Fraudulent Trial On Ivermectin Published By The World's Top Medical Journal. Big Pharma Reigns - Part I
The New England Journal of Medicine recently published the fraudulent TOGETHER trial, designed and conducted to launch anti-ivermectin headlines across every major media outlet across the world.
Big Pharma (Pfizer and Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) from what it looks to me) dropped another nuclear bomb on ivermectin 3 weeks ago with their publication of the fraudulent Brazilian TOGETHER trial. They did it in one of the world’s top read and rated medical journals, the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), a journal born in the year 1812, but captured by Pharma for who knows how long now. This is an open secret as per former Editor Marcia Angell in the book Drug Companies & Doctors: A Story of Corruption:
“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.” -Dr. Marcia Angell
First off, the saddest part of this fraud is that the TOGETHER trial’s published conclusion brazenly contradicted the data within the manuscript as it actually showed an 81% “Bayesian” probability (a sophisticated form of statistical analysis) of the superiority of ivermectin. But media and science reporters no longer critically analyze the data or questions the abstract’s conclusion, instead they all trumpet headlines in unison that “ivermectin doesn’t work in COVID.” Further contributing to the catastrophic toll of human life due to yet another deployment of “the Diversion,” a Disinformation tactic that Big Pharma employs when “science inconvenient to their interests” emerges. Their first successful Disinformation campaign was against hydroxychloroquine in 2020, and despite Robert Kennedy’s in-depth, highly referenced and detailed exposing of the numerous sinister actions against HCQ in his best-selling book called “The Real Anthony Fauci,” they are again having success against ivermectin (just not as much - I would credit the work of the physician leaders and science experts of numerous non-profit, non-conflict-of-interest groups such as the US’s FLCCC, American Association of Physicians and Surgeons, Truth For Health, Covid Early Treatment Fund, South Africa’s Transformative Health Justice, UK’s World Council for Health, the Canadian COVID Care Alliance, and the anonymous C19early.com group among others).
Yet real people, real families, across the world destroyed each day by a lack of access to or support for safe, effective, early treatments with repurposed, generic medicines such as ivermectin, fluvoxamine, or hydroxychloroquine. All a direct result of Big Pharma and BMGF tactics like this one. Time to remind ourselves that BMGF is not a philanthropic organization but rather a corporation with massive investments in vaccines (and many other problematic industries) that has been corrupting public health the world over in service of the vaccine industry for decades now, none more so than in the last two years. By the way, what kind of philanthropist organization.. increases its wealth in a global pandemic?
I think they may be in trouble though because some heavy hitters on Wall street and the life insurance industry are now calling attention to evidence that the vaccine escapade is both an immense fraud and a humanitarian catastrophe - just like the TOGETHER trial.
Some of my colleagues might disagree or feel premature regarding my diagnosis of fraud in regards to this trial. Whatever. The study investigators have not only carried out a series of severely biased and duplicitous actions with deliberately withheld data such that fraud at this level, in my mind, is definite. But let’s say, for argument’s sake, that it is instead just a severely biased trial by severely biased and financially conflicted researchers whose careers are dependent on contracts from massively powerful agencies and corporations whose interests are decidedly anti-ivermectin - see this description of the trial by the impressively expert C19early.com group:
If that ain’t enough for you, then what I will call fraud is the insanely incompetent peer review and publication by the NEJM. No way should this manuscript ever have been published in any purportedly credible medical journal without extensive revision and mandated reporting of critical absent data, given the litany of inconsistent, missing, and manipulated data alongside numerous unexplained design protocol changes aimed at trying to ensuring the lowest dose possible was used. The fact the NEJM reviewers allowed the manuscript to not include a standard limitations section calling attention to the “possibility” of the failure of blinding given massive evidence for this is one of the more brazen frauds I have seen in a medical journal.
Now, if people feel that the peer review was just benign incompetence rather than a fraudulent overlooking of these major issues (NEJM? Never!), then the fraud next lies with the newspapers prostituting themselves to ensure a constant stream of pharmaceutical, BMGF, and vaccine company advertising dollars by blaring out ivermectin disinformation headlines. That last one is inarguable. So, take your pick from these possible sources of fraud, and if you choose all three, I am right there with you.
Now look at the media bloodbath unleashed the day of publication of the TOGETHER trial:
Ya gotta laugh at that last little jab by “one expert.” Hilarious.
This one..simply goes too far, yeesh.
