Covid-19 News

Quote from Fm1

“Like all medications, ivermectin has side effects,” Tanna said. “Ivermectin can interact with other medications. It can cause gastrointestinal symptoms like nausea, vomiting and diarrhea, low blood pressure and allergic reaction.”

Really? This is the kind of misinformation that causes people to distrust these "experts"! She reports that Ivermectin should not be used because it might cause diarrhea? Really?

How about she read what the FDA says about the covid vaccine?

https://www.fda.gov/media/144414/download

Side effects that have been reported with the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine
include:
• severe allergic reactions
• non-severe allergic reactions such as rash, itching, hives, or swelling of the face
• myocarditis (inflammation of the heart muscle)
• pericarditis (inflammation of the lining outside the heart)
• injection site pain
• tiredness
• headache
• muscle pain
• chills
• joint pain
• fever
• injection site swelling
4 Revised: 25 June 2021
• injection site redness
• nausea
• feeling unwell
• swollen lymph nodes (lymphadenopathy)
• diarrhea
• vomiting
• arm pain
These may not be all the possible side effects of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19
Vaccine. Serious and unexpected side effects may occur. Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19
Vaccine is still being studied in clinical trials

WAIT!!! HOLD THE PRESSES!!! The vaccine can cause diarrhea!!!!!! STOP USING IT IMMEDIATELY!!!

Now compare the above to Ivermectin! This safety meme is total BS, yet they have to resort to this as the increasing hard science is starting to expose them.

As many have stated here time and time again... the "agenda", either intentional or simply herd mentality, is to discredit or diminish anything that takes away from the vaccines. Something is certainly afoul!!

Zinc - many good reasons (even other than covid) to encourage the use of Zinc and there are zero risks. Does main stream inform or push zinc? NO

Vitamin D - many good reasons (even other than covid) to encourage the use of Vit. D and there are zero risks. Does main stream inform or push Vit. D? NO

Vitamin C- many good reasons (even other than covid) to encourage the use of Vit. C and there are zero risks. Does main stream inform or push Vit. C? NO

Quercetin - many good reasons (even other than covid) to encourage the use of Quercetin and there are zero risks. Does main stream inform or push Quercetin? NO

Masks - Some benefit to masks and several studies showing that forcing kids to wear them hours a day and wearing outside do more harm than good. Best case, high quality masks help but the majority of masks worn by the public do ZERO benefit... knit neck scarfs, masks worn under the nose, masks with ear band twisted to open up the sides.... all have zero impact....

YET... the main stream media and medical profession spent MILLIONS of dollars advertising masks, pushing masks, legislating masks, shaming, accusing etc. etc.....

YET.... no push for truly helpful Zn, D, C and Quercetin.

And now Ivermectin is buried because they think it might cause diarrhea???? AND in the face of a very large amount of RCT and other studies showing positive Covid effect, from world wide, various institutions and qualified doctors and scientists..... ALL with NO PROFIT to gain unlike those pushing the vaccines!

People who argue this are simply blind...... just like those on ECW.... they have a religion and they will not depart from it!

Again, I will state clearly as the "vaccine warriors" will accuse me of being an anti-vaxer. I am not. I have taken vaccines and had my children vaccinated.

I AM stating that the mRNA vaccines have ZERO long term safety studies, early versions have very serious complications, have NEVER been approved for humans (and still have not been) and that we simply do not know what long term health problems these might cause.... all while Ivermectin is readily available and inexpensive... and has been since the start. It could have saved many, many lives.....

Yes, I strongly disagree with some here on this forum..... mRNA vaccines cannot be lumped in with attenuated vaccine safety. That is not science.

Quote from Bob#2

Vitamin D - many good reasons (even other than covid) to encourage the use of Vit. D and there are zero risks. Does main stream inform or push Vit. D? NO

In Switzerland the J-mafia was in charge to stop people from taking V-D... All in mainstream TV that has been undermined my teh FM mafia...

Quote from Wyttenbach

At least her motivation is clear:

Follow the $cience...don't follow the science.

Quote from RobertBryant

Follow the $cience...don't follow the science.

BigEnergy is even more political and $cience motivated than BigPharma is.

The Greenpeace Exxon sting..

but such motivation is not illegal

" we were just looking out for our investments

we were looking out for our shareholders"

Most Cancer Patients Respond Well to mRNA-based COVID-19 Vaccines However Patients on Rituximab for Hematological Malignancies Generate No Response

https://trialsitenews.com/most…ies-generate-no-response/

An important, yet not well-publicized study led by investigators from Mays Cancer Center in San Antonio and Geneva University Hospital in Switzerland, recently showcased that 94% of cancer patients respond well to an mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine. Funded partly by the National Cancer Institute’s funding of the Mays Cancer Center as well as grants from the American Cancer Society and the Hope Foundation for Cancer Research, the study indicates that a great majority of patients struggling with cancer can develop a solid immune response to the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) via mRNA-based vaccines within a matter of a few weeks to a month upon the second dose of the vaccine. However, a significant issue was discovered in this study in that a small group generated absolutely no response to the pathogen. Particularly those patients on the drug Rituximab, within six months of the jab, failed to generate an immune response.

The Study

The study involved 131 patients participating in the clinical trial between January and April 2021. By organizing a prospective cohort to investigate what is called “seroconversion rates” as well as anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike protein titers subsequent to two vaccine doses involving either Pfizer-BioNTech’s BNT162b2 or Moderna’s mRNA-1273.

The median age of patients in the study was 63. Most of the patients (106) had solid cancers as opposed to hematological malignancies (25). The study population was 80% non-Hispanic white, 18% Hispanic, and 2% Black.

Investigator Quotes

Professor Shah pointed out, “We observed a significant difference in response when two doses were given,” Shah further noted. “At least for patients with cancer, two doses are very important for robust antibody response.” Moreover, the researcher declared, “In countries where there is lack of vaccination, there is talk that one dose might confer adequate protection, but this may not be true in the case of patients with cancer,”

Finding

Of the total study participants, 94% experienced seroconversion, developing a healthy antibody response. But the study raised some concerns. Notably among cancer patients diagnosed with hematological malignancies fared worse than those with patients diagnosed with solid tumors (77% versus 98%, p = 0.002). Out of the total patient population in the study, seven of them failed to develop any antibody response, reported Dimpy P. Shah, MD, PhD, with the Mays Cancer Center, UT Health San Antonio MD Anderson.

Of note, the investigators found that cancer patients on a cancer therapy called Rituximab, a monoclonal antibody, used to treat hematological cancers as well as autoimmune diseases, within six months of the second jab developed no antibodies. Moreover, the San Antonio-based research team observed that the antibody response among those patients on chemotherapy was less strong as compared to the average study population.

Published

This study was published in the peer-review journal Cancer Cell.

Lead Research/Investigator

Ruben Mesa, MD, FACP, executive director of the Mays Cancer Center.

Dimpy P. Shah, MD, PhD, Assistant Professor

Pankil K. Shah, MD, Ph.D., Mays Cancer Center, who served as co-lead author of the study w

Alfredo Addeo, MD, senior oncologist at the Geneva University Hospital.

Call to Action: More inquiry into these findings is necessary.

Potholer has an update on lab leak theories

Quote from stefan

Potholer has an update on lab leak theories

Just listened 1 minute: This guy is uninformed and makes silly comparisons. Bonobos are e..g 99.5% close to humans not 99%. what still means > 10 mio. years of evolution....So this guy frequently mixes apples and ice cream.

May be he first should understand the papers he reads.

The US experts around Fauci already in January 2020 informed him about the potential escape of a lab virus after studying the RNA. This is written in e-mails from experts not from Youtube clowns.

Quote from Wyttenbach

Just listened 1 minute: This guy is uninformed and makes silly comparisons. Bonobos are e..g 99.5% close to humans not 99%. what still means > 10 mio. years of evolution....So this guy frequently mixes apples and ice cream.

May be he first should understand the papers he reads.

The US experts around Fauci already in January 2020 informed him about the potential escape of a lab virus after studying the RNA. This is written in e-mails from experts not from Youtube clowns.

The strength of potholder is that he tracks information to the sources and show how misused our news and internet are. If you have good arguments of why his wrong, then post that info. He kan take strong evidenses against him. The discussions on his site is interesting to follow. Hes arguments supports a lab leak where samples have been grown some in the lab, something I currently lean on.

Quote from stefan

The strength of potholder is that he tracks information to the sources

No problem: Time is money: I like short and clear statements. After a threshold is met I go out.

For true experts it was always clear that the virus is a result from gain off research. The rest is a cover-up story including the censorship we now have on all big "free" media.

The same with LENR. Military wanted to sack in the research. I know the details. But these cricket brains thought they will have a solution already tomorrow...So basically they delayed the research.

Quote from Shane D.

