The Criminal Censorship Of Ivermectin By The High Impact Medical Journals - Part 3
The unprecedented numbers of retractions of positive studies of ivermectin continued to mount. Just more evidence of the increasingly brazen actions taken by the high-impact journal "Editorial Mafia."
In Part 1 of this post on the high-impact medical journal’s corruptive actions against ivermectin studies, I reviewed their numerous rejections of positive trials. In Part 2, I detailed their first big retractions of successfully peer-reviewed studies supporting ivermectin’s efficacy. The accounts of such retractions continue below. Problem: there were so many that I now have to add a Part 4, just to cover the retractions. Stay tuned.
Journal of Antibiotics - part of the Nature Publishing Group Journal and thus one of the highest-impact journal series in the world.
A colleague and ENT surgeon from Italy named Puya Dehghani had become not only an early treatment expert but also an expert on ivermectin in COVID at the same time as the FLCCC. His organization Naso Sano had hosted me for a series of lectures, starting even before my testimony. He and a colleague named Asiya Kamber Zayidi then wrote a brilliant paper detailing all the mechanisms of action of ivermectin with some clinical data on outcomes. A writer named Joomi (and I assume scientist as her work reveals a deep scientific knowledge) did an excellent autopsy of what happened to Asiya and Puya’s paper, so please read it here. Since I am shamelessly borrowing from her post, please subscribe to her incredible substack. From Joomi:
This paper was about the putative mechanisms and modes of action of ivermectin against SARS-CoV-2. Here’s a schematic of some of the key modes of action, from the paper:
Zayidi and Dehgani’s paper passed peer-review and was published. It received hundreds of thousands of reads over many months. Yet, suddenly, out of the blue, the Editor retracted the paper over the objections of the authors. Apparently, the Editor was under orders to remove any interpretations of data that might support clinical efficacy in COVID. “Just the mechanisms ma’am.” Check it out:
The lead author of the paper, Asiya Zaidi then made this statement:
In other comments she said:
“If the editor decides to go against #COPE guidelines of publishing and ethics and make personal politically biased decisions, the publishers should intervene.
How could the editor remove an article citing ‘efficacy reasons’ when we spoke about mechanisms?”
To me, this action simply shows how much Pharma was scouring publications and trying to eliminate any mentions of efficacy, especially in the high-impact journals. Take a look at Table 2 of the paper to see how many papers on the different modes of mechanism were reviewed:
More quotes from the author:
“The post publication review confirmed that we appropriately described the mechanisms and yet the editor decided to twist the narrative? asked us to cite fraudulent studies based on efficacy or face retraction?”
“The journal of antibiotics by Nature forced us to change our stance from ivermectin might work to ‘ivermectin doesn’t work’ or face retraction.
We did not change our stance since we spoke of mechanisms and not efficacy.
So we faced retraction and have no regrets because we do not lack conscience.”
Now, check this out. Satoshi Omura, who won the Nobel prize for discovering ivermectin, was a member of the editorial panel for the journal. He was not consulted about the retraction according to his colleague Hideaki Hanaki:
The lead author of the retracted paper also reported that both of the original peer-reviewers were against the retraction but the Editor in Chief decided otherwise. Ultimately, Asiya and Puya removed the sentences that so bothered big Pharma and the paper was re-published in the same journal. Good times. Not.
SocArXiv Pre-Print Server
Probably the most astounding retraction was the study of Mexico City’s bold distribution program of early treatment kits containing ivermectin. It was launched at a time when the Mexico city health system was approaching (or already in) a state of collapse with overwhelmed hospitals and medical supply shortages in December 2020.
Their post-program analysis found massive reductions in hospitalization rates among ivermectin treated patients (to be accurate, the kits also contained paracetemol and aspirin). Like Uttar Pradesh’s program during the Delta Wave in April-May of 2021, this program saved Mexico City during their earlier winter surge of 2020-2021. It was first posted on a pre-print server in May 2021, authored by some of the most senior public health officials in Mexico City.
