Inspirational Message To The Unvaccinated

Due to the relentless bombing of the world’s citizens with thought control weapons (global propaganda and censorship), of the many hundreds of outpatients I have treated for acute COVID pretty much the near entirety have been unvaccinated (all surviving except one 87 year old man on dialysis and in heart failure). Why would only unvaccinated people reach out to me? Easy answer: in general, those who have succumbed to the vaccine lie have also been mentally conditioned to not seek out care from “quacks” who use “horse de-wormers” or “Trump drugs” as part of their combination therapy protocols.
 Although it has been immensely satisfying to help so many patients feel better quickly while avoiding hospitalization and death, it has also been traumatic. In my care discussions with the unvaccinated, I listened to stories of everything that happened to them as a result of their unvaccinated status. Endless examples that either enraged me or just left me sad (depending on how I was feeling that day - the majority of the time it was rage). Story after story of lost jobs, retracted wedding invitations, the inability to travel, eat out at a restaurant, see a movie, or attend a concert. All made worse with mounting estrangements from friends, family and colleagues who often asked them to not attend a holiday gathering or work event.
 The other source of trauma are the stories from all my vaccine injured patients who trusted the authorities when they said the injections were “safe and effective” or who had honestly tried to do what they were being told is the “right thing” for their fellow citizens. They too acted with courage, conviction, and humanity. In my practice, the majority are now deeply remorseful after they came to discover that the institutions they trusted had so egregiously lied to them. What is even worse is that many of them then suffered the same discriminations as the unvaccinated when they were forced to refuse a 2nd, 3rd, or 4th shot. They also deserve to be honored. See below:
 MESSAGE TO THE UNVACCINATED
 Posted on August 22, 2022 by Constitutional Nobody
 MESSAGE TO THE UNVACCINATED:
 “Even if I were pollinated and fully vaccinated, I would admire the unvaccinated for withstanding the greatest pressure I have ever seen, even from partners, parents, children, friends, colleagues and doctors.
 People who were capable of such personality, courage and critical ability are undoubtedly the best of humanity. They are everywhere, in all ages, levels of education, states and ideas. They are of a special kind; they are the soldiers that every army of light wants to have in its ranks. They are the parents that every child wants to have and the children that every parent dreams of having. They are beings above the average of their societies, they are the essence of the people who have built all cultures and conquered horizons. They are there, next to you, they look normal, but they are superheroes.
 They did what others could not, they were the tree that withstood the hurricane of insults, discrimination and social exclusion. And they did it because they thought they were alone, and believed they were the only ones.
 Banned from their families’ tables at Christmas, they never saw anything so cruel. They lost their jobs, let their careers sink, had no more money … but they didn’t care. They suffered immeasurable discrimination, denunciation, betrayal and humiliation … but they kept going.
 Never before in humanity has there been such a “casting”, now we know who are the best on planet Earth. Women, men, old, young, rich, poor, of all races or religions, the unvaccinated, the chosen of the invisible ark, the only ones who managed to resist when everything collapsed.
 That’s you, you passed an unimaginable test that many of the toughest Marines, Commandos, Green Berets, astronauts and geniuses could not withstand.
 You are made of the stuff of the greatest who ever lived, those heroes born among ordinary men who glow in the dark.”
 Anon
 Do NOT comply.
 I cannot stress his/her post script enough. I completely agree that it is up to us individually to resist. We cannot simply hope that this will pass or that someone will save the day). Do NOT Comply
 After reading the above, I am again filled with so much admiration and respect for my patients and my ever-increasing global network of truth-telling (and truth-living) friends and colleagues. I am honored to have had the opportunity to meet and know so many on this journey that have suffered greatly but endured by sticking to truth, principles, and mutual support. You are indeed, as stated above, “the best of humanity.”

 I just want to say how much I appreciate all the subscribers to my Substack, and especially the paid ones! Your support is so greatly appreciated.
 Subscribe now
 P.S. I opened a tele-health clinic providing care not only in the prevention and treatment of acute COVID, but with a specialized focus on the study and treatment of both Long-Haul and Post-Vaccination injury syndromes. If anyone needs our help, feel free to visit our website at www.drpierrekory.com.
 P.P.S. I am getting professional help (hah!) to write a book about what I have personally witnessed and learned during Pharma’s historic Disinformation war on ivermectin.  Pre-order here for:

Summary: A member of the FLCCC team sent around this message written by an anonymous person. I found it extremely powerful and felt it needed to be shared.


Informed Consent To Parents Contemplating COVID-19 Injections For Their Infants and Toddlers

On 2 occasions, mothers reached out to me for help with guidance around the decision to vaccinate their young children against COVID-19. They were deeply knowledgeable about many aspects of the data around the Covid “vaccines” and thus did not want their 2 and 4 year-old daughters respectively to be “vaccinated” (quotes are there because they are not traditional vaccines but the term is so commonly used, I will adopt for consistency).
 Problem: both had ex-spouses who insisted that their daughter be vaccinated against COVID. One simply wanted guidance she could share with her ex to convince them not to. Another asked me to write a letter to the pediatrician so that he be fully informed before he made a recommendation to the ex-spouse. I initially wrote the letters in a few weeks ago, however this version incorporates even more updated data which further elevates the risk/benefit ratio in young children.
 Pierre Kory’s Medical Musings is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

 I provide an example of the letter for any parent of a toddler (or friend/relative of that parent who feels responsible to try to protect that child from such a potentially life-altering decision).

 Dear Dr. Smith,
 Ms. Hope Everlasting has asked me to provide guidance regarding the health risks and benefits of inoculating her four year-old daughter Faith with the COVID-19 mRNA experimental gene therapy currently existing under Emergency Use Authorization in the United States. Although this medical intervention does not meet the traditional definition of a vaccine, the term vaccine will be employed for ease of use in the below.
 I held an informed consent discussion with Hope during which I provided the below data informing my recommendation.
 ____________________________________________________________________________
 Faith Everlasting, DOB 7-4-18, is a four-year-old healthy girl weighing 40 pounds. In a review of her birth and medical history, her birth was uncomplicated, and she exhibited normal development in all domains, has had no medical problems to date, is on no medications, has no history of any allergies, and has natural immunity to COVID-19 after a recent diagnosis on June 1, 2022, from which she has now fully recovered.
 In the following, I will provide documentation of the informed consent discussion I held with Hope regarding a decision on whether to pursue COVID-19 mRNA vaccination for Faith. In the following, I solely relied on the most current, available data regarding;
 efficacy of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine in preventing illness in toddlers

 risks associated with receipt of a COVID mRNA vaccine

 risks of a healthy child suffering hospitalization and/or death from COVID

 efficacy of the protection of natural immunity

 benefits of health status in preventing severe outcomes

 efficacy of COVID mRNA vaccine in preventing severe disease

 efficacy of COVID mRNA vaccine in preventing transmission

   efficacy of COVID mRNA vaccine in prevention of “long-haul” COVID

 efficacy of alternatives to vaccination, i.e. early treatment options available

 ____________________________________________________________________________
 1) EFFICACY IN PREVENTION OF COVID-19
 Pfizer Trial Studying COVID mRNA vaccine for children 6 months to 4 years old
 Numerous groups of independent researchers , including my non-profit organization (the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance) have strongly objected to what can be argued as one of the most serious violations of regulatory standards in the history of medication authorizations by the FDA and the CDC.
 We base this judgement on the following:
 First, it must be recognized that the pediatric clinical trials for the COVID vaccines were too small (the booster trial for 5-to-11-year olds had 140 participants) or the follow-up period too short (the trial in the 6 month to 4 year-olds were followed for 6 weeks only) to detect safety signals for serious adverse events–especially for a recipient population in the tens of millions.
 Pfizers clinical trial studying a 3 dose series of COVID mRNA vaccines in 6 month to 4 year-olds:
 1)     The trial recruited 4,526 children. 3,000 did not make it to the end of the t rial. This is a highly disturbing finding and is almost unprecedented to have this number of subjects (2/3) drop out of any trial. This level of drop-out should have negated the value of any findings.
 2)     The trial defined “severe covid” as an increased heart or respiratory rate. There were 6 cases in the vaccinated group and only one in the unvaccinated group. The only child hospitalized in the trial had a fever and a seizure. They were in the vaccinated group.
 3)     In the 3-week period between the first and 2nd doses in this trial, 34 of the vaccinated children contracted COVID, while only 13 in the unvaccinated group contracted COVID.
 4)     When comparing cases one week after the 3rd dose, only 10 cases occurred, with 7 in the placebo group and 3 in the vaccinated group. Thus, a total of ten cases out of 4,526 children enrolled was the entire extent of the used to support authorization.
 In light of this paucity of data, their own comment on efficacy was worded as follows: “Vaccine efficacy post Dose 3 cannot be precisely estimated due to the limited number of cases accrued during blinded follow-up, as reflected in the wide confidence intervals associated with the estimates.”

