Proof The CDC Knowingly Lied When Claiming The mRNA Vaccines "Reduce Hospitalizations And Deaths."

**Please follow @TheChiefNerd on Twitter, their posts are always excellent and informative, and their work on the below issue belied a deep search and reading of the published literature. Note also that his tweet thread on the topic received 1.4 million views and my retweet alone received 223,000 views.

 Let’s start with recalling this meme:

 In the above, I highlighted the last remaining “narrative” that the corporate controlled CDC and media desperately clung to over the past two years in order to be able to continue to coerce the U.S population into submitting to an experimental nanoparticle gene therapy.
 Note these tumbling narratives were all directed at combatting vaccine hesitancy , which, from the pandemic simulation exercise “Event 201,” was the primary objective of the vaccinators.
 Also, remember that, of the more ridiculous attempts to promote this last remaining narrative, Fauci and Walensky repeatedly claimed that 99% of patients in hospital and dying were the unvaccinated . They literally did this with a straight face, knowing that they were including in their numerator all the deaths that occurred prior to the start of the vaccination campaign .
 Yup, if you died in 2020, before the vaccines were rolled out, those two reported you as dying in an unvaccinated status. Not subtle. But their faulty arithmetic was not the only lie. At the time of that narrative launch, during a lecture, a CDC slide deck mistakenly showed a slide which revealed that 26% of patients in U.S hospitals were vaccinated (not 1%). But this number was falsely and fraudulently lower than the actual number. By a long shot. Hence the point of this post and not Fauci’s and Wolensky’s absurd “arithmetic.”
 Subscribe now
 Evidence The CDC Knew Their Data Was Fraudulent
 First know that in the most popular electronic medical record (EMR) system in the U.S (EPIC), on the sidebar of every page in the chart are the name, demographics, room number, provider team, and COVID vaccination status of the patient. What I found weird from the outset was that, in the mutiple hospitals I worked in that used EPIC, there were only two categories under the COVID-19 vaccine status section, “Vaccinated” or “Unknown.” There was no “Unvaccinated” status. Also realize that “Unknown” was interpreted on the ground in real-time by all providers as akin to being “Unvaccinated” (including myself for a time).
 As a critical care doc running ICU’s throughout Covid, I vividly recall the day that I admitted my first patient whose EMR indicated that he was “Vaccinated.” That day was in (approximately August-September of 2021), a full 9 months after the start of the mRNA campaign. He died by the way.
 Anyway, I remember thinking, “How odd?” Why did everyone I had taken care of in the ICU in 2021, except this one, have an “unknown” vaccination status? How could that be? Even if the vaccines worked really well (which I knew they didn’t), something was off, like really off. I suddenly started getting the fantods because I suspected I was yet again uncovering another massive Covid lie being constructed by our “government” and its media.
 The reason why I was so uneasy is that, at the time, I already knew that other countries and health ministries were more transparent with public health data showing vaccination status. Our group of Covid experts were finding their data showed that there were far more vaccinated in the hospital than unvaccinated, especially when controlling for % of the population vaccinated at the time.
 See, I knew that it could simply not be true that in a 9 month period, only one patient that I took care in the ICU was “fully” vaccinated. I had initially suspected something was off as early as February 2021 when one journalist found data showing that the majority of hospitalizations and deaths in the UK (even when adjusted to rates per 100,000) had been the vaccinated. I just compiled a separate post of even more data supporting this point so as to not overly lengthen this one.
 The data I compiled in the above post was the opposite of what I was “experiencing” in U.S Hospitals and the opposite of what all of my colleagues and most of the U.S population were led to believe about the vaccines, i.e. that only the unvaccinated (er, “unknown”) were filling hospitals. This belief was further solidified when CDC Director Rochelle Wolensky kept trotting out this chart in her national TV appearances:

 First issue with the chart above (which I will not go into in depth here as it is too complex and time-consuming of a data analysis for me), is that they were also constantly “moving the goalposts” of what it meant to be up-to-date for vaccination, i.e. first shot vs. first “series”, 1st series plus booster etc. Most importantly, you were not considered vaccinated until over 14 days had passed since your jab. Since so many vaccinated were oddly falling ill right within that 2 week post-vax time frame the chart above is already on shaky ground. So, although the arbitrary definitions of “vaccinated” certainly inflated the efficacy of the vaccines, it was not the main reason for the corruption of the U.S data.
 The point of this post focuses on a more simple and more powerful “trick” that they pulled.
 Now, my older subscribers (bless all of you) may recall that on June 14, 2022, I published my first post of a lengthy series I called “ Nursing Reports From the Front Lines Of The Vaccine Catastrophe ” (reviewing it just now, I found it is the 2nd most popular post in the history of this Substack)
 That post arose from conversations I was having with an anonymous senior nurse colleague at a major academic medical center who powerfully described to me the severe disassociation, dysfunction, and extreme self-censorship she was witnessing amongst both the physicians and nurses in regards to the problems with the vaccines.
 In those conversations I was finally able to confirm what I had suspected was occurring within U.S hospitals regarding the accuracy (or willful inaccuracy) of the vaccination status listed in the medical record of a patient newly admitted to the hospital.
 My hypothesis at that time was that the EMR systems in use in the U.S were categorizing only those vaccinated at a physicians office within the hospital’s EMR system as being vaccinated, i.e. by a physician employed by the hospital. In conjunction with this, I suspected that patients who received their vaccine from another location (pharmacies, jab centers, health departments, schools) were not being recorded as an “official vaccination” in the hospital. These patients were instead placed into the “unknown category.” I also found it odd that they did not have a third, separate “unvaccinated” category as well. You know, for those who courageously, proudly, and boldly (some would also say stupidly) reported they were unvaccinated upon admission to a hospital. Weird right? Only having two categories? “Vaccinated” and “ unknown ?”
 Given that my cynicism towards the vaccines and our health agency officials by that time knew no bounds, I was similarly convinced that the CDC were thus using this system so they could categorize anyone vaccinated outside of a hospital system as “unvaccinated” in their “official” analyses as above.
 So, I reached out to a few people to investigate further, one of whom was my sometime writing partner, the investigative journalist Mary Beth Pfeiffer. She made an attempt to get questions answered by EPIC but could make no headway. My nurse colleague tried to get some documentation from her IT department contacts, but besides an inadvertent verbal admission this was happening, we had no “hard evidence.” The most compelling evidence of how this process worked came from interviews like this CHD one with nurse Gail McCrae (starts at 17:30) and this Greg Hunter one with Dr. Betsy Eades and this Steve Kirsch/VSRF one with nurse David Anderson (at 3hr 14min mark).
 Anyway, here is where @TheChiefNerd ’s recent work comes in. Although he covers the issue more concisely in his tweet thread, I wanted to lay out the evidence more clearly as below.
 EVIDENCE THAT THE CDC METHOD FOR DETERMINING VACCINATION STATUS WAS FRAUDULENT
 Basically, from Wolensky’s CDC chart below, ChiefNerd clicked the link under the chart which said “ learn more about this data ”, highlighted in red below:

 There, he was brought to an Our World In Data website which looks like this:

 You then have to click the circled link above which is simply and subtly titled “Links” and you are brought to this page on the CDC website below:

 The information we are looking for is actually under the “read more” link above, meaning that they put this info under a drop down and not simply straight on the page as an introduction to the data set. Poor choice or willful hiding? You know what I think.
 Anyway, lo and behold, what did @TheChiefNerd find? First he found this section below where he correctly highlights the critical sentence which begins to support my hypothesis above:

 The way we both read the above, although not explicitly stated, is that this “unknown” category which was so prevalent in so many EMR’s in this country, was being used to document people who verbally reported that they had received an “outside vaccination” as “unvaccinated.” Neat trick eh? It was actually worse than that. Based the several nurse reports and interviews I referenced above, even when patients presented their actual CVS card, they still were categorized as “unknown.”
 @TheChiefNerd then found a paper from March 2021, from the largest engineering publication in the world (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) which specifically called out the interoperability between EHR’s systems (i.e. hospitals and pharmacies):

 From that paper:
 “If you get the shot at a local hospital that is affiliated with your doctor, the vaccination information might show up in your electronic health record (EHR). However, if it doesn’t, or you get the shot through a pharmacy like CVS, your vaccination information may end up stranded on the little paper CDC vaccination card you receive with your shot. The onus will be on you to give your doctor your vaccination information, which will have to be manually (hopefully without error) entered into your EHR. As a result, the information public officials need to determine who has been vaccinated…is less accurate and timely than it needs to be.”
 I think they only got part of the story because, again, this is what really happened to those CVS cards, from my previous post with anonymous Nurse Linda on this issue:
 And lo and behold, Linda confirmed this was the case in one major health system she worked at. What I found most striking is that she worked in two different hospital systems, in one (the smaller one) it was very easy to document a patient in the record as vaccinated. The admitting nurse could accept any documentation, from a Walgreen’s card to even a verbal report from the patient or family and they could put it in the record on admission and the patient would show up as “vaccinated” on the main screen sidebar.
 In the other, larger, major (and I mean major) health system she worked in which used EPIC, if the patient received the vaccine from anywhere but an employed provider’s clinic within the health system (even if the patient had a vaccine card on them), she was forced to put it in an “open field” buried on page 2 of the initial nursing assessment where nobody, and certainly no physician looked for it. All these patients were automatically documented on the main screen as “Unknown”, i.e “Unvaccinated”, even if the dates of each shot were entered into that nursing note field.
 @TheChiefNerd uncovered more evidence from a paper published in JAMA Open in April 2023:

 From the paper:
 “We discovered that because the interface between the IIS and the EHR required a manual query to pull the information into the EHR, it was difficult to identify unvaccinated patients.”
 Further, they reported that 44% of “unknowns” were actually previously vaccinated, a number which not only destroys the validity of Wolensky’s famous chart, but I believe it is also a gross underestimate due to the fact this paper found that a significant number of pharmacists were not entering Covid vaccines in their states IIS.
 @TheChiefNerd goes on to say the following, which is news to me, because I had only ever noticed two categories in EPIC, not the four that the study he found mentioned:

 He also excerpts this doozy:

 In response to this paper’s publication in April 2023, @TheChiefNerd finds yet another example of the consistent, pathetic, and I would argue criminal absurdity of the CDC. In the CDC document with the dropdown link I presented above, this is how it now reads when you click on the link : (update underlined in red)

 So, within a month of that paper in JAMA, the CDC stopped posting the false data. Why not? The whole Covid vaccine mRNA campaign is pretty much over as evidenced by the minimal (albeit non-zero) uptake in the latest Covid boosters.
 The most damning evidence, and one which I had forgotten about until after I published this post initially, was this reminder from my nurse colleague Linda (“my Spy On The Inside”):

 I cannot emphasize enough how damaging to human life and livelihoods it is when our Federal Agencies propagate brazen lies to further the interests of Industry.
 In my opinion, it was this EXACT lie which led the vast majority of U.S doctors to become convinced that the only people dying in hospitals were the unvaccinated. They then aggressively insisted (with good intentions?) that all of their patients, friends, and families to get vaccinated. Further, it made many health care workers themselves get vaccinated out of fear of dying.
 Which is what happened. It is also why a large percentage of the population (at least the ones I meet at lectures, conferences, and symposia) no longer want to see a “system doctor” or go to a “system hospital,” no matter how grand their brand/reputation once was. They could see the lies and thier doctor’s couldn’t. Information asymmetry for sure.
 Fun fact: a long-time donor of large annual gifts to the Mayo clinic.. decided to direct their donation to the FLCCC last year and this year because they felt the Mayo Clinic had departed from their founding principles and mission. Go FLCCC.
 The system docs behaved this way because they saw with their own eyes , “the (false) reality” of what would happen if you were unvaccinated. This, combined with the medical journal propaganda publishing only favorable and selective analyses of vaccine efficacy and safety drove nearly all the nation's doctors to go completely mad.
 Never forget what the U.S along with almost every advanced health economy in the world lived through:
 The physicians fervor to vaccinate everyone and everything, even in patients who just recovered from COVID, was something to behold. I saw overt hectoring, harassment and even rage. Twitter was one of the most terrifying places to watch doctors arrogantly propagate the need to be vaccinated.. even for folks who had (often hard-earned) natural immunity. I almost feel bad for some of those docs as history will not judge them kindly. Forgive them for they know not what they do.
 They were literally screaming across Social Media, Media, and Medical Journal editorials, that you will be OK if you just get vaccinated . The high profile docs were the worst, except I have little sympathy for them as most were complicit in the deception rather than just fooled like the rest. Folks like Eric Topol, Peter Hotez, Tom Marks, Alastair McAlpine, Tom Friedan (who I used to deeply admire as NYC Health Department Commissioner), Eric Feigl-Ding-(bat), Jeremy Faust (probably the biggest ignoramus on Twitter, having taken an early lead in that competition since the pandemic broke in 2020), and Monica Gandhi. Leana Wen deserves particular ire as she is the most active prostitute for the Pharma-captured federal health agencies on mass media. A media darling as it were.
 You even started to see doctor walk-outs protesting the unvaccinated , increasing numbers of doctors publicly stating they would start refusing to see unvaccinated patients , heck, the Pharma controlled outlet called Medscape even got an ethicist to argue that it was OK to refuse to treat the unvaccinated. Yup. Crazy town. Clown World.
 One of my patients who is a hospital pharmacist even told me that at her hospital, the hospitalists were vaccinating patients that had been admitted for COVID ..as they were being discharged from the hospital. That's right, as the patients were being discharged after having recovered from COVID, they were recommending and administering (outdated) vaccines for the same illness. I even heard of one case where a team of clinicians decided to vaccinate a severely ill COVID patient in the ICU.
 I also witnessed aggressive attacks in one of the nation’s largest medical-centers staff physician email forum. Doctors “screaming” that everything would be fine if everyone just got the damn vaccine. Deriding anyone bringing forth arguments about untested safety, suspicious efficacy data, and concerns about mandates violating patient autonomy and medical ethics. Anyone who brought forth “adverse data” towards the vaccines were treated with dismissal and a retaliatory posting of selectively favorable data with the imprimatur of the Pharma captured agencies and Pharma captured journals. I will never forget this time in the history of medicine. Ever.

 P.S If you appreciate the time and effort I put into this Substack and in educating the the public, support in the form of paid subscriptions would be greatly appreciated.
 Subscribe now

Summary: Twitter user @TheChiefNerd recently compiled published evidence supporting my assertion that the vaccinated were systematically being documented as unvaxxed when entering U.S hospitals.


Covid mRNA Vaccination Does Not Protect Against Severe Hospitalization And Death

**The data below are not comprehensive or up-to-date, but I believe sufficient to prove my point. Taken from posts I wrote in June and August of 2022. I long ceased to track such data, not only because, in my mind, the vaccines were already proven and dangerous failures, but also because many national health services ceased posting data which allowed us to compare the fates of the vaccinated and unvaccinated (thinking of you ONS and Scotland).

 EFFICACY OF COVID VACCINES IN PROTECTION FROM SEVERE DISEASE
 CDC data shows that there is no statistically valid evidence that they prevent severe disease or deaths in children. Current mRNA injections were formulated based on the original Wuhan strain and were not tested for benefits against current variants in clinical trials. Which begs the question as to what can be accomplished by vaccinating small children with an outdated vaccine.
 In Ireland, in March of 2022, during the milder Omicron variant wave, there were  more people in Irish hospitals  than at any point in the previous 12 months. This occurred despite the fact that nearly 95% of all adults in Ireland are fully vaccinated, and  nearly 100% of seniors are vaccinated and boosted .
 In Scotland, on  page 29 of their recent national COVID-19 report , the data revealed that the vaccinated were dying and being hospitalized at higher rates than the unvaccinated. Note that Scotland has since made the decision to no longer publish these comparative data for “concerns that they are being misinterpreted”. Although it is true, as I noted above, that numerous variables beyond vaccination status may contribute to explaining these differences, I find it troubling (similar to the Department of Defense actions mentioned above) that the decision to stop publishing these data occurred  only after a negative efficacy against severe disease and death was found.
 In Israel, the Director of a major hospital recently  declared that the fully vaccinated  are not protected against severe illness.
 NSW Health  in New South Wales, the most populated of Australian states at 8.1 million inhabitants,  reported that 97 out of 98 COVID-19 deaths  occurring over the previous two weeks involved fully vaccinated persons. Moreover, those that had three doses appeared most at risk for hospitalization admission, ICU transfer, and death.
 These data are consistent with the  recent report published in the New York Times  which stated “despite strong levels of vaccination among older people, COVID killed them at vastly higher rates during this winter’s Omicron wave than did last year, preying on long delays since their last shots and the  variant’s ability to skirt immune defenses .” I must add that these higher rates of death in the elderly are also seen in the boosted.
 The conclusion of a recent  Danish study  in the prestigious Lancet found that in long-term follow-up of over 74,000 adult participants in the Moderna and Pfizer trials there was no all-cause mortality benefit from the two mRNA shots.
 In a recent,  large Veterans Administration study , investigators discovered disturbing evidence: by month six after a SARS-CoV-2 infection, beyond the first 30 days of illness, vaccinated persons with breakthrough infections were at higher risk of death (hazard ratio (HR) = 1.75, 95% confidence interval: 1.59,1.93).
 NATURAL IMMUNITY
 For those with natural immunity already, the data in support of further vaccination is even worse: The most recent review of data supporting the protection of natural immunity, compiled from over 150 research studies, found that natural immunity provided equal or superior protection against not only contracting the disease, but also against hospitalization and death.
 Further, vaccinated individuals are far more likely to get re-infected with COVID compared to those with natural immunity. A  new preprint  study from Bangladesh found that among 404 people re-infected with COVID, having been vaccinated made someone 2.45 times more likely to get re-infected with a mild infection, 16.1 times more likely to get a moderate infection, and 3.9 times more likely to be re-infected severely, relative to someone with prior infection who was  not  vaccinated. Although overall re-infections were rare, vaccination was a greater risk factor of re-infection than co-morbidities.
 A new study from Harvard, Continued Effectiveness of COVID-19 Vaccination among Urban Healthcare Workers during Delta Variant Predominance , tracked vaccinated and unvaccinated Massachusetts healthcare workers and showed 0 infections in 74,557 person-days for previously infected patients compared to 49 infections out of 830,084 person-days for fully vaccinated patients.
 A study published in the New England Journal of Medicine assessed a cohort of 1,304 patients meeting a very strict definition of “re-infection.” In this cohort, there were no deaths and no ICU admissions during reinfections while 7 deaths and 28 ICU admissions occurred during the primary infections. Overall, there was a statistically significant 90% reduction in the composite outcome of severe, critical, or fatal disease during reinfections. Further, amongst all ages, CDC found that natural immunity offerred equal protection against hospitalization.
 Thus, in terms of benefits, based on the most up-to-date data, the current crop of mRNA vaccines against Omicron confer either rapidly waning efficacy or negative efficacy, and not only do they no longer protect against severe disease, my interpretation of these data is that they appear to be raising the risk of severe disease and death. I would advise extreme caution given that, currently, in the U.S, the prevalence of the B4/5 variant  appears to be doubling every week  in the past month, now comprising approximately 8% of cases.
 In regards to the current variant B4/5, my rapidly evolving clinical experience and those of my network of colleagues is that the vaccinated are contracting more severe illness and are less quickly responding to combination anti-viral and anti-inflammatory therapies.
 Written August, 2022.

 P.S If you appreciate the time and effort I put into this Substack and in educating the the public, support in the form of paid subscriptions would be greatly appreciated.
 Subscribe now

Summary: Here I compile data showing that the vaccinated fared worse in the hospital, taken largely from non-U.S data. The point of the article which references these data is to show the U.S data is corrupted.