The LA Times propaganda even uses Trump! Masterful really. Note that sufficient ivermectin trials data emerged well after Trump stopped caring or talking about COVID given he was solely focused on the election in the fall of 2020 and I don’t believe he never mentioned ivermectin before leaving office (although I have a highly reliable and connected source who informed me that then-President Trump was treated with ivermectin when he was sick with COVID).
Please realize that the Disinformation tactic called “the Diversion” is flat-out the most effective tactic Pharma deploys. Invented by Big Tobacco and used by that industry for decades, the Diversion also has a more specific definition which is “manufacturing uncertainty where there is little to none.” Recall that the massive evidence base below demonstrating the life-saving properties in COVID of the low-cost, safe, and widely available ivermectin is about as “inconvenient” a science to Big Pharma that has ever existed, given it threatens the entire COVID-19 mRNA vaccine market along with all competing, novel, and highly profitable oral and IV COVID medications. The sum of the potential and already realized profits of these products total in the hundreds of billions of dollars. But this Diversion tactic works… like really well.
The reason why it works so well is that, despite the above evidence base, the media instead focuses on only one “high quality,” “high-impact journal” study at a time, all mandated and by design (purportedly), “statistically negative” trials. And they blast these out in 2-3 month intervals, likely explaining why they held on to this one for the past 7 months, coming on the heels of the last JAMA bomb on ivermectin. Note the TOGETHER trial results were initially presented by the investigators in August yet it was just published three weeks ago. The Fluvoxamine arm finished at the same time and was published.. months ago. In the past year I have had to wake up to this nightmare of a Groundhog “Diversion” Day on ivermectin at least 4 times. However, as flawed or corrupt or as non-statistically significant as TOGETHER was, it is still just one trial and any non-captured science writer worth their salt would know this.
One of the worlds leading, independent, conflict-of-interest free evidence-based medicine experts, Dr. Tess Lawrie (who some rightly call “the Conscience of Medicine”), properly added this trial to just the RCT evidence base in her recent substack and reported that it actually SOLIDIFIED the already overwhelming signal of benefit from trials data, just like all the other “high-impact but statistically negative” beneficial ivermectin publications (but the media, the journals, and her long-time clients such as the NHS and the WHO continue to ignore and dismiss her “inconvenient” work in the pandemic). Below I circle the TOGETHER trial results which add a benefit found in 1300 more patients.
Also recall that from the UCS’s 2017 article describing the tactics used to “manufacture uncertainty,” besides “commissioning scientific studies with flawed methodologies biased toward predetermined results” (i.e. the TOGETHER trial) they also “selectively publish negative results while underreporting positive results.”
In regards to the latter tactic, note this happens “behind the scenes.” I am one of the few to have witnessed in depth the “underreporting of positive results” tactic above in regards to ivermectin, given my growing network of independent, ethical, non-conflicted ivermectin trial investigators who have provided me with a large number of rejection letters (or post peer-review retractions) from journals like the NEJM, JAMA, and the Lancet soon after submitting their “positive” studies of ivermectin or other repurposed drugs (more than a few were even what are often perceived as “high quality,” double blind RCT’s). The FLCCC’s Dr. Flavio Cadegiani just yesterday publicly exposed the current NEJM editor Eric Rubin’s email correspondence with him where Rubin openly deploys this tactic in regards to Cadegiani’s markedly positive RCT of the drug proxalutamide.
Now, if you are still with me (sorry, this is a long one), let’s go a little deeper into an even bigger problem in the medical sciences, as this affects the thinking of many well-intentioned, highly “trained” (THAT’s the problem) physicians inhabiting the Ivory Towers of the world. The problem stems from essentially two pervasive fallacies that have been slowly integrated into medical school education which lead most doctors, medical educators, Alex Berenson, and even purported “evidence based medicine” experts to enthusiastically join what I call the “church of Big RCT Fundamentalism.” Adherents firmly believe that any evidence not coming out of “Big RCT’s” are “low quality” or “too small” and “can’t be trusted.” Hmm, I wonder if such a theoretical construct benefits the committed, independent clinicians and researchers whose funding limits them to such trials? Or does it cement the dominance of Big Pharma/Big Agency RCT’s? Valid? Coincidence? Con-game?
