to all my subscribers, especially the paid ones! Your support is greatly appreciated as it allows me to devote what is often large amounts of time I spend researching and writing my posts, so again, thanks.
 Subscribe now
 P.S. I opened a tele-health clinic providing care not only in the prevention and treatment of acute COVID, but with a specialized focus on the study and treatment of both Long-Haul and Post-Vaccination injury syndromes. If anyone needs our help, feel free to visit our website at www.drpierrekory.com.
 P.P.S We are organizing the world’s first conference on understanding and treating Spike protein induced disease (i.e long haul COVID and vaccine injury syndromes). Tell your doctor to come. Link below:

 P.P.P.S. I am writing a book about what I have personally witnessed and learned during Pharma’s historic Disinformation war on ivermectin.  Pre-order here for:


Rebuttal By Dr. Cadegiani To UNESCO's Accusation of Research Ethics Violations

Google translated from Portugese:
 CLARIFICATION OF THE UNESCO NOTE ON POSSIBLE ETHICS INFRINGEMENT
 Endocrinologist Flávio Cadegiani comes to clarify the articles “For Unesco, the study of proxalutamide was one of the most serious violations of ethical rights in LA”, authored by Johanns Eller, published on October 8, 2021, on Malu Gaspar’s blog, on O Globo portal, and “Complaint about proxalutamide is one of the most serious in Latin American history, says Unesco”, published on October 11, 2021 on the Folha de São Paulo portal.

 The texts already begin with untruth in the title, and the title of the Unesco note deals only with “possible ethical infraction”.
 What is verified in the articles is that UNESCO was misled by biased statements, by untrue and distorted information provided by CONEP, resulting from illegal leaks, which are the subject of investigations by the control bodies and the Federal Court. Therefore, it is certain that UNESCO's manifestations are based on false premises, on narratives.
 a) Initially, with regard to the statement of suspicions about 200 deaths in the study of proxalutamide, in Amazonas, it should be made clear that there were no suspected deaths by Conep, no suspicious circumstances. An opinion issued by the CEP/Conep System APPROVED all procedures and reports regarding the study in Amazonas (Opinion No. 4,690,573). This opinion was disregarded by Conep without any justification, and another was issued. But, in any case, it is certain that there were no suspicious deaths, since, after this study, OTHER 25 (TWENTY-FIVE) STUDIES were APPROVED with proxalutamide. After all, if there was even the slightest suspicion that proxalutamide caused someone's death, CONEP would never have approved any further study of the drug at all.”
 b) The study approved by Conep did not include any hospital in Brasília. This is just another narrative by the Conep Coordinator, who did not even mention the name of the supposed hospital. The study was approved to be carried out in hospitals in Brazil, leaving the field open for the list of these hospitals (pages 8 of the approval opinion), which would be inserted in due course, with no deadline set for that;
 c) As for the allegations that information on deaths was not provided within the deadline, these are also not true. According to the protocol approved by Conep, the ethical commitment would be to report serious adverse events within 24 hours, but only those resulting from the drug being tested. However, NO SERIOUS ADVERSE EVENTS resulted from the TEST MEDICATION. It is reiterated that CONEP subsequently approved 25 (twenty-five) other studies with THE SAME DRUG;
 d) The researchers never refused to provide any clarification to Conep, they always promptly responded to all the commission's demands. At most, a request was made, in view of the leaks of strictly confidential information that occurred within the scope of that Commission, but which, in no way represented a refusal, it was just a request, to which Conep did not respond;
 e) Regarding the claim that the tests should be interrupted, it is certain that, also according to the OPINION OF APPROVAL OF THE STUDY ISSUED BY CONEP, the interruption would only occur if the deaths were due to the use of the medication under study. An independent commission, indicated in the Research Protocol and duly approved by Conep, constantly monitored serious adverse events and deaths, and recommended the interruption at the appropriate time, and not due to deaths, since a total of ZERO deaths or events serious adverse events were associated with the drug;
 f) The number of deaths reported was the SAME in ALL REPORTS. There were discrepancies due to untrue articles published by the media. Obviously, the number of deaths presented on March 11, 2021, when the survey was still taking place, is different from that verified at the end, in mid-April 2021.
 As can be seen, there is not a single true information in which the UNESCO note, cited in the matters in question.
 Contrary to what the text says, the scientific study obeyed all the strictest ethical principles, in addition to meeting all required formalities.
 And who insists that everything is duly verified and clarified are the researchers.
 Therefore, in the face of statements like these and of possible irregularities that come occurring in the conduct of procedures by CONEP member(s), as well as, in the face of statements that characterize leakage of information of a character strictly confidential, in violation of legal and regulatory norms, were made representations with the Ministry of Health - National Health Council, with the Office of the Comptroller General - CGU, and with the Attorney General's Office, for investigations, in order to protect the rights of the researcher, the rights of protection to the research, and, mainly, the protection of the research participants.
 And more, in the face of untrue, distorted information and, with a clearly defamatory statement contained in the statements attributed to CONEP Coordinator, Jorge
 Venâncio, is pending before the Federal Criminal Court, Criminal Interpellation, which already has with a favorable opinion from the Federal Public Ministry, and has already been granted by the MM. Federal judge competent.
 In addition, the articles do not comply with the Journalists' Code of Ethics, Chapter III, Art.
 12, item I - except for the specifics of the press office, OUVIR SEMPER,
 BEFORE THE DISCLOSURE OF THE FACTS, the largest number of people and institutions involved in journalistic coverage, MAINLY THOSE WHO ARE
 SUBJECT OF CHARGES NOT SUFFICIENTLY DEMONSTRATED OR
 VERIFIED, as the reporter did not contact the doctor or his Press office.
 Dr. Flávio Cadegani