Defense of Dr. Charles Hoffe Vs. The BC College of Physicians and Surgeons - Part 4

This is the 4th post of my series defending Dr. Charles Hoffe against the accusations by British Columbia’s College of Physicians and Surgeons that his actions and statements during Covid were in violation of the College’s code of conduct. If you have not read it, I suggest you read Part 1 here for the background and context of his case.
 SAFETY OF IVERMECTIN
 I strongly agree with Dr. Hoffe’s public statement that ivermectin is “ very, very safe, very effective treatments for Covid…” and that it is “unbelievably safe.”
 Dr. Corneil instead finds that, “Ivermectin, especially at high doses, can be dangerous for humans and may cause serious health problems such as vomiting, diarrhea, low blood pressure, allergic reactions, dizziness, seizures, coma and even death.”
 Dr. Corneil’s opinion characterizing Dr. Hoffe’s statement as incorrect, misleading etc. is easily disproven with the available, extensive data on the nearly unparalleled safety of ivermectin in treatment of both Covid and the 40 years history of global use to treat parasitic diseases.
 In response to Dr. Corneil’s claim that ivermectin can cause low blood pressure, in this scoping review of the safety of ivermectin, the author states “A sudden and marked drop in blood pressure, severe skin reaction and liver injury have been mentioned in early safety reviews. The clinical experience accumulated over the years showed these severe adverse events are unequivocally extremely rare. The often-reiterated claim, even today, that ivermectin can be lethal in treated patients only rests on a one-page correspondence to the Lancet published in 1997. This claim is deemed to be unfounded as it has never been further substantiated until today and instead, three subsequent publications repeatedly showed this claim was either incorrect or methodologically inaccurate.”
 A number of reviews on the safety of ivermectin have been conducted since the onset of the Covid pandemic. One group of toxicologists published a paper finding that  “Ivermectin was generally well tolerated, with no associated CNS toxicity at doses up to 10 times the FDA-approved maximum dose of 200 µg/kg. All doses had a mydriatic effect like a placebo. The adverse experiences between ivermectin and placebo were similar and did not increase with the ivermectin dose.”
 Another safety review stated “ The safety, availability, and cost of ivermectin are nearly unparalleled given its low incidence of important drug interactions along with only mild and rare side effects observed in almost 40 years of use and billions of doses administered.”
 Further, the safety of standard doses of ivermectin (0.2 mg/kg x 1–2 days) have an unprecedented safety profile historically as evidenced by the following findings:
 WHO Guidelines for Scabies : “the majority of side effects are minor and transient”

 Jacques Descotes , Toxicologist and Expert on Safety of Ivermectin:  “severe adverse events are unequivocally and exceedingly rare”

 LiverTox   Database : Not considered toxic to the liver

 Nephrotox Database:  Not considered toxic to the kidney

 PneumoTox:  Not considered toxic to the lungs

 Safety of High Dose Ivermectin - COVID-19 Studies
 Randomized controlled trial  of ivermectin in COVID using 0.6mg/kg x 5 days reported no differences in side effects

 Randomized controlled trial , with 3 arms; one arm treated with 1.2 mg/kg x 5 days, and another treated with 6mg/kg x 5 days with no differences in side effects.

 A report by the State Health Minister  on 3,000 patients in La Pampa, Argentina who were part of a “test and treat” program were given 6 mg/kg daily x 5 days. Liver function tests and significant side effects were closely monitored and none were reported as abnormal

 A report by the Health Minister in Misiones , Argentina, also using 0.6 mg/kg x 5 days with no significant adverse events reported.

 Malaria Studies
 Ivermectin alone was safe and well-tolerated  in macaques with repeated doses at 3 and 1.2 mg/kg x 7 days, with no signs of neurological, gastroenterological, or hematological complications.

 Study of “ Efficacy and Safety of High dose ivermectin for Reducing Malaria Transmission ” compared 0, 3 and 0.6 mg/kg x 3 days and found no differences in side effects.

 Healthy Volunteers
 Report of a group of healthy adult subjects  given up to 10 x standard dose, either 2-4 x the standard dose three times a week or 6–10 x standard dose once and found the doses generally well-tolerated.

 Systematic Reviews
 A systematic review and meta-analysis  of high dose ivermectin found no difference in side effects between dose of up to 0.4 mg/kg and higher doses (up to 0.8 mg/kg doses every 3 days)

 A comprehensive review of 350 articles by the famous French toxicologist Jacques Descotes was presented in March 2021.  In this document , he states,

 “Based on all the data presented above, the author of this report believes it is fair to say that ivermectin did not directly induce an excess of deaths in treated groups of human subjects. Statements, past or present, that ivermectin can kill patients, are therefore considered to be misleading as they do not take into account all the medical information that has been accumulated over the last decades.“

 “Only very few cases of accidental human overdose have been reported despite the wide availability of ivermectin as a veterinary and human medicine [Hall et al., 1985; Graeme et al., 2000; Deraemecker et al., 2014; Goossens et al., 2014]. Usually, moderate neurotoxic manifestations with rapid recovery after unspecific supportive measures were the predominating course of events. No accidental overdose including in infants and young children had a lethal outcome.”

 Case Series
 1)  A case series of 3 children  with relapsed leukemia treated with high dose (1.0 mg/kg) ivermectin daily for between 2 weeks and 6 months reported no significant adverse events.
 Further, Ivermectin is on the WHO’s list of essential medicines, has been given nearly 4 billion times around the globe and is widely considered a safe drug. According to the WHO, it is safer than both aspirin and Tylenol. Its discoverers were honored with the Nobel Prize in 2015 for the drug’s global and historic impacts in eradicating endemic parasitic infections in many parts of the world. There is good scientific evidence that the escalating doses required to maintain antiviral levels have been subjected to considerable testing and are in fact safe.
 To better understand the overall safety signal in Covid it is useful to look at absolute numbers in data from the FDA Adverse Events Reporting System (FAERS). While poison control calls and FAERS each suffer from limitations, it is notable that reports for products containing ivermectin actually fell slightly in 2020 and 2021, despite greatly increased use and dosing (see below data demonstrating the massive rise in ivermectin prescriptions in the U.S), with a combined total of 503 adverse reports which was at an annual rate that is less than 2017-2019. Reports did not rise post-COVID-19, but actually fell.

 Safety Comparisons with Other Covid Treatment Options
 Subscribe now

 As per above table using data from the WHO’s Vigiaccess surveillance database as of today January 12, 2023: there have been 16 deaths attributed to ivermectin over a 30-year period , while there have been 11,056 deaths attributed to Remdesivir though it was only approved by FDA on October 22, 2020 and given to far fewer patients. Remdesivir, which is considered the “standard of care,” was approved contrary to WHO recommendations against its use and a significant body of literature finding its risks outweigh any benefit.
 The level of side effects in such approved drugs is one of the reasons that the Nebraska Attorney General found that ivermectin prescribing was proper and his Opinion puts the ivermectin data into stark perspective by comparing them with far more numerous adverse events from Remdesivir’s use in COVID-19.
 Paxlovid is contraindicated if a patient is taking a significant list of other drugs and has a higher risk. Since its approval in 2022 it has already had 21,249 adverse event reports to Vigiaccess, which is three times the amount reported for ivermectin over the past 30 years. Molnupiravir has not shown high levels of effectiveness, shows 2,677 adverse events, and has not shown significant efficacy at reducing death rates .
 Studies are continually published showing poor safety and effectiveness, for example a recent study in Lancet showing that “Molnupiravir did not reduce the frequency of COVID-19-associated hospitalizations or death among high-risk vaccinated adults in the community.” While these drugs may have a role to play in treatment, a fair comparison shows that ivermectin is more effective and demonstrably safer than other available treatments and far safer than the one drug–Remdesivir–that the FDA initially approved for use against COVID.
 Notably, there have been 100 studies with over 135,000 patients listed at
 https://c19ivm.org/ without a significant safety signal emerging.
 Further, the principal investigator of the largest trial on ivermectin in Covid, Ed Mills, stated in March of 2022 , during an NIH Collaboratory: “I would say that the safety analysis, you know, ivermectin does not appear to cause much of a safety concern. That argument that has been put forward by people I don't think holds very well at all.”
 The concluding sentence of Jacques Descotes review of the safety of ivermectin: “ the author of the present analysis of the available medical data concludes that the safety profile of ivermectin has so far been excellent in the majority of treated human patients so that ivermectin human toxicity cannot be claimed to be a serious cause for concern.
 Finally, in a meta-analysis of 11 RCT’s in Covid, assessing 1533 participants, there was no significant difference between ivermectin and control in the risk of severe adverse events (aRR 1.65, 95% CI 0.44–6.09; I 2  = 0%).
 Thus, it is clear from the accumulated and published evidence that Dr. Hoffe’s statement is highly scientifically accurate, unlike the conclusion of Dr. Corneil.

 P.S If you appreciate what I am doing for doctors pro bono, support in the form of paid subscriptions would be greatly appreciated (am currently in deep on another defense of a doctor being persecuted by the Washington Medical Board).
 Subscribe now
 P.P.S Our 3rd Annual FLCCC. Medical Conference is coming up! Come on down to Phoenix, I cannot tell you how not only informative they are, but also how spiritually and socially restorative as the community has some of the best people ever in it.

 Gather with like-minded people from across the world, learn from leading medical experts and health freedom advocates, meet healthcare professionals, and take charge of your health and well-being!
 -Also proud to report that my book has gained Best Seller status on and off in several countries and is climbing up the U.S Amazon rankings, If any of you have bought and read the book, please leave a review on Amazon? Thanks! Link:

Summary: The College's expert attacked Dr. Hoffe for misinformation due to his public statements regarding the immense safety of ivermectin. Here is my defense testimony rebutting the College's "expert."