I watched and found him informative. IMO, that is the way science should be. Take all the emotions out of it, check your politics and ego at the door, look at the facts, and go where they take you. Stay transparent, and be open to change should someone present a better argument, or introduce better science. Of course, with money, funding, business interests at stake, that is not so easy as it sounds.

The COVID origin debate is still far from settled. Finally though, after 14 months of censorship, and suppression to further the natural origin narrative, maybe now we will get to the bottom of it.

It does seem IMO that a consensus is growing that the origin was the Wuhan lab. I think most feel it leaked from there by accident, and was not intentional. What remains to be seen is whether the virus that escaped was natural, or genetically altered.

In either case, China's behavior after the leak was irresponsible, and reprehensible, and they have to be held accountable for that...although not likely to happen. They at least give the appearance that they allowed the virus to spread worldwide, while protecting their own citizens. That is not hard to believe in light of their recent war mongering with neighbors, disregarding long established territorial rights, ignoring legal precedents, and their threats against anyone who does not do as they demand.

Display More

Yes the idea of open democratic nations are hurt and on decline, authoritarian is on the rise. The autharitan leaders have a ball at manipulating the world. Stupidity is on the rise for sure. Capitalism is killing itself as short sited greed have made the system voulnarable and we are basically addicted to cheap labor and been played in this field. Greed is killing the open discussion, authorian states are killing the discussion, stupidity is killing the open discussion, politisation and a priority to gain is killing the discussion. I'm glad there are a few potholes in this road to hell.

Quote from stefan

The strength of potholder is that he tracks information to the sources and show how misused our news and internet are. If you have good arguments of why his wrong, then post that info. He kan take strong evidenses against him. The discussions on his site is interesting to follow. Hes arguments supports a lab leak where samples have been grown some in the lab, something I currently lean on.

He seems like a good investigative journalist, but only goes deep enough to nestle in with the mainstream view of the time as far as I can tell. If you know of examples where he bucks the trend I would like to see that.

FDA Grants EUA to Roche’s Tocilizumab Despite Mixed Study Results

https://trialsitenews.com/fda-…pite-mixed-study-results/

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) made yet another questionable decision by issuing an emergency use authorization (EUA) for Roche’s IL-6 inhibitor called Actemra/RoActemra (tocilizumab) for the treatment of COVID-19 in hospitalized adults and pediatric patients (two years of age and up) who are receiving systemic corticosteroids and require supplemental oxygen, non-invasive or invasive mechanical ventilation, or extracorporeal membrane oxygen (ECMO). Roche declared that the EUA was based on the results from four randomized, controlled trials that evaluated the drug for the treatment of COVID-19 in over 5,500 hospitalized patients. The multinational pharmaceutical company headquartered in Basal, Switzerland, indicated that the result of these studies suggests that this drug “may improve outcomes in patients receiving corticosteroids and requiring supplemental oxygen or breathing support.” As TrialSite will discuss below, the study results are mixed at best. But the use of the four studies mentioned (RECOVERY, EMPACTA, COVACTA, and REMDACTA) led to FDA positive decisions leading to the EUA. As some of these studies generated questionable results, the FDA’s decision to accept the EUA based on the “totality of scientific evidence available to the FDA” is dubious, especially given narrow conditions for the treatment, the incredible societal need, and demand for early-onset care as well as the economics of this drug. Factoring in absolute risk reduction, the study findings become even more of a stretch. But with the EUA, the FDA only has to declare the drug “may” be effective for treatment in what are very specific circumstances declared here.

The U.S. FDA letter of Authorization and Fact Sheets for patients and healthcare professionals are now ready for review containing the latest information on this EUA.

The Case for Tocilizumab

Roche declared that the recent positive decision was based on four randomized controlled trials as expressed in the company’s recent press release, which the company included in its EUA submission. In the RECOVERY Actemra/RoActemra study, investigators out of the United Kingdom studied the drug in over 4,000 hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Other Roche-sponsored global trials included the placebo-controlled EMPACTA, COVACTA and REMDACTA studies. Roche reports to the public that there were no safety signals detected from these clinical trials with the most common adverse reactions seen (incidence 3%) were constipation, anxiety, diarrhea, insomnia, hypertension, and nausea. As TrialSite shares below, a few of these studies failed to generate compelling results.

RECOVERY Trial

The core underlying thrust for EUA authorization resulted from the RECOVERY trial (NCT04381936). The results were published in May in The Lancet. Between April 2020 and Jan 24, 2021, this study team enrolled 4116 adults out of 21,550 total patients participating in the study, into the tocilizumab arm of the trial, including 3385 (82%) of the patients receiving systemic corticosteroids. Overall, 621 (31%) of the 2022 patients allocated tocilizumab and 729 (35%) of the 2094 patients allocated to standard of care died within 28 days (rate ratio 0.85; 95% CI 0.76-0.94; p=0.0028). As far as measuring the impact of discharge from hospital within 28 days, the tocilizumab group performed better than standard of care (57% vs 50%; rate ratio 1·22; 1·12–1·33; p<0·0001). Among those not receiving invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline, patients allocated tocilizumab were less likely to reach the composite endpoint of invasive mechanical ventilation or death (35% vs 42%; risk ratio 0·84; 95% CI 0·77–0·92; p<0·0001).

Other Studies Cited by Roche

Roche mentioned the EMPACTA trial as part of the rationale for the EUA. The results of that industry-sponsored trial (NCT04372186), including 379 patients, were published in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM). The study authors shared that with hospitalized patients with COVID-19 pneumonia who didn’t receive mechanical ventilation, the study drug “reduced the likelihood of progression to the composite outcome of mechanical ventilation or death” but did nothing to help with survival.

Roche also mentioned the Phase 3 COVACTA study (NCT04320615), involving 438 participants. The study evaluated the efficacy, safety, pharmacodynamics, and pharmacokinetics of tocilizumab compared with a matching placebo in combination with standard of care in hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia.

Conducted across 62 trial site hospitals in nine countries, ultimately 438 hospitalized patients with severe pneumonia were randomly assigned to participate in the study. According to Ivan Rosas (Baylor College of Medicine) and co-investigators, the results were not compelling as the primary outcome of clinical status on an ordinal scale measured at day 28 was not significantly different in either the study drug arm or the placebo arm, reported Clarie Barnard in Medicine Matters, Rheumatology. Moreover, 28-day mortality rates didn’t significantly differ among patients in the tocilizumab and the placebo.

In the REMDACTA study, Roche itself reported that the drug failed to meet its endpoints as reported by TrialSite.

What’s the Evidence for Tocilizumab using ARR?

Ron Brown, PhD, a contributor to TrialSite, emphasizes the importance of the concept of absolute risk reduction (ARR) as actually necessary but an elusive topic for most in the clinical trials business. As the researcher emphasized in a published report titled Outcome Reporting Bias in COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine Clinical Trials, Relative risk reduction and absolute risk reduction measures in the evaluation of clinical trial data are poorly understood by health professionals and the public.

The absence of reported absolute risk reduction in COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials can lead to outcome-reporting bias that affects the interpretation of vaccine efficacy. Dr. Brown’s emphasis on ARR concerns not only the risk for reporting bias but also for proper informed consent for subjects.

In looking at Roche’s tocilizumab’s performance in Oxford’s RECOVERY trial, the experimental event rate (EER) for mortality is the percentage of COVID-19 deaths in the tocilizumab group, which is 31%.” Now the control event rate (CER) is calculated by the percentage of deaths in the group with standard care, which here equals 35%. To arrive at ARR, we calculate CER minus the EER, that is 35% minus 31%, or 4%. The relative risk reduction (RRR) equals ARR divided by the CER, which is 0.04 divided by 0.35 or 11.4%, which reduces mortality risk almost four times higher than the ARR.

The risk or rate ratio is reflected in the EER divided by the CER which totals 88.6%, not 85% reported in the article summary. Thus confirming that RRR is 1 minus the risk ratio, that is 1 minus 0.886 or 11.4%.

The study authors fail to mention the above derived absolute and relative risk reductions in mortality in the published article. Note that similar calculations must be applied for patient discharge, etc.

So where does that put the basis of the FDA’s decision? It depends on one’s point of view. Considering the EUA for the mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines were based on trials that produced data indicating an absolute risk reduction of approximately 1%, the 4% ARR of the tocilizumab trial is significantly higher.

On the other hand, the relative risk reduction of the tocilizumab trial is 8.5 times lower than the 95% RRR of the mRNA trials. The point here is that as long as the drug (or vaccine) shows any amount of improvement over a control, it qualifies for EUA. Of course, unless it’s a generic drug tested in smaller studies, which regardless of outcome, will get ignored due to regulatory capture issues discussed on this objective media platform.

Perhaps most critical, however, in the absolute and relative risk measures, is the importance of this subject in the context of informed consent, that is, the public has a right to know what the absolute risks are as well as relative risks for any drug or vaccine.