Fallacy #1: Results from retrospective observational controlled trial results.. cannot be trusted to guide policy. This is tragically false. The data actually show that OCT’s reach the same conclusions as prospective RCT’s, on average, in almost all cases (except in the cases of HCQ and IVM not-so-curiously). This fallacy of RCT dominance was long ago disproven in a comprehensive Cochrane Library review as well as in this policy paper by the American Thoracic Society among many other reviews. Yet this theory continues to be propagated and practiced widely by national and international health agencies, with the encouragement of Big Pharma. This is why Senator Ron Johnson boldly decided to hold his historic hearings in May and December of 2020 and more recently in his COVID-19: A Second Opinion expert panel. He did this to allow the public to directly hear from COVID experts without conflicts of interest bring forth real world scientific data without the corruptive filter of the journals and the agencies and the overwhelming dominance of Pharma funded RCT’s. Yet the agencies continue to ignore such data despite the U.S CURES act of 2016 which mandated they do so. Regulatory capture on full display. Maybe the below “inconvenient” paper is why BMGF decided to start donating to Cochrane?
Fallacy #2: Studies judged to be at“high risk of bias” should not be trusted to guide policy. Note, as per Dr. Tess Lawrie, this departs from decades of guideline development practices by the WHO. But no longer, supposedly because the conclusions are somehow more likely to be inaccurate. In the words of Harvey Risch, one of the world’s leading epidemiologists from Yale University;
Risks of bias in studies, even if accurate, are not evidence of bias, nor estimates of actual bias.
Risks are subjective and scored according to epidemiologically irrational ad hoc principles (and are inconsistent between experts) (Hartling et al. 2013)
They introduce random information that makes the observed adjusted results even more imprecise.
THEIR ADJUSTMENT DO NOT GENERALLY ALTER RESULTS (Bae, 2016). - I highly suggest that any EBM geeks read this paper, it further smashes the fallacy that clinical RCT’s are needed to determine benefits, and shows that studies with supposed “high risks of bias” are not associated with incorrect conclusions.
Now, check out this paragraph from the NY Times about the TOGETHER trial, showing how Fallacies #1 and #2 above has taken residence among science writers and doctors:
“On their second review, Dr. Hill and his colleagues focused on the studies least likely to be biased. In that stricter survey, ivermectin’s benefit vanished. Still, even the best studies on ivermectin and Covid were small, with a few hundred volunteers at most. Small studies can be vulnerable to statistical flukes that suggest positive effects where none actually exist (I would actually agree with this in regards to a single or just a few small studies.. but from 81 of them). But larger studies on ivermectin were underway at the time, and those promised to be more rigorous.”
This NPR story is an absolute master class in both Pharmacademia’s masterfully constructed “false narrative” - i.e. “ivermectin studies were not peer-reviewed (false), one was found fraudulent (unproven to date), many had “problems” (unlike the pristinely conducted trials by Pfizer for instance), lead (captured) researcher Dr. Andrew Hill removed the “problematic RCT’s” and miraculously found “no benefit in mortality” in the ones (only 4!) left remaining. Further Hill then cries about being “attacked by zealots online.” My favorite narrative that they have tried to construct is the “IVM only works in studies in countries with parasitic infections.” There is actually a meta-analysis which concludes this - hilarious. And then always back to the “larger, more rigorous trials” fail to find benefit etc. Almost every article in major media parrots one or multiple of these tropes.. over and over and over again. Works really well.
Note this tactic can be deployed in the promotion of a drug as well. How else can we as a nation be subjected to a system employing the completely ineffective (and manipulated data for) remdesivir and molnupiravir, along with the dangerous and unnecessary paxlovid while ignoring the profoundly positive “Big RCT” data on fluvoxamine, the latter a result of philanthropist Steve Kirsch’s funding and tireless advocacy (I talked with Steve for months while he knocked on every door of every agency and numerous academic medical centers asking why they were not recommending it for early treatment while hundreds of thousands of Americans were dying). Whoops, I forgot to mention the fraudulent trials supporting the vaccine escapade. Science is one big mess yet the masses continue to trust in the “Gods of Science and Knowledge” as Paul Marik once quipped (i.e. the FDA, NIH, CDC).
Again, contrast the fate of fluvoxamine (still not recommended outside a clinical trial by our health agencies despite two positive high-quality study, high-impact journal RCT publications) with the fate of the above novel, high profit Pharma drugs and spike protein shots mentioned above - those are instead met with media fanfare and agency approval and massive government purchases after just one high-impact journal study was published, or pre-promoted in an Oval Office Press Conference, or featured in a State of the Union Address or in some cases just from a non-data-supported press release. I repeat.. press release.
