The Global Disinformation Campaign Against Ivermectin, "The Fix" - Chapter 1

My Global Disinformation Campaign Series:
 Part I - Introduction to the Disinformation Playbook
 Part II - Exposing the Corrupt Disinformation Campaign on Ivermectin
 Part II - Ivermectin - An Attack by New York State’s Attorney General
 Part III - Ivermectin - Lawyers Helping Doctors be Doctors
 Part IV - Ivermectin - Saturday Night Fight At The Pharmacy
 Part IV - Ivermectin - JAMA’s “Diversion”
 Part VII - Op-Ed on Fluvoxamine
 Part VIII - Op-Ed on Remdesivir
 Part IX - “The Fix of Dr. Andrew Hill” - Chapter 1

 Dr. Andrew Hill was hired by the organization UNITAID which was collaborating on the WHO’s ACT Accelerator program to research the efficacy of repurposed drugs against COVID. As a result, he became the world’s leading researcher on all the active and emerging randomized controlled trials of ivermectin in COVID since November of 2020.
 Before I go into my personal and disturbing narrative of how “we” (Tess Lawrie and the FLCCC) discovered that Dr. Hill “got captured” and began to both allow and then openly attack the large body of supportive evidence of the efficacy of ivermectin, I want to take a moment to call attention to the recent work of a superb independent British journalist and documentary filmmaker named Phil Harper. His recently created Substack, called “The Digger ,” tells the story in a more objective and deeply researched way, as he has uncovered details we suspected but did not fully know at the time this was all happening. He even managed to get Dr. Hill to meet him for a coffee interview in London recently. Wow. I also just did one of my best interviews yet on his podcast , (just kidding, that last link was to youtube and was predictably taken down within an hour of posting. New link on Rumble if interested .  His questions and detailed knowledge of the subject matter allowed us to delve more deeply and powerfully into what is and was really going on. Anyway, please check him out, support his work with a paid subscription so he can devote more time to “digging” at the truth of this saga in an objective, fact-based, and highly skilled way (Pharma is not going to fund his work J). Also, I interviewed him on our FLCCC webinar this week to discuss his last post, which I think is one of the most major, historic, investigative “scoops,” in history, up there with the Watergate papers and numerous other scandals in the past decades.
 Note this will probably be a three or more part post as it is and was the most damaging “tactic” of the global Disinformation campaign to distort and suppress the evidence of efficacy of ivermectin. Further, it is a post about events that “pre-date” this breaking story which is getting tons of attention. I hope to catch-up with all we have learned and are learning in the next few days.
 Disinformation Tactic #5 from the “Disinformation Playbook” by The Union For Concerned Scientists.
 THE FIX : Manipulate government officials, scientists , or processes to inappropriately influence policy
 Before I explore what is arguably the most egregious example of “the fix” in terms of lives lost across the world, I must emphasize that the Disinformation campaign waged against ivermectin during 2021 was only the 2nd most damaging crime-against-humanity campaign against a generic, repurposed medicine in the pandemic. That first pandemic Disinformation Campaign targeted the life-saving COVID medicine hydroxychloroquine in 2020. Experts such as Dr. Harvey Risch and Dr. Peter McCullough and Dr. Richard Urso (among many others) had the front row seats to that one. They can likely tell equally dreadful tales of what they witnessed across media, medical journals, and societies/agencies, as that war, was, in some ways, way more sinister and depraved than the global war on ivermectin due simply to the fact that they used a tactic not possible against ivermectin; they literally created research studies using toxic doses of HCQ which ensured that the control group would survive at greater rates (fun fact: you can’t design such a trial with ivermectin because it is near impossible to make someone toxic from ivermectin (numerous propaganda media reports notwithstanding... and higher doses produce better results anyway). Paul Marik and myself are still reeling after reading the expertly detailed and highly referenced account of that disinformation campaign in Chapter 1 of RFK Jr’s book, “The Real Anthony Fauci.”  Paul and I were both highly influenced by that campaign given we were “late” to understand its therapeutic efficacy (he more than me – despite Peter and Harvey telling us we were getting it wrong). I consider that book mandatory, assigned reading for all those being terrorized while living in a Pharma state. If I haven’t convinced you that we live in a Pharma state, then you must have missed the State of the Union Address that effectively served as a Pfizer commercial last week. Not subtle folks.
 THE “FIX” OF DR. ANDREW HILL
 I first met “Andy” soon after Senator Ron Johnson invited me to the Senate to give testimony in a hearing he was holding on early treatment on December 8, 2020, the video of which quickly went “viral” around the world (I must note that Senator Johnson, in my mind, stands out as one, if not the only, politician trying to fight back against the horrific suppression of early treatment and the abject failure of our agencies to control the pandemic). As a result of that testimony and the increasing attention to our comprehensive review paper on ivermectin that I had posted on a pre-print server a month before, I was invited to give the opening lecture at an international conference put together by the CEO of a French biotech company called MedinCell (they develop long-acting formulations of common medicines, allowing dosing to be as infrequently as every few months. Due to ivermectin’s protective efficacy against malaria, they were developing a long-acting formulation to be used in malaria prevention). They were also likely very interested in the potential application of ivermectin as a sort of “vaccine” against COVID (pretty cool huh?).
 Anyway, the conference had about 12 lecturers from all over the world, from Dr. Kylie Wagstaff of the globally groundbreaking SARS-CoV2 cell culture study of ivermectin out of Monash University in Australia, to some of the principal investigators of the then ongoing or recently completed ivermectin RCT’s in COVID (even Prof. Elgazzar was there – he of the supposedly “fraudulent RCT”) to… a researcher sponsored by the organizations Unitaid and the WHO, a Dr. Andrew Hill.
 He lectured on the 3rd day of the conference, (which I missed but Paul Marik did not). Paul watched every lecture of the three-day conference while I was busy battling to get our massive paper ready to submit for publication with a reference manager that was behaving so badly that I was literally having to reorder and re-number my references manually. All during this historic reference manager battle, new ivermectin studies and trials were getting posted on pre-print servers every day making me spend most of my days renumbering references. A Groundhog Day of epic proportions. Forgive me for I digress.
 Anyway, Paul calls and asks, “Hey did you know that a guy from the WHO gave a lecture on his systematic review of all the randomized trials data on ivermectin in COVID?”
 I was shocked. I thought our group was way ahead of everyone in our compilation of data (it turns out we were, more on that below).
 I immediately wrote to the MedInCell CEO and asked for Dr. Hill’s slides and contact info. After receiving the slide deck, I was immediately blown away as it contained markedly positive RCT results.. that I was not even aware of. And he had done an actual data synthesis of the 11 RCT’s which was mind-blowingly positive in terms of reduced time to viral clearance, time to clinical recovery, need for hospitalization, ... and death. At the time, those trials included about 1190 (or 890, I forget) total patients (note Paxlovid and Remdesivir got Emergency Use Authorizations based on less patients from single trials, the old “one and done” at the FDA). Andy responded immediately, we had an incredibly positive conversation, as any two researchers would when they think they may have stumbled upon data that potentially has global, historic impact. We started sharing our “origin stories” of how we had “discovered” the phenomenal efficacy of ivermectin in COVID.
 Two critical pieces of information that I learned from that first conversation with Andy were;
 1)    His project scope specifically excluded looking at the RCT’s of ivermectin used in prevention . I cannot over-emphasize the catastrophic impacts of this. See below comment from the WHO guideline document and from the NIH document. They specifically avoid looking at ivermectin’s role in prevention despite at the time having results from 3 extremely well-done RCT’s with large magnitude benefits.. and this was before the massive Itajai study finding profound benefits when used as a preventive (which the agencies are nicely ignoring). Does it lie within the realm of possibilities that the reason may have been they were concerned about increasing vaccine hesitancy by identifying a super-safe, low cost, widely available alternative in prevention of COVID? Look at this crap from page 7 of the WHO guideline document from March 31st, 2021

 Note that.. no reason is given for not looking at prevention. They just simply state that they will not look at prevention trials. Chilling.
 From the NIH Guideline Panel document:

 Note that although they mention trials in prevention, in their table 2D summary of IVM trials, only treatment RCT’s are included , and only a minority of them. Once again.. major health agencies are avoiding any look at or mention of the massive efficacy of ivermectin in prevention from trials starting in mid-2020. If you read my substack, you know how to interpret a Forest Plot. Here is the forest plot for prevention trials. Insanely protective, preventing 83% of infections.

 2)    His project scope specifically focused ONLY on RCT’s and no observational controlled trials. I cannot over-emphasize the catastrophic impact of this action, not only in this case, but in all of modern “evidence-based medicine” which I call “Big Science.” Over the past 2 decades, academic medicine now only believes in the results from “proper” trials which has been defined over the past years as large, prospective, multi-center, double blind RCT’s (PDBMCRCT) and this exclusionary over-reliance on such trials is essentially endorsed by nearly all the major professional societies and health care agencies. This belief has been influenced by the behaviors of “high impact medical journals” such as NEJM, JAMA, The Lancet etc. You just can’t publish trials that don’t fit this design in these journals, and any other trial design is automatically considered “low quality” evidence and is ignored. The reason why this is so injurious are many. I may expound more on this in a later in post, but briefly:
 a.     OCT’s and RCT’s, on average, over decades.. reach the same results – see this massive review comparing results from OCT’s and RCT’s from the Cochrane Library from a few years ago.