Clinical Trial Program

As Roche shared in its recent press release, the Swiss company’s clinical trial program evaluated the safety and efficacy of Actemra/RoActemra in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Actemra/RoActemra is not approved for this use in any country and there is limited information known about the safety or effectiveness of using Actemra to treat people in the hospital with COVID-19, emphasizing the speculative nature of the FDA’s EUA.

COVACTA and EMPACTA were the first two global phase III, multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled studies of Actemra/RoActemra in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 associated pneumonia. COVACTA was conducted in collaboration with the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), part of the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response at the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). TrialSite emphasizes this is yet another example of public funding directed into industry research. Again, given the pandemic, that’s understandable but little was allocated to low-cost, generic alternatives.

EMPACTA aimed to address research questions about the safety and efficacy of Actemra in underserved populations by emphasizing enrollment from minority patients often underrepresented in clinical trials. Both studies were published in the New England Journal of Medicine. Roche also partnered with Gilead Sciences, Inc., on REMDACTA, a phase III, randomized, double-blind, multicenter study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of Actemra/RoActemra plus Veklury® (remdesivir), versus placebo plus Veklury, in hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19 associated pneumonia. Roche itself shared in REMDACTA that the study failed to meet endpoints.

The Study Drug

As shared by Roche, Actemra/RoActemra was the first humanized interleukin-6 (IL-6) receptor antagonist approved for the treatment of adult patients with moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who have used one or more disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), such as methotrexate (MTX), that did not provide enough relief. The extensive Actemra/RoActemra RA IV clinical development program included five phase III clinical studies and enrolled more than 4,000 people with RA in 41 countries. The Actemra/RoActemra RA subcutaneous clinical development program included two phase III clinical studies and enrolled more than 1,800 people with RA in 33 countries. Actemra/RoActemra subcutaneous injection is also approved for the treatment of adult patients with giant cell arteritis (GCA), for the treatment of patients two years of age and older with active polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis (PJIA) or active systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis (SJIA), and for slowing the rate of decline in pulmonary function in adult patients with systemic sclerosis-associated interstitial lung disease (SSc-ILD). In addition, Actemra/RoActemra is also approved in the IV formulation for patients two years of age and older with active PJIA, SJIA, or CAR T cell-induced cytokine release syndrome (CRS). Actemra/RoActemra is not approved for subcutaneous use in people with CRS. It is not known if Actemra is safe and effective in children with PJIA, SJIA or CRS under two years of age or in children with conditions other than PJIA, SJIA or CRS. Actemra is intended for use under the guidance of a healthcare practitioner.

Call to Action: Based on the results of the studies that Roche shares itself, the FDA EUA is, in fact, questionable. What are your thoughts? Learn more about absolute risk reduction vs. relative risk reduction. TrialSite reminds that for COVID-19, about 90% of the cases are either asymptomatic and/or mild-to-moderate cases necessitating the importance of early-onset care. Public pressure should build on the agency to center its attention on early-onset care in addition to continuous improvement on COVID-19 vaccine candidates.

Quote from Mark U

He seems like a good investigative journalist, but only goes deep enough to nestle in with the mainstream view of the time as far as I can tell. If you know of examples where he bucks the trend I would like to see that.

I think that he would acknowledge the issue with the Collombian study as a proof that it ivermectin is not working. this failed issue seam to be copy pasted all over the internet and the study is miss used - a thing he targets.

Quote from Fm1

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) made yet another questionable decision by issuing an emergency use authorization (EUA) for Roche’s IL-6 inhibitor called Actemra/RoActemra (tocilizumab) for the treatment of COVID-19 in hospitalized adults and pediatric patients (two years of age and up) who are receiving systemic corticosteroids and require supplemental oxygen, non-invasive or invasive mechanical ventilation, or extracorporeal membrane oxygen (ECMO).

Great: The USA supports our nice guys that own Roche. One more failed drug gets an approval. This seems to be our future in US medicine. Bribe FDA then you can sell any dirt (e.g. Remdesivir) as a precious medicine.

So the USA is now where where Africa was 10'000 years ago.

Target of federal probe made key Ivermectin ruling

https://trialsitenews.com/the-…de-key-ivermectin-ruling/

A centerpiece of US policy on COVID-19 early treatment is the ACTIV-6 Ivermectin trial. As described in ClinicalTrials.gov, the trial will look at the effect of Ivermectin on COVID-19 symptoms, hospitalization and death. The trial is described by the director of the NIH, Francis Collins:

““ACTIV-6 will evaluate whether certain drugs showing promise in small trials can pass the rigor of a larger trial.”

That statement is supported by the conclusion of the COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines statement on Ivermectin:

“There are insufficient data for the COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel (the Panel) to recommend either for or against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19. Results from adequately powered, well-designed, and well-conducted clinical trials are needed to provide more specific, evidence-based guidance on the role of ivermectin in the treatment of COVID-19.”

However, Collins’ statement and the supporting statement from the COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines are controversial. In their May/June 2021 issue, The American Journal of Therapeutics published the following statement about the use of Ivermectin in COVID-19:

“In summary, based on the totality of the trials and epidemiologic evidence presented in this review along with the preliminary findings of the Unitaid/WHO meta-analysis of treatment RCTs and the guideline recommendation from the international BIRD conference, ivermectin should be globally and systematically deployed in the prevention and treatment of COVID-19.”

The NIH does not have the final word on whether this clinical trial would be carried out. That decision is made by the designated institutional review board (IRB). The institution conducting the trial is the Duke University Health System (DUHS) but the ethics review was contracted to a commercial organization WCG IRB. WCG IRB approved that clinical trial on April 28. That organization is now the target of an investigation by the Government Accountability Office (GAO).

The probe was requested by US Senators Sanders, Warren and Brown. Earlier they had found the WCG and a second for-profit IRB had provided inadequate responses to their own inquiry. As reported by Relias Media, the Government Accountabity Office (GAO) was expected to begin an investigation of for-profit IRB’s including WCG IRB. Our inquiry to the GAO has confirmed that that investigation is now underway.

The senators recommended the investigation when WCG IRB provided an inadequate response to their inquiries. CEO Donald A. Deieso addressed the senator’s concerns:

“Our practices make certain that we scrupulously adhere to all regulatory requirements, that no panelist has any financial interest in any study that they review, and that there are no conflicts of interest in our mission to protect human subjects.”

However, the senators concluded:

“WCG Clinical provided no details whatsoever on how they identify, address, and prevent undue influence from panel members’ conflicts of interest.”

and further:

“”Our preliminary investigation, opened in November 2019, raises questions about whether the commercial IRBs’ reviews of these studies have significant vulnerabilities that may leave patients exposed to unnecessary risks during their participation in clinical trials…”

The controversy is further complicated by the question of whether the NIH held a vote to endorse its position statement on Ivermectin. Earlier reporting and a pending complaint in federal court suggests that no vote was held on the NIH position statement.

There are reasons for profound concern about the ethics of the ACTIV-6 Ivermectin trial. The evidence of the safety and efficacy of Ivermectin in COVID-19 raises the question of whether the placebo patients in the trial are being unnecessarily deprived of care. The trial approval may also have a broader, immediate impact: the trial approval may be considered to be tangible evidence that the effectiveness of Ivermectin in COVID-19 is lacking. This perception is evident in a recent article in Medscape. A more accurate perception should be that there is seemingly no end to suspicious behavior when it comes to NIH’s handling of this drug in COVID-19.

Note that views expressed in this opinion article are the writer’s personal views and not necessarily those of TrialSite.

a little reading for the liers, deniers and trolls

The Drug that Cracked COVID

https://www.mountainhomemag.co…e-drug-that-cracked-covid

On the morning of December 18, 2020, as the newscaster announced a grim New York record for COVID-19 deaths and the weatherman predicted a white Christmas for Buffalo, Judy Smentkiewicz drove home from a house cleaning job, excited about the holiday. But her back hurt bad, and she was unusually exhausted. “I thought it was my age, being eighty years old, working every day,” she said. “I never thought about COVID.”

Judy’s small house in Cheektowaga, just east of Buffalo, was all set for Christmas. Daughter Michelle, who lives a few miles away and talks to her mother five times a day, put up the tree and the decorations and the snowman on the front lawn of grandma’s house with her daughter until it looked like a scene from It’s a Wonderful Life. Son Michael came up from Florida with his wife Haley to help his sister cook the family Christmas Eve dinner, usually for twenty-five, but now just immediate family with “COVID shaping everything,” Michael said. Michael, fifty-seven, hasn’t lived in Buffalo for close to thirty years, and relishes the trip home.

But now he was worried. Mom was sleeping twelve hours a day. She couldn’t eat. She couldn’t lift the phone. “I’m fine, I’m just tired,” she kept saying. But Judy was always up with the sun. After raising two children as a single mother, working thirty-five years as an office manager for Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, she was still cleaning houses five mornings a week with her girlfriends to “keep busy.” On December 22, three days before Christmas, Judy tested positive for COVID-19.