What I am trying to tell the world in my little substack (and upcoming book), is that the most powerful forces in medicine and society right now- Big Pharma/Big Media/Big Social Media/Big Agencies (all co-owned/influenced by a small cabal of investors) Do. Not. Care. This. Is. What. They. Do. If they have to destroy the knowledge of efficacy of an off-patent medicine to protect a market, even in a pandemic, such actions, as considered by Big Pharma, are simply standard operating procedure. They have been doing this for decades. In previous posts I have put forth evidence that the pharmaceutical industry can credibly be viewed as a criminal enterprise given that in their last 20 largest settlements, with every major player appearing on that list, over $12 billion in civil penalties and over $11 billion in criminal penalties (I include the deferred Perdue opioid judgement) have been exacted from them.
Again, it is within this context that I feel morally and ethically obligated to expose everything they have done to cause the millions of unnecessary deaths that could have been avoided if we had globally and systematically deployed ivermectin based on the incredible results from bold health ministry programs around the world like the city of Itajai, India’s Uttar Pradesh, Mexico City, Japan, the Argentinian states of La Pampas and Misiones, Peru, Phillipines, and Honduras among others.
Conversely, what I find almost funny (nothing is funny though) is that ivermectin is so effective that the TOGETHER trial is now the fourth severely flawed but high-impact journal Pharma bomb on ivermectin, yet when the non-statistically significant benefits from just these 4 are combined (what agencies and academics are supposed to do, i.e. combine data from multiple studies rather than rely on a single one) they actually produce a statistically significant benefit in mortality! Despite all having strong evidence of being “designed to fail,” by purposely using IVM in low doses, in mild/young patients who are going to do well anyway, limiting treatment for short durations, late after disease onset, or most importantly, in areas where control groups had easy access to OTC ivermectin.
These studies so obviously showed intent to influence readers to believe non-efficacy that after the first JAMA publication below, an open letter by hundreds of US doctors argued for it’s retraction. JAMA ignored them. I am privy to several groups of doctors and scientists doing the same again with the TOGETHER trial and NEJM. Never gonna happen, although one can hope, and we must all document this corruption anyway. But people are getting so played by Pharma, have always been played by Pharma, it makes me sad (Hi Alex B!). Yet even Big Pharma can’t completely hide “the signal of efficacy” as even in just these 4 high-impact trials, they found
March 2021. Lopez-Medina, JAMA: ivermectin treated patients recovered in 10 days vs. 12 days in controls (not statistically significant)
July 2021. Vallejos et al. BMC Infectious Disease: 5.6% of ivm treated patients went to hospital vs. 8.4% of controls (not statistically significant)
February 2022. Loon Lim et al. JAMA. Although ivermectin treated patients ended up needing “oxygen supplementation?” slightly more often (21.6% vs. 17.3% (not statistically significant), they needed less mechanical ventilation (1.7% vs. 4.0%, p=.17), icu admission (2.4% vs. 3.2%) and death (1.2% vs. 4.0%, p=.09 - this latter difference is striking..and almost reaches statistical significance).
March 2022. Ries et al. NEJM. Found that ivermectin treated patients went to the ER for > 6 hours or were hospitalized less than controls (14.7% vs. 16.3%) and died less than controls (12% reduction).
To be fair, I would agree that one small OCT or even an RCT won’t cut it to prove efficacy. But collections of small studies analyzed together in summary analyses amplify and solidify efficacy if it exists. Which these now 81 trials have done over and over, with the mountain of data growing ever higher. So despite the fact modern academic beliefs are fallacies, they guide the behaviors of high-impact journals and health agencies and academic medical centers.. and the majority of academics and educators and trainees and all of mass media. The journals dismiss, ignore, or reject anything but “Big RCT’s” funded by “Big Pharma” or “Big Agencies” (same thing). In this way, the medicines that get studied in Big RCT’s, the Big RCT’s that get published, and the resulting medicines that get approved (or not approved), are all determined by the pharmaceutical industry. Hence the shocking lack of early treatment recommendations while propagating the remdesivir, vaccine, molnupiravir, and paxlovid fiascos.
Lets just take a brief moment to see the somersaults the U.S government is doing to “promote” the use of molnupiravir and paxlovid. I just got this last week from a high ranking member of the military. When I read the below, I imagined the word “ivermectin” instead of “oral anti-viral medication”.. and it almost made me cry. Soo close. But not really.
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. If not yet a subscriber, subscribe to get Chapter 2 where I will dissect and detail the most brazenly fraudulent actions of the TOGETHER trial investigators. Should be out tomorrow.
The Global Disinformation Campaign Against Ivermectin Series:
P.S.S I am getting professional help (hah!) to write a book about what I have learned during COVID in regards to ivermectin. Pre-order here for: