.History of global campaign to discredit, suppress and ultimately ban Ivermectin drug. Reposting from Dr. Pierre Kory's Substack blog 25-Aug-2022:
The Global Disinformation Campaign Against Ivermectin - The "Fix" at the WHO Part 1
You can make a weak or moderate recommendation solely on observational trials data! Plus, the unparalleled safety profile of ivermectin combined with the existing highly positive data in over 1,000 patients and 12 randomized controlled trials should have led to at a minimum a weak recommendation in the midst of a humanitarian catastrophe (the winter of 2020-2021 was particularly brutal in U.S hospitals). However, had they done that, the entire country’s (and world’s) doctors would have started treating all COVID patients with ivermectin. They knew they could not do provide any recommendation stronger than “neutral.” Plus Fauci would never let that happen (remember, as a public servant, it is well documented that he has worked in the service of the pharmaceutical industry his entire career). So that's what they did. There was a lot of attention on Ivermectin after my testimony so they had to do something. Knowing what I know now of the immense powers of Big Pharma, I suspect that even if they had delivered a “weak” recommendation for use, it may not have moved the needle much. I say this largely because the market competitors of ivermectin had many other tactics they could use (and did) to prevent widespread adoption (i.e. their devastatingly effective “horse dewormer” public relations campaign deployed using synchronized messaging amongst all major TV, radio, and print outlets. Plus they probably knew that the WHO was going to update their recommendations based on Andy and his team's continued research over the next two months, so they punted. I would argue that they knew the fix was in at the WHO already. But this is when things get even crazier.
Paul and I read his posted pre-print review and were shocked. The conclusions did not match the data. For the first time in my career, I found myself reading a scientific manuscript by a researcher presenting such profound and compelling data yet whose conclusions argued against the findings. If there is anything that scientists and researchers tend to do when publishing original work, is that they tend to over-interpret the potential importance and impact of their data. But here there was such overwhelmingly positive data yet the paper and conclusions read as if the conclusions were very uncertain and too “heterogenous” to act on. In addition, it was poorly written, with repeated expressions of the limitations of the data including false statements about how effective concentrations could not be reached with standard dosing (something we knew Andy knew was false). In addition the conclusion did not match the data presented. Paul and I immediately suspected scientific misconduct was occurring so we immediately wrote to Andy with our concerns and provided him with a complete peer-review of his paper containing our many comments and recommendations for changes. We demanded that he immediately take down his paper and implement the suggested revisions to be more consistent with the existing data. Among other demands, we asked that he remove the statements about how effective concentrations could not be reached in the blood with standard doses (we had as a group presented data disproving that to the NIH). Further we called out the numerous irregularities in his paper like the repetitive citation of the “limitations” of the data presented.
We knew something was off, like really off and so did Tess. But we didn’t know exactly what was going on “behind the scenes.” It was not until a year later when we found out who and what were behind these manipulations trying to distort and suppress the evidence of efficacy of ivermectin. Those details were uncovered by a man named Phil Harper. I consider him a polymath with a diverse background of interests and accomplishments having worked in journalism and documentary filmmaking among other pursuits. He was a UK citizen and had been living in India during the early pandemic and was shocked when he returned to UK in mid-to-late 2021 and found a country without any early treatment strategy that was instead attacking, suppressing, and legislating against ivermectin which was in wide use at the time in India. So he dug into the topic. Note his Substack is called “the Digger” and it is masterful. What he discovered about the events that occurred over those weeks is absolutely stunning. I credit his work and his publications on his Substack with much of the finer and personal details of what I will present as having happened over those weeks. Please read it. Please also consider donating to help fund his proposed documentary project called “The Research Cartel.” I believe it will have major impacts on exposing all that is rotten in medical research.
It is an astounding video. Andy actually admitted to Tess that his “sponsors” influenced the writing of the paper. Tess asked him for names but he refused. And we all know that whoever had altered that paper they were not listed as an author of the paper. This was clear scientific misconduct. She included the most relevant parts of this meeting in a devastatingly effective video called “A Letter to Andrew Hill” which essentially covers all of the most relevant and impactful events that I am detailing in these posts. I have included it at the end of Part 2. It is a must watch and likely communicates more than I ever can with words. Please hang in, hold, read this through, and then watch the video.
The Global Disinformation Campaign Against Ivermectin Part 2- The "Fix" at the WHO
So, who was the person making all the changes attacking ivermectin in Andy’s paper? Not mentioned during the recorded meeting with Tess Lawrie and Andrew Hill, but Hill later referenced a person named Dominique Costagliola. What is fascinating is that Phil Harper, acting as a journalist (which he is), actually got Andrew Hill to meet him for coffee in London to do an interview about ivermectin. He purposely gave Andy the sense that he was a “friendly” reporter doing a hit piece on ivermectin. By the time of that interview, Andy had been actively attacking the evidence in support of ivermectin. I suspect he was probably eager to take advantage of yet another opportunity to please his paymasters. Phil even got Andy to confirm that he had been discussing the paper with Dominique Costagliola during that earlier time period and that she had been advising him in some way. Twitter users quizzed her on it and she too confirmed it.
So what did Phil find out about Dominique Costagliola?I maintain that she is the one who inserted that bizarre weird phrase that no researcher or scientist would ever put in their conclusion, you know the one about “regulatory approval.” Phil discovered that in March 2021, she even used the same phrase in a tweet:
- She is the Deputy Director of the Pierre Louis Institute of Epidemiology and Public Health in France.
- She speaks English as a 2nd language (this is important as the other “influencer” of Andy that you will soon meet below is English)
- She had a history of attacking ivermectin, starting very soon after my testimony on the 19th of December 2020, as evidenced in this article “fact checking” the idea that ivermectin was effective in COVID. That article essentially started the narrative refrain we hear about still to this day - “the trials were are small, low quality” and that “proper, large rigorous” (i.e. Pharma controlled) trials are needed to validate the findings.
- She is a Pharma-conflicted individual just like all the other research and regulatory agency operatives working against ivermectin. She receives lecture fees from nearly every corporation with a competing product against ivermectin. Janssen, Gilead, Merck-Sharp and Dome (biopharmaceutical company), Viiv, Innavirvax and Merck Switzerland. She has taken money in the form of lecture fees, personal fees, and travel and meeting expenses.
What Phil discovered next, to me, is the “Scoop of the Century” given that I call what these people and others (Hi Billy G!) did to ivermectin, the “Crime of the Century.” Phil discovered who was really in control of both Andy and the evidence supporting ivermectin. It was the Professor that Andy had mentioned to me in our first ever conversation. Phil discovered the Professor’s identity by simply looking at the “meta data” embedded in the PFD file of the preprint paper. It was finalized on the computer of Professor Andrew Owen of the University of Liverpool in the days leading up to the posting. Whoa. Thus, this was the same Professor that had suggested to Andy to “look into ivermectin” in November of 2020. On what evidence do I make this claim? Not only the fact that Andy’s paper was doctored on the computer of Professor Owen but also on his insane conflicts of interest against ivermectin. Again, I maintain he was getting Andy to do “opposition research” without Andy knowing he was working for the other side at the time. Owen’s Big Pharma conflicts with competing products to ivermectin are unparalleled. Costagliola’s pales in comparison.
They reported 70 deaths per 1000 in the standard-of-care treated patients vs. 14 deaths per 1000 in ivermectin treated patients. An 80% reduction in mortality. Let me repeat that. An 80% reduction in mortality. Remdesivir doesn’t do that. Paxlovid doesn’t do that. Molnupiravir doesn’t do that. Monoclonal antibodies don’t do that. And Owen had conflicts with three of these “competitors” (it was not even close to a competition, except in price and profit potential).
A letter to Dr Andrew Hill from Dr Tess Lawrie, March 4th, 2022
