PDF Summary:The War on Ivermectin, by Pierre Kory

In The War on Ivermectin, Pierre Kory recounts his quest to validate the therapeutic potential of ivermectin for COVID-19 treatment, and the challenges faced in securing its approval. He presents evidence from numerous studies indicating ivermectin's efficacy in reducing COVID-19 mortality and hospitalizations. The book details coordinated efforts to undermine positive data, discredit proponents, and spread misinformation about ivermectin's safety and intended use.

Kory argues that the rejection of ivermectin stems from profit motives within the pharmaceutical industry. He posits that such practices, along with institutional resistance to affordable repurposed drugs, erode public trust in health authorities and scientific bodies. The author calls for restoring integrity in medical research and prioritizing ethical, evidence-based care.

(continued)...

The significant advancements seen in Uttar Pradesh are frequently overlooked, but they originate from the broad distribution of ivermectin. Uttar Pradesh, situated in the northern region of India, has a population of 231 million. In August 2020, the government of Uttar Pradesh promptly transitioned from the management of COVID with hydroxychloroquine to the broad distribution of ivermectin. By 2021, fatalities in Uttar Pradesh had dwindled to almost zero. Despite subsequently being overwhelmed by the extremely contagious Delta variant, the state implemented an aggressive ivermectin treatment and prophylaxis campaign. As summer ended, Uttar Pradesh was markedly different from other Indian areas, having notably decreased death rates and successfully maneuvered through the most challenging phase of the Covid crisis. This significant achievement in the realm of public health has been disgracefully and intentionally ignored by every stakeholder.

The author's firsthand accounts of successfully utilizing ivermectin to manage COVID-19 cases.

Pierre Kory has provided ivermectin to friends, family members, and individuals seeking his help, as well as to those enrolled in his telehealth service, which involves a fee for medical consultations. In his medical practice, he observed significant health recoveries in patients worldwide who were battling COVID, with the exception of one patient who did not survive the disease out of the many he treated. The treatment began after the patient, who was 87 years old and already facing serious health issues, was diagnosed with COVID a few days prior.

Efforts were deliberately coordinated to obscure and minimize the positive evidence supporting ivermectin.

The book details the significant attempts to discredit and diminish the considerable backing for the employment of ivermectin. The strategies were intentionally designed to influence the perceptions of both the general populace and healthcare experts. They utilized numerous strategies such as discrediting scientists, orchestrating misleading research, initiating legal action to obstruct access to ivermectin, and disseminating warnings via various media channels regarding its use.

The dissemination of intentionally misleading and false studies designed to tarnish the credibility of ivermectin.

Kory thoroughly reveals the profound and critical deficiencies within the principal research examining ivermectin. Pierre Kory meticulously outlines the deceptive practices of the six major entities that consistently depicted ivermectin as ineffective; he also meticulously documents the conduct of the researchers engaged in the studies, noting that most had conflicts of interest and/or received financial support from drug companies with a stake in alternative medications.

Kory examines a case that raises particular concerns, the ACTIVE-6 trial, conducted by the National Institutes of Health. The researchers overseeing the study, who were determined to support policies that discourage the use of ivermectin, resorted to unquestionably unethical research methods, including the arbitrary alteration of trial endpoint criteria, because they were unable to conclusively demonstrate the drug's lack of efficacy.

Prominent medical journals are ignoring further research that casts ivermectin in a positive light and are retracting previously published studies.

Kory argues that the chief editors of major international publications intentionally hindered the spread of studies that demonstrated positive outcomes for ivermectin. He narrates his own experience in spearheading the creation of an academic article that robustly endorses ivermectin as a treatment option for COVID-19. The journal Frontiers in Pharmacology eventually retracted the article, even though it had initially received support after being evaluated by four experts, three of whom were connected to the FDA or NIH. The publisher remarked that their manuscript faced criticism from an unnamed critic, yet they received no specific feedback or rebuttals. They informed him that the paper could not be accepted because it contained inaccuracies.

The journal delayed the release of the edition that was to include Kory's article. Dr. Robert Malone and a number of his associates stepped down from their positions on the editorial board, igniting considerable discussion among those involved in scientific publications.

