The Criminal Censorship of Ivermectin's Efficacy By The High-Impact Medical Journals - Part 1

Dr. Marcia Angell, a former long-time editor in Chief of the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) resigned in June of 2000 after twenty years in the post. She resigned because of what she described as the rising and indefensible influence being exerted by Pharma at the prestigious journal and its powerful affiliate societies. So she wrote a book about it instead. Some really important quotes of hers from “ The Truth About Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What to Do About It ” are:
 “Now primarily a marketing machine to sell drugs of dubious benefit, big Pharma uses its wealth and power to co-opt every institution that might stand in its way, including the US Congress, the FDA, academic medical centers and the medical profession itself.”
 The above is exactly why I call our country the United States of Pharma. Notice she mentions the FDA (although the NIH’s complicity is implied by the rest of the sentence). I have been saying since early in the pandemic that the United States Federal Health Agencies are (and have long been) in a state of “total regulatory capture.” Definition of regulatory capture from Wikipedia:
 Regulatory capture is a form of corruption of authority that occurs when a policymaker or regulator is co-opted to serve the commercial interests of an industry.
 Here are two more quotes from Dr. Angell:
 “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 Medici ne.”
 This one is nuts:
 “In 2003, the profits of the top 10 big Pharma exceeded that of the cumulative profits of the other 490 Fortune 500 Companies.”
 Whoa.
 Dr. Relman, another former editor-in-chief of the NEJM said this, also 20 years ago:
 “The medical profession is being bought by the pharmaceutical industry, not only in terms of the practice of medicine, but also in terms of teaching and research. The academic institutions of this country are allowing themselves to be the paid agents of the pharmaceutical industry. I think it’s disgraceful.”
 Richard Horton, editor in chief of The Lancet said this in 2015:
 “The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue.”
 As Dr. Aseem Malhotra (one of the most prominent physician COVID truth tellers that has remained employed) recently tweeted a quote from an interview he did:
 “We have a wealth of evidence of the fraud that’s been committed by the pharmaceutical industry over the years’ ‘the real scandal is that doctors & medical journals collude with industry for financial gain & the regulator fails to prevent misconduct by industry.”
 I want to clarify the point above about “not being able to trust half the science in medical journals.”I want to be clear that he is referring, in my mind, largely if not solely to what I call the “high-impact medical journals” and not all science journals. You should know that each journal is ranked by what is called an “impact factor” defined by Wikipedia as:
 A scientometric index calculated by Clarivate that reflects the yearly mean number of citations of articles published in the last two years in a given journal. As a journal-level metric , it is frequently used as a proxy for the relative importance of a journal within its field; journals with higher impact factor values are given the status of being more important, or carry more prestige in their respective fields, than those with lower values. While frequently used by universities and funding bodies to decide on promotion and research proposals, it has come under attack for distorting good scientific practices
 Lets look at the top 5 in the world today:
 New England journal of medicine

 JAMA : the journal of the American Medical Association

 BMJ. British medical journal

 Nature reviews disease primers

 Annals of internal medicine

 JAMA internal Medicine

 With the exception of the Annals of Internal Medicine, all the journals on the above list will feature heavily in this and my next post detailing their criminal collusion throughout the pandemic. One journal not on the list above but that should be included is the Cochrane Library. Not because of their impact factor but because they are considered the premier journal publishing the highest form of medical evidence called a “systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials (SRMA).” I will argue below that, beyond the corruption of the ivermectin evidence by the WHO detailed in my two previous posts here and here , it the Cochrane library’s rejection of Andy Bryant and Tess Lawrie’s SRMA followed by their publication of a fraudulent SRMA that can be blamed for the most deaths.
 One of the most important powers of these journals is that they can drive headlines like nobody’s business. When a Pharma friendly study gets published in one of those journals, it launches a PR media campaign that no amount of commercials or advertisements could accomplish. Conversely, if Pharma wants to prevent an effective generic drug or vitamin from being adopted widely, they pay researchers to design, conduct, and publish fraudulent studies in these journals. When such a study is published, it triggers an equally effective “negative” PR campaign warning the world and its doctors against using such “dangerous” and “ineffective” therapies.
 Big Pharma and BMGF (he gives money to a lot of medical journals) essentially control the high-impact journals. They figured out the importance of doing that many decades ago as numerous former editors have reported above. By doing that, Pharma can get the world to use ridiculous therapies like Remdesivir, Paxlovid and coronavirus vaccines while ignoring and recommending against the use of Vitamin D, hydroxychloroquine, and ivermectin.
 This post will detail the numerous, indefensible, and highly irregular rejections from publication of well-designed, positive trials of ivermectin. My next post will detail their use of a novel tactic whereby they got lesser impact journals that published positive studies of ivermectin to retract those studies.
 Now, what I find interesting is that in the “Disinformation Playbook” article by the Union for Concerned Scientists in 2017, they described 5 main Disinformation tactics used by Pharma to attack emerging science that is “inconvenient to their interests.” The tactics were named using famous American Football plays as below:

 These “journal censoring” tactics must be added to the Disinformation Playbook. I propose we name it “The Zone,” defined in American football as a defensive play where “ a player is able to observe what the quarterback ( truth teller ) is attempting to do, anticipate where a pass may be thrown, and perhaps intercept the pass. Zone defenses tend to produce interceptions of passes or outstanding collisions with receivers ( welcome to my life ) after they have made pass reception s.” Nailed it.
 I would argue the “Zone” of censorship operated across three main types of information disseminators; legacy media (radio, print, television), social media (Twitter, Instagram, Linked in, etc), and the medical journals .
 The reason why I remind you of the three main categories of information dissemination is because I maintain that all, and I mean all, of the media propaganda (later post) and media censorship of ivermectin was made possible solely by the actions of these high-impact medical journals. Dr. Flavio Cadegiani, my FLCCC colleague and friend, this calls them the “Editorial Mafia.”
 Further, by the Editorial Mafia dictating what scientific studies, fraudulent meta-analyses, and negative editorials were published, this then allowed national and international health agencies to issue corrupted recommendations against the use of ivermectin. These recommendations then led to the majority of the worlds’ doctors to refrain from using or even trying ivermectin.
 The high-impact journal editors did four things to suppress the evidence of efficacy of ivermectin in COVID:
 1)    Rejected all positive trials of ivermectin, even (and especially) the high quality ones, starting as far back as May of 2020. (that is what this post is about).
 2)    Retracted positive ivermectin studies even after they passed peer-review and/or were already published (these actions were unprecedented in our careers as physicians and researchers). That is what my next post will be about.
 3)    Published fraudulent trials and fraudulent meta-analyses, with the latter technique identical to that employed in the WHO’s corrupt recommendation against ivermectin here . This is a known Disinformation tactic called “the Fake,” defined as “conduct counterfeit science and try to pass it off as legitimate research.”
 4)    Published numerous anti-ivermectin editorials, which is also an already named Disinformation tactic called “The Diversion.”
 The rejections and retractions were the most damaging because any positive trial of HCQ or IVM published in a high-impact medical journal would have changed the entire trajectory of the pandemic. That is because the high-impact journals have the power to “move the needle” in terms of not only creating major media headlines but also in guiding health care policies by national and international health care agencies.
 Recall how corticosteroids (my first Senate testimony in May 2020) later became the standard of care in COVID hospital patients overnight, immediately after the UK RECOVERY trial results from Oxford were reported in June of 2020. I can still fondly recall all of my former trainees and colleagues texting me the next day to say “we should have listened to Pierre” in regards to my testimony 6 weeks earlier. But that was before ivermectin. With rare exception, none have reached out to me in many months though. The silence started after ivermectin but became deafening when I (and later the FLCCC) came out against the vaccines.
 Know that high-impact journal censorship of “inconvenient science” began very, very early in the Pandemic. In this definitive documentary that first proved the lab-made origin of the virus, world renowned scientists went on the record stating that their papers showing that the virus was man-made were getting rejected quickly from journals they had long published in. That was the “Editorial Mafia’s” first crime.
 Then came the Surgisphere fraud published in the Lancet which drew the first blood against HCQ. Then David Boulware published his inept trial of HCQ prophylaxis and when we asked questions about his conduct of the trial and presentation of the data, he started misrepresenting to us about what exactly happened. My brilliant colleague David Wiseman went after him in this pre-print paper which I co-authored (but David did most of the work). For my subscribers, recall that Dr. Boulware was a central figure in the corruptive influence of the TOGETHER Ivermectin Trial given his indefensibly inaccurate and damaging quotes to New York Times reporters. He too has blood on his hands.
 Our dear colleague Dr. Norman Fenton and his team performed an analysis of England mortality data and found that the UK government was mis-categorizing vaccination status so badly that it hid the evidence of its inefficacy and toxicity. It still sits on a pre-print server .
 Similarly, experts from prestigious Universities analyzed U.S and European databases and found increased all cause mortality among the vaccinated, particularly among children . Their paper still sits on a pre-print server.
 Jessica Rose and Peter McCulloughs paper on myocarditis rates after the COVID vaccines was withdrawn by the publisher after publication because they didn’t like the conclusion. There is still nobody speaking out against Elsevier for unethically censoring science. Not one person from the pro-vax side thinks censoring science is wrong. It’s stunning because it is so objectively unethical. Nobody can defend this so everyone is instead silent about it.
 And it is getting worse. The other day a paper was posted that found for every hospitalization supposedly prevented by COVID jabs, up to 98 serious adverse events would be suffered by young people between the ages of 18-29. Chances of getting published? Zero. Publishing “Pharma-inconvenient science” is nearly impossible nowadays.
 Now, had the high-impact journals published even one positive trial for IVM or HCQ, millions of lives could have been saved. But that is not what happened. Those journals specifically blocked from publication any paper with “statistically significant” results supporting the use of IVM or HCQ. Never forget this. Ever . It is these Editorial Mafia actions which fueled the twin mass killings by COVID and the vaccines.
 Millions died due to the fact that no early treatments or preventatives were recommended across all the advanced health economies. Contrast how those economies fared compared to all the low and middle-income countries where IVM or HCQ are commonly used in prophylaxis programs for malaria and/or parasites and were thus widely used. It’s not even close .
 Beyond the fact that IVM or HCQ would have blown up the markets for Pharma’s pipeline drugs like Paxlovid and Molnupiravir, recognize they also threatened the many billions going into the vaccines.
 I maintain that the editors of the high-impact journals had standing orders to not publish positive data on repurposed drugs. So the editorial mafia rejected and retracted positive studies while publishing fraudulent studies and editorials. Lets start with the rejections.