We were devastated,” Michael said. The family Christmas Eve dinner was cancelled, Judy spent Christmas in quarantine in her house, four days after Christmas she was taken by ambulance to Millard Fillmore Suburban Hospital, and on New Year’s Eve Michael and Michelle got a call from the hospital that their mother was being admitted to the ICU. It all happened so fast. “We can’t be with her,” Michael said. “We can’t hold her hand, we can’t sleep in the room with her.” He started keeping notes to make sense of it all. “Hearing her voice crack on the phone as she agreed to go on the ventilator was HEART-BREAKING,” he wrote.

His mother was sedated and unresponsive, as if she were in a coma, as a ventilator mechanically breathed for her. The doctors said there was little more they could do, and her chances of survival were bleak. Judy was getting the global standard of COVID-19 care recommended by the World Health Organization, the National Institutes of Health, and all major public health agencies. It was called “supportive care.” Judy was told to stay at home since there was nothing the doctor could do for her anyway, it was best to keep patients away from doctors and everyone else, until she had trouble breathing in week two. That was the sign the disease had entered its potentially fatal stage and it was time to go to the hospital where doctors couldn’t do much but more supportive care. In other words, Judy would have to save herself. “There is no antiviral drug proven to be effective against the virus,” The New York Times said on March 17, 2020, under the headline “Hundreds of Scientists Scramble to Find a Coronavirus Treatment.” It was day seven of the pandemic, when the global death toll was 7,138. “When people get infected,” the Times said, “the best that doctors can offer is supportive care—the patient is getting enough oxygen, managing fever and using a ventilator to push air into the lungs, if needed—to give the immune system time to fight the infection.” The global death toll was more than 3.3 million as this story went to press, and scientists are still scrambling. The NIH and WHO are still recommending Tylenol and water in 2021. There is still no approved treatment for all stages of COVID-19.

Even with the rollout of vaccines, they are “not the whole answer,” Dr. Francis Collins, director of the NIH, said recently on 60 Minutes, with variants that threaten to defeat vaccines in rich countries constantly sweeping the Earth after mutating in that majority of poor 7.9 billion humans who won’t get a big pharma jab any time soon. According to The Wall Street Journal, global deaths in 2021 will soon exceed 2020, and millions more are expected to die. “People are going to continue to get sick,” Collins said. “We need treatments for those people.”

Michael was calling the doctors and nurses constantly, but “we heard nothing but bad, bad news. Mom wasn’t getting any better. It’s going to be a long haul, she’s in bad shape, prepare yourself.” The doctors and nurses said they had exhausted all treatment options, and like so many others Judy was highly likely to die. When an eighty-year-old COVID-19 patient goes on a ventilator, they said, it’s a highly likely death sentence—eighty percent of them don’t survive. The prolonged critical illness was typically about a month with little or no change until, surrounded by helpless doctors and nurses and goodbyes and cries of loved ones echoing from a Zoom call, they turned blue and suffocated to death.

But as Judy lay dying in the small hospital eight miles northeast of Buffalo, almost six hundred miles south in Norfolk, Virginia, Dr. Paul Marik, sixty-three, the endowed professor at the Eastern Virginia Medical School and a world-renowned clinician-researcher, was unknowingly preparing to save her life with a “wonder drug” that obliterates COVID-19. Discovering the drug was one thing, but getting it to Judy’s doctors in time to save her, getting it to the many thousands of people who needed it, would be a harrowing journey to rival the Iditarod mushers’ 1925 serum run of 675 miles through ice and snow to Nome, Alaska so Dr. Curtis Welch could stop the diphtheria epidemic. But this “Great Race of Mercy” had far less chance of success, for the obstacles were not in nature but in the minds and hearts of other men.

Marik was accustomed to beating the odds. The legendary professor, a 6-foot, 230-pound, balding, barrel-chested, bear of a man with a crisp native South African accent touched with the South after thirty years, is the second most published critical care doctor in the history of medicine, with more than 500 peer-reviewed papers and books, 43,000 scholarly citations of his work, and a research “H” rating higher than many Nobel Prize winners. Marik is world famous as creator of the “Marik Cocktail,” a revolutionary cocktail of cheap, safe, generic, FDA-approved drugs that dramatically reduces death rates from sepsis by 20 to 50 percent anywhere in the world—whether you’re in a hospital in Zurich or Zimbabwe, Chicago or Chengdu—down to near zero, when given soon after presentation to hospitals. Since he published what he calls the “HAT Therapy” (Hydrocortisone, Ascorbic Acid [intravenous Vitamin C] and Thiamine) in 2016 in the most prestigious peer-reviewed journal in the field, Marik has received worldwide publicity, is celebrated in James Bond Internet memes with the “Marik Cocktail” shaken, not stirred, and is seen in ICUs around the globe as a historic figure in medicine for improving care of sepsis, which last year passed cancer and heart disease as the world’s number one killer, according to Lancet. Marik, known as a quirky genius and an exceptionally kind-hearted doctor (his most published peer in the annals of medicine doesn’t see patients), has been searching for an effective treatment for COVID-19 since it began.

Now, while Judy’s doctors were stumped, he was spending long days and nights at the Sentara Norfolk General Hospital, a large, 563-bed teaching hospital on the EVMS campus, where Marik, head of pulmonology and critical care, was treating hundreds of critically ill COVID-19 patients, many referred to him from all over the 1.8-million population Hampton Roads region.

The pandemic had pushed him to nights doing Zoom grand rounds and making YouTube videos instructing doctors and hospitals all over the world on treating COVID-19, sending out a daily EVMS COVID-19 Management Protocol online for doctors worldwide, and hunting the literature for the “wonder drug” that would save Judy Smentkiewicz and bring the pandemic to an end.

This was not something many people thought possible. But while the world was living the nightmare of the COVID-19 pandemic like a Michael Crichton sci-fi horror production where the planet is facing a plague apocalypse, millions die, and doctors can do nothing as brilliant pharmaceutical scientists race to develop vaccines to save the globe in the final scene, Paul Marik had a different movie in his head. He was startled and appalled that all the national and international public health agencies recommended that the most well-trained, well-equipped doctors in history stand down and wait on big pharma’s lab scientists while the worst pandemic in a century devastated the world. “It’s therapeutic nihilism to say that doctors can do nothing,” Marik said. “Supportive care is no care at all.” What Marik did was assemble four of his closest friends, who also happen to be four of the top academic critical care doctors in the world. He challenged them to join him in an expert panel to continually review the literature while treating their COVID-19 patients and developing treatment protocols—low-cost generic therapies that countless black and brown and poor people all over the world would need, he saw from the beginning, or face a coming catastrophe without treatments or vaccines.

These five doctors set out to save the world, with a better chance at it than most. Pulmonary critical care specialists often lead medical teams at hospitals in a crisis. “Lungs are the most common organ that fails in the ICU and in the context of many diseases,” says Dr. Pierre Kory, Marik’s protégé. “Pulmonary critical care physicians (are)...the most widely skilled, and the most knowledgeable and experienced in all facets of disease and all levels of severity to the extent that no other doctor comes close.” ICUs were getting hammered by the new respiratory plague all around the world, but Marik had assembled a group of intensivists with nearly 2,000 peer-reviewed papers and books and over a century of bedside experience in treating multi-organ failure and severe pneumonia-type diseases. If anyone could arrest the coronavirus in a living patient, they could.

Marik turned to his dearest colleague in medicine in Houston, professor and doctor Joseph Varon, a Mexican American with academic appointments in both his countries that have included the University of Texas Health Science Center, and research innovations including a cooling cryo-helmet he used to save his own life when he had a stroke. He then recruited his comrade-in-arms in sepsis therapies, the renowned Dr. Gianfranco Umberto Meduri, an Italian, professor at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center in Memphis, the father of noninvasive intubation and world authority on steroid treatment of ARDS (Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome) and COVID-19. He called on his longtime boon colleague and former resident Dr. Jose Iglesias, from Cuba, a highly published associate professor of medicine at Hackensack Meridian School of Medicine in Seton Hall, New Jersey, and director of one of that state’s largest dialysis centers. At age fifty, the youngest of the group was Pierre Kory, a big, passionate doctor-scientist like Marik, and his protégé. Kory was a highly published former associate professor and critical care service chief at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and the director of the Trauma and Life Support Center at University Hospital, one of the top academic medical centers in the world. If you go by the traditional measure of lives saved by research breakthroughs or bedside care, Marik, Meduri, Varon, Iglesias, and Kory—four brilliant immigrants from South Africa, Italy, Mexico, Cuba, and one brash New Yorker—are the finest COVID-19 clinician-researchers of the pandemic.

