A California Symposium

The California Chapter of Children’s Health Defense is hosting a very special dinner party in Los Angeles on Saturday, April 20. The guests of honor are Drs. Pierre Kory, Ryan Cole, and Brian Hooker.
 Dr. Kory’s advocacy of Ivermectin for treating COVID-19 patients was just vindicated in court. As readers of this Substack are aware, the FDA Goon Squad was obliged to admit that the Nobel Prize-winning wonder drug is not “horse paste.” Bravo Dr. Kory! He and his colleague, Dr. Paul Marik, are also now hard at work studying what appears to be an alarming link between COVID-19 vaccination and cancer , as well as ways to treat cancer with repurposed drugs.
 Dr. Ryan Cole has distinguished himself for being one of the only board certified pathologists in the country who has dared to examine the post-mortem evidence that COVID-19 vaccines are killing people. A key component of maintaining the “safe and effective” charade has been the silencing of any medical examiner or pathologist who investigates the suspicious circumstances of young people dying suddenly and unexpectedly after COVID-19 vaccination. Dr. Cole has valiantly spoken out about the laboratory confirmed evidence of the link between COVID-19 shots and fatal vascular damage. For his service to mankind, he has been relentlessly persecuted by medical board goon squads.
 Dr. Brian Hooker is a molecular biologist who—like his valiant colleague, Dr. Andrew Wakefield—has drawn attention to the link between the MMR vaccine and febrile seizures immediately followed by symptoms of autism in young children. While many have considered his work controversial, it is worth considering the salient fact that it was the vaccine manufacturers who lobbied for liability protection —liability protection granted to them by the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA)
 In 1986. President Reagan told Pharma executives that it would be better for everyone if they made their vaccines safe instead of seeking liability protection. The Pharma executives replied that it is impossible to make vaccines safe for everyone —which is precisely what Drs. Hooker and Wakefield have been saying for decades.
 Check out the following invitation to join these great men at what is sure to be a wonderful weekend symposium.
 Click on the image below to obtain more information about the event and registration.

 Share

Summary: Dinner with Drs. Pierre Kory, Ryan Cole, and Brian Hooker


The Illusion of Consensus Needs Your Help!
Mar 28, 2024
109
6
Share
Cross-posted by
The Illusion of Consensus
"Jay Bhattacharya and Rav Arora's Podcasts and Substack have been both exceptional and heavy hitting (their podcast is climbing up the charts) and so I wanted to help bring awareness and support for their great work. Give them a listen or give them a read, either way it will be worth it."
-
Pierre Kory, MD, MPA
Hi everyone,
We want to take a moment to thank you and express our gratitude for your avid consumption of our busiest round of podcast releases this month.
We have now started to hit the top podcast charts (top 100, top 50, and even top 30 in some countries in the politics category!) after the release of our major episodes with
Martin Kulldorff on his firing from Harvard
,
Tracy Beth Hoeg on her dismissal from UC Davis
, and
Kulvinder Kaur on her harsh legal judgment in Canada
.
MUST-WATCH Episode 36: Martin Kulldorff On Why He Was Fired From Harvard
Jay Bhattacharya
and
Martin Kulldorff
·
March 12, 2024
Hello everyone, I am extremely pleased to bring you this new conversation with my friend and Great Barrington Declaration colleague Dr. Martin Kulldorff. Martin is an epidemiologist and biostatistician by training and I hold him with the highest respect due to his willingness to challenge unquestionable orthodoxy on all sides of the scientific debate.
Listen now
For those who may not know, we did the first interviews with each individual as they broke their silence for the first time and exposed the decline of their respective institutions.
Since we are now expanding our reach with top-of-the-line guests, we need to upgrade the quality of our show as well. After speaking to multiple leading production companies, the best proposal we have received is $11,000 per month which would include full editing and mastering of audio and video podcast episodes. They will also generate multiple clips each episode and distribute them on all platforms.
Doing these tasks on our own takes dozens of hours a week. These hours are best spent towards creating new content and recording episodes. Moreover, this production company (which has produced many of your favourite podcasts!) will provide some services which we are just not capable of such as professional quality intro and outro graphics with custom theme music.
Due to a number of complex reasons, we don’t have the budget to pay for this yet. That is why we are asking for your support in this formative stage of our platform!
Consider supporting us in our growth and expansion phase by becoming a paid member here with an exclusive 10%-off discount:
Get 10% off forever
Paid members will receive access to member-only Q+As and full video podcasts.
For those who are able to give a more generous donation, we have also created a GiveSendGo with a target of $22,000 USD ($30,000 CAD) to fund the first two months of production service as we generate more revenue to pay for future months:
Help Fund Illusion of Consensus
Thank you for listening to our podcasts and making this new project possible. It’s greatly appreciated!
109
6
Share
Previous
Next


We Published An Op-Ed On The Unprecedented Rise In Cancer Among Young People And Questioned The Link To mRNA Vaccines

We have now published three Op-Ed’s on the excess mortality and disability rate spikes which have occurred subsequent to the Covid mRNA campaign (and particularly its mandates) in USA Today , Newsweek , and The Hill . We also published an Op-Ed on the massive surge in maternal mortality in 2021 beginning right after mRNA vaccines were widely recommended to pregnant women (with almost no safety data) by the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology and the CDC .

 It gets worse. As an “awake” clinician on the front lines, I had been reading reports of innumerable young people (often famous) repeatedly contracting and dying from cancer (Dr. William Makis’s Substack has best compiled these reports - like this one , this one , and this one among others). I have also been deluged with more direct reports of cancer befalling young people amongst my ever-expanding network of friends, colleagues, patients, and contacts.
 Many have been noticing new cancer diagnoses amongst their friends and relatives, with the majority occurring amongst people younger than is typical for cancer. Further, the cancers appear more aggressive given reports of death within just a few short months (or even weeks) after diagnosis.
 It is so bad that it is now even being alarmingly remarked on by Yale , Harvard and the American Cancer Society (but of course none ever mention any possible link to the mRNA campaign).
 One of the most shocking pieces of data supporting the new reality (and medical term) of “turbo” cancers is this one:
 In the CDC data, there is a category called “all other and unspecified malignant neoplasms,” meaning cancers that had spread to the point that their origin was not identified before death . Across all ages, they rose 11% from 2019 to 2023. Now consider that these deaths rose 18% among 35-to-44-year-olds and 16% among 5-to-14-year-olds in that period.
 It is even being remarked on by the Cancer Society:
 “Colorectal cancers are also presenting with more aggressive disease and larger tumors at diagnosis,” said William Dahut, the American Cancer Society’s chief scientific officer, after the report’s release. “It’s more difficult to treat,” he told NBC News.
 Tell me about it. Just a few weeks ago, a 20 year-old patient of mine died of glioblastoma. If that is not tragic enough, her parents told me that a 20 year-old man in her college friend group had died of the same a few weeks earlier. Unsurprisingly, their university had a vaccine mandate. Just a tragic coincidence right?
 Bearing witness to so much medical carnage, and knowing with near certainty the proximate cause, we worked for weeks trying to compile and interpret data from government and professional society sources. As above, we found that what is happening with cancer in young people is not anecdotal and is instead real and supported by the data.

 Further, we believe that the data strongly if not definitively implicates the covid mRNA vaccine as the most proximate cause and so we wrote an Op-Ed trying to alert the general public to yet another catastrophic consequence of the mRNA campaign. In a small win against the pervasive scientific censorship around adverse vaccine data, we were able to posit that hypothesis in our piece.
 We just refuse to “stand by idly” while so many are dying around us.

 *If you value the time and effort I put into researching and writing my posts, support in the form of paid subscriptions would be appreciated (please know that I never put any posts behind paywalls).
 Subscribe now
 COMMENTARY
 By Dr. Pierre Kory and Mary Beth Pfeiffer - - Tuesday, March 26, 2024
 OPINION:
 It is called early onset cancer. And the Princess of Wales, diagnosed at 42, is part of an unfortunate new trend of more and younger cancer cases.
 Yale, Harvard and the American Cancer Society each weighed in recently on this unthinkable twist in the toll of cancer. A record 2 million people in the United States will suffer malignancies this year, the society said, and a larger share of the 600,000 to die, they agreed, will be younger than before.
 This marked a sea change in the cancer message. In 2023, the Cancer Society’s previous annual report focused on 29 years of cancer progress tempered by racial disparities in survival.
 But the 2024 report was different. Colorectal cancer moved as of 2021 to the leading cause (from fourth) of cancer death in men under 50, the report said, and second for women. Young adult oral and liver cancer deaths were increasing, along with deadly cervical tumors in women ages 30 through 44, reversing “decades of decline.”
 We looked at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s cancer death records through 2023, two years beyond the Cancer Society report. The later data, which is provisional, shows a cancer pattern that appears to have gone from slow simmer to rapid boil in the heat of a pandemic.
 Across all ages, cancer deaths rose by 2% from pre-pandemic 2019 to 2023, we found. But in people 15 to 44 years old, mortality rose at double that, to 4%. Why is this happening now? Moreover, what will be done to address it?
 Among the red flags: Deaths from colorectal cancer rose 17% among those 15 to 44 in that time, four times the population-wide increase. Uterine cancer deaths rose 37% among 25-to-44-year-olds from 2019 to 2023; they rose 15% overall.
 We also saw much larger increases, from 2019 to 2022, in liver and pancreatic cancer mortality in young adults than in the overall population. There is fodder enough here to ask if these are aberrations or harbingers.
 Especially troubling is the presentation and rise of young colorectal cancer. Harvard medical professor Kimmie Ng said the “steepest rises” are “in the very youngest people, those in their 20s and 30s,” which another cancer expert called “alarming.”
 “Colorectal cancers are also presenting with more aggressive disease and larger tumors at diagnosis,” said William Dahut, the American Cancer Society’s chief scientific officer, after the report’s release. “It’s more difficult to treat,” he told NBC News.
 Sean Stone, a 31-year-old American actor and producer, was one of these cases. He died March 7, just seven months after he was diagnosed with metastatic colon cancer. We can no longer dismiss such cases — and there are many — as isolated anecdotes.
 In the CDC data, there is a category called “all other and unspecified malignant neoplasms,” meaning cancers that had spread to the point that their origin was not identified before death. Across all ages, they rose 11% from 2019 to 2023. Now consider that these deaths rose 18% among 35-to-44-year-olds and 16% among 5-to-14-year-olds in that period.
 Click this link to read the rest of the Op-Ed.
 • Dr. Pierre Kory is president and chief medical officer of the FLCCC Alliance. Mary Beth Pfeiffer is an investigative reporter and author.