 REJECTIONS OF POSITIVE IVERMECTIN STUDIES BY HIGH-IMPACT MEDICAL JOURNALS
 1. The rejection of Tess Lawrie et al’s “Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of COVID-19 Infection: A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis to Inform Clinical Guidelines” by the Cochrane Library is to me the single most damaging action taken against ivermectin. Recognize that the Cochrane library was for decades considered the gold standard amongst academia for SRMA’s. Note that I said “was the gold standard.”
 Because, you guessed it, they got captured by Pharma and Gates. In 2018, mass resignations of Cochrane Library Board members occurred due to what one said was a “growing top-down authoritarian culture and an increasingly commercial business model” that “threatens the scientific, moral and social objectives of the organization.” I am sure the fact that Gates becoming a donor two years earlier had nothing to do with it. Yeah right. Further, Gates’s money supports many if not all of the journals in the list above and below. Shocker I know.
 As per Tess, immediately upon seeing my ivermectin testimony, she became intrigued and immediately started her own expert review of the RCT evidence I presented in Senator Ron Johnson’s landmark Senate hearings . Tess knew that speed was of the essence to save lives. Note that Tess and her team are world experts in this type of work - between Tess and her colleagues Andy Bryant, and Therese Dowsell, they have published approximately 120 Cochrane Reviews. All she had to do was get Cochrane to accept her proposal and publish her review. Had she succeeded, this would have neutered the ability of Andy Hill, Andrew Owen, and the WHO to issue their corrupt recommendation against ivermectin as I detailed in previous posts here and here .
 Understand that if there is a medicine that has a Cochrane Library review supporting its use in a disease, it becomes established as the standard of care. Out of the entire worlds’ scientists, Tess knew that a systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence supporting ivermectin published by the Cochrane Library would result in all global health agencies recommending its use and would immediately have saved hundreds of thousands of lives. So, Tess proposed to Cochrane for her team to do a “Rapid Review of Ivermectin.” They initially accepted her proposed study protocol! She had a green light.
 But not for long. They changed tune fast, likely due to pressure from Gates or one of their Big Pharma funders. My money is on Pfizer.
 What happened next is that all of a sudden, the Cochrane editors informed Tess that a “Rapid Review” was inappropriate and that a “Full Review” protocol should be followed. She quickly agreed to do so and submitted a Full Review protocol as her team, in anticipation, had actually already completed the work.
 Pressure was on. The corrupted Cochrane Library was in a bind. Unsurprisingly, they then started accusing her of “conflicts of interest” because of her video plea to Boris Johnson that she had posted on YouTube in early January of 2020 (which was essentially her telling Johnson the results of the review she had completed so that he could immediately consider implementing a policy for use in the UK). Note her doing so in no way presents “a conflict of interest.” Tess does not make money from ivermectin. In fact, an expert of her level is morally and professionally obligated to share such findings to the public, especially during a global pandemic mired in that wicked winter surge of 2020-2021.
 She reminded the Cochrane editors of that in a brilliant email referencing established principles of researchers. Yet, to preserve the opportunity to publish such critical data in the vaunted Cochrane library, she offerred to step down as an author if they continued to have concerns of her “conflict of interest."
 Her defense to Cochrane editors fell on deaf (or dumbed) ears. They simply told her to go publish in another journal and instead assigned the Full Review work to a German team led by Popp et al. I don’t know Popp but don’t have to. Popp proceeded to employ the identical tactics that the WHO research team did, a brazenly manipulated review which came to a very different conclusion than Tess’s team, i.e. instead, after dismissing most of the evidence base, they concluded that the evidence for ivermectin was of “very low certainty” and thus insufficient to support a recommendation.
 Tess’s team masterfully tore apart the fraudulent Cochrane review here . It’s a must read for science and stat geeks. Note it remains on a pre-print server. Yup. Also, their critique should be updated to incorporate the Cochrane review teams latest fraudulent action, that of including the TOGETHER trial in their review despite the fact it did not meet their protocols inclusion criteria as uncovered recently by the brilliantly detailed Alexandros Marinos here . To get a sense of how brazenly corrupt the Cochrane review authors acted (with the approval of the journal mind you), read Alex’s title and sub title of his post;
 The Cochrane Review on Ivermectin Violated Its Own Inclusion Criteria for 76% of the Patients It Included
 5 of the 11 included studies, covering 2582 of the 3409 patients included in the systematic review did not qualify for inclusion, based on a novel criterion used to exclude many other studies.

 “Gold standard” eh? Whatever. Clown world.
 Let’s get back to Tess and her team. The below is from a colleague of Tess’s named Edmund Fordham whose email to me puts the Cochrane library’s actions in a powerful context. Read on:
 Cochrane works in a different way from other journals. The critical thing is the acceptance of the review “protocol.” They do peer review the final result, but mainly for conformity with the protocol. So long as the protocol is observed, then you are essentially guaranteed publication. It’s not like a journal receiving manuscripts speculatively. The reviews are prepared in Cochrane’s RevMan software, then the final version is converted to a PDF in software controlled by Cochrane (so you can’t impersonate the imprint). But the text is very formulaic and authors have very little latitude; the sections must follow a prescribed set of headings.
 So the real panic at Cochrane was they had to find a way to reject our protocol. Since they had in fact accepted it, before Tess’ famous Zoom with Hill, their only option was to say the topic was unsuitable for the Rapid Review format - which they did. They wanted a Full Review instead. So we sent the Full Review protocol (apart from constraints on format, the main difference is that data extraction must be done by two reviewers independently - which we had done already). So then they had to invent accusations of Conflicts of Interest against us which were not there; then they invited the German Government consortium to do the “Cochrane Review” to eliminate us - said consortium having previously made clear they only wanted the software infastructure and had no intention of registering their protocol as a Cochrane review. The 148 page “nothing burger” of Popp et al. was the result (I will list this under “the Fake” below -PK) . They have recently updated the review including TOGETHER and I-TECH which were registered retrospectively - having previously said this was an exclusion criterion, as Alex Marinos’ latest post makes clear . So it’s transparently clear that Popp et al. are only interested in Pharma-sponsored medicines and happily conflate “regulatory approval” with “clinical efficacy.”
 Cochrane was clearly under major pressure in January 2021 as soon as the bust-up between Tess and Andy Hill became known.
 If you are one of those editors of Cochrane and are reading this, know that your actions led to the deaths of millions. Try to rationalize and defend yourself by saying you had no choice. Good luck with that. All you had to do was blow one whistle. But you didn’t.

 Rejection #2.
 Dr. Eli Schwartz is a world renowned Professor of Tropical Diseases at one of the top universities in Israel. His sophisticated double blind RCT effectively “proved” the anti-viral properties of ivermectin against SARS-CoV2 when he found that both viral cultures and PCR tests cleared faster in those treated with ivermectin. This is what he wrote to me after I asked him when his landmark paper would be published (many months ago):
 Hi Pierre, the sequence of submissions were: NEJM, Lancet- eclinical medicine, and Clinical Infectious Disease. The rejections came within a few hours. At that time I did not submit it to medRvix ( pre-print server ) to avoid rejection based on "already published information." Now, we submitted it to Clinical Microbiology and Infection and in parallel to medRvix.
 It would have been a world-changing study. To this day, one of the most important papers proving the anti-viral efficacy of ivermectin still sits on a pre-print server here.

 Rejection #3
 Retired Professor and now friend Hector Carvallo submitted a paper to JAMA showing massive impacts of an early treatment protocol he devised centered around the use of ivermectin, dexamethasone, aspirin, and enoxaparin, i.e. the IDEA protocol (all now validated as effective). See the initial response from the Editor-in -Chief below. What is important to note is that it did NOT get rejected immediately, which traditionally was a very good sign that the journal is interested in your study (rejections, when they occur, result in an almost immediate auto-reply letter).
 Notice the date of the letter. Wow.
 April 9, 2020

Dear Prof CARVALLO:

Thank you for submitting your manuscript, "IVERMECTIN AND CORTICOIDS:," received on April 9, 2020, to JAMA. Your manuscript has been assigned the following manuscript number: JAMA20-6173. Please refer to the manuscript number and corresponding author in all subsequent communications.

You may check the status of this manuscript by selecting the Check Manuscript Status link on the following Web page. You will be required to enter your password. If you are unable to locate your password please click the "Unknown/Forgotten password" link.