 Note this was the “old” Cochrane Library, you know, the one before BMGF started giving it massive money, i.e. the “new” Cochrane library instead published an essentially fraudulent meta-analysis of just the RCT trials of ivermectin, using similar tactics to the WHO guideline (which I will get to very soon in Post 3 of this “series”) whereby they cherry-picked just 14 of the then available 24 RCT’s so as to find a supposedly “uncertain” efficacy. By the way, thinking about it a little more, can anyone explain to me why BMGF, purportedly an organization focused on public health and vaccinating the world.. gives so much money to major media organizations and to medical journals ? Below slide from a recent lecture of mine.. contains just a handful of the media outlets getting money from him.

 Did our Department of Health and Human Services (NIH, CDC, FDA), which Fauci effectively runs, take a page out of his playbook ? This little bombshell came out this week:

 I swear, every time I find a hit job from media or a medical journal, I can generally find BMGF as a major funding source within “two clicks” of the mouse. The insane retraction of our ivermectin review paper, after passing through 3 rounds of rigorous peer review by three senior scientists, occurred at “Frontiers in Pharmacology.” Two clicks and you get this:

 Lets return to the catastrophic consequences of “Big Science” relying solely on just RCT data to guide medical practice:
 b.     RCT’s can be designed to fail (again, see the terrifying chapter on hydroxychloroquine in the book “The Real Anthony Fauci”). You wont be able to sleep after reading it. Just wait for Oxford’s Principle trial on Ivermectin (where they allow enrollees up to 14 days as outpatients) or NIH’s ACTIV 6 or U. of Minnesota’s trial where they gave only 3 days of therapy and allow up to 7 days to start treatment. Whatever.
 c.     RCT’s can be manipulated to produce over-inflated benefits by hiding inconvenient data (hello Pfizer vaccine trial and likely almost every other pharmaceutical company sponsored trial over decades ).
 d.     PDBMCRCT’s can OFTEN fail to find mortality benefits even if well-designed without conflicts of interest, especially in diseases with heterogenous populations, heterogenous times to initiation of therapy, heterogenous outcomes, heterogenous care-centers, and heterogenous disease severity (the efficacy gets lost/diluted in such trials as it is not necessary in some, helps in others, and too late to make a difference in the moribund, thus statistically significant results are hard to find). In fact, in critical care medicine, not one has ever found a validated mortality benefit from such a trial prior to DEXA-ARDS in 2020. A thought leader in critical care even wrote an editorial calling for the abandonment of multi-center RCT’s in the ICU. Go figure.
 e.     If only PDBMCRCT’s move the needle, it should be noted that funding for such trials is only possible by big Pharma, NIH (same thing) and/or rarely, philanthropy – isn’t it interesting that the only as yet completed large PDBMCRCT’s of repurposed drugs were funded by “real” (not BMGF) philanthropists like the Rainwater Foundation and Steve Kirsch’s CETF.
 i.     A major reason why the exclusion of observational trials data is so damaging to science, is that well-meaning and committed clinicians and researchers (describes the majority of investigators that conducted Ivermectin trials in COVID) can do small “single-center” (a four letter word in academia) RCT’s or OCT’s easily and at low cost since OCT’s can be done via chart review comparing those who were treated with a medicine with those who were not. Many use a technique called “propensity score matching” to balance the comparison groups to approximate an RCT, and actually almost always reach the same conclusions and magnitude of effect as RCT’s . See below snapshots of slides from a talk I used to give when I was teaching (I mean, allowed to teach).

 Imagine a world where your average doctor/researcher could do good research and find efficacy for something (god forbid a repurposed drug) and get it published in a big journal? Pharma would no longer control what can be studied in clinical trials, what trial results are allowed to appear in their medical journals, and thus what is allowed to be deemed “proven effective.” They would lose control of “the game.” Big Science . Please understand that there are decades of drug development with thousands of compounds and a million mechanisms of action. If serious and voluminous research into already available, repurposed, generic drugs were a central policy and practice of the NIH.. the entire business model and business of the bloated pharmaceutical industry would be decimated. If OCT’s were considered “legit” (which they most certainly are) therapeutic chaos for Pharma would ensue with many dozens of studies finding efficacy across many disease models of repurposed generic drugs, or gasp!.. vitamins and natural remedies.
 Instead, trials of this design and focus do not get published in “big journals” and are instead dismissed as “low quality” and “insufficient evidence” and are ignored by the PHA’s (public health agencies) and academic societies. One startling exception in COVID was when Dr. Jean-Jaques Rajter in Miami, after 4 months of fighting with their reviewers and statisticians, was able to publish his propensity score matched study of ivermectin in hospitalized patients in the major American medical journal Chest . A wickedly positive study . Pharma must have missed that one, or pulmonologists stood tall. Who knows, but it “got through” the wall. Conversely, I cannot tell you how many study investigators have written to me telling me of the treatment they have recieved from journals for their “positive” ivermectin studies, typically met with rejection, or worse, “the hold”, where the journal holds the paper without sending it out for peer review.. and then rejects it two months later, depriving the world of critical information. Ask Professor Hector Carvallo, Professor Eli Schwartz, and Professor Flavio Cadegiani - happened to all of them. And not only them. Never mind, I will do a post about everything I know around the journals behavior of rejections..and retractions (what happened to many positive studies that “got through” peer review and were published only to be retracted).
 iii.  What a racket eh? Someday soon, I will tell the horror story of what the big journals and their RCT’s did to the role of intravenous vitamin C in severe sepsis (the topic over which Paul Marik and I became colleagues and close friends some years ago).
 OK folks, since I digressed so much into Big Science, I am going to stop here for now, and Chapter 2 of “The Fix of Andy Hill” will follow shortly, beginning with both mine and Andy’s “origin story” of how we both got to studying ivermectin. Given what I have learned from “The Digger”, I now find his origin story downright ominous in retrospect. Stay tuned.
 P.S. I just want to say how much I appreciate all the subscribers to my substack, and especially the paid ones! Your support is so greatly appreciated. Thanks my friends.
 Subscribe now

 Subscribe now

Summary: The "narrative" that all positive ivermectin studies were small, low quality, fraudulent & could not be trusted was achieved via capture of the world's leading ivermectin researcher, Dr. Andrew Hill.


My RealClear Markets Op-Ed On How Remdesivir Is Based on Junk Science

For anyone who has followed my substack, you will quickly be able to tell that the below Op-Ed is not my usual “writing voice” as I both had some help and had to adopt a more “professional” rather than “personal” tone. It still works (although a few F bombs may have driven the point home even more strongly).
 Published today by RealClear Markets at this link , also copied below. Enjoy - Pierre

 Remdesivir claimed the  top spot  for hospital drug spending in 2021, with sales earning Gilead $4.2 billion in the first nine months alone. The problem is that, at best, the drug doesn’t work.
 Despite some initial indication that Remdesivir might slightly reduce recovery time, the World Health Organization conducted a  large-scale analysis  that found it “had little or no effect on hospitalized patients with Covid-19, as indicated by overall mortality, initiation of ventilation, and duration of hospital stay.” Unsurprisingly, the WHO recommended against using this drug to treat Covid-19 in November 2020 (and still does).
 At worst, however, Remdesivir is harmful. A  subsequent analysis  of the agency’s safety database found it likely caused kidney failure, and when independent trials (those not sponsored by a pharmaceutical company) are analyzed alone, there is a clear statistical trend to harm. WHO also  warns  that the drug may be associated with an increased reporting of liver problems.
 How is it possible that an ineffective and potentially dangerous drug that is scarcely used throughout the world received more money from U.S. hospitals than any other drug?
 The answer is because our drug approval system is broken. It’s skewed towards expensive, patented, often marginally beneficial or unknowingly dangerous treatments produced by our pharmaceutical industry to the detriment of well-known, safe, cheap, generic drugs – and ultimately patients.
 Look at  this chart  created by an independent researcher that displays the efficacy of all drugs and compounds that have been studied against Covid-19. The ones circled in red are the only medicines that have received FDA Emergency Use Authorization (EUA is essentially fast-track approval) in the U.S. Each authorized medicine commands an exorbitant price while all the low-cost, effective drugs remain unauthorized for treatment of Covid-19. It would be an astonishing coincidence if the price tags were unrelated to their FDA status.
 Moreover, Remdesivir was approved based on a single, small trial with questionable results. This should never be the basis for approving a medicine for mass use – even during a public health emergency. The same thing has happened with monoclonal antibodies, Pfizer and Merck’s antiviral pills, and, of course, the Covid-19 vaccines.
 Even more troubling are  reports  that the FDA did not consult the Antimicrobial Drugs Advisory Committee in granting Remdesivir’s EUA. But the committee consists of outside experts that the FDA has at the ready precisely to weigh in on antiviral drug issues. It boggles the mind that the agency would authorize a drug without even consulting the very body that is supposed to advise it on such issues.
 Compare these lightning-fast and flimsy approvals to the non-existent government response to mounting data that fluvoxamine is effective against Covid-19. The  Journal of the American Medical Association  and  the Lancet  have each published large, randomized trials to this effect, with the latter showing fluvoxamine reduced Covid-19 hospitalizations by two-thirds and deaths by over 90 percent.
 The NIH review of the fluvoxamine studies unsurprisingly takes great care to  highlight potential study biases  while dismissing the importance of the outcome benefits found,  while ignoring the limited benefit  and  far more glaring flaws in the Remdesivir study. Fluvoxamine already has full FDA approval. It is safe and inexpensive (a pill costs  about $1 ). Given what we are seeing with the patented and expensive drugs like Remdesivir (a course costs about $2,400), perhaps fluvoxamine’s small price tag is the problem.
 As if this all weren’t dispiriting enough, we have undoubtedly spent so much on Remdesivir because hospitals have a major financial incentive to administer it. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services  established  a system that provides a 20% bonus to each hospital’s bill to encourage them to use Remdesivir and other EUA approved high cost, patented medications.
 The only way any of this will change is if we create an independent, well-funded government body dedicated to conducting fairly designed and transparent research studies of repurposed generic treatments. While we certainly must encourage innovation, we cannot afford to overlook cheap and effective solutions that are already at our disposal. But that clearly will not happen until we break the strangle-hold that pharmaceutical companies have on the approval process.
 P.S. I just want to say how much I appreciate all the subscribers to my substack, and especially the paid ones! Your support is so greatly appreciated. Thanks my friends.
 Subscribe now

Summary: Billions have been spent on an ineffective, unsafe anti-viral given when viral replication has ceased occurring in the majority of patients. The U.S health system has no limits on corrupt absurdity.


The Disinformation Campaign Against Ivermectin - JAMA's "Diversion"

One of the main corporate disinformation tactics used to suppress “science that is inconvenient to their interests” is to employ what is called the “Diversion,” defined by the Union of Concerned Scientists as “injecting doubt or uncertainty where there is none.” JAMA just did it to ivermectin for the 2nd time in the pandemic.
 JAMA published a “negative” ivermectin study yesterday which immediately triggered physicians, academics, and the captured media to gleefully decry to the world, “see, I told you it doesn’t work!” As a leader of an organization that has put together highly effective treatment protocols for COVID using a combination of repurposed, generic medicines with ivermectin as one of their core components, we also immediately are attacked across the world in journal editorials, across major media, social media, hospital “water coolers”.. you get it.
 We have lived through days like this multiple time during the pandemic, where suddenly our credibility, expertise, and advocacy are widely questioned when a high impact journal suddenly publishes a purportedly negative study on ivermectin. Such days are exhausting as many colleagues and supporters both inside and outside the organization look to us to immediately rebut these newfound and false assertions. I have written many rebuttals, (white papers) to the NIH, EMA, and the WHO each time their faulty, biased, and oftentimes outright corrupt non-recommendations for ivermectin are issued over such single trials. Over a hundred doctors published a rebuttal attack the last time JAMA did this.

 I guess this time I will just briefly go it alone.

 There are really three main problems with this study and its aftermath;
 1) Publication Bias: given my personal knowledge of a number of researchers whose profoundly positive ivermectin studies were rejected by JAMA, they, for the second time in a row, reveal a profound publication bias. It is a well-known disinformation tactic for high impact journals like JAMA to somehow only publish studies without “statistically significant benefits” for medicines that Pharma does not want to see in play (generally generic medicines), as they similarly avoid publishing studies of “harms” associated with Pharma favored products (i.e tobacco studies last century and/or vaccine studies this one). What is fascinating is that JAMA’s (“PHAMA’s”) ivermectin papers actually all report important benefits, but most importantly for JAMA, none that reach “statistical significance."
 2) Study Conclusion: JAMA saw fit to ensure inclusion of this phrase at the end of the conclusion, “the findings do not support the use of ivermectin for treatment of mild COVID-19,” despite what could arguably be called a compellingly supportive study based on a number of important, near statistically significant reductions in secondary outcomes like death . An absurdly obvious reason why statistical significance was not reached was that, in this population of patients, like many other upcoming trials (NIH’ ACTIV-6, U Minnesota’s COVID-OUT, Oxford’s Principle trial etc) they allowed patients to enter the trial up to 7 days from first symptoms. It is well known anti-virals efficacy is strongest.. earlier. In this trial, the average time from first symptoms was 5.1 days with a confidence interval of 1.3, meaning, pretty much nobody got treatment within 3 days of symptoms. Yet, this critical feature of this trial gets ignored in the conclusion (many conclusions will include important limitations of the study’s findings, unsurprisingly, not this one).
 JAMA, per their strict criteria, also consistently avoids mention in conclusion statements of large differences in massively important secondary outcomes. Best example of this behavior by JAMA was the IV Vitamin C in ARDS trial . Read the conclusion. Then read the paper, and look at Table 2 and Figure 3... you find a massive, statistically significant reduction in mortality in those treated with IV Vitamin C. Hard to find.. but it is there. If JAMA wouldn’t allow those authors to mention it in that paper’s abstract conclusion, no surprise they did it again here.
 3) the masses of doctors and media who simply propagate and disseminate that sentence and abstract without reading the actual study or reviewing the actual data while ignorant of the findings from the highest level of medical evidence.. the “meta-analyses” of ivermectin (summary analyses of all trials).
 The way that sentence was written and where it was placed and in what journal it appeared was highly strategic (and very effective) as the entities who have been trying to suppress and distort the evidence of efficacy of ivermectin know exactly how to further stoke the smug arrogance and trigger the “I told you so’s” from all those doctors with propagandized, deeply ignorant bias against ivermectin, a proportion which likely includes well over 90% of academic physicians.
 Although the above attack strategy on ivermectin is effective, to most of “us” it is really easy to see how crazily the conclusion departs from not only the study’s own data, but the totality of the published evidence (and every single “comprehensive” meta-analysis) which all show repeatedly shorter times to viral clearance, clinical recovery, fewer hospitalizations, and far less death when COVID patients are treated with ivermectin. Note not one of these were cited in the JAMA manuscript. Weird no?
 All you have to do is read the study to understand a few simple things, namely that the primary outcome was not patient-centered (need for oxygen while in hospital?), while the “important” patient centered outcomes were “secondary” ones (death and need for mechanical ventilation), and although these two events happened so few times that a statistically significant result was near impossible to achieve.. the differences they found came very, very close to statistical significance! The ”p” value (probability the findings were due to chance) for the mortality reduction in IVM treated patients (the control groups deaths were over 3X as much as the ivermectin group) was… 0.09! Statistical significance is generally accepted (but often debated!) as a p value less than 0.05, meaning that there must be less than a 5 percent probability that the study findings were “due to chance.” In this study there was a 9% probability that the differences were due to chance. Conversely, this means that there was a 91% probability that the difference in death was REAL and reproducible. Note the p value for the need for mechanical ventilation was also quite low despite so few events observed, p = 0.17.
 What is even more fascinating (disturbing) is how the authors and JAMA avoided including this analysis by my colleague Massimaux which found a massive, highly statistically significant result when looking at the subgroup of “severe” patients only:

 Find me one patient who wouldn’t take any of the above odds while ill in a hospital with COVID with a drug as ridiculously safe as ivermectin. My god. Find me one patient who would worry about developing a need for oxygen more than developing a condition called death.
 The reason why I say the standard p value of .05 is often debated is that many scientists and physicians like myself feel strongly that lower p values should be required only when the drug is either high risk, high cost, novel or other data are few. Further, many of us also recognize that over-relying on p values leads to critical signals of efficacy being ignored, especially when event rates are low. Ivermectin has an incredible safety record and is low cost, with, as mentioned above, a massively positive data signal from 78 controlled trials and numerous health ministry treatment programs around the world. A 91% chance that the massive reduction in death they found was real and repeatable with ivermectin should convince almost anyone to want to take ivermectin if ill with COVID. Summary (meta-analysis) data of ALL trials actually represent the highest and strongest form of medical evidence.. not just one trial.

 Yet the obsessiveness with p values of a single study in modern, “evidence based medicine” (I call it evidence based maniacisim (EBM) is literally killing people. And that is why one of the most popular scientific papers in the last decade is a paper in Nature called “Scientists Rise Up Against Statistical Significance.” I wish every doctor would read (and understand) the deep meaning and massive implications of what that paper teaches those of us in the medical sciences whose patients fate is often in our hands.. rather than the overly stringent p values the EBManiacs demand. Docs will literally let someone die if a study of a medicine that found an important benefit does not have an associated p value of less than .05. When it is .09 and a secondary outcome? Too arbitrary, not rigorous enough to use the medicine, even in the dying. Even if it is the safest, most benign, and lowest cost medicine in the world. Now do you understand why I have effectively left institutionalized medicine?
 Now just look at the headlines generated from the way that abstract was worded shall we? (Numerous examples)

 Now you know why the obsessive academic EBM’ers and their misused p values lead the idiotic media into a frenzy.. and people die as a result?
 Science writers and reporters (and physicians) should know that a single study is not how we draw conclusions on the efficacy of a medicine given that the most sound conclusions are drawn from summary data from ALL the trials of ivermectin. This study, contrary to the headlines, actually strengthens the already existing, and statistically significant summary data of ivermectin’s effect on mechanical ventilation and death. Period. With now 7 8 controlled study results including over 85,000 patients, numerous successful health ministry reports of ivermectin early treatment programs, and powerful, positive meta-analyses , I will argue with anyone at anytime, that ivermectin has one of the most profoundly positive summary evidence bases of almost any medicine in history. And this study does nothing but further strengthen that signal. Look at how it shows up on the existing Forest plot of just the late treatment trials ( the early treatment trials show double the efficacy of the below ) . It actually strengthens the signal for mortality reduction. How ‘s that for a headline?

