California’s Misinformation Epidemic Pt. 1

From The Forgotten Side of Medicine Substack, this essay brilliantly details the history, current state, and future of the criminal control of information, corruption of science, and coercion of the public in regards to vaccines. I consider it an honor to host this essay for my subscribers.

 When I was younger, a friend who was a corporate executive told me about “ tiger teams ,” an approach industry would utilize to solve a complex problem facing them or to develop a plan for achieving a long-term strategic goal.  After he vividly described the tenacity with which they attacked their problem, I realized large corporations could be expected to conduct highly strategic and Machiavellian plans over long timelines that would be difficult for anyone but the most talented observer to spot.
 Since that time, I’ve also come to appreciate how most businessmen and their industries will default to reusing tools that have previously proven themselves for addressing each new problem that emerges.  As a result, once you learn what each of the tools are, it becomes possible to predict each of the sequential steps a tiger team will choose to accomplish its goals.
 Since I have held a long-term interest in the politics of vaccination, I have been able to witness the sequential steps that played out first in California and then throughout the nation.  What I still find remarkable about these events was how each one directly enabled the subsequent event, and that in many cases, what happened subsequently had previously been promised to never come to pass.
 Given everything that I have observed, I am almost certain one or more tiger teams working for the vaccine industry chose to have California be the means through which to accomplish their goal of regular mandatory vaccinations for the entire American population.  At this moment, a highly unpopular law that prevents physicians from spreading “misinformation“ by questioning any orthodox perspective on COVID-19 is awaiting the governor’s signature, and if this law passes, it will likely be disastrous for the nation as additional jurisdictions adopt it.
 The purpose of this article will be to discuss exactly what brought us to the point a law like that could be on the verge of passing and the important insights that can be taken from the entire process.

 The “Truth”
 Throughout human history, one of the most valuable commodities has always been ownership over the “truth,” as so much power and profit results from holding a truth that aligns with your vested interests.  Once larger societies formed, determining “truth,“ was always a key societal need, and excluding a few enlightened societies, the method of determining truth normally evolved as follows:

1. Might makes right.
2. Judging the preponderance of evidence.
3. A growing, and eventually unsustainable corruption of most “evidence.”
4. Societal collapse or evolution.
 Note: This trend roughly follows the 250 year life cycle of empires mapped out by a British general some suspect the U.S. is nearing the end of.
 In many ways, forcing two opposing viewpoints to present their evidence and then having the appropriate parties determine which side presented the preponderance of evidence and thus “wins” is the best solution our species has developed for settling otherwise irreconcilable differences of opinion.  Unfortunately, as our times have shown, the natural response to having our society place a heavy weight on “evidence” is to have dishonest parties “win,” not by being on the side with the best evidence, but rather by buying out the entire evidence base and censoring the opposition—effectively creating a much more sophisticated form of “might makes right.”
 In many ways, the anatomy of corruption within “science-based” medicine is quite simple and like many other things in business, continually reuses the same formulas.  As a result, once you understand how corruption plays out in a few areas, it becomes feasible to understand how things will play out in many others.  I thus would argue many of the events we witnessed throughout COVID-19 (e.g. the sudden extreme censorship of scientific debate recently detailed by Pierre Kory ), simply represents all of this longstanding corruption metastasizing to a degree which finally became visible to the general public.
 Public Relations
 Although Sigmund Freud is typically thought of as the most influential psychologist in history, his nephew Edward Bernays created an invisible industry that has had a far greater influence than Freud.   To create his mark on the world, Bernays argued that the principles of psychology should be utilized not for individual psychotherapy but rather to control the population so that the irrational impulses of the masses could not derail the progress of society, and not surprisingly, the power-hungry elite fully embraced his narrative.
 When you study the organizational structure of modern society, you will continually come across hierarchal pyramids being utilized that allow the top of the pyramid to exert a massive influence over the rest of society.  This is for instance why in medicine, doctors are expected to follow “guidelines” created by unaccountable committees that are typically composed of individuals being paid off by the pharmaceutical industry, and why in most cases it is nearly impossible for a patient to have any type of care provided to them without the approval of a doctor.  Thus, by buying out a few committees, it becomes possible to exert a massive influence on the general public.
 Public relations is essentially the science of how to create a pyramidal hierarchy throughout the media and to leverage that control so the general public can be manipulated into serving the interests of the sponsor.  We recently witnessed what I believe to be the most aggressive PR campaign in history and the collective effort to pull out every possible stop to sell the COVID-19 vaccines to the American public (ironically one of the individuals I know who became disabled from these vaccines worked in the industry and worked with a passionate zeal for over a year beforehand on the PR campaign for Moderna).

Studying the PR industry is quite depressing because it shows how much of the news is “fake,” just how manipulative much of it is, and how many foundational beliefs we hold in the culture are simply the product of a corporation’s public relations campaign. For those interested in this subject, an excellent book can be found here , a youtube documentary here , and an article here .
 One of the most common tactics utilized in public relations is to take a complex subject and distill it down to a simple phrase that reframes it in terms that are favorable to the sponsor and removes the critical nuances from a debate (frequently this process is equated to weaponizing language).  Because the entire PR process is based around creating a pyramidal hierarchy that defers to the top, you can frequently observe these messages or scripted phrases that were developed by a PR firm be simultaneously disseminated on countless networks, including the “independent” ones:

 Note: This behavior exists on both sides of the political spectrum; I am citing this one because it is the best montage I have come across.
 “Misinformation”
 During Obama’s presidency, the term “misinformation” started to come into vogue and was deployed to sink Trump’s presidential campaign (which failed as Trump managed to make the “fake news” meme every media platform was promoting stick to CNN instead of him ).  Before long, this steamrolled into “misinformation” being used as a justification to censor any viewpoint that challenged the status quo.  Initially, easy to disparage groups such as members of the far-right were targeted for censorship by Silicon Valley, before long liberal friends I knew who practiced holistic medical approaches (and had supported the initial censorship) were targeted, and by the time COVID-19 happened, this behavior had metastasized to the point it was nearly impossible to publicize any treatment for the disease or any potential harm from the vaccines. Governments have continued their relentless push for censorship, best illustrated by the recent U.N. speech by New Zealand’s prime minister that declared free speech on the internet a weapon of war and called for the international community to work towards curating (censoring) all online information that questions government narratives.

Prior to Obama’s presidency, I had heard there was a push to establish a pyramidal hierarchy for all information on the internet, with a few major tech companies serving as the “gatekeepers” the public could access the information through, but until 2016, this always seemed like something that would happen in the far distant future.  Recently, I learned that Sharyl Atkinson was able to identify when and where this all began:
 I first heard the term [ curated ] applied to controlling news and information in October 2016 when President Obama introduced the concept at an appearance at the private research university Carnegie Mellon. Obama claimed a “curating” function had become necessary. The public at large had not been asking for any such thing. Instead, it was the invention of powerful interests that apparently felt the need to get a grip on public opinion—interests that were losing the information war online. But the concept is contrary to the nature of a free society and an open Internet. It would take some clever manipulation to convince the public to allow such “curating.”
 “We’re going to have to rebuild, within this Wild, Wild West of information flow, some sort of curating function that people agree to,” said ” “Obama. “. . . [T]here has to be, I think, some sort of way in which we can sort through information that passes some basic truthiness tests and those that we have to discard because they just don’t have any basis in anything that’s actually happening in the world.”
 As far as I know, that signaled the start of what would become a global media initiative to have third parties insert themselves as arbiters of facts, opinions, and truth in the news and online [prior to this they were viewed as a joke and fortunately still are by half of the electorate].”
 Credible Sources
 Most of our modern hierarchies operate on the basis of being “credible.”  For example, in journalism, about a century ago during the era of Bernays, the concept of “ professional journalism ” was created and a standard was set that news could not be considered credible unless it was disseminated by someone who belonged to a corrupt credible news organization that served the bidding of those in power.  This article for example discusses the profound consequences of the monopolization of journalism, and how as the decades have gone by, the issue has only gotten worse and worse.
 Sharyl Attkisson’s book (the source of the above quotation) describes how pervasive corruption gradually entered her industry, and how despite her clout in the network as a premier news anchor, more and more of her investigations were not permitted to air by her superiors.

For example, in 1997, Clinton legalized direct pharmaceutical advertising to consumers .  As the networks become beholden to their new advertisers, anything critical of that industry, such as vaccine safety, was no longer permitted to air.
In the early 2000s, Atkinson was assigned to report on the controversial military anthrax and smallpox vaccinations, and not long after, the smallpox campaign was cancelled.  Now, in contrast, no criticism whatsoever is permitted of the much more dangerous COVID-19 vaccines (and now even the government is paying to incentivize this censorship).  To see how much things have shifted consider this report that was aired on the nightly news after the 1976 swine flu vaccine debacle (this vaccine was not safe and I directly know people who developed permanent complications from it that persist to this day, but at the same time, it was much safer than the COVID-19 vaccines):

 Something like this could never air today.
 Evidence-Based Medicine
 The pyramidal hierarchy of our society requires creating faith in authoritative sources and then having each institution work in unison to promote the sanctity of those (easy to control) sources.  “ Professional journalism ” is one such example, another is the widespread societal adherence to the CDC’s arbitrary and ineffective guidelines (best illustrated by the absurd dictates they and other Western health authorities put forward in regards to social distancing during physical intimacy ).