Please do not share this email with anyone.

 https://manuscripts.jama.com/cgi-bin/main.plex?el=A1e5BPQJ7A1Dbya3F6A9ftdKuZXKqSIZZbenT5ReNmhzgZ

* We agree to consider your manuscript with the understanding that its content, figures, and tables have not been published or submitted elsewhere in print or electronic format and will not be submitted elsewhere during the period of review by JAMA.
* If you have not already done so, please provide copies of any manuscripts on closely related topics or with possibly duplicative material that have been previously published or are under consideration for publication elsewhere.
* The information in your manuscript should not be distributed or released in hard copy or electronic form, except through presentation at scientific meetings, unless and until the manuscript is published.
* The fact that your manuscript is under consideration by JAMA is confidential and should not be disclosed to anyone except coauthors and contributors.

Every effort will be made to expedite the review of your manuscript and to notify you of our decision as soon as possible. If you have questions or concerns, please contact the editorial office at jamams@jamanetwork.org or 312-464-4444. Our business hours are Monday through Friday, 7 AM to 5 PM Central Time.

Thank you for the opportunity to consider your work.

Sincerely yours,

Howard Bauchner, MD
Editor-in-Chief, JAMA
Email: Howard.Bauchner@jamanetwork.org
Phone: (312) 464-2400
Fax: (312) 464-5824
 Despite this optimistic sign, within hours he receives the dreaded “auto-reply” rejection email below. Wow again.
 April 9, 2020

Prof Hector Eduardo CARVALLO
A.A. Eurnekian Hospital
POST GRADUATE
L. N. Alem 349
Ezeiza, Buenos Aires 1804
Argentina

RE: IVERMECTIN AND CORTICOIDS:

Dear Prof CARVALLO:

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to JAMA. Each manuscript is thoroughly evaluated by the JAMA editorial staff, who assess the manuscript's quality and its priority for publication. Those manuscripts judged unlikely to succeed through stringent external review or whose subject matter does not meet our current editorial priorities are rejected at that point.

More than half of the approximately 7000 manuscripts submitted to us annually are rejected after such in-house review, and less than 9% of manuscripts are eventually accepted for publication in JAMA. Based on our evaluation, I regret to inform you that we will not pursue the manuscript you have submitted for publication.

While we realize that you may be disappointed with our decision, we hope that providing you with this information promptly will allow you to submit your manuscript to another journal without the delay entailed by the external review process.

Thank you for the privilege of reviewing your work.

Sincerely yours,

Howard Bauchner, MD
Editor-in-Chief, JAMA
Email:  Howard.Bauchner@jamanetwork.org
Phone: (312) 464-2400
Fax: (312) 464-5824

Confidentiality Note: This communication, including any attachments, is solely for the use of the addressee, may contain privileged, confidential or proprietary information, and may not be redistributed in any way without the sender's consent. Thank you.
 The above actions are highly, highly irregular. I have never been told by a journal they will consider my manuscript for review and then get rejected on the same day. Typically, if the journal is interested in your work, peer reviewers are assigned, and although this is no guarantee at all it will get published it puts your paper’s publication at least within the realm of possibility. It is extremely weird for them to open a door to publication and then immediately shut it. Good times.
 Based on this action, Hector knew the “fix was in” such that he did not even bother to submit his later, even more historically impactful trial on ivermectin. I want to highlight the fact that Hector was one of the first in the world to discover the efficacy of ivermectin in prevention (well, not really true, as it was probably the same time as the group of French nursing homes in April of 2020 . But the French report was simply “hypothesis-generating” of course.
 Hector proved it by conducting a large, prospective observational controlled trial in Argentina among health care workers who volunteered to take ivermectin prophylactically. He found that among the 788 workers taking ivermectin, not one (0%) got sick while 237 of the 407 (58%) controls did. Like the other rejected papers above, the publication of his study would have singlehandedly changed the entire pandemic. Note his findings were later validated by Kerr and Cadegiani’s huge study (159,000 patients) on IVM prophylaxis in Itajai as well as Professor Waheed Shouman’s RCT in Egypt. Note these are just three of the over a dozen studies all finding massive protection against COVID if you take ivermectin prophylactically. Subscribers, you know what a Forest plot is so I wont explain it again. See below:

 Probably a good time to remind everyone that when the WHO performed their review of ivermectin to form their recommendation, this sentence appeared in their document, “ studies on the use of ivermectin in prophylaxis were not included .” Yup.
 Hector ended up publishing his trial in a low-tier journal that I have never heard of. Science is broken.

 Rejection #4.
 Professor Waheed Shouman of Zagazig University in Egypt conducted an even higher quality randomized controlled trial of ivermectin in the prevention of COVID. He found massive reductions in the incidence of infection among those treated with ivermectin. A high quality study from a reputable university. This is what he wrote to me:
 Dear Professor Pierre
 I hope you great safe times. Yes, our paper was rejected 3 times
 1st one, NEJM. It was revised in fast track and was reviewed by 2 or three reviewers. They gave us great ideas that we used to formulate our paper again. Truly they were very helpful although they rejected it. One of the reviewers said it is terrific and very good but the methodology was somehow weak as we needed most of the contacts to do a swab, plus they needed cluster statistics and gave some excellent instructions. 2nd journal after working on the paper guided by NEJM revisions, was Frontiers in Medicine. Frank rejection without revision. Third, EMRO journal. There they rejected after a long delay without revision  .
 Thank you very much
 Yours,
 Waheed Shouman
 Note his mention of “a long delay without revision.” Like the post-peer reviewed retractions I will cover in my next post about the Editorial Mafia, this behavior is equally unprecedented and it happened to others as well. Basically, the Editorial Mafia started getting ivermectin papers submitted to them, so instead of the quick auto-reply rejecting the paper, they instead “sat on it” for a while. I cannot tell you how damaging that is to researchers. At least with a quick rejection, you can just lick your wounds and try with another journal. But please realize that it is against scientific journal policy for you to submit to two journals at the same time. So you are not allowed to submit to a new one until you are rejected from the one you just submitted to. The journals know this.
 I asked my friend and partner Paul Marik, the most highly published practicing intensivist in the history of our specialty whether this had happened to him during the hundreds of papers he has published throughout his career. He told me it happened once, when a journal held on to his paper for 6 months before rejecting. However, he noted that it occurred during a time when manuscripts were submitted in paper, not electronically.
 Shouman wrote me back a few months later:
 Dear Professor Kory
 Thank you for your strong persistent defence for a drug that we won't sell to fill our pockets. But defence is for the needs of human beings. Thank you because this is the soul of our most respected career, Medicine. Even if 10% improvement, for sure it is much more, in treatment and prophylaxis, it means the world deserves to use ivermectin. Our team was the first to conduct a prophylaxis study as you mentioned before and in your last excellent review and analysis in close family contacts. As I found you using the clinical trials as the reference, I'd like to inform you we published it by 1st of february 2021 in Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research after a long journey with many journals and 5 months with this journal.
 I attach a pdf version of the published article
 Yours Sincerely
 Waheed Shouman
 With the utmost respect to Professor Shouman, his paper, although published and although historic, simply took too long and ended up appearing, again, in a journal no-one has ever heard of.

 Rejection #5.
 Professor Olufemi “Femi” Babalola of Nigeria conducted a double blind RCT showing numerous statistically significant reductions in important endpoints among ivermectin treated patients. He sent it to the WHO. He shared with me the communications he had not only with the WHO but also with numerous subsequent journals. In the below you will see Andrew Hill appear, clearly at a time before he was fully captured as he is quite open about mentioning that ivermectin papers are getting rejected everywhere .
 Jan 6, 2021, 6:22 AM
 MS ID#: BLT/2021/285400
MS TITLE: Ivermectin shows clinical benefits in mild to moderate COVID19: A randomized controlled double blind dose response study in Lagos.

Thank you for the manuscript you have submitted to the Bulletin of the World Health Organization. This manuscript is being considered. To follow the progress of your paper please go to: https://submit.bwho.org and log in to your Author Area.

If you have not registered with the system please click on 'Create a new account'. If
you require any assistance with the registration process, please contact the editorial
office at  bulletin.submit.ask@who.int .

We thank you for your interest in the World Health Organization and the Bulletin.