 *If you value the time and effort I put into researching and writing my posts, support in the form of paid subscriptions would be appreciated (please know that I never put any posts behind paywalls).
 Subscribe now

Summary: Investigative journalist Mary Beth Preiffer and myself, helped by actuarial expert Mary Pat Campbell, published an Op-Ed about the recent alarming rise in cancers among young people like Princess Kate


“The families of those who died unnecessarily call for justice.” Will you give it to them?

Pierre Kory’s Medical Musings
Exploring the mineral–water foundations of health, vitality, and the architecture that sustains life across biology and civilization.
Over 128,000 subscribers
By subscribing, you agree Substack's
Terms of Use
, and acknowledge its
Information Collection Notice
and
Privacy Policy
.
No thanks
“Pierre doesn't have a lot of time to write his substack, but when he does write an article, they are always awesome. He knows more about ivermectin that pretty much anyone.”...”
Steve Kirsch,
Steve Kirsch's newsletter
“I really enjoy Pierre Kory's thought process.  Here you watch the journey of a critically thinking ICU doc who was red-pilled by COVID-19 and discovered the forgotten side of medicine.”...”
A Midwestern Doctor,
The Forgotten Side of Medicine
“One of the early heroes who understood that saving patients' lives required getting free of the 'hospital protocols' -- and paid the cost to do that.  His book, "War on Ivermectin: The Medicine that Saved Millions and Could Have Ended the Pandemic", is highly recommended.”...”
Gary Henderson,
Loving God, Loving America


FDA Ivermectin Settlement - Follow-Up

Yesterday I posted an overview of the FDA’s (and other agencies) coordinated actions which led to the lawsuit against the FDA. Ultimately, the FDA decided to settle with “us” out of court (at their request mind you, not ours).
 Many of my subscribers then commented on the post with some celebrating the impact of the victory (which was in rightly exposing the FDA to the wider public for what they are - a highly corrupted organization). Others bemoaned the fact that the plaintiffs had decided to settle and that we had missed an opportunity for discovery which would have been a “real win.”
 I do share the same sentiments as those disappointed with the settlement. However, the reality is that the Boyden Gray law firm is expert at suing federal agencies. Based on their extensive experience, it was their legal advice that the settlement was the absolute best we could have hoped for.
 First, they felt the case would have likely gone on for months or years and second, although discovery was a valid goal in trying to uncover and identify all the corrupt individuals and actions involved “behind the scenes,” it would have not achieved that.
 Why? Because apparently, when you go to discovery with these agencies, you get very little out of them. Paul Marik told me that the lead lawyer at Boyden Gray said that the FDA would simply claim that the important communications that we would be interested in obtaining all occurred… on the telephone. So no record could be provided.
 To provide further evidence of this, I will share the text conversations I had today with my amazing friends and colleagues, Senator Ron Johnson and Dr. Mary Talley Bowden (the lead plaintiff in the case).
 Without further ado, lets start with Senator Johnson who sent me my post and congratulated me on it:

 Later, Mary Talley Bowden also reached out to me:

 Another interesting aspect about the case that I did not highlight in yesterdays post was brought to me by our FLCCC lawyer, Alan Dumoff, who wrote:
 An issue I think that is underplayed in this is that the FDA never studied or followed any administrative review process at which the science could be weighed before making the campaign . So it's not just that they took it down, conceding perhaps that they should not have said it, but people should understand that not only did they not have a legal basis to make the statement but they never had any scientific basis to make it either .

 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.

 *If you value the time and effort I put into researching and writing my posts, support in the form of paid subscriptions would be appreciated (please know that I never put any posts behind paywalls).
 Subscribe now
 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.

 Ultimately, although the settlement was disappointing in that we can’t claim total victory by identifying, exposing, and holding accountable the individuals involved in executing one of the deadliest agency campaigns in history (if not the deadliest because the even deadlier mRNA vaccine campaign was contingent on the success of the FDA’s anti-ivermectin campaign).
 So, lets just take the smaller victory and be proud of the work that the plaintiffs and Boyden Gray put into this case. There has been so little successful “resistance” to the tyranny of our public health agencies, lets celebrate, no matter how little some may think it makes a difference. To us, we exposed some of their corruption to a wider public and it makes us feel really good as they deserve every attack on them that we can pull off. I hope there will be more “battering and bruising” of the FDA in the future as long as that agency and its corrupt, sociopathic leaders continue enacting policies that lead to hundreds of thousands of deaths of Americans.

 *If you value the time and effort I put into researching and writing my posts, support in the form of paid subscriptions would be appreciated (please know that I never put any posts behind paywalls).
 Subscribe now
 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.

 P.S - Proud to report that my book is gaining Best Seller status on Amazon in several countries and is climbing up the U.S Amazon rankings. *If any of you have read it, I would love if you could post an honest review!

 .

Summary: A response to some readers disappointment with the settlement plus details of another interesting aspect of the case that I did not include in my original post.


The FDA Settled With Us Because They Knew They Were Going To Lose

In my book, The War on Ivermectin , Chapter 33 is called “The Horse Dewormer PR Campaign.” I invite you to see this previous post where I detail the campaign’s highly coordinated and sequentially timed actions between the FDA, CDC, AMA, APHA and corporate controlled media (i.e. late night hosts, news broadcasts, newspapers etc). Clearly, the goal of the campaign was to convince the public that ivermectin was a dangerous and ineffective horse dewormer.
 In the wake of that campaign, pharmacies stopped filling valid, legal prescriptions and hospitals removed ivermectin from their formularies. Never had an FDA approved drug, one of the (if not the) safest prescribed medications in history ever been vilified or restricted to this extent. Just like hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin had to be stopped.
 The FDA’s role in that campaign started with the posting of the below tweet on August 21, 2021, a week after the report on the below left came out, showing a massive rise in ivermectin prescriptions in the U.S during the deadly Delta wave.

 The rise in prescribing terrified the Covid cartel because if further knowledge of ivermectin’s efficacy were to be gained “on the ground” (i.e from the direct, lived experience of physicians and patients) it would limit the impacts of their corrupted trials and negative statements by corrupted agency heads and professional societies.
 Obviously my readers know why “they” had to bury the evidence of efficacy of ivermectin at all costs: little ‘ole ivermectin threatened both the EUA for the vaccines and the global vaccine market (north of a $100 billion). It also threatened the markets for all the competing pricey, patented, pipeline pharmaceuticals like Remdesivir, Paxlovid, molnupiravir and the monoclonal antibodies (also massive global markets in the many billions).
 Pharma’s greatest weapon to attack ivermectin is the FDA. Pharma (and especially Pfizer) has near complete control of the FDA (and the CDC and the NIH). But the FDA couldn’t do it all by themselves so they called in the CDC to do some dirty work: 5 days after the FDA tweet the CDC sent out a warning advisory to all the state medical boards (which was then forwarded to every licensed physician in the country):

 Problem (but not really): the CDC memo was full of false and misrepresented data on a rise of “calls to poison control centers.” My close colleagues Mary Beth Pfeiffer and Linda Bonvie, both investigative journalists, did a deep dive into the CDC advisory and published the real truth:

 Literally, that is all they had to start a war with? A tiny number of calls to poison control centers from people asking questions about ivermectin? It turns out it is all they needed because that is when Weber Shandwick launched an all out PR campaign across the worlds media.
 Anyway, 3 days after the CDC memo they then trotted Fauci out on national TV to state absurd, easily disprovable lies (please watch, it is short).

 Then 2 days after that, they got three major professional societies to call for an end to using fentanyl (err, I mean ivermectin):

 And then they called in for mass media firepower:

 I believe (without evidence) that the tweet and the entire PR campaign was devised and executed by Weber Shandwick, the massive PR firm that simultaneously works for the CDC, Moderna, and Pfizer (at the risk of foreshadowing, I also believe, without evidence, that the entire reason the FDA settled this case is because discovery would be severely damaging to many people involved).
 I do have to hand it to Weber Shandwick though because they devised a highly effective (lethal) campaign to end the use of ivermectin. That tweet went absolutely viral and became the FDA’s most popular tweet in history. I believe that tweet was the opening shot that completely turned from what had been isolated “battles” against ivermectin into an all-out war ( my book details the more covert preceding actions by big Pharma).
 To wit, way before the FDA’s famous horse tweet, in March of 2021 they posted this page on their website, later updated December of 2021:

 Although the way it was written was nonsensical (conflating human and animal ivermectin and saying that taking large doses can be dangerous (duh)) it still proved highly successful in its objective: to get everyone to know that the largest health regulatory agency in the world felt that ivermectin was dangerous, ineffective, and to remind everyone that they do not “authorize or approve” of its use in Covid.
 Anyway, after the tweet started to go viral it apparently thrilled the FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock (emails obtained through FOIA by Linda Bonvie):

 Their prideful celebration did not end there. Check out these FDA officials celebrating their cleverness and how “their idea” (not) for the tweet was triggered by the CDC memo regarding Mississippi:

 *If you value the time and effort I put into researching and writing my posts, support in the form of paid subscriptions would be appreciated (know that I never put any posts behind paywalls).
 Subscribe now
 Anyway, lets get to the case now. The case was actually initiated by Clayland Boyden Gray , a famous lawyer who founded one of the highest-powered law firms in Washington D.C. He formerly worked as White House Counsel from ‘81-93 and later as an Ambassador to the European Union. He also founded the law firm Boyden Gray and Associates and he was a lovely gentleman revered by his employees and partners (I know this because he later became a patient of mine before he unfortunately died suddenly in May of 2023).
 It deeply saddens me that he isn’t alive to witness his firms stunning legal victory. Note that he had a long history of suing federal and regulatory agencies for wrongdoing and he saw that what the FDA had been doing against ivermectin was illegal and harmful.
 Boyden wanted to put a stop to this as he knew they were overstepping their statutory authority. But he needed plaintiffs to bring the suit and so he called my partner Paul Marik as well as Dr. Robert Apter and the amazing physician and activist Mary Talley Bowden. Mary actually had the most standing in the case as she had recorded calls and videos of pharmacists declining to fill her prescriptions by arrogantly citing the FDA’s “opinion” on ivermectin.
 As we all know, the FDA’s “opinion” was misleading and deceptive - once a drug receives FDA approval for a disease, it can legally be used to treat any other disease, a practice called “off-label” prescribing. The FDA knows this full well. They knew that no physician needed a Covid-specific “approval” or “authorization.”
 Know that 20% of outpatient prescriptions and 30% of inpatient prescriptions are written in this off-label manner, and the FDA literally champions the practice for very sound reasons:

 *I think it is important to note this page above was last edited in 2018. I suspect they will disappear that page soon.
 Basically, many medicines have multiple pharmacologic mechanisms of action and so can be useful in different diseases. Ivermectin probably has the broadest applicability of any medicine that I am aware of (anti-parasitic, anti-viral, anti-bacterial, anti-inflammatory, and anti-tumor). As Professor Satoshi Omura, the Nobel Prize winning discoverer of the drug said in his Nobel acceptance speech, it truly is a “Wonder Drug.”
 Now, beyond the tweet, the FDA also went on the warpath across all other major social media. For example, check out what they now have to pull down from the internet and not republish (from the actual settlement document) :
 (1) FDA’s Twitter, LinkedIn, and Facebook posts from August 21, 2021 “You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Seriously, y’all. Stop it.”;
 (2) FDA’s Instagram post from August 21, 2021 (ECF No. 12, Ex. 6), that reads, “You are not a horse. Stop it with the #ivermectin. It’s not authorized for treating #COVID.”;
 (3) FDA’s Twitter post from April 26, 2022, that reads, “Hold your horses, y’all. Ivermectin may be trending, but it still isn’t authorized or approved to treat COVID-19.”;
 (4) all other social media posts on FDA accounts that link to Why You Should Not Use Ivermectin to Treat or Prevent COVID-19
 The above social media campaign was not the only thing they did. Remember, this was an all-out war on one of the safest drugs in history. Although the initial salvo started on social media, it didn’t end there.
 4 months later, in another attempt to influence the practice of medicine, they sent letters to the Federation of State Medical Boards and the American Board of Pharmacy. If you read the below, you will see they completely over-hype the dangers of ivermectin by listing the almost unimaginably rare and more severe side effects, with the most severe only occurring in massive accidental overdoses (3rd paragraph).
 This is what I mean by them being on the warpath:

 Now when the lawsuit was first filed, obviously the FDA moved immediately to dismiss, and they did so by arguing that they cannot be sued because they have “sovereign immunity.” You can’t make this stuff up. What you also can’t make up is that the District Court judge… agreed with them and… dismissed the case. What?
 But Boyden Gray doesn’t play. He immediately appealed the case because he knew that, although Federal law actually does gives the government immunity against legal actions, there are some exceptions such as “ultra vires,” a term describing when an official acts outside their authority. Plaintiffs challenging the acts must show that the official was “acting without any authority whatever,” or without any “colorable basis for the exercise of authority.”
 Our amazing FLCCC lawyer, Alan Dumoff wrote an amicus brief submitted by our organization ( found here on the FLCCC website) and although extremely long, the table of contents lays out the arguments powerfully:

 Boyden’s decision to appeal was spot on because the appeals court judge was truly miffed at the FDA and immediately ruled that the plaintiffs had standing and that the lawsuit could proceed. This was a huge win back then in “our” court of public opinion, largely because the FDA lawyer had to admit in open court that physicians did indeed have every right to prescribe ivermectin off-label for Covid.
 It gets even better because in the appeals court opinion, the Judge went off on the FDA with the following statements:
 “FDA can inform, but it has identified no authority allowing it to recommend consumers ’stop' taking medicine”

 “FDA is not a physician. It has authority to inform, announce, and apprise—but not to endorse, denounce, or advise.”

 “Even tweet-sized doses of personalized medical advice are beyond FDA’s statutory authority” (Ed: I love this one).

 Now that the FDA has to take down every single one of their posted and/or published advice against using ivermectin in Covid, in our FLCCC Press release today, I think Paul Marik said it best:
 “We are extremely pleased with the outcome of the settlement as it is a victory for every doctor and patient in the United States,” said Paul E. Marik, M.D., FCCM, FCCP, a plaintiff in the case, chief scientific officer of the FLCCC Alliance (FLCCC) and former Chief, Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine at Eastern Virginia Medical School.  “The FDA interfered in the practice of medicine with their irresponsible language and posts about ivermectin. We will never know how many lives were affected because patients were denied access to a lifesaving treatment because their doctor was ‘just following the FDA.’”
 However, it is my opinion that, because the case ended in a settlement, we cannot claim total victory because it allows the FDA to continue to lie with statements like this one today claiming they are not guilty of wrongdoing:
 “FDA has not admitted any violation of law or any wrongdoing, disagrees with the plaintiffs’ allegation that the agency exceeded its authority in issuing the statements challenged in the lawsuit, and stands by its authority to communicate with the public regarding the products it regulates,” the spokesperson said.
 But I trust the wider public can see right through such a statement. I mean, who will believe that they can claim innocence when they were forced to settle? You only settle when you know you are going to lose in court or… you cannot risk going through the discovery process. Like I said above, my bet is that they wanted to avoid discovery at all costs.
 Either way, the plaintiffs, Boyden Gray and Associates, and the FLCCC landed a big victory today against one of our most captured federal health agencies. A win against tyranny really. They certainly don’t come often of late but lets see if we can turn this into a streak!

 *If you value the time and effort I put into researching and writing my posts, support in the form of paid subscriptions would be appreciated (please know that I never put any posts behind paywalls).
 Subscribe now
 P.S - Proud to report that my book is gaining Best Seller status on Amazon in several countries and is climbing up the U.S Amazon rankings. *If any of you have read it, I would love if you could post an honest review!

Summary: After 4 years of catastrophic health agency tyranny, physicians finally score a legal victory. I think the FDA settled because their Pharma masters were terrified of discovery. Here is the backstory.


Can Scientific Misconduct Be Criminally Prosecuted?

In my last post , I exposed the glaring amount of evidence of extensive scientific misconduct by Oxford’s PRINCIPLE trial investigators in the ivermectin arm of their trial. Problem: outside the followers of me and those of my network on Substack and Twitter (and the FLCCC) , the wider public would never be aware of the level of fraud they committed.
 That just changed when an Op-Ed written by me and Paul Marik was published in RealClearPolitics last Friday. We provided a more concise litany of the fraudulent tactics deployed by Oxford. I will tell you we were a bit shocked that it got accepted, and even more so from the editor’s response: “Excellent piece.” Check it out:

 Score another one for the FLCCC as it appears the public was quite interested in this topic because our Op-Ed was still leading the list of Op-Eds 4 days later:

 Then, over the weekend, I came across the below article about a recent statement made by my friend and colleague, MP Andrew Bridgen, in the British Parliament:

 Besides addressing his (appropriately as you will learn below) sensationalist statement, they also wrote:
 “ Bridgen has contacted the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, Mark Rowley, to organize a three hour meeting where experts and whistleblowers will lay out the evidence to prove criminal activity by the most senior members of government and civil service in the UK.”
 Now, although I boasted above that I wanted “a seat at that table” because I (and others) have compiled a mountain of evidence of research fraud in the largest trials of ivermectin (see our posts on Bill Gates/Sam Bankman Fried’s TOGETHER trial , Fauci’s NIH ACTIV-6 trial, and Oxford’s PRINCIPLE trial etc).
 However, I don’t think it would make a difference because unfortunately… research misconduct is not a crime (with rare exceptions). For instance, this article below from 2017 reported that between 1979 and 2015 only 39 scientists from 7 countries have been subjected to criminal sanctions for research fraud.

