Just the fact that they tried so hard to suppress Ivermectin, a cheap, reliable, and safe preventative and treatment for Covid, tells you that there was a much broader and nefarious agenda in play. From Pierre Kory, MD, MPA:
After a week of non-stop lectures, panels, speeches, and expert testimony, my new mission has now come into focus.
Editor’s Note: Dr. Pierre Kory brought ivermectin’s remarkable efficacy against covid-19 to global attention with his December, 2020, Senate testimony, which received nearly nine million YouTube views before Google/YouTube censored it. As he continues to lead the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance and treat covid patients in private practice, Kory is making a historical record of his witness of the government and media corruption that has kept repurposed drugs out of the hands of doctors and covid sufferers. This guest post is part one of the series.
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’s 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 sixty-eight of seventy-seven controlled trials involving 86,000 patients from twenty-six 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.