 More disturbing is that safety was only monitored for 6 weeks before they decided to vaccinate the children in the placebo group, an unprecedented lack of follow-up for both short term and long-term safety.

 The trials for children 2 through 4 years old failed to meet FDA-specified requirements for COVID vaccine EUAs . The vaccines did not show 50% efficacy nor meet the required 30% lower bound with a 95% confidence interval. Given these data, there is no support for the proposal to use a product and schedule that failed FDA‘s established criteria in its clinical trials.

 Any proposal to add further doses (boosters) later in order to provide a fleeting efficacy boost to the Pfizer vaccines for preschoolers would have to ignore the fact that that the Pfizer shots in the 5-11 year range led to very poor efficacy; 31% according to the CDC and 12% after 7 weeks according to a massive database comprising over 1.3 million children (365,000 of whom were vaccinated) from the NY Department of Health. Five to 11-year-old children dropped into the negative efficacy by 8 weeks after receiving the second dose. See Figure below.

 The study above was the largest COVID vaccine efficacy study in children ever published, using the highest quality, official data from NY state. There was a large, linear drop in efficacy seen with each successive week following full vaccination. Extremely narrow confidence intervals confirm the validity of these data. By 8 weeks following their second dose, vaccinated children were placed at higher risk of developing COVID than unvaccinated children. By 9 weeks, their risk was even higher. Despite illogical attempts to minimize this finding, the fact is that being vaccinated placed these children in a higher risk category for a COVID infection than if they had never been vaccinated.

 As as a result of such a severe violation of traditional regulatory approval standards:
 The state of Florida recommends against COVID vaccines for children.

 The Publix Supermarket chain announced that they would not offer COVID vaccines to young children.

 On June 22, the Danish Health Ministry held a COVID Press Conference ; the General Director Søren Brostrøm said, “With the knowledge we have today, we did not get much out of having children vaccinated against coronavirus last year.” When asked asked if it was a mistake to vaccinate children, he answered, “With what we know today: yes. With what we knew then: no, was the answer.”

 7 nations have suspended COVID-19 vaccines for younger age groups due to risks of myocarditis.
 Sweden, Finland, France, and Germany suspended Moderna for under 30 years old

 Denmark suspended Moderna vaccine for under 18 years old

 Taiwan suspended 2nd Pfizer vaccine for ages 12-17

 More recent data studying the impacts of vaccines in the general population report alarming findings of inefficacy:
 A JAMA-published study that shows that the number of reinfections increases with every vaccine dose received.
 I n a recent study published in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine , they reported that individuals fully vaccinated and boosted against COVID-19 recover markedly more slowly from the illness and remain contagious for lengthier periods of time compared to unvaccinated persons. Further, people that are vaccinated remain five times as contagious as those who are unvaccinated ten days after SARS-CoV-2 infection.
 The original Moderna clinical trial data , which should have been available to regulatory agencies at least since the Moderna package was presented for licensure, reveals that while 93% of unvaccinated controls produced detectable SARS-CoV-2 anti-nucleocapsid antibody after infection, only 40% of the vaccinated produced this antibody after infection. Most of the vaccinated failed to mount the expected immune response. This is probably why Dr. Marco Cavaleri of the European Medicines Agency "warned that frequent Covid-19 booster shots could adversely affect the immune response and may not be feasible. Repeat booster doses every four months could eventually weaken the immune response and tire out people, according to the European Medicines Agency."  It is probable that the more doses of these vaccines you receive, the less broad immunity you will develop, even after getting infected. Why subject children to the long-term risk of damaging their immunity to coronaviruses by authorizing vaccines for the youngest children?
 Walgreens pharmacies perform rapid antigen COVID tests and report weekly on the results, based on the number of vaccine doses received and the date the most recent vaccination was obtained. The results reveal that receiving a 2nd or 3d dose within the past 5 months leads to a comparable positivity rate as being unvaccinated (21.8-26.2%). However, receiving 2 or 3 doses more than 5 months ago leads to the highest positivity rates (33.5-38.4%). This is further supportive evidence that efficacy falls into negative territory several months after vaccination. See the chart below.

 Stanford researchers found  that “prior vaccination with Wuhan-Hu-1-like antigens followed by infection with Alpha or Delta variants gives rise to plasma antibody responses with apparent Wuhan-Hu-1-specific imprinting manifesting as  relatively decreased responses to the variant virus epitopes   compared with unvaccinated patients infected with those variant viruses.”
 From a Public Health England vaccine surveillance report in the U.K., government researchers asserted ( p. 23 ) that their serology tests were underestimating the number of people with prior infection due to recent observations from UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) surveillance data that “N antibody levels appear to be lower in individuals who acquire infection following 2 doses of vaccination.”
 Dr. Paul Offit, Chair of the FDA Vaccine Advisory Board conceded in a  letter to the New England Journal of Medicine  that there is a real concern of the shots inducing a form of immune suppression known as original antigenic sin.
 In this peer-reviewed paper, they found that at the country-level (and U.S county level), there appears to be no discernable relationship between the percentage of the population fully vaccinated and new COVID-19 cases as seen below. In fact, the rising slope of the relationship in both graphs below suggest that mass vaccination policies may paradoxically lead to more cases, with Israel serving as a worrying outlier.

 A study prepared by Humetrix  for the Department of Defense called "Project Salus," monitored 20 million Medicare beneficiaries from January to August of 2021 and found that the vaccinated share of the COVID hospitalizations rose steadily with both vaccines after three to four months and sharply after six months (as the Israelis found). By late July, 71% of all cases and 61% of all hospitalizations were among vaccinated individuals.
 According to  Cornell University’s faculty,  an outbreak in December of 2021 which forced the school to switch to online learning was driven exclusively by the vaccinated. "Virtually every case of the Omicron variant to date has been found in fully vaccinated students, a portion of whom had also received a booster shot," said Vice President for University Relations Joel Malina  in a statement .
 On December 31, 2021, the UK’s Office of National Statistics  released  an “Infection Survey” of 1,701 individuals who tested positive for COVID between Nov. 29 and Dec. 12, of whom 115 tested positive for the Omicron variant. The agency found a clear correlation between the number of vaccinations and the likelihood of an Omicron-positive result. The odds ratio of testing positive for Omicron with two vaccinations was 2.26; for the triple-vaccinated, it was 4.45.
 According to this U.K. health surveillance report , roughly 95% of those over 70 are double-vaccinated and about 90%-93% of the age cohorts over 70 are boosted. Just 1.6% of the senior cases between weeks 7 and 10 of this year were among the unvaccinated, which is below the 5% share of the population they compose. The triple-boosted actually made up 90% of the cases.

 The respected  Robert Koch Institute  reported that among the 4,206 Germans infected with Omicron for whom their vaccination status was known, 95.58% were fully vaccinated. More than a quarter of them had booster shots. Given that the overall background rate for vaccination in Germany is 70%, this suggests an -87% effectiveness rate against Omicron.
 As of Dec. 31, 2021, in Denmark, 89.7% of all Omicron cases were among the fully vaccinated with  just 8.5% of all cases in Denmark among the unvaccinated , according to the  Statens Serum Institut . Overall, 77.9% of Denmark was fully vaccinated at the time, and  Omicron is more prevalent among younger people  for whom there is a greater unvaccinated pool, which again support a negative efficacy. Even for non-Omicron variants, the unvaccinated composed only 23.7% of the cases.

 In summary, the most salient aspects of the above data indicate a rapid and higher likelihood over time of suffering COVID-19 if vaccinated. The two most likely explanations for this finding are that:
 the current mRNA vaccines were formulated using the genetic sequences of the original “Wuhan” strain of SARS-CoV2 from over 2 years ago. Given SARS-CoV2 is a highly mutagenic virus, efficacy in protection rapidly wanes.

 recent studies show that COVID-19 vaccinated individuals develop significant negative impacts in immune system protection and surveillance.

 __________________________________________________________________________
 2)   RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH RECEIVING THE COVID mRNA VACCINE
 Increasing numbers of scientific manuscripts detail mechanisms underlying the potential causes of significant morbidity, in particular the immune suppression leading to the increased risks of infection as detailed in this post, as well as increased rates of cancer in those vaccinated that doctors are reporting.
 One of the Adverse Effects from Pfizers post marketing study was the development of "anti-sperm antibodies" -- referring to damage to male sperm.

 Most concerning for the future health of a young child is that adding the above finding of the possibility of anti-sperm antibodies to the severely increased rates of spontaneous abortion in pregnanc y, leads to disturbing implications of decreased fertility among the vaccinated. This appears to have become a reality. Recent reports of unprecedented drops in birth rates from countries all over the world validate this implication in that, unless alternative explanations for the widespread decrease in fertility can be found, as per long standing regulatory standards, the cause must be assumed to be COVID mRNA vaccination until proven otherwise.
 Other concerns abound: a group of independent German scientists found toxic components—mostly metallic—in all the COVID vaccine samples they analyzed, “without exception” using modern medical and physical measuring techniques.The following metallic elements were found in the vaccines. They have recently submitted their report to the German government.
 Alkali metals: caesium (Cs), potassium (K)

 Alkaline earth metals: calcium (Ca), barium (Ba)

 transition metals: cobalt (Co), iron (Fe), chromium (Cr), titanium (Ti)

 Rare earth metals: cerium (Ce), gadolinium (Gd)

 Mining group/metal: aluminum (Al)

 Carbon group: silicon (Si) (partly support material/slide)

 Oxygen group: sulphur (S)

 A new peer-reviewed study in eLife Sciences, conducted by the Department of Gene Therapy at the University of Ulm, Germany found concerning evidence of contamination of AstraZeneca vaccine batches by proteins derived from the human cell lines in which they were produced. This may have reduced the effectiveness of the vaccine by lowering the immune response. Moreover, it may have caused a variety of adverse reactions. The editor of the journal correctly notes that “this paper is important because lot purity and processing of vaccines is rarely scrutinized in the scientific realm, and instead is typically analyzed only by the companies themselves.”
 Furthermore, multiple studies have suggested that vaccinating after infection increases the risk of vaccine-induced side effects such as myocarditis. A new study published in the Nature journal Scientific Reports adds to the body of vaccine myocarditis research, this time showing an association between mass vaccination and increased emergency cardiovascular events.
 Israel - In a recently leaked recording , it was discovered that a researcher hired to study vaccine injuries reported back to the Israeli Ministry of Health that his findings establish a causal relationship between injuries, deaths and the vaccines and warned them that they could be exposed to lawsuits.
 The risks demonstrably outweigh the benefits of COVID vaccination in children. A study out of Hong Kong showed one out of every 2,700 12-17-year-old boys are diagnosed with myocarditis following the 2nd dose of Comirnaty vaccine (37 per 100,000 vaccinated). A study from Kaiser found the same rate of myocarditis in 12-17-year-old American boys, 1/2700.
 9)     While CDC is saying that myocarditis is a mild disease, cardiologists know otherwise. The CDC’s own preliminary data , reported at the February 4 ACIP meeting, revealed that nearly half of the young people diagnosed with myocarditis still had symptoms 3 months later, and 39% had their activity restricted by their physician. We know this serious adverse event frequently occurs in teenagers. But no one knows how often it occurs in younger children . This is of significant concern for babies and younger children.
 Again, it also must be noted that 7 nations have suspended COVID-19 vaccines for younger age groups due to risks of myocarditis.
 ·      Sweden, Finland, France, and Germany suspended Moderna for under 30 years old
 ·      Denmark suspended Moderna vaccine for under 18 years old
 ·      Taiwan suspended 2nd Pfizer vaccine for ages 12-17
 It does not meet the risk-benefit standard of 21 U.S. Code § 360bbb–322 “the known and potential benefits of the product, when used to diagnose, prevent, or treat such disease or condition, outweigh the known and potential risks of the product.”
 Some children likely will die and others will be permanently injured from these vaccines based on reporting to the current VAERS database . The latest data shows a total of 1,287,595 reports of adverse events from all age groups following COVID vaccines, including 28,532 deaths and 235,041 serious injuries between Dec. 14, 2020, and May 27, 2022.
 There are no long-term safety data for COVID vaccination of young children, and the proposal is to vaccinate children under an Emergency Use Authorization. These facts establish that vaccinating small children for COVID will be an experiment, not a standard medical procedure. If we miss significant side effects that occur in babies and toddlers, the health trajectories of their lives could be changed.
 There is no available care for children injured by COVID shots. There is no way to remove the spike protein and other toxic byproducts of vaccination, which may be produced for a considerable period of time following inoculation of messenger RNA . The science and medicine have not yet developed, and most families will be unable to cover the costs of potential catastrophic injuries. The federal government’s Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program has not compensated a single person injured by COVID vaccines .
 Three weeks ago, FDA authorized booster doses of Pfizer vaccine for 5-11-year-olds without convening a VRBPAC meeting or providing any public discussion of the evidence supporting the booster. Dr. Peter Marks, the Director of FDA’s Center for Biologics told the VRBPAC in April that the FDA’s issuance of an EUA for a second booster in adults was a “stopgap measure”-- the implication being there was no scientific evidence to support that booster. Has FDA given up even the appearance of a scientific evaluation before issuing more EUAs for COVID vaccines?
 In this published pape r analyzing data from the pivotal clinical trials used to support the novel mRNA vaccines (i.e. Moderna, Pfizer, and Janssen), Classen compared “all cause severe morbidity,” defined as “severe infections with COVID-19 and all other severe adverse events between the treatment arms and control arms respectively.” His analysis found a statically significant increase in all cause severe morbidity occurred in the vaccinated group compared to the placebo group.
 In the documents related to a recent FOIA request, in the Pfizer informed consent document ( p. 5 ) it was revealed that the company recognized the risk of myocarditis to be as high as 1 in 1,000. In 2022, with many fewer vaccines administered compared to 2021, the rate of myocarditis  reports to VAERS  is averaging 245% higher than last year. The myocarditis is overwhelmingly found in children .
 In this paper by Walach et al , they calculated the Number Needed to Vaccinate (NNTV) to prevent one death from a large Israeli field study. They then accessed the Adverse Drug Reactions database of the Dutch National Register (Lareb) to extract the number of cases reporting severe side-effects and the number of cases reporting fatal side-effects.
 · They found the NNTV to be between  200 and 700  to prevent one case of COVID-19 by Pfizer’s mRNA vaccine product.
 · The NNTV to prevent one death was between  9,000 and 100,000  (95% confidence interval), with  16,000 as a point estimate  (as you will see below, for younger healthy people, this estimate would tend to the higher end of a NNTV of 90,000-100,000 to prevent a single death) .
 · They calculated that for every 6 deaths prevented by vaccination, there were approximately 4 deaths reported associated with vaccination, yielding a potential risk/benefit ratio of 2:3 (note that deaths are consistently under-reported to such databases, thus a more accurate risk/benefit ratio for death would likely be inverted).
 · They concluded that, “although causality between individual reports of adverse events and vaccination has not been established, these data indicate a lack of clear benefit, which should cause governments to rethink their vaccination policy”.
 In this published paper by Jessica Rose , a world-expert analyst of the VAERS database, she found that, based on the ratio of expected severe adverse events to observed adverse events in VAERS for a number of conditions, the “underreporting factor (URF)” for COVID vaccine-associated deaths was 31. Using this URF for all VAERS-classified severe adverse events, as of October 2021, vaccines were associated with 205,809 deaths, 818,462 hospitalizations, 1,830,891 ER visits, 230,113 life-threatening events, 212,691 disabled and 7,998 birth defects."
 This paper  by Ronald Kostoff et al was retracted despite passing peer-review. However, in a personal review of the correspondence between the author and Journal Editor, neither I nor my colleagues were able to find a valid criticism of the underlying data analysis or conclusions. Therefore, I have incorporated this valuable study whereby they used a novel, best-case scenario, cost-benefit analysis which showed conservatively that there were five times the number of deaths attributable to each inoculation vs. those attributable to COVID-19 in the most vulnerable 65+ demographic. The risk of death from COVID-19 decreased drastically as age decreases, and the longer-term effects of the inoculations on lower age groups “may increase” their risk-benefit ratio (although this has not been demonstrated to date as can be seen below).
 In this review of autopsy study data , they found that after mRNA vaccination, there was
 rapid distribution of the vaccine through the bloodstream,

 widespread spike protein expression, prominently in blood vessels, and

 autoimmune-like inflammation and organ damage.

 VAERS Data
 As of April 22, 2022, in the United States alone 5,309 cases of myocarditis, 782,665 adverse events, 151,796 severe adverse events, and 14,613 deaths have been recorded in the  Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System  following COVID-19 vaccination in the USA. It should be appreciated that the VAERS databases’s main limitation is that of underreporting,  by a factor of at least 30-fold . The most concerning implication of under-reporting is in regards to the exponential increases in actual reports of death after vaccination in the past year compared to prior years of all vaccines combined.

 Even more damning is the temporal relationship of these reports to the date of the individual’s vaccination, which some authorities have attempted to dismiss as simply representing “background” deaths. The fact that the reporting of deaths decrease over time from date of vaccination (seen below), infers a worrying causal relationship whereas erroneously reported “background deaths” would instead appear in similar numbers each subsequent day after the date of vaccination.

 Statisticians and analysts working with the Vaccine Safety Research Foundation (VSRF) have estimated the total number of deaths in the U.S caused by the COVID-19 vaccines based on the numbers reported to the U.S Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System.  In their white paper , they employed 9 different statistical prediction models and found that as of December of 2021, total deaths associated with the vaccines ranged from 148,000 to 216,000. Using the same methodology for the 14,613 COVID-19 vaccine associated deaths in the U.S reported as of May 16, 2022, the updated point estimate is approximately 599,000 deaths. The data and conclusions from these publications above provide support for identifying the vaccination campaign as the primary cause of the massive increases in Life Insurance claims among working-age Americans beginning in the second half of 2021, as will be detailed below.
 Epidemiologic Data
 An article published in the journal  Nature  reported:
 · increases of over 25% in the number of ambulance calls in response to cardiac arrests (CA) and acute coronary syndromes (ACS or “heart attacks”) for young people people in the 16–39 age group during the COVID-19 vaccination rollout in Israel (January–May, 2021) compared with the same period of time in prior years (2019 and 2020).
 · a robust and statistically significant association between the weekly CA and ACS call counts  and the rates of 1st and 2nd vaccine doses administered  to this age group. Note they found  no observed statistically significant association  between  COVID-19 infection rates and the CA and ACS call counts .
 · findings that aligned with previous studies showing that increases in overall CA incidence were not always associated with higher COVID-19 infections rates at a population level, and that the stability of hospitalization rates related to myocardial infarction throughout the initial COVID-19 wave compared to pre-pandemic baselines in Israel.
 · findings that mirrored reports of increased emergency department visits with cardiovascular complaints during the vaccination rollout in Germany as well as  increased EMS calls for cardiac incidents in Scotland .
 In line with the above, as a result of a FOIA application in the state of Massachusetts,  an analysis of the now publicly available death certificate data  found that during 2020, the predominant cause of rises in all cause mortality were due to “ respiratory causes ,” (i.e. excess mortality from COVID-19) while in 2021, the predominant causes were “ cardiovascular .” The analyst concluded, “the official Massachusetts database of death certificates contains proof that C19 vaccines killed thousands of people in Massachusetts in 2021.”
 Equally alarming are the massive rise in deaths among healthy, young professional athletes from around the world. Since the vaccination campaign was initiated, and as of June 4, 2022, there were  approximately 1,090 athletes  that suffered a cardiac arrest, with 715 of them dying as a result. The majority of arrests occurred in competition or training. The frequency of these events in comparison to historical data is highly concerning. In a 2009  review of professional athletes deaths , published in a prominent European Cardiology journal, they found that from 1966 to 2004, there was an average of only 29 sudden athlete deaths  per year worldwide . Compare this number to just the month of January 2022 alone where 127 collapses and 87 deaths among professional athletes were reported. Overall, these athlete deaths reflect an approximately 22-fold increase in the year after the introduction of COVID vaccines, to date unexplained by other identifiable causes.
 The  CDC data provided in this article  shows the timing of the start and the steady rise in all-cause mortality of working-age adults in the U.S, both overlapping with the start of the mass vaccination campaign. Although alternate causes of this historic rise in death have been considered, (i.e. COVID deaths, deaths of despair etc), the number of deaths from these causes is insufficient to explain the overall rise.
 On Feb. 10, the Israeli Health Ministry  published  the results of a survey of adverse events among roughly 2,000 random Israelis who received booster shots. Although many could be thought of as minor, it is concerning that 51% of the women and 35% of the men who experienced a side effect reported that, as a result, they had difficulty performing daily activities. A total of 4.5% of those who received booster doses reported neurological side effects.

 3) RISKS OF A HEALTHY CHILD SUFFERING HOSPITALIZATION AND/OR DEATH FROM COVID
 Current data shows that children have a 99.995% recovery rate, and a body of medical literature indicates that almost zero healthy children under five years old have died from COVID. Further, only a fraction of the rare child deaths were due to COVID and these do not accord with pediatric COVID death rates from other countries. The NY Times has reported that the CDC has chosen to conceal the number of Americans who died due to COVID, even though the data are found on death certificates.
 Peer-Reviewed and Health Agency Data
 ·        A study from Johns Hopkins that monitored 48,000 children diagnosed with COVID showed a zero-mortality rate in children under 18 without co-morbidities. The Wall Street Journal reported on this in their article “The Flimsy Evidence Behind the CDC’s Push to Vaccinate Children.”
 ·        A study in Nature demonstrated that children under 18 with no co-morbidities have virtually no risk of death.
 ·      Data from England and Wales, published by the UK Office of National Statistics on January 17, 2022, revealed that throughout 2020 and 2021, only one (1) child under the age of 5, without co-morbidities, had died from COVID in the two countries, whose total population is 60 million.
 ·      A large study conducted in Germany showed zero deaths for children ages 5-11 and a case fatality rate of three per million in all children without co-morbidities.
 ·      Another study in Nature from April suggests children’s bodies clear the virus more easily than adults.
 ·      This s tudy published in December in Nature demonstrated how children efficiently mount effective, robust, and sustained immune responses.
 ·      The CDC published data stating that 203 children aged 6 months through 4 years have died “with” COVID since the start of the pandemic, averaging 85 deaths in this age group “with” COVID yearly. I must emphasize again that only a fraction of the rare child deaths were due to COVID and these do not accord with pediatric COVID death rates from other countries.
 ·      It is well known that hospitalizations and deaths with COVID have been misattributed as hospitalizations and deaths due to COVID by federal health agencies, leading to numbers of severe cases and deaths that have been disputed by US physicians investigating them, and which do not accord with the mortality rates for children in other nations. CDC now publishes its COVID mortality data as deaths with COVID, blatantly exaggerating COVID-caused morbidity and mortality.
 ·      According to the CDC and the New York Times , it has been over 3 months (since February 28, 2022) during which there has been fewer than one US child per 100,000 children hospitalized daily for COVID. Contrast this number with the 37 children per 1000,00 who will contract myocarditis from the vaccine as detailed below.
 ·      According to the CDC data tracker , less than 0.1% of all US deaths that have occurred “with” COVID have occurred in children aged 0 through 4.
 ·      Strong evidence that newer variants of COVID-19 (Omicron) pose dramatically reduced risks to young children was published in the April 1, 2022, JAMA Pediatrics by Wang et al. Using a huge US medical database, they were able to match children aged under 5 who were infected with an Omicron variant with those who were infected with a Delta variant. Children with Omicron were only 35% as likely to require an ICU admission and only 15% as likely to require mechanical ventilation as same-aged children who had been sick due to earlier delta variants.

 Below are the June 8, 2022, New York Times graphs for the a recent number of US patients in hospitals, ICUs, and suffering deaths attributed to COVID. The numbers of patients in ICUs and dying each day ascribed to COVID are close to the lowest numbers since the start of the pandemic. Given that the CDC extrapolated that 95% of Americans already have partial to complete immunity, while we are at historic low levels for severe COVID disease, it should be clear that there is no need to vaccinate anyone now.

 4)   EFFICACY OF THE PROTECTION FROM NATURAL IMMUNITY
 Faith’s natural immunity provides robust protection, not only from contracting COVID-19 a second time, but also against hospitalization and death.
 Most children are already immune. Natural immunity is superior to vaccine-induced immunity, and vaccinating the already immune is superfluous and potentially harmful as per this study. Further, CNBC reported in April 2022, “An estimated 95% of the U.S. population ages 16 and older had developed antibodies against the virus either through vaccination or infection as of December, according to a CDC survey of blood donor samples.” CDC earlier said over 75% of children already have partial or full immunity to COVID. I will remind you that Faith recently recovered from COVID.
 The CDC recently reported that since October of 2021, persons who survived a previous infection had lower case rates than persons who were vaccinated alone.
 The  most recent review of  data supporting the protection of natural immunity, compiled from over 150 research studies, found that natural immunity provided equal or superior protection against not only contracting the disease, but also against hospitalization and death.
 Further, vaccinated individuals are far more likely to get re-infected with COVID compared to those with natural immunity as evidenced below:
 A  new preprint  study from Bangladesh found that among 404 people re-infected with COVID, having been vaccinated made someone 2.45 times more likely to get re-infected with a mild infection, 16.1 times more likely to get a moderate infection, and 3.9 times more likely to be re-infected severely relative to someone with prior infection who was  not  vaccinated. Although overall re-infections were rare, vaccination was a greater risk factor of re-infection than co-morbidities.

 A new study from Harvard,  Continued Effectiveness of COVID-19 Vaccination among Urban Healthcare Workers during Delta Variant Predominance , tracked vaccinated and unvaccinated Massachusetts healthcare workers and showed 0 infections in 74,557 person-days for previously infected patients compared to 49 infections out of 830,084 person-days for fully vaccinated patients.

 A  study published in the New England Journal of Medicine  assessed a cohort of 1,304 patients meeting a very strict definition of “re-infection.” In this cohort, there were no deaths and no ICU admissions during reinfections while 7 deaths and 28 ICU admissions occurred during the primary infections. Overall, there was a statistically significant 90% reduction in the composite outcome of severe, critical, or fatal disease during reinfections.

 In summary, given Faith recently recovered from COVID-19, there is no ethical justification for an unnecessary vaccination that will put her at an elevated risk of both vaccine harms and re-infections.

 5) BENEFITS OF CURRENT HEALTH STATUS IN PREVENTING SEVERE OUTCOMES
 Faith is a healthy 4 year-old girl of normal body weight. Her youth and body habitus combined with an absence of co-morbidities essentially ensures that she has a near-nil risk of a severe outcome. I base this on data compiled during a prior, more deadly variant where the  CDC published a report  on the incidence of death from COVID-19 prior to September of 2021 in people less than 21 years of age. At the time of that report, 190,000 deaths from SARS-CoV-2 had been recorded in the general population. Although people less than 21 years of age represent 26% of the population, only 0.08% (121) of all COVID-19 deaths were reported in this age group. In other words, more children died from influenza during the previous epidemic season than from SARS-CoV-2.
 Several other observations were of interest:
 about 75% of those under 21 who died had at least one underlying medical condition; 45% had two or more conditions.

 minority groups were disproportionately represented among the deaths in young people. Among those who died, 45% were Hispanic, 29% were black, and 4% were American Indian or Alaskan Native persons. Although Hispanic, Black and Native populations represent 41% of the U.S. population less than 21 years of age, these groups accounted for 75% of the deaths. Faith is Caucasian.

 In July of 2021, Dr. Marty Makary of Johns Hopkins University and Editor in Chief of MedPage today, reported that over the course of the pandemic, 49,000 Americans under the age of 18 had died of all causes,  according to the CDC . Only 331 of those deaths were from COVID — less than half as many as that died of pneumonia. The risk of children was dramatically smaller still than that CDC baseline;  according to one, much-cited paper , the infection fatality rate for those aged 5 to 9 is less than 0.001 percent. A large new study from the U.K. examining the fatality rate among all those under 18  found it only fractionally higher — 0.005 percent. Overall, 126,000 Brits have died of COVID since the onset of the pandemic; just 26 of those were under the age of 18.
 These data presented above must be further interpreted in the context of the current Omicron variant, a variant with markedly lower risk of leading to hospitalization and and/or death among the unvaccinated.
 ____________________________________________________________________________
 6)     EFFICACY OF COVID VACCINES IN PROTECTION FROM SEVERE DISEASE
 CDC data shows that there is no statistically valid evidence that they prevent severe disease or deaths in children. Current mRNA injections were formulated based on the original Wuhan strain and were not tested for benefits against current variants in clinical trials. Which begs the question as to what can be accomplished by vaccinating small children with an outdated vaccine. Further, amongst all ages, CDC found that natural immunity offerred equal protection against hospitalization.
 In Ireland, in March of 2022, during the milder Omicron variant wave, there were  more people in Irish hospitals  than at any point in the previous 12 months. This occurred despite the fact that nearly 95% of all adults in Ireland are fully vaccinated, and  nearly 100% of seniors are vaccinated and boosted .
 In Scotland, on  page 29 of their recent national COVID-19 report , the data revealed that the vaccinated were dying and being hospitalized at higher rates than the unvaccinated. Note that Scotland has since made the decision to no longer publish these comparative data for “concerns that they are being misinterpreted”. Although it is true, as I noted above, that numerous variables beyond vaccination status may contribute to explaining these differences, I find it troubling (similar to the Department of Defense actions mentioned above) that the decision to stop publishing these data occurred  only after a negative efficacy against severe disease and death was found.
 In Israel, the Director of a major hospital recently  declared that the fully vaccinated  are not protected against severe illness.
 NSW Health  in New South Wales, the most populated of Australian states at 8.1 million inhabitants,  reported that 97 out of 98 COVID-19 deaths  occurring over the previous two weeks involved fully vaccinated persons. Moreover, those that had three doses appeared most at risk for hospitalization admission, ICU transfer, and death.
 These data are consistent with the  recent report published in the New York Times  which stated “despite strong levels of vaccination among older people, COVID killed them at vastly higher rates during this winter’s Omicron wave than did last year, preying on long delays since their last shots and the  variant’s ability to skirt immune defenses .” I must add that these higher rates of death in the elderly are also seen in the boosted.
 The conclusion of a recent  Danish study  in the prestigious Lancet found that in long-term follow-up of over 74,000 adult participants in the Moderna and Pfizer trials there was no all-cause mortality benefit from the two mRNA shots.
 In a recent,  large Veterans Administration study , investigators discovered disturbing evidence: by month six after a SARS-CoV-2 infection, beyond the first 30 days of illness, vaccinated persons with breakthrough infections were at higher risk of death (hazard ratio (HR) = 1.75, 95% confidence interval: 1.59,1.93).
 Thus, in terms of benefits, based on the most up-to-date data, the current crop of mRNA vaccines against Omicron confer either rapidly waning efficacy or negative efficacy, and not only do they no longer protect against severe disease, my interpretation of these data is that they appear to be raising the risk of severe disease and death. I would advise extreme caution given that, currently, in the U.S, the prevalence of the B4/5 variant  appears to be doubling every week  in the past month, now comprising approximately 8% of cases.
 In regards to the current variant B4/5, my rapidly evolving clinical experience and those of my network of colleagues is that the vaccinated are contracting more severe illness and are less quickly responding to combination anti-viral and anti-inflammatory therapies.

 7)     BENEFITS IN REDUCING TRANSMISSION TO OTHERS
 Current data do not support this claim. The  CDC Director herself has reported  that vaccinated individuals are now well known to carry equal or greater viral loads than the unvaccinated, and thus transmit at equal or higher rates, for physiologic reasons detailed above, most concerning being the negative efficacy of the vaccines against Omicron. This has also been reported by seminal nosocomial outbreak papers by  Chau et al . (Health care workers (HCW) in Vietnam), the  Finland hospital outbreak  (spread among HCWs and patients), and the  Israel hospital outbreak  (spread among HCWs and patients).
 A new large study from Quatar in the  New England Journal of Medicine by Weil Cornell Medicine  found that the Pfizer vaccine protection waned after four months. By seven months, when adjusted for those who already had prior infection, the Pfizer shot was -4% effective against transmission. Also, effectiveness against asymptomatic infection was -33% after seven months, which suggests that the vaccinated become more likely to spread COVID-19 over time.

 8)     BENEFITS IN REDUCING THE RISK OF LONG-HAUL COVID SYNDROME
 Again, from the  large Veterans Administration study , investigators discovered disturbing evidence: by month six after a SARS-CoV-2 infection, vaccinated persons with breakthrough infections were at higher risk of long COVID (HR = 1.50, 95% CI: 1.46, 1.54). When including the earlier time periods, the COVID-19 vaccines only reduced the risk of long COVID by approximately 15% compared to the unvaccinated, a level of estimated protection far less than the increased risk of death found in the same study as mentioned above.

 Summary and Recommendations
 Based on Faith’s current robust health status, natural immmunity, normal body habitus, and normal development, she has a near-nil risk of the most severe outcomes from COVID. Further, the totality of current evidence finds either a negligible, highly transient efficacy in protection against COVID-19 or a rising negative efficacy in protection from both COVID and its more severe outcomes .
 Most importantly, given the highly concerning, excessive rates of adverse events, disabilities, and deaths found in the vaccine trials data and in association with the mass vaccination campaign, it is my professional opinion that the risks of COVID-19 mRNA vaccination for Faith far outweigh the negligible or “adverse” efficacy currently being measured.
 Further, the unexplained sudden, statistically and historically unprecedented decreases in birth rates timed from approximately 9 months after the height of vaccine rollouts in numerous countries around the world suggest an extremely high risk of a negative impact on her future reproductive health.
 Vaccinating children who you know are likely to be placed at higher risk from COVID and of toxic side-effects and even death as a result of vaccination is not “public health;” it is medical negligence. This is an unprecedented proposal not backed by current data, logic, or ethics. I therefore offer my strongest recommendation that she avoid COVID-19 mRNA vaccination…  at all costs given that her very life depends on it .
 Feel free to call or write with any questions to info@drpierrekory.com.
 Sincerely,
 Pierre Kory, MD, MPA
 Internal Medicine , Pulmonary Diseases, Critical Care Medicine

 I just want to say how much I appreciate all the subscribers to my Substack, and especially the paid ones! Your support is so greatly appreciated.
 Subscribe now
 P.S. I opened a tele-health clinic providing care not only in the prevention and treatment of acute COVID, but with a specialized focus on the study and treatment of both Long-Haul and Post-Vaccination injury syndromes. If anyone needs our help, feel free to visit our website at www.drpierrekory.com.
 P.P.S. I am getting professional help (hah!) to write a book about what I have personally witnessed and learned during Pharma’s historic Disinformation war on ivermectin.  Pre-order here for:

 Pierre Kory’s Medical Musings is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Summary: Although a low percentage of toddlers have received COVID-19 injections, the U.S count has reached 879,000. Parents, inform yourselves. Your child's life and well-being depends on it.


The Global Disinformation Campaign Against Ivermectin Part 2- The "Fix" at the WHO

In Part 1 of this series on the corruption leading up to the WHO’s non-recommendation of ivermectin in the midst of a global pandemic, I reviewed Doctor Andrew Hill’s role as the lead researcher for the WHO/Unitaid/BMGF team that was studying ivermectin. I detailed the initial interactions between myself, Paul Marik, Tess Lawrie, and Andy Hill. I ended with presenting the evidence of numerous manipulations of his review paper by unidentified colleagues (co-conspirators really).

 So, who was the person making all the changes attacking ivermectin in Andy’s paper? Not mentioned during the recorded meeting with Tess Lawrie and Andrew Hill, but Hill later referenced a person named Dominique Costagliola. What is fascinating is that Phil Harper, acting as a journalist (which he is), actually got Andrew Hill to meet him for coffee in London to do an interview about ivermectin. He purposely gave Andy the sense that he was a “friendly” reporter doing a hit piece on ivermectin. By the time of that interview, Andy had been actively attacking the evidence in support of ivermectin. I suspect he was probably eager to take advantage of yet another opportunity to please his paymasters. Phil even got Andy to confirm that he had been discussing the paper with Dominique Costagliola during that earlier time period and that she had been advising him in some way. Twitter users quizzed her on it and she too confirmed it .

 Note that although this tweet above remains public , if you look at the thread underneath it you discover several other tweets by her on the topic that have since been deleted. Curious no?
 One still public tweet includes about the dumbest public defense imaginable on whether she had influenced Andy Hill’s paper. Check it out:

 She must have forgotten that Pharma money as well as email, telephone and video communication technology was available at the time which would have allowed one person to influence another when separated by great distances and institutions. Insane.
 So what did Phil find out about Dominique Costagliola?
 She is the Deputy Director of the Pierre Louis Institute of Epidemiology and Public Health in France.

 She speaks English as a 2nd language (this is important as the other “influencer” of Andy that you will soon meet below is English)

 She had a history of attacking ivermectin, starting very soon after my testimony on the 19th of December 2020, as evidenced in this article “fact checking” the idea that ivermectin was effective in COVID. That article essentially started the narrative refrain we hear about still to this day - “the trials were are small, low quality” and that “proper, large rigorous” (i.e. Pharma controlled) trials are needed to validate the findings.

 She is a Pharma-conflicted individual just like all the other research and regulatory agency operatives working against ivermectin. She receives lecture fees from nearly every corporation with a competing product against ivermectin.  Janssen, Gilead, Merck-Sharp & Dome (biopharmaceutical company), Viiv, Innavirvax and Merck Switzerland. She has taken money in the form of lecture fees, personal fees, and travel and meeting expenses.

 I maintain that she is the one who inserted that bizarre weird phrase that no researcher or scientist would ever put in their conclusion, you know the one about “regulatory approval.” Phil discovered that in March 2021, she even used the same phrase in a tweet:

 Again, no clinician or researcher thinks about regulatory authorities, we just do research and publish it. Ok, so Andy let others influence the report of his findings. It was a paper on a preprint server and although it got global attention, it was a pre-print, not published in a high-impact journal etc. The call for waiting for “large, well conducted trials” is exactly how Pharma will put the genie back in the bottle. Pharma was already busy designing trials like the TOGETHER trial, demonstrably one of the most fraudulently conducted in history. Yet it still managed to get published in the top medical journal in the world. Science.
 What Phil discovered next, to me, is the “Scoop of the Century” given that I call what these people and others (Hi Billy G!) did to ivermectin, the “Crime of the Century.” Phil discovered who was really in control of both Andy and the evidence supporting ivermectin. It was the Professor that Andy had mentioned to me in our first ever conversation.
 Phil discovered the Professor’s identity by simply looking at the “meta data” embedded in the PFD file of the preprint paper. It was finalized on the computer of Professor Andrew Owen of the University of Liverpool in the days leading up to the posting. Whoa. Thus, this was the same Professor that had suggested to Andy to “look into ivermectin” in November of 2020.
 On what evidence do I make this claim? Not only the fact that Andy’s paper was doctored on the computer of Professor Owen but also on his insane conflicts of interest against ivermectin. Again, I maintain he was getting Andy to do “opposition research” without Andy knowing he was working for the other side at the time. Owen’s Big Pharma conflicts with competing products to ivermectin are unparalleled. Costagliola’s pales in comparison. To wit:
 Owen studied molnupiravir for Merck, a direct competitor to ivermectin

 Owen received research funding from ViiV Healthcare, Merck, Janssen, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Abbott Laboratories, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Tibotec, Roche Pharmaceuticals and Bristol-Myers Squibb.