The Horse Dewormer PR Campaign And My Defense Of Dr. Charles Hoffe Against The BC College of Physicians and Surgeons

In my book The War on Ivermectin, Chapter 33 is titled “The Horse Dewormer PR Campaign.” In that chapter, I document the timeline and synchronized coordination between Federal public health agencies and corporate controlled media in their launch of a massive public relations campaign trying to get people and physicians to stop using ivermectin.
 I maintain that the campaign was started on Aug 21, 2021 by a snarky FDA tweet aimed at all Americans (I didn’t know public health agencies were supposed to be snarky but whatever):

 I will detail the timeline of the next steps of the campaign but first, I think it is important to know what triggered its launch. A week prior to the (P)FDA tweet, a report from the IQVIA National Prescription Audit Weekly (NPA Weekly) database revealed that ivermectin prescriptions were skyrocketing in the U.S:

 *As per this paper : Data are from the IQVIA National Prescription Audit Weekly (NPA Weekly) database. NPA Weekly collects data from a sample of approximately 48,900 US retail pharmacies, representing 92% of all retail prescription activity.
 So after the FDA tweet went viral (largely because no-one had ever heard of a public health agency being snarky on Twitter before), the CDC jumped in five days later (Aug. 26, 2021) when they issued a bulletin to every State Health Department warning them of an alarming increase in overdoses and poisonings related to ivermectin. The 50 state Departments of Health then forwarded the bulletin to the inbox of every licensed doctor in the U.S within 24 hours:

 Problem: the CDC bulletin was full of lies and misrepresentations as discovered by my investigative journalist colleagues Mary Beth Pfeiffer and Linda Bonvie in the below post:

 Although the CDC’s mendacity rivaled the FDA’s snarkiness, neither came close to what Fauci did next. Three days after the CDC memo, he was trotted out on national TV with CNN’s Jake Tapper to discuss the topic of ivermectin. Fauci had his talking points firmly committed to memory because, if you watch the interview here (44 seconds long), he rather clumsily says essentially the same “talking point” twice as below:

 Not-so-fun-fact: the below shows the existing evidence base for ivermectin on the day Fauci went on CNN:

 Then three days after Fauci’s lies on national television (isn’t it curious these first “actions” were spaced apart by three days?), three professional societies (the American Medical Association, The American Pharmacists Association, and the American Society of Hospital Pharmacists) issued a bulletin “calling for an immediate end to prescribing, dispensing, and using ivermectin to prevent or treat Covid-19 outside clinical trials.”

 Wow, the health system was having a hissy fit weren’t they? Why did they never do this when oxycontin was slaying hundreds of thousands over the past decade?
 Now here is where I need to introduce the massive PR firm Weber Shandwick:

 Weber Shandwick, interestingly, worked simultaneously for the CDC, Pfizer, and Moderna. Thus, I maintain that, two days after the CDC memo, it was Weber Shandwick that planted an absurd and easily disprovable (and also viral) “click bait” story in Rolling Stone that many of you may remember:

 Although nothing about this is funny, but you do have to laugh at the absurd images that comes to my mind as I read that headline. I am forced to picture people waiting in lines holding their hands over a gushing belly shot, blood dripping on their shoes while ivermectin overdose patients are wheeled past them in gurneys. Too funny. But it gets even funnier. This is the picture that accompanied the Rolling Stones tweet about the article:

 So people are wearing winter coats and hats and shivering with arms crossed… in early September in Oklahoma? Clown world. I think Weber Shandwick needs to up their game.
 Anyway, the next day the hospital where this supposedly occurred put a statement on their website that the doctor quoted in the article had not worked there for many months and that they had not had a single ivermectin overdose. Remember the line "a lie can travel halfway across the world before the truth can get its pants on?"
 Despite the brazen and easily debunked story, Rolling Stone… never retracted the article. Wait what? Instead, they changed the headline to the below absurdity:

 The “new” article was filled with the lies the CDC was telling the previous week about how dangerous ivermectin is (for those not in the know, ivermectin is literally one of, if not THE safest FDA approved medicine in history). Check out this table by Professor Paul Marik which I updated last week:

 **My next post will detail the astonishing safety record of ivermectin in support of another statement that Dr. Hoffe made.
 Now that “the Science” established by the CDC, (P)FDA and Dr. Fauci was so clearly established, i.e. that ivermectin was meant for horses and is ineffective and dangerous, the media went nuts. Major corporate controlled media outlets blared false and derogatory headlines for weeks, using all sources and forms of mass media. The late night talk show hosts really had a field day with endless jokes about ivermectin and the quack, fringe, anti-vax doctors and patients using it:

 My favorite headline from the above was about how Jimmy Kimmel returned from his summer vacation “to find Americans taking horse dewormer.” Hilarious.
 What wasn’t funny is that, despite him being a comedian, Joe Rogan decided to get Covid right in the middle of this hellish propaganda campaign. He then publicly mentioned in a widely circulated video that one of the numerous therapies he took was ivermectin (Hey Joe, I am proud of you and your doctor for using a combination of synergistic therapies!):

 As you can see above, he then became the poster boy for the newly stoked anti-ivermectin mania. I love the phrase in the headline “unproven horse dewormer.” Redundancy has its strengths I suppose.
 The CDC memo and the FDA tweet and the media blitz basically triggered a situation where many Americans were suddenly being deprived access to ivermectin. Very soon nearly every retail corporate pharmacist in the country stopped filling, and almost all the large hospital systems removed it from their formulary.
 To wit, at that time I was working in the ICU at a hospital in central Wisconsin (Aspirus Wausau). Right in the middle of the PR campaign, the Chief Medical Officer came and found me and told me that the Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committee was meeting to discuss whether ivermectin should still be on the formulary. Knowing that I was literally one of the world experts in the use of ivermectin in Covid, he invited me to debate the hospital’s infectious disease pharmacist/clown at the upcoming monthly meeting.
 I detailed that debate in this post below:

 The short version of that debate story is that even though I felt I won the debate, the committee decided to remove ivermectin from the formulary and I was no longer able to treat my dying Covid patients in the ICU with it. Didn’t really matter because I was let go shortly after. Good times.
 However, unlike in Canada, where the government and its regulatory bodies threatened punishments to the physicians and pharmacists, we in the U.S were much more fortunate for one reason: we had a system of independant compounding pharmacies which had long tired of corrupt governmental over-reach and corruption and near uniformly filled ivermectin prescriptions.
 We early treatment doctors simply built lists of “safe haven” pharmacies. However, in Europe, just like in Canada, even when there were compounding pharmacies, the pharmacists did not fill. It was so bad that in Switzerland for instance, one Swiss physician told me the only way to get ivermectin was off the black market where the price for a single 12 mg tablet was as much as 50 euro. This, to me, is the most convincing evidence of ivermectin’s efficacy. Who would pay 50 euro for a tiny tablet that didn’t work?
 Now, let’s get to the point of this post which is my defense of Dr. Hoffe’s statement that, because the government in Canada so severely restricted access to the medicine, he thought it reasonable to use liquid veterinary versions.
 Subscribe now

 ** To readers, know that I devoted an immense amount of effort in compiling this report. I plan to do the same pro-bono for any doctor who needs it, even though each case requires an independent report that takes hours. If you appreciate what I am doing for doctors, support in the form of paid subscriptions would be greatly appreciated.
 DR. HOFFE’S STATEMENT REGARDING ACCESS TO IVERMECTIN:
 Statement (e). In an interview presented by Quo Vadis (“QV TV”), video of which was posted online on or around October 2021, at 02:30:58 - 02:31:39, in response to the question, “what is the best approach with a doctor that is pro-vax uh, or will not prescribe ivermectin?”, Dr. Hoffe stated:
 “Yeah well now, no doctors are allowed to prescribe ivermectin in BC or Alberta. If you can find somebody [inaudible] in another province, they might, but most doctors will not because they’re afraid of getting investigated by their college.” Someone in the audience asked, “how do we buy it then?”. Dr. Hoffe stated, “[inaudible] you can go to a feed store that sells stuff for livestock and tell them you’ve got a herd of sheep and you need ivermectin [laughter from the audience]. Someone from the audience stated, “that’s a serious question”. Dr. Hoffe stated, “Yeah, no, and I’m being serious. That’s a serious [inaudible] you literally, the government is forcing people to use veterinary products”.
 The accuracy and soundness of Dr. Hoffe’s statement regarding access to ivermectin can only be understood in the context of the Disinformation campaign I described at the beginning of this report.
 I am a physician who has treated over a 1,000 Covid patients with ivermectin since October 2020 and am regularly in communication with a network of ivermectin experts and researchers globally. I can attest that the ability of patients in many countries to access ivermectin became increasingly difficult over time.
 In the United States, I observed an abrupt change in my ability to prescribe ivermectin through retail pharmacies whereby suddenly pharmacists all over the country began to refuse to fill valid prescriptions. This change was most pronounced immediately following what I call “the Horse Dewormer PR Campaign” which began in late August of 2021 (Chapter 33, the “War on Ivermectin,” Exhibit C). That sequence of actions and events led to the publication on Sept. 1, 2021 of a joint statement by the American Medical Association, the American Pharmacists Association, and the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists whereby they “ strongly oppose the ordering, prescribing, or dispensing of ivermectin to prevent or treat COVID-19 outside of a clinical trial.”
 Other countries and regions, like in BC and Alberta went further by threatening the licenses of physicians who prescribed ivermectin. Such actions effectively restricted the ability of acutely ill Covid patients to access what I have shown in the earlier section of this report to be a life-saving drug. Physicians who were aware of the vast extent of data proving its life-saving efficacy were thus placed put into a difficult ethical situation given that, as Dr. Hoffe correctly mentions, their governing bodies caused this “blockade” to happen.
 Given that the Hippocratic Oath to which we physicians abide includes the statement, “I will do no harm or injustice to them (patients),” such a mandate left few options for an ethical physician to navigate in the situation of a restriction of access to human forms of ivermectin.
 Know that Dr. Hoffe’s statement was made in October of 2021, prior to the availability of paxlovid or molnupiravir, thus it must be understood that there was no other easily accessible treatment options (i.e. monoclonal antibodies) available with demonstrated efficacy. So, a physician faced with caring for a patient with a potentially life-threatening illness without timely access to monoclonal antibodies (i.e. must be given within 5 days from first symptoms) and with the knowledge of the superiority of ivermectin’s efficacy would be left with only one option: they could simply offer supportive care only and hope deterioration and death would not occur, or they could attempt to gain access to a veterinary version of a life-saving therapy for their patient.
 As a U.S citizen, I was in a much better position than Dr. Hoffe in that I found that our system of independent, small business, compounding pharmacies with rare exceptions, routinely filled my valid prescriptions.. Many of us early treatment experts began circulating lists of “safe pharmacies” that would fill our prescriptions and would not report us to regulatory bodies. Dr. Hoffe did not have that option.
 In my book, The War on Ivermectin, Chapter 43, “Testimonials,” I included several testimonials sent to me of patients who rapidly recovered after taking animal versions of ivermectin, and further testimonials by family members who “snuck in” animal versions to treat patients in hospitals who also reported significant recoveries.
 Further, although we know that animal sources of ivermectin are not manufactured to the same quality standard as human versions, I am aware of only a handful of reports of adverse events related to use of animal versions, and they generally involve miscalculating doses, however I am not aware of any data showing that the human version was then better tolerated. Adverse effects can happen with the human version as well.
 One fact to be aware of is that the liquid formulations of animal ivermectin that Hoffe was referring to generally contain only three ingredients –1% ivermectin, 40% glycerin formal, and propylene glycol.
 Glycerin formal has excellent performance and is harmless to human body and has no toxic and side effects. Propylene glycol is considered generally safe by US and European authorities. There is only one documented case of propylene glycol toxicity that was caused by excessive alcohol intake. Despite this knowledge, I agree that none of the animal products are manufactured to human standards nor are they tested in humans. Thus, there is a theoretical risk of harm to a human from using an animal product. However, I would maintain that the risk is likely a trivial one based on my knowledge of many physicians across the world who reported to me that they were forced to rely on prescribing animal versions due to lack of access to human version, and along with the many patients who reported to me that they prophylaxed with ivermectin on a weekly or biweekly basis throughout the pandemic with liquid ivermectin. I have even used it myself without incident.
 Know that physicians, when making treatment decisions, must balance the risks and benefits of a particular treatment as well as a consideration of alternatives to the treatment. In the situation of having the responsibility to care for a patient with a potentially life-threatening disease, in a situation where your governmental regulatory agencies have restricted access to a very safe, life-saving treatment,  I find it not only practical but admirable that a physician would attempt to guide patients with a route to accessing a medicine that could save their lives.
 This is a challenging ethical situation with no easy answers. Although I am glad I personally never had to recommend someone use an animal version of ivermectin, had I been in a situation like Dr. Hoffe and other doctors that were in British Columbia, I personally would not have hesitated to recommend patients to get access to the animal version.
 It is the least worst option in my opinion. I have seen too many people die or become disabled from Covid infections. I know of no deaths or disability resulting from ivermectin. I remind the reader and the College that this situation was not created by Dr. Hoffe. He simply attempted to provide the most sound guidance on how to navigate this situation. I again lay blame at the feet of the pharmaceutical industry and public health agencies and professional societies who consistently chose not to critically or expertly assess the evidence for ivermectin like I have done above. It is they who should be litigated against and punished. Not Dr. Hoffe.