They made their first major breakthrough in March 2020, by the third week of the pandemic when only 3,800 Americans had died. It was based on the idea that COVID-19 has one great weakness: the coronavirus doesn’t kill anybody. In a mechanism so diabolical Marik believes “human beings aren’t smart enough to have figured it out,” the trillions upon trillions of coronaviruses that overwhelm and sicken the host don’t kill it. But in the second week of the disease, all the coronaviruses die, and like suicide bombers flooding out of a Trojan Horse swamp the body with a “vast viral graveyard” that triggers a friendly-fire hyper-immune response that in turn unleashes monstrous multi-organ inflammation and clotting like doctors have never seen. A body dying of COVID-19 is a complex, terrifying sight. But its weakness is simple: “As pulmonary critical care doctors we know how to treat inflammation and clotting, with corticosteroids and anticoagulants,” Marik says. “It’s first-grade science.”

From the beginning of the pandemic, the hospitals that Marik and Varon led had COVID-19 beat. They achieved remarkably high survival rates at their hospitals at a time when 40 to 80 percent of patients in the U.S. and Europe were dying from the disease. Their success was achieved with the group’s now-famous MATH+ protocol for hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

The cocktail of safe, cheap, FDA-approved generic drugs—the steroid Methylprednisolone, Ascorbic Acid (Vitamin C), Thiamine (Vitamin B1), and the blood thinner Heparin—was the first comprehensive treatment using aggressive corticosteroid and anti-coagulant treatments to stop COVID-19 deaths. Both were novel approaches strongly recommended against by all national and international health care agencies throughout the world, but later studies made both therapies the global standard of hospital care. In addition, Kory, Marik, et. al published the first comprehensive COVID-19 prevention and early treatment protocol (which they would eventually call I-MASK). It is centered around the drug Ivermectin, which President Trump used at Walter Reed hospital, unreported by the press, though it may well have saved the president’s life while he was instead touting new big pharma drugs.

The doctors published their breakthroughs in real time on the website of their nonprofit research group, the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (http://www.flccc.net), so doctors anywhere in the world could find them and use them immediately. Marik, Kory, Varon, Meduri, and Iglesias became heroes of the pandemic to intensivists around the globe who used their protocols to save thousands of lives, and to practitioners at many hospitals in the U.S., including the St. Francis Medical Center in Trenton, New Jersey, where Dr. Eric Osgood posted the MATH+ protocol on a private Facebook group for thousands of ICU doctors after it stopped the dying in his hospital, and talked it up with his colleagues around the nation. Marik and his colleagues receive more than five hundred emails a day from doctors and patients begging for help to beat COVID-19, and they answer all of them, comforting patients and their families, coaching other doctors, and saving lives. Emails like this (unedited):

Dear Dr Marik I am from a remote place(Muzaffarpur,Bihar) in India.people are not that rich and can’t effort costly treatment.i used your MATH PLUS protocol in TOTO to save hundreds of life at very low cost.since there is limited govt facility I have managed pts with SPO2 of even 72% at room air with home oxygen,proning and MATH PLUS. I don’t have words to thank you for this.you deserve to get Nobel Prize for your protocol. Words are not supporting me enough to thank you. Dr Vimohan Kumar

Many prominent doctors and scientists around the world believe that Marik, Kory, Meduri, Varon, and Iglesias deserve the Nobel Prize in medicine. Dr. Keith Berkowitz, director of the Center for Balanced Health on Madison Avenue in New York City and Dr. Robert Atkins’ former medical director, and Dr. Howard Kornfeld, founder of the Recovery Without Walls Clinic in Marin County, California, found Marik while looking in the literature for COVID-19 treatments for their patients, and convinced him to form the nonprofit FLCCC to get the word out to the world and save humanity.

Emmy Award-winning publicist Joyce Kamen of Cincinnati and former CBS News correspondent Betsy Ashton of New York City set aside their lives and began working tirelessly to reach every famous TV newsperson, scientist, and public health expert you know and hundreds you don’t, the handful of science writers who have won Pulitzer Prizes, the five thousand science writers on a special news wire who haven’t, every science desk from CNN to NBC News to the Atlantic magazine, every governor and member of Congress, President Trump, Dr. Anthony Fauci, and, when the time came, President-Elect Biden. Nobody responded.

Marik thought it might be a good idea if doctors who were actually saving lives with treatments that could save almost everybody could spend a few minutes on the podium sharing their knowledge with the world after Trump made his speeches and Fauci and Dr. Deborah Birx talked about flattening the curve and obeying lockdowns so millions wouldn’t die. “People are dying needlessly,” Marik said. “We’ve cracked the code of the coronavirus.” Nobody seemed to care.

Kory even testified to the Senate on May 6, 2020, his first appearance before the committee seeking COVID-19 treatments, that steroids were “critical” to saving lives and received silence and scorn. Six weeks later, the publication of the Oxford University Recovery Trial proved that the FLCCC doctors were right, and corticosteroids became the accepted worldwide standard of care, changing the trajectory of the pandemic. Now, millions of deaths later, steroids remain “the only therapy considered “proven” as a life-saving treatment in COVID-19,” he says, and only in “patients with moderate to severe illness.”

No approved treatment to stop the sick from getting sicker and overloading hospitals, where they face possible death, yet exists. All the non-vaccine big pharma designer treatments for COVID-19 have largely failed to show an impact on mortality, Kory says, including Remdesivir and monoclonal antibody therapy. The Holy Grail COVID-19 treatment remains elusive. On November 11, 2020, Dr. Fauci co-authored a paper for JAMA, the Journal of the American Medical Association, “Therapy for Early COVID-19, A Critical Need,” explaining that early treatments “to prevent disease progression and longer-term complications are urgently needed.”

A month earlier, Dr. Marik had found exactly what Dr. Fauci was seeking. The discovery astounded him.

In the professor’s continual review of “the latest (and best) literature,” he picked up a surprising “data signal” in October from emerging studies in Latin America. Ivermectin, a safe, cheap, FDA-approved anti-parasitic drug, was showing remarkable anti-viral and anti-inflammatory agency as a repurposed drug—the most powerful COVID-19 killer known to science.

Marik had been keeping tabs on Ivermectin but hadn’t included it in his protocols. He knew the drug as a core medicine on the WHO Model List of Essential Medicines, and it is well-established in the literature as a “wonder drug” that won the 2015 Nobel Prize for its discoverer, Japanese microbiologist Satoshi Ōmura, for nearly eradicating two of the “most disfiguring and devastating diseases” in history, river blindness and elephantiasis, that had plagued millions of people in Africa countries, one of the great achievements in the history of medicine. The drug was also well known as a standard treatment for scabies and lice, from nurseries to nursing homes. A veterinary version keeps millions of family dogs and cats, farm animals, and cattle safe from worms and parasitic diseases. An over-the-counter medicine in France, Ivermectin is safer than Tylenol and “one of the safest drugs ever given to humanity,” Dr. Marik said, with “3.7 billion doses administered in forty years, that’s B for billion, and only extremely rare serious side effects.”

An earlier Australian study, reported in the journal Antiviral Research, showed that Ivermectin, which blocked other RNA viruses like Dengue virus, yellow fever virus, Zika virus, West Nile virus, influenza, the Avian flu, and HIV1/AIDS in vitro, decimated the coronavirus in vitro, wiping out “essentially all viral material by 48 hours.” But more research was needed in human beings.

But by October Marik’s concerns were answered. The studies were well-designed university trials that showed amazing anti-COVID-19 activity at the normal doses used to treat parasites. Though small and endlessly diverse by large, Western big pharma “one-size-fits all” random control trials, the Ivermectin studies were a mosaic of hundreds of scientists and many thousands of patients in trials all over the world, all showing the same remarkable efficacy against all phases of COVID-19 no matter what dose or age or severity of the patient. “Penicillin never was randomized,” Marik says. “It just obviously worked. Ivermectin obviously works.”

Marik was astonished. “If you were to say, tell me the characteristics of a perfect drug to treat COVID-19, what would you ask for?” he said. “I think you would ask firstly for something that’s safe, that’s cheap, that’s readily available, and has anti-viral and anti-inflammatory properties. People would say, “That’s ridiculous. There could not possibly be a drug that has all of those characteristics. That’s just unreasonable. But we do have such a drug. The drug is called Ivermectin.”

If it was universally distributed at a dose that costs ten American cents in India and about the cost of a Big Mac in the United States, he said, Ivermectin would save countless lives, crush variants, eliminate the need for endless big pharma booster shots, and end the pandemic all over the world.

There were no effective, lifesaving, approved COVID-19 treatments that doctors had used to slow down or stop the coronavirus in the history of the pandemic, in any phase of the disease, except the one, corticosteroids, that Marik and company had discovered.

Now they had discovered another treatment, even more powerful, that could save the world.

Surely, Marik thought, the world would listen this time.

As Judy lay dying in Millard Fillmore hospital, her doctors did not have Ivermectin in their treatment bag. But they did have Remdesivir, and they gave a dose to Judy. Manufactured by Gilead Sciences, one of the world’s largest pharmaceutical companies, Remdesivir costs $3,000 a dose. It is the only anti-viral treatment for hospitalized COVID-19 patients approved by the NIH COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel, and as a result is a standard of COVID-19 care in many hospitals, even though many doctors say it doesn’t work, and the WHO recommends against it. It has been shown in studies to have no mortality benefit for COVID-19 patients. (Coincidentally, seven members of the NIH COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel acknowledge in financial disclosures that they have received research support or consultant payments from Gilead, or sit on the advisory board of the $60 billion company). As The Washington Post reported, “Remdesivir may not cure coronovirus, but it’s on track to make billions for Gilead.”

Remdesivir had “absolutely no effect” on his mother, Michael Smentkiewicz says. But Michael refused to accept the reality that nothing could be done. “I’m stubborn, I’m pushy, I’m the loudest guy in the room,” he says. Anguished that they couldn’t enter the hospital to see his mother and comfort her, Michael, Michelle, their families, and friends—eight of them in all—spent New Year’s Eve standing outside the hospital with their hands on the brick wall under her window, praying for her recovery. They linked arms and sang and called out her name to the high square window lit against the dark. “We felt we needed to be on that ground, blessing the doctors, blessing my mother, staking our claim for healing,” Michael says. “My wife said people live on love,” he says, “and they feel you.”

New Year’s Day came. The calendar turned, but Judy was the same. In the morning Michael went by himself to the hospital parking lot and shouted into the cold gray air up toward his mother’s window. “We’re here for you!” he cried. “We’re not ready for you to go! We’re here fighting! We’re not leaving town until you get out of the hospital.”

But by now the Smentkiewiczs believed they needed a miracle. Michael put out a wider appeal to the universe, calling upon some fifty of his “prayer brothers” around the country to pray for his mother’s life. Thoughts and prayers from a wide network centered on the room in the small hospital in Williamsville, New York.

At 11:35 a.m. on New Year’s Day, with the annus horribilis of 2020 finally gone and buried, the universe delivered its answer. That was the morning Jan, Michael’s mother-in-law in Atlanta, who had also been praying for Judy’s life, picked up her phone and thought, “This is how the Lord works in my life. There on my phone is this video and the words ‘Ivermectin’ and ‘COVID.”’

Jan clicked on the link. A large, intense physician, six-foot-one inches tall and lineman-wide with horn-rim glasses wrapping a bald head, was being interviewed on Fox 10 News Now, KSAZ-TV in Phoenix, Arizona. It was Pierre Kory, president and chief medical officer of the FLCCC, who had testified that morning to the U.S. Homeland Security Government Affairs Committee in Washington that he and his colleagues had discovered a drug that could swiftly end the global pandemic and return life on Earth to normal.

Kory is a COVID fixer. He went to COVID-19-wracked hospitals during outbreaks, when patients were dying and doctors were overwhelmed, with the mission to stop the dying and restore order to the ICU. When the pandemic hit, Kory helped prepare the university hospital in Madison to handle a forecast surge. Then he went east to help save New York City when the death rate exceeded that of the medieval plague, taking over as the ICU attending chief at the main COVID ICU at Mount Sinai Beth Israel Medical Center.

“I’m a lung specialist, I’m an ICU doctor. My city is being destroyed by the worst pandemic in a century, and it’s a lung disease, all my friends, the ICU chiefs who trained me and the ones I trained, they’re going out of their minds, people are dying. Are you kidding me? I went to New York to save lives.”

Kory is the son of two New York intellectuals, one a Jewish radiologist who survived the Holocaust, the other a French PhD linguist. He is a New York liberal, renowned pulmonary critical care specialist, award-winning professor and researcher, and a big, brawling, blunt-spoken, and deeply idealistic physician whose lectures are famously a river of eloquence until he gets worked up. Then out comes a torrent of scientific data roiling with moral outrage against medical institutions that turn their backs on human suffering. “I’m a New Yorker,” he says. “I tell it like it is.”

In an impassioned, nine-minute testimony, Kory implored the Senate and the NIH to read his scientific review, later published in the American Journal of Therapeutics, that presented a “mountain of data” showing that Ivermectin stopped all phases of COVID-19. The peer reviewers, including three senior career scientists, two at the Food and Drug Administration, supported Kory’s conclusion that Ivermectin “should be systemically and globally adopted...for both the prophylaxis and treatment of COVID-19.”

It was Tuesday, December 8, and the news was bleak. On CNN Dr. Fauci asked the American people not to get together for Christmas or Hanukah to prevent “a surge upon a surge” after Thanksgiving. There were 286,189 deaths already and new cases and deaths were reaching a “frightening peak” and accelerating faster than ever, ABC News reported. “The end of the pandemic is in sight,” Fauci said. “The vaccine...will end the pandemic and return us to as near normal or normal as possible, but we have to do our part right now.”

Then came the bright, confident voice of the big physician from the Midwest saying that science had discovered a way for schoolchildren to go back to school and workers to work, and for families to put a star on the Christmas tree and candles on the menorah with new hope.

“We have a solution to this crisis,” he said. “There is a drug that is proving to be of miraculous impact,” Kory said. “When I say miracle, I do not use that term lightly. And I don’t want to be sensationalized when I say that. It’s a scientific recommendation based on mountains of data that has emerged in the last three months...from many centers and countries around the world showing the miraculous effectiveness of Ivermectin. It basically obliterates transmission of this virus. If you take it, you will not get sick.”

The scientific evidence was overwhelming, he said. The data from twenty-seven studies, sixteen of them randomized controlled trials, demonstrated, with highly statistically significant, overwhelmingly positive, consistent, and reproducible rates, that people who got sick with COVID-19 were far more likely to quickly get better at home when they took Ivermectin. They didn’t go to the hospital. Housemates of people with COVID-19 who took Ivermectin didn’t get infected. People who got moderately ill in hospitals didn’t go to the ICU; they got better quicker and went home faster. Hospitals didn’t get overrun. The drug even saved elderly, critically ill COVID-19 patients from dying compared to those routinely dying elsewhere. Six prevention studies showed Ivermectin reduced the risk of getting COVID-19 by 92.5 percent, superior to many vaccines. Dr. Hector Carvallo, a professor of medicine at the University of Buenos Aires, gave 788 doctors and other health care workers in three medical centers weekly Ivermectin prophylaxis, with a control group of 407 doctors and others who didn’t get the drug. In the control group 236 people, or 58 percent, “had become ill with COVID.” Among the 788 who got Ivermectin, “no infections were recorded.”

Kory had been working with a senior data scientist in Boston named Juan Chamie, who discovered that Ivermectin dropped case and death rates off the cliff in numerous regions around the world. The huge Indian state of Uttar Pradesh, which with 232 million people would be the fifth biggest country the world, mass distributed Ivermectin to 200 million people last fall and by winter was reporting few if any deaths in the country. The state is still not suffering as badly as its neighbors in that crisis-stricken country. In Peru, tens of thousands of rural residents in eight states often took animal-grade Ivermectin—some in the form of de-worming horse paste—through a large, door-to-door humanitarian mission because doctors and health ministers in the capital city of Lima refused to give the “peasants” the human medicine. But cases and deaths plummeted in the eight rural states to pre-pandemic levels, with no reported harm from the medicine’s impurities, while they soared in Lima, where Ivermectin was not dispensed amongst the ivory towers of medicine.

Kory’s data was corroborated by Dr. Andrew Hill, a renowned University of Liverpool pharmacologist and independent medical researcher, and the senior World Health Organization/UNITAID investigator of potential treatments for COVID-19. Hill’s team of twenty-three researchers in twenty-three countries had reported that, after nine months of looking for a COVID-19 treatment and finding nothing but failures like Remdesivir—“we kissed a lot of frogs”— Ivermectin was the only thing that worked against COVID-19, and its safety and efficacy were astonishing—“blindingly positive,” Hill said, and “transformative.” Ivermectin, the WHO researcher concluded, reduced COVID-19 morality by 81 percent.

Kory nearly broke down pleading with the NIH to review the “immense amounts of data that shows that Ivermectin must be implemented and implemented now,” and reverse its negative recommendation of August 27, when no data was available.

“We have 100,000 patients in the hospital right now dying,” he cried out to the committee. “I’m a lung specialist, I’m an ICU specialist. I’ve cared for more dying COVID patients than anyone can imagine. They’re dying because they can’t breathe. They can’t breathe...and I watch them every day, they die....I can’t keep doing this. If you look at my manuscript, and if I have to go back to work next week, any further deaths are going to be needless deaths, I cannot be traumatized by that. I cannot keep caring for patients when I know they could have been saved by earlier treatment with a drug...that will prevent the hospitalization, and that is Ivermectin.”