Summary: An international organization posted a notice calling attention to Dr. Cadegiani's "possible ethical violations" after hit pieces were posted on random internet blogs. Here is his successful defense.


More Fraud Uncovered In The Lopez-Medina Ivermectin Trial Published In JAMA

Disclaimer: the below post is 100% plagiarized from a Twitter thread by the brilliant ivermectin study fraud detective Alexandros Marinos. His Substack called “ Do Your Own Research ” is amazing and I invite all to subscribe. This one is a doozy, and like a lot of his other discoveries of the manipulations of ivermectin trials by Pharma-conflicted investigators, they are the result of very close reading of the initial registered trial protocols. He then tracks all the changes in often numerous updated versions.

 From Alexandros Marinos:
 The story of Lopez-Medina

 I've just been catching up on the most widely promoted ivermectin study of 2021, and (surprise!) it's a mind-blowing story. So let me put together the pieces for you. The trial took place in Cali, Colombia, between July and December 2021, and had 476 participants.

 Clearly interest in ivermectin (which is available over the counter without prescription there) was going through the roof, at more than 10x normal rates of consumption.

 The experimenters felt that if they said "we're doing a study on ivermectin" they'd get nobody since so many were taking it anyway. So they went as far as to mislead the participants, saying that the study was on "D11AX22 Molecule." This was also written on the consent forms.
 The text above was a statement from Dr Lopez-Medina himself, after much speculation on the issue. He claims there was no ethical issue. I'm... not as sure. Even so, a ton of participants were found to have been taking ivermectin too recently, and had to be ejected. Every highlighted number below is patients dropping off because they were found to be possibly taking ivermectin.

 The text above was a statement from Dr Lopez-Medina himself, after much speculation on the issue. He claims there was no ethical issue. I'm... not as sure.
 Even so, a ton of participants were found to have been taking ivermectin too recently, and had to be ejected. Every highlighted number below is patients dropping off because they were found to be possibly taking ivermectin.

 To everyone's surprise, the adverse events between placebo and treatment were identical, and very VERY suggestive of ivermectin use. Did I say everyone's? I meant no-one's.

 This list of symptoms, by the way, is described in the study protocol as "symptoms that have historically been reported in subjects receiving ivermectin". Given the relatively high dose in this trial, it's *kinda strange* that they appear pretty much evenly across groups.
 To make matters worse, a third-party group got access to the data and figured out that more than one person per household was allowed to take part in the study, but they were not randomized in the same group.

 Ed note: Although I co-authored the above paper rejected by JAMA (shocker) I want to give full credit to this statistical sleuthing at the core of the paper to my expert colleague David Wiseman.
 This means that two sick family members could have gotten sick, gotten in the trial, but somehow one ended up in treatment and one in placebo. But the investigators won't tell us what was in the placebo, only that it tasted similar.

 "What was in the placebo" is not really the kind of question you want to be asking in these trials. There should be a straightforward answer. And for at least 15 days in the beginning of October 2020 it was. The placebo contained ivermectin. I'm not kidding. Apparently there was an error(?!), and all patients from that period were discarded. Mr Trial Pharmacist: you had 1 job. Keep treatment and placebo separate.
 In the midst of all this chaos, the trial investigators noticed something strange. They were expecting about 20% of the placebo group to trigger the main endpoint. Instead it was being triggered by only 3.5%. The placebo group was... doing... super well.
 So what do they do? Change the endpoint. Wait. The endpoint is selected together with study size to get a reasonable shot at hitting "statistical significance". If you change the endpoint, shouldn't you also redo the math and change the size of the trial?
 According to Lopez-Medina, no. Even though ivermectin reduced duration of symptoms by 2 days in the newly selected endpoint, there weren't nearly enough patients to reach significance.
 You won't be surprised to hear that many doctors were not happy with the conduct of the trial. Lots of them even signed a letter to the journal.
 The press, of course, understood that this trial was a car crash and ignored it. Right? Not quite.