 Now you know why this supposed debate is so exhausting. Dealing with the combination of profound ignorance paired with such deep and willful bias of those who have already staked their reputations, credibility, and most importantly, their anti-ivermectin recommendations and policies on studies like this appear fruitless.
 The absurdity of this behavior was so well pointed out by Dr. Mobeen Syed (www.drbeen.com) in his review of the study when he contrasted this study’s conclusion with the medical evidence used in support of the FDA’s EUA for Bebtelovimab last week (February 11th, 2022):
 “the rates of COVID-19 related hospitalization and death seen in in those who received bebtelovimab alone or with other monoclonal antibodies were generally lower t han the placebo rate reported in prior trials of other monoclonal antibodies in high risk patients. Conclusions are limited as these data are from different trials when different viral variants were circulating and baseline risk factors varied.”
 “Generally lower”..means the differences were clearly NOT statistically significant.. or they would have said so. And the placebo comparisons they are using are just laughable. No-one ever could get away with such nonsense comparisons to other products in other variants. Absurd.
 He also points out that in published reviews of remdesivir, non-statistically significant results actually led to allowing published conclusions of “mortality was lower.” Whatever.
 So can we agree that, since the FDA is OK with using such a non-statistically significant impact on highly important outcomes such as hospitalization and death to issue an EUA for a product with significant risks, we all should be OK with the similar finding of “generally lower” rates of mechanical ventilation and death reported in this study? Again, I leave you with the below Forest Plot - notice the circled medicines are the ONLY ones recommended by the US health agencies. And notice their profit potential compared to all the others. The war on repurposed drugs continues apace.

 P.S. I just want to say how much I appreciate all the subscribers to my substack, and especially the paid ones! Your support is so greatly appreciated. Thanks my friends.
 Subscribe now

Summary: Big Pharma influences high-impact journals to selectively publish (purportedly) negative studies while outright rejecting positive studies from publication. JAMA did it again yesterday.


I Am Opening A COVID Specialty Tele-Health Practice

As much as I have loved and been transformed by my work and co-leadership of the FLCCC, I am just so excited to go back into direct patient care and teaching. My team of nurse practitioners and physicians are amazing, experienced, and eager to help and learn from all those still suffering from pandemic related problems, especially those with long haul or post vaccine injury syndromes.
 We have named the practice “The Advanced COVID-19 Tele-Health Care Center.”
 Besides accepting international consultations, we are offering consultations to patients from the following states: Arizona, Connecticut, California, Colorado, Delaware,Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Washington D.C., West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming, and Hawaii.
 If you do not live in one of these states, please do not book an appointment. We will be adding all states as our practice evolves to better serve our patients' needs. We are here to help, so if you know anyone in need of care for any of the above COVID conditions, please refer. *Note this venture is totally independent of my work or involvement with the FLCCC which is a 501c3 non-profit organization.
 To book an appointment, go to www.drpierrekory.com , choose a consultation type, then schedule an appointment with one of my awesome team of highly trained Nurse Practitioners who are experts in my protocols for all the above conditions. After scheduling, make sure you then fill out the intake form and you will be all set. Thanks for considering, Pierre

Summary: My new practice will treat acute Covid or prescribe meds to have on hand if you fall ill with COVID, but our main focus will be on treating Long-Haul and Post-Vaccine syndromes. We are here to help.


Lawyers Helping to Let Doctors Be Doctors

A growing number of state Attorneys General – Nebraska, Louisiana, South Carolina and now Oklahoma – are moving to protect physicians’ ability to use off-label prescribing in the treatment of COVID-19. In his encouraging public statement, Oklahoma’s Attorney General John O’Connor said his office would not allow medical boards to prevent doctors prescribing ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine to treat COVID-19. “I stand behind doctors who believe it is in their patients’ best interests to receive ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine.”
 This is a huge win for doctors and patients. Just like our long-standing advocacy for early treatment of COVID, the FLCCC has advocated for public officials to let doctors be doctors since the beginning of the pandemic.
 Big week this one. First, on early treatment, the CDC finally puts out a graphic.. advocating for early treatment . Wait. What? Check it out:

 I was pumped… until I realized this was just a launch of their PR campaign to promote Merck’s ineffective and mutagenic molnupiravir along with Pfizer’s pricey and poisonous paxlovid (please realize that those descriptors are scientifically proven and not “opinion”). Having barely lived through the FDA’s PR campaign against IVM and HCQ, I now have to watch the CDC’s absurd PR campaign championing novel, barely tested Big Pharma concoctions. Man are the PHA’s good at messaging (PHA = public health agency or “Pharma Held Agency”)… you decide.
 As far as the the Oklahoma AG’s statement supporting the doctors, it’s timing is welcome as it arrived amongst a backdrop of horrendous polls for my old party the Democrats – Biden’s disapproval rating is approaching 60% -- and a massive, growing, and effective Canadian protest against COVID mandates that is about to spill across the U.S. border (the U.S “People’s Convoy” will launch from Barstow, CA on February 23rd). Yeah baby.
 This is the perfect time for President Biden to finally acknowledge that there is no one-size-fits-all approach to medicine, to lift mandates and let doctors be doctors. Do you think he’ll listen? Or only when the convoy stretches a hundred miles and hundreds of thousands of Americans come out into the streets to cheer them on?
 Some harsh critics of the president are hopeful he will do something in this vein. In an Op-Ed in the Washington Times , Rep. Louie Gohmert (TX-01) noted the potential possibility that the president could seize the moment and finally unite the country – but not before giving Biden his lumps.
 “During his pursuit of the presidency, President Biden sold himself as a uniter, an ally of the light, who would use science to “shut down” the pandemic. Those of us who served with him in Congress knew better. He spent over three decades in the Senate bullying opponents and demagoguing those who disagreed with him. He was focused on accruing power, not bridging differences or taking courageous stands.
 “It’s never too late though. Two years into this pandemic, there is a chance for the President to change course, to shift our national strategy to mitigate covid away from “vaccine and nothing else” to one that actually listens to science – not just the paragon of self-love and self-promotion, Anthony Fauci – while using every means we have at our disposal to treat the sick and stop the virus.”
 The Congressman pointed out that vaccines alone can’t stop transmission, which should be pretty obvious by now.. but isn’t. The relentless pro-vaccine propaganda and anti-vaccine censorship in media, social media, and medical journals has shielded from the American people data that has been apparent to a growing number of scientists and critically thinking citizens for over a year now.
 These nefarious and anti-American tactics have been insanely successful given the average citizen (and physician) has no idea that the the vaccinated now contract Omicron at higher rates than the unvaccinated , the vaccinated are provably dying from all causes more than the unvaccinated, and in Israel, the vaccinated are dying from COVID like never seen before in the pandemic, suggesting that the dreaded (but not unexpected) phenomenon of “antibody dependent enhancement” is occurring. The most damning proof comes out of the life insurance company data showing a historically unprecedented rise in death claims among Americans 18-64 which began exactly at the start of Quarter 2 in 2021..and keeps rising. The timing of that rise is terrifying in its scale.. as well as how it is being profoundly ignored by the near majority of mass media. The young in this country are dying at never-before-seen rates, causing huge increases in life insurance and disability claims.. and the media refuses to report on it. Just another day in the life of the United States of Pharma. Please, never ever forget they are doing this. Even after they are forced to “come clean” and finally address it (whenever that happens).
 Let’s also not forget the recently leaked Department of Defense Data showing massive rises in over a dozen severe vaccine injury related conditions amongst our service members, a rise which also precipitously began in the year 2021 (the database was then urgently taken off line to be “corrected” right after the whistleblowers leaked it). Despite all these horrifying data, I came home today to learn from my wife (who is a doctor) that she is going to be fired if she doesn’t get boosted for Omicron with the Omicron-enhancing Wuhan strain pseudo-vaccine. The world goes ever more mad. Because that’s what globalized censorship of scientific truths and relentless propaganda of scientific lies will do to a world.
 While I expounded on the failed and deadly vaccine strategy he mentioned, Rep. Goehmert quickly pivoted to focus more on emphasizing early treatment by marshalling the data on fluvoxamine in COVID-19 to show that repurposed generic drugs should be part of our national strategy to end the pandemic. The evidence on fluvoxamine stretches back to even before the November 2020 RCT that was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association and which showed the medicine had clear clinical benefit against the disease (the FLCCC included fluvoxamine in its treatment protocol as long ago as April 2021). The more recent and larger RCT in the Lancet should have cemented it’s place in our national strategy.. but it didn’t because the NIH and IDSA apparently want MORE trials before recommending this decades old drug. Shocker. Whatever. Just exhausting.
 “The science is clear, as Biden likes to say. Yet like other repurposed medicines, this therapeutic help goes ignored by this administration and public health officials. Instead, they focus on the development of new, expensive anti-viral medicines. Again, in a pandemic, every single tool at our disposal should be used. But these new medicines are endeavors that cost taxpayers billions of dollars and just so happen to dramatically enrich the world’s elites.
 Despite his frustration, Rep. Gohmert ended the piece on a positive note:
 “Instead of demonizing unvaccinated Americans, the President can bring the country together and promote all options for fighting this terrible virus, including inexpensive therapeutics, some of which have proven to be safer than acetaminophen. Better late than never for the American people.”
 In other words, President Biden should just let doctors be doctors. We got this, man .
 You can read the Op-Ed in its entirety here .
 P.S. I just want to say how much I appreciate all the subscribers to my substack, and especially the paid ones! Your support is so greatly appreciated. Thanks my friends.
 Subscribe now
 ** Sorry I have been so quiet lately, just too much travel, lectures, and FLCCC work. I am home for the next two weeks and am now returning my focus to this blog’s original mission - so I plan to complete a bunch of existing draft posts further detailing the myriad actions of the global disinformation campaign against ivermectin (and other repurposed, generic medicines).

Summary: We docs have done what we can against the forces of corruption trying to control us. As my friend, Professor Hector Carvallo, has long said, "it's time for the lawyers." Here they come, finally.