Kory consistently highlights the distinct nature of these publishing decisions. Publications are usually retracted due to instances of unethical research practices or instances where the research has been replicated. Additionally, the author observed that, based on what they have encountered, editors are more inclined to propose revisions to a previously published work instead of withdrawing it.

Pharmaceutical companies, news outlets, and health authorities have collectively downplayed the significance of the drug, depicting it merely as a veterinary treatment for equine parasites.

Pierre Kory thoroughly explains the misrepresentation by the FDA, the CDC, and the media's "Trusted News Initiative," which incorrectly depicted ivermectin as a dangerous drug primarily used for treating horses.

The writer refutes baseless assertions by emphasizing that ivermectin is sanctioned for human application and is recognized on the World Health Organization's roster of indispensable medications. They also emphasize the absurdity inherent in these assertions. If, for instance, you had a neighbor who was dying of a disease and the only thing that had a chance of saving his or her life was a pill marketed to treat cancer in a farm animal, wouldn't you encourage them to take it? Upon reflection, it becomes quite clear.

In his book, Kory outlines how certain groups coordinated efforts to discredit the drug, highlighting a significant event in which the CDC issued a "health advisory" to all licensed doctors across the country, advising them to refrain from recommending ivermectin for certain uses. The national guidelines emerged following a two-week observation period in Mississippi, during which there were reports of four cases where individuals sought advice on using ivermectin that was formulated for veterinary use. Take a moment to reflect on this matter.

Other Perspectives

• The majority of health authorities, including the WHO and FDA, have not endorsed ivermectin for COVID-19 treatment due to insufficient evidence from large-scale, high-quality randomized controlled trials.
• Some studies advocating ivermectin's efficacy have been criticized for methodological flaws, small sample sizes, and potential conflicts of interest.
• Observational studies and real-world data can be confounded by numerous factors that are not controlled for, as opposed to randomized controlled trials which are considered the gold standard for evaluating drug efficacy.
• Reductions in COVID-19 cases and deaths in certain regions may be attributable to other factors, such as public health interventions, vaccination rates, or natural fluctuations in disease spread, rather than the use of ivermectin.
• The retraction of studies from medical journals can occur for various reasons, including concerns about the validity of the data or ethical considerations, not necessarily due to bias against ivermectin.
• The promotion of ivermectin without conclusive evidence could lead to a false sense of security and potentially detract from proven measures such as vaccination and other treatments that have undergone rigorous testing.
• The portrayal of ivermectin as a veterinary drug is based on its widespread use in animals, and caution is advised when using medications off-label due to potential side effects and lack of approved guidance on dosing for COVID-19.
• The CDC and other health organizations' warnings against the use of veterinary formulations of ivermectin in humans are based on concerns for patient safety, given the differences in dosing and formulation compared to those approved for human use.

Efforts to undermine the effectiveness of ivermectin in managing COVID-19 included the propagation of false information, the creation of fabricated narratives, and intentional hindrance.

Kory was baffled by the unwavering opposition to the substantial body of research supporting the efficacy of ivermectin. He details his exploration of the tactics that form the basis of a deliberate and misleading attack on his work and the endeavors of his peers in the medical and scholarly communities.

The pharmaceutical sector has a reputation for participating in actions that are unethical and criminal, frequently characterized by the intentional concealment of effective treatments that aren't highly profitable.

Kory meticulously examines the sometimes unethical and occasionally illegal activities of pharmaceutical companies, driven by their quest for higher profits. Kory frequently refers to the industries with the moniker "Big Harma."

Pharmaceutical corporations have a history of employing misleading tactics, such as providing financial incentives and engaging in illegal activities, to protect their own interests.

The book highlights the pharmaceutical industry's accumulation of billions in fines for various infractions, including the concealment of crucial safety data, providing incentives to medical professionals and researchers, Medicare fraud, inadequate production practices, and the dissemination of misleading and incorrect information regarding product safety. Merck faced serious allegations for establishing a fraudulent medical publication. They filled the database with data showing positive results from their profitable but detrimental drug, Vioxx. It was distributed to healthcare providers worldwide.

The industry's sway extends through educational bodies and media organizations, bolstered by strategic lobbying, financial contributions, and influence over regulatory bodies.