 Subscribe now
 P.S If you appreciate what I am doing for doctors, support in the form of paid subscriptions would be greatly appreciated (am currently in deep on another defense of a doctor being persecuted by the Washington Medical Board)..
 Subscribe now
 P.P.S Our 3rd Annual FLCCC. Medical Conference is coming up! Come on down to Phoenix, I cannot tell you how not only informative they are, but also how spiritually and socially restorative as the community has some of the best people ever in it.

 Gather with like-minded people from across the world, learn from leading medical experts and health freedom advocates, meet healthcare professionals, and take charge of your health and well-being!
 -Also proud to report that my book has gained Best Seller status on and off in several countries and is climbing up the U.S Amazon rankings, If any of you have bought and read the book, please leave a review on Amazon? Thanks! Link:

Summary: The Canadian government severely restricted access to ivermectin by its citizens. Dr. Hoffe thus felt it appropriate for Canadians to obtain veterinary sources of ivermectin. I defend that view.


The Debate of Covid Science Part 2: A Team of Covid Experts Debate The Opinions Of BC's College Of Physicians And Surgeons

For those of you who have read  Part 1  of my expert defense testimony of Dr. Hoffe, I suggest scrolling down to the first “subscribe” button below (hint, hint), given the introduction to this post is identical. ( I did this so each post can stand on its own).

 Canadian community doctor Dr. Charles Hoffe was one of the first doctors to notice something was “wrong” with the vaccines in April 2021 after he witnessed terrible injuries (strokes, etc.) and a death in the patients he was vaccinating. He then wrote an open letter to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia with his observations and concerns, suggesting that perhaps the jabs should be put on pause until their safety could be more assured. One paragraph from his letter said:
 “In our small community of Lytton, BC, we have one person dead, and three people who look as though they will be permanently disabled, following their first dose of the Moderna vaccine. The age of those affected ranges from 38 to 82 years of age.”
 *For more background, click the tweet below by Dr. Mark Trozzi, another persecuted Canadian doctor for a summary of what is happening to Hoffe and a powerful speech by Dr. Hoffe.

 Through FOIA obtained emails, Hoffe and his lawyer discovered that the College’s  first and only internal response  was to find someone to report Dr. Hoffe for writing the letter. There is no evidence of any concern for the patients nor a request or investigation into Hoffe’s patient records. They instead simply told him each report was a “coincidence” and that it was best if he stops talking about this issue in the hospital. Both shocking and unsurprising, I know.
 Hoffe was then banned from working in the local emergency ward and other provincial hospitals. He later submitted more than a dozen claims of vaccine injuries on behalf of his patients, but all were denied validity.
 He then rightly continued to speak out publicly, and the three mainstream media outlets in Canada (there are only 3) have, in turn, viciously and repeatedly done hit jobs on him, making him appear as the least credible doctor in the country (which my readers know well is a censoring tactic, i.e., making truth-tellers appear as un-credible as possible so no one will listen to or believe them.)
 More recently, the College began an investigation into Dr. Hoffe for numerous public comments he has made since his letter. This is a summary of the supposedly inaccurate statements made by Dr. Hoffe:
 6.1. Patient Safety and Experimental Nature ........................................................................... 23
 6.2. Potential Harms to Fertility in Women .............................................................................. 27
 6.3. Myocarditis in Children .................................................................................................... 30
 6.4. Ivermectin for Treatment and Prophylaxis ........................................................................ 33
 6.5. Ivermectin Access ............................................................................................................ 36
 6.6. Harms to Pregnant Women .............................................................................................. 39
 6.7. Microscopic Clotting ........................................................................................................ 42
 6.8. Adverse Events Following Immunization ........................................................................... 46
 6.9. Harms to Children ............................................................................................................ 50
 6.10. Vaccine Shedding ............................................................................................................. 53
 6.11. Statement (1). April 4, 2021, email to Dr. Carol Fenton from Dr. Charles Hoffe................... 56
 6.12. Statement (2). April 5, 2021, open letter to Dr. Bonnie Henry from Dr. Charles Hoffe ......... 60
 6.13. Statement (3). April 21, 2021, email to Dr. Carol Fenton from Dr. Charles Hoffe ................. 64

 The College then hired an “expert” named Dr. Trevor Corniel, who submitted a 151-page report with a whopping 191 references. In that report he argues that each and every public statement made by Dr. Hoffe on the above topics was “incorrect,” “misleading,” and “inflammatory” and violated both the College’s “Prudence Standard” and “Harm Reduction Standard.” Know that these “standards” are ethical codes of conduct that members of the College must abide by (remember ethics?). In my expert opinion, I argue that Corneil (knowingly or unknowingly) amassed data from fraudulent peer-reviewed literature and captured public health agency recommendations to support his conclusions that Hoffe is in violation of practice standards.
 If Dr. Hoffe were to be found guilty as argued by Dr. Corniel, he is at risk of losing his livelihood (license) and could be fined up to $100,000. So, they want to end his career and then take his money? I wonder how many future doctors will speak up against the next Big Pharma-Government fraud in Canada once Hoffe’s fate becomes well-publicized? As far as I can tell, Canada only had less than a handful of publicly outspoken doctors and scientists in Canada during COVID (Charles Hoffe, Byram Bridle, Mark Trozzi, Paul Alexander, and William Makis - if I am leaving anyone out, I apologize). However, good luck hearing advice from un-conflicted doctors in the next pandemic.
 **Since first posting this, subscribers have sent me other names of outspoken and/or persecuted Canadian docs and scientists so the list is larger than I thought: Rochagne Killian, Patrick Phillips, Chris Shoemaker, Daniel Nagase, Rodger Hodkinson, Patrick Phillips, Chris Milburn, Laura Braden, Michael Palmer, Crystal Luchkiw, Francis Christian, Dr. Steven Pelech, Dr. Chris Shaw, Dr. Howard Tenenbaum, Dr. Ira Bernstein ( how could I forget Ira!? ), Dr. Bonnie Mallard, and Dr. Linda Rapson.
 Anyway, Hoffe’s lawyer, Lee Turner of Doak Shirreff Lawyers LLP in Kelowna, B.C., engaged me to defend a number of Hoffe’s statements regarding ivermectin and shedding. I was proud to learn I was joining an All-Star team of medical dissident experts defending him, such as Jessica Rose, Peter McCullough, Kevin McKernan, etc. I plan to ask them to also post their expert reports on Substack, and I will create a central post linked to all for those interested.
 Of note, Lee has been practicing trial law in British Columbia for 30 years and is experienced in administrative, public health, and personal injury law. He has been very busy in Covid as he has represented numerous nurses, physicians and other health care providers and individuals who were negatively impacted by Canadian Covid-19 public health measures and mandates (which as you know were far more draconian than here in the U.S.)
 I elected to do the case pro-bono and began by reading Corneil’s “expert” report, which viciously and repeatedly attacked Hoffe for his many  accurate  statements. I was so infuriated after reading it, I said to myself, “Game on (expletive)” and immediately launched into a writing and researching frenzy over the last five days, and I would say I put over 20 hours of work into my report. It is 47 single-spaced pages with who knows how many hyperlinked references.
 I hope I am not being too full of myself, but I want to share what Lee Turner wrote to me after he read it:
 “Pierre, I don't even know how to express how incredible the information in your report is.  It is one of the most thorough and well-written expert reports I have read in my 30 year career. And I have read a lot of expert reports.  I made a few minor corrections to spelling, and adding in punctuation (periods, commas or colons) and that was it. I think it is very well written and contains powerful evidence.“
 Let’s go through Count #2 against Dr. Hoffe shall we? (Defense of  Count #1 is here )