 So what else went wrong? Due to the aforementioned issue with background usage, the investigators were pragmatic. "you can join if you haven't used ivermectin for 5 days" they said. The advocates found this to be very problematic. The proponents said 5 days should be enough.
 Except this morning, I found out that in the clinical trials.gov pre-registration , the exclusion criteria didn't say 5 days... it said 48 hours without ivermectin was enough. In contradiction to what was published.
 I think I found something about the Lopez-Medina ivermectin trial. Many ivermectin supporters have noted that it required patients not use ivermectin >=5 days prior to randomization. Local use of ivermectin was 10x normal. I just found that it was actually only >=48 hours prior.
 According to the clinical trials.gov registry , it was changed from 48 hours to 5 days, which most people thought was on December 16, only 5 days before the end of the trial. Why would it be changed so late other than to cover up the extremely short gap?
 Hmph. Very strange. In the paper itself, the time interval is 5 days for all revisions. Is this some kind of error? For the published paper to disagree with the registered protocol is not a good look at all.

 Anything else? As Scott Alexander said, "...ivermectin boosterism and vaccine denialism are closely linked." Or as I like to say it "...vaccine boosterism and ivermectin denialism are closely linked." .
 Ed note: Alex’s re-ordering of Alexanders statement mirrors my own take, a perspective that I was trying to “teach” Mr. Alex Berenson in our friendly “webinar debate” on ivermectin, but he refused to listen. Oh well. Be better Alex. I guess he trusts Scott Alexander on this issue more than me.
 Don't tell me there's conflicts of interest now?
 Sadly, I must. You see, at the same time that the organization of Dr. Lopez-Medina was running this trial, it was also running the Janssen vaccine trial for J&J.
 In fact, Dr Eduardo Lopez-Medina himself, is a childhood infectious disease doctor with specialization in vaccines. Here's a Dengue vaccine candidate he worked on:

 So you won't be shocked to see Sanofi, Janssen, GSK, Gilead, and others in the CoI statement, will you?
 Surprisingly, Dr Lopez-Medina was involved in 2 more vaccine trials in 2021. One for Clover Health SCB-2019 protein subunit vaccine : And also the Solidarity Vaccine trial for the WHO.
 In the midst of all this, the paper writes: "preliminary reports of other RCTs of ivermectin as treatment for COVID-19 with positive results have not yet been published in peer-reviewed journals… ignoring 8 peer-reviewed RCTs with positive effects published prior to the paper.
 To top things off, the team that did the re-analysis found that the 75 discarded patients, when compared with the placebo group, actually produce a "statistically significant" improvement on the new endpoint. Lopez-Medina confirmed their calculations.

 Ed note - again, all credit to David Wiseman for the above finding.
 Colombian trial flop, indeed.

 Ed note: I hate, absolutely hate MedPage today. The worst. Total Pharma rag and read widely and gullibly by “system docs.”
 Some local color - apparently Colombian left-populist, ex-rebel, opposition leader (now president-elect) was promoting ivermectin as Covid-19 cure in 2020. That was the politics issue Lopez-Medina was citing. I'm going to guess the establishment stayed neutral.

 I just want to say thanks to all my subscribers, especially the paid ones! Your support is greatly appreciated as it allows me to devote what is often large amounts of time that I spend researching and writing my posts, so again, thanks.
 Subscribe now
 P.S. I opened a tele-health clinic providing care not only in the prevention and treatment of acute COVID, but with a specialized focus on the study and treatment of both Long-Haul and Post-Vaccination injury syndromes. If anyone needs our help, feel free to visit our website at www.drpierrekory.com.
 P.P.S We are organizing the world’s first conference on understanding and treating Spike protein induced disease (i.e long haul COVID and vaccine injury syndromes). Tell your doctor to come. Link below:

 P.P.P.S. I am writing a book about what I have personally witnessed and learned during Pharma’s historic Disinformation war on ivermectin.  Pre-order here for:

Summary: Well after 100 doctors wrote an open letter to JAMA asking for a retraction based on the study's innumerable flaws, Alexandros Marinos uncovered more brazenly corrupt actions by study investigators.