 Owen received consultancy fees from Gilead (another drug whose market ivermectin would decimate).

 Owen is the Project Lead of the Center for Excellence in Long-Acting Therapeutics Program (CELT) at The University of Liverpool. CELT received $40 million from UNITAID on January 12, 2021 (the importance of this financial influence simply cannot be overstated, so I won’t. Just let it sink in for a moment). Further:
 CELT studies ways to use lipid nano-particles in pharmaceuticals, which is a foundational technology of the COVID mRNA vaccines.

 The UNITAID grant was shared with a spinoff start-up company in which Andrew Owen was the top shareholder. Phil Harper finds it possible that the grant agreement may have granted Unitaid to “have a say” in the conclusions of any research it commissions. Andy basically told Tess that. A FOIA request by Phil for a copy of the grant agreement was denied, so I suppose we will never know. But we know.

 The next 3 paragraphs were taken directly from Phil Harper’s even more detailed post on Andrew Owen here:
 On the very same day that the $40 million CELT deal was announced, the University of Liverpool also announced that it would be studying two new ‘groundbreaking’ therapies for COVID-19 . They received “over £3m of investment from GlaxoSmithKline and Vir Biotechnology” to conduct this research. Notice that this was an investment , not a grant. The two therapeutics they were investigating were VIR-7831 and VIR-7832, novel therapies for COVID owned by the two companies. Andrew Owen was a part of that study. More than a year after the investment, no results have been published , with only an update on the recruiting progress for the planned trial.
 So, he was part of a Sotrivimab study which received £3 million. That no results were published from a £3 million investment didn’t seem to matter. Five months later, rebranded as Sotrivimab, the drug was given the thumbs up by the European Medicines Agency. By December, 220,000 doses had been ordered in a procurement deal worth up to $60 million . A course of Sotrivimab costs at least $275 , around 100x the cost of Ivermectin.
 Like all drugs coming to market in the EU, Sotrivimab must be compared with other available medicines before approval is granted. This is a key point that’s worth remembering whenever thinking about why there was a global war attacking Ivermectin:

 Comparing drugs to existing medicine is part of the process of bringing new drugs to the market. Source.

 Now, the importance of what I am about to reveal is inestimable in its impact on depriving the entire world of access and use of a life-saving drug to treat COVID.
 Andrew Owen was also given the responsibility to prepare the evidence base upon which the World Health Organization would make their recommendation to not use ivermectin “outside of a clinical trial” on March 31,2021.

 A Professor swimming in financial conflicts of interests with pharmaceutical companies that had products directly competing with ivermectin in the now global “COVID marketplace” was put in charge of assessing the ivermectin evidence for the most powerful health care organization in the world.
 As if that is not absurd enough, Owen’s conflicts of interest are not mentioned in the WHO recommendation document . Instead what appears is:
 “ Web searches did not identify any additional interests that could be perceived to affect an individual’s objectivity and independence during the development of the recommendations. ’
 What an absolute travesty. Conflicts of interest are discovered by asking the individual researchers to report them voluntarily. I have never ever heard of looking for them using “web searches.” I have literally run out of words to describe the nefariousness (OK, found one) of these actions.
 In Owen and his colleagues assessment of the evidence base for ivermectin, what they did to suppress the evidence of efficacy was so openly corrupt, I immediately wrote a white paper about their brazen manipulations of the existing evidence (which I spent many many days on). The FLCCC sent out the paper via press release, trying to disseminate it as far and wide as we could. Good ole’ FLCCC. The Bad News Bears trying to take down the Yankees with a white paper. We tried folks.
 My paper extensively detailed how they whittled down the evidence base to as few trials as possible, using arbitrary exclusion criteria. Then they graded the few remaining trials that showed large, positive effects as “low quality” and a large Pharma conflicted trial that showed no benefit as “high quality.” What is fascinating is that despite the fact that even amongst the paucity of remaining trials left, a massive reduction in mortality was found. They found a life-saving medicine in COVID. Yet they stated that this conclusion was of such “low certainty” it should not be acted on. Science baby. Disgusting.
 Here are two slides summarizing their actions from a lecture I gave on an FLCCC webinar trying to expose this historic corruption:

 Note that not one major media science journalist in the world bothered to call attention to these actions. Not one country’s health care leadership or government dared to object.
 They reported 70 deaths per 1000 in the standard-of-care treated patients vs. 14 deaths per 1000 in ivermectin treated patients. An 80% reduction in mortality. Let me repeat that. An 80% reduction in mortality. Remdesivir doesn’t do that. Paxlovid doesn’t do that. Molnupiravir doesn’t do that. Monoclonal antibodies don’t do that. And Owen had conflicts with three of these “competitors” (it was not even close to a competition, except in price and profit potential).
 See below. Note they grade the evidence as having “very serious imprecision.” Without going too deep, downgrading the quality of the evidence to the degree they did based on imprecision is simply wrong when the treatment effect is so large, the outcome prevented is death, and the medicine is one of the safest, least expensive, and most widely available in the world. Had I had a seat at the committee table I would have raged at this. But they don’t invite people like me onto captured regulatory agency committees. Because I don’t take Pharma money. Never have. Never will.

 The most absurd statement in the recommendation was the one below. It was used to justify why they were recommending “against use outside of a clinical trial” despite finding a massive impact on mortality. Note how they even suggest there might be harms to using ivermectin, which is ludicrous and they knew it. I have never stopped being infuriated at whoever wrote these sentences:

 So, what they are saying in the above superficially erudite, albeit sociopathic paragraph is that, in the WHO Guideline Committee’s opinion, based on some Pharma-conflicted academic blowhard’s opinion that the evidence showing an 80% lower risk of dying was of “low certainty,” the average human on Earth would prefer to not be treated with ivermectin “outside of a clinical trial.” I am again at a loss for words here. I didn’t know that the average breathless or dying COVID patient would so interested in supporting medical research with one of the safest medicines in history unless it was part of a Big-Pharma controlled clinical trial. What an unconscionably depraved opinion.
 Now read the language underlying the corrupt recommendation which followed:

 Reasonable cost? It takes a lot of money to corrupt those trials and researchers, just ask Ed Mills, the Principal Investigator of the fraudulent TOGETHER ivermectin trial in Brazil. Hey Ed, how are those Big Pharma research contracts coming in lately? Fast and furious?
 Had the WHO recommended ivermectin, even using one of the conditional or “weak” recommendations available to them, it would have changed history and saved millions of lives across the world. Physicians would have adopted it globally at a time when there was no “official” early treatment option for COVID outside about a dozen low and middle income countries that had adopted ivermectin into their national or regional guidelines. A weak recommendation would have changed history by mitigating the disastrous scale and trajectory of the pandemic. And it would have prevented us from being subjected to the subsequent holocaust unleashed by lethal vaccines.
 Quick interlude: if anyone reading this thinks that ivermectin doesn’t work in the treatment of COVID, you need to ask yourself why so much covert and duplicitous effort was put into distorting the evidence base showing efficacy of the drug. If it didn’t work, none of these actions would ever have been necessary. None. Because if the drug didn’t work we doctors would not have used it . I would know within my first 2-3 patients that it was doing nothing. It’s not that hard to tell if a drug works in a viral syndrome whose course, trajectory, and expected outcome is well known to an experienced clinician. Zelenko figured it out quick and went public about it. Peter McCullough, Harvey Risch, Thomas Barody of Australia, Dider Raoult of France, Andrea Stromezzi of Italy, America’s Front-Line Doctors and many others had quickly identified numerous effective early treatment options in early 2020. If only the world had listened to all of them from the beginning.
 The analysis and arguments the WHO employed were so obviously corrupt yet no resistance was mounted by anyone on Earth (except for our little FLCCC white paper). Those actions still give me the “fantods” as my favorite author David Foster Wallace used to write. And that is how the biggest battle in the war on ivermectin was won. Andy Hill, Andrew Owen, Dominique Costagiola and their Pharma and BMGF sponsors killed Ivermectin at the global level. Fauci and his minions, using the captured U.S media, killed ivermectin in the U.S. Every advanced health economy had a Fauci-like figure who did the same. Despite my hatred of these individual’s actions, I agree with Phil Harper, that what happened is not really about two or three individuals. It is about a system that has immense power to influence the actions of the average human. Most humans are powerless against that system. Andy Hill et al were no exception. If it wasn’t those three that did it, it would have been three others.
 Andrew Owen profited from his complicity with that system, while I think Andrew Hill simply submitted due to cowardice at the prospect of destroying his livelihood and future career prospects. Mess with BMGF and you are done in international Public Health. Done. So he did not have the courage or integrity to become a whistleblower. I still believe that Andy did not know he was doing opposition research at the beginning of his investigation into ivermectin. But, judging by the actions taken subsequent to the publication of his later, profoundly positive paper supporting the use of ivermectin, it is hard to argue he is not actively working for them now. They got him. They always do.
 Why do I say this? Well, after his contract ended with Unitaid on April 1, 2021 (he never revised that pre-print by the way), he continued to work on his meta-analysis which later included an increasing number of positive trials. He did this work with funding from the Rainwater Foundation, a philanthropic organization that has done phenomenal work in funding research in COVID. Andy’s later published paper below was astoundingly positive (and ignored across major media and our health agencies). Note just how differently his findings were from the WHO’s. Below is from a slide I made for an FLCCC webinar:

 But here is where things go south, again. Very soon after, a major “problem” arose. One of the studies he included was supposedly discovered to be fraudulent, the one by Elgazzar et al from Benha University in Egypt. The circumstances around the discovery of ElGazzar’s supposedly fraudulent source data for the trial was bizarre and I won’t go into it here but let’s just say there were inconsistencies and oddity’s around just how the source data was found and whether it was truly his source data.
 ElGazzar told me and Tess when we reached out to him that what was publicly being attacked for fraudulence was “not his source data.” Although I wanted to believe him, he then went quiet real quick and nary an attempt at publicly defending himself was heard again. I do believe it lies within the realm of possibilities (ya think) that Pharma got to him. It was exactly what they needed as they were starting to lose the evidence-based-medicine battle due to increasingly positive trials being reported on an almost weekly basis. Andy’s paper must have struck terror into the enemies of ivermectin. It looked like the ivermectin side (the side of Truth) was starting to gain the upper hand. Egyptian researchers have a history of publishing fraudulent, made-up trials. Maybe that is why they picked him to go after?
 Note that Open Forum Infectious Diseases is considered a high quality journal. With that one report of a supposedly fraudulent trial, combined with new and increasing allegations on other trials by two barely published (except on social media) “researchers” (I am being generous here) who started working with Andy, they were able to smear the entire evidence base in the media by constructing a new narrative that “a significant amount of the ivermectin trials are suspected to be fraudulent.” Of course this narrative was always paired with the refrain of “larger, more rigorous studies are needed to validate the evidence base.”
 Now, the WHO had bombed ivermectin back into relative insignificance. But Andy’s paper was fueling a comeback for ivermectin. I maintain that the paper and it’s conclusions had to disappear . And disappear it did. How you ask? Well, it got retracted. Just like my comprehensive, wickedly positive review paper at the Frontiers in Pharmacology journal was suddenly retracted despite passing peer review by 4 expert level scientists (a story for another time). Just like Tess’s systematic review and meta-analysis was retracted despite passing peer review at the Lancet Respiratory Medicine Journal.
 But get this, the Journal did not retract his paper. Andy himself retracted it. Note that we ended up publishing our (formerly retracted) paper in the American Journal of Therapeutics. And we did so simply by submitting the same “retracted” version of the paper to the editor along with detailed documentation of the three rounds of rigorous peer review it had gone through at Frontiers in Pharmacology. After the ElGazzar “scandal,” all we did to our published paper was update it with a “corrigendum.” Were simply removed ElGazzar’s data from our paper’s analysis. The conclusions of our paper did not change. Tess also did the same and her conclusions were not changed (she too had published in the American Journal of Therapeutics). Andy went further. Much further.
 Here is what he did. He removed ElGazzar’s data and then re-calculated the impact of ivermectin on mortality, but used only trials graded as “low risk of bias.” That left only four trials to estimate mortality. And in those trials, there was no longer a statistically significant impact on mortality. He then went public with his finding that “there was no longer an impact on mortality.” Right in front of the world’s eyes, so brazen and unsubtle, yet no-one cared or was paying enough attention nor understood how evidence based black magic is practiced. But the FLCCC did. Tess did. I was demoralized at what I was witnessing. I just couldn’t believe it. So I lost it one night.
 What happened is that I saw the below tweet by Andy a few weeks after the self-retraction of his paper. His original tweet is no longer on Twitter, but I found the text of the tweet on reddit.

 I am not sure what I was doing up at 3:41 a.m but I became enraged (probably couldn’t sleep due to the angry clown world we were living in - and still are). So I fired back. With an expletive. Two of ‘em in fact. Whoops.

 Not proud of that tweet but I also don’t regret it. However, I did delete the tweet the next day after being counseled to do so by highly respected colleagues (namely Bobby Kennedy Jr who I deeply admire).
 Andy’s latest contribution to Medicine is this piece of opposition research below. I don’t think more needs to be said about it than the title.

 It is now time to watch the short documentary made by Tess Lawrie’s husband which features Tess, Paul and myself. It is called “A Letter to Andrew Hill” and brings to life all that I have documented in these posts in a truly powerful albeit disturbing way. I have trouble watching it to this day.

 To be fair, even if Andy had stuck to his guns or become a whistleblower, they would have destroyed him, somehow, someway, likely with fake accusations calling into question his credibility or skill or just by claiming all the trials were fraudulent. Maybe he knew that, who knows. The reality is that you can't do this alone. I think the only reason why we in the FLCCC “survived” (relative term) is that we were a group. And although we’ve suffered greatly, we did it together, mutually supporting each other during all the low points, both emotionally, spiritually, and even financially. Paul's career ended, Umberto's career ended, Joe's hospital is now closed, I've lost three jobs, and Flavio got accused of “crimes against humanity” at the International Criminal Court (his case was quickly dropped as it was an insane accusation but that is what they do).
 But we keep going, backed by a team of some of the biggest hearted, ethically driven, committed and courageous “warriors” that an organization could ever ask for. Here’s to the entire FLCCC team. You know who you are and what you do. Here’s to all of our generous donors and followers and supporters. All the positive and supportive comments on our webinars are a major inspiration to us. Especially all the letters and testimonials and heartfelt gratitude. It is what keeps us going and we thank you all. Go FLCCC Army!

 I just want to say how much I appreciate all the subscribers to my Substack, and especially the paid ones! Your support is so greatly appreciated.
 Subscribe now
 P.S. I opened a tele-health clinic providing care not only in the prevention and treatment of acute COVID, but with a specialized focus on the study and treatment of both Long-Haul and Post-Vaccination injury syndromes. If anyone needs our help, feel free to visit our website at www.drpierrekory.com.
 P.P.S. I am getting professional help (hah!) to write a book about what I have personally witnessed and learned during Pharma’s historic Disinformation war on ivermectin.  Pre-order here for:

Summary: How the biggest battle in the war on ivermectin was won by Big Pharma and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.