The Global Disinformation Campaign to Suppress The Evidence of Efficacy of Ivermectin

As one of the world’s leading experts on the clinical use of ivermectin in COVID-19, I feel that it is my personal responsibility to try to create a historical record of the myriad actions taken against ivermectin by the global vaccine and pharmaceutical industry due to ivermectin’s long known and now proven role as the single greatest solution to the global pandemic.
 All subsequent “Disinformation Campaign Against Ivermectin” posts should be understood in this vein. My previous post of my recent testimony in Senator Ron Johnson historic expert panel hearing detailed the incredible efficacy reported by the numerous health ministries around the world that deployed ivermectin in early treatment programs. Note that I did not even bother to detail the 68 of 77 controlled trials involving 86,000 patients from 26 countries (many of them prospective, double blind, randomized controlled trials) that collectively report massive reductions in infections, hospitalizations and deaths, nor the dozen systematic reviews and meta-analyses (summary analyses of all the trials) that report the same. Nor did I present the analyses done after removing all the trials being attacked as low quality or “potentially fraudulent”.. which actually found the signals of benefit INCREASED.
 I am tired of presenting the efficacy data. The “debate” of the efficacy of ivermectin has long ceased to be a “data argument,” despite the attempts to make it one by claiming the world over that it’s efficacy is “unproven” due to the supposed fact that these many dozens of trials are all low quality, small, and/or fraudulent. For sure, such assertions have successfully injected such doubt that the near entirety of academic medicine in nearly all the world’s countries have accepted it as scientific truth. These assertions can and should only be understood as a massive global propaganda and censorship campaign against the efficacy data. That is why I believe the only way forward is to expose each and every one of “their” Disinformation tactics. If I am successful in doing this, it is my hope that this may begin to help end the decades long war of the pharmaceutical industry against repurposed, generic medicines.
 I feel the case of ivermectin may be a unique opportunity given that, in their pervasive war on numerous off-patent, effective therapies in dozens of disease models over decades, never has a single generic drug posed as large a threat to industry profit nor have they ever committed such openly brazen and widespread criminalities using unprecented levels of informational control . It is my belief and hope that their insane and relentless over-reach to protect profits in the global pandemic, similar to Napoleon’s foray into Russia, just may have opened an opportunity to so fully expose their deadly tactics that we can begin to counter them on a global scale.
 Let us be clear, that all of these nefarious actions, which I will detail in numerous subsequent posts in this series, could only have been made possible by their massive and/or direct control of numerous major national and international public health agencies, mass media outlets, social media companies, high-impact medical journals, and captured researchers. Their ability to exert such fearsome power allowed them to suppress and/or distort the knowledge of the lifesaving efficacy against COVID-19 of one of the worlds safest, most widely available, and inexpensive medicines. Never forget that these actions have resulted in millions of deaths. These are crimes against humanity.
 The only way to stop future pharmaceutical industry crimes against humanity is to record, for posterity, the historically unprecedented scale of censorship and propaganda of information that they deployed. If I can help expose this playbook (with my little substack - delusions of grandeur?), WE have a shot at developing countering and/or neutralizing measures to prevent further massive deaths in this disease… as well as many other diseases . Note that the nefariousness of these actions can only be dwarfed by their scale, as they have impacted survival outcomes in almost the entirety of planet Earth’s citizens.
 Although I will document these depraved actions, in most cases I will be unable to suggest or truly identify the ultimate or specific protagonists. You know, the actual individuals deploying these tactics, the ones making the ad buys and providing the “messaging,” paying the journalists and researchers for their media hit jobs, publishing the “negative” medical journal editorials and studies, partnering with the occasional U.S sociopath health agency leader etc. Although I will be unable to identify them personally, employing logic, the only possible source of sufficient power to have exerted such widespread influence, would be the managers of the three multi-trillion dollar investment firms that have influential and/or controlling stakes in almost all corporations in almost all industries, and those three are… Black Rock, State Street, and Vanguard. Or it may have been the occasional pseudo-philanthropist vaccine-obsessed eugenicist hundred billionaire who along with massive controlling donations to all the major international and national health agencies , also distributed hundreds of millions amongst almost every major media outlet in the world. That investigative exercise is not what I am skilled in, as I am just a lowly physician expert in ivermectin who has held a front row seat to now 14 months of their deadly successful Disinformation campaign against ivermectin. Instead I simply plan to document every detail of every action that I have witnessed and/or have been personally involved in.. and hope the investigative authorities can take care of the rest.
 It’s time for the cops. It’s time for the prosecutors. And it’s time for the judges. And then it’s time for the prisons. But first the evidence. Stay tuned.
 P.S I just want to say how much I appreciate all the subscribers to my substack, and especially the paid ones! Your support is so greatly appreciated. Thanks my friends.
 Subscribe now

Summary: After a week of non-stop lectures, panels, speeches, and expert testimony, my new mission has now come into focus.


The March Against The Mandates

I still get goosebumps thinking about the 45 minutes I got to spend on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial with my fellow members of the “medical dissidents" movement. I looked out out upon a huge crowd of thousands and thousands of peaceful marchers all holding signs and cheering. Cheering all of us up there, but also cheering me… and cheering the FLCCC. Paul Marik and I were trembling and teary-eyed as we hugged each other on those grand steps that day. The amount of signs in support of the FLCCC was amazing.
 After our speeches, as we descended the steps and passed by the barricades, I was made to feel like some sort of rock star given all the people reaching over trying to get fist bumps.. and all yelling really, really nice things about me (things that, over the past 2 years, I didnt always hear). But I heard them that day, and I won’t forget them. Ever.
 The best (most accurate/fair) articles I have yet seen are these two; one in Tablet mag and the other in The Federalist . I also cant forget the FLCCC’s substack review of the March (with lots more clips and videos).
 Great panoramic view of the amazing crowd is here in this 20 second clip:

 And then of course… my speech. I was a bit fired up. Enjoy.

 P.S I just want to say how much I appreciate all the subscribers to my substack, and especially the paid ones! Your support has been very helpful. Thanks so much.
 Subscribe now

Summary: I have never been more proud of my colleagues and my country. I am still on fire from the March. The Truth is finally getting out.


My Testimony For The Upcoming Senate Hearing on Monday, January 24, 2022

I am giving Senate testimony again. This time, I am even more outraged. BRING. IT. ON.
 Senator Johnson asked a group of COVID physician experts to attend a speaker panel this upcoming Monday (after the March!) to address the numerous aspects of the U.S COVID response which either failed, were corrupted, were unnecessary, or could have been greatly improved.
 The panel title should really borrow the English translated title of the 2020 French best-selling book by Dr. Christian Perrone, “ What else could they have gotten wrong in COVID-19? The sacred union of incompetence and arrogance” (to be accurate, it really should have been titled the unholy union of arrogance and corruption ). We are supposed to keep our remarks brief, like 400 words or less as the Q and A will be the most impactful. I tried.. closest I could come was just under 500 words. Let’s go:
 There are now rapidly increasing numbers of national and regional health ministries that employed either widespread distribution or “test and treat” programs with ivermectin that show that, had we done the same in the U.S, we could have single-handedly achieved near complete control of case counts, hospitalizations rates, and deaths. Early treatment program results from around the world show the following:
 ·      Mexico City – The IMSSS Health Agency compared over 50,000 patients treated early with ivermectin to over 70,000 not treated and found up to a 75% reduction in need for hospitalization .
 ·      La Misiones, Argentina – Health Ministry analyzed the data from 4,000 ivermectin treated patients and, compared to the rest of the population over the same time period, found a 75% reduction in need for hospital and an 88% reduction in death .
 ·      Uttar Pradesh, India – Using a strategy of close surveillance combined with both ivermectin treatment of all positive cases and preventive treatment of all family contacts. On September 10, 2021, only 11 cases with no deaths were recorded in a population of 241 million..with 67 of their 75 districts having no active cases at the time.
 ·      The Brazilian city of Itajai offerred ivermectin as prevention to the entire city’s population with 133,051 (60%) agreeing to take ivermectin every two weeks for 6 months. Compared to the 45,716 city inhabitants that declined to use ivermectin, ivermectin users were 47% less likely to contract illness, had a 70% lower mortality rate, and a 67% lower hospitalization rate. By the end of the 6 month program, the citywide COVID mortality fell from 6.8% to 1.8%.
 ·      La Pampas, Argentina – Health Ministry compared over 2,000 patients they treated early with ivermectin to over 12,000 without treatment and found that in patients over 40, rates of ICU admission and death both fell by 65 and 55% respectively.
 ·      Peru – A nationwide mass-distribution program called “ Mega-Operación Tayta ” (MOT), initiated at various times across 25 states of Peru in May 2020, led to a 74% drop in regional excess deaths within a month, with each drop beginning 11 days after each MOT region’s varied start times
 ·      The Health Ministry of Sultan Kudarat in the Phillipines launched an ivermectin drive and found that cases rapidly dropped by 86%. compared to nearby regions
 ·      In Japan, the President of the Tokyo Medical Association recommended that all physicians start to use ivermectin as early treatment during their summer surge. They are now recording the lowest rate of COVID hospitalization in the pandemic.
 ·      23 countries (39 including NGO’s) have now given either partial or full approval for use in COVID, which encompasses 25% of the world’s population.
 The data that I have shared here today is being suppressed across most of the world. United States Health Agency structures and policies created over the last 50 years have tightly intertwined the pharmaceutical industry with public health institutions, resulting in repeated policies placing pharmaceutical industry interests ahead of the welfare of U.S citizens.  The industry’s capture of our health agencies, combined with their increasing financial control of most major media, social media, and medical journals, has led to an ability to widely suppress and/or distort any information which supports the efficacy of repurposed, low-cost, off-patent medicines. Their decades-long “war on repurposed drugs,” waged with the ever-present goal of protecting the market for novel, patented, obscenely profitable, and often barely-tested, toxic products reached a pinnacle in COVID-19. The impacts of their “dis-information” war on repurposed medicines now constitute crimes against humanity given the global morbidity, mortality, and loss of societal and economic liberties that could have been avoided if such information would have been widely disseminated.
 P.S I just want to say how much I appreciate all the subscribers to my substack, and especially the paid ones! Your support is so greatly appreciated. Thanks my friends.
 Subscribe now

Summary: Senator Ron Johnson again invited me to a hearing addressing the U.S pandemic response failure. I was asked to provide counter-examples of highly successful responses from around the world. Enjoy.


I am giving Senate testimony again. This time, I am even more outraged. BRING. IT. ON.
 Senator Johnson asked a group of COVID physician experts to attend a speaker panel this upcoming Monday (after the March!) to address the numerous aspects of the U.S COVID response which either failed, were corrupted, were unnecessary, or could have been greatly improved.
 The panel title should really borrow the English translated title of the 2020 French best-selling book by Dr. Christian Perrone, “ What else could they have gotten wrong in COVID-19? The sacred union of incompetence and arrogance” (to be accurate, it really should have been titled the unholy union of arrogance and corruption ). We are supposed to keep our remarks brief, like 400 words or less as the Q and A will be the most impactful. I tried.. closest I could come was just under 500 words. Let’s go:
 There are now rapidly increasing numbers of national and regional health ministries that employed either widespread distribution or “test and treat” programs with ivermectin that show that, had we done the same in the U.S, we could have single-handedly achieved near complete control of case counts, hospitalizations rates, and deaths. Early treatment program results from around the world show the following:
 ·      Mexico City – The IMSSS Health Agency compared over 50,000 patients treated early with ivermectin to over 70,000 not treated and found up to a 75% reduction in need for hospitalization .
 ·      La Misiones, Argentina – Health Ministry analyzed the data from 4,000 ivermectin treated patients and, compared to the rest of the population over the same time period, found a 75% reduction in need for hospital and an 88% reduction in death .
 ·      Uttar Pradesh, India – Using a strategy of close surveillance combined with both ivermectin treatment of all positive cases and preventive treatment of all family contacts. On September 10, 2021, only 11 cases with no deaths were recorded in a population of 241 million..with 67 of their 75 districts having no active cases at the time.
 ·      The Brazilian city of Itajai offerred ivermectin as prevention to the entire city’s population with 133,051 (60%) agreeing to take ivermectin every two weeks for 6 months. Compared to the 45,716 city inhabitants that declined to use ivermectin, ivermectin users were 47% less likely to contract illness, had a 70% lower mortality rate, and a 67% lower hospitalization rate. By the end of the 6 month program, the citywide COVID mortality fell from 6.8% to 1.8%.
 ·      La Pampas, Argentina – Health Ministry compared over 2,000 patients they treated early with ivermectin to over 12,000 without treatment and found that in patients over 40, rates of ICU admission and death both fell by 40%.
 ·      Peru – A nationwide mass-distribution program called “ Mega-Operación Tayta ” (MOT), initiated at various times across 25 states of Peru in May 2020, led to a 74% drop in regional excess deaths within a month, with each drop beginning 11 days after each MOT region’s varied start times
 ·      The Health Ministry of Sultan Kudarat in the Phillipines launched an ivermectin drive and found that cases rapidly dropped by 86%. compared to nearby regions
 ·      In Japan, the President of the Tokyo Medical Association recommended that all physicians start to use ivermectin as early treatment during their summer surge. They are now recording the lowest rate of COVID hospitalization in the pandemic.
 ·      23 countries (39 including NGO’s) have now given either partial or full approval for use in COVID, which encompasses 25% of the world’s population.
 The data that I have shared here today is being suppressed across most of the world. United States Health Agency structures and policies created over the last 50 years have tightly intertwined the pharmaceutical industry with public health institutions, resulting in repeated policies placing pharmaceutical industry interests ahead of the welfare of U.S citizens.  The industry’s capture of our health agencies, combined with their increasing financial control of most major media, social media, and medical journals, has led to an ability to widely suppress and/or distort any information which supports the efficacy of repurposed, low-cost, off-patent medicines. Their decades-long “war on repurposed drugs,” waged with the ever-present goal of protecting the market for novel, patented, obscenely profitable, and often barely-tested, toxic products reached a pinnacle in COVID-19. The impacts of their “dis-information” war on repurposed medicines now constitute crimes against humanity given the global morbidity, mortality, and loss of societal and economic liberties that could have been avoided if such information would have been widely disseminated.
 Subscribe now
 P.S I am honored to have been invited by Dr. Chris Martenson and Peak Prosperity to their Annual Seminar as part of a speaker panel including some powerhouse thought leaders. Don't miss it folks. Register using this link: http://peak22.events/kory
 Also:
 World-wide Rally for Freedom Day, Sunday January 23 (note we are marching in solidarity with many other countries on that day)
 Join us for a March in Washington, DC to protest the numerous harmful infringements of societal and health freedoms that have been implemented in COVID, such as; forced COVID vaccinations of the naturally immune, forced COVID vaccinations of healthy children, and the interference with a physicians ability to care for their COVID patients.
 Gather at the Washington Monument by 11:30a.m. Then we will march to the Lincoln Memorial (1 mile) to listen to COVID thought leaders, experts, and activists as they give a series of short, powerful statements. I am one of them.. and I am pumped!
 United We Stand, in Peace We March.  Bring friends and jackets - and transistor radios in case you come late and/or can’t get close enough to the amplified areas of sound. Given the number of people estimated, cell phone service is unlikely to hold up, even for just radio.
 Go to https://defeatthemandatesdc.com/ for details


A Front-Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance Doctor.. Fights Back

One of the FLCCC’s Clinical Advisors, Dr. Mary Talley Bowden, pictured above, is fighting back against the local hospital administrators and physician leaders that collectively fell prey (like so many others) to the multiple mass delusions whipped up by the media and government health agencies, ones like, “ivermectin is a horsedewormer,” “this is a pandemic of the unvaccinated,” the vaccines are “safe and effective, safe and effective” etc.
 When and if her case is fairly heard in a court of law, I guarantee you Dr. Bowden will be able to show the terrifying lack of scientific data to support any of Houston Methodist’s (and the Houston Chronicle’s) actions against her. Go Mary. Bring out the Truth. Thank you for speaking out in behalf of the unvaccinated… and the vaccinated, i.e. ALL patients (what “real” doctors do). See below article from Epoch Times on her plight. I also want to mention that I find Epoch times the flat-out best (only?) functioning newspaper in the U.S right now.
 Subscribe now
 Doctor Suspended From Houston Methodist for Backing Ivermectin and Opposing Vaccine Mandates Sues Hospital
 By Ivan Pentchoukov
 January 18, 2022 Updated: January 18, 2022
 A Texas doctor who had her privileges revoked by Houston Methodist hospital last year due to her support of ivermectin and opposition to vaccine mandates sued the hospital on Jan. 17.
 Dr. Mary Bowden filed the lawsuit ( pdf ) on Monday in Harris County District Court seeking financial reports and data on adverse reactions from the hospital.
 “Two months ago in November Houston Methodist launched me into the public spotlight by telling the world that they were suspending my privileges for supposedly spreading dangerous misinformation about COVID. The Houston Chronicle joined in in that effort. Since then I’ve had a lot of people comment publicly that I should lose my license,” Bowden said outside her clinic in Houston on Monday.
 Houston Methodist declined a request for comment.
 According to the lawsuit, Bowden embarked on a quest to obtain the records from Houston Methodist after the hospital accused her of “spreading dangerous misinformation which is not based in science” in a series of tweets in November last year.
 “Dr. Mary Bowden, who recently joined the medical staff at Houston Methodist Hospital, is using her social media accounts to express her personal and political opinions about the COVID-19 vaccine and treatments,” one of the tweets said.
 One day prior to the hospital’s tweets, Bowden shared a link to a meta-analysis of studies on the effectiveness of ivermectin as a treatment and prophylaxis for COVID-19.
 “ Ivermectin might not be as deadly as everyone said it was. Speak up!” Bowden wrote.
 Two days earlier, she wrote in another tweet that “vaccine mandates are wrong.”
 After the hospital provided “unconvincing explanations” for why it targeted Bowden, she decided to “follow the money,” the lawsuit states. Under Texas law, non-profit corporations like the one which controls Houston Methodist must make their records available upon request from the public.
 Flanked by staff from her clinic on Monday, Bowden spoke of her arduous journey to obtain a medical license and how it has taught her to not blindly trust pharmaceutical companies and to view new treatments and vaccines through a critical lens.
 Bowden highlighted that her clinic has no financial ties to the government, hospitals, pharmaceutical corporations, or insurance companies.
 “I do not contract with insurance companies. I don’t contract with the government. I don’t take Medicare. I have no financial ties with hospitals,” Bowden said. “The only people I work for are my patients and I treat them the way I would want to be treated.”
 Bowden’s attorney, Steven Mitby, said the doctor is not pursuing the lawsuit for financial gain.
 “She is not seeking a penny for any of this,” Mitby said. “She’s simply asking for transparency and following the law.”
 Bowden sought the information from the hospital prior to filing the lawsuit but did not receive a response, Mitby said.
 In a letter dated November 30, 2021, Bowden requested a series of records from Houston Methodist, including how much money the hospital made from its COVID-19 vaccination program and from treating COVID-19 patients. The doctor also requested financial records pertaining to any financial payments from pharmaceutical companies, non-profit tax returns, and the bonuses the hospital paid to employees.