 So, what is research misconduct? The most accepted definitions are taken from Danish law:

 **I maintain that Oxford’s PRINCIPLE trial investigators committed all of the underlined actions above
 Other classifications have also been proposed, I like this author’s in particular because he grades them in terms of severity, i.e. “Class 1 - Betrayal of the Truth:”

 In the article above they discuss the fact that there have been repeated calls for such behaviors to be criminalized. They point out that although a number of countries have criminalized doping in sport but… none have criminalized cheating in science . Crazy right?
 Yet, there is extensive published literature over the past 25 years that debates whether research fraud should be a crime, with many papers in favor:

 But as of today, again, it is not a crime. One paper (by a federal prosecutor from Maryland (i.e. NIH territory) stated that “..the criminal prosecution of scientific research fraud is rare, if not wholly unprecedented.” Although the papers above go into somewhat erudite moral and legal arguments/theory, they also highlight the concerns and difficulty with drawing the line where scientific misconduct is criminal or not, plus they worry about both whistleblower protections as well as protections for the accused.
 I am unmoved by the debate. For the past 4 years of Covid, I have, on a nearly daily basis, called out corrupt, non-scientific policies along with the immense amount of research fraud involving ivermectin. It is my opinion that the repeated scientific misconduct in the largest ivermectin trials that I described in my book, The War on Ivermectin , led to millions of deaths around the world.
 When your actions directly lead to the deaths of others, knowingly or unknowingly, there are a range of criminal charges that could be brought, from negligent homicide to murder. MP Bridgen is absolutely right in going to the police. Again, although I personally do not think there is a debate as to whether the researchers directly responsible for those frauds should be criminally prosecuted, the line on exactly who should be prosecuted may be difficult to draw (in terms of who knew what and when and/or how much authority or involvement in the planning and execution that they had). I would start at the top and work my way down.
 Now, if not blowing the whistle to fraud was a crime, I could see many researchers going to jail, but apparently the legal view is that unless an offense directly results in serious injury or death, the act of not reporting it is not a crime. The “directly led to” is the difficult part to prove (or not).
 So how is scientific misconduct dealt with currently? It is largely handled at the university or research institution level or at the journals. People have been fired, careers have been ended, papers have been retracted, reputations of institutions have been tarnished but… no-one goes to jail. No wonder we have seen so much brazen fraud throughout Covid. The perpetrators do not have to fear prison.
 Interlude: my friend and partner in the FLCCC, Professor Paul Marik, was once accused (by a jealous, competitive, well-known fellow expert in critical care medicine) of research misconduct for… get this… “self-plagiarism.” At the time, Paul did not even know what that was so he had to study the topic. With his newfound expertise, he wrote one of my all-time favorite papers of his called “Self-plagiarism: the perspective of a convicted plagiarist.” It is a hoot to read.

 Now, if scientific misconduct was illegal and you could be convicted of it, the list of “crimes” perpetrated by scientists and institutions in Covid is vast. In no particular order, as I am not attempting to be comprehensive (instead I will ask my readers to suggest more examples in the comments and I will compile later), here is just a sampling of my initial stream of thoughts:
 Pfizer trial research fraud (burying adverse events, dropping subjects from treatment groups for invented reasons in the interests of making the jabs look good, plus everything in whistleblower Brook Jackson’s lawsuit etc)

 All of the pharma-conflicted trials with pre-determined results for early treatments like ivermectin and HCQ and ciclesonide etc. This Substack as well as those of Alexandros Marinos and Phil Harper contain a mountain of evidence of indefensible misconduct.

 Public health officials lying, dismissing, distorting and refusing to release comparisons of the true hospitalization and death rates between the vaxxed and unvaxxed in order to prop up the jab campaign. As vaccine safety researcher Ed Dowd says, “you can’t hide the bodies,” and I believe there are many health ministry leaders and their underlings across the world who know this data and hide this data. They know “where the bodies are” and are universally keeping quiet about it. The New Zealand whistleblower case got a lot of attention, but I am telling you, there are many more than just him who have this knowledge. He was the only one courageous enough to make it public.

 All the high impact medical journal editorial staffs rejecting and retracting wickedly positive trials of IVM and HCQ as well as negative vaccine studies

 Dr. Andrew Hill’s admitting he allowed “his sponsors” to alter the content and write-up of his strikingly positive meta-analysis of ivermectin in early 2021.

 Dr. Andrew Hill’s later independant publishing of a profoundly positive meta-analysis on IVM showing massive impacts on mortality with ivermectin and then self-retracting it, only to re-publish it as a negative trial? Although one of the most craven and damaging acts in history, he might be able to whip up enough arguments for his statistical chicanery to create plausible deniability, so likely no jail. I would love to be an expert witness in that trial though.

 Whistleblowers have posted videos talking about numerous manufacturing safeguards and policies being ignored at Pfizer vaccine plants with safety reports being buried or workers influenced to not report. However, to hold someone criminally liable for homicide you would have to tie those violations to specific “hot lots” where huge spikes in deaths occurred. Problem: the vaccines have not caused a single death in the US according to the CDC. So there goes that one.

 Fauci’s deliberate refusal to fund research into low-cost, safe, repurposed generics during the first 5 rounds and over two years of the NIH Covid trials (ACTIV program), instead throwing millions at studying only patented, high priced, Big Pharma products . Good luck prosecuting Fauci.

 Again, if I spent more time, the list of criminal misconduct would fill many many pages. However, I do think there has been one trial where the actions taken do reach the level of a provable capital criminal offense. The evidence is all available right now. Today.

 Subscribe now
 *If you value the time and effort I put into researching and writing my posts, support in the form of paid subscriptions would be appreciated (know that I never put any posts behind paywalls).

 The scientific crime I mention above involves the hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) trials in the UK and at the WHO which directly led to the deaths of research subjects. I (and others) believe the investigators committed homicide. Although I haven’t asked Andrew Bridgen exactly what evidence he is bringing to the police, I submit that the HCQ scandal should be in there. RFK Jr. does a devastating exposure of this crime in his book, “ The Real Anthony Fauci ”:
 Dr. Fauci, Bill Gates, and the WHO financed a cadre of research mercenaries to concoct a series of nearly 20 studies all employing fraudulent protocols deliberately designed to discredit hydroxychloroquine as unsafe. Instead of using the standard treatment dose of 400mg a day, the 17 WHO studies administered a borderline lethal daily dose starting with 2,400mg on day one and using 800mg a day thereafter in a cynical, sinister and literally homicidal crusade against hydroxychloroquine.
 A team of BMGF operatives played a key role in devising and pushing through the exceptionally high dosing. They made sure that UK government RECOVERY trials on 1,000 elderly patients in over a dozen British, Welsh, Irish, and Scottish hospitals, and the UN SOLIDARITY study of 3,500 patients in 400 hospitals in 35 countries as well as additional sites in 13 countries (the REMAP-COVID) trial all use those unprecedented and dangerous doses. This was a brassy enterprise to prove chloroquine dangerous and sure enough it proved that elderly patients can die from deadly overdoses. The purpose seemed very clearly to poison the patients and blame the deaths on hydroxychloroquine says Dr. Merrill Nass, a physician, medical historian and biowarfare expert. In each of these two trials solidarity and recovery the hydroxychloroquine arm predictably had 10 to 20% more deaths than the control arm the control arm being those patients lucky enough to receive standard supportive care.
 RFK Jr. then goes into who funded the RECOVERY trial (this is likely why MP Bridgen is talking to the police): the funders were the UK government, Wellcome Trust (also in the UK), and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF).
 He deliberately discusses the role of Bill Gates in this crime:
 Gate’s fingerprints are all over this sanguinary project. Despite suspiciously missing pages, the published minutes of WHO’s part-secret March and April meetings show these medical alchemists establishing the lethal dosing of chloroquine for WHO’s SOLIDARITY clinical trial. Only four participants attended the second WHO meeting to determine the dose of hydroxychloroquine for the solidarity trial. One was Scott Miller the BMGF Senior Program Officer. The report admits that the SOLIDARITY trial used the highest dose of any recent trial. BMG’s unique dosing model for the studies deliberately overestimated the amount of HCQ necessary to achieve adequate lung tissue concentrations. The WHO report confesses “that this model is however not validated.”
 Gate’s deadly deception allowed the FDA to wrongly declare that HCQ would be ineffective at safe levels . The minutes of that March 13 2020 meeting suggest that BMGF knew the proper drug dosing and the need for early administration. Yet their same researchers then participated in deliberately providing a potentially lethal dose, failing to dose by weight, missing the early window during which treatment was noted to be effective and giving the drug to subjects who were already critically ill with comorbidities that made it more likely they would not tolerate the high dose. The SOLIDARITY trial design also departed from standard protocols by collecting no safety data (Ed: What?), only whether the patient died or how many days they were hospitalized. Researchers collected no information on inhospitable complications. This strategy shielded the WHO from gathering information that could pin adverse reactions on the dose.
 A masterful and deeper dive into the clear (to me) criminal, homicidal intent of the RECOVERY investigators to use a toxic dose of HCQ was written by polymath Phil Harper here . It provides even more detailed evidence of the investigator’s foreknowledge that the doses would be toxic. One of the most damning excerpts is below (there are more):
 There’s also the UK database on toxic substances . Look at hydroxychloroquine and you’ll get a clear answer, “Adults who have ingested 10 mg/kg or more chloroquine base as a single dose should be referred for medical assessment“.

 The initial dose that patient’s received on the RECOVERY trial was 620mg, which means that anyone weighing 62kg or less received a toxic dose from the first four tablets on Landray and Horby’s dosing schedule. As you can see from Figure 4 above, even though those doses were split into two 12-hour intervals, those patients received 620mg every single day for 10 days . The average weight for a woman in the UK is 70kg, which means that it’s very likely there were women in the study who weighed 62kg, and therefore, according to very clear information on toxbase, those patients recieved toxic doses.
 Again borrowing from Phil Harper whose article largely relied on the excellent work of Xavier Azalbert of France Soir:
 Noticing the dose seemed very large, we’re lucky to have the work of Xavier Azalbert of France Soir , upon which this article is based. His publication had the chance to interview Professor Martin Landray on June 5 at 8:00 p.m. Suspecting a problem, Azalbert asked Professor Landray about it directly, and Landray’s answer creates more questions than it answers.
 France Soir : Could you specify the dosage of HCQ that you gave to the patients? Martin Landray : It is 2400mg * in the first 24 hours and 800mg * from day 2 to day 10. It is a treatment for 10 days in total. These are high enough doses to ensure that the level of HCQ in the blood is high enough to have a chance of killing the virus
 France Soir : How did you decide on the HCQ dosage?
 Martin Landray : The doses were chosen based on pharmacokinetic modeling and these are in line with dosages used for other diseases such as amoebic dysentery .
 France Soir : Is there a maximum dosage for hydroxychloroquine in the UK?
 Martin Landray : I have to check, but it's much bigger than 2400mg , I think it's six or ten times more . For Covid, there is no recommended dose because it is a new disease
 Audio from the exchange extracted from the interview Landray did with France Soir. It’s available at this link.
 Wow. Just wow. This guy is literally making up explanations and telling lies. Phil then looked into the “dysentery” excuse:
 This is an incredible exchange. It suggests something very strange was going on with the dosing on the hydroxychloroquine trial. He’s arguing the dose is based on the treatment for amoebic dysentery, even though his own protocol says the dose is based on the treatment of acute malaria. To make matters stranger, amoebic dysentery isn’t usually treated with hydroxychloroquine, a drug called Metronidazole is used. That’s according to the UK’s NICE guidelines .
 Probably a good time to note that, contrary to HCQ, ivermectin has a stunning range of safety around dosing - one study of healthy volunteers took ten times the standard dose and did fine, plus another study used 5-6 times the normal dose for 5 days and found no issues. That is why, in all the ivermectin trials, they all tried as best they could to underdose. The most absurd example was Bill Gates and Sam Bankman Fried’s TOGETHER trial where they literally started the trial studying a single dose. Yup, one day of treatment. They apparently realized this absurdity would never fly so they then changed it to 3 days. Still under dosing but whatever. Also a good time to mention this trial won the award for best clinical trial of the year:

 Although the crimes above (intentional poisoning) are enough to send someone to jail, there was also violations of the Nuremberg code:
 They also did not retain any consent forms from the elderly patients they were overdosing, and even allowed patients to sign consent forms in retrospect. The researchers evince their guilty knowledge by concealing the research records of the doses they used in solidarity when they filed their trial reports. They also omitted dosing numbers from the report at WHO’s meeting to determine the dose and omitted details of dosing from the WHO SOLIDARITY trial registration.
 The next research crime RFK Jr. describes against hydroxychloroquine (i.e. homicide/murder of patients) comes from Brazil and is even more chilling, if that is possible:
 Another group of researchers using overdose concentrations of chloroquine published their studies on a preprint in mid-April 2020 and then was quickly brought to print in the preeminent journal JAMA in this murder for hire scheme . Brazilian researchers used a dose of 1,200 mg a day for up to 10 days. According to a 2020 review of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine it says as little as 2 to 3 grams of chloroquine may be fatal in adult patients though the most commonly reported lethal dose in adults is three to four grams. Predictably so many subjects died in the Brazilian high dose study 39% (16 of 41 of the subjects who took this dose) that the researchers had to halt the stud y. The subject’s mean age was only 55. Their medical records revealed EKG changes characteristic of CQ toxicity the WHO and UK trial coordinators must have known this information but they made no effort to stop their own overdose trials in order to lower the doses.
 If you missed it above, please note that the paper was quickly published… in JAMA.
 Lastly, RFK Jr. describes the public actions and statements made against HCQ by Fauci and Gates. These will not help them in front of a jury:
 All through 2020 Bill Gates and Fauci lashed out against hydroxychloroquine every chance they got. During the early stages of the pandemic in March, Bill Gates penned an op-ed in the Washington Post and besides calling for a complete lockdown in every state along with accelerated testing and vaccine development, Gates warned that “leaders can help by not stoking rumors or panic buying. Long before the drug hydroxychloroquine was approved as emergency treatment people started hoarding it making it hard for lupus patients who needed to survive.
 This was a lie - The national strategic stockpile had 63 million doses in it. I am sure Gates knew that, but am absolutely positive Fauci did.
 Also about Gates and HCQ:
 In July, Gates endorsed censorship of hydroxychloroquine recommendations after a video touting its efficacy against coronavirus accumulated tens of millions of views. Gates called the video “outrageous” and praised Facebook and YouTube for hastily removing it.
 Anyway, the business model of Big Pharma using their money to influence researchers and journals to conduct and publish trials with predetermined conclusions would and could end if these actions were made crimes (or just significantly decrease).
 It would go a long way in cleaning up science. I bet RFK Jr would support such legislation, and I know this because he once said in an interview with Dr. Drew, “On day one of my Presidency I am going to call all of the heads of the medical journals and threaten them with a RICO lawsuit if they don’t stop lying to the people.”
 I believe RICO laws are appropriate given that Pharma and its journals have demonstrated a pattern of behaviors identical to a criminal enterprise near fully in control of modern biomedical science. The criminality of the pharmaceutical industry is best documented in the followins two books, the first by a former Pfizer executive, “ The Whistleblower: Confession of a Healthcare Hitman ” and the second is Dr. Peter Gotzsche’s “ Deadly Medicines and Organized Crime: How Big Pharma Has Corrupted Healthcare.”
 Similarly, I titled Chapter 25 of my book “The Editorial Mafia.” In that chapter I detailed numerous rejection letters to investigators with positive ivermectin studies and documented numerous retractions of papers by researchers which found ivermectin to be effective.
 I think the Editorial Mafia’s censoring crimes around the vaccines exceed those of ivermectin. It became nearly impossible to publish any negative or concerning data around the vaccines in any top or close to the top tier journal in the world (outside case reports of adverse reactions - those, at last count were nearing 4,000 which is an absolutely unprecedented number for any medical intervention.
 However, the wider reviews and analyses finding immense harm that somehow managed to get through to publication were then quickly retracted. The below retracted analyses reporting the devastating impacts of the Covid vaccines stand out (the below slide was from my testimony in the Brazilian Senate a couple of weeks ago against their universal child > 6months vaccine mandate (insane):

 Most disturbing is how many Covid papers were retracted without evidence or rationale supporting a retraction:

 I wonder if you can prove criminality for these “censoring” behaviors. Would be hard to prove a rejection by an editor is criminal, but maybe the baseless retractions? Discovery would be interesting - finding out who is making the calls or writing the emails to the journal editors demanding the retraction could get real interesting.
 These retractions “without explanation” that occurred in Covid appear largely unprecedented in modern science. From the paper above:
 According to retraction guidelines , notices of retraction should state who retracted the article and the reasons for retraction, and should be linked to the retracted articles wherever possible (4). However, our study demonstrated that nearly one-third of articles were retracted or withdrawn with retraction notices giving limited information or even without notice, and the full text was not available for over 40% of retractions.
 The most devastating retraction of a vaccine review came only a few weeks ago (notice several of the authors are from my network of friends and colleagues):

 It was a meticulous and comprehensive review of diverse sets and sources of vaccine related data as detailed in the abstract below. In the concluding sentence, they literally call for a global moratorium of these products. Uh-oh.

 One of the authors was Steve Kirsch and his “expose” of how that retraction went down is both unsurprising and shocking. But the paper just had to go. How the hell it stayed published on-line for just over a month is the only thing surprising to me.
 Anyway, to me, PRINCIPLE is the most indefensibly and brazenly fraudulent trial in all of Covid. There is just no way of defending the actions that led to the below design differences between the ivermectin trial and molnupiravir trial by the same Principal Investigator:

 And that is why Paul and I wrote the Op-Ed. We are just sick to our stomach with the brazen fraud all around us in Covid science. The world needs to know what is really going on. And I applaud MP Bridgen’s efforts, I truly hope History will remember him. After Senator Ron Johnson, he more than any other politician in the world has tried to get the truth out about Covid.
 I say it is time for the prosecutors, judges, and the prisons.
 Our Op-Ed is below:

 Subscribe now
 *If you value the time and effort I put into researching and writing my posts, support in the form of paid subscriptions would be appreciated (know that I never put any posts behind paywalls).

 Four Years Later – The Toughest COVID Pill to Swallow
 By Pierre Kory & Paul Marik
March 14, 2024
 Looking back over the past four years, the toughest Covid pill to swallow was watching our public health institutions abandon so much of what we knew about science and medical practice to manage the pandemic. Strategies and treatments that were proven to help people boost their immune response to viral infection and fight disease were ignored and attacked. Generic drug trials were designed to fail, and investigators reported positive results as negative findings instead. They did precisely the opposite for new antiviral drugs, using every available means to claim a benefit.
 The results of  multi-year studies  published by Oxford University shows exactly how this worked. In March 2020,  Oxford started conducting a series of Covid trials with repurposed generic drugs like ivermectin and expensive new antiviral drugs like molnupiravir. For molnupiravir, for example, investigators managed to  register and randomize  25,000 patients a median of two days after symptoms—a herculean effort for any clinical trial. But for ivermectin, investigators  included participants  up to 14 days after onset of symptoms, when the disease would have reached a more severe stage. You may recall during this time, people with Covid symptoms were recommended to stay home and isolate for two full weeks. No treatment stood a chance of making a difference after 14 days.
 Efforts to tip the scales did not stop there. For the ivermectin trial, there were reported long  delays  between registration and enrollment, and the ability to pick-up  medication  from a pharmacy was stopped, forcing patients to endure notoriously slow delivery times. They also  limited  the days that the trial was open. These moves were clearly intended to decrease participants’ chances of receiving early treatment with ivermectin, and thus the chance it would be found effective.
 Other damaging actions also raise concerns. The study authors took a full 14 months to complete the trial, far exceeding the other arms. Then they took another 600 days before publishing. To explain this delay, they claimed they needed a one year of follow-up of the patients, something not mentioned in the original study protocol. Keep in mind the backdrop of a global public health emergency that warranted  $5 trillion  dollars of federal government spending.
 If ivermectin had been found effective, surely there was a moral and professional obligation to alert the world, as Oxford did in  June 2020  upon completion of their trial on corticosteroids. At the time, the world was only three months removed from Covid’s arrival, and in desperate search of answers.
 But researchers sat on the data, waiting until this month to make it available—a full 9 months after the concocted one-year delay. It first appeared not in a high impact medical journal, but in the little-known “Journal of Infection,” the seventh ranked journal of infectious diseases.
 After their attempts to delay failed, they published the findings in a lower-impact outlet. The result was not the searing headlines from the  New York Times   (“Ivermectin Does Not Reduce Risk of Covid Hospitalization, Large Study Finds” blared the Gray Lady on March 30, 2022) but a far more muted rollout.
 Even after stacking the deck, the data from the Oxford study showed ivermectin leads to faster recovery, reduced rates of hospitalization or death and reduction of long Covid symptoms. Now that the results are out, it’s clear that in addition to rigging the trials, the investigators also  put a thumb on the scale in the presentation of results , minimizing ivermectin’s perceived benefit for patients and exaggerating molnupiravir. Unfortunately, it’s too little too late for millions of people. The “war on ivermectin” is over, as I argued in  my book , and the truth tellers lost.
 ** the rest of the Op-Ed is here .
 Pierre Kory, MD is President and Chief Medical Officer and Paul Marik, MD is Chief Scientific Officer at the  FLCCC Alliance .