Kory emphasizes a pattern of unethical conduct, pointing out that the oversight failures of American authorities have permitted large drug corporations to shape healthcare delivery and control information dissemination, especially when it undermines their goals or reveals medical practices.

The author firmly believes that grasping the significant influence wielded by the pharmaceutical industry across numerous areas, including regulatory agencies, academic institutions, peer review processes, medical education, clinical research, and the dissemination of scientific knowledge to the public, is essential for effectively challenging the resistance to employing medications in new, non-original roles. The claim is that the medical industry is unduly influenced by corporate entities, which mold policy with little opposition, leading to a compromised stance by the U.S. government. The absence of strict control on medication costs and the minimal repercussions for drug manufacturers have facilitated this wrongdoing. Kory posits that companies will persist in their criminal and unethical actions if the penalties imposed on them are insignificant relative to their earnings.

Misinformation regarding ivermectin was disseminated through a deliberate strategy that employed various methods, including deceptive practices and intensive media campaigns.

The author presents a clear and comprehensive structure that simplifies the understanding of the creation, development, and implementation of disinformation campaigns. The structure is composed of five distinct elements: the deception, the solution, the assault, the distraction, and the shield. They furnish strong and persuasive proof, along with anecdotes and examples, to back each claim.

The spread of deceptive research and a deliberate focus on negative results have shaped a false narrative regarding the effectiveness of ivermectin.

The imitation product was utilized most broadly. Misinformation is often portrayed as emanating from trustworthy entities. For instance, the Big Six trials claimed that ivermectin was not beneficial to Covid, even though those studies were designed to come to this conclusion. Several prominent global media outlets selectively showcased and emphasized the results of these investigations.

Efforts to marginalize and discredit ivermectin proponents continued unabated, often involving personal attacks and attempts to tarnish their reputation.

The goal of the campaign is to undermine the credibility of scientists, doctors, or advocates who back research findings that are considered problematic by coordinating a deliberate attack in the sphere of public opinion. The person in question often feels besieged from various directions, making it difficult for them to organize a defense. Professionals from different fields, such as medical practitioners, academics, journalists, and celebrities, faced suppression, coercion, defamation, and were subjected to harassment for their support of treatments involving ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine.

The widespread stifling of positive data about ivermectin across multiple mainstream media outlets and on a range of social media platforms.

Kory argues that the magnitude of efforts to suppress the considerable support for ivermectin is probably unparalleled in medical treatment history. He believes that the efforts to discredit ivermectin suggest its potential efficacy, as it would have been easier to simply disregard an ineffective treatment. He outlines the tactics employed by information suppressors, which include subtle content restrictions, bans from digital forums, cutting off financial support, and the removal of academic content from databases prior to making it publicly available, as well as ending financial services.

Other Perspectives

• The majority of health authorities and scientific consensus do not support the use of ivermectin for COVID-19 due to a lack of robust evidence from large-scale, high-quality randomized controlled trials.
• The pharmaceutical industry is highly regulated, and while there have been instances of misconduct, there are also many examples of pharmaceutical companies developing life-saving medications and adhering to ethical practices.
• The dissemination of information about pharmaceutical products is subject to strict regulations to prevent misinformation, and companies are held accountable for false claims or illegal marketing practices.
• Regulatory agencies, such as the FDA and EMA, operate with a mandate to protect public health and are staffed by professionals who work to ensure that only safe and effective drugs are approved.
• The peer review process, while not perfect, is a fundamental component of scientific research that helps to validate findings and ensure the integrity of published data.
• Negative results in clinical trials are as important as positive ones, as they contribute to the overall understanding of a drug's efficacy and safety profile.
• Personal attacks on any individual or group are generally considered unacceptable, but legitimate criticism of research methods, data interpretation, and conclusions is a normal part of scientific discourse.
• The control of information on social media platforms is a complex issue that involves balancing the prevention of misinformation with freedom of speech.

The debate over ivermectin has profound implications for public health, the trustworthiness of scientific research, and the influence exerted by drug manufacturers.

The author delves into the broader and potentially disastrous repercussions of this conflict. The consequences go further than limiting a single drug, affecting not only the direction of future healthcare but also the credibility of our institutions and the overall well-being of society.