 P.S I was honored to have been invited by Dr. Chris Martenson and Peak Prosperity to their Annual Seminar as part of a speaker panel including some powerhouse thought leaders. Don't miss it folks. Register using this link: http://peak22.events/kory

Summary: Dr. Mary Talley Bowden, a Clinical Advisor to the FLCCC with expertise in both early and long-haul treatment of COVID, goes after the hospital that revoked her privileges with unsubstantiated claims.


How I Was Harassed By My Employer After Leaving My First Of Three ICU Jobs in the Pandemic

In a prior post , I detailed all the incidents leading up to my resignation from my postions as the Medical Director of the Trauma and Life Support Center and the Critical Care Service Chief at the University of Wisconsin during the early COVID era of Spring 2020.
 After I was granted a leave prior to my full resignation, I left the University of Wisconsin to run my old ICU at Mount Sinai Beth Israel Medical Center, during the latter half of that insane first surge of patients that overwhelmed all of New York City’s health systems. While there, a s I also covered in a prior post , I was asked by the then Chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, Senator Ron Johnson, to testify about possible treatments of COVID. He, unfortunately like so few others, was rightly and deeply concerned about how doctors were failing at identifying and employing both early phase and late phase treatments while so many patients were dying. From my memory of the first conversation I had with him, he told me that the underlying reason why he was trying to bring atttention to the issue, is that he “wanted the doctors to take their $%&#! gloves off” (I actually don’t think he swore, but I remember that he said it so powerfully, he certainly may have).
 Although my testimony in that hearing did not reach as many ears as my later and more widely disseminated testimony (one clip of the testimony on youtube got almost 9 milllion views before being taken down by Big Pharma-Media) where I called attention to the critical need for ivermectin in early disease, the first one certainly got the attention of the University of Wisconsin. And they were NOT happy. Even though I resigned, my resignation was dated for June 30th. I still held my academic title of an Associate Professor of Medicine (on the brink of becoming a Full Professor when I resigned).
 My boss was livid, his boss was livid (remember from my prior post, she was the Chair of Medicine whose scientific misconduct of covertly pressuring Professors under her employ to remove IV Vitamin C from the University of Wisconsin’s COVID treatment protocol led to my resignation) and her boss (the Vitamin C hating Psychiatrist Dean of the Medical School) was livid.
 Why were they livid? Because, an Associate Professor of the Medical School spoke publicly. Without telling them first. Without asking for permission first. Without alerting their press office first. Whoa. And with scientific opinions that ran counter to not only the august COVID Therapeutics Committee of the University of Wisconsin but also the NIH, FDA, and all other national and international helath care societies at the time. The First Amendment’s a bitch.
 Note that I wrote above.. at the time , because about 8 weeks after that testimony, the use of corticosteroids became the standard of care worldwide for hospitalized COVID patients after a large study in the UK showed that use of corticosteroids led to dramatic reductions in mortality. However, in those first days after my testimony, (which I had delivered remotely from my tiny “emergency volunteer” hotel room paid for by Mount Sinai), what I had testified was.. quite provocative. And everywhere that the testimony was mentioned, it was also mentioned that I was an Associate Professor at the Univeristy of Wisconsin.
 Lets get back to the FirstAmendment, you know, the one against prohibition of free speech. Fun fact; the University of Wisconsin has long held itself as one of the fiercest protectors of their faculty’s ability to speak their opinions freely and publicly. So why, at the end of each almost indescribably and horrifically difficult day in Beth Israel’s main COVID ICU, was I getting a call from my former boss? In each call he hectored me that I needed to alert the University’s media relations office before I spoke to any more press while also telling me that my opinions were likely dangerous. The reason why I personally was getting harrased in this way was because, as one media relations employee at the University of Wisconsin had “discreetly” told me duing an interaction from months prior, that “although the Chancellor of the University fully supports a faculty’s ability to speak their opinions freely.. the Dean of the University’s School of Medicine has a different opinion” and apparently gets angry when he is not told of a faculty members interaction with the press before it happens. So, lets just say, I was unsurprised by their anger as I had known this when I made the decision to not tell them prior to delivering U.S Senate testimony.
 Although unsurprised, I quickly became increasingly annoyed at these calls, and then I just got so pissed off, I went out and hired the best civil rights and employment lawyer in the State of Wisconsin, Attorney Lester Pines.
 His letter to them was an absolute tour-de-force. I loved it so much, I went out and got it framed. It hangs in my office today. It also got the phone calls to stop immediately. Enjoy the letter, you might learn something about what academic freedoms are supposed to look like.
 Subscribe now
 May 19, 2020
 Re:     Dr. Pierre D. Kory
 Dear Dean Golden and Dr. Schnapp:
 I represent Dr. Pierre Kory. I have reviewed the multiple email correspondences that he has received regarding public statements and public appearances about the treatment of Covid-19 patients that Dr. Kory has made and will make.
 Dr. Kory, while on his own personal time, is free to make any public statements or express any opinions he desires about the proper way to treat patients who are critically ill with Covid-19, or on any other medical matter. When Dr. Kory makes such statements or provides such opinions, he is not speaking on behalf of the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine & Public Health (“SMPH”). Nor is he speaking on behalf of UW Health.  He has not at any time suggested that he is.
 The May 18, 2020 letter told Dr. Kory that before making public statements or public appearances he is “required to inform and work directly with Connie Schulze, Director of Governmental Communications for SMPH and UW Health” and that he is expected to also “inform Dr. Lynn Schnapp, department chair and Allison Golden, the Office of the Dean.” There is absolutely no requirement that a faculty or academic staff member at the University of Wisconsin, including the SMPH, or on the staff of UW Health must work with the Director of Governmental Communications or anyone else before testifying before Congress, publicly appearing before any other public organization or agency, or making a public statement. Nor is there any requirement to inform either a department chair or the Dean.
 Not only is Dr. Kory free on his own time to publicly share his knowledge and opinions, he is obliged to do so. As a faculty member of the SMPH and the University of Wisconsin, Dr. Kory is expected to ensure that his medical knowledge is shared beyond the boundaries of the campus. Neither the SMPH nor UW Health has the right to prohibit Dr. Kory from doing so, regulate what he may say, or where he may say it.
 As a public employee, Dr. Kory’s rights are protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 1 of the Wisconsin Constitution. When he is speaking or writing on matters of public concern and doing so on his own time, he may speak or write without interference from or control by his employer. He is also free to identify himself by his medical and academic credentials and will continue to do so.
 Calling and emailing Dr. Kory repeatedly to express displeasure for his public expression of expert opinions, baselessly accusing him of trying to represent his opinions as those of the SMPH, and then claiming he is required to inform and work directly with University representatives prior to speaking publicly, are attempts to intimidate and harass Dr. Kory and restrict his free speech rights.
 Multiple actions taken by Drs. Schnapp and Dean Golden have been unfounded, political attacks on Dr. Kory’s credibility and expertise. I suggest that all of you refrain from any further such behavior. I strongly urge both the SMPH and UW Health to refrain from interfering with Dr. Kory’s right to provide information to the public during this time of urgent need for the best clinical care possible for Covid-19 patients.
 Dr. Kory is a highly respected clinician who has been hard at work on the high-risk front lines of the COVID pandemic. It is unconscionable that he be forced to endure repeated intrusions during his work and advocacy. While there may be those who disagree with his approach to treatment, they should pay attention to the scientific evidence on which it is based rather than try to suppress his public discussions about it.
 Very truly yours,
 Lester A. Pines
 PINES BACH LLP
 Lester A. Pines
 P.S I was honored to have been invited by Dr. Chris Martenson and Peak Prosperity to their Annual Seminar as part of a speaker panel including some powerhouse thought leaders. Don't miss it folks. Register using this link: http://peak22.events/kory

Summary: After I very publicly testified in the U.S Senate, I received a daily barrage of calls from my boss trying to prevent me talking to the press. A powerful letter from my kickass lawyer ended them.


How I Lost Three ICU Jobs During the COVID-19 Pandemic - Job 1

What follows is my standard “Super Short Bio” that I send to folks whenever I have to give a lecture so they can introduce me quickly (lecturers in medicine essentially get a summary of their CV read as an introduction before they speak, with some lecturer introductions lasting 15 minutes - I exaggerate only slightly). I actually have several different bios, a “super short one”, a “short one”, and a “long one,” each of which I use for distinct purposes. I have been giving lectures across the country and world to doctors in my specialty for over 15 years, on a variety of topics that I am expert in, chief among which was the use of ultrasonography in the diagnosis of acute respiratory failure & circulatory shock states, the use of therapeutic hypothermia after cardiac arrest, and the use of high dose intravenous Vitamin C in severe sepsis.
 PRE-COVID “SUPER SHORT BIO”
 Dr. Kory is a Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine specialist, and is a former Associate Professor and Chief of the Critical Care Service at the University of Wisconsin. He is an internationally renowned pioneer in the field of critical care ultrasonography, having served as senior editor of an award-winning textbook in its 2nd edition, now translated into 7 languages. Dr. Kory is also considered a master educator and has won major Departmental Teaching Awards at multiple institutions during his career.
 I do not include the above as some sort of ego exercise but rather to introduce the topic of what happens to even well-established physicians that spoke up (or spoke out) against the U.S health system’s COVID response as it passed through its initial state of unethical therapeutic nihilism which led to a historically unprecedented ICU mortality, followed by its evolution into a corrupt system of highly profitable therapeutic strategies written by pharmaceutical companies that long ago gained control of our federal health agencies. Whoa is right. If you don’t believe the last sentence, please just look AGAIN at the list below of all the compounds which have shown efficacy in clinical trials from across the world. Now look at the only ones approved for use in the good ‘ole United States of Pharma. I circled them in red for you. See a theme? Not even Vitamin-%&#!-D makes the cut. Insane.