 Subscribe now
 *If you value the time and effort I put into researching and writing my posts, support in the form of paid subscriptions would be appreciated (know that I never put any posts behind paywalls).

Summary: MP Andrew Bridgen is convening a group of experts to present evidence of criminal corruption during Covid to the Royal Police. I want a seat at that table. Oxford's trial authors should be nervous.


"Long Vax" Finally Enters The Lexicon

The FLCCC, led by Professor Paul Marik’s efforts, first put together a “treatment guide” (I am trying to avoid the word “protocol”) for Long Covid as far back as May 2021. Approximately 6 months later, as many of my readers know, I opened a private tele-health practice specializing in all facets of Covid disease, particularly Long Covid.
 Long Covid, although a new name, is not a new disease. It meets the diagnostic criteria for a decades-old condition called myalgic encephalitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS). The three symptom “pillars” which lead to the diagnosis are fatigue, post-exertional malaise (PEM), and “brain fog” (i.e. cognitive deficits ranging from word finding difficulties, short term memory loss, inability to focus/comprehend, and more rarely confusion or disorientation).
 Although this triad is present in nearly every patient I see (rarely brain fog is missing), the patients also present with a “side menu” of problems which can include sensory neuropathies, dysautonomia/POTS, motor neuropathies, abdominal issues, musculoskeletal complaints, and cranial symptoms (i..e tinnitus, vertigo, headaches, vision, hearing loss, smell loss, taste loss). Many of my patients are debilitated and meet criteria for disability, despite the majority reporting being in the peak of health and functioning prior to the pandemic.
 In my opinion, this is the main reason why Ed Dowd and his team at phinancetechnologies.com have reported an explosion of disability claims coincident with the mRNA vaccination campaign. Know their data is taken from the U.S governments own databases like FRED:

 They also emphasize that that the explosion in disability claims were largely among in employed, working age Americans between 16-64 than it was among the general U.S population.
 Anyway, in the first months after opening our clinic , we noted that the majority of incoming patients we were evaluating were reporting that their symptom clusters began within minutes, hours, days or several weeks after a Covid mRNA vaccination. Although many also had a history of Covid, only a minority related the development of their chronic symptoms to that event.
 Initially we called it Post-Covid Vaccine Injury Syndrome however I soon changed my diagnosis to “Long Vax” given it was nearly identical to Long Covid (in my experience the only differences are in severity - on average my Long Vax patients are sicker than my Long Covid’s (due to much higher spike protein counts) and tend to have more frequent small fiber neuropathy and dysautonomia.
 Differentiating the two is straightforward in most as it is simply based on temporal association with the inciting event. To date, our treatment approach to the two conditions has been nearly (but not completely) identical so differentiating between the two different conditions has not proven significantly important in our care. However, I now believe it is important to differentiate (more on that below).
 The medical system could see that SARS-CoV2 was causing ME/CFS at much higher rates than traditionally implicated infectious diseases like Epstein Barr Virus, Coxiella burnetti, giardia, or SARS. One early review estimated that the number of cases of ME/CFS could double as the result of the pandemic (based on data since then, I think it will create much more than a doubling).
 In response, nearly every major academic medical center or large hospital began opening “Long Covid” clinics. Besides being worthless due to the fact they typically offer zero treatments (i.e. they are waiting for the RCT on Paxlovid), they also perform extensive, largely unrevealing testing followed by referrals to specialists like psychiatry and physical therapy. Note almost none of the physicians or specialists are trained in the disease as they; 1) do not recognize the spike protein as the pathogen and 2) do not read the FLCCC scientific reviews and/or treatment guides nor have they attended the three FLCCC medical conferences on the disease to date.
 Worse is that, for most of 2022 into 2023, those centers consistently gas-lit the Long Vax patients who presented to those clinics. Gaslighting of medical injuries is the well-described inability for physicians to recognize or accept when their own treatments (i..e the mRNA vaccines) cause harm, a topic written about extensivel y by my colleague A Midwestern Doctor.
 The stories my patients would tell me of the care they received included what I would describe as abuse or insults from the treating physicians when the patients tried to convince them that the vaccines were the cause. These stories still make my blood boil and have estranged many of my patients from “the system.” I believe the gaslighting responses have lessened somewhat but I don’t really know how much,
 What angered me even further is that the health agencies only directed funding at Long Covid and the medical literature and media only referred to sufferers as having Long Covid. The contribution of the gene therapy vaccines are consistently ignored.
 Problem: 70% of our practice are Long Vax, not Long Covid. I strongly feel that society must be aware of both syndromes given that I now believe there may be important differences in approaches to treatment based on the factors unique to mRNA gene therapy (no shut off on spike protein production, widespread dissemination of mRNA and spike to tissue, inflammatory impacts of the lipid nanoparticles, and the short and long term impacts of the DNA plasmid contaminants.
 So I think it is important to the millions chronically ill after mRNA vaccination that this syndrome be recognized and appropriately researched along with Long Covid. After more than 2 years, me and Paul Marik finally got an Op-Ed highlighting this issue into a major media outlet. It’s a start.

 Subscribe now
 *If you value the time and effort I put into researching and writing my posts, support in the form of paid subscriptions would be appreciated (know that I never put any posts behind paywalls).

 BY PIERRE KORY AND PAUL MARIK, OPINION CONTRIBUTORS - 03/06/24 1:30 PM ET
 Millions of Americans are still suffering months or even years after they were infected with COVID. Long COVID as it’s commonly known is a serious and poorly understood problem. But there is also growing evidence that the COVID vaccine could cause a similar disease.
 We need our government health agencies to take a serious look at this condition and stop stigmatizing doctors and patients who report these findings so we can get people the help they need.
 We are critical care physicians with the FLCCC Alliance (the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance) who have treated COVID patients throughout the pandemic. One of us recently opened a private practice focused on patients with long COVID.
 In two years, the practice has evaluated and treated over 1,000 individuals. Approximately 70 percent of these patients said their reported symptoms occurred in the minutes, hours, days and weeks after COVID vaccination, as opposed to after COVID infection. This could be tied to a new condition that’s flown under the radar until recently.
 This syndrome, dubbed “long vax,” is just starting to make its way into the medical literature. Dr. Harlan Krumholz at the Yale School of Medicine  published a survey of 241 patients  who described post-COVID vaccination symptoms of exercise intolerance, excessive fatigue, numbness, brain fog and neuropathy, a nervous system disorder that can cause pain, tingling sensations, numbness or weakness. Long COVID patients were excluded from the study, which is now undergoing peer review.
 The concern is that our findings,  Krumholz’s study , and any reports of adverse events from COVID-19 vaccination, will be subject to the same institutional censorship we saw throughout the pandemic. Suppressing this information risks creating an even bigger disaster.
 There is widespread alarm about autoimmune diseases reaching “ epidemic levels .” Much of this is  attributable to COVID , and there is mounting evidence that COVID vaccinations may have  contributed to this trend  as well. Similarly, autoimmune diseases, particularly  autoimmune rheumatic diseases , can  increase a person’s chance  of developing long COVID. This means we could see an explosion of long COVID — and long vax — in the months and years ahead.
 Rest of The Op-ED can be read here.

 Subscribe now
 *If you value the time and effort I put into researching and writing my posts, support in the form of paid subscriptions would be appreciated (know that I never put any posts behind paywalls).

Summary: I have been trying for 2 years to make the public aware that "Long Vax" is far more common than Long Covid. We finally landed an Op-Ed in a major center-left publication which exposes this reality.


The Last of The "Big Seven" Fraudulent Ivermectin Trials Has Finally Been Published

For anyone who has read my book, “ The War on Ivermectin ”, you may recall Chapter 25 called “Counterfeit Trials - The Big Six,” where I detailed the innumerable manipulations in the design and conduct of the six largest trials on ivermectin (two of them funded and conducted by Big Pharma captured NIH (i.e. ACTIV-6) , and another by Bill Gates and FTX (recall that their former CEO Sam Bankman Fried is currently in jail for fraud and awaiting up to a 100 year sentence).
 The others were all carried out by investigators with deep conflicts of interest (COI) with Big Pharma. Know that this fact made the 6 trials unique amongst ivermectin trials - in the other 32 early treatment trials (the near majority highly positive), I could find no investigators who reported COI with Big Pharma.
 In that chapter, I mentioned that I could have and should have instead titled it, “The Big Seven” because I knew Oxford’s PRINCIPLE trial was deploying the same tactics as the other 6 trials, never better or more brazenly illustrated than in this below table from the c19early.com research group which compared the inclusion criteria, treatment start, treatment duration, and dosing differences between Oxford’s molnupiravir trial and their ivermectin trial:

 The reason why the above table is so powerful is that the two trial designs were by the same Principal Investigator at the same “august” institution. Why such discordant designs? Why did Butler (notice my refusal to call him Professor), when studying ivermectin, use such a low dose on an empty stomach for such a short duration (no other anti-viral is ever used for less than 5 days), so late in the disease (up to 14 days?), in more mildly ill patients?
 With molnupiravir, Oxford somehow managed to randomize 25,000 patients at a median of 2 days from first symptoms. This is an insanely impressive trial performance for molnupiravir, in fact, I ask my readers to find one study in the history of clinical trials where 25,000 patients were randomized within 2 days of symptoms of any disease.
 Problem: they came nowhere close to that feat in their ivermectin trial (fun fact: despite this feat, they found ZERO benefit with molnupiravir). The superb c19early.com groups take on this difference says it all:
 The PANORAMIC trial for molnupiravir and the PRINCIPLE trial for ivermectin provide a good example of extreme bias in trial design. For molnupiravir, investigators randomized 25,000 patients a median of 2 days from onset. For ivermectin, they allow inclusion up to 14 days after onset — a delay incompatible with the recommended use of antiviral treatments, and incompatible with current real-world protocols. This delay alone would normally be more than enough to guarantee a null effect for an early treatment. However, authors also bias the population, treatment dose and duration, treatment administration, and sample size to favor a null result with ivermectin.
 Other points taken from the c19early group’s analysis of the trial (a must read):
 1) Long delay between registration and enrollment
 One participant reports filling out a form for the trial at the time of receiving a positive PCR result and not being called until much later on day 11 of COVID to complete enrollment twitter.com (C) . A second participant reports waiting 9 days after online registration to receive an enrollment phone call twitter.com (D) , twitter.com (E) .”
 2) Ability to pickup medication quickly removed from information sheet
 Earlier versions of the patient information sheet (e.g., v3.1 c19ivm.org (K) ) allowed patients to pickup the medication from a local pharmacy instead of waiting for delivery. This was removed sometime before the ivermectin arm and the sheet now only lists delivery, excluding the possibility of very quick pickup of the medication after enrollment c19ivm.org (L) .
 If you think that ends their shenanigans in trying to treat patients as late as possible in the disease, the c19early.com detectives found two other juicy tidbits of fraud:
 3) Slow delivery
 The patient information sheet for molnupiravir states that medication will be delivered by the next day c19ivm.org (H) , Gbinigie , while the patient information sheet for ivermectin has deleted "next day" only stating that medication will be delivered c19ivm.org (I) .
 Despite all the above, they went even further:
 4) Trial Schedule Change
 As of February 11, 2022, the trial was open intermittently (twice daily between Sunday and Thursday), a change which further decreases the chance of participants receiving relatively early treatment.
 Anyway, back to why I did not call the chapter “The Big Seven.” It was only because Oxford was refusing to publish its trial at the time of the book’s publication, despite completing the trial some 14 months prior.
 I suspected at the time that they were sitting on a hugely positive trial that they needed to distort, but were instead “laying low” as a result of me and my numerous colleagues around the world who have been trying to call the public’s attention to the immense fraud in the other 6 large trials on ivermectin.
 However, they couldn’t lay low forever. Too much money and too much attention had been paid to Oxford and their PRINCIPLE trial.
 First question is “How did they manage to explain the immense amount of time between completion and dissemination of the results?”
 Answer: Lamely - they made up a pathetic excuse that they needed to complete one year of follow-up of the patients first (a duration that was nowhere in their original study protocol but was instead simply posted on their website, i.e. “gone fishing”). Not so fun fact: their trial on hydroxychloroquine is still not published, despite being completed… 1,380 days ago (umm, that works out to 3.78 years).
 One year follow-up for a trial studying a treatment for an acute viral syndrome? In the middle of a viral pandemic which was supposedly a major global public health emergency? Why not publish the early treatment results and then the longer term follow-up later? Whatever.
 Further, if they had found ivermectin to be effective (which they did, more on this below), they were morally and professionally and ethically obligated to alert the world immediately. Just as Oxford had done via press release when the analysis of their trial on corticosteroids was completed in June of 2020. At that time, Oxford alerted the world immediately via press release such that corticosteroids became the standard of care overnight (something which me and the FLCCC had earlier advocated for in Senator Ron Johnson’s U.S Senate hearing in early May 2020).
 Conversely, if ivermectin was not effective, I am sure Butler would have been overjoyed to please his paymasters by blasting that finding. It simply would have made PRINCIPLE the 7th “Big RCT” which supposedly found that ivermectin was ineffective. It would have served as “the final nail in the coffin” of ivermectin advocates like myself.
 So why the silence, secrecy, and delay around making the results of their ivermectin trial more widely known?
 My hypothesis (and really the only rationale that makes sense) was that they obtained an immensely positive result for ivermectin and thus they needed a lot more time to “cook the books” (i.e. manipulate the data or its presentation) so that they could conclude ivermectin was ineffective.
 Another contributing reason for the long delay was likely due to the amount of attention and controversy around ivermectin at the time they first completed the study, so they instead “laid low” and allowed a huge amount of time and attention on ivermectin to pass before taking the insane actions which I will now describe below.
 Here we go:
 Two days ago (i.e. 9 months after the invented, tacked-on one year delay ), the study “silently” appeared in, get this, The Journal of Infection , i.e. the 7th ranked journal of infectious diseases . Not so fun fact that I just learned from Flavio Cadegiani: the editor in Chief of the Journal, Dr. Robert Read, was also the chair of the Steering Committee for the COV-Boost trial which studied the effects of 7 different mRNA boosters (Astra Zeneca, Moderna, Pfizer, Janssen, Novavax etc).
 Anyhoo, the choice of journal is super weird given that the majority of the aforementioned “Big Six” were published in the highest impact journals in the world (i.e. NEJM, JAMA etc) and were preceded and followed by massive, global PR campaigns across the world’s corporate controlled media (CCM) alerting the world that the latest “large, rigorous, high-quality” trial had again found ivermectin to be ineffective. Headlines like these abounded after the Gates/Bankman-Fried TOGETHER trial was published:

 Note how the above NY Times article was published exactly one day after the TOGETHER study results were reported. With the PRINCIPLE trial published 6 days ago, the below is what I got when I tried to search for the results of the study using “PRINCIPLE Trial Ivermectin” on Google (note how, beside the result from the journal itself, there is not one mention from any media outlet that the study has been published or what its results were):

 Also know that when big studies are published in high-impact medical journals, science journalists are given the results beforehand so they can start writing about the findings and their importance for the day of publication (i.e this is why the NY Times had an article out within a day of the TOGETHER trial).
 It gets even more suspicious when you consider that ALL of the studies done on Big Pharma products in Covid had their results trumpeted via press release across corporate controlled media long before the data or manuscript was available to physicians and researchers, (i.e. vaccines, remdesivir, paxlovid, molnupiravir, monoclonal antibodies etc).
 OK, so instead we have the PRINCIPLE trial on ivermectin being published without any press release, PR campaign, or even a mention in corporate media that one of the largest trials on ivermectin in Covid by one of the world’s top academic institutions was published or what its results were. It gets worse: the publication and/or its results is not even posted on the PRINCIPLE trial website as of today, March 5th, 2024:

 As you can see, only the results for budesonide, doxycycline, azithromycin, and colchicine are listed.
 Why is that? The answer to this question is so absurd, it is almost comical.

 Subscribe now
 *Writing this Substack is only one of my jobs, and I put a lot of work into it (at the cost of sleep and personal time). If you like this Substack and get value out of it please consider a paid subscription. Thanks, Pierre

 The reason why they are trying to deflect attention from the trial is because PRINCIPLE was a profoundly positive study that was instead analyzed and written up as a negative one. Wait, what? How can that happen?
 I maintain that it happens when a study’s findings are “inconvenient” for Big Pharma but the researchers cannot be made to deliberately falsify or manipulate the data (which is a crime I believe). So instead “they” pressure either the authors or journal editors (latter more likely) to ensure the study is instead presented in a “negative” way.
 It has happened before on a different therapy that I have worked a lot on with Professor Paul Marik (recall that we originally became colleagues in 2018 based on his pioneering work and landmark study of IV Vitamin C (IVC) in sepsis which later resulted in my deep, shared interest and research in the therapy.
 Anyway, at the time, we were shocked when a trial published in JAMA on IV Vitamin C in the disease ARDS (what Covid patients eventually die from) found a large, statistically significant reduction in mortality with IV Vitamin C use (29.8% died on IV Vitamin C compared to 46.3% on placebo which is a massive difference in critical care medicine, like massive). You would think that would have been a headline around the world no? See Table 2 in that paper and note it was a statistically significant result:

 Now see the conclusion of the abstract to that paper, where it is not even mentioned:

 For the evidence-based medicine purists who say, “ah, but it was a secondary outcome, so it is only hypothesis generating and could have occurred by chance given the number of secondary outcomes, blah blah blah.” That is nonsense. Mortality is not a subjective endpoint, and it is the most important one in medicine. To ensure it is not mentioned in the abstract is a perversion of EBM and reflective of how medical journal editors operate. They cannot threaten the massive market for sepsis/ARDS therapeutics with a safe, cheap, “vitamin” therapy. Period.
 So, as you can see above, this ain’t our first rodeo.
 Let’s get back to the PRINCIPLE trial. Know that the main outcomes studied were: time to self-reported recovery, rates of hospitalization/death, and long-term outcomes (i.e. symptoms of “Long Covid”).
 TIME TO CLINICAL RECOVERY
 The authors designed the trial around two co-primary outcomes, the first of which was: Time to Self-Reported Recovery. Most important it that they pre-specified what they felt would have been a “clinically meaningful” result (please remember the words “clinically meaningful”):

 What the above means is that if ivermectin treatment would have led to an increase in time to recovery of 1.5 days, then continuing the trial would have been futile. Instead, what they found was that ivermectin led to slightly more than a 2 day quicker recovery! Which would mean that “usual care” would then be futile! Make sense? Look at the result as it appeared in the abstract:

 So, they reported a statistically significant, 2 day reduction in the time until you are completely recovered if treated with ivermectin. 2 days!! Despite all the design shenanigans Butler pulled to disfavor ivermectin in his trial! Further, 2 days is a “clinically meaningful” result not only as per their definition but also from a practical sense in terms of missed days at work, quality of life, contagiousness etc.
 Further, because of Butler’s use of a low dose, short treatment time, late start in mild patients, this must be viewed as the minimum of what ivermectin can achieve .. and that minimum is 2 days!! A proper trial, started early could have found a 3, 5, or 7 day reduction in time to recovery.
 Check out the Forest plots for symptom improvements and note how many were statistically significant (buried in the 400 page appendix):

 In their main table of results, look at all the statistically significant findings:

 The “probability of superiority” was found to be >.999:

 So the conclusion of this study should be that ivermectin use leads to a much faster time to recovery no?
 No.
 Here is the way they wrote the conclusion in the abstract:

 So the authors concluded that this finding was unlikely to provide a clinically meaningful result ? What? I want to be brief here, but this is statistical chicanery - to support this statement they instituted an almost impossible bar to clear, that of a “pre-specified hazard ratio level that must be greater than 2.0.” I have never heard of this. A hazard ratio does not need a pre-specified level. If the HR is > 1.0, and it is statistically significant, it is a robust finding. The HR for ivermectin was a statistically significant 1.15! But it was not 2.0, so .. dismiss the result? Whatever.
 The level of insane and blatant fraud with this “move” is unparalleled (big thanks to Alex Marinos for help looking into this as I was mystified over this issue). First, Alex pointed out that in their budesonide trial, no “pre-specified HR for “meaningfullness” was used, yet they invented it and tacked it onto the ivermectin results (FYI, I have never before even heard of the statistic “probability of meaningfullness” - clown world).

 As you can see from the above, the HR for time to recovery with budesonide was a statistically significant 1.21. Ivermectin’s was a statistically significant 1.15. Even more damning is that nowhere in their trial protocol is there any mention of setting an HR of 2.0 or greater as the requirement for “clinical meaningfulness.”
 This statistical invention is what took them 19 months to come up with in order to present ivermectin as ineffective?
 Wow. just wow. Another way of saying the above is that they literally designed the statistical threshold for effectiveness in such a way that, even if ivermectin was found to be effective (which they found), if it was not like, am (arbitrary) “super large magnitude” of efficacy, it should not be recommended or thought effective. What?
 Let’s call this new trick “moving the goalposts” or “raising the bar” in that, for the first time in my career, I have found a study where the investigators purposely made it insufficient for the medicine to be found superior, and instead necessitated that it be a large magnitude superiority. Otherwise it should be viewed as “clinically meaningless.” And they successfully published this in like, a real journal?
 Tell the above to a patient with a straight face. The only thing you need to know is that no such “pre-specified hazard ratio levels” were used for any other PRINCIPLE trial (yet), not even Butler’s molnupiravir trial (which failed to show benefit even without this bar). Also again note how their conclusion detracts from their own budesonide trial where they found budesonide reduced time to sustained recovery by 2.94 days. This is what they wrote in regards to that result:
 "Inhaled budesonide improves time to recovery, with a chance of also reducing hospital admissions or deaths (although our results did not meet the superiority threshold), in people with COVID-19 in the community who are at higher risk of complications."
 Thought experiment: imagine if these results were instead found for molnupiravir and come up with an example of how the abstract conclusion (and subsequent newspaper headlines) would have been written.
 HOSPITALIZATION/MORTALITY
 So, what did they find in terms of ivermectin’s ability to reduce rates of hospitalization or death? Here is where it also gets weird. They report both a large magnitude, statistically significant reduction in hospitalization/mortality as well as no difference in hospitalization/mortality. What? See below:

 This is footnote “a” in the table:
 a These values have not been adjusted for the temporal drift. The usual care group in the primary and secondary analysis populations included participant randomised before the ivermectin arm opened and therefore direct comparisons may reflect temporal differences in the underlying outcome rather than a treatment effect.
 So basically, they do not know how to randomize? Why even compare to a non-temporally related population? Who knows but they did, and when they did so, they found a massive reduction in mortality (from 4.4% down to 1.6%, a difference of 2.8%. My “question marks” in the above table refers to the fact that they instead report this difference as 0%. I have to admit I am lost on this one, and have no idea why this is.
 Their arithmetic seems to have improved in the bottom row of the table, that of the “concurrent” comparison group, where mortality was 1.6% compared to 1.5%, and the difference reported appears accurate. But also note that suspiciously, they do not provide the data for the “concurrent group.”
 I give up. They found a 85% reduction in death for non-concurrent comparison group, and no difference in concurrent. Who knows but I find it strange they don’t show the data between hospitalization vs. death individually and only report the combined outcome. Hiding something? Butler? Never.
 REDUCTION IN LONG COVID SYMPTOMS
 From c19early.com groups summary of the data from this trial:

 Notice how c19early.com group calls this a “late treatment” trial. Also see the bottom rows showing how the ivermectin group does in terms of proportion fully recovered at 3 and 6 and 12 months, as well as those reporting long Covid symptoms. Now, from the paper itself:

 Also, see their table of reporting all the time points, note the high degree of statistical significance at each time point:

 Also, buried deep within the 400 page appendix, I found lots of data showing improvements in the more debilitating effects of Long Covid. Below I present their data showing a consistent, high degree of statistical significance in lower rates of Long Covid symptoms, but also remember this was a late treatment trial, with a short course of therapy - imagine the differences if a “proper trial” had been done.
 Imagine all the millions of Long Covid sufferers when they see these data and realize that so much of their suffering could have been avoided if the (P)FDA and corporate controlled media had not caricatured ivermectin as a horse de-wormer or had hospital and pharmacy systems across the country “outlawed it” nor medical boards had persecuted physicians for prescribing it (I just got a request for another pro bono defense).

 Despite these data showing consistent impacts in reducing Long covid symptoms, lets again review the study conclusion:

 One thing I have not yet addressed about this “mockery of a sham” trial, is the last sentence. Only in Covid ivermectin trials have I seen policy statements appear within a scientific manuscript, such as in this one where they write: “Further trials of ivermectin in Covid.. appear unwarranted.” Literally gives me chest pain.
 The most important thing you need to realize about how damaging that abstract conclusion’s wording is, is that the near entirety of medical doctors are “ARP’s” (abstract reading physicians). ARP’s do not closely scrutinize (or even read) the methods, nor do they independently try to analyze or review the presentation of the data. Instead, when the journal hits the kitchen table, they open to the table of contents, find a study they think interesting or relevant, and then they simply scan the abstract, skimming quickly to the “conclusion” which tells them all they they need to know - i.e. the vaccines are safe and affective, the vaccines are good for pregnant women, HCQ is a dangerous and ineffective drug, ivermectin is a dangerous and ineffective drug, etc.
 The abstract is the most powerful weapon Big Pharma wields, and they deployed it masterfully here (or not?)
 Lastly, a word on important missing data from the 40 page manuscript and 400 page Appendix:
 No data breaking down differences between hospitalization and death rates individually

 No adverse event (AE) data aside from a brief mention in the abstract of “severe” AE’s. This is unprecedented for a therapeutic trial. You ALWAYS report adverse events. Was usual care so bad that they were forced to leave this out?

 No data on time to treatment start. Probably the most critical piece of data to interpret the trial yet all they gave was “# of days of symptoms prior to randomization” (note that randomization is not the same as treatment because the medicine still had to be shipped - recall that Butler made it so that patients could not pick it up at a pharmacy, nor get it overnight shipped, nor get it on weekends in this trial). What a joke.

 I am so exhausted with documenting the massive research fraud committed in order to convince the world that ivermectin is ineffective. With the publication of this last of the large Big Pharma trials on ivermectin, I will not have to do it anymore. But thank God for the c19early.com group as they have not let up one bit in this mission (please support them as well). They, unlike me, appear indefatigable. Their more concise critique of the trial found here is devastating. Reading the litany of research crimes they identified within PRINCIPLE paints a really bleak picture of modern medical science. Below is a snapshot of what they have found so far but reading the explanations for each issue on their site is even more devastating.

 Ultimately, as I already argued in my book, I believe the “war on ivermectin” is over. It was fought to a stalemate and pretty much ended in the wake of the devastating horse dewormer PR campaign . The millions of patients and doctors around the world who know how effective and safe of an anti-viral it is will continue to use it for Covid, flu, Disease X and beyond.
 However, for the many more millions of doctors who never tried it once due to their believing the flagrant lies of one of history’s most deadly Disinformation campaigns (or who work for system institutions that forbid its use), they will not start using it now (unless Disease X is a truly wicked one and they try it in desperation). Or, somehow this Substack post and/or attention to this travesty of a trial creates a news cycle exposing the mountain of research fraud around ivermectin (ain’t holding my breath on that one).
 Either way, I believe the PRINCIPLE trial was no longer needed to fight the War on Ivermectin and that is why they published it so long after the War. It just needed to be published, without a lot of scrutiny or investigation into its fraudulent study tactics. As of today, they have accomplished that.
 But, who knows, if enough people send this post around, perhaps we can wake up another section of the world’s citizens to what is really going on in Medicine so that they can make more informed decisions that will save their lives when the next pandemic is launched.

 Subscribe now
 *Writing this Substack is only one of my jobs, and I put a lot of work into it (at the cost of sleep and personal time). If you love this Substack and get value out of it please consider a paid subscription. Thanks, Pierre
 Also proud to report that my book has gained Best Seller status on and off in several countries and is climbing up the U.S Amazon rankings, If any of you have bought and read the book, please leave a review on Amazon? Thanks! Link:

Summary: Oxford's long delayed PRINCIPLE trial just set a new record for ivermectin research fraud when they silently published it as a negative study despite their data showing profoundly positive impacts.