 EXPERT REPORT - Dr. Pierre Kory, MD, MPA
 Dear Mr. Turner,
 I acknowledge correspondence from you dated November 3, 2023, asking me to formulate an independent professional opinion concerning the safety and effectiveness of ivermectin as a treatment and prophylaxis for SARS-CoV-2 (Covid-19), as well as the science regarding Covid-19 vaccine “shedding.”
 You have asked me to comment on the opinion expressed by the “expert”, Dr. Trevor Corneil, relied upon by the College concerning these issues in his report dated September 26, 2022, specifically in sections 6.4, 6.5 and 6.10 of his report.
 I am aware of my duty to assist the panel, and I am not an advocate for any party. I have prepared this report with this in mind and am happy to testify in any setting to address questions regarding the matter.
 I attach as Appendix B, a copy of your letter of instruction, including the list of documents which I have reviewed in forming my opinion.
 Response To Section 6.4 of Dr. Trevor Corneil’s Expert Opinion
 My first comment on Dr. Corneil’s report is that he carefully defines the following terms: “misleading”, “incorrect”, and “inflammatory” and then judges Dr. Hoffe’s statement in relation to meeting the definitions of each term above. He then follows each statement’s characterization according to these terms with his opinion as to whether Dr. Hoffe’s statements meet the College’s “Prudence and Harm Prevention” standards.
 Similarly, for the below expert report, understanding the arguments I put forth requires knowledge of the word “disinformation.” The Oxford English dictionary definition is “ a form of propaganda involving the dissemination of false information with the deliberate intent to deceive or mislead. ”
 Understanding my below expert opinion and how I arrived at it also requires the knowledge that disinformation has been long deployed by select corporations across a range of industries. In the article called “ The Disinformation Playbook ”, written by the Union of Concerned Scientists, they write, “Corporations manipulate science and scientists to distort the truth about their products, using a set of tactics made famous decades ago by the tobacco industry. We call these tactics the Disinformation Playbook.” As you read through all the disinformation campaigns they cite in the article, you realize that the pharmaceutical industry is over-represented in that list.
 An important point to understand about disinformation tactics is that corporations deploy them when “science emerges that is inconvenient to their interests.”  The Disinformation Playbook was first developed in the 1950’s by the tobacco industry to scientifically counter the emerging reports of greatly increased incidences of cancers in smokers. They successfully used disinformation for 50 years until the Master Settlement in 1995 with the US Attorney Generals of 50 states.
 As one of the world experts in the use of ivermectin in the prevention and treatment of Covid-19, my first review paper called “Review of the Emerging Evidence Demonstrating Efficacy of Ivermectin in the Prevention and Treatment of Covid-19” is one of the most popular published scientific papers of the last 15 years with an  altmetric score  ranking it the 10 th  most popular paper out of the last 25 million papers published.
 Based on my intensive study of the ivermectin evidence base, including in-vitro, in-vivo, clinical and epidemiological studies, the evidence for efficacy is overwhelming, with, as of today, January 10, 2023, results available from 100 controlled clinical trials, 47 of them randomized, with meta-analysis data finding statistically significant, large magnitude reductions in mortality, hospitalization, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance.
 However, Dr. Corneil, along with numerous public health agencies and professional societies across the world’s advanced health economies, consistently ignore or systematically dismiss and distort the evidence of efficacy based on the widespread “opinion” that the evidence base represents “low-quality” evidence that should not be relied on. This is a well-known Disinformation tactic called “the Diversion” where the pharmaceutical industry co-opts  third-party agencies and organizations to “manufacture uncertainty where little or none exists.”
 The reasons for the Disinformation campaign against ivermectin are multiple. First is that knowledge of ivermectin’s efficacy in both prevention and treatment would have led to the revocation of the EUA supporting the massive Covid vaccine market in the United States and across the world.  Second, it would also increase what  public health authorities perceived  as the #1 enemy in the pandemic, that of “vaccine hesitancy.” A third reason is that knowledge of ivermectin’s efficacy would greatly decrease profits from the competing, patented, highly-profitable Covid medicines such as remdesivir, paxlovid and molnupiravir.
  The article “The Disinformation Playbook” names and defines the main Disinformation tactics. The most prominent disinformation tactics deployed against ivermectin have been extensively documented in my book called “The War on Ivermectin.” The tactics described from their 2017 article are as follows:
 1)     The Fake:
 a.     using fraudulent studies designed to achieve predetermined results [against ivermectin]
 b.     censoring the publication of positive studies [of ivermectin in prominent medical journals]
 c.     selectively publishing only negative studies [of ivermectin in prominent medical journals]
 2)     The Blitz:
 Harassing scientists who speak out with positive results [for ivermectin]

 3)     The Diversion :
 Using front groups and third-party organizations to “manufacture uncertainty where little or none exists” [about the efficacy and safety of ivermectin]

 4)     The Screen :
 Buying credibility through alliances with academia or professional societies [recommending against ivermectin].

 5)     The Fix :
 Manipulating government officials or processes to inappropriately influence policy [against ivermectin].

 For the purposes of this report, I will focus mostly on the first tactic above called “The Fake,” which largely focuses on the behavior of high-impact medical journals in their “selective” publication of brazenly manipulated trials intended to reach a “predetermined result.”
 Another aspect of “The Fake” disinformation tactic is “censoring reports of positive studies.” Evidence of dozens of rejection letters to investigators of positive studies of ivermectin can be found in Chapter 28 of my book, “The War on Ivermectin” (Exhibit B). In Chapter 27 (Exhibit C), I detail unprecedented examples of positive peer-reviewed papers on ivermectin being retracted without accusations of fraud or plagiarism. My paper was one of them, and this action was unprecedented in the cumulative 120 years of  my co-author’s and my careers.
 The behavior of the medical journals in regard to ivermectin was, in my opinion, the foundation of the entire global disinformation campaign and has most contributed to the widespread, false beliefs regarding ivermectin that are held by the global medical community.
 So, to understand the context of the numerous brazen and fraudulent manipulations of the published data on ivermectin that I will describe in my report, I think it is important that the College understand that the high-impact journals are nearly completely under the control of the pharmaceutical industry.
 For support of my statement above that “Big Pharma” exerts immense influence of our most respected medical journals, I will reference the book written in 2001 by the former 20-year Editor-in-Chief of the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), Dr. Marcia Angell (she was also the first woman to serve in this role.) The book is called “Drug Companies & Doctors: A Story of Corruption.”
 A  well-cited statement  of Dr. Angell is:
 “ 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.”
 Dr. Relman, another former editor-in-chief of the NEJM, said this in 2002:
 “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 :
 “The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and  flagrant conflicts of interest , together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness”

 THE EVIDENCE CITED BY DR. CORNIEL
 Let’s begin to examine the evidence cited by Dr. Corniel in his contrary opinion to Dr. Hoffe’s statement that ivermectin is effective in Covid-19.
 Statement by Dr. Charles Hoffe (d).  Dr. Hoffe stated in an interview with Laura-Lynn Tyler Thompson, video of which was posted online on or around July 6, 2021, at 20:45 – 21:23:
 “ …There are brilliant, very, very safe, very effective treatments for Covid, and for the medical authorities to tell them that they have to go home and do nothing is is utter negligence. … And for people to say that it is it is safer to do nothing than to take something like ivermectin, which is unbelievably safe – I mean, in many countries, it’s available without prescription, I mean it’s safer than aspirin, it really is safer than aspirin, um, so it is absolutely absurd [inaudible] that this is being denied from people”.
 In Dr. Corneil’s assessment of the accuracy of Dr. Hoffe’s statement, he concludes the following in regard to the use of ivermectin to prevent or treat Covid-19:
 Prior and current evidence strongly suggest that Ivermectin is  neither a safe nor effective treatment or prophylaxis for Covid-19 illness . A meta-analysis published in April 2021 urged caution as available trials investigating the use of ivermectin for prophylaxis against Covid-19 exhibited a serious risk of bias and imprecision.141 A Cochrane systematic review conducted in July 2021 noted that the reliable evidence available did not support the use of ivermectin for treatment or prevention of Covid-19.142 Recently, a double blind randomized clinical trial of over 1400 patients observed that administering ivermectin did not prevent the occurrence of serious outcomes, hospitalizations or death from Covid-19.143 The World Health Organization issued a recommendation on March 31, 2021 against the use of ivermectin for patients with Covid-19, regardless of disease severity, except in the context of a clinical trial.144 On Oct. 19, 2021, Health Canada issued a public advisory not to use ivermectin to prevent or treat Covid-19.145

 From the above, it is clear that Dr. Corneil cited only two studies to support his assertion that “ Prior and current evidence strongly suggest that Ivermectin is neither a safe nor effective treatment or prophylaxis for Covid-19 illness. ”
 I think it is important that we carefully review the innumerable deficiencies, anomalies, and limitations of the two papers he cited to support the above statement.
 In terms of meta-analyses, Dr. Corneil chose to cite only the Cochrane Review of ivermectin by Popp et al. I am concerned that he selectively relied on a single “supposedly negative” meta-analysis and ignored multiple supportive meta-analyses such as  Hariyonto et al .,  Babalola et al .,  Bryant et al ., and  Kory et al . I must ask the question as to why an “expert” would ignore such a large, positive evidence base in drawing his conclusions?
 Let us begin by analyzing the Cochrane review. First off, Popp et al. excluded dozens of observational controlled trials (“OCT’s”) from their meta-analysis.
 The College must be aware that there is no evidence to support the growing practice of systematically excluding OCT’s from systematic reviews and meta-analyses. In fact, it is in violation of evidence based medicine (“EBM”), given that it willfully ignores decades of research which have found, on average, that  OCT’s and RCT’s reach the same conclusions.
 From the  definitive Cochrane review  on this topic, the authors conclude that “factors other than study design  per se  need to be considered when exploring reasons for a lack of agreement between results of RCTs and observational studies.” Further, prominent professional societies have issued  policy statements  to reverse this practice by concluding, from their analyses of controlled trial designs, that “ observational studies should be considered in developing clinical practice guidelines and in making clinical decisions .” Lastly, until Covid, the WHO routinely relied on more diverse sources of data and trial designs to inform their treatment recommendations.
 Finally, know that none of the positive meta-analyses arbitrarily excluded such a large portion of the evidence base. One expert  systematic review group’s critique  of Popp et al.’s review, aptly titled their paper “The Uses and Abuses of Systematic Reviews.”
 I maintain that excluding OCT’s is a form of disinformation in that OCT’s can be done for little to no funds by independent investigators free of pharmaceutical conflicts of interests. The known and explicit bias of the massive funders of large RCT’s are rarely present in OCT’s. I maintain that is why the pharmaceutical industry and  its high-impact medical journals have increasingly avoided publishing OCT’s in the last decade.
 Further, another astonishing violation of EBM is the repeated insistence that “low quality” trials be ignored. The reality is that there is no published evidence that I am aware of that finds that “low quality” controlled trials reach different conclusions than “high quality” controlled trials. In fact, there is only  one paper  I know of that compared the conclusions of what current EBM grading systems determine is low quality and high quality. In  that paper , they found that low-quality and high-quality trials also reach the same conclusions on average.
 Thus, it is my strongly-held, evidence-based opinion that the systematic ignoring of both OCT’s and “low quality trials” are instead fraudulent efforts to create the myth that only “Big RCT’s” that require massive funding can determine “scientific truth” or “scientific consensus.”
 In the below expert opinion, I will provide extensive evidence that the bias of the funders of those “big RCT’s” essentially determine the results of the RCT’s and those results are then used to establish a fraudulent “scientific consensus.” This occurs when the “real science” I described above reaches conclusions that are “inconvenient to the interests of the pharmaceutical industry.” I suspect that many members of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons are unaware of how rife disinformation is or of the studies I just presented regarding the soundness of non-RCT derived evidence.
 In contrast to Dr. Corneil and the numerous professional society recommendations he cites, many independent experts like me have, in line with this knowledge of the equivalence of OCT findings and RCT findings and high quality and low-quality trials, chosen to rely upon a “totality-of-the-evidence standard” and include data from OCT’s and supposed “lower-quality” trials. This practice is the most adherent to the foundational principles of Evidence Based Medicine (EBM).
 Recall that in the 1980’s, responding to the need to overturn entrenched dogmas with scientific evidence, Gordon Guyatt coined the term “evidence-based medicine” (“EBM”). Then in 1996, David L Sackett published a widely-cited article defining exactly what EBM was: the conscientious, explicit, and judicious use of current best evidence in making decisions about the care of individual patients.
 Notice how Sackett does not define current best evidence as “RCT’s only”:
 “By best available external clinical evidence we mean (Ed: all?) clinically relevant research, often from the basic sciences of medicine, but especially from  patient centered clinical research  into the accuracy and precision of diagnostic tests (including the clinical examination), the power of prognostic markers, and the efficacy and safety of therapeutic, rehabilitative, and preventive regimens. External clinical evidence both invalidates previously accepted diagnostic tests and treatments and replaces them with new ones that are more powerful, more accurate, more efficacious, and safer.”
 Put differently, Sackett proposed that three different considerations that needed to be weighted equally in evidence-based clinical practice:
 •Patient Values
 •Clinical Expertise
 •Relevant Research
 In terms of relevant research, the summary analyses of the RCT’s alone, the OCT’s alone, and their combined evidence base, all find highly statistically significant reductions in mortality, hospitalization, time to viral clearance, and time to clinical recovery. Yet, the agencies and societies across the world all ignored the OCT’s and included only a subset of the RCT’s.
 It is my professional opinion that these actions were willfully committed as a disinformation tactic to “arrive at a pre-determined result”, which is to find that ivermectin is ineffective in preventing Covid-19 for the reasons I stated above. It should be unsurprising to know that the high-impact journals were under immense pressure from Big Pharma to support the vaccination campaign, and distorting and suppressing the evidence base for ivermectin (and hydroxychloroquine) was critical in that effort. Dr. Hoffe was almost certainly aware of this reality given his statement above is clearly supported by an expert knowledge of the available trials data.

 Subscribe now

 ** To readers, know that I devoted an immense amount of effort in compiling this report which took me away from many other responsibilities, not least of which was my family. I plan to do the same pro-bono for any doctor who needs it, even though each case requires an independent report that takes hours. If you appreciate what I am doing for doctors, support in the form of paid subscriptions would be greatly appreciated.
 IVERMECTIN IN THE TREATMENT OF Covid-19
 The main tactic that agencies and “experts” like Dr. Corneil use to reject extensive evidence in favor of the use of ivermectin in Covid-19 is to isolate a few negative studies and attempt to highlight them without acknowledging the substantial body of trials contributing data for a substantial meta-analysis.
 Of the 42 RCTs available to Dr. Corneil at the time of his report, Dr. Corneil simply cited one “negative” RCT (Bramante et al.) and one Cochrane systematic review from July of 2021 (over a year prior to the submission of his report). Why did he not rely on the most up-to-date evidence?
 The overall tracking of the studies along with a real-time meta-analysis of not only ivermectin but also dozens of other Covid therapies using the same inclusion and meta-analysis protocol can be found at  c19early.com . The results  for ivermectin  in treatment of Covid as of today, January 10, 2023, are based on 83 controlled trials (17 of the 100 below are in prevention and  were reviewed in the previous section.) Note the Forest plots showing the meta-analysis findings to the right in the below figure:

 It is widely believed that meta-analyses (summary analysis of all individual trials data) represent stronger evidence than a single study or small collection of studies. I am concerned at the outset that multiple supportive meta-analyses were ignored by Dr. Corneil such as  Hariyonto et al .,  Babalola et al .,  Bryant et al ., and  Kory et al .
 In addition, the ivermectin meta-analysis performed by the WHO was ignored by Dr. Corneil. Let’s examine that one first.
 The screenshot below is from the  WHO Guideline on Therapeutics and Covid-19 (which has not been updated in over two and a half years despite the evidence base now including 47 RCT’s). As you can see, the WHO only included 6 RCT’s that studied mortality as an endpoint when there were results from 26 RCT’s available at the time (the below screenshot is taken from the Internet archive of ivmmeta.com on March 31, 2021):

 Note that from the six studies they included, the WHO found that there were 70 deaths per 1000 in the standard-of-care treated patients versus 14 deaths per 1000 in ivermectin treated patients, leading to a statistically significant  81% reduction in mortality.  The chart below is from the WHO guideline document:

 In the “Certainty of the Evidence” column, they graded the evidence as having “very serious imprecision.” Know that the independent expert systematic reviewer team of  Lawrie et al . that has long worked for the WHO, graded the quality of evidence higher. More recently, the authors argue that “downgrading the quality of the evidence to this degree based on imprecision is incorrect when the treatment effect is so large, the outcome prevented is  death , and the medicine is one of the safest, least expensive, and most widely available in the world.”
 Further, I, along with many other ivermectin experts, strongly disagree--and are deeply troubled by--the rationale put forward by the WHO Guideline Development Group for not recommending ivermectin to the world:
 “Applying the agreed values and preferences, the GDG [Guideline Development Group] inferred that  almost all well-informed patients would want to receive ivermectin only in the context of a randomized clinical trial [emphasis mine] ,  given that the evidence left a very high degree of uncertainty in effect on mortality , need for mechanical ventilation, need for hospitalization and other critical outcomes of interest and there was a possibility of harms, such as treatment-associated SAEs [serious adverse events] .”
 The College must understand that the WHO based their entire recommendation against ivermectin by arguing that acutely ill patients would rather participate in a placebo-controlled trial instead of immediately being treated with one of the safest medicines in history at a time that the WHO’s  best available evidence  found an 81% chance of reducing their chances of  dying .
 This is beyond absurd as most people on the planet would not have access to an RCT nor would most acutely ill patients refuse a potential life-saving therapy in favor of a placebo while in the face of a life-threatening illness. A much more appropriate and humane action would have been to issue a “weak” or “conditional” recommendation, which the ivermectin evidence clearly met WHO’s criteria for.
 Either way, Dr. Corniel ignored the WHO review and chose to cite only the Cochrane Review of ivermectin by Popp et al. and not the positive meta-analyses by  Hariyonto et al .,  Babalola et al .,  Bryant et al ., and  Kory et al . I must ask the question as to why an “expert” would ignore and/or “cherry pick” from such a huge supportive evidence base in drawing his conclusions?
 Most troubling about the only review Dr. Corneil chose is that Popp et al. only selected 14 of the 31 published studies available at the time, rejecting large studies with positive effects on questionable grounds, such as:
 ·       A demand that only studies with PCR testing be included even though availability and accuracy varied considerably, especially at the time;
 ·       Inconsistent rejection of comparators, such as disallowing trials against hydroxychloroquine even though it has been determined by these same reviewers to be [?] without clinical effect and thus could properly serve as a control/comparator group;
 ·       Exclusion of combination therapies even though that is how it is actually used in practice. A principal criticism the Popp authors had of favorable studies was inclusion of those that used doxycycline in the intervention arm, complaining that the impacts of doxycycline could not be separately determined. Popp, ibid. at 32-33. While there may be some sense to this, given complications such as pneumonia, if doxycycline had a significant therapeutic impact on Covid-19, we would  be living in a better world;
 ·       In five of the included studies in the unfavorable Popp review, subjects only received a single dose, which could not have possibly reached therapeutic levels and are not valid studies. Subjects only received the FLCCC-recommended dosing in five of the 14 studies. Ibid. The study authors expressly state that they were aware of the dosing issue but did not have sufficient information to look at dose-response curves, yet included low-dose studies in the analysis in any event;
 ·       Pre-defined (and essentially arbitrary) time points for outcome measures (28-day mortality, infection within 14 days) resulted in further exclusions; and
 ·       High risk of bias studies were rejected for “primary” analyses.
 The inclusion policies thus excluded much of the available trials yet Popp et al. still were not done whittling down the evidence base. They then  further fragmented the data by analyzing inpatient and outpatient data as separate comparisons , though the patients had the same disease and hospitalization criteria varied considerably according to local resource constraints.
 More anomalous actions occurred when more than a year later, Popp et al.  released an updated version . They somehow managed to add new criteria so that seven of the 14 studies they had included the previous year were no longer eligible. Even though new trials were added, they ended up with fewer studies in 2022 than in 2021.
 It is generally not good practice for a systematic review to modify its protocol between revisions—since it gives the impression of p-hacking taking place.
 This protocol modification led to even more problems. The new criterion—that did much of the heavy lifting in terms of exclusions—was the “trial registration” criterion, specifically the requirement that a trial be prospectively registered:

 They were quite clear that if the date of registration is not  before  the date of the enrollment of the first participant, the study should be excluded. In fact, on the basis of this criterion, they excluded several studies they had included in their 2021 edition of their systematic review. The excluded trials were: Abd-Elsalam, Biber, Chachar, Okumuş, and Shah Bukhari.
 The problem is that, despite this clearly-stated new exclusion criteria, they selectively ignored it by including the five largest studies,  all of which did not prospectively register their trial  prior to enrolling the first patients. The trials are TOGETHER, Vallejos, I-TECH, Kirti, and Gonzalez. By violating their own trial protocol, they invalidated the systematic review, since 2,582 of the 3,409 patients included did not qualify for inclusion.
 Another disturbing anomaly within the Popp et al. review is that the authors stated  “ serious adverse events (SAE) including vision problems, neurotoxicity and liver damage can occur”  though the cited source contains no such reports . Moreover, the considerable literature on safety is ignored (see next post).
 Finally, know that none of the positive meta-analyses arbitrarily excluded such a large portion of the evidence base. One expert  systematic review group’s critique  of Popp et al.’s aptly titled their paper “ The uses and abuses of systematic reviews. ”
 The only other study that Dr. Corneil cited was an RCT by Bramante et al., which was a “remote” phase 3, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial which included 1,431 patients.
 There is an almost innumerable amount of critical, severe, and major issues with this trial, as delineated in the analyses contained in the links below (click on these links to see the  c19rearly.com group ’s evidence of these issues):
 CRITICAL:  Ivermectin vs. placebo analysis - 61% lower hospitalization .

 CRITICAL:  Severity mismatch for ivermectin treatment but not for any other medication or control

 CRITICAL:  ER results unreliable, not related to symptoms

 CRITICAL:   Mismatch with reported death and symptoms

 CRITICAL:  Ivermectin vs. placebo symptoms consistent with efficacy

 CRITICAL:  Multiple outcomes missing, including time to recovery

 CRITICAL:   Hypoxemia results unreliable but prioritized

 CRITICAL:  Adverse events suggest authentic ivermectin not taken

 CRITICAL:  Major event counts differ between paper and registry

 CRITICAL:  Baseline data differs between paper and registry

 CRITICAL  Control group includes metformin, adjustment protocol violation

 CRITICAL:  Primary outcome changes

 CRITICAL:  All 7 secondary outcomes deleted

 CRITICAL:  Metformin/fluvoxamine conclusions opposite of Together Trial, but matching earlier studies on each team

 CRITICAL:  Author claims results from 596 researchers should be censored for false information

 CRITICAL  Administration on an empty stomach

 17 CRITICAL:  Results delayed 6 months (including life-saving metformin results)
 CRITICAL:  Subject to participant fraud

 SERIOUS:  Fewer comorbidities for serious outcomes

 20. SERIOUS:  Control arm results very different between treatments
 SERIOUS:  Covid-19 specific symptoms hidden in appendix

 SERIOUS:  Authors claim placebo is not better than the treatments

 SERIOUS:  Incorrect claim that no treatment reduced severity

 SERIOUS:  False conclusion

 SERIOUS:  Trial outcomes modified

 SERIOUS:  Very high percentage of missing data

 SERIOUS:  Medication delivery varied significantly

 SERIOUS:  Treatment 3 days for ivermectin, 14 days for metformin and fluvoxamine

 SERIOUS:  SAP dated after trial

 SERIOUS:  Test requirement and delivery prohibits early treatment

 SERIOUS:  Conclusion modified by journal

 SERIOUS:  Symptom results contradictory

 SERIOUS:  Adherence very low

 34: SERIOUs:  Inconsistent blinding statements
 SERIOUS:  Author indicates a best guess can be used for onset

 MAJOR: Ivermectin from source chosen has shown lower efficacy

 MAJOR:  Highest mean age for ivermectin, lowest for placebo

 MAJOR:  Adherence subgroups analysed but not reported

 39. UNKNOWN:  Maximum symptom duration not clear
 UNKNOWN:  No discontinuation due to hospitalization for ivermectin

 COMMENT:  Authors indicate up to 5 day delay in real-world usage

 I ask the College to recognize that, despite all of these severe, critical, and major issues identified in the c19early.com groups analysis of the study, it  sailed to publication in the highest-impact medical journal in the world .
 Thus, it is my opinion that the numerous above actions by the investigators essentially prove that this trial was an example of the Disinformation tactic called “The Fix,” whereby investigators conduct a trial with the intent of reaching pre-determined results, i.e., to show that ivermectin does not work.
 Further, I find it troubling that Dr. Corneil would rely on only a single RCT out of the 42 available to him at that time of his report as below (note date of this summary chart - September 2022):

 I must add here that the Bramante et al. study was not the only “Fix” within the ivermectin evidence base. Studies with similarly identified anomalies in the design and conduct of the trial include TOGETHER, Lopez-Vallejo, and the two ACTIV-6 trials but a discussion of their deficiencies are beyond the scope of this report.
 If interested, I refer you to Chapter 25 in my book called “Counterfeit Trials - The Big Six”, which provides significant documentation that the 6 largest studies referenced therein, all published in high-impact medical journals, were brazen examples of studies that were “designed and conducted with pre-determined results.”
 Finally, beyond the 83 controlled trials in treatment available (43 of them RCT’s) and the numerous positive meta-analyses, there are also a number of health ministry reports of early treatment programs with ivermectin, all showing large reductions in hospitalization or death. See:
 ·       La Misiones, Argentina  – Their Health Ministry analyzed the data from 4,000 ivermectin-treated patients and, compared to the rest of the population over the same time period, found a  75% reduction in need for hospital  and an  88% reduction in death .
 ·       Uttar Pradesh, India  – The government used a strategy of  close surveillance combined with both ivermectin  treatment of all positive cases and preventive treatment of all family contacts. On September 10, 2021,  only 11 cases with no deaths were recorded in a population  of 241 million with 67 of their 75 districts having no active cases at the time.
 ·       The Brazilian city of Itajai  –  They offered ivermectin as prevention to the entire city’s population with 133,051 (60%) agreeing to take ivermectin every two weeks for 6 months. Compared to the 45,716 city inhabitants that declined to use ivermectin, ivermectin  users were 47% less likely to contract illness, had a 70% lower mortality rate, and a 67% lower hospitalization rate. By the end of the 6 month program, the citywide Covid mortality fell from  6.8% to 1.8%.
 ·       La Pampas, Argentina  – The Health Ministry compared over 2,000 patients they treated early with ivermectin to over 12,000 without treatment and found that in patients over 40, rates of  ICU admission and death both fell by 40%.
 ·       Peru  – Their government conducted a nationwide mass-distribution program called “ Mega-Operación Tayta ” (MOT), initiated at various times across 25 states of Peru in May 2020, led to a 74% drop in regional excess deaths within a month, with  each drop  beginning 11 days after each MOT region’s varied start times.
 ·       The Health Ministry of Sultan Kudarat,  Philippines – They launched an ivermectin drive and  found that cases rapidly dropped by 86%.  compared to nearby regions.
 Finally,  23 countries (39 including NGO’s) have now given either partial or full approval  for use of Ivermectin to treat Covid, which encompasses 25% of the world’s population.
 Thus, based on the large and consistently positive evidence base from RCT’s, OCT’s, and health ministry reports, I find Dr. Hoffe’s statements on the efficacy of ivermectin to be fully supported by and consistent with the scientific evidence. I, thus, strongly disagree with Dr. Corneil’s conclusion.

 P.S. **Know that I devoted an immense amount of effort in compiling this report, which took me away from many other responsibilities, not least of which was my family. I plan to do the same pro-bono for any doctor who needs it, even though each case requires an independent report, which takes hours. If you appreciate what I am doing for doctors, support in the form of paid subscriptions would be greatly appreciated.
 Subscribe now
 Ok, more to come in subsequent posts detailing my expert report defending Dr. Hoffe. Stay tuned.
 P.P.S. Our 3rd Annual FLCCC. Medical Conference is coming up! Come on down to Phoenix. I cannot tell you how not only informative but also how spiritually and socially restorative these conferences are, as the community has some of the best people ever in it!

 Gather with like-minded people from across the world, learn from leading medical experts and health freedom advocates, meet healthcare professionals, and take charge of your health and well-being!
 -  I am also proud to report that my book has gained Best Seller status in several countries and is climbing up the U.S. Amazon rankings. If any of you have bought and read the book,  please leave a review on Amazon?  Thanks! Link:

Summary: The College's expert claimed that Dr. Hoffe's statement that "ivermectin was effective in the treatment of Covid" violated ethical standards. Here is my written expert defense testimony.