 If you want to know how far back this kind of corrupt control of both medical therapeutics and medical education in the United States stretches.. watch this disturbing video about the beginnings of allopathic medicine in the US.
 Job 1- University of Wisconsin, Madison. Medical Director of the Trauma and Life Support Center, Chief of the Critical Care Service. Left mid-first surge of COVID April 2020 on a “humanitarian leave” to take over my old ICU in New York City during the latter half of their surge. Resigned while I was in New York City on May 6, just prior to my first Senate Testimony in a Homeland Security Committee hearing brought together and chaired by Senator Ron Johnson where I called out for the critical need for corticosteroids in hospitalized patients, at a time when all national and international health agencies recommended against. The below is why I left to New York, and then why I resigned before coming back.
 What happened at the University of Wisconsin is that, after many weeks helping prepare novel physical ICU room layouts along with complex ICU specialist team schedules and structures to deploy in case of a similar massive surge of critically ill patients as was happening in New York City (my hometown), patients started to arrive at UW. First slowly, then more rapidly. Given that COVID was a novel disease to all of us, many were “on fire” trying to learn everything we could about the mechanisms in which the virus was making our ICU patients so ill.. and how best to counteract those mechanisms. And the latter attempt is where my first troubles began.
 I want to keep this part brief because it is so sad. Basically, what happened is that very quickly, we (me and my close outside colleagues, in the FLCCC and in other ICU’s in New York and Italy and China) learned that both corticosteroids and anti-coagulation were critical to their survival. The optimal dose, drug, timing or duration for these two strategies were not yet known, but the critical need for them clearly was. Please see my prior post here and here as to how we knew. The problem was that it had not yet been “ proven ” in some a large, prospective, multi-center, double-blind, randomized controlled trial (RCT), as that is now the only evidence that can make changes to therapeutics in the U.S Health System. The horrific departure of this policy and practice from the long-standing reliance of physicians on the powers of medical knowledge, logic, observation, reason, pragmatism, and the precautionary principle of relying on risk/benefit assessments is now legion. It also quickly led to the most horrific and catastrophic mortality rates of patients in the ICU in history. All because the entirety of U.S academic medicine, over the last 20 years, has been reduced to a “Church of RCT Fundamentalism” (a conversion that was 100% fueled by Big Pharma as they essentially control the funding, design, and.. outcomes of such trials).
 This approach was so catastrophic, that not only were centers coming close to and even flat-out running out of ventilators to support patients , one hospital system in New York reported an 88% mortality among their admitted patients on mechanical ventilation. Unprecedented. And they were dying because they were not being treated .. with anything beyond oxygen, fluids, and tylenol (not totally accurate as quite a few doctors I knew were trying different therapeutic approaches, and collecting data the best they could - you know, old-timey medicine stuff). The “official” policies emanating from hospital therapeutic committees were to largely not recommend anything outside of a clinical trial. This “interim guideline” from the American Thoracic Society from that time, should enter the COVID historical doctoring record as being one of the most pathetic. Besides softly recommending hydroxychloroquine only for hospitalized patients with pneumonia (yup - the Ivory tower suggesting an antiviral two weeks into illness, I am not making this up), it made no suggestion for or against 6 other considered medicines. And at UW, I was being repeatedly told and angrily so, “to follow the guidelines” (these were the guidelines being referred to. Sad stuff indeed). Then the Ivory Tower published this chest-pain inducing editorial titled “First Do No Harm” whereby they literally scolded physicians for attempting to treat COVID patients without first waiting for the conclusions of supposedly rapidly enrolling RCT’s, and they wrote to front-line docs observing 88% mortality in their ICU ventilated patients.
 They were literally prioritizing medical research ahead of the welfare of patients. In spite of the Helsinki Declaration of 1964 specifically addressing this issue ( see Declaration 36) . And they did this from the beginning. A horror show. My personal plight fighting the depravity of this approach (as well as the plight of several of my former close colleagues in New York who were trying to do the same) was covered in great detail in this New York Times Magazine article . Highlight of that article was when the Editor of the New England Journal of Medicine called me “lucky” for predicting the critical need of corticosteroids. Yup. Lucky Pierre . The article unfortunately takes on the classic “presenting both sides” approach - you can decide which therapeutic approach you would have wanted as a patient in early COVID. Oh, and keep in mind, this was way before Professor Paul Marik and the FLCCC had identified ivermectin as a highly effective therapeutic in COVID.
 I fairly quickly left UW after the first wave of patients, propelled by a series of disturbing incidents:
 As the Clinical Service Chief of the Critical Care Service at the time, I led the daily clinical webinar conferences we were having with as many as 50 hospitalists and ICU specialists and residents - these were critical given the massive amount of daily new information, changes to policies, and other unfolding developments. Given my subtle and not-so-subtle advocacy for empiric use of medicines (and avoidance of “early intubation” which many were advocating), my leaders subtly and not-so-subtly “took over” the leading of the calls, emphasizing again and again that doctors should follow that insane non-guidance document above from the American Thoracic Society. It became quickly clear that my clinical expertise and guidance was no longer desired.

 My newly minted Chair of Medicine at the time went behind my back and convinced my fellow members of the COVID therapeutics committee to remove intravenous Vitamin C from the University of Wisconsin guideline, after I had successfully scientifically advocated for its inclusion (umm, yes, you read it right.. Vitamin C). She did this on behalf of the Dean of the Medical School at the time (a psychiatrist) who had become incensed when he read a newspaper interview I did where I mentioned that high dose intravenous Vitamin C would likely be critical to improve survival. As soon as I discovered this insane and essentially corrupt action, I immediately demanded a leave. Note that, at the time, the use of intravenous vitamin C was supported by a large RCT, published in a major medical journal which found it led to a massive reduction in mortality in ICU patients with severe lung injury. More recently, a meta-analysis of IV Vitamin C trials in COVID amassed evidence strongly suggesting numerous benefits, including survival. Lucky Pierre strikes again. Moral of the story - this is what happens when psychiatrists decide to dictate the care of ICU patients.

 As a native New Yorker I so badly wanted to fight on what was literally at the time, “the medical front lines” of the United States battle against COVID. My email inbox was filling every day with bold headlined emails from all the critical care societies “Critical Care Specialists Needed in New York Urgently”. That’s it, I was going, going, and then I was gonna be gone. I first asked my wife if I could resign, she immediately told me yes, and reminded me how I had become increasingly miserable in the Ivory Tower during my 5 year tenure as Critical Care Service Chief.

 This was the email I wrote to my boss asking for the leave.

 Humanitarian Leave – I would like to request permission for a leave, for several reasons:
 my approach in advocating for a strategy of care for critically ill COVID patients has created discord and tension at a time when consensus and unity are critical. I cannot see how I can be a force in achieving those aims when my clinical judgement and recommendations are in direct opposition to that of divisional, departmental, and Medical School Leadership.

 I feel my skill set and effort would be most valuable and have maximum impact if I were to be allowed to support hospitals in New York City that are overwhelmed with critically ill COVID patients

 Please note that I am not formally scheduled on a critical care team until the first week of May and I would be willing to return to fulfill that responsibility if desired. Further, I feel that UW Hospital is currently well prepared to care for any surge of patients at this point and my hopes are that an overwhelming surge is being avoided by early and current social distancing practices.

 Medical Director/Service Chief position – I would like to offer my resignation from these roles. It has become clear that I am not suitable for these roles.. Just not in my skillset or personality. I deeply apologize for my actions in the past week, actions which were solely intended to rapidly develop an effective strategy of care for COVID patients ( I cant remember what they were but I know me and my boss had gotten into our first “argument” during my tenure) . The moral distress that I have been suffering over what I “too strongly” perceive as ineffective and inadequate care and needless death has overwhelmed me.

 Next night, right after a brief and strained final remote conference meeting with my soon to be ex-Chair of Medicine, I bought a plane ticket to Laguardia.. and off I went.
 Subscribe now

 Please folks, remember:
 World-wide Rally for Freedom Day, Sunday January 23 (note we are marching in solidarity with many other countries on that day)
 Join us for a March in Washington, DC to protest the numerous harmful infringements of societal and health freedoms that have been implemented in COVID, such as; forced COVID vaccinations of the naturally immune, forced COVID vaccinations of healthy children, and the interference with a physicians ability to care for their COVID patients.
 Gather at the Washington Monument by 11:30a.m. Then we will march to the Lincoln Memorial (1 mile) to listen to COVID thought leaders, experts, and activists as they give a series of short, powerful statements. I am one of them.. and I am pumped!
 United We Stand, in Peace We March.  Bring friends and jackets - and transistor radios in case you come late and/or can’t get close enough to the amplified areas of sound. Given the number of people estimated, cell phone service is unlikely to hold up, even for just radio.
 Go to https://defeatthemandatesdc.com/ for details
 Finally, I am honored to have been invited by Dr. Chris Martenson and Peak Prosperity to their Annual Seminar as part of a speaker panel including some powerhouse thought leaders. Don't miss it folks. Register using this link: http://peak22.events/kory

Summary: Prior to COVID, I was a nationally known expert in Pulmonary & Critical Care Medicine. Despite the massive need for specialists like me across the US, I had to leave 3 different US medical centers.