Kory’s testimony, titled “I can’t do this anymore” on YouTube, went viral and reached eight million views and counting before being censored by YouTube for “misinformation;” it was the Howard Beale speech that captured the gestalt of a new time. But unlike the fictional newsman in the movie Network who had thousands throwing open their windows with 1970s angst and shouting “I’m mad as hell and I can’t take it anymore!” this prophet was real, and many lives and the fates of nations were at stake.

The reaction was explosive and hopeful all over the world, from doctors, nurses, scientists, and civil rights activists; from people watching their loved ones die from COVID-19 and begging for help. Eighty-five-year-old Nobel Prize winner Ōmura in Japan, a legend in microbiology, promptly asked his research team to translate Kory’s paper into Japanese to be placed on his institute website. Thousands of social media fans were moved by Kory’s bravery and the big heart of a doctor who cared about his patients, hailing him as a knight fighting big pharma, big media, big politics, big everything. “Never give up, Pierre Kory!” implored a young woman in Japan. Overnight, the American doctor was a folk hero to great masses of people weary of death and lockdowns and hungry for things not forgotten—the hush of the theater, the clatter of seats in the classroom just before the teacher started, the wonder of human touch—and a prophet to doctors who saw the Hippocratic Oath subsumed by regulators, politicians, and journalists picking COVID-19 drugs if they worked for Wall Street or Washington, whether the doctor thought they worked for the patient or not.

In South Africa, where use of Ivermectin was criminalized, civil rights activists hung posters with Kory’s data urging revolt, and a group of physicians won permission from the Ministry of Health in Zimbabwe on January 27, 2021 to treat COVID-19 with Ivermectin; case fatalities dropped in one month from seventy a day to two a day, “and our hospitals are virtually empty,” said Dr. Jackie Stone, who was subsequently taken in for questioning for her use of a controversial drug. In Phnom Penh, Cambodia, a doctor trained in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, was using Kory’s data to persuade the Ministry of Health of Ivermectin’s efficacy and was making a personal appeal to the king. “Thank you for your amazing courage and love for humanity,” he wrote. “You’re a real doctor who is living up to the Hippocratic oath. All doctors need to follow your example!!”

In Bath, England, Dr. Tess Lawrie, a prominent independent medical researcher who evaluates the safety and efficacy of drugs for the WHO and the National Health Service to set international clinical practice guidelines, read all twenty-seven of the Ivermectin studies Kory cited. “The resulting evidence is consistent and unequivocal,” she announced, and sent a rapid meta-analysis, an epidemiolocal statistical multi-study review considered the highest form of medical evidence, to the director of the NHS, members of parliament, and a video to Prime Minister Boris Johnson with “the good news...that we now have solid evidence of an effective treatment for COVID-19...” and Ivermectin should immediately “be adopted globally and systematically for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19.”

Ignored by British leaders and media, Lawrie convened the day-long streaming BIRD conference—British Ivermectin Recommendation Development—with more than sixty researchers and doctors from the U.S., Canada, Mexico, England, Ireland, Belgium, Argentina, South Africa, Botswana, Nigeria, Australia, and Japan. They evaluated the drug using the full “evidence-to-decision framework” that is “the gold standard tool for developing clinical practice guidelines” used by the WHO, and reached the conclusion that Ivermectin should blanket the world.

“Most of all you can trust me because I am also a medical doctor, first and foremost,” Lawrie told the prime minster, “with a moral duty to help people, to do no harm, and to save lives. Please may we start saving lives now.” She heard nothing back.

In Charlottesville, Virginia, Dr. David Chesler, an internist/geriatrician for forty-four years with hundreds of COVID-19 patients in six nursing homes, wrote to Dr. Fauci, telling him essentially that he had found the early treatment Fauci was urgently looking for. Dr. Chesler explained that facing the choice with his elderly COVID-19 patients to “either provide my patients with the standard of care, basically first aid, with Tylenol, oxygen and monitoring, until they became sick enough to be sent to the hospital, or to try something more proactive with the hope of the patients not becoming so ill and then losing their lives,” he had since successfully treated “over 200 high-risk COVID patients” with Ivermectin, many over 100 years old, with none dying or needing “heroic” oxygen support. Fauci never replied.

Everywhere the problem was the same, Kory said. The WHO, NIH, and other public health agencies were suddenly recommending only COVID-19 therapies proven by the “gold standard” of large randomized controlled trials of treatment and placebo groups, which were powerful but had several limiting flaws, including the fact that they took months to complete and cost ten to twenty million dollars that only big pharmaceutical companies could afford. They had thrown out all the other time-tested forms of clinical and scientific medical investigation still taught in all the medical schools, such as observational trials (which had eliminated widespread crib death), case histories, and anecdotes. They also restricted the use of essential off-label and generic drugs with blatant disinformation campaigns that reminded Kory of big tobacco’s efforts to hide the dangers of smoking. In effect, the public health authorities eliminated the full toolbox of essential scientific methods and drugs that doctors use every day, including the most effective early, prophylactic, and late-stage treatments for COVID-19, which were developed by frontline doctors, not pharmaceutical companies.

Kory never tires of reminding critics that the modern Hippocratic Oath, the World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki, makes it abundantly clear that all medical research is secondary to the doctor’s clinical judgement in the moment, whether the patient is dying of COVID-19 or giving birth. The doctor is morally compelled to use their best clinical judgement and the “best available evidence” in that instant, not tomorrow or next year when more data is published. As the WMA puts it: “The health of my patient will be my first consideration.” Clearly the medical establishment is now routinely violating that ancient oath, Kory says, and as a result he “feels estranged from most, but not all, of my colleagues.”

In the new world of medicine, the COVID world, he says, “Only big randomized controlled trials by big pharma/big academic medical centers are accepted by big journals, while others are rejected,” while only studies in big journals are accepted by big public health agencies for drug recommendations, and only drugs recommended by big public health agencies “escape media/social media censorship.”

“This leaves you with a system where the only thing that’s considered to have sufficient evidence or proven efficacy is essentially a big new pharmaceutical drug,” he adds. “If it doesn’t come from the mountaintop, it doesn’t exist,” Kory says. “The people on the ground, we cannot do any more science that’s considered credible. We’re discredited as controversial and as promoting unproven therapies and our Facebook groups are shut down, Twitter accounts are locked, YouTube videos are removed and demonetized. It’s really almost totalitarian what’s happening when we’re just well-meaning scientists trying to do the right thing by our patients.”

As Kory left the Senate hearing room that morning in December after his Ivermectin testimony, his face was dark with disgust. The hearing was dead before it started. When Republican Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin (with whom Kory decidedly shares no political sympathies) called the hearing on early COVID-19 treatments, The New York Times ran an advance story eviscerating it as a panel of anti-science kooks promoting “fringe theories,” a “forum for amplifying dubious theories and questionable treatments pushed by President Trump,” including hydroxychloroquine. The hearing was boycotted by all seven Democrats (who have received a total of $1.3 million in big pharma bucks from Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, Gilead, and others), and four of the seven Republicans, including Utah’s Mitt Romney (more than $3 million received from big pharma), Ohio’s Rob Portman ($542,400), and Florida’s Rick Scott (more than $1 million in stock in Gilead Sciences, maker of Remdesivir).

Michigan Senator Gary Peters, the Democratic chairman, walked out after reading an opening statement saying the hearing was “playing politics with public health.” Kory was outraged. “I want to register my offense at the ranking member’s opening statement,” he said. “I was discredited as a politician. I am a physician and a man of science. I’ve done nothing, nothing, but commit myself to scientific truth and the care of my patients.”

But the next day the assault continued. “All the gods of science and medicine” as Marik calls them, descended to crush the little Nobel-Prize winning pill. The New York Times headlined, “A Senate hearing promoted unproven drugs and dubious claims about the coronavirus,” slamming Ivermectin as unproven, but never mentioning Kory or his testimony. In subsequent days, the WHO guidelines committee, after promising a thorough review for months, quashed Ivermectin without a vote, as a lesser advising committee threw out all the strongest evidence first—including the WHO consultant’s own report—and “having thrown out most of the evidence,” Kory said, “they called the remaining few crumbs of very low certainty.”

Ivermectin is the generic name for Merck’s Stromectol, which they developed in 1981. Though the drug went off patent in 1996, Merck still distributes millions of doses each year in Africa for free, with a statue honoring the drug and the great humanitarian eradication effort in its headquarters and one at the WHO in Geneva. But recently Merck issued a stern warning that seemed written by marketing, Kory says, “as it had no scientific data to support the conclusion,” that Ivermectin was suddenly dangerous. Another pharmaceutical company’s CEO privately noted that “People must think Merck knows what they’re talking about because it’s their drug,” but Merck has “tremendous disincentives” to say nice things about the generic pill, as it has already spent hundreds of millions of dollars developing an oral anti-viral COVID-19 treatment, rival to Ivermectin, that may be priced at $3,000 a dose.