The public's trust has waned due to the medical establishment's dismissal of therapies that are economical.

Pierre Kory believes that the concerted attempts to undermine the credibility of effective medications that are no longer under patent protection have caused potentially unparalleled damage to public health.

The devastating outcomes of rejecting a treatment that could potentially save lives.

Kory argues that the intentional concealment of evidence favoring HCQ and ivermectin by health organizations and scientific institutions constitutes a serious violation. Pierre Kory firmly believes that the actions taken have led to a mortality rate that, while challenging to measure, certainly reaches into the millions, if not tens of millions.

The continuous fallout due to unscrupulous behavior in the drug industry has greatly eroded confidence in institutions related to science and medicine.

Pierre Kory contends that the trust in global and national health institutions, as well as the broader scientific community, has been deeply eroded, possibly beyond repair. He references a multitude of instances where Americans have begun to rightfully harbor skepticism, mistrust, and apprehension towards these institutions that were once held in high esteem.

The writer's journey fostered a critical stance and inquisitiveness regarding established institutions and prevailing stories.

Pierre Kory's experiences with scientific disputes have profoundly reshaped his views and convictions regarding scientific bodies, resulting in a considerable shift in his approach to life.

The writer's realization encompassed the significant influence wielded by the drug industry and the widespread deceit that permeates the healthcare profession.

Pierre Kory had previously placed his trust in the integrity of large pharmaceutical firms, the reliability of studies appearing in prestigious publications, and the guidance provided by leading medical experts and health institutions. He has come to believe that while deceit is widespread, it does not dominate entirely; rather, it indicates that a small but powerful group is skewing the system. He firmly believed that the individuals responsible for these actions did so with intentional purpose.

The author's determination to expose the truth and fight for the restoration of scientific integrity and patient-centered care

Pierre Kory remains unwavering in his commitment to the cause. He remains steadfast in his commitment to enhance awareness, promote advocacy, spread knowledge, and participate actively in the continuing struggle.

The author has a new specialty now. He has shifted the focus of his professional endeavors to tackle diseases caused by the spike protein, broadening his range of work beyond the limitations of intensive care environments. The diverse assembly is made up of people who are dealing with persistent symptoms following a Covid infection as well as those who are facing health issues related to the vaccines. Kory views his medical responsibilities as tackling the outcomes of society's widespread experiment with vaccines and ivermectin during the pandemic battle. He is grateful for the substantial support from colleagues and allies, which instills in him a deep sense of responsibility to persist in championing their common goals, a dedication that goes beyond his job and includes his worldwide responsibilities as a citizen.

Other Perspectives

• The implications of the ivermectin debate for public health and trust in scientific research are complex, and while some argue it has profound effects, others suggest that the scientific process involves rigorous debate and scrutiny, which is a sign of a healthy scientific ecosystem rather than an indication of distrust.
• The erosion of public trust might not solely be due to the dismissal of economical therapies but could also be attributed to mixed messaging, politicization of healthcare, and the inherent uncertainty in emerging scientific evidence during a crisis.
• The assertion that rejecting treatments like HCQ and ivermectin has led to a high mortality rate is contested; many health experts and organizations emphasize the importance of evidence-based treatments and caution against the use of unproven drugs without sufficient clinical trial data.
• Confidence in scientific institutions may be more resilient than suggested, with many individuals still trusting and relying on these bodies for guidance during health crises.
• Critical stance and inquisitiveness are valuable, but they must be balanced with an understanding of the complexities of scientific research and the potential for unintended consequences when challenging established medical consensus without robust evidence.
• The influence of the drug industry is a concern for many, but there is also recognition that pharmaceutical companies have contributed to significant medical advancements and that conflicts of interest can be managed with transparency and regulation.
• The commitment to exposing the truth and restoring scientific integrity is laudable, but it is important to recognize that scientific consensus is built through peer-reviewed research and broad agreement among experts, rather than individual crusades.
• While focusing on diseases caused by the spike protein is important, it is also critical to maintain a balanced perspective and consider the broader context of vaccine efficacy and safety, as supported by extensive research and regulatory review.
• Advocacy and spreading knowledge are important, but they should be grounded in scientifically validated information to avoid the spread of misinformation.