Establishing "Standards of Care" in Medicine - Part 1

This post originated from an early draft of a previous post (and Op-Ed on Foxnews.com ) criticizing California’s new law which makes it essentially “illegal” for doctors there to freely express their opinion on vaccines or other medical matters if they differ from the supposed “consensus.”
 In that initial post, I was trying to go deeper into the main language of the bill which was to “ revoke the license of any physician who expresses an opinion contradicted by contemporary scientific consensus to the standard of care.”
 Despite the fact that sentence is somewhat nonsensical, I ended up opining on the absurdity of determining the “standard of care” of a novel, rapidly evolving, insanely complex disease. I mean, how many “standards of care” in Covid have now been debunked or reversed? We know so little and need to know so much more, to pretend there could be such a thing as a “consensus” standard of care so early in a novel, bio-lab engineered disease was insane.
 As a result of my Covid journey, it is now my belief that “standards of care” such as the ubiquitous infusion of Remdesivir into every hospitalized American’s arm has nothing to do with science. Instead, the “standard of care” in Western medicine is that it is a “care requirement established by Big Pharma via manipulated trials, captured medical journals, Health Agency proclamations, and financial incentives instituted through the passage of federal legislation.”
 Science, which I always thought operated through methods such as “hypothesis, experimentation, discovery, innovation, debate, and free exchange” is no longer. Instead, these pre-determined, non-scientific care standards promoted by Big Pharma are enacted by servile bureaucrats intent on preserving their jobs, stature, and future employment (or grants or political campaign funding). I literally never could have imagined how controlled and corrupted the body of Medical science is, particularly around any therapeutic that either threatens or can explode Pharma’s profits.
 Anyway, the point is, my first draft started exploring my own career experiences with innovating and setting standards in my own specialty . I went deep into my own history but then I scrapped it because it got too personal and too far away from the issue I was trying to explore. But I saved it. Thinking I would share it in a later, separate post. Here goes (another motivation to write the below is that I needed to add some personal history to my soon-to-be completed book called “ The War on Ivermectin ”).

 My initial focus in that early draft post about the California law was on one of the core responsibilities of a physician, enshrined in the Hippocratic Oath, which is to add knowledge to the practice of medicine . I always took that part of the oath very seriously and essentially committed my career to it, not out of some moral or ethical imperative, but mostly because I loved teaching, clinical research, and clinical innovation. So I became what is called a “clinician educator,” i.e. someone who is heavily involved in both the care of patients and the teaching and researching of that knowledge and skill to physicians in training. What “outsiders” to Medicine may not know is that there are largely just three categories of doctors that take care of patients:
 A clinician - these are doctors either in private practice or, if they work in academic institutions or health systems, their entire work week is seeing patients or performing operations (if a surgeon). Occasionally, they may be asked to mentor a medical student or oversee a teaching service of residents for a few weeks a year. They do little to no research and are not paid for time spent teaching or mentoring students, residents or fellows. Their teaching obligations are usually a requirement for having privileges to admit to and/or operate at a hospital.

 Although some are brilliant and deeply read and are at the forefront of their field, most either have no incentives or time to keep up with the latest research, insights, or evolutions into care approaches and instead rely on the latest “guidelines” to be updated from their respective professional societies. Further, the lack of exposure to students and trainees that tend to ask a lot of challenging questions removes a motivation and incentive to stay on top of the latest literature or science (students and residents are often well-read up on emerging topics because they have the time and are eager to learn).

 A clinician-educator . These docs (like me) are only found in teaching hospitals or academic (university) medical centers. Although we have outpatient practices and/or run inpatient care services either on medical wards or ICU’s, the care we deliver is via an “apprentice” model.

 The apprentice model works as follows: our students and residents or fellows see our patients first and then they present to us the information they have gathered and the proposed care plan they have created. Then they observe us while we further evaluate and decide on the ultimate treatment approach of the patient. I talk to my patients and trainees at the same time - my trainees are listening and observing my patient interactions as I explain to both what I think the problem is and how I think we should further diagnose and/or treat. That is how they learn. It is how I learned (in my case, I was incredibly fortunate to have had the opportunity to observe absolute masters at the discipline). That is the apprenticeship model, and I had 15 years of apprentices under my belt. My days as a teaching physician in the ICU are best illustrated by the television show Dr. House - during patient care rounds, I was followed and listened to by a team of up to 12 trainees and/or ancillary specialties involved in the patient’s care like Pharmacy, Nutrition, Social Work, Respiratory, or Physical Therapy practitioners.

 Physician-Scientist - these doctors are only found in large, academic research institutions where their time is split between writing grant proposals for research funding, doing research, and publishing papers while also having either or both patient care and administrative responsibilities (such doctors often rise to various administrative leadership positions in these centers).

 Generally, in my experience, these doctors arrogantly considered themselves more valuable and/or expert than the others. I would agree that they are the most valued doctors by the academic institutions they work for, but I maintain they were far less valued by their patients. Why? Because they are “scientists” first - i.e. they have “labs” and they spend lots of time writing research grant funding proposals to major institutions like the NIH. When they win research funding, the institutions they work for receive a lot of money in those grants to pay overhead and other costs, and so they are heavily recruited by “the top academic medical centers” because they are, in mafia language, “earners.”

 Side note: this is also how the Federal government essentially controls all of academic medicine. Good luck trying to get funding to research a subject or a medicine that Godfather Fauci and his paymaster Big Pharma does not want studied. Also good luck if you are the Dean of one of these academic centers and decide to publicly express an opinion which contradicts Fuhrer Fauci. Hundreds of millions of funding could be jeopardized. And that is why this pandemic should also be remembered for “the Silence of the Deans” as their cardiac and stroke units and cancer and hospital wards filled with ever younger patients presenting with catastrophic illnesses that they had never presented with before. They remained silent. All of them.

 Anyway, “physician-scientists” also spend a lot of time trying to publish as this brings further funds, stature and recognition. If you can win large grant funding for a research institution, you are almost an untouchable. Now, I have no problem with what they do, except if I were their patient. They were.. not the best at patient care as they were often derisively called “lab rats” by the pure clinicians, as in “Who is covering the ICU next week? Say it isn’t one of the lab rats!”

 And that was because you simply don’t want someone taking care of you who takes care of patients only 6 weeks a year while spending the other 46 weeks doing experiments, writing grants and publishing papers. For instance, when I was recruited by the University of Wisconsin, up to that point in my career, I had been doing 20-26 weeks of inpatient clinical services a year (along with daily/weekly outpatient clinic and other responsibilities). I was shocked to discover that some of the “physician-scientists” at UW were assigned to patient care services only 6 weeks a year . The rest of the time they were in their labs and/or writing grants or teaching or administrating. What is funny is they proudly considered themselves “triple threats”, i.e. “superstars” in research, education and patient care.

 The vast majority were nowhere close to mastering all three, and their deficits were typically in patient care (I knew only a handful of masterful exceptions in my career). Although often highly intelligent and I presume excellent in designing and running experiments in their labs and writing grants, I found that most were average at best in terms of patient care. They tended towards rote administration of standard treatments while robotically citing the major studies or guidelines to support their decisions. Boy were they expert at guidelines. Which would work out great if patients were standard or if the published literature literally represented the “best” approaches to treatment but in a significant proportion of patient situations, it just doesn’t work out that way. Predictably, they were often resistant to data or arguments which I put forth that suggested the “guideline” approach may not be optimal. Hearing them cite those guidelines back to me while I was arguing for different approaches left me with PTSD and is one of the reasons why, soon after I left UW in April 2020 to fight Covid on the front lines in New York City, I remember telling the clinician colleagues that I reunited with that I felt like “I had left a cult.” I believe that even more now.

 Picture of my ICU team on the roof of the hospital during a break after ICU rounds. New York City, April 2020, a week after resigning from the University of Wisconsin.

 So, how did I end up being a clinician-educator? Well, growing up, the big question to answer was “what do you want to do in life?” and/or “what are you going to be?” Especially before and during my college years. Problem: I was an unfocused, uncommitted, hedonistic young man, erratic and with the typical undeveloped forebrain of a late adolescent/young male American adult. I definitely looked the part in High School (if you look really close, you can see a gold chain, yikes):

 Although I was smart enough to crush standardized exams without a worry, I didn’t know who I was or what I wanted to be really. But I did discover a couple of things in college: I hated business, sales, and a sole focus on making money. I loved literature but couldn’t write at the time, I was not interested in politics or any field that was not directly and immediately or broadly impactful to present societal circumstances. So I decided that I wanted to become either a doctor (like my father) or a teacher (like my mother). I thought those were impactful pursuits and fit with what I liked (math and sciences) and was good at (discussing, teaching, and learning with others).
 Since I was really good at math and calculus I ended up obtaining a degree in mathematics from the University of Colorado in Boulder. Problem: Boulder, like every other U.S College it seems, was a massive “party school” and I was a highly “social being” (ah hem). I managed to graduate but with a declining GPA over my college career, so much so that I graduated with a 2.67 GPA, and two years later than expected. Although not proud of this feat, I think it is near impossible to find a U.S doctor who had a 2.67 GPA in college.
 A picture of me as an undergraduate. Sums up everything about that time really.

 I was a bit of a mess when I left college. No direction, no discipline, and no real commitment to a goal. I was often unemployed and although I tried to find, and even started some random jobs like selling life insurance or doing data entry, I couldn’t stick with them. I started to get depressed. But I really wanted to become a responsible and productive member of society. I also felt it was time (23 years old) to make a living so that I could become an independant adult, a “grown-up” as it were (I was jealous of friends who had made it out of their parents house).
 I knew waiters could make a decent living, and the work seemed impactful in a certain way, so I bullshitted my way into the restaurant business, applying for a job as a waiter (I had never waited) in a high-end restaurant. I had no idea that restaurant would change my life in the way that it did. Most importantly, it was owned by someone who would later become my best friend and mentor (John Durkin of Trattoria Diane’s and the long-time mayor of Roslyn, NY). Although he was 18 years older than me at the time, he had been just like me at my age so he understood me. We first connected on topics like music and literature (he is one of the most widely read people I have met as well as one of the most deeply intelligent). Later, we became closer and I started to seek out and follow his guidance on a number of matters in my personal life that he himself had successfully navigated when he was my age.
 He essentially mentored me in how to become a mature and responsible man and member of society. But when he initially hired me, I was lost. He actually came very close to firing me in the first 6 months for showing up late, hung over, unfocused etc. But, little by slowly, at the age of 23, I changed my life by withdrawing from the “social” scene I was devoting too much time too and I instead started to focus on activities that would help me reach my now established life goal of becoming a doctor.
 I made a practice of staying home and reading a lot, heck I even started meditating. By changing my behaviors and activities, my life started to improve. I was given more and more responsibility in the restaurant and quickly began to earn enough money to rent a place of my own.
 In order to “erase” the 2.67 GPA in college, I went to graduate school to study health administration, thinking that getting good grades in grad school might help my chances of getting into medical school. I did that full time while working in the restaurant business full time. My first (but not the last) period of overwork in my life! I recall that with the stress and intensity of two full-time pursuits involving a lot of commuting around NYC, I began to develop severe teeth grinding along with massive dandruff. So much so that one night as I was going to bed, I remember passing a mirror while wearing the dandruff medicine shower cap with my teeth grinding protector in my mouth. I looked at myself and was like, what the hell are you doing to yourself man?
 But I didn’t care as I was happy in a novel way - I discovered how satisfying it was to make positive contributions, both at work and at school and at home, and for being valued for those contributions. I remember feeling highly motivated, focused, and committed in a way I had never been able to previously. In my first year of grad school I was hired by one of my Professors to manage one of her research projects. Not-so-fun fact: that research project was CDC funded and was focused on studying various financial and other incentives to physicians on how to improve immunization coverage rates in the inner city. Holy shit. Lets forget about that for now. Most importantly, I ended up getting my Masters degree after having gotten straight A’s, something I hadn’t done since the 11th grade :).
 Anyway, after years in the restaurant business and after getting my Masters, I started applying to medical schools in the U.S. However, despite strong medical school admission test scores, I will just say that the U.S schools didn’t like my academic background, especially my 2.67 college GPA. Rejection, rejection, rejection. Ugh.
 So, I ended up, at the age of 28, making an appointment with an undergraduate college career adviser, looking for some practical advice on how to improve my chances of getting into medical school. Short answer: he advised that I should seek medical training overseas. Brilliant! I literally had never really considered it. He told me about a Professor who taught part-time at one of the overseas schools who had written a booklet with tons of information about off-shore medical training opportunities. I sent the Professor a check for $20 and he sent me his photocopied pamphlet (bound at Kinkos). I read and re-read his pamphlet, and then did further research on the varied strengths and weaknesses of the schools that accepted American medical students like the most known ones in Dublin, Israel, Grenada, Guadelajara etc.
 Ultimately I chose St. George’s University School of Medicine in Grenada, West Indies. Here is one, just one reason why:

 Another reason was that I have been a life-long obsessive windsurfer later turned kitesurfer. I literally windsurfed most days in Grenada while studying well into the night. This sets up a perfect chance for me to show off some of the non-medical skills I acquired during medical school:

 I ended up starting medical school there at the age of 29 (nearly all of my fellow students were much younger at 22 or 23). My experiences over the next 4 years could fill a book, but I deeply appreciated learning medicine in such drastically different health systems, like in Grenada, St. Vincent’s, Barbados, and the United Kingdom. I graduated at 32 and landed an internal medicine residency spot at St. Luke’s-Roosevelt in NYC (Upper West Side and West Harlem) and then a fellowship training spot at Beth Israel Medical Center in the lower east-side of Manhattan. I ended up finishing my training with three Board certifications - Internal Medicine, Pulmonary, and Critical Care (and a Testamur status in adult echocardiography from the National Board of Echocardiography).
 I was 38, living in NYC, married with two daughters, $150 dollars in my bank account and not one dollar in a retirement fund for me or college funds for my daughters. Plus me and my wife had student loans. Gotta start somewhere. At the risk of foreshadowing, the academic career that I embarked on at 38 years old.. ended in Covid at the age of 50. 12 years only. Paul and Umberto and Joe and Jose of the FLCCC are are literally 30-40+ years in their careers which makes me the wet-behind-the-ears newborn of the group.
 Looking back on my choice of specialty, I chose a doozy. When physician specialties are ranked according to an index of earnings vs. quality of life, the top four are what we intensivists derisively called the “ROAD” scholars, meaning Radiology, Opthalmology, Anesthesia, and Dermatology. The word play refers to the fact they were the most desired and competitive specialties because of the amount they earned vs. the stress and amount of hours they needed to work. These were also highly sought because of less burdensome “on call” responsibilities, i.e. covering hospital units and acutely ill patients off hours, overnight and weekends.
 The “ROAD scholars” generally had the most manageable work hours while being the most highly paid. Conversely, at the bottom of the 50 specialties on this scale sit three: critical care doctors, family medicine doctors and pediatricians. We have the worst “quality of life” compared to our earnings apparently. But to be fair, of the three at the bottom, ICU doctors make the most so don’t bring out the violins. In fact, ICU doctors, compared to most specialties, do very well in terms of income, but when you factor in the hours and stress, it drags us to the bottom of the most desirable specialties. I know this from coming home after a “normal” day in the ICU, trying to sleep while thinking and perseverating over what I may have missed in a patient dying under my care. It was insanely stressful, especially in my early career when you were often unsure about a lot that was going on with a patient. In fact, I would say that the first two years of my career as an Attending in the CU were the hardest and most stressful. I would wake up, immediately thinking of the patient I was most worried about. Taking the train into work I would think research and google about my hypothesized reasons for their illness and trajectories which always precluding me from working on a paper or reading the news.
 Not sure what my point is here, except to maybe have reconsidered my choice of specialty. Not really a choice because I loved ICU medicine. The reason why I became an ICU doctor is because during my general medicine training I felt that the ICU docs were the “baddest of the badasses.” I was intimidated and admiring of their broad knowledge base and diversity of clinical skills. I also admired that staff from any area of the hospital, whether it be Labor and Delivery, clinics, rehab, hospital wards etc, immediately called for an ICU doc when a patient suddenly “really didn’t look well.” The ICU docs were expert at the widest variety of illnesses, and especially in their most severe forms, i.e. cardiac failure, lung failure, endocrine failure, liver failure, kidney failure, brain failure. They would come stabilize and treat the “sickest of the sick.”
 And that is what inspired me, wanting to be like the intesivists who could so calmly and expertly navigate those stressful clinical situations. I recall being quite intimidated when I made that decision because I didn’t think I had what it took. What is interesting is that my wife was an intensivist by that time so she was able to help reassure and encourage me to follow in her footsteps.
 Super fun fact: one of my greatest achievements in life was asking out my wife. Why you ask? Because I did so as a 4th year medical student wearing a short white coat . My wife at the time was a senior resident at the end of her training and thus had earned the right to wear a beautiful long white coat .. and she was intimidatingly beautiful. If you are not in Medicine, I don’t think you can understand the challenge of a medical student in a short white coat asking out a senior resident physician. Like my best man John (highly successful restaurant owner and chef) said at our wedding, “I always wondered why Pierre was so nervous to ask out Amy, but I finally got it. In my business it would be like the dishwasher asking out the chef! ” Exactly.
 So, I was three years behind her in training and she was one of the best doctors I knew. I saw what she did and how she did it and wanted to be like her. Problem: after we started dating, I was forced to listen to her wake up in the middle of the night for years, taking histories and dictating treatment plans to young residents and fellows across four major NYC hospitals while I was in a barely arousable coma. I thought what she did was insane. Up all night managing patients on the phone at four different New York City hospitals, only to get up and put in a full day in the ICU. What was I getting myself into? But, again, I thought she was a badass. And I wanted to be like her. So I decided to follow in her footsteps. Little did I know that raising three girls with a wife who was also an ICU doctor in poorly resourced and uber expensive New York city would eventually lead me to burn out to a point where I allowed myself to be recruited by the University of Wisconsin (where my wife is from). A life-long New Yorker decided to move his family.. to Wisconsin. What the hell was I thinking? A picture of my wife (we had her model for the cover of the brochure of the annual POCUS course I gave at the University of Wisconsin)

 The rest of my hagiographic recounting of my academic career and the standards of care that I helped set are in Part 2 here .

 I just want to say thanks to all my subscribers, especially the paid ones! Your support is greatly appreciated as it allows me to devote what is often large amounts of time I spend researching and writing my posts, so again, thanks.
 Subscribe now
 P.S. I opened a tele-health clinic providing care not only in the prevention and treatment of acute COVID, but with a specialized focus on the study and treatment of both Long-Haul and Post-Vaccination injury syndromes. If anyone needs our help, feel free to visit our website at  www.drpierrekory.com.
 P.P.S. I am writing a book about what I have personally witnessed and learned during Pharma’s historic Disinformation war on ivermectin.  Pre-order here for:


A Timeline of Major Battles In the Global War on Ivermectin - Part 1

First an announcement:
 I believe this 3-part series is my last directly related to ivermectin, and the last posts I need to write for my book. You have no idea how excited I am about this. Today, my part of the book is finished!! But my co-writer, the two time NYT best selling author Mike Capuzzo and his wife Theresa (master editor) still have a lot of work to do but we are all hopefully still on target for a February release! Woohoo!
 I now look forward to exploring and writing about other areas of dysfunction in modern medicine (with the hopes of improving them of course). I have tons of drafts of posts on various medical issues that are near and dear to heart and mind, chief among them is the systematic underuse of intravenous Vitamin C in numerous disease models and the systematic under-recognition and under-treatment of children with PANS/PANDAS (Pediatric Acute-Onset Neuropsychiatric Syndrome and its subset Pediatric Acute Neuropsychiatric Disorder Associated with Streptococcal Infection).

 In this three-parter, I am going to present, in approximate chronological order, the most important events regarding both the emergence of evidence of the massive efficacy of ivermectin and the countering, neutering, and destroying tactics deployed by the Disinformationists paid for by Big Pharma and/or The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF). Although many of these events will not be news to my long-time subscribers, there is some new stuff, and it reads (hits) different when presented chronologically and in somewhat rapid-fire format. Let’s go.

 Lets start with some foreshadowing by taking a look as to where this is all heading. As of today, December 5, 2022, the evidence base for ivermectin in Covid is below, thanks to the tireless work of the c19early.com group.

 93 controlled trials. 73 of them are peer-reviewed trials. 43 of them randomized controlled trials. Aside from the evidence base for hydroxychloroquine in Covid (which is larger), I know of no other medicine in any disease model in history with an evidence base this large, yet still considered “unproven” or “ineffective” by the health systems of advanced health economies around the world.
 Similarly, it is unprecedented that, despite an evidence base this large and positive, these same health systems systematically persecute and punish physicians who use the medicine despite an unparalleled safety profile. How did we get to this dystopian nightmare? Slowly and deliberately, using relentless propaganda and censorship of the truth. Take a walk with me down memory lane of the Dsinformation war on ivermectin.

 APRIL 2020 - POSITIVE IN-VITRO STUDY OF IVERMECTIN AGAINST SARS-COV2 IS PUBLISHED IN A MEDICAL JOURNAL

 Ivermectin first exploded on the scene as a potential therapeutic in Covid after Leon Caly, Kylie Wagstaff et al from Monash University in Australia published their in-vitro study showing that SARS-CoV2 essentially disappeared from a cell culture within 48 hours of being exposed to ivermectin .
 In a truly historic response to this study, based on the gravity of the situation in Peru, ivermectin was incorporated into the Peruvian national protocol based solely on an in-vitro study , as described in this powerful documentary compiled by one of the bright lights in the media landscape (Trial Site News) amidst the Covid media darkness. Watch it, please.
 Subsequently, I begin to notice a pattern happening in Peru that would play out over and over again across many countries in regards to physician willingness to consider using ivermectin. City doctors vs. rural doctors. Red vs. blue doctors. “System employed” doctors vs. private practice doctors. Rich countries vs. poor countries. The big city academics and centers all dismissed and derided the drug for having “ insufficient evidence. ”
 DISINFORMATION RESPONSE
 Although not as zealous or widespread an adoption of ivermectin as Peru, in the U.S there was a brief run on the veterinary drug, according to a  warning  issued soon afterwards on April 10, 2020, by the PFDA (not a typo):

 “PFDA is concerned about the health of consumers who may self-medicate by taking ivermectin products intended for animals, thinking they can be a substitute for ivermectin intended for humans … Please help us protect public health by alerting FDA of anyone claiming to have a product to prevent or cure COVID-19 and to help safeguard human and animal health by reporting any of these products.”
 Then, in June 2020, the first Pharma hit men (Craig Rayner) start writing letters to the editor of prominent medical journals injecting doubt to anyone who might infer human efficacy based on the in-vitro Monash study.

 I believe Rayner (of the later and infamous TOGETHER trial) was immediately tasked by BMGF to “inject doubt” so as to counter the impacts of the Monash study, many months before the TOGETHER trial even started. From c19early.com about Rayner:
 One of the senior investigators was Dr. Craig Rayner, President of Integrated Drug Development at Certara - another company with a similar mission to MMS Holdings (helping pharmaceutical companies get approval and designing scientific studies that help them get approval). They state on their website that: "Since 2014, our customers have received over 90% of new drug and biologic approvals by the FDA ." One of their clients is Pfizer [ certara.com ] .
 Note the letter literally founded the first anti-ivermectin “narrative” that “ standard dosing could never achieve the effective concentrations reached in the Monash University study. ” Total nonsense. But it was the first of many successive narratives (propaganda) relied on in the media and journals to inject doubt where there was none ( I want to be clear that at that point in time, doubt was entirely reasonable, but this narrative persisted in the face of mountains of clinical and in-vitro data that would later emerge ).
 I cannot overemphasize how the “inability to reach effective concentrations” narrative persists in the medical literature. The false premises this narrative relies on are:
 That the concentrations used in a monkey kidney cell model are the same needed to be effective in a live human. This false assertion is brilliantly debunked here by science writer Joomi.

 That there is no data to support the fact that standard dosing actually does achieve viral inhibitory concentrations in human tissues.

 The latter premise is the most troubling to me because the authors of the above study, in personal communication with Paul and myself prior to our NIH presentation on January 6, 2021, provided us with the results of their follow-up study using human lung and adipose tissue. They found that standard dosing did in fact reach inhibitory concentrations.

 Problem: the data that Caly and Wagstaff shared with us produced the slide above, which we presented to the NIH. To my knowledge, their newer data is still unpublished. Start asking yourself why. Although Paul and I have corresponded on email with Caly and Wagstaff, I don’t know them personally, but I can tell you that as basic research scientists, their entire careers are dependent on grant funding. Grants dry up and careers can end when you publish “inconvenient science.” Period.

 APRIL 2020 - NOBEL PRIZE WINNING DISCOVERER OF IVERMECTIN ASKS MERCK FOR SUPPORT IN STUDYING IVERMECTIN’s EFFICACY IN COVID
 Professor Satoshi Omura, the Nobel Prize winning co-discoverer of ivermectin, in his Nobel Prize acceptance speech in 2015, called it “the wonder drug,” not only due to its incredible safety as an anti-parasitic in humans, but also its broad anti-viral and anti-tumor properties. The studies showing ivermectin’s ability to halt the replication of over 10 RNA viruses started being published in 2012, and by the time of my review paper, there were positive in-vitro studies against Dengue, West Nile, Influenza, Zika and of course SARS-CoV2 as above. So what did Professor Omura do in April 2020? He politely wrote to Merck for funds to study its clinical efficacy in Covid.
 DISINFORMATION RESPONSE:
 From that paper:

 So Merck refused to study ivermectin from the get-go. This was the first tell of what was to come. Remember, Pharma creates profitable customers, not cures. Remember that. They refused to support a Nobel Prize winner that they formerly partnered with. That Nobel prize winner was interested in researching ivermectin’s efficacy during the first global surge of the pandemic with hundreds of thousands dying with no effective early treatment agent having yet been identified (besides HCQ).
 One more fun fact is that in Professor Omura and colleagues review paper on ivermectin , published one year later (March 2021), they wrote that, based on the then available 42 controlled trial results showing efficacy, the “ probability this comprehensive judgement is a mistake is one in 42 trillion. ” Looks like the Nobel Prize winner knew what he was talking about.

 His paper was countered with outrageous anti-ivermectin narratives like this example on the Poynter website (among others). Keep in mind they are referring to the expert recommendations of a Nobel Prize winner in Medicine.

 “Low scientific value.” I still have the capacity to get enraged, and reading the above makes me want to scream at someone, like the author, Estadoa Verifica (wait, a fact checker’s real name is “Verifica.”) Is that a joke?
 Now I don’t feel so bad about all the attacks on me and the FLCCC as we are not Nobel Prize winners. One last fun fact: due to my expertise on ivermectin and membership in the FLCCC, I slowly became quite popular on Twitter, now at 268,000 followers. You want to know what my most popular tweet was since I started tweeting? It was me tweeting that YouTube pulled down an interview with Nobel Prize winner Satoshi Omura on the use of ivermectin. Check out the number of re-tweets for someone not named Elon Musk.

 I have to say that one of the absolute highlights of my and the FLCCC’s journey through COVID (and there have not been many) was when we received the below supportive letter and gift from Professor Omura and the Kitasato Institute - an amazingly beautiful spectrograph of the Streptomyces Avermectus that secreted avermectin, the parent compound to ivermectin, the discovery of which led to his Nobel prize. Along with his warm and supportive letter, both hang over me as I work from my desk. And always will.
 The collotype photo and description are amazing:

 The letter reads:

 A more recent personal pleasure was watching Professor Fukushima of the same Kitasato Institute finally show some outrage about the horrific neglect and suppression of data revealing the unprecedented toxicity and lethality of the Covid mRNA “vaccines.” So inspiring to finally see an esteemed academic.. get angry. In public. Transformative. Please watch:

 JUNE 2020 - THE WHO, BMGF, AND UNITAID HIRE A TEAM OF RESEARCHERS TO STUDY AVAILABLE, REPURPOSED DRUGS IN COVID
 Unitaid’s ActCellerator Program (staffed and run by BMGF) hired Dr. Andrew Hill to lead a research team to identify any repurposed drugs effective in Covid. I will say at the outset that, by the end of these posts, I will have provided enough evidence to support my assertion that this team was not deployed to find and disseminate evidence of effective generic drugs, but rather to report that evidence back to its funders so they could deploy Disinformation to destroy them.
 Know that Dr. Andrew Hill was the leader of that research team. I truly believe that Andy Hill did not know this was team’s ultimate objective when he accepted their contract at the time of his hire. It was only after his work started doing damage against Big Pharma’s other products and the vaccines that they “captured” him and made him actively “destroy” the evidence base he had so expertly compiled. One of the saddest and most damaging-to-humanity stories in history.

 JUNE 2020 - FIRST MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY OF IVERMECTIN’S EFFICACY IS POSTED BY A GROUP IN THE DOMINICAN REPUBLIC
 During the early spring 2020 surge of Covid in the Dominican Republic, a doctor at one of the larger private clinic systems gave ivermectin to an overweight, diabetic tourist who was deteriorating in the hospital with progressive hypoxia within hours of admission. Within 12 hours of receiving ivermectin he demonstrated a rapid and robust improvement in his oxygenation (as was later told to me by the 2nd author of the paper, Dr. Jose Redondo, who I met a year later on vacation in the DR). Note that a paper detailing both the physiologic mechanisms and clinical examples of rapid reversal of hypoxia after ivermectin treatment was recently published by some close colleagues of mine. Bravo I say.

 Their paper provides the mechanistic and clinical evidence to explain the successful outcomes of the clients of Attorney Ralph Lorigo, who, after he won court judgements for hospitals to administer ivermectin, often rapidly came off ventilators and were discharged home. It also supports the basis for this very moving video testimonial of a son fighting the doctors to save his fathers life with ivermectin. It’s a must watch if you haven’t seen it.

 Anyway, Redondo and colleagues (even if they didn’t know the mechanisms at the time), rapidly established a protocol, and by June of 2020, an early draft of their paper was posted on a pre-print server.

 2,706 patients presenting to the emergency room for Covid symptoms were given ivermectin and sent home. Only 16 of them returned needing hospitalization. Only 2 of those patients died. Thus, 99.3% of all ivermectin treated symptomatic patients avoided hospitalization and death in that first Wuhan wave.
 DISINFORMATION RESPONSE
 This report was roundly ignored because… it was a case series.

 OCTOBER 12, 2020 - THE FIRST LARGE CLINICAL TRIAL OF IVERMECTIN IN HOSPITALIZED PATIENTS IS PUBLISHED BY DR. JEAN-JAQUES RAJTER ET AL. IN MIAMI, FLORIDA

 Although not a prospective randomized controlled trial, it was a large study that retrospectively looked at patients treated with ivermectin in the first Wuhan variiant wave in the Spring of 2020. They used a sophisticated and widely accepted technique to create a near-identical comparison group. Here is what they found:
 Lower mortality in the overall ivermectin treated group (15.0% vs 25.2%; p  = .03).

 Lower mortality in the severely ill treated with ivermectin (38.8% vs 80.7%; p  = .001).

 Massive, just massive reductions in mortality. Published in one of the top journals of my specialty. Ignored by academia and media. First taste of things to come. Also, fun fact: Miami is not considered to be a hotbed of strongyloides worms (speaking to the later and very popular narrative that ivermectin only works in parasite infested countries).

 OCTOBER 2020 - PAUL MARIK IDENTIFIES IVERMECTIN AS A POTENTIAL GLOBAL SOLUTION TO THE PANDEMIC
 Paul Marik and the rest of us in the FLCCC were monitoring and analyzing all the emerging data on potential therapeutics as well as pathophysiologic mechanisms of disease. Many of the first clinical trial results of various agents began to be posted and published in September 2020. Almost all were failing to show efficacy. At least we initially thought HCQ was failing because back then we still had an implicit faith and trust in the high-impact medical journals and NIH funded trials, so we were still naive to the fact they were completely manipulated by researchers working for Big Pharma with the intent to destroy the evidence of efficacy of HCQ. Dr. David Boulware was a key accomplice in the war on HCQ with the design shenanigans and misrepresentations of his own trial. His actions did not escape the eyes of the brilliant David Wiseman as detailed in this paper .

 I bring up Boulware and the University of Minnesota because their involvement in distorting the evidence of efficacy of repurposed drugs spanned two Pharma wars - the first war on HCQ in 2020 and the second war on ivermectin in 2021. Boulware was an author/investigator on numerous trials designed and conducted to fail in both wars. The circled tactics above (and many more) would be repeated over and over in trials he was involved in.
 Anyway, in early October 2020, trial results for convalescent plasma, HCQ, tocilizumab and others were all negative. The below chart, constructed by Paul, was from October 2020. Several of our assessments of therapeutics would change as the evidence evolved, but I always found it a helpful guide. Note ivermectin was not on there yet.

 Then, at an FLCCC team meeting on or around October 16, 2021, Paul led off talking about how impressive the ivermectin data was turning out to be. I think he had compiled less than ten trials at the time, but they were in both prevention and treatment and showed large magnitude and consistent benefits in terms of reducing not only infections but also hospitalizations and death. A data signal like we had never seen in Covid.
 Paul posted a lecture on YouTube concluding it would end the pandemic.

 I think it is historic. The first slides introducing ivermectin to the world are below.

 DISINFORMATION RESPONSE
 Unfortunately and predictably, as above, the video was later taken down off of YouTube and for some reason, the US academic health system completely ignored our findings or recommendations, preferring instead to wait for a large RCT pfunded (not a typo) by the NIH-Pharma complex.

 OCTOBER 2020 - I DISCOVER TRIAL SITE NEWS AND JUAN CHAMIE’S PRE-PRINT PAPER ANALYZING PERU’S IVERMECTIN DISTRIBUTION PROGRAM
 I really think that without the articles I discovered on TrialSite news and the analysis from Chamie’s paper, our ferocity and urgency in getting the word out about ivermectin globally would have been more sober, muted, cautious etc. However, after I discovered the numerous reports of ivermectin’s success in South American countries published by TrialSite News starting in March 2020, and then read Chamie’s paper posted in early October 2020, I was transformed.
 Juan Chamie et al’s paper on Peru’s Operation Tayta, to me, represents the earliest and most compelling evidence of the impacts of widespread ivermectin distribution. Had his paper been recognized and applied by public health agencies across the world.. the pandemic would have been over and quick. The graphs of plummeting deaths and case fatality rates beginning on average 11 days after the various different times of ivermectin distribution in those regions were insanely convincing.

 Unfortunately, President Vizcarra, who had approved Operation Tayta, later lost the election in November. The new President Sagasti disbands the program. Cases and deaths subsequently skyrocketed as detailed by FLCCC Analyst Juan Chamie.

 Juan’s analysis was a powerful, real-world demonstration of what we knew from the trials data. Ivermectin, if deployed widely in both prevention and treatment, could potentially change the face of the entire pandemic. So I began to work furiously on a review paper with the intent of compiling all the varied sources of evidence of efficacy.. and then present it to the world.
 And so began a 4 week frenzy of work, unparalleled in my career (which, if you knew my career, is saying a lot as I have suffered from “workaholism" since before becoming a doctor). At that time I was working full time shifts in a major medical center in Milwaukee while searching, reading, and analyzing studies that were emerging on an almost daily basis. About a month later, on November 13, 2021, I uploaded the first draft of our comprehensive narrative review paper which included wickedly positive meta-analyses of both the prevention and treatment trials along with Chamie’s epidemiologic analyses. It still sits on that pre-print server today:

 The FLCCC’s ivermectin journey had begun.

 DECEMBER 4, 2020 - THE FLCCC’S HOUSTON PRESS CONFERENCE INTRODUCING IVERMECTIN TO THE WORLD

 In the weeks after Paul’s YouTube lecture, while I was working on the paper, our first early treatment protocol was created, the initial dosing was super cautious as we were just learning about ivermectin and multi-day dosing was novel (we quickly and continuously increased dosing and/or frequency and duration many times according to the severity and viral loads of the subsequent variants (while all the “high quality” Big Pharma/NIH trials did the opposite). Here is one of the earliest versions (a lot has changed on this protocol so do not use - our most updated version is here ).

 The FLCCC’s protocol was certainly getting attention but not penetrating sufficiently into “the system” while the cases and hospitalizations were rising incredibly fast. Now, although the censors were not fully deployed yet (it would get a lot lot worse over time) we still couldn’t get the word out enough to the masses.
 So Joyce Kamen, our communications director and one of the FLCCC’s co-founders, suggested we hold a press conference to announce the protocol and try to get the word out to the public. This was something that another organization with a slightly similar name, (America’s Front Line Doctors - AFLDS) had done 5 months earlier in Washington, DC, in an attempt to disseminate the news of efficacy of HCQ to the world (albeit theirs was immediately “fact checked” to death, censored off of YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter and roundly ridiculed and attacked by media and academia as in this clip ).
 But it had gotten the Truth out there, however much they were attacked. So we tried the same. Joe Varon, an FLCCC co-founder, had a ton of media and TV contacts in Houston as he was a super popular and expert interview on Covid. He would do up to 13 TV and radio interviews a day, humorously calling himself “The Covid Hunter” while running his ICU at one point for 715 days in a row (the streak ended when he had to go to Cancun for his daughters wedding).

 So off to Houston we went. Here is the electronic press kit to the press conference with a link to the early, short documentary (11 minutes) that we produced called “ What is Ivermectin .” The documentary reviews the historic discovery of ivermectin, its development, and first human applications. Essentially we show that ivermectin led to one of the most important public health advancements in history as it transformed the health status of millions across continents, ridding people of the disfiguring and disabling conditions such as river blindness an elephantiasis.
 Also you will notice above that, during the press conference, me and Paul were wearing masks.. outside. I am getting crushing chest pain looking at that but I trust you guys get it - we would have gotten “killed” by the press had we not. Here is the press conference - really powerful, at least I think so.
 DISINFORMATION RESPONSE
 I would say that the Disinformation response was a non-response. Something that the journalist Ivory Hecker, initially famous for her viral on-air resignation from a Fox News station, has been trying to highlight ever since - i.e. the censorship occurring at news stations. Despite that it was censored on a national level, I would say it still made a big ripple, especially locally in Houston and across central and South America on Spanish language media stations. But we tried.

 NOVEMBER 19, 2020 - SENATOR RON JOHNSONS FIRST HOMELAND SECURITY HEARING ON THE IMPORTANCE OF EARLY TREATMENT
 Senator Johnson first reached out to me in April of 2020 when he came across the FLCCC website featuring our aggressive, combination therapy hospital treatment protocol we titled MATH+. Although I was impressed with the fact that a Senator wanted to talk to me (he chose to reach out to me because I, at the time, was the Medical Director of the University of Wisconsin’s Trauma and Life Support Center as well as the Chief of the Critical Care Service, with UW being one of the top research institutions in the country. Since it was in his home state, he reached out to me (Lucky Pierre). Problem: I was an indoctrinated liberal New Yorker at the time. As a then life-long reader of the NY Times (ouch), I had been well trained to hate Senator Johnson, but I took the call because the issue was so important.
 It was clear from that first conversation that he knew something was wrong with the U.S response and he wanted to try to do something about it. The prevailing “supportive care only” approach in the US (a.k.a “try nothing until a Pharma RCT tells us what to use”), relying only on fluids, Tylenol, oxygen, ventilators and nothing else was leading to overwhelmed ICU’s with patients lingering for weeks on ventilators before dying. Within minutes, I couldn’t help liking the guy and what he was about. I will never forget something he told me in that first conversation which endeared him to me, he said, “I want the doctors to take their gloves off!” Exactly.
 He wanted to help change the country’s approach so he invited me in May 2020 to testify about our hospital treatment protocol where I told the world that corticosteroids were critical to save lives.. at a time when every international and national health care society was recommending against it. At least this was teh case until months later when it became the standard of care in the hospital after Oxfords RECOVERY trial proved what the FLCC had been saying,.
 Ron’s hearing, in my mind, saved a lot of lives as he heard from doctors for months afterward about how my testimony emboldened them to try corticosteroids and as a result, this led to numerous reports of robust recoveries. Pretty proud of that. Also know that my admiration continued to develop for Ron as a deeply caring and committed man and Senator. In what would have shocked me to think about three years ago, one of the highlights of Paul and my careers was when we got invited to his recent election night party and spent a lot of time talking with him and his wonderful family:

 Anyway, the first hearing of the two featured a fired up Peter McCullough and Harvey Risch and George Fareed trying to convince the world that the agencies and academia had gotten HCQ wrong.

 Although their marshaling and presentation of the supportive data for HCQ was expert and erudite, it ignited a media shitstorm attacking both them and Senator Johnson while predictably celebrating the ignorant, odious, and servile academic from Brown University Ashish Dja.
 Dja played the typical arrogant, academic, evidence-based-medicine expert trafficking in pseudoscience by declaring the supportive evidence as “low quality,” “insufficient” or “conflicting.” He then predictably followed this by citing the fraudulent trials in the high-impact journals as “high-quality”, and “rigorous.” The same narratives that would engulf ivermectin over the next 2 years. He also provided the highlight of the whole hearing when he was asked “Have you ever treated a Covid patient?” The answer was a sheepish and reluctant “No.”
 Please never forget that answer. By definition, any HCQ or ivermectin naysayer never once used it in clinical practice yet formed such fierce, negative opinions on these therapies in Covid. I will remind you of this when we get to “Andy Hill’s Gang” - folks like Gideon Meyerowitz Katz, Nick Brown, and Kyle Shedrick et al. Most of them are not clinicians so could never know how effective these drugs were.
 Note that Dja was later rewarded for this Disinformation effort with a position as the White House Coronavirus Response Coordinator. Another clown joins clown world. To wit: his latest White House podium attempt to boost vaccination rates includes this asinine statement, "I really believe this is why God gave us two arms, one for the flu shot and the other one for the COVID shot." You really cannot make this stuff up.
 DISINFORMATION RESPONSE
 Basically, it amounted to the first widespread negative PR campaign against Senator Johnson and my fellow expert panel members. Probably best exemplified with this attack on Senator Ron Johnson.

 Bastards. Know that headline was not written by journalists. Written by PR professionals (propagandists) heading up the HCQ Disinformation campaign. Still have to admit it was effective as they have been using that “snake oil” phrase on a ton of us. It works. But I hope less so over time as the emerging data shows that many of us “dissidents” were correct in out early and accurate advocacy on numerous pandemic related scientific topics.

 DEC. 8, 2020 - SENATOR JOHNSONS 2ND HEARING ON EARLY TREATMENT
 Two weeks later, I was invited to testify alongside other early treatment experts and researchers and epidemiologists. Know that we, and I think I can include Senator Johnson, did not really know how absolutely threatening the hearings would be to Pharma as it threatened massive markets for their about-to-be rolled out vaccines and the pre-ordained approval of worthless antivirals like Paxlovid and Molnupiravir.
 Senator Johnson put us out on a battlefield that would lead to the loss of our academic carers. None of us knew that at the time but I can assure you, even (and especially) knowing what we know now, we would do it again. Many of you have watched my “ivermectin testimony” video already, but what I just found in relation to the testimony is quite interesting. I found my pre-submitted written statement that was entered in the Senate Record.
 I had completely forgotten about that document and so just re-read it for the first time in 2 years. I was surprised to find that I was already calling out the illogical and damaging censorship, the inexplicable inaction of the agencies, and the policies divorced from science etc. Pretty powerful read in hindsight if I may say so myself. It is just so weird for me when I read it now because it absolutely nails the problems.. yet I know that at that time, I had very little true understanding of what and who was underlying and driving those problems. I was just beginning my journey of discovery into the deep and near-total corrupt control of our health system. I suppose that document was the first description of what I was seeing without being able to make sense of it. 2 years later and now I see it all pretty clearly.
 Anyway, the written testimony is here and the video testimony is here . My favorite line from the document:
 Numerous studies have consistently positive reported large magnitudes of benefits in all disease's phases but - with the most significant public health impact in the prevention of transmission. On this compelling evidence, we recommend ivermectin's administration for both prophylaxis in all high-risk patients as well as in the early and late phases of the disease. If this were to occur nationally and globally, we predict that, like in many of the regions shown above, the pandemic will end, the economy can re-open, social interactions and activity can resume, and life can normalize. The expected impact will allow our nation to grow and focus on the multitude of other pressing problems facing our society.
 Whoa. That is NOT what happened.
 In my spoken testimony I could only cover a portion of it even in the extended time Senator Johnson granted me.

 Fun fact: The energy, frustration and even rage I expressed would never have been generated if it were not for my being “triggered” by the then ranking member of the Committee, Senator Gary Peters. He and the rest of the Democrats on the Committee opened the hearing with a statement that insulted both Chairman Ron Johnson and the rest of us expert witnesses as non-scientific political actors. And then they walked out. I was so enraged I couldn’t even think.
 Luckily I didn’t testify for another hour or so but I was still fired up when it came to my turn. So I let it rip. It wasn’t just the Dem’s insult and walkout, but it was me thinking during that hour about the past years daily horrors of watching colleagues and experts and health systems do insanely stupid things, having to watch so much under-treatment and so much dying for so long, and working so many hours, not only running ICU’s but building the FLCCC and studying COVID. I was in quite a state when it came to my turn. I had just had it. But, that was probably one case in my life where my supposed “justifiable anger” actually led to something good happening. The video went viral, putting both ivermectin and the FLCCC on a much much larger map, like a global map. Lucky Pierre strikes again.

 DECEMBER 2020 - PAUL AND I START GIVING LECTURES ON IVERMECTIN AROUND THE WORLD
 As a result of the video going viral, the FLCCC and its protocols quickly became internationally known.. overnight. Paul and I started getting invitations to speak to Covid treatment advocacy groups and health freedom groups in many countries over the next days, weeks, and months.
 Over the next weeks to months, Paul gave talks to massive audiences in Ukraine, India and many others, including Harvard, while I lectured to groups in the Phillipines, Malaysia, Netherlands, Indonesia, France, Brazil, Hungary, Italy, Puerto Rico, Mongolia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, American Association of Environmental Medicine, International Lyme and Other Diseases Association) Zimbabwe, Indigenous people of the Amazon, Conservative Caucus in Canada’s Parliament, Nigeria, Italy, United Nations Correspondents Association, House Freedom Caucus, Third Century Group, Association of Black Bishops, and numerous Covid summits like the International Covid Summits in Rome and Vienna and Bath as well dozens of summits and conferences across the U.S, often in person.
 The most immediate and impactful of our talks occurred in Paul’s home country of South Africa. We essentially started a medical civil war around the issue of ivermectin such that the South African ivermectin war could literally be its own book. Our talks caused a huge run on veterinary stocks largely due to the fact that the South African government quickly criminalized its importation . Too much to go into but in Meryl Nass’s article on ivermectin in CHD’s The Defender, she succinctly summarized it with:
 South Africa was the trial balloon. On Christmas Eve 2020, South African authorities banned the importation of ivermectin. However, several local organizations mounted legal actions, and they won. Within several months ivermectin was back on the shelves.
 DISINFORMATION RESPONSE
 They started “blitzing” me and the FLCCC individually and organizationally in the media.

 My above post on the Disinformation tactic called “The Blitz,” details a lot of these attacks, the very first being the dispatch of an AP reporter to “debunk” the testimony. It was lame, but it was where they started. I would also argue this is when the immense censorship ramped up even further - discussion of ivermectin’s efficacy was more and more aggressively banned based on the absurd “community guidelines” of numerous social media companies. Although Fox News was largely the only major media outlet that posted my video testimony on their website, two months later, as it was approaching 9 million total views, suddenly it “disappeared” overnight. Poof.

 JANUARY 6, 2021 - PAUL MARIK, ANDREW HILL, AND MYSELF PRESENT OUR IVERMECTIN EFFICACY DATA TO THE NIH’S COVID-19 TREATMENT GUIDELINES COMMITTEE
 I recorded our presentation to the NIH Treatment Guidelines Committee. Never shared it with the world.. until now. Just uploaded it to Rumble. Sue me NIH.
 One clip is of the entire meeting and the other is just the shorter Q & A after our respective presentations . The best part is at the end when we got to ask questions directly of the Committee. Worth a watch.
 DISINFORMATION RESPONSE
 Although we presented more than enough evidence to support at least a weak recommendation by the Committee to the entire country... they did not. Please know that numerous levels of recommendations are open to them. The evidence presented far exceeded many of them.

 Remember, they work for Pharma.. but they also work for Congress who oversees their budget. And the latter is the only reason why we had an audience with them. In fact, it was Reyn Archer, a brilliant former Texas Health Commissioner and Chief of Staff to Nebraska Congressman Jeff Fortenberry (who sits on the HHS’s House oversight committee) who made the meeting happen (no way Fauci would have reached out to us on his own). So, although we got the meeting and presented convincing evidence, the NIH knew they could not issue even a weak recommendation for ivermectin. Hd they done that, ivermectin would have become the standard of care overnight and that was never going to happen. But they had to do something.
 So they instead moved their existing recommendation of “ do not use outside of a clinical tria l” to one of “ there is insufficient evidence to recommend or not recommend ivermectin .” So, we accomplished something but somehow, in this new mad, mad world, even though they no longer specifically recommended against ivermectin , this still didn’t prevent doctors from losing licenses for prescribing. Also, check out what I call the NIH pause at 2:08 during the Q and A .
 The “NIH pause” occurred after I asked them the question, “why is ivermectin the only drug to have had a negative recommendation against use, when all the other proposed therapies had a neutral one?” This question was met with a loooong pause before what ended up being essentially a non-answer to the question.
 If you take out the initial lame attempt at an answer by the Pharmacist Alice Pau (the coordinator of the meeting), and then add the seconds after I dismissed the attempt, I come up with a 12-14 second “pause.” Del Bigtree later recounted to me that in a similar meeting he and Bobby Kennedy had at the NIH, they were treated with the same pause when they asked the committee if any childhood vaccine had ever been tested in a placebo controlled RCT (none have by the way). He said their committee’s pause in answering was 12 seconds. Fauci apparently ended up answering with “it’s unethical to do randomized controlled trials.” Yup.

 JANUARY 7, 2021 - DR. TESS LAWRIE POSTS A HEARTFELT PLEA TO BORIS JOHNSON TO GET IVERMECTIN APPROVED FOR USE IN THE U.K
 Unbeknownst to us at the time of the NIH presentation, Tess Lawrie, a highly published, world renowned and long-time WHO and NHS consultant who specializes in evaluating scientific evidence for medical therapeutics was shown my testimony video. She was immediately intrigued by what “this doctor ” was saying and decided to evaluate my “claims” in the systematic and sophisticated manner that had made her a world expert.
 It turns out that Tess, unlike the NIH, agreed with our interpretations and conclusions. She knew the critical importance of ivermectin to the world so she immediately wrote a letter to Boris Johnson providing him the evidence and imploring him to approve and recommend its use. In the face of a non-reply to that letter, she then recorded and posted a reading of it in this 3 minute video in an attempt to “get his attention.” Historic video, still gives me chills to watch it. My favorite is when she solemnly asks at the end, “please, can we start saving lives now?’

 Within days, Tess and I made a connection, quickly became fast friends and colleagues and began earnestly working in concert with our organizations to maximally disseminate the evidence of efficacy for ivermectin in Covid.
 DISINFORMATION RESPONSE
 The video was fairly quickly taken down off YouTube. The UK government ignored Tess’s letter and video.

 JANUARY 7, 2021 - BUFFALO, NY ATTORNEY RALPH LORIGO GETS HIS FIRST CASE OF A FAMILY MEMBER WANTING TO SUE A HOSPITAL BLOCKING TREATMENT OF A FAMILY MEMBER WITH IVERMECTIN
 Ralph Lorigo, in my mind, is one of the unsung heroes in the war on ivermectin. Starting in January of 2021 and over the next year, he sued hospitals on behalf of patients dying under rigid treatment with captured federal agency mandated protocols using insanely small doses of corticosteroids and the ineffective and toxic (but pricey) Remdesivir.
 In his first case, a long time client flew up from Georgia because his mother, who had been on the ventilator in the ICU, was able to be removed off the ventilator within two days after the son convinced the ICU doctor to give ivermectin. The problem was that after being transferred to the COVID unit, the doctors there refused to give more ivermectin and she was getting worse. He sued, won the judges order to give IVM, the hospital tried to resist but Ralph again won a judge’s order. The mother was given ivermectin and was discharged 6 days later.
 I again present a recently published paper demonstrating why many patients (not all) demonstrate such abrupt and robust recoveries:

 Over the next year, Ralph took on over 200 cases in 40 different states and won most of them in the first months, with the vast majority of patients rapidly improving after being treated with ivermectin, even being able to be taken off ventilators and/or discharged. One of the saddest aspects of his efforts is that.. after those first months, the hospitals got wise and began to fight like they never had before, terrified of allowing a precedent to be set which would cede their authority to… patients and their deeply studied family members.
 So the hospitals started pulling every dastardly legal trick in the book - appealing judgements while patients were dying on ventilators, disobeying judge’s orders to give ivermectin, stating that no provider on their staff would agree to administer and then they delayed and/or denied granting of temporary privileges to the non-hospital employed doctors that were willing to give ivermectin (one of the safest, if not the safest medicines in history). Then, even when he passed those hurdles, he came up against hospital-employed nurses who would refuse (or were told to refuse?) to administer ivermectin to the patient, thus forcing the prescribing doctor to actually come into the hospital to administer it themselves, often via nasogastric tubes if the patient was on a ventilator. Dr. Alan Bain of Chicago deserves special mention here - I recall him being forced to travel to a number of hospitals to directly administer the ivermectin to patients when nurses refused to do so. In most cases though, many days of non-treatment were caused by the hospitals. And over time, as they became more successful in court, they started causing more deaths in the hospital.
 How is this for a randomized controlled trial: Ralph brought 6 lawsuits on behalf of patients against Rochester General Hospital. He won the first three and all patients survived to discharge. He lost the next three and all of them died. Even with all the infuriating injustice I have been forced to witness in Covid, this still has the capacity to enrage me.
 However, Ralph recently told me that, in his 48 years in practice, 2021 was his most satisfying in his career. He had never been able to directly save lives in court before and he saved many, working 7 days a week for nearly the whole year. His last case was in January of 2022, after which Omicron took over and hospital cases plummeted while ivermectin was subsequently “proven” by the high-impact journal frauds to be ineffective. Ralph’s story must be made into a documentary. Please.

 JANUARY 15TH, 2021 - TESS CONFRONTS ANDY HILL, LEAD IVERMECTIN RESEARCHER FOR THE WHO, AFTER HE ALLOWED HIS STUDY TO BE MANIPULATED
 Big Pharma and BMGF, via the organization Unitaid, make a move against Andrew Hill - well detailed in the below post. The people who manipulated Andy’s paper also manipulate the WHO’s ivermectin guideline.

 DISSIDENT RESPONSE
 Remember that Andrew Hill worked for Unitaid’s ActCellerator Program, part of the WHO’s research and operational response to Covid. That program was fully staffed and run by BMGF as per investigative reporter Alexander Zaitchik in this New Republic article . We detailed what transpired during our working relationship with Andy in this short documentary called “A Letter To Andrew Hill.”

 JANUARY 19, 2020 - DR. ANDREW HILL GIVES A LECTURE TO A SOUTH AFRICAN ORGANIZATION
 Andy Hill gave a historic lecture in South Africa detailing the incredible evidence of efficacy of ivermectin. This was even after he admitted that he let BMGF and Unitaid manipulate his paper. That is likely why he began his lecture with something along the lines of, “these are my opinions and not that of my employer.”
 I will just pull some quotes from the transcript of his lecture as I want the world to never forget what the lead ivermectin researcher (of just the RCT’s mind you) said on January 29, 2021, almost two years ago:
  Now, we have data in December from 1452 patients, 11 trials showing an 84% survival benefit. Now, in January, we have 18 trials and 2294 patients showing a 75% survival benefit. In February, we'll have data from 23 trials and 4100 patients and so on going up to April where we get to 10,000 patients.
 The probability of there being a chance finding is 1:5000 . So it's quite a low chance. So, in terms of risk/benefit, the risk of ordering the drug supply now is that it could cost some money and then the drug might not be used in the country. The benefit is having a secured supply that could be deployed as soon as the regulatory decision has been taken.
 Methodological issues with the Elgazzar trial? So we did a sensitivity analysis of survival, and we took out each one of the studies as we had six trials showing that 75% improvement in survival. Even if we took out the Elgazzar trial, we still saw a significant effect in survival, so it's not driving the analysis .
 I've been working on repurposed drugs right since the beginning. I haven't seen any data like this, so consistent between such a wide range of countries looking at the data in slightly different ways but getting quite consistent conclusions.
 I think there is still the potential to run clinical trials in prevention and mild infection, but I think in hospitalization I think the ethical case is very difficult right now . I think there's an ethical case for continuing studies they're just about to finish, but starting new trials I think there would be also some questions.
 Later, prior to being muzzled by Unitaid, he also said the below:

 DISINFORMATION RESPONSE
 Unitaid/BMGF tell Andy he is no longer allowed to speak in public. Within days of the lecture, a NY Times reporter reached out to me wanting to do an interview with him. Andy told me he was no longer allowed to speak publicly until his contract with Unitaid (err, BMGF) was over in April 2021. He also informed me during that conversation that he could no longer share his emerging ivermectin trials data with me and Paul as he had been doing. Shocker.
 Click here for Part 2, which starts with Merck’s posting of brazen lies on their website on February 4, 2021 all the way up to the launch of the horse dewormer PR campaign against ivermectin in August 2021 ( Part 3) .

 I just want to say thanks to all my subscribers, especially the paid ones! Your support is greatly appreciated as it allows me to devote what is often large amounts of time I spend researching and writing my posts, so again, thanks.
 Subscribe now
 P.S. I opened a tele-health clinic providing care not only in the prevention and treatment of acute COVID, but with a specialized focus on the study and treatment of both Long-Haul and Post-Vaccination injury syndromes. If anyone needs our help, feel free to visit our website at  www.drpierrekory.com.
 P.P.S. I am writing a book about what I have personally witnessed and learned during Pharma’s historic Disinformation war on ivermectin.  Pre-order here for:

Summary: My chronology of the Disinformation tactics deployed to paint ivermectin as an ineffective horse dewormer against Covid. Largely taken from the ever-evolving keynote lecture I give at conferences