Yours sincerely
Bulletin of the World Health Organization
 The submission was rejected within days of this (notice the same dynamic happened with Professor Carvallo, the “yes we are interested, whoops, no we are not” dance). But Femi, the corresponding author did not receive the rejection:
 Jan 9, 2021, 6:22 AM
 MS ID#: BLT/2021/285400
MS TITLE: Ivermectin shows clinical benefits in mild to moderate COVID19: A randomised controlled double blind dose response study in Lagos.
 Dear Editor,
 I received an e mail from your editorial office on the above named article yesterday January 7 (  US CST) rejecting the above said manuscript WITHOUT REVIEW. We were advised to send the paper to a "specialized or regional journal" as it was unsuitable for the Bulletin of WHO.
 My supposition was that ALL authors and co-authors received the said E mail.
 I therefore did not consider it necessary to share the rejecting without review e-mail
 On this basis of your rejection, i communicated your decision to the first and corresponding author, Prof OE Babalola.  We then successfully submitted the article to another medical journal for review and publication.
 I am, however. surprised to learn that Prof OE Babalola did not (or has not ) received the e mail rejecting the manuscript.
 More surprising is the fact that i cannot locate the e mail sent by your editorial office to me, rejecting this manuscript.
 Was the e mail recalled ? I may have to contact G mail to know what transpired.
 It will be appreciated to if you could clarify what transpired and what happened to the e mail sent to me,  and if or whether it was sent in error.
  There is a lot of public interest in the submitted work as shown by response on MedRxiv. We want the paper reviewed and published as soon as feasible with the journal that wants it.
 I eagerly await your clarification on this matter.
 Sincerely yours,
 Prof AAL  Ajayi MD, PhD
 What the hell is this? Here you have the WHO trying to pull some nonsense by not sending the rejection correctly? I don’t even know what to name this bizarro tactic. Suggestions welcome :).
 Now, since Femi was one of the Principal Investigators of a registered RCT of ivermectin, he was in contact with Dr. Andrew Hill’s team employed by Unitaid/WHO (err, Gates). Here is Andy writing to all the PI’s, note the bolded sentence below:
 Dear Everyone,
 I was contacted by a Senior Editor of the journal Lancet eClinical medicine.  They published the results from the Spanish trial of ivermectin.
 Here is a link to the journal website.
 https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/home
 (I think it is important to note that although this was published in the Lancet, it was a trial of just 24 patients (who does that?) and although some benefits were found, it was a statistically negative study in regards to its primary outcome).
 The editor would be interested to receive new manuscripts for randomised clinical trials of ivermectin.
 Dr Arianna Colosio   a.colosio@lancet.com
 I know that several research groups have had problems publishing randomised trials of ivermectin.   This could be a way forwards.
 Best Wishes,
 Andrew
 Dr Andrew Hill, Senior Visiting Research Fellow, Department of Pharmacology and Therapeutics, University of Liverpool, 70 Pembroke Place, Liverpool L69 3GF, United Kingdom
 Femi writes back:
 That's good news Andrew. I wish I knew that when our submission was rejected by the editor of Bulletin of WHO. But we have since submitted to QJM, and we have reasonable feedback from the assessors to which we have responded. Fingers crossed.
 2. Were your young ones able to utilise the raw data I sent?
 Femi
 Olufemi Emmanuel Babalola, Professor of ophthalmology, Consultant ophthalmologist Rachel Eye Center, IP HOD Surgery, Bingham University, Jos/Karu, Vice President, MEACO, President, Guild of Medical Directors
 Andy Hill speaks truth for one of the last times apparently:
 Thu, Feb 4, 2021, 10:08 AM
 Hi Femi,
 There are so many ivermectin papers rejected.  We sent the meta analysis to clinical infectious diseases and they sent straight back in 24 hours with a straight rejection! The editor at Open Forum for Infectious Diseases has reviewed and it should be accepted next week.
 Well done with your paper.  Maybe these will become easier over time.  My team will be looking at the raw datasets next week.  Thanks for sending
 Best Wishes,
 Andrew
 Then on April 20th, Dr. Babalola submits his paper to the prestigious Indian Journal of Medical Research. They respond by saying the study is being considered for publication. Then, over a month later, he receives this reply (during the height of the Delta wave in India).
 Fri, May 27, 12:25 PM
 Dear Sir/Madam,
We express our inability to consider your article for publication. Thank you for submitting to the IJMR.
Editor-in-Chief
 This new “delay then deny” tactic is starting to gain steam around the world apparently.
 Now, the next one is even more frightening. Recall that pre-print servers have saved millions of lives by getting data from trials of numerous repurposed drugs out quickly. We built our protocols by selecting effective compounds based on their mechanisms, in vitro , in vivo, and clinical data, with the latter often informed using pre-print server data. Povidone-iodine, melatonin, Vitamin D, etc.
 What is scary is that Femi tried to post a newer study on ivermectin to the most popular medical pre-print servers called medRxiv. Recognize that pre-print servers.. are pre-print servers. As long as the study involved original data collected by the investigators, the study gets posted after a cursory review of the paper (for ridiculous claims) along with a review of the academic or research backgrounds of the authors. If you pass the smell test, your trial gets posted. Period. Well, unless it is a study of ivermectin apparently:
 medrxiv@cshlbp.org  via  sendgrid.net
 Tue, Sep 28, 2021, 3:12 PM
 MS ID#: MEDRXIV/2021/263947
MS TITLE: A RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL OF IVERMECTIN MONOTHERAPY VERSUS HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE, IVERMECTIN, AND AZITHROMYCIN COMBINATION THERAPY IN COVID- 19 PATIENTS IN NIGERIA

Dear Dr. Babalola,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to medRxiv and for your email. We are experiencing high volumes of submissions and sincerely apologize for the delayed processing of your manuscript.

We regret to inform you that your manuscript will not be posted. A small number of papers are deemed during screening to be more appropriate for dissemination after peer review at a journal rather than as preprints.

Please be assured that this conclusion is not a judgment on the merits of the work described.

Thank you for your interest in medRxiv.

Best regards,
The medRxiv team

 A pre-print server rejected a positive RCT of ivermectin from being posted in a pandemic. I am too tired to test out my “two clicks to Bill Gates” trick, but I am pretty sure if I did, I would find evidence of a donation to medRxiv by BMGF. Can someone let me know if I am right?
 Now, from one of Hungary’s top COVID experts, Dr. Szuzsanna Rago who invited me to give a lecture at a symposium she had organized. She has impeccable credentials:
 Researcher, primary care physician, IVERCOV project leader in University of Debrecen, Hungary (responsible for ivermectin clinical trial in Covid patients and for the development of the Hungarian ivermectin generic drug.):
 Dear Pierre,
 Thanks for all your energy you put in fighting for early treatment in Covid-19. I follow your work at FLCCC. Last video Tess Laurie (you and Paul Marik) made as a letter to Andrew Hill is just great and for me is heartbreaking. We also did everything here in Hungary to introduce ivm treatment in Covid but the mainstream “science” coming from the western world was enough for our professors, high ranked doctors and authority to reffered to and it pushed us back to the shadow. I still keep healing our patients anyway.

Although in numbers it is very low, Hungary leads the Covid death rate in Europe.

Yesterday our ivm meta-analysis conducted by 3 universities of Hungary by my lead was rejected at editor level from Infection journal. The editor did not even send it to reviewers….
We analyzed ivm efficacy on SARS-CoV-2 viral clearance in mild-moderate Covid. The result is (of course) significant in favour for ivm, the evidence level turned very low because only 3 studies fitted in our PICO. But the result is positive. The deadline of our search was 1/2021, so a year ago. And we are still not able to publish it.
 Could you please recommend a journal who would accept our ivm paper without any censorship?
Thanks a lot,
Zs

 Zsuzsanna Rago
Hungary

 Science is dead. Or at least any science that has financial implications against or for Pharma interests is dead. We need a parallel system of journals which have zero influence by Pharma. We need institutions we can trust and those journals are not. They are dead to me and Paul after careers of believing in everything they published. No longer can we read them knowing that what appears in those journals is only and I mean only, what Pharma “allows to appear” in those journals. The NEJM, Lancet, BMJ, JAMA, Cochrane Library all have blood on their hands.
 As the world came under attack by a novel and highly transmissible respiratory virus, the medical journals had a critical, life-saving responsibility to publish any and all studies of treatments that were either potentially effective or substantively effective in either preventing or treating the disease. They abdicated their primary responsibility. Millions have died as a result.

 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 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: High-Impact medical journal editorial staff were getting orders to censor ivermectin studies from Big Pharma and "philanthropaths" like Bill Gates.


Inaugural FLCCC Medical Conference - "Understanding and Treating Spike-Protein Induced Diseases"

Why attending the FLCCC Educational Conference is an act of courage.
 COVID has opened my eyes to so many things that I previously accepted as generally benign or just took for granted as being a universal truth. For example, I thought most doctors were – like me – committed to finding interventions to help our patients with whatever was challenging them. I’m not saying we always found the solution. I worked in the ICU, where patients were often in advanced stages of trauma or disease with a minority imminently dying on arrival. We couldn’t save everyone, but we always tried to do everything we could until it was clear to both the family and treatment team that our efforts were in vain.
 So, when I started seeing doctors treating COVID with only “supportive care” measures (i.e. fluids, fever reducers, nutrition, oxygen) while waiting around for dictates from “on high” to tell them how to deal with what was initially a highly fatal disease in the ICU, I was both shocked and deeply disturbed. I didn’t think I was being unique when I came out swinging, shouting at my colleagues that “do no harm doesn’t mean do nothing ! It means giving your patient the best possible chance to come out alive from whatever is making them ill, without doing something that would have a higher risk of making them worse.”
 In time I came to realize that what was holding other healthcare providers back was not malice but fear. I still believe most people in my chosen profession want to do right by their patients. But our system has become so contaminated and rigidly controlled with Pharma Disinformation and influence that it is often safer and easier to do nothing, rather than take a risk that may have huge personal consequences for the provider. We need courage from many more than the minority that I have seen and heard speaking out against the corruption of medical care in COVID.
 Which brings me to the point of this post. You know one way to build courage? Arm yourself with information. Knowledge builds courage, and together knowledge and courage can lead to great things.
 Our upcoming FLCCC Educational Conference, the first conference of its kind that we know of, primarily targets healthcare providers but also invites the many interested laypeople that have been generally much more informed on numerous aspects of COVID). We want to arm all camps with the knowledge that will help them feel confident in either understanding or in diagnosing and treating people who develop novel symptoms after a COVID infection or injection. We’re calling it “Understanding and Treating Spike Protein-Induced Diseases.”
 I urge all my colleagues to come out and meet and hear from the group of experts we have assembled — some of the leading minds in the fields of critical care, pathology, neurology, integrative medicine, and epidemiology. You’ll not only gain skills, but you’ll be able to network with and ask questions of like-minded healthcare professionals who are all facing the same kinds of daily challenges. Being together in one place is, for me, one of the most important outcomes of the conference.
 The lectures are focused on providing guidance backed by scientific data, collaborative clinical experiences, and sub-specialist expertise. This conference is not politically or ideologically motivated. It is, as Paul and I say, what science should be: a free exchange of information and open debate that will lead to better outcomes.
 We started the FLCCC in 2020 because the NIH, the CDC and the WHO were telling us there was no treatment for COVID. We didn’t accept that. We believe there isn’t a disease that can’t be treated. As a doctor you’ve got to do something. As Paul recently said , “now we’re doing the same thing for the vaccine-injured. Because nobody wants to treat them. So, you know what? We will treat them.” Will you join us?
 If you’re on the fence about whether to attend because you’re worried about what other people might think of you being there, then the Thought Police have won. Be brave. Be there in Orlando. Stand up for your patients and for the oath you took.
 We look forward to seeing you there. Link to register is here.

 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 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. I am getting professional help (hah!) to write a book about what I have personally witnessed and learned during Pharma’s historic Disinformation war on ivermectin.  Pre-order here for:

Summary: Our first ever medical conference dedicated to presenting current insights into the pathophysiology and management of both Long Haul COVID and Post-COVID-19 Vaccine Injury Syndromes


The Historic Suppression of Scientific Debate in COVID - Part 2

I was driving to the golf range to hit some balls yesterday evening right after publishing Part 1 of the “Suppression of Scientific Debate in COVID .” Fun fact: I recently took up golf given that it gets me out of my desk chair (where I spend 12-15 hours every day) and into the evening air where I have found that furiously whacking little balls deep into the sky has afforded me a pleasurable outlet for near constant stress. Anyway, as I was driving, I suddenly remembered that I had participated in three semi-public and/or private debates with true adversaries (ivermectin naysayers). So, I stand corrected in that “scientific” debates were indeed held, just not in major media. More like on the periphery of the internet, and in once case, deep in the bowels of a hospital. Let’s review how they went.
 DEBATE #1
 This one was a doozy. It occurred at the last hospital I worked at. I had been using high-dose ivermectin in ICU patients there for months when suddenly the world’s most deadliest propaganda PR campaign against ivermectin was launched in August of 2021, you know the “horse dewormer” one (I will lay out in chronological and structural detail how they conducted that campaign in my next post).
 Anyway, it was a smallish hospital (200+ beds with like 32 ICU beds) where the head Infectious Disease doctor was initially neutral on ivermectin but we became colleagues, I found him open-minded, he asked appropriate questions and was receptive to receiving and digesting the data I had compiled. I began to share the mountains of data supporting ivermectin in COVID. He was shocked at how much data there was and he also instantly fell in love, like I did, with the c19early.com site, a site which many researchers have relied upon in COVID as it is the most comprehensive and sophisticated compilation and analysis of the data supporting dozens (yes dozens) of effective therapies in the treatment and prevention of COVID. Although anonymous, I just want to say thank you to that group for the absolute superlative work you all have done. Their anonymity tells you that this isn’t their first rodeo in publishing “inconvenient science.” I wish they had warned us in the FLCCC. Or not. :)
 Anyway, he ended up reviewing a fair amount of the trials data and was fully supportive of my use in the ICU. He even got the pharmacy to order more to support my clinical practice. It was incredible. So far so good.
 However, he related to me that he was doing so over the objections of the head Infectious Disease Pharmacist… who was very, very much against the use of ivermectin in COVID. Simple reason: his diet consisted solely of edicts from captured high-impact medical journals and health agencies.
 Anyway, the doc outranked him so my patients’ access to ivermectin was secure… until he was suddenly re-assigned to a different hospital in the system just prior to the start of Pharma’s PR campaign against ivermectin in August 2021. Uh oh. Not good.
 Note that Pharmas’ opening salvo in the biggest battle of their War on Ivermectin ( Title of my upcoming book ) was when they got the CDC to issue a fraudulent memo which warned all U.S doctors and pharmacists that ivermectin poisonings were on the rise. The memo also reminded the nations doctors that the FDA had not “authorized” the drug for use in COVID (umm.. they don’t have to authorize it as my readers well know). That my friends, is just one of the “tells” that the CDC was trying to manipulate doctor behavior on behalf of their masters (Pharma). Anyway, that memo also went to every state Pharmacy Board and thus it landed in the inbox of every licensed Pharmacist of every state across the land within 24 hours. Whoa.
 I am sure he was inspired by this move because he immediately decided to take down Dr. Kory and his penchant for treating patients with one of history’s safest medicines. Within days I was visited in my office above the ICU by the Chief Medical Officer who told me that the “P & T” (Pharmacy and Therapeutics) Committee was holding a meeting in a few days to decide whether ivermectin would continue to be stocked and available in the hospital pharmacy for use in COVID. Uh oh again.
 Knowing that I was literally one of the world experts on the clinical use of ivermectin in COVID-19, he invited me to present to the Committee in order to inform any decision on ivermectin that they would make. I immediately knew where this was heading but, if you know anything about me by now, I don’t go down without a fight. So I accepted.
 He told me that the Infectious Disease Pharmacist felt it should be removed (of course he did) and that if I wanted to continue to use it, I could present my argument for why it should remain on the hospital formulary. Note that these decisions are effectively what the P & T Committee in every hospital makes, i.e. they decide on what therapies should be made available and for what conditions depending on their efficacy, risks and especially costs.
 Game on. Couple of days later, the meeting was held on Zoom, and I cleverly pretended I was having a computer issue so I was able to ask that he go first while I supposedly “worked it out” (tactics baby, I wanted this shmuck to go first, to see what kind of butter knives he was bringing to this gun fight so that I could counter optimally). I also knew lives depended on it.
 This was his approach: he presented the two negative trials that had been published in high impact journals at the time, which I knew he was going to do, but the rest of his slides consisted simply of the logo of an important health agency and their individual recommendation against ivermectin. First slide: WHO: against use outside of a clinical trial. Infectious Disease Society of America: against use outside of a clinical trial. And it went on and on, slide after slide of him reading the same recommendation over and over. European Medicines Agency, American Medical Association, Society of Emergency Medicine etc. You get it. Not a bad move actually.
 So then I went, first explaining the glaring issues with those two trials (and they were glaring), and then reminding the group that the highest form of medical evidence is a meta-analysis (i.e when you combine data from all existing trials to estimate the average level of benefit). Then I essentially presented the entire evidence base: meta-analyses of the RCT’s, the OCT’s, plus the health ministry data out of Mexico City, Peru, Brazil, Uttar Pradesh, Argentina etc. It was pretty darn convincing to me but whatever.
 The highlight (or lowlight) of the meeting was when, just after I finished, I asked “Are there any questions?” There was a fairly long pause (Del’s “NIH pause”) until a Committee Member asked “Dr. Kory, why are your data and the recommendations of all the agencies so discordant?”
 I also paused, took in a deep sigh and said, “there is really only one answer to that, and that is that me and my group have no conflicts of interest around the use of ivermectin.” Boom. Drop mic.
 Not.
 They thanked me for my time, and I left the zoom so they could have their discussion and then hold their vote. Two days later the CMO again came to find me personally, sat down in my office and informed me that the hospital had decided that they were removing ivermectin from the formulary and that I would no longer be able to prescribe it to patients.
 Pierre 0, Clown World, 1.
 DEBATE #2
 Trial Site News invited me to do a podcast debate with a researcher from South America named Garegnani who was a respiratory therapist that had recently published a negative editorial on ivermectin in one of the highest impact journals in the world, the British Medical Journal (surprise!). In it, he argued with the usual narratives (“studies too small”, “studies were of low quality”, “effective concentrations cannot be reached,” yada yada yada). See below:

 Please know that I hope that TrialSiteNews is also remembered in History as the first, and for a long time, the only media outlet that disseminated accurate, objective information about emerging therapeutics in COVID from around the world. I think they started posting articles on ivermectin in Spring of 2020. They were onto ivermectin, early and consistently. Their articles on Peru were critical to my ability to understand the impacts of Operation Tayta for our comprehensive review paper on ivermectin.
 Anyway, here it is . Watch if interested. Now, since I am alone writing this you have to rely on my judgement of the outcome, but I pretty much crushed him. Like a bug. But you be the judge. I will say that my scoring of that debate was validated by all my friends and colleagues. Admittedly they are not the most impartial bunch, but that’s all I got. I am going to just go ahead and award myself a point here (unless my subscribers post objections to my scoring of that debate).
 Pierre 1, Clown World 1.
 DEBATE #3
 This one was with my new “bestie” Mr. Alex Berenson, a former NY Times reporter who had been early and accurate in publicly calling out the fact that the vaccines were both failing and toxic. His work on that topic was excellent and he amassed quite a following, so much so that, as he told Joe Rogan recently, the White House told Twitter to take him off the platform. He discovered this during his lawsuit against Twitter to get himself re-instated. He won that lawsuit so kudos to Alex. Welcome back brother. Hmm… not?
 Why not? Because he long ago staked a claim that ivermectin doesn’t work, again based on less than a handful of supposedly “rigorous” trials published in high-impact medical journals. He ignored all the “proper” meta-analyses (recall that massively fraudulent meta-analyses were published in high-impact journals too). Pharma really really knows what they are doing, and they have been doing it a loooong time.
 But Alex fell for Pharma’s anti-ivermectin Disinformation campaign, hook, line, and sinker. What is so inexplicable about this is that he early on had figured out that Pharma and the Agencies were committing fraud by misrepresenting and censoring data with a huge amount of help from mass media and the medical journals.
 He knew that if you didn’t just focus on what was being published in high-impact journals and blared out by the media and agencies, you could find data which led to very, very different conclusions than what was coming out of Fauci’s, Birx, Walensky’s, and Biden’s mouths. He skillfully compiled and analyzed data from numerous diverse sources such as from countries with health ministries that published real-time, weekly, granular and transparent data. And he figured out Pharma Fraud #1! Go Alex!
 But on ivermectin, he seemingly only looked at a couple of “rigorous,” “large” trials published in a couple of captured high-impact journals, then listened to the captured media and captured agencies and arrived at a conclusion with almost no critical thought (or seemingly effort) applied.
 He did what I am imploring everyone to no longer do, on any topic, not just on COVID. Recognize media and medical narratives for what they are - propaganda, which is “a story to get you to think or do something” as per propaganda expert Professor Marc Crispin Miller. So Alex is just another guy who fell for the greatest trick up Big Pharma’s sleeve. Control the journals, control the media, and you control the world.
 Pharma did NOT want docs prescribing ivermectin. Just like they WANTED docs to push vaccines. How Alex can be so blind to this simple and painfully obvious evil synergy is a bit shocking actually. I mean, he knew that the EUA for the vaccines was contingent upon there being no effective early treatment for COVID! You have no vaccine campaign unless ivermectin (and HCQ) were first proven ineffective.
 The enemy of propaganda is… Truth. That is why propagandists go after the truth tellers, like they went after Alex on the vaccines and then went after me and the FLCCC on ivermectin and McCullough and Risch and Zelenko (RIP) on HCQ. To fight propaganda, we need an intellectually unified fighting force of warriors shooting Truth at the other side. But Alex doesn’t want to join the side of Truth. Instead he prefers playing for two opposing teams at the same time. One one side he is winning against the propagandists with vaccine truths while on the other side he is somehow complicit in their very same propaganda .
 The guy even went on Joe Rogan last week and displayed an ignorance of ivermectin so profound it was disturbing to listen to. You could tell that the hubris and arrogance he must have acquired (or already had?) after getting the vaccines right before most now propelled him into dangerous psychological territory. Commenting so definitively on a topic he knows next to nothing about to many millions of people that “ivermectin is no better than a placebo.” This from a non-doctor who has never treated a single COVID patient. Absolutely atrocious.
 How can he be doubling down like this? One possibility is that he spends too much time thinking about his image than on getting at the truth. I say this because others have related to me comments he has made suggesting that by supporting ivermectin it would tarnish his image as he would be thrown in with all the tarnished “ivermectin advocates,” or more accurately the “ivermectin peddlers” which is what he described me as on Twitter the other night out of nowhere. An unprovoked insult fired at me. What the hell was that for Alex? Because you got your ass handed to you in the below debate?
 I mean, you can’t make this stuff up. I have a guy that was shooting alongside of us , who then gets captured by the other side’s propaganda and then starts shooting at us , and then he decides to go behind me and shoot me in the back ? Get your head on straight Alex, cause you ain’t helping. Be better Alex.
 We need him on the team of Truth. But he is just not good enough to make the team. Be better Alex.
 One interesting thought after Alex shot me in the back is that, in the comments below his tweet (and my response) people were calling him “controlled opposition.” It didn’t really make sense to me.. unless you know that destroying ivermectin is more important than criticizing vaccines. Whoa. Too much to contemplate there. So, there are lots of hypotheses as to why he is acting this way, but in the end only Alex knows, just like he is the only one who knows how much money he got from Twitter.
 Anyway, a few weeks ago, Steve Kirsch got Alex to agree, not to “debate” me but rather to “discuss” ivermectin with me at the end of the Vaccine Safety Research Foundation (VSRF) weekly webinar. By the way, History has to remember Steve Kirsch as well. He founded and was the first major funder of the Covid Early Treatment Fund (CETF) which funded research into repurposed drugs from early on in the pandemic and his efforts discovered that fluvoxamine was an effective early treatment for COVID. Based on his efforts and the data that resulted, we added fluvoxamine to FLCCC protocols about 18 months ago. It was critical in late phase Delta. Further his work trying to bring attention to the toxicity and lethality of the vaccines is absolutely unparalleled. We should never forget what Steve did. The right man at the right time in History. Notice his name is not Alex. The FLCCC and CETF and later theVSRF have been naturally aligned since the beginning.
 Now, I know Steve was not only super excited for the “discussion” between me and Berenson but also super jealous because Steve has been dying to debate (er, discuss) with anyone, anywhere, at anytime on not only vaccine data but on any aspect of early treatment data. I think he enjoyed it anyway.
 You can view our “discussion” here, it starts at 1:00:49 . Please note that I was on my absolute best behavior. I was cordial, respectful, and congratulatory to Alex of his work and efforts in helping uncovering the vaccine fraud. I truly thought I could help teach him where he was getting ivermectin wrong. For whatever reasons as listed above, I don’t think he listened to a word I said.
 Again, in my opinion, and in the opinion of my friends and colleagues, it was not even close to a fair fight (er, sorry, “discussion”). An expert talking to an ignoramus. You be the judge but I am just going to go ahead and give myself another point here.
 Pierre 2, Clown World 1.

 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 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. I am getting professional help (hah!) to write a book about what I have personally witnessed and learned during Pharma’s historic Disinformation war on ivermectin.  Pre-order here for:

Summary: I just remembered that, contrary to what I wrote in Part 1 on this topic, I indeed have participated in debates on the topic of ivermectin! Whoops. Let's review how they played out.


The Historic Suppression of Scientific Debate in COVID

I started reading about the definition, history, and legal background of censorship. The entry on Wikipedia (ugh) was quite revealing:
 Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information. This may be done on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, or sensitive. Censorship can be conducted by governments, private institutions and other controlling bodies.
 But get this, look at the examples of topics that have traditionally been censored:
 General censorship occurs for a variety of claimed reasons including national security , to control obscenity , pornography , and hate speech , to protect children or other vulnerable groups, to promote or restrict political or religious views, and to prevent slander and libel .
 Note that “scientific opinion” is not on there. Because scientific data nor interpretations of that data, should ever be considered offensive. You can argue that wrong interpretations of data can be harmful, but debate is how you resolve that, not censorship! Science literally rests on open debate and the sharing of data and exchanging of interpretations amongst not only experts, but the wider public.
 Now, also from Wikipedia:
 Censorship has been criticized throughout history for being unfair and hindering progress. Censorship is counterproductive as it prevents the censored topic from being discussed. Those who impose censorship must consider what they censor to be true, as individuals believing themselves to be correct would welcome the opportunity to disprove those with opposing views (just ask Steve Kirsch).
 But again, science is not on there as a category of discourse to censor. Although history is replete with attempts to censor individuals with scientific views contrary to established orthodoxy, in all the instances I can think of, the person being censored was eventually proven correct! Galileo (earth is round), Seimelwess (importance of handwashing), Scopes (teaching of evolutionary theory) etc.
 Yet, in the last 2 years we have undergone a massive censorship of the discussion and sharing of scientific data in public forums. I believe this was the proximate cause of what can now only be viewed as humanitarian catastrophes resulting from 1) the suppression of knowledge of early treatment with effective repurposed drugs and 2) the suppression of data showing the toxicity, lethality, and ineffectiveness of the vaccines.
 This period should serve as one of the most damning arguments against censorship.
 We were not allowed to openly discuss our data or our interpretations and applications of that scientific data (i.e. scientific opinions) in major media or social media. The journalist Matt Taibbi called me “the ghost of the internet” because whenever I had a scientific discussions with folks who are now dear friends and colleagues, their content and podcasts were de-platformed or demonetized (as in the case of my dear friend Dr. Been), and/or they immediately founds their posted videos of those discussions taken down, like immediately (the speed in which I “disappeared” was astonishingly fast at times). All because we had a scientific discussion where I had shared data and interpretations of that data. I was honored with the opportunity to make my case in front of some truly expert and deep thinkers. Folks who could challenge me, ask questions, express concerns or offer alternative interpretations or hypotheses. I would say that the only problem with those discussions is that the data in support of ivermectin was just so overwhelming. It is a drug with proven efficacy in COVID. Note that conclusion is shared by some of the most highly published doctors in the history of our specialty (the FLCCC) as well as by a group of some of the top evidence-based medicine researchers in the world (Tess Lawrie, Andrew Bryant, Edmund Fordham et al. of EBMc2).
 And therein lay the problem. The data could not be debated because any other interpretation than ivermectin being effective was pretty much indefensible in the face of a mountain of repeatedly and almost universally supportive data from myriad sources. So, instead, such discussions were banned from wider public view. Strong move. I think the only thing that saved a good portion of humanity was that individual and organizational websites (like the FLCCC’s, AAPS, c19early.com, and others) were largely secure and not taken down or booted off of hosting servers. But I imagine they could have been.
 So, in COVID, Big Pharma and Big Government literally got media companies to shut down debate and discussion on certain topics like HCQ and IVM and vaccine toxicity and ineffectiveness. See YouTube’s community guidelines, which are so absurd, I literally turn purple with rage every time I read it. But it is also sort of comical because they literally put it in writing, right out in the open, plain to see, essentially saying “thou shalt not discuss these medicines on our platform.” And they did it while their efficacy was still being debated. In a global pandemic with thousands dying each day. Safe medicines.
 Check it out:

 Insane. Crazy town. Clown world. Now, keep in mind that these “guidelines” restricting any discussion of the efficacy, even potential efficacy during a global pandemic, were employed by every major media company in the world with few exceptions, like Trial Site News (although massively impactful, not yet “major media”) and maybe on a few occasions Fox News or some conservative radio hosts.
 But all was not lost. Independent podcasters and some radio hosts saved the day, contributing to the dissemination of life-saving information to millions of people in this country and world. Folks like Bret Weinstein , Joe Rogan , John Campbell , Dr. Been , Dr. Mercola , Greg Hunter , Vicki McKenna (hi Vicki!) and countless others. But the print and TV media giants did not have that policy written and made public for all to see (and laugh at). It was under the table, understood by all media that ivermectin should instead only be referred to as a horse dewormer . Not subtle. Alex Berenson’s recent sharing of evidence that the White House was behind his Twitter de-platforming shows how high up the censorship was coming from.
 So you literally had the government and Pharma pressuring all the media and social media giants (all of them - Facebook, Linked in, Instagram, Twitter etc) to outlaw, yes, outlaw discussion of even the possibility these medications were effective. Never, ever forget this. Note how YouTube wrote that their guidelines were based on WHO recommendations. Control the top, you control everything beneath it. Read my detailed deep dive uncovering the corruption of ivermectin at the WHO here and here .
 Now, one of the reasons Paul Marik was such a famous critical care doctor is that he had long been successful at debunking prevailing orthodoxy supporting standard of care practices in our specialty. He did it via lecturing and debating at national conferences and in publications within medical journals. It was how he and I met, when he congratulated me on an editorial I wrote in a major journal , where I argued against using ultrasound to measure the size of the inferior vena cava to estimate central venous pressure (CVP), largely drawing on the science and rationale he had compiled and published.
 Talking to Paul this morning, he told me he is most proud of his work (note he accomplished this feat on his own) in teaching a global generation of critical care doctors that measuring the CVP to estimate the fluid needs of a patient was useless outside of a very narrow set of circumstances like hemorrhage (in those circumstances though, you don’t need the CVP to estimate fluid needs as the patients vitals and clinical presentation will tell you all you need to do.
 You have to understand that the CVP was used for decades by critical care doctors in ICU patients who were in states of shock (dangerously low blood pressure). It was the standard of care in ICU’s. Paul did a deep dive into the published literature and especially into the complex physiology of the factors which influence CVP and wrote pretty much the coolest and most impactful paper ever called “ Does Central Venous Pressure Predict Fluid Responsiveness?: A Systematic Review of the Literature and the Tale of Seven Mares .” The papers most memorable sentence was “the only study we could find demonstrating the utility of CVP in predicting volume status was performed in seven standing, awake mares undergoing controlled hemorrhage.” Brilliant. Funny.
 His paper triggered fierce and I mean, fierce debate in critical care… for years. Reversing established orthodoxy in medicine (and anywhere really) is nearly impossible. But Paul singlehandedly pulled it off with his papers and lectures (helped by a lot of folks like me who followed his work closely). I would argue that today, the obsession with using the CVP to guide fluid resuscitation has largely (but never completely) been abandoned. Wow.
 But, again, back then, you could have “debates” on controversial topics, in fact, such topics demanded them! I remember when the United Hospital Fund used to put on this terrific conference in Manhattan where they invited experts in the field to debate “controversies” in critical care (like CVP). Each speaker was given ten minutes and were assigned the pro side or the con side of a topic, but the assigned debaters could not choose the side to argue! After both speakers were heard, the audience voted on which conclusion was based on the more compelling data and argument. I was invited several years in a row and sometimes had to argue the side I was not on intellectually. Which made it even more enlightening an exercise - imagine getting Berenson to have to argue in support of ivermectin? It just might happen that he learns something important. Also, it was a “hard” ten minutes they gave you. So much so, I remember one year I got the whole room laughing because I did not shut up when the big timer hit ten minutes and the big red stoplight turned on, so a close colleague of mine ran up to the podium, put me in a headlock and started to drag me away from the podium as I was still yelling my final points. That was fun. Now, not so much.
 More trips down the memory lane of debates. One of the first “corruptions” by Pharma that I experienced in my career was when Eli Lilly invented a national campaign called “Surviving Sepsis” in an attempt to create guidelines supporting optimal care practices. They involved all the professional societies in critical care to participate. Leaders in the field all with a seat at the table.
 Yep, you guessed it, it turned out to be cover for their efforts in making a $5,000 harmful drug (Xygris) the standard of care in sepsis. Every single one of those committee members got money. The entire campaign and strategy was developed by a PR firm. Recall that Disinformation tactics were first invented by a PR firm in the 1950’s working for the Tobacco Industry at a time when their products were starting to look bad in the scientific literature.
 I would argue that Pharma is the most skilled practitioner of Disinformation amongst all industries. I mean 20 years ago already, the entire country’s critical care doctors gave a very expensive, harmful drug to every septic patient for years based on a manipulated trial with the tiniest of mortality benefits amidst a splashy “public health” campaign concocted by a PR firm working for a pharmaceutical company.
 When Xygris was eventually shown to be harmful it was abandoned. But that decision occurred on the back of fierce debates and constant re-analysis and discussion of the accumulating data. Hmm, I wonder when that will happen to Remdesivir? Fun fact: during my fellowship training in pulmonary and critical care, my mentors, Dr. Paul Mayo and Dr. Samual Acquah essentially forbade the use of Xygris at a time when every other fellow in training was using it like water. I never once ordered it for any patient.
 But there were other controversial aspects of the sepsis guidelines that Paul was a beast in demolishing at national conferences. He was so good, his take on the data so expert and compelling that his lectures were always packed, like standing room only type packed. For a medical lecture.
 The most debated aspect of sepsis treatment (and yes, it was debated repeatedly at national conferences) was called “early goal directed therapy” (EGDT) which required that you resuscitate patients using fluids and vasopressors to a target central venous pressure (CVP) and a target central venous oxygen saturation (SCV02), but to monitor the latter continuously, you had to insert a special catheter into the large neck veins to do it. I will not go into the detailed physiology of those parameters but the need to measure them was nonsense.
 I knew it (even as a fellow), my mentors knew it, Paul knew it, yet EGDT was widely adopted across the country and world. The protocol was based on a single center study whose Principal Investigator Manny Rivers held the patent on that catheter (unknown by most at the time). Further, information later came out that the data were manipulated. That information was leaked by a whistleblower who was a fellow of Rivers at the time. The fellow was threatened by the hospital with the ending of his career if he were to continue to speak publicly about it. They even apparently threatened to “kill his kids.”
 But the point is, the debates were fierce, in the open, and at conferences and hospital auditoriums across the country and world. They were data driven arguments by experts with decades of scientific inquiry and clinical expertise who reviewed the physiology and published literature. And sometimes led to conflicting interpretations. Yes, we all had biases when interpreting the data (all humans do), but we debated. It was not outlawed to say that SCV02 and IVC were unnecessary. Or to say they were critical. And you were not forced to use all aspects of EGDT in the care of patients back then as they were just “guidelines,” not rigid protocols supported by Federal government funded bonuses in every patient you used it in like we have now with Remdesivir.
 Interestingly, widespread EGDT adoption actually showed consistent impacts in reducing mortality, but we knew it was not from the targeting of those parameters but instead just from the early recognition and resuscitation of sepsis. Might even be the one instance in history where a corrupt action by Big Pharma actually led to a benefit in public health. Anyway, eventually studies showed that targeting those parameters versus simply using clinical judgement led to the same outcomes and the practice was abandoned. Paul was right again.
 Another aspect of the U.S resuscitation guidelines that Paul was absolutely brilliant in debunking was the decision to target a reduction in lactate as a resuscitation endpoint. This was another fiction like the CVP. Again, almost all of emergency and critical care medicine had been indoctrinated with the physiologic concept that lactate is a marker of hypo-perfusion (reduction in blood flow to organs). Now, in certain, specific clinical instances (ischemic bowel etc), a rise in lactate can reflect hypo-perfusion. But in most septic patients it is simply a marker of illness and stress. It is not harmful, in fact, if anything, lactate is better utilized by organs to maintain function and energy. However, doctors were taught to target lactate as a resuscitation endpoint instead of simply interpreting it as a marker of disease severity.
 But, in this instance, that practice and belief was not the result of corruption. No-one as far as I can tell was making money off of dumb doctors and nurses being forced to check lactates repeatedly. It simply stemmed from ignorance and established practice, with leading “experts” (dotards) arrogantly teaching that it was important to target (because they were taught that and did not critically think about it). Paul’s research revealed that targeting lactate was the result of a gross misunderstanding of lactic acid physiology. It was again one of the most masterful papers I have read. He marshaled tons of physiologic knowledge and logically presented the concepts and data which defined the cause and purpose of lactic acid production.
 Just like with his teachings on CVP, again you had one man arguing against an entire generation of doctors who believed that reducing lactate was important in the general septic patient. I totally agreed with Paul’s papers and conclusions. Which made my life difficult because I tried in vain to disseminate this knowledge among my trainees, trying to stop what I saw as the pervasive “lacto-bolo reflex” they were all exhibiting. Paul actually invented the term, and it was brilliant: “bolo” refers to a bolus of fluids, and the “reflex” was the ordering of an infusion of a half liter or liter of fluids every time a high lactate was measured.