In December 2020, amidst an unfolding humanitarian catastrophe in Mexico City, the Mexican Social Security Institute (IMSS), (a major health agency) designed a program focused on early treatment. It was announced on December 29, 2020, weeks after the FLCCC’s pre-print review paper was posted, however it is clear they had been planning this well beforehand. The program consisted of the deployment of 250 mobile testing units to the hardest hit neighborhoods of the city. Anyone who came for testing was provided access to a physician who could prescribe them a treatment kit. Further, they also deployed a telephone follow-up monitoring program for patients testing positive for COVID.
This is exactly what a public health response should look like in a crisis. Do something goddamnit. Even if the evidence was “uncertain” for ivermectin (which it wasn’t), such a program was justified on a risk/benefit analysis given the state of Mexico City’s health system and the rising deaths being reported. They had to do something (unlike in the U.S, where, until pathetic Paxlovid came on the scene in mid-2022, the health agencies and hospital systems were telling Americans to just wait at home until your lips turned blue). I wish I were making this up.
So, let’s be clear. Their program was not a clinical research trial. It was a public health program. It was not done to find out if ivermectin worked, it was done to try to save lives. They decided to do this based on long discussions with numerous stakeholders, including front-line clinicians with experience using ivermectin against COVID. They trusted the collective wisdom and clinical expertise of the group and thus launched their program. Just like Team-11 did in Uttar Pradesh.
In Mexico City they delivered 83,000 kits in the first month, which was the month that the study analyzed. Makes sense no? If you launch a novel public health intervention program, it seems right to perform an analysis as quickly as you can so as to ensure it is working. The Mexico city program study was performed by the head of the Digital Agency for Public Innovation (DAPI), along with co-authors DAPI, the Mexican Social Security Institute and the Mexico City Ministry of Health.
Ultimately 77,381 patients that received a kit were included in the study. Of those, 18,074 received a monitoring phone call. The study used publicly available health data. Using these data, they were able to retrospectively compare the hospitalization rates of those who got early treatment with ivermectin versus those who did not.
Doing an analysis of the program’s impacts afterwards is a completely legitimate and long-practiced research method. Research ethics allow for studies that retrospectively review health data to determine the associations of certain interventions with patient outcomes. You do not need a patient’s informed consent because it is retrospective and the patient data is de-identified in the analysis.
I have done many of these types of studies in my career,. For instance, I retrospectively assessed the impacts of a therapeutic hypothermia program I had created and deployed for cardiac arrest patients. I was allowed to do this because the program was based on the results of a number of studies showing efficacy. I should add that my program was the first one in a New York City hospital out of 46 hospitals. Within a few years, every hospital had one.
In a similar study design, I retrospectively assessed the impacts of deploying a combination therapy protocol (Marik protocol) for septic shock patients in my ICU based on Paul’s and other’s studies.
Deploying medical intervention programs based on supportive studies is how we improve the care we deliver to patients. Studying the effects of the program afterwards is a legitimate and ethical research design. It is also a critical aspect of “quality improvement" efforts because you can identify aspects of the program that worked vs. those that didn’t and thus continually modify its structure for optimal outcomes. For instance, in the Mexico City study, they found that the telephone monitoring program led to an added reduction in hospitalizations for the patients that participated. If it hadn’t, a decision to scrap that aspect may have been made. Instead, the data suggested it should have been expanded. See? Quality improvement. Both retrospective research and retrospective quality improvement analyses are critical to developing the most optimal care practices for our patients.
Note that Merino’s study was identical in design to Kerr and Cadegiani’s studies of Itajai’s city-wide ivermectin prevention program here and here. Kerr and Cadegiani’s papers are both published in peer-review journals and have not been attacked as unethical (actually, that is not entirely true, but the accusations were ignored by the journals and authors).
Here is the problem: the study conclusion was that “a significant reduction in hospitalization was found among patients who received the Ivermectin-based medical kit; the range of the effect is 52%-76% depending on model specification.” I repeat, they found a minimum of 52% and maximum of a 76% reduction in hospitalization amongst 77,381 patients (the latter estimate is likely the more accurate given it was based on the most robust modeling analysis. Just sayin’).
This finding absolutely needed to be blasted out to the world on the cover of the New England Journal of Medicine. Didn’t happen. Instead the paper sat on a pre-print server for many months. See how similar the fate of this paper was with that of the single studies of Remdesivir, Molnupiravir, and Paxlovid? I trust you get this morbid joke.
But it didn’t stop the FLCCC and many other organizations and researchers around the world from hoping it would be. We waited and waited and waited for it to appear in a peer-reviewed medical journal. But it never showed up. Had that happened, even though “the zone” of media censorship was becoming increasingly powerful and consolidated, I maintain that it would still have made serious waves across the world.
We tried to contact some of the authors to find out what the hold-up was, but never could establish personal communications with them. This occurred despite the fact that Joe Varon of the FLCCC has high-level contacts in Mexico’s government and military. I even became friendly with a prominent investigative journalist in Mexico who had interviewed me for a prominent Mexican weekly magazine, El Proceso (here is one she did with FLCCC analyst Juan Chamie). I asked her to put me in contact with the authors, but she was unsuccessful. I am pretty sure the authors knew that if they talked to the FLCCC, it would create serious problems for them if we went public with any information they gave us. So they avoided us.
Despite lack of contact with the authors to confirm this assertion, I strongly suspect their paper, like all the other investigators papers that I have been detailing, was rejected from numerous journals. Or rather, one of those journals simply “kept it hostage” in an endless, and slow-walked peer-review as will be detailed in my next post. Either way, it will never be published in any journal of significance.
Further, know that the health agencies ignore studies from pre-print servers, even though they could simply peer-review it themselves by contacting and asking questions and data of the authors. But they don’t, despite the fact that the entire purpose of pre-print servers is to get valuable data out quickly, which is of critical importance in a health emergency. At least it would be if the authorities paid attention to them.
Despite the widespread dismissal and ignoring of papers on pre-print servers, that paper’s presence was becoming a problem. Many of us were citing it endlessly (I am most guilty as I loved what that program accomplished). Remember, Uttar Pradesh has still never published an analysis of the impacts of their program, even though one of it’s senior health officials told me over a year ago they were working on such a paper. Crickets.
So, unsurprisingly, after almost a year on the pre-print server, someone from Pharma/BMGF decided to make a move. They got the Editor to retract the paper. Off of a pre-print server.
From the pre-print server Editors as to why they retracted:
““Our grounds for this decision are several:
1. The paper is spreading misinformation, promoting an unproved medical treatment in the midst of a global pandemic
(I almost burst out laughing when I first read this opening statement. A scientific paper is accused of promoting misinformation. A scientific paper essentially proving that ivermectin works in COVID, only to be told by the editor that the paper “promotes an unproven therapy.” The world has gone mad).
2. The paper is part of, and justification for, a government programme that unethically dispenses (or did dispense) unproven (there it is again) medication apparently without proper consent or appropriate ethical protections, according to the standards of human subjects research.
3. The paper is medical research – purporting to study the effects of a medication on a disease outcome – and is not properly within the subject scope of SocArXiv.
4. The authors did not properly disclose their conflicts of interest.”
Here is another post by the pre-print server, notice how poorly written it is, I particularly love the descriptor “particular bad paper”:
Check out the Twitter reply from the lead author Jose Merino:
Later, Merino et al post a more detailed and very powerful reply.
Didn’t matter. They disappeared the paper from the pre-print server. Now, you know what happened next: a media firestorm directed at further fueling the narrative of “all the ivermectin papers are fraudulent.” This is a slide from a webinar I gave about this scandal:
And from our friends at the Washington Post who also gleefully reported on it:
Now, here comes the saddest part, if that is possible (it is). Given the incredible data showing the success of the program’s first month, Mexico city continued to give out the kit for a long time after. Because they knew it worked.
Unfortunately, the “published science” eventually proved them wrong. On January 4, 2022, the IMSS announced they would no longer distribute ivermectin. The Associated Press was happy to report this fact:
But check out why they stopped. It makes me cry but here it is:
But I also get it. The program had to end. No way can Pharma/BMGF allow one of the world’s largest cities to continue to have a city-wide early treatment program centered around ivermectin. So, armed with the flawed and fraudulent “rigorous” trials emerging in the high-impact journals, they managed to somehow convince presumably more politically powerful health officials to end the program.
Modern medical science at work. Corrupt journal actions creating the latest health policy absurdity sitting atop a massive and ever-mounting pile of them.
Journal of Intensive Care Medicine
I reviewed the retraction of the FLCCC’s ivermectin review paper in Part 2. But in terms of chronology, the first FLCCC pandemic paper was our MATH+ hospital protocol paper which was accepted in September 2020 and published soon after. Fun fact: ivermectin was not included in that paper nor was on our hospital protocol until later. Thus, ivermectin was not mentioned then. Yet, it was retracted a year later. Why?
Well, this retraction was a bit different in that I believe it was not directly initiated by Pharma/BMGF (but still caused by them, albeit tangentially). In this case, as first author of the paper, it became quickly clear that this was the result of a personal vendetta against Paul Marik by Sentara Norfolk General. Paul was using MATH+ and achieving mortality rates 50% less than that of his partners who were relying on Remdesvir and a pathetic 6mg of Dexamethasone.
They had to get rid of him because he was calling attention to their (and the rest of U.S hospital systems) horror show of an ineffective treatment protocol. This action was one of several in their attempts to get rid of Paul, a process called “sham peer-review,” described at the end of my previous post here. Sham peer-review is what all hospitals initiate to get rid of supposedly “disruptive” doctors on their staff.
So Sentara went to the journal and complained about how we presented our mortality data from in the paper (note that Sentara never claimed that we presented false data, but rather they objected to the denominator we used to calculate the mortality rate). The fact that it was the only denominator we had data for didn’t matter. I am not making this up. The ever-brilliant and ever-objective Alexandros Marinos investigated the journal’s and Sentara’s claims against us here. He couldn’t find that we did anything wrong. Didn’t matter, because the journal had already retracted the paper.
I will say that, of all the awards that we in the FLCCC have received for our work in the pandemic, two stand out. Our work appears twice on The Scientist magazine’s “Top Retractions of 2021.” Click on the thumbnail below to read (and weep) at our presence on this list.
I just want to say how much I appreciate all the subscribers to my Substack, and especially the paid ones! I am truly grateful for the latter’s support of the time and effort I devote to this work.
P.S. I opened a tele-health clinic providing care not only in the prevention and treatment of acute COVID, but with a specialized focus on the study and treatment of both Long-Haul and Post-Vaccination injury syndromes. If anyone needs our help, feel free to visit our website at www.drpierrekory.com.
P.P.S We are organizing the world’s first conference on understanding and treating Spike protein induced disease (i.e long haul COVID and vaccine injury syndromes). Tell your doctor to come. Link below:
P.P.P.S. I am writing a book about what I have personally witnessed and learned during Pharma’s historic Disinformation war on ivermectin. Pre-order here for:
Another brilliant piece of the corrupt puzzle! People are waking up! A friend who was recently injured after her “booster” was told by doctors it could not possibly be a vaccine injury (breakthrough bleeding post-menopause, sky-high blood pressure when pre-vaccine it was low, etc.). A nurse practitioner, however, admitted otherwise. I shared FLCCC info. I will send her this. THANK YOU Dr.Kory❤️
Yesterday I watched Paul Marik and you on “The HIghwire”. It broke my heart to see such wonderful humans having to go through so much just to try and help people and save lives. Never give up what you are doing! It is never easy being on the minority side but we all know it is the right place in this case to be. I think of the song the three men I admire most and think there are way more and they include you Dr. Kory and Tess Lawrie, Ryan Cole, Peter McCullough, Paul Marik, Robert Malone and so many more I have come to respect in the last two plus years. I am proud to say when I got Covid with never having had a vaccine I went to your site and got the loving attention and advise to easily weather it like any other flu. Because of you and Dr. McCullough I knew early treatment was important so since the beginning I have had Ivermectin on hand. I now am waiting for the weather to get better so I can proudly wear the sweatshirt I made with the poster that says Ivermectin was approved for human use in 1987 and that the people that discovered it won the Nobel Prize. Stay strong, we are all behind you!