When evidence-based medicine (EBM) started, it was sorely needed by the medical profession because many disastrous practices were unchallengeable dogmas.  However, in due time, as corruption entered the process, EBM became yet another means for “[financial] might to make right” as its authority was shifted into a pyramidal hierarchy.

Presently, the “authority” in EBM rests in 5 areas.

•The sanctity of all data.
•Conducting large randomized clinical trials.
•Peer-reviewed publications in high-impact scientific journals.
•Authoritative committees reviewing the previous three to produce guidelines.
•Other institutions (e.g. the media and the courts) upholding the sanctity of the data and evidenced-based guidelines.

There have been major issues in each of these areas for decades as industry has steadily worked to expand its influence over EBM, but as many observers noted, these issues spun completely out of control during COVID-19 .  Let’s review each of them:
 1. The sanctity of all data.
 The major problem with “data” is that most of it is never made available for outside analysis, which allows those who “own” the data to only present data that casts the owner in a favorable light (which essentially makes the data worthless).  The pharmaceutical industry nonetheless has been able to sustain this practice by arguing that disclosing their data would constitute a violation of proprietary trade secrets.  Thus excluding the occasional instance where they are forced to open their records as part of the discovery process (e.g. in the lawsuits against the antidepressant manufacturers ) that research fraud and the concealment of critically important safety data never come to light (and never has for vaccines).
 Previously, one of the most egregious offenders in this regard were the statin manufacturers who have deliberately withheld their data from the public for decades.  A corrupt Oxford academic consortium, the Cholesterol Treatment Trialists' (CTT) Collaboration has access to that data and has published numerous pro-industry analyses of it , but despite continual outside requests, has refused to ever make this data available for outside scrutiny .  This is concerning given the significant evidence that has emerged demonstrating statins are both ineffective and harmful, and has led to many more honest academics attempting to independently obtain this critical data from regulators .
 Almost all of the COVID-19 vaccine data likewise was never made available to the public (although the companies have suggested it may be made available a few years from now); instead, we simply received highly curated publications in prestigious medical journals.  Since the vaccines have entered the market, countless red flags on their safety and efficacy have emerged in large datasets .  However, in many cases, that data has only been available because it was leaked by whistleblowers or obtained by court order , and as the recent events in Israel showed ( Israel agreed to be Pfizer’s laboratory to test their vaccine s and many global vaccine policies were crafted from the Israeli data), much of the incriminating data against this program was deliberately concealed by governments around the world.

On one hand, I view all of this as an immensely positive development, as in the past critical data suppression like this typically remained hidden and forgotten.  On the other hand, I consider it completely unacceptable the public is being forced to take a vaccination product on the basis of data they are not even permitted to review.
 2.  Conducting large randomized clinical trials.
 We are reflexively conditioned by the educational system to assume a clinical trial has no value unless it is randomized and controlled. While it is true that controlling for the placebo effect through blinding somewhat improves the accuracy of a study, conducting a randomized controlled trial (RCT) is immensely expensive, and  the biases introduced by those costs  dwarf those obtained by controlling for the placebo effect.
 A little known fact is that findings from study designs that do not rely on industry funding (i.e. retrospective observational controlled studies) reach the same conclusion, on average, to those of RCT’s . Yet the former are near systematically ignored by the high-impact journals and medical societies. Further, a frequent narrative parroted by high-impact journals and science news writers is that findings from studies deemed to be of a “low quality design” cannot be trusted. Not true. In a comparison of conclusions between groups of high and low quality studies , no meaningful differences were found.
 Put differently, RCT’s require industry funding, and industry funding has repeatedly been found to heavily bias trial data in favor of its sponsor. To highlight the absurdity of this, as the whistleblower Brooke Jackson showed,  the RCT she supervised for the Pfizer vaccine  was not even blinded because the trial site cut so many corners to produce a positive result for Pfizer. For those who wish to know about how the industry games clinical trials,  this book ,  this book  and  this book  are the three best resources I have found on the subject.
 3. Peer reviewed publications in high-impact scientific journals.
 In the same way we are conditioned to reflexively dismiss anything that is not a large RCT, many people will not consider a scientific trial unless it is published in a high-impact peer-reviewed journal. Not surprisingly, there is a lot of money in this area and most of it comes from Big Pharma (which either comes from advertisements within the journal or agreements  to purchase thousands of printed copies of that issue of the journal ).
 This creates a setting where studies that support industry interests regardless of their deficiencies are published (e.g. pharmaceutical ghostwriting  is a major source of fraud in the peer-reviewed literature ), whereas articles that challenge their interests are never published. This has been a longstanding issue, and the earliest example I remember coming across was discussed in this  2001 book :

 ( I unfortunately was never able to track down the referenced news story; please let me know if you have)

The positions of the journal sponsors also gradually enter the medical culture, and the peer-review culture frequently censors or attacks publications that do not match industry findings. One of the best examples was Andrew Wakefield’s  1998 study  which ruffled so many feathers by suggesting a link between autism and vaccination that the study was retracted  and a thorough example was made of him  (e.g. he lost his license) to deter further research into vaccine injuries. Many other examples also exist, such as the extreme hostility faced by researchers who publish data that is critical of other sacred cows like routine statin usage or psychiatric overmedication.
 Because of the systemic biases that exist against publishing anything which challenges medical orthodoxies, it can often take years or decades for bad practices to be abandoned as no one is willing to on take the risk of publishing studies refuting them. For example, a few of my Ph.D. friends who researched viral genomes knew within a day of the original SARS-CoV-2 genetic sequence being published that it came from a lab, yet not a single one was willing to expose themselves to the personal risk they would take from authoring a publication on that subject. At this point, there seems to be an unwritten understanding that the introduction and conclusion of a scientific publication must match the prevailing biases of medicine. It is hence always fascinating to see just how often an article’s conclusion is not supported by the data within it (sadly few ever read those parts of the paper).
 Throughout COVID-19, these problems also became much worse. To share a few memorable examples:
 • A large study was published in the Lancet  which showed data from around the world indicated hydroxychloroquine killed COVID-19 patients who received it and was used by the WHO as justification to suspend clinical trials of hydroxychloroquine (along with governments forbidding its administration to patients). Outside evaluators realized the data was nonsensical (leading to serious questions over how one of the best editorial boards in the world let it be published), the company that provided the data effectively admitted fraud had been conducted,  and the study was retracted . Another one of the top 5 medical journals, the NEJM, also published a study utilizing Surgisphere’s fraudulent dataset.
 •Despite a tsunami of data showing severe harm from the COVID-19 vaccines, it has been virtually impossible for any publication on the topic to enter the peer-review literature.
 •As  Pierre Kory  has detailed throughout the last few years, numerous large clinical trials have been conducted that clearly show a benefit from ivermectin for COVID-19 and no risks associated with the therapy. Despite the evidence for ivermectin being stronger than what can be found for almost any other drug on the market, as Kory’s  recent series  shows, it is nearly impossible to have a study supporting ivermectin be published ( unless the conclusion says the opposite ). When they are instead published as preprints they often are retracted for political reasons (retracting a preprint is absurd), and not surprisingly, ivermectin is now widely viewed by the medical community as both unsafe and ineffective.
 Currently I believe that of the  top five medical journals,  the BMJ  is the only “prestigious” medical journal still conducting itself in a manner deserving of its reputation.
 4. Authoritative committees reviewing the previous three to produce guidelines.
 A common complaint from conservatives is that unelected bureaucrats are allowed to control our lives with impunity. One area where this is particularly true can be found within the committee model where “experts” are nominated to assess existing evidence and produce a consensus on what should be done. Even though those guidelines which bypassed the legislative process should not be treated as law (as was ruled by a federal judge ), in most cases they are. As you might expect, the people who make it onto these committees tend to have heavy financial conflicts of interest that inevitably result in their voting for their sponsors. Consider this paraphrased example that was shared in chapter 7 of  Doctoring Data :
 The National Cholesterol Education Programme (NCEP) has been tasked by the NIH to develop [legally enforceable] guidelines for treating cholesterol levels. Excluding the chair (who was by law prohibited from having financial conflicts of interest),  the other 8 members on average were on the payroll of 6 statin manufacturers . In 2004, NCEP reviewed 5 large statin trials and recommended: “ Aggressive  LDL lowering for high-risk patients [primary prevention] with lifestyle changes and statins. ” [these recommendations in turn were adopted around the world]
 In 2005 a Canadian division of the Cochrane Collaboration reviewed 5 large statin trials (3 were the same as NCEP’s, while the other 2 had also reached a positive conclusion for statin therapy). That assessment instead concluded: “ Statins have not been shown to provide an overall health benefit in primary prevention trials. ”
 Note: The Cochrane Collaboration (prior to 2012-2016 when they began taking industry money  from groups like the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation  and switched  to defending their interests  such as  the HPV vaccine ), was the group that best objectively evaluated existing clinical evidence.
 Many committees that directed the pandemic response have engaged in egregious misconduct. Consider for example the  Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices , the CDC committee that rubber stamps each new vaccine that enters the market (the only exception I know of  was overruled by the current CDC director ). The ACIP is the committee responsible for many of the vaccine mandates we have faced, and its rulings in favor of vaccination often bordered on the absurd. Similarly, Steve Kirsch was recently able to prove that the chair of the committee  is willfully choosing to disregard Israeli data that undermines the justification for the entire vaccination campaign .
 I believe that the most corrupt committee during the pandemic response was the NIH one responsible for determining the appropriate therapies for COVID-19. Some (and possibly all) of its members were appointed by Anthony Fauci, many had personal ties to Fauci and almost all of them held significant financial conflicts of interest with Gilead, remdesivir’s manufacturer. Not surprisingly, that committee has consistently recommended against every therapy that effectively treats COVID-19 but is off-patent (and hence not profitable). Conversely, their recommendation for remdesivir is why it was the required treatment throughout the US hospital system despite the evidence for the drug being atrocious (a more detailed and referenced summary of this corruption can be found  here ).
 In many ways, the remdesivir story is eerily similar to the early days of HIV. There,  Fauci used his influence  to keep a variety of effective therapies away from dying AIDS patients so that he could win approval for AZT, a dangerous drug many believe significantly worsened the prognosis of those who received it.
 5. Other institutions (e.g. the media and the courts) upholding the sanctity of the data and evidenced-based guidelines.
 Many people I know used a variety of integrative therapies (e.g. intravenous vitamin C) to treat COVID-19 during the early days of the pandemic, and successfully saved many lives at the same time countless Americans were being sent to the hospitals to die (as they had no treatment for COVID-19 besides often lethal ventilators).  Yet, it was those who treated COVID-19 successfully (including a few of my friends) who were targeted by the government and either served with a cease and desist or prosecuted for “endangering” the public by utilizing unproven therapies not supported by the COVID-19 treatment guidelines .  The mass media was also fully complicit in this and never once mentioned any option for COVID-19 (other than needing to get more ventilators or vaccines), except when attacking the doctors who were providing life-saving outpatient therapies.  However, while the new’s conduct was egregious, by far the biggest offender was Big Tech.
 Curating Information
 As I think through all the things that had to come together to enable the pandemic profiteers to destroy our economy, withhold life-saving treatments from the American public, and mandate a disastrous vaccination on the populace, I believe  Obama’s push  for the Silicon Valley to become the arbiter of what we were allowed to see online was by far the most consequential. Since that time, I have observed a remarkable decline in the quality of discourse on many social media websites (as many worthwhile topics are now censored or flooded with bots—Substack is a rare exception) and it has become much more difficult to find the information I am looking for online (to the point I sometimes need to use  Russia’s search engine  to find it).
 Throughout history, freedom of speech has always been a hotly contested subject as people tend to support it,  except for viewpoints they disagree with , and frequently lack the insight to recognize why those positions are at odds with each other. Societies likewise follow cyclical trends towards and away from totalitarianism and fascist censorship. The earliest example I know of was shared with me by a scholar who had reviewed the plays of ancient Greece and had found that as censorship (e.g. political correctness) entered the plays, it immediately preceded the fall of Greek democracy and an authoritarian government taking over.
 From studying countless iterations of this cycle, I now believe the following:
 •It must be acknowledged that any position you hold could be wrong or based on erroneous information.
•It is important to defend the right of those you disagree with to speak and not hate them because they hold viewpoints you adamantly oppose.
•If you refuse to defend your position in an open and fair debate, you are probably wrong.
•Very strict stipulations must exist on what speech can be outlawed, and those stipulations must be agreed upon by (nearly) the entire society.  Some things such as shouting “fire” in a movie theater as a prank everyone can agree on.  Anything everyone cannot agree on I would argue does not meet the standard that must be met for censorship.
•The government may incentivize speech it agrees with, but it cannot restrict speech it disagrees with.
•Any attempt you make to censor a viewpoint you disagree with is not worth it because the censorship you helped create will inevitably be turned on you in the future.
 During Obama’s presidency, two major changes emerged in Silicon Valley.  The first many are aware of was an obsession (by these otherwise evil companies) with saving the world through social justice that I would argue was analogous to the well known practice of Greenwashing , where an egregious polluter conducts a token environmental initiative and through doing so successfully recasts themselves as protectors of the environment. This social justice focus was particularly problematic as it was used to justify the censorship of anything that was not politically correct and I would argue that many of the tech employees who helped spearhead the movement are now directly experiencing the consequences of the climate they created.

 Note: This focus on censorship in lieu of debating opposing (“unsafe”) viewpoints also creeped into the university system and then the culture during Obama’s presidency and I believe was a direct consequence of policies enacted by his Department of Education.

The second, much more important one was that Big Tech became a key financial supporter of the Democrat party, and to varying degrees merged with the pharmaceutical industry and biotech.  Because of this, there was a seismic realignment in the priorities of the Democrat party and it began ardently supporting those industries.

It is important to recognize how these two trends dovetailed.  Big Tech was able to use their “altruistic” focus on social justice to distract the public from the more sinister direction their industry was moving in by using the standard for censorship they had established in the name of creating a “safe” (politically correct) environment; while at the same time targeting threats to their partners in the pharmaceutical and biotech industry by censoring any voices suggesting dangers were associated with those products.
 From watching each piece of the plan that has been rolled out throughout my career, I suspect the vision of these three industries is to transform medicine into an algorithmic practice where most medical “decisions” in patient care are made by an AI system and the human body is treated as a genomic software code that can be “solved” by programmers.  Although this approach will have the ability to overcome certain issues we presently face in medicine, it is also fundamentally incapable of addressing many of the needs of each human being who goes through the healthcare system and will likely prove disastrous to our species.
 Antitrust Activity
 At the time Bill Gates founded the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation he  was one of the most disliked individuals in America . This was because he had leveraged the power of his operating system Windows, which was on almost every computer in America, to also monopolize the software market  and prevent competitors  like Netscape (an early internet browser) from being used by consumers. Since this monopolistic behavior was illegal, Microsoft was sued for antitrust violations, and throughout the court process,  Bill Gates was revealed to be a nasty individual who was doing everything he could to bury his competitors . To address the negative public perception of him, Gates founded the  Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation  to recast himself as a philanthropist and through this  PR stunt  was able to successfully remediate his public image .
 From the foundation’s inception, Gates repeated the same antitrust behavior he had leveraged in the past but instead directed it toward the field of global public health. I first became aware of this behavior after I learned of the disastrous vaccination campaigns he conducted in India. For example to quote  The Real Anthony Fauci :
 India’s Federal Ministry of Health suspended the [HPV vaccine] trials and appointed an expert parliamentary committee to investigate the scandal. Indian government investigators found that Gates-funded researchers at PATH committed pervasive ethical violations: pressuring vulnerable village girls into the trial, bullying illiterate parents, and forging consent forms. Gates provided health insurance for his PATH staff but not to any participants in the trials, and refused medical care to the hundreds of injured girls.
 Gates also diverted a large portion of the global health budget towards eradicating the last few remaining cases of polio by giving large numbers of the (live) oral vaccine to third world countries, in some instances 50 doses by the age of five. This was disastrous around the world, for example paralyzing  approximately 491,000 children over two decades in India .
 In addition to vaccine fanaticism, Gates engaged in other “public health” measures that are more accurately described as colonialist practices. These included forcing poor women around the world  to receive Depo-Provera  (this is a long-acting injectable birth control that can permanently impair fertility) and pushing communities to abandon their traditional forms of farming and switch to genetically modified industrial agriculture (which places them at risk of starvation anytime a commodity price goes up ).
 One of my friends who has worked for the WHO for decades told me that the WHO has implemented a lot of good public health measures that saved lives. Unfortunately, ever since Gates got involved, those measured have fallen to the wayside and the focus has been on monopolistic public health practices that ultimately serve to enrich a few select industries at the expense of the third-world citizens the measures are alleged to help.
 Similarly, many in the global health community have stated that since Gates has so much influence over the global health budget (and the WHO), it is nearly impossible to criticize or question any policy he promotes. To further entrench this monopoly, his foundation has prioritized buying out the press (be it groups like the Cochrane Collaboration or  putting over 300 million into countless media outlets around the world ), so that anything that challenges his vision of public health is “misinformation.”
 Much more could be said about Gates (and is aptly summarized within  The Real Anthony Fauci ). However, we will focus on the two most important correlates to the misinformation epidemic:
 •Gates made a lot of money from the pandemic. For example, on 9/4/2019, two months before COVID-19 emerged in China,  he invested 55 million  in the company that produced Pfizer’s vaccine. Last year that investment  was worth 550 million .
 •It has now been admitted  by the mainstream media  that Gates (and the Wellcome Trust ) directed the pandemic response that failed disastrously from a public health perspective (but not in money-making). One quote from that article is particularly telling:
 Leaders of three of the four organizations maintained that lifting intellectual property protections [ which would prevent everyone from making money ] was not needed to increase vaccine supplies – which activists believed would have helped save lives.
 In the second half of this series , we will show how this antitrust behavior and militant censorship metastasized within Silicon Valley and how increasingly draconian laws enforcing vaccine mandates for the pharmaceutical industry have been implemented by the California legislature.
 The Forgotten Side of Medicine
 California’s Misinformation Epidemic Pt. 2

 In the first half of this series (which must be read to fully understand this second half) I reviewed how those in power always seek to censor information for their own benefit, and how big business will always seek to take every step necessary to monopolize their markets. Much of the COVID-19 disaster is a direct result of those parties (some of whom …
 Read more
 4 years ago · A Midwestern Doctor

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

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

 Subscribe now

Summary: I recently had the pleasure of getting to know one of my favorite pseudonymous writers on Substack who goes by "A Midwestern Doctor." This powerful essay needs as wide exposure as possible.


Our Op-Ed Rebuttal to California's Legislative War on Doctors

Not tooting our horn here (maybe I am) but we just published an Op-Ed Monday on the Fox News site, the 3rd most visited news site on the internet, with almost one billion visits per month.
 As some are probably aware, California’s Legislature just passed an obscenity of a bill titled “AB 2098” which calls for the state’s medical board to revoke the license of any physician who expresses an opinion “contradicted by contemporary scientific consensus to the standard of care.” I am not even sure what that means but holy cow, they just literally started to outlaw opinions .
 Not sure which genius came up with that bill but to pretend there is a “scientific consensus” on a novel disease and a novel gene therapy is absurd. That is not how science works. Medicine is (was?) constantly trying to increase its knowledge base throughout history. In fact, one of the core responsibilities of a physician is not just to care for a patient as their “primary consideration” but also to add knowledge to the discipline and to teach it to others. Here is another responsibility articulated in the Hippocratic Oath written around the 4th century BC: Neither will I administer a poison to anybody when asked to do so, nor will I suggest such a course . Whoa. Hippocrates was warning us 24 centuries ago about the situation of being asked to administer poisons . Wow.
 Anyway, what is medical consensus – is it state-wide, national or international? I am sure there are more than a couple of California doctors (or maybe not) whose opinions conflict with the captured Federal health agencies but are instead supported by academies of scientists and health agencies in other countries. Or even states like Tennessee that made ivermectin legally available over the counter to its citizens!
 Denmark long ago restricted any person under 30 from getting the Moderna “vaccine.” In the US we now give it to toddlers. I repeat, in the U.S, we now give it to toddlers. If I object to injecting toddlers with Moderna, using the same “science” that Denmarks authorities are using, am I then a misinformationist that should not be allowed to practice medicine? What would happen to me if I go even further and espouse Denmark’s latest guidance which is to not recommend COVID mRNA vaccination to any low risk individual under 50? I guess the California State Department of Health guidance would trump that of Denmark’s. Watch out Denmark, here I come!
 The scariest part of that legislation to me is that it reflects a complete ignorance of decades of evidence demonstrating that our Federal Health Agencies are under regulatory capture by the Pharmaceutical Industry. Just look at all the shenanigans the PFDA (the P is not a typo) pulled to sell the most vaccines. The below policies were all written by the Pharmaceutical Industry and issued by the PFDA, yet California doctors who know this and try to warn their patients in order to protect them from the evils of that industry could lose their license. Remember these two brilliant scientific standards?
 (I paraphrase from memory)
 Testing is no longer indicated for those who have received COVID mRNA vaccination (luckily this one didn’t last very long).

 Testing for antibodies to assess prior exposure to COVID is not recommended prior to administering COVID mRNA vaccination.

 They literally tried to avoid gathering data that would prove the vaccines were ineffective. Then they literally established that natural immunity should be ignored. With no data to support those “standards.” One of the greatest absurdities in the history of medicine was the fact that the entire entire health system started vaccinating people right after they recovered from COVID. They didn’t even wait for the variant to change first. But, if you publicly express a difference of opinion with this expert approach to managing an infectious disease, your livelihood could be taken away from you. Seriously? What is happening in America? This is absolutely terrifying stuff. Fantods ripple up and down my spine as I contemplate the very high possibility that such an absurd bill could start spreading across the country, trampling on the very Constitution it is supposedly supported by.
 Further, in order to establish a “true” consensus and/or standard of care guideline it has been estimated to require numerous studies over an average of 17 years. So, am I not allowed to voice an opinion until 17 years of studies pass? In a novel pandemic in which insights and data accumulate rapidly? What if I am an expert way ahead of the curve based on research I am doing and/or the ever evolving data and insights I gain from treating patients with this novel disease. Should I be quiet for 17 years until such a time when my insights and expertise are more widely established and accepted?
 How will our silence ever get us to that consensus? How will my patients fare during that time? Stay home, wait until your lips turn blue because I am not allowed to have an opinion or practice in treating you if it differs from either non-treatment or giving pathetic Paxlovid, a drug which has one mechanism of action identical to that of just one of ivermectin’s many mechanisms. This is exhausting.
 And should I ignore the decades of examples of corruption of the medical sciences via its journals and research funding? The vehicles that have propagated guidelines on any number of fraudulent medications (SSRI’s, statins, Xygris, Oxycontin, Vioxx, Bextra, Avandia and many more). Should I be silent until those frauds are more widely exposed?
 Think about all the doctors who saved their patients from those frauds despite being propagated as “medical consensus” at the time? A free and open scientific debate, championing those voices without conflicts of interest is what is needed. Instead this bill will silence those without conflicts while further amplifying the media megaphone of vaccine manufacturer CEO’s. These are dark dark times.
 And why are we suddenly displacing the time honored protections of medical malpractice – where the consequences of harming a patient was borne by the physician if they adopted an idea or practice which hurt a patient. That has kept doctors in line for decades. But now, prior to any idea or practice I espouse actually resulting in harm, my opinion would be silenced or else I lose my license to practice. This is an obscenity. This would disappear care practices that would help patients far more frequently than it would care practices that harm patients.
 This bill will lead to even more morbidity and mortality, not only in COVID, but in other diseases as well. Pharma already controls the medical journals and Federal Health agencies. But they don’t control independent physician’s opinions and voices. Well, at least they didn’t until now.
 Good luck California, I fear for you. No-one from the medical field will be able to warn you of the continued rampages of a documented criminal industry.
 Our Op-Ed is here , but I think I already covered most of it. Enjoy, although it ain’t fun.

 I just want to say how much I appreciate all the subscribers to my Substack, and especially the paid ones! I am truly grateful for the latter’s support of the time and effort I devote to this work.
 Subscribe now
 P.S. I opened a tele-health clinic providing care not only in the prevention and treatment of acute COVID, but with a specialized focus on the study and treatment of both Long-Haul and Post-Vaccination injury syndromes. If anyone needs our help, feel free to visit our website at www.drpierrekory.com.
 P.P.S We are organizing the world’s first conference on understanding and treating Spike protein induced disease (i.e long haul COVID and vaccine injury syndromes). Tell your doctor to come. Link below:

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

Summary: I wrote an Op-Ed with Senator Ron Johnson, the only Federal politician that has publicly called out the deep corruption behind the failed U.S COVID response. Now he is helping protect us doctors.


The Criminal Censorship Of Ivermectin By The High Impact Medical Journals - Part 3

In Part 1 of this post on the high-impact medical journal ’s corruptive actions against ivermectin studies, I reviewed their numerous rejections of positive trials. In Part 2 , I detailed their first big retractions of successfully peer-reviewed studies supporting ivermectin’s efficacy. The accounts of such retractions continue below. Problem: there were so many that I now have to add a Part 4, just to cover the retractions . Stay tuned.

 Journal of Antibiotics - part of the Nature Publishing Group Journal and thus one of the highest-impact journal series in the world.

 A colleague and ENT surgeon from Italy named Puya Dehghani had become not only an early treatment expert but also an expert on ivermectin in COVID at the same time as the FLCCC. His organization Naso Sano had hosted me for a series of lectures, starting even before my testimony. He and a colleague named Asiya Kamber Zayidi then wrote a brilliant paper detailing all the mechanisms of action of ivermectin with some clinical data on outcomes. A writer named Joomi (and I assume scientist as her work reveals a deep scientific knowledge) did an excellent autopsy of what happened to Asiya and Puya’s paper, so please read it here. Since I am shamelessly borrowing from her post, please subscribe to her incredible substack . From Joomi:
 This paper was about the putative mechanisms and modes of action of ivermectin against SARS-CoV-2. Here’s a schematic of some of the key modes of action, from the paper:

 Zayidi and Dehgani’s paper passed peer-review and was published. It received hundreds of thousands of reads over many months. Yet, suddenly, out of the blue, the Editor retracted the paper over the objections of the authors. Apparently, the Editor was under orders to remove any interpretations of data that might support clinical efficacy in COVID. “Just the mechanisms ma’am.” Check it out:

 The lead author of the paper, Asiya Zaidi then made this statement:

 In other comments she said:
 “ If the editor decides to go against #COPE guidelines of publishing and ethics and make personal politically biased decisions, the publishers should intervene.
 How could the editor remove an article citing ‘efficacy reasons’ when we spoke about mechanisms?”
 To me, this action simply shows how much Pharma was scouring publications and trying to eliminate any mentions of efficacy, especially in the high-impact journals. Take a look at Table 2 of the paper to see how many papers on the different modes of mechanism were reviewed:

 More quotes from the author:
 “The post publication review confirmed that we appropriately described the mechanisms and yet the editor decided to twist the narrative? asked us to cite fraudulent studies based on efficacy or face retraction?”
 And:
 “The journal of antibiotics by Nature forced us to change our stance from ivermectin might work to ‘ivermectin doesn’t work’ or face retraction.
 We did not change our stance since we spoke of mechanisms and not efficacy.
 So we faced retraction and have no regrets because we do not lack conscience.”
 Now, check this out. Satoshi Omura , who won the Nobel prize for discovering ivermectin, was a member of the editorial panel for the journal. He was not consulted about the retraction according to his colleague Hideaki Hanaki :

 The lead author of the retracted paper also reported that both of the original peer-reviewers were against the retraction but the Editor in Chief decided otherwise. Ultimately, Asiya and Puya removed the sentences that so bothered big Pharma and the paper was re-published in the same journal . Good times. Not.

 SocArXiv Pre-Print Server

 Probably the most astounding retraction was the study of Mexico City’s bold distribution program of early treatment kits containing ivermectin. It was launched at a time when the Mexico city health system was approaching (or already in) a state of collapse with overwhelmed hospitals and medical supply shortages in December 2020.
 Their post-program analysis found massive reductions in hospitalization rates among ivermectin treated patients (to be accurate, the kits also contained paracetemol and aspirin). Like Uttar Pradesh’s program during the Delta Wave in April-May of 2021, this program saved Mexico City during their earlier winter surge of 2020-2021. It was first posted on a pre-print server in May 2021, authored by some of the most senior public health officials in Mexico City.
 In December 2020, amidst an unfolding humanitarian catastrophe in Mexico City, the Mexican Social Security Institute (IMSS), (a major health agency) designed a program focused on early treatment. It was announced on December 29, 2020, weeks after the FLCCC’s pre-print review paper was posted, however it is clear they had been planning this well beforehand. The program consisted of the deployment of 250 mobile testing units to the hardest hit neighborhoods of the city. Anyone who came for testing was provided access to a physician who could prescribe them a treatment kit. Further, they also deployed a telephone follow-up monitoring program for patients testing positive for COVID.
 This is exactly what a public health response should look like in a crisis. Do something goddamnit. Even if the evidence was “uncertain” for ivermectin (which it wasn’t), such a program was justified on a risk/benefit analysis given the state of Mexico City’s health system and the rising deaths being reported. They had to do something (unlike in the U.S, where, until pathetic Paxlovid came on the scene in mid-2022, the health agencies and hospital systems were telling Americans to just wait at home until your lips turned blue). I wish I were making this up.
 So, let’s be clear. Their program was not a clinical research trial. It was a public health program. It was not done to find out if ivermectin worked, it was done to try to save lives. They decided to do this based on long discussions with numerous stakeholders, including front-line clinicians with experience using ivermectin against COVID. They trusted the collective wisdom and clinical expertise of the group and thus launched their program. Just like Team-11 did in Uttar Pradesh .
 In Mexico City they delivered 83,000 kits in the first month, which was the month that the study analyzed. Makes sense no? If you launch a novel public health intervention program, it seems right to perform an analysis as quickly as you can so as to ensure it is working. The Mexico city program study was performed by the head of the  Digital Agency for Public Innovation  (DAPI), along with co-authors  DAPI , the  Mexican Social Security Institute  and the  Mexico City Ministry of Health .
 Ultimately 77,381 patients that received a kit were included in the study. Of those, 18,074 received a monitoring phone call. The study used publicly available health data. Using these data, they were able to retrospectively compare the hospitalization rates of those who got early treatment with ivermectin versus those who did not.
 Doing an analysis of the program’s impacts afterwards is a completely legitimate and long-practiced research method. Research ethics allow for studies that retrospectively review health data to determine the associations of certain interventions with patient outcomes. You do not need a patient’s informed consent because it is retrospective and the patient data is de-identified in the analysis.
 I have done many of these types of studies in my career,. For instance, I retrospectively assessed the impacts of a therapeutic hypothermia program I had created and deployed for cardiac arrest patients. I was allowed to do this because the program was based on the results of a number of studies showing efficacy. I should add that my program was the first one in a New York City hospital out of 46 hospitals. Within a few years, every hospital had one.
 In a similar study design, I retrospectively assessed the impacts of deploying a combination therapy protocol (Marik protocol) for septic shock patients in my ICU based on Paul’s and other’s studies.
 Deploying medical intervention programs based on supportive studies is how we improve the care we deliver to patients. Studying the effects of the program afterwards is a legitimate and ethical research design. It is also a critical aspect of “quality improvement" efforts because you can identify aspects of the program that worked vs. those that didn’t and thus continually modify its structure for optimal outcomes. For instance, in the Mexico City study, they found that the telephone monitoring program led to an added reduction in hospitalizations for the patients that participated. If it hadn’t, a decision to scrap that aspect may have been made. Instead, the data suggested it should have been expanded. See? Quality improvement. Both retrospective research and retrospective quality improvement analyses are critical to developing the most optimal care practices for our patients.
 Note that Merino’s study was identical in design to Kerr and Cadegiani’s studies of Itajai’s city-wide ivermectin prevention program here and here . Kerr and Cadegiani’s papers are both published in peer-review journals and have not been attacked as unethical (actually, that is not entirely true, but the accusations were ignored by the journals and authors).
 Here is the problem: the study conclusion was that “a significant reduction in hospitalization was found among patients who received the Ivermectin-based medical kit; the range of the effect is 52%-76% depending on model specification.” I repeat, they found a minimum of 52% and maximum of a 76% reduction in hospitalization amongst 77,381 patients (the latter estimate is likely the more accurate given it was based on the most robust modeling analysis. Just sayin’).
 This finding absolutely needed to be blasted out to the world on the cover of the New England Journal of Medicine. Didn’t happen. Instead the paper sat on a pre-print server for many months. See how similar the fate of this paper was with that of the single studies of Remdesivir, Molnupiravir, and Paxlovid? I trust you get this morbid joke.
 But it didn’t stop the FLCCC and many other organizations and researchers around the world from hoping it would be. We waited and waited and waited for it to appear in a peer-reviewed medical journal. But it never showed up. Had that happened, even though “the zone” of media censorship was becoming increasingly powerful and consolidated, I maintain that it would still have made serious waves across the world.
 We tried to contact some of the authors to find out what the hold-up was, but never could establish personal communications with them. This occurred despite the fact that Joe Varon of the FLCCC has high-level contacts in Mexico’s government and military. I even became friendly with a prominent investigative journalist in Mexico who had interviewed me for a prominent Mexican weekly magazine, El Proceso (here is one she did with FLCCC analyst Juan Chamie ). I asked her to put me in contact with the authors, but she was unsuccessful. I am pretty sure the authors knew that if they talked to the FLCCC, it would create serious problems for them if we went public with any information they gave us. So they avoided us.
 Despite lack of contact with the authors to confirm this assertion, I strongly suspect their paper, like all the other investigators papers that I have been detailing, was rejected from numerous journals . Or rather, one of those journals simply “kept it hostage” in an endless, and slow-walked peer-review as will be detailed in my next post. Either way, it will never be published in any journal of significance.
 Further, know that the health agencies ignore studies from pre-print servers, even though they could simply peer-review it themselves by contacting and asking questions and data of the authors. But they don’t, despite the fact that the entire purpose of pre-print servers is to get valuable data out quickly, which is of critical importance in a health emergency. At least it would be if the authorities paid attention to them.
 Despite the widespread dismissal and ignoring of papers on pre-print servers, that paper’s presence was becoming a problem. Many of us were citing it endlessly (I am most guilty as I loved what that program accomplished). Remember, Uttar Pradesh has still never published an analysis of the impacts of their program, even though one of it’s senior health officials told me over a year ago they were working on such a paper. Crickets.
 So, unsurprisingly, after almost a year on the pre-print server, someone from Pharma/BMGF decided to make a move. They got the Editor to retract the paper. Off of a pre-print server.
 From the pre-print server Editors as to why they retracted:
 ““Our grounds for this decision are several:
1. The paper is spreading misinformation, promoting an unproved medical treatment in the midst of a global pandemic
 ( I almost burst out laughing when I first read this opening statement. A scientific paper is accused of promoting misinformation. A scientific paper essentially proving that ivermectin works in COVID, only to be told by the editor that the paper “promotes an unproven therapy.” The world has gone mad).

2. The paper is part of, and justification for, a government programme that unethically dispenses (or did dispense) unproven ( there it is again ) medication apparently without proper consent or appropriate ethical protections, according to the standards of human subjects research.
3. The paper is medical research – purporting to study the effects of a medication on a disease outcome – and is not properly within the subject scope of  SocArXiv .
4. The authors did not properly disclose their conflicts of interest.”
 Here is another post by the pre-print server, notice how poorly written it is, I particularly love the descriptor “particular bad paper”:

 Check out the Twitter reply from the lead author Jose Merino:

 Later, Merino et al post a more detailed and very powerful reply.

 Didn’t matter. They disappeared the paper from the pre-print server. Now, you know what happened next: a media firestorm directed at further fueling the narrative of “all the ivermectin papers are fraudulent.” This is a slide from a webinar I gave about this scandal:

 And from our friends at the Washington Post who also gleefully reported on it:

 Now, here comes the saddest part, if that is possible (it is). Given the incredible data showing the success of the program’s first month, Mexico city continued to give out the kit for a long time after. Because they knew it worked.
 Unfortunately, the “published science” eventually proved them wrong. On January 4, 2022, the IMSS announced they would no longer distribute ivermectin. The Associated Press was happy to report this fact:

 But check out why they stopped. It makes me cry but here it is:

 But I also get it. The program had to end. No way can Pharma/BMGF allow one of the world’s largest cities to continue to have a city-wide early treatment program centered around ivermectin. So, armed with the flawed and fraudulent “rigorous” trials emerging in the high-impact journals, they managed to somehow convince presumably more politically powerful health officials to end the program.
 Modern medical science at work. Corrupt journal actions creating the latest health policy absurdity sitting atop a massive and ever-mounting pile of them.

 Journal of Intensive Care Medicine

 I reviewed the retraction of the FLCCC’s ivermectin review paper in Part 2. But in terms of chronology, the first FLCCC pandemic paper was our MATH+ hospital protocol paper which was accepted in September 2020 and published soon after. Fun fact: ivermectin was not included in that paper nor was on our hospital protocol until later. Thus, ivermectin was not mentioned then. Yet, it was retracted a year later. Why?
 Well, this retraction was a bit different in that I believe it was not directly initiated by Pharma/BMGF (but still caused by them, albeit tangentially). In this case, as first author of the paper, it became quickly clear that this was the result of a personal vendetta against Paul Marik by Sentara Norfolk General. Paul was using MATH+ and achieving mortality rates 50% less than that of his partners who were relying on Remdesvir and a pathetic 6mg of Dexamethasone.
 They had to get rid of him because he was calling attention to their (and the rest of U.S hospital systems) horror show of an ineffective treatment protocol. This action was one of several in their attempts to get rid of Paul, a process called “sham peer-review,” described at the end of my previous post here. Sham peer-review is what all hospitals initiate to get rid of supposedly “disruptive” doctors on their staff.
 So Sentara went to the journal and complained about how we presented our mortality data from in the paper (note that Sentara never claimed that we presented false data, but rather they objected to the denominator we used to calculate the mortality rate). The fact that it was the only denominator we had data for didn’t matter. I am not making this up. The ever-brilliant and ever-objective Alexandros Marinos investigated the journal’s and Sentara’s claims against us here. He couldn’t find that we did anything wrong. Didn’t matter, because the journal had already retracted the paper.

 I will say that, of all the awards that we in the FLCCC have received for our work in the pandemic, two stand out. Our work appears twice on The Scientist magazine’s “Top Retractions of 2021.” Click on the thumbnail below to read (and weep) at our presence on this list.

 I just want to say how much I appreciate all the subscribers to my Substack, and especially the paid ones! I am truly grateful for the latter’s support of the time and effort I devote to this work.
 Subscribe now
 P.S. I opened a tele-health clinic providing care not only in the prevention and treatment of acute COVID, but with a specialized focus on the study and treatment of both Long-Haul and Post-Vaccination injury syndromes. If anyone needs our help, feel free to visit our website at www.drpierrekory.com.
 P.P.S We are organizing the world’s first conference on understanding and treating Spike protein induced disease (i.e long haul COVID and vaccine injury syndromes). Tell your doctor to come. Link below:

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

Summary: The unprecedented numbers of retractions of positive studies of ivermectin continued to mount. Just more evidence of the increasingly brazen actions taken by the high-impact journal "Editorial Mafia."


The Criminal Censorship Of Ivermectin By The High Impact Medical Journals - Part 2

In my first post on the devastating censorship of ivermectin’s efficacy by the worlds’ highest impact medical journals, I outlined the four censoring methods they used to censor nearly all COVID science that was “inconvenient to Big Pharma’s interests.” They did this as follows:
 Rejected all positive trials of ivermectin, even, and especially, the highest quality trials, starting as far back as May of 2020 ( Part 1 detailing these actions is here ).

 Retracted positive ivermectin studies from lower-impact journals after they passed peer-review and/or were already published.

 Published fraudulent trials and fraudulent meta-analyses, with the latter approach identical to that employed in the WHO’s corrupt recommendation against ivermectin here . This is a known Disinformation tactic called “the Fake,” defined as “conduct counterfeit science and try to pass it off as legitimate research.” I will review these in my next post.

 Published numerous anti-ivermectin editorials, which is also an already named Disinformation tactic called “The Diversion.” Next post.

 I just discovered a problem with my posts attacking the high-impact medical journals. They are out of chronological order. Part 1 of this series detailed all the high-impact journal rejections of positive ivermectin studies but, in reality, those rejections only began after those editors had already retracted published, positive ivermectin studies. So, if you haven’t read Part 1 already, read the below first, and then read Part 1 .
 RETRACTIONS
 1.    Frontiers in Pharmacology Journal - The retraction of the FLCCC’s comprehensive narrative review paper in February 2021 was our first verifiable indication that Pharma was on the move against ivermectin. Actually, scratch that. Pharma’s first verifiable shot across the bow of HMS Ivermectin occurred on February 4, 2021, two weeks prior to our papers’ retraction. I woke up that day to texts and emails of alarm from the FLCCC team that Merck had posted a fraudulent statement against ivermectin on their website. Clearly written by their PR department, and not, as they claimed, by “company scientists.” Remember this one

 That shook up me and the FLCCC up big time. A corporate behemoth just making up shit up and posting it on their website. No data, no analysis, no authors. Well, it wasn’t just the fact they committed such a brazen act, I mean they are Pharma, but what shook us most was the ridiculous media fanfare that it ignited. They post lies and then corporate media immediately generates headlines across the world, warning Earth’s citizens that ivermectin doesn’t work in COVID. A corporation with a documented history of criminality posting something verifiably false on their website which immediately gets accepted as a global truth. Holy cow.
 This was indeed a truly shocking and powerful display of influence and control. I didn’t yet know at the time that Pharma had such immense global media power. I didn’t yet know that an entire generation of science reporters in legacy media had died or resigned or had instead cravenly allowed themselves to be muzzled and/or co-opted to service Pharma’s lies.
 But here’s the thing, the FLCCC (i.e the “Bad News Bears” of the pandemic war on science) had just hit two home runs, the first one being my Senate testimony going viral and the second being our paper’s abstract posted on the Frontiers of Pharmacology journals’ website. Then we hit another (“back to back to back home runs!”) after Paul Marik, myself, and Andrew Hill presented all the existing ivermectin evidence to the NIH on January 6, 2021. As a result of that presentation, weeks later, the NIH COVID Treatment Guidelines committee changed their previous recommendation on ivermectin from “do not use outside of a clinical trial” to a more neutral one which said “there is insufficient evidence to recommend or not recommend” use in COVID.
 Whoa. FLCCC 3, Merck/Pharma 0. Now imagine that it started to get even worse for Pharma (which never happens). As a result of my testimony, our paper, and the NIH recommendation change, a support for a generic, repurposed medicine was building. Their “market position” was being pushed back. To make matters worse, the FLCCC’s early combination prevention and treatment protocols were being increasingly disseminated, not only in the U.S, but around the world, from India to Ukraine and beyond. FLCCC 4, Merck/Pharma 0. Not looking good for Pharma.
 Yeah right. The lead didn’t last very long.
 What I think really triggered Merck’s move was that, as a result of the above efforts, ivermectin prescriptions by American physicians were shooting through the roof. Losing early and badly, Pharma started throwing at our heads, high and inside. Again, it was deeply intimidating to see just how quickly they were able to ignite a bonfire of negative press against ivermectin across the world’s media. Whoa. Note that at that time there was not a single “large, rigorous” trial showing that ivermectin did not work (those fraudulences would come later). Instead… all the trials were positive wherever you looked. Scary stuff if you are in an industry that is salivating over an emerging $100 billion plus market that, if ivermectin were “proven” (notice the quotes) to work, it would absolutely obliterate the profit potential of.
 So instead they just posted a statement by their PR Department that ivermectin doesn’t work without providing any supportive data or scientist author names. One of the statements even tried to inject doubt as to ivermectin’s safety, a drug they knew was one of the safest in history. Not subtle. How did they get away with this? Well, maybe it was the fact that it was met with zero scientific criticism from academia or major media or our “trusted public health agencies.”
 If a rapid rise in ivermectin prescriptions was happening in the US, the same thing was likely happening in other countries (such was the power of the little ‘ole FLCCC?) Although I don’t have that data, Merck absolutely did. Look at the rise in U.S ivermectin prescriptions that occurred in the wake of our paper (Nov 13, 2020) and my Senate testimony in Ron Johnson’s hearings (December 8, 2020.) Now look at what was happening just before Merck posted their criminal statement on February 4th, 2021. Spurious correlation?

 Others in the FLCCC were not as disturbed by Merck’s attack on ivermectin because they interpreted Merck’s insane move as validation that we were “over the target.” They were confident that we were onto something and that we were winning because Merck was running scared. I wan’t so sure.
 The reason I say this is because during that period I first began to have thoughts of concern for my well-being. I was worried as the father of three teenage girls who was just becoming aware of Pharma’s documented record of mass killing in the wake of toxic product launches ( Vioxx , Avandia , Zyprexa, Topomax, Oxycontin etc , and here we were starting to “poke the bear.” A very big and very bad bear. I started making more of a point to lock the house. I kept a bat closer to where I sat or slept at night. Yes, a bat . So stupid.
 Now, what I have learned since that time is that nothing gets Pharma to engage in Disinformation more so than where there is a documented rise in prescriptions of a repurposed drug. Noth-ing. I learned this mostly from when the later, “horse dewormer” PR campaign against ivermectin was launched around August 26th, 2021. See the below record of weekly ivermectin prescriptions in the US in August of 2021 and look back to the prior hump in February preceding the Merck statement above:

 Methinks they hired a more powerful PR firm between the two humps because the horse dewormer campaign was way more devastating in impact compared to the lame Merck website statement. Plus, by the time of the horse dewormer campaign, Pharma had published the first of a series of fraudulent trials and meta-analyses in high-impact journals to support the campaign, which is why I think the corruptive actions of the “Editorial Mafia” are the foundational cause of millions of preventable deaths.
 Without the journals and their craven non-whistle-blowing editors, none of the above would have been possible. If only Marcia Angell had not retired twenty years ago. Forgive me for I foreshadow.
 Thinking back to that time, before I knew what I just related above, it pains me to have to remind myself of the depth of naiveté I still possessed, even after the Merck statement and the sudden retraction of our paper which I will detail below. I am embarrassed to admit it, but despite those impressive opening salvos in the war, I still did not know “we” were at war. Or if I did, I did not know it was global. Because I still expected the WHO to fully end the pandemic the next month with a worldwide recommendation for ivermectin in the prevention and treatment of COVID. The pandemic would soon be over!
 But hear me out as to why I still had hope at the time. Recall that in June 2020, we had the experience of the WHO issuing a recommendation for corticosteroids which became the standard of care overnight. This occurred weeks after my first Senate testimony advocating for corticosteroids in Senator Ron Johnson’s historic hearings in May of 2020. Which, I might add, was months after the FLCCC had been screaming at the world to use corticosteroids in hospital patients. I know, I know, it wasn’t because of us but still, such a sudden and global recommendation had happened once, why couldn’t it happen again?
 Ugh. Let’s get back to the story of our paper’s shocking retraction. After my testimony and the posting of our paper on a pre-print serve r, we knew we needed to publish in a medical journal. And quickly. We were in mid December 2020 when I learned of a then well-regarded journal called Frontiers in Pharmacology that was putting out a special issue called “The Use of Available Medicines in COVID-19.” Perfect.
 Fun fact: the scientist who suggested the topic for this special issue was a guy named Robert Malone. Yes, that Robert Malone. I reached out to Robert as he was the Guest Editor of the Special Issue. He was interested in our paper and thus invited our group to submit it to his issue. He selected four colleagues of his to review the paper, three of them being senior scientists at the FDA, DOD, and NIH. The fourth was an ICU specialist in the Bronx.
 Robert was awesome - he commandeered a rapid peer-review of our paper over the Christmas Holiday 2020 by harassing the reviewers repeatedly to submit their initial reviews as well as their subsequent and numerous requested revisions. Admittedly, I was the one making Robert harass them, but only for speed because we knew people were dying and that the publication of the paper would have a major impact in stemming the rising tide of dead COVID-19 victims.
 Three long rounds of rigorous peer review ensued and it was finally accepted by all the reviewers for publication! Yesss!
 Frontiers in Pharmacology quickly posted the abstract on their website where it became the most viewed abstract in the history of that journal, and one of the most viewed at almost any of the Frontier’s journals. There was a lot of attention on our paper.
 This is where everything went sideways and fast.. Week after week went by without the journal sending me a proof to approve. It was an on-line journal! Come on man, just copy-set the paper, I will review it and then you publish it! The world will be saved!
 That is, historically and tragically, not what happened. To make a long story short, after weeks of harassing the journal representatives, I finally wrote an exasperated email in which I accused the journal of scientific misconduct and stated that the FLCCC was prepared to go public with our complaint unless our suspicions could be satisfied. Robert wrote a less inflammatory email right after mine, asking the journal to clarify why, not only my paper, but also another one that Robert had submitted on famotidine was being held up.
 Pretty quickly, the chief editor of all of Frontier’s journals (Frederick Fenter - never forget his name) got involved and set up a meeting with Robert. At that meeting, he reported that “someone had complained” about our paper’s conclusion, which was to “globally and systematically deploy ivermectin in the prevention and treatment of COVID-19.” He said that as a result of the complaint, he sent the paper to some anonymous reviewer… who recommended to retract the paper.
 Let’s review how crazy this was. Historically, the only reasons for a paper to be retracted is when evidence of fraud or scientific plagiarism is uncovered. In our case, after passing peer-review by 4 experts, suddenly some shadowy, anonymous 5th reviewer disagrees and instead says to retract the paper. And the editor listens to that reviewer. What?
 Most important is that this reviewer did not detail anything specific to revise, just that they “felt” the data presented did not support our conclusions and that it should be retracted and further, that no opportunity to revise the paper should be offerred. The lack of an offer to revise the paper was, to me, the definitive proof of their malevolence. Standard practice in scientific manuscript submissions is that when a peer-reviewer has a problem with a paper’s analysis or conclusion, they instead make a suggestion to revise it by providing their opposing interpretation of the data or with some superior knowledge of the topic instead.
 Sensing tragedy, I made a lame, pathetic plea by revising the paper to a more muted conclusion, hoping to satisfy Fenter and his anonymous reviewer (Hi Bill!). See how naive I was? But I was convinced that even a softened paper would be massive in impact. And as weird or megalomaniac as this sounds, I knew the world depended on the paper for its salvation . Ugh. Yucky I know.
 But imagine being in a state where your knowledge or expertise could literally save a world in devastation. Despite mountains of self-doubt, I could not convince myself otherwise. I knew this paper had to get published or people would die. Lots of them. The world depended on this paper’s conclusions. I swear I was as unsettled as you are at this thinking and its implications.
 But then the reality of the world hit hard. Frederick Fenter declined to allow me to revise the paper , and instead suggested that we instead revise and re-submit the paper as a new submission for another round of peer-review. I laughed as hard then as you are now at this ludicrous proposition. What, so they could sit on it again for months and then reject or retract again? Clown world.
 But this retraction was absolutely unprecedented in our careers. The FLCCC had collectively published over 1,500 scientific manuscripts over 4 decades and had never had a paper retracted  after passing peer review with no complaint of fraud or plagiarism . That is the point of peer review. And the paper had undergone a series of revisions until it was finally accepted by a consensus of 4 experts. Until it wasn’t. Here  is an article in the Scientist  reporting on this scandal. Do not expect to find the truth in that article.
 After our paper got retracted, Frontiers then put a hold on all the papers under review in Robert’s special issue. Robert and his co-editors had a tense meeting with the journal editors as well as an outside expert who was brought in to review all the papers. During these discussions, it became clear to Robert and his colleagues that the whole process was fraudulent and that the “expert” was not making scientific or ethical sense. Outraged, they immediately resigned en masse  as described in this article in the Scientis t. The special issue was dead.
 After the FLCCC was rejected, we licked our wounds and quickly submitted to a different journal. I knew the editor of that journal because he had initially invited us to submit to him, but unfortunately it was just after I had tragically chosen Frontiers in Pharmacology . I actually knew the editor from my youth and so trusted him but still wanted to verify that he wouldn’t pull the same nonsense as Frontiers. He deeply reassured me by his acknowledgment of the unfairness of what happened and his “knowing” lack of surprise at what we endured in the face of “an advancement in science” as he characterized it. It was clear he knew of the “ Simmelweis Reflex.”
 So, he simply asked that I submit to him the Frontier’s peer-reviewer comments, including the history of our revisions. He carefully reviewed them and then immediately accepted our paper for publication!
 Shockingly, it quickly became one of the most popular papers in recent history using the altmetric score (a “popularity” score which was only invented in 2011 so I don’t want to overstate its importance). At the time it was the 11th most popular paper out of the last 22 million publications (now it is #58).

 Tess’s later review paper became even more popular. As you can see below, as of today, hers is the 8th most “popular” scientific publication in the past decade. #8 out of the last 22 million scientific publications.

 Yet no-one has ever heard of her (or our) paper. And, unsurprisingly, neither moved the national or international regulatory agencies or corporate media to acknowledge. This is why I stress that the whole “game” is based on “high-impact medical journals.” Anything outside of those top journals is ignored by wider society.

 The Lancet - Respiratory Journal

 This novel practice of retracting peer-reviewed papers continued. Recall from Part 1 that Tess Lawrie and Andy Bryant’s review proposal was rejected by the Cochrane Library after initially being accepted and before actual submission . They were then told by Cochrane to submit to another journal.
 Now, although I already wrote about Cochrane’s rejection in Part 1, I just came across an email from Tess which explains in greater detail how that rejection went down. So, I am adding to my prior post here as I found it sort of chilling. Tess wrote that Cochrane’s sudden turn-about was triggered only after she alerted them that Andy Hill would no longer be an author . Obviously she did so only after she discovered Andy had severe conflicts of interest (recall he admitted to her on a recorded zoom that he was allowing his sponsors to manipulate his paper).
 From Tess to her and now my colleague Edmund Fordham:
 On Jun 15, 2022, at 6:40 AM, Tess Lawrie < tess@e-bmc.co.uk > wrote:

 Thanks Edmund, if i can just correct the point on Cochrane accepting the rapid review protocol - it went down like this: We submitted the protocol on Friday 15th Jan to Cochrane’s Toby Lasserson and Paul Gardner, I had the meeting with Hill on the 18th Jan and wrote to Toby on the 19th (after requesting a call on the 18th) about Hill’ competing interests, saying that he could no longer be involved in our review.
 After that Toby went quiet and I reached out to Karla Soares Weissner to find out what was going on. I got a reply on the 25th jan - will forward all this correspondence with you. Revisiting it, I realize that it makes for fascinating reading. We should write it up for substack. Incidentally, I recorded the meeting I had with Toby during the first week of feb where I recall him l ooking rather uncomfortable too as he scraped the barrel for reasons as to why he was facilitating the German review and not ours.I have never re-watched this meeting - perhaps now is the time.
Dr Tess Lawrie
Director/CEO
C: EBMC Ltd /EbMCsquared CiC  W:   www.e-bmc.co.uk  /  www.ebmcsquared.org

 Wow. That was the rejection from the Cochrane Library. Now, let’s talk about the ensuing “retraction” from The Lancet Respiratory , a very highly regarded journal. Tess et al’s submission to that journal was initially accepted and then sent out to experts for peer-review, also using 4 experts (some journals only use two). The paper passed their extensive peer-review and thus should have been deemed “accepted for publication” as per traditional, long-standing procedure. Problem: there is no longer such as thing as the traditional, long standing procedure in Science during COVID.
 To wit, here is Tess writing to a senior health official in Australia (an evil health bureaucrat who has blocked ivermectin at the highest levels in Australia throughout the pandemic). She tied to explain to him what happened to her paper after he so “innocently” inquired:
 March 22, 2021
 Dear Prof. Skerritt,
 The Journal’s decision was as follows:
 " Unfortunately, after some lengthy discussions with the editorial team, we do not feel that we can pursue the paper at The Lancet Respiratory Medicine. It was felt that there is just not enough evidence at the moment on ivermectin to be confident in a study such as this at this time, and we would encourage waiting until several more studies are published to help improve confidence in the paper. We don't doubt that this is an important paper, and would likely be widely picked up, and as such, we want to make sure that it includes as high-quality evidence as possible to ensure we spread a message that is strongly supported by the evidence. Therefore, on this occasion, we have decided not to publish your manuscript, but would perhaps consider an updated paper that includes more published evidence later down the line.
 From Tess to Skerritt:
 The findings of our review suggest that ivermectin may have a significant impact on excess deaths from covid. We graded the evidence as low to moderate certainty very conservatively using the GRADE approach. We have had our grading independently checked by an experienced Argentinian team who routinely do evidence grading for the World Health Organization and they graded the evidence on deaths as moderate certainty using the WHO’s standard operating procedure. Moderate certainty evidence means that ivermectin probably significantly reduces deaths from covid. There are no interventions currently granted emergency use authorization that can be said to have this effect. I would also like to point out that is more evidence on ivermectin safety than any other intervention currently in use against covid."
 I would like to point out that after the Ebola crisis the WHO issued a statement about sharing results in times of health emergencies. I refer you to it here:
 https://www.who.int/medicines/ebola-treatment/blueprint_phe_data-share-results/en/
 They emphasize the importance of pre-prints as a way of facilitating the sharing of important information that can save lives. They also say that  " Journals should not hinder the sharing of data that could help mitigate the impact of such emergencies.” Unfortunately, this seems to be the case with ivermectin, where at least 4 reviews of the evidence and many studies remain on pre-print websites, as authors struggle to get them published.
 I attach a few here, as well as the evidence to decision framework document that has been prepared according to the methods I usually employ when employed as a guideline methodologist by WHO.
 If you have any question, please do not hesitate to contact me.
 Kind regards,
 Tess Lawrie
 Dr Theresa Lawrie
Evidence-Based Medicine Consultancy Ltd Bath, United Kingdom
+44 7826 939464
 e-bmc.co.uk

 So, Tess satisfied all 4 expert peer-reviewers of her paper. Further, to achieve this, she softened her conclusions greatly, to do so. Note that she had graded the trials evidence quality as conservatively as possible so as not to be accused of “over-interpreting.” One of the safest medicines in history with a “low to moderate certainty” that it reduces mortality based on 18 randomized controlled trials. Yet the Lancet Respiratory editors rejected it, saying… “there need to be more trials done.”
 Recall that Remdesivir was launched across the U.S and world based on one trial which showed zero, and I mean zero, impact on mortality. Similarly, Pfizer sold billions of Paxlovid based on just one trial, which also showed no impact on mortality.
 Behold Pharma’s “one and done” regulatory fast track system that they have built over decades with lots of influence and cash. Meanwhile, for poor little ivermectin: 18 RCT’s is not enough. Fun fact: ivermectin now has 91 controlled studies, 41 of them randomized, including 134,052 patients. The average estimate of benefit based on all these trials range from an average of 62% in treatment to 83% in prevention . Still, it is not recommended by any advanced health economy in the world. Clown world.
 After the editors balked, Tess followed our lead and submitted her paper to the same journal as we had, The American Journal of Therapeutics . Although headlines were launched after this publication, none were in major media. People kept dying as not enough new doctors were being taught to use it to treat COVID.

 Now, If you think we are done with the high-impact journal retractions, it is only because I split this post into two parts. The next post details even more insanely corrupt retractions than the above. Stay tuned. Subscribe if you haven’t.

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

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

Summary: Although Pharma got the high-impact journals to reject all positive ivermectin study submissions, they first got them to retract already published papers despite zero evidence of fraud. Unprecedented.