 Lacto-bolo reflexes unfortunately led to what he also brilliantly coined as “salt water drowning,” i.e the receipt of excessive amounts of saline fluids by patients. Every time a doctor or nurse received a report of a high lactate… the doc ordered fluids. Lacto-bolo reflex. What is crazy is that the excess fluid administration that resulted paradoxically worsened kidney function and led to more kidney failure despite the fact the doctors were trying to preserve kidney function with fluid infusions! It was insane and I knew it because of Paul’s research and teaching. I also tried for years to fight the lacto-bolo reflex in my trainees and colleagues with little success except for when I was physically present in the ICU. When I went home for the night though, my fellows and residents all continued with their lacto-bolo reflexes. When the cat’s away the mice will play.
 However, in this instance, despite Paul’s papers and lectures on the topic, the unthinkable became true. “Experts” (dotards) eventually established the checking of repeated lactate as a national quality of care standard. Those standards are what hospitals are judged on which affects their reimbursement and accreditation.
 So, doctors across the country are now literally mandated to repeatedly check and respond to lactates in septic patients. Again, another example of an orthodoxy based on fiction. Despite all of Pauls efforts in teaching, lecturing, and publishing on the topic, this time, he was unsuccessful in changing orthodoxy. He may have been if his career didn’t end but History marches on. I would argue that his efforts in singlehandedly trying to reverse orthodoxies unfounded by “the science” led to a widespread respect, admiration, and reverence for the deep knowledge and scientific acumen he consistently displayed. But not so much anymore it seems.
 And that is solely because Paul’s final effort in academic medicine was in trying to reverse the fiction that ivermectin was ineffective in COVID. That effort ended his career because for the first time, unrealized by him at the time, instead of fighting ignorant knowledge of physiology, he was poking The Bear, i.e tackling a subject that threatened Big Pharma. In a big, big way. Thus, that effort ended his career. But let’s be specific about that - his former hospital ( SENTARA GENERAL IN NORFOLK, VIRGINA) was the one who actually ended his career.
 Now, how they ended it is pretty interesting, as my last job was ended in the same way. They did it by using a process that hospitals have long employed when a physician “doesn’t toe the line.” In COVID, Paul was a clinical leader in a major hospital and was employing a highly effective protocol using a combination of repurposed drugs and not using Remdesivir. And he was vocal about it. And he was teaching the doctors in training about the harms of Remdesivir and all of the data supporting “unapproved therapies.” So, they invoked a process called “sham peer review" to get rid of him. What the heck is “sham peer review?”
 From a seminal paper on the topic:
 In 1986, the United States Congress enacted the Healthcare Quality Improvement Act (HCQIA). which granted immunity to hospitals and reviewers participating in “good faith” peer review of physicians and dentists. These reviews were envisioned to be vehicles by which it could be determined if any actions or recommendations against a physician should become necessary on the measures of incompetence, unprofessional conduct, or behaviors that impact the doctors’ clinical privileges. However, of late, HCQIA has resulted in many unforeseen consequences, not the least of which is the rise of ‘sham peer reviews’ — and the consignment of guiltless, lifesaving, pre-eminent physicians into obscurity.
 What is “Sham” Peer Review?
 Sham peer review is an adverse action taken in bad faith by a hospital for purposes other than the furtherance of quality health care. It is a process that is disguised to look like legitimate peer review. But sham peer review is not objectively reasonable, precisely because it is not performed to advance the quality of health care (violation of safe harbor provision).
  A sham peer review happens when the hospital invents some pretext on which to attack the physician and acts to disguise the adverse action against the targeted physician by conducting a such a review— where the truth and the facts do not matter, because the process is contrived to be rigged, and the outcome is predetermined.
 Over the years, sham peer reviews have unfortunately become fairly well-known. Hospitals in the United States have mounted these proceedings for at least four decades to rid themselves of physicians who “get in their way.” Often, they are doctors who don’t ”follow the party line” and whom they consider “disruptive.” Hospital officials are resistant to physicians who bring patient safety or care quality concerns to their attention. Some hospitals retaliate against these whistleblowers, by instigating these sham peer reviews.
   How Sham Peer Review works
 Hospitals that use sham peer review bring trumped up, fabricated, and thoroughly false charges against the targeted physician. Although no court of law would permit depriving an accused person of files or records needed to defend himself, as it is fundamentally unfair and in violation of due process, hospitals that employ sham peer review frequently refuse to provide records required to the physician under review. Based on these totally erroneous and phony charges the physician’s hospital privileges are summarily suspended. The physician is usually given 14 days to respond in writing to the sham charges. The charges and the physician’s response are then supposedly shared with the Medical Executive Committee (MEC). The physician then meets with the Medical Executive Committee. The physician is usually denied legal representation (which is unlawful), and the meeting takes the form of a Kangaroo court.
 And the above, is EXACTLY what happened to Paul. Like.. to the T. Most importantly, he had no rights during the process. No ability to bring a lawyer in to help defend him. No ability to discover the identity of the complainant or exact documentation of the complaint. That is how they can just make shit up.
 I won’t go into the details because the above explains everything that happened to Paul but his was particularly egregious (mine was short and simple). They generated at least 8 anonymous, invented complaints by other providers, nurses and employees inventing things he said or did and characterizing his behavior as “disruptive.” He had never gotten a single complaint from a patient or colleague in his entire career. They even accused him of malpractice for treating a patient for severe COVID who had tested negative for COVID. I saw the patient’s films and labs, heard his history, and presentation. The guy had COVID, period. Plus, the guy was super sick, on a ventilator, and Paul saved him with his protocol. No small feat for a COVID patient on a ventilator. The patient survived yet the hospital used the case as a mark against him. Insane.
 Everything was right out of the sham peer review playbook. And it resulted in the ending of his career.
 My “sham peer review” was different given that I was working as an independent contractor running an ICU for a hospital in central Wisconsin. The hospital administration had been asking my partners who hired me to get rid of me as soon as they heard I had been hired, likely due to my public profile (ya think?). My partners refused as we got along great and they deeply appreciated my skills, contributions, COVID expertise and protocols. They told the administration “if he goes, we go.” And this was a hospital with a long track record of difficulty recruiting physicians. Yet, my partners were continually harassed by the administration who kept sending them “hit pieces” they found about me in newspapers and magazines.
 Six months later, in November 2021, the Chief Medical Officer of the hospital knew I was not vaccinated and that a mandate was about to start. So he called me and asked if I was going to be vaccinated because he had to plan for contingencies. I asked him for a couple of days to think about it. I decided I would just get a vaccine card instead. Not proud of that plan but I knew the vaccines were built on unconscionable lies. He called me two days later, and I told him I would get vaccinated.
 The next morning after my shift, my lead partner called and told me “they didn’t need me anymore.” I asked what happened (I knew they needed me, badly). He explained that I had told some ER patient to not get vaccinated and that their practice believed in vaccination so could not be associated with someone who was not. One catch - I had not been in the ER for two weeks. I defended myself, to no avail. My partner knew I was telling the truth, but I knew he was likely under an ultimatum. He apologized and said, “I am so sorry, but there is a war going on and you are unfortunately a casualty of that.” We said pleasant goodbyes and wished each other well. Pretty quick sham peer review because I was not an employee so they had the right to cancel my contract at anytime. Done. Gone.
 So, as you can see from the above, COVID is not our first rodeo battling ignorance and corruption in Medicine. But we battled with debate using data, published literature, and deep knowledge of physiology. Now, no more.
 Steve Kirsch has been offering 1-2 million dollars for anyone in academia or the agencies to participate in a public or even privately recorded, moderated debate of the evidence to support vaccine safety and efficacy. No-one took him up on it.
 An organization in Kansas City asked me, Peter McCullough and two other experts to participate in a debate with the clinical leaders at KU. They refused to show. Their table sat empty on the stage while we debated the public statements they had made with a local TV program instead. They literally told the TV presenter that “we do not debate in public forums, only in journal clubs amongst fellow doctors.” Note he said this on TV then went on to support their policies citing what we know are corrupt and easily disprovable evidence-free narratives. What a farce.
 Just as sad as the above is that Paul had long been invited every year by a medical education organization to lecture to anesthesiologists as he was a perennial favorite lecturer. This past year, he gave a masterful lecture on the data supporting the use of ivermectin in COVID. Soon after, he was told that he will never again be invited to give lectures.
 He also gave the same lecture to the Anesthesia Department at Mass General (Harvard). The evaluations by attendees all complained that his lecture was full of mis-information. He will never be invited back.
 Twitter, which describes itself as a “public square” has de-platformed many of my colleagues (multiple times) for sharing newly emerging data supporting the efficacy of ivermectin. Hey Juan Chamie, how many times have you been Twitterwhacked? One of life’s greatest mysteries (slight overstatement) is how I am still alive on Twitter, although to be accurate, I am only half-alive as they severely shadow ban me on that platform.
 I guess we just have to accept the fact that two new commandments have come down from the mountaintop:
 Thou shalt not share favorable ivermectin data in any public media sphere

 Thou shalt not present analyses of the scientific data supporting ivermectin in lectures to physicians

 The world has gone mad.

 Next post, I will delve more specifically into the tactics Pharma deployed in pulling off their massive Disinformation campaign against ivermectin using propaganda as well as censorship of the FLCCC .
 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 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. I am getting professional help (hah!) to write a book about what I have personally witnessed and learned during Pharma’s historic Disinformation war on ivermectin.  Pre-order here for:

 .

Summary: Never before in modern history have entire topics in Medicine been actively prevented from discussion in public forums. As a result most of the world only heard one-sided narratives.