A news blackout by the world’s leading media came down on Ivermectin like an iron curtain. Reporters who trumpeted the COVID-19 terror in India and Brazil didn’t report that Ivermectin was crushing the P-1 variant in the Brazilian rain forest and killing COVID-19 and all variants in India. That Ivermectin was saving tens of thousands of lives in South America wasn’t news, but mocking the continent’s peasants for taking horse paste was. Journalists denied the world knowledge of the most effective life-saving therapies in the pandemic, Kory said, especially among the elderly, people of color and the poor, while wringing their hands at the tragedy of their disparate rates of death.

Three days after Kory’s testimony, an Associated Press “fact-check reporter” interviewed Kory “for twenty minutes in which I recounted all of the existing trials evidence (over fifteen randomized and multiple observational trials) all showing dramatic benefits of Ivermectin,” he said. Then she wrote: “AP’S ASSESSMENT: False. There’s no evidence Ivermectin has been proven a safe or effective treatment against COVID-19.” Like many critics, she didn’t explore the Ivermectin data or evidence in any detail, but merely dismissed its “insufficient evidence,” quoting instead the lack of a recommendation by the NIH or WHO. To describe the real evidence in any detail would put the AP and public health agencies in the difficult position of explaining how the lives of thousands of poor people in developing countries don’t count in these matters.

Not just in media but in social media, Ivermectin has inspired a strange new form of Western and pharmaceutical imperialism. On January 12, 2021, the Brazilian Ministry of Health tweeted to its 1.2 million followers not to wait with COVID-19 until it’s too late but “go to a Health Unit and request early treatment,” only to have Twitter take down the official public health pronouncement of the sovereign fifth largest nation in the world for “spreading misleading and potentially harmful information.” (Early treatment is code for Ivermectin.) On January 31, the Slovak Ministry of Health announced its decision on Facebook to allow use of Ivermectin, causing Facebook to take down that post and removed the entire page it was on, the Ivermectin for MDs Team, with 10,200 members from more than 100 countries.

In Argentina, Professor and doctor Hector Carvallo, whose prophylactic studies are renowned by other researchers, says all his scientific documentation for Ivermectin is quickly scrubbed from the Internet. “I am afraid,” he wrote to Marik and his colleagues, “we have affected the most sensitive organ on humans: the wallet...” As Kory’s testimony was climbing toward nine million views, YouTube, owned by Google, erased his official Senate testimony, saying it endangered the community. Kory’s biggest voice was silenced.

But Jan heard him. After a few minutes of watching the interview with Dr. Kory on New Year’s Day morning, she’d heard quite enough. Her fingers flew on a text to her daughter, Haley: “This is the drug Michael’s mother needs to be on...now!!!!...You need to take charge of Nonnis healing.”

Haley showed the text to her husband. But Michael Smentkiewicz wasn’t interested. He was skeptical. A doctor selling a “miracle drug” for COVID on the Internet sounded awfully fishy. “This channel is telling you, ‘You gotta take Ivermectin,’ but you got people like QAnon, conspiracists, telling you what to take,” he said. He and his sister returned to the hospital parking lot to pray, and floated a cluster of mylar balloons, including a pink heart, up to their mother’s window. But nothing was working. Finally, he watched the video, and thought Kory was “incredible,” with top credentials, “and his passion is crazy.” Within minutes, “I called the ICU and told the attending physician, ‘We want my mother to be on this medication.’”

The doctor said no. Ivermectin wasn’t approved for COVID-19, and “we don’t experiment on our patients.” But Michael pushed harder. “I’m a bull,” he said. After several back and forths, a hospital administrator gave approval for one dose, 15 milligrams of Ivermectin. Less than twenty-four hours later, “Mom is off the ventilator.”

The nurses were shocked. Michael was jubilant. The next day his mother was sitting in a chair talking to him on Zoom. But then Judy regressed. They moved her to a cardiac floor, her heart was racing, and “she was going downhill,” Michael says, and he asked the doctor for another dose of Ivermectin. This time the “no” from the doctor and administration was final. That day the family retained Buffalo lawyer Ralph Lorigo, who studied Kory’s video and the FLCCC website and sued the hospital to give their mother more Ivermectin.

Judge Henry Nowak of the New York State Supreme Court agreed to hear the case on an emergency basis as “a matter of life and death.” He ruled that a woman was dying in the middle of a pandemic with no known treatment for COVID-19 and a safe, long-established drug had affected her “miraculous turnround,” and ordered the Millard Fillmore Suburban Hospital to immediately start Judith Smentkiewicz on four more doses of Ivermectin, per her family doctor’s prescription.

The hospital refused to carry out the judge’s order. The hospital’s lawyer insisted on a hearing to make his case that no patient has the right to choose their own medicine. The debate ensued as Judy lay dying. “The world has gone mad,” Kory said. All over the world, people were fighting for their lives not only against the coronavirus but against their national public health societies, their most respected hospitals and long-trusted doctors for the right to use the little generic pill that cracked COVID-19.

Dr. Manny Espinoza was dying of COVID-19 in his Texas hospital when his wife, Dr. Erica Espinoza, asked the doctors to try Ivermectin as a last resort, and was refused. Erica hired a life-flight helicopter to take Manny to the Houston hospital of FLCCC co-founder Joseph Varon for the cheap little pill that in four days had her husband sitting up smiling and telling their children about the “miracle” that saved his life. “We see this every day,” Dr. Varon says. “They say it’s a miracle, I say it’s the science, but it’s the truth.” In Atlanta, Georgia, eighty-four-year-old Lou Gossett Jr., the Oscar-winning black star of An Officer and a Gentleman, gravely ill with COVID-19, checked out of a hospital and was three days from his lungs failing, doctors said, when his son connected him with an FLCCC doctor in Florida who gave him Ivermectin. Gossett quickly recovered and made a very short film for the FLCCC doctors that ends: “I’m very grateful to all of you for literally saving my life.”

In Cushing, Oklahoma (pop. 7,826), Dr. Randy Grellner saw Kory’s testimony and started giving his patients Ivermectin, which he’d used safely for years for parasites, for COVID-19 because he was “tired of the heartache...tired of the misery...I’ve seen enough death and despair.” In a few weeks the overwhelmed clinic dropped from twenty-five new COVID-19 cases a day to two. “The first thing that surprised me was how fast was the recovery in seventy-five and eight-five-year-old people,” Dr. Grellner said. “I know there’s controversy. I have no political motivation. I don’t have any desire except to put husbands and wives back together. If you’re getting problems from an organization that you work for that says you can’t use it, I would question that organization. If we’re not doing what is best for the patient, then we need to find another occupation.”

In Buffalo, after a forty-minute hearing on the fate of Judy Smentkiewicz, the lawyer for the Millard Fillmore hospital agreed that she could take Ivermectin If the family doctor delivered the prescription, and after a lot of hassles (including the hospital couriering Ivermectin from another hospital, “At eleven o’clock that night she was administered the second dose of Ivermectin,” Lorigo says. She immediately started improving. With three more doses of Ivermectin, he said, “she’s off the cardiac floor, she’s back on the COVID floor, she’s cured of COVID, she’s released.”

A week later, Natalie Kingdollar, whose sixty-five-year-old mother Glenna Dickinson was dying of COVID-19 on a ventilator in Rochester General Hospital—the doctors had exhausted all treatment options—read the Buffalo News story of Judy’s recovery, a life-saving flicker in the media blackout, and persuaded the ICU doctors to give her mother Ivermectin. Twelve hours later, after one 12 mg dose that her daughter picked up at Walgreens for eighty-three cents, Glenna’s vitals were much improved. She was “completely stable and doing much better,” Lorigo said. They reduced her ventilator 50 percent, no longer had to “flip” her from her back to her belly for better oxygen flow, and they moved her to a “step down ICU.”

Glenna’s doctor, who prescribed the Ivermectin, is Thomas Madejski, internist and chief of medicine at Medina Memorial Hospital, former president of the New York State medical society, a clinical instructor in medicine and pharmacy at the University of Buffalo, who sits on the Board of Trustees of the American Medical Association as an expert in geriatric medicine. As medical director of a nursing home he says he has successfully used Ivermectin to quell COVID-19 among elderly patients in three New York counties.

Now Dr. Madejski, who has treated Glenna for fourteen years, prescribed a full course of Ivermectin to complete the treatment, and was denied. The ICU doctors and Rochester General refused to administer the medication because Ivermectin isn’t approved to treat COVID-19 by the FDA (the budget of which, as it happens, is 75 percent funded by big pharmaceutical companies). Another state supreme court judge, relying on the science provided by Pierre Kory and the FLCCC, ordered the hospital to dispense a handful more of the pills, per the doctor’s script, and Glenna got off the ventilator and is now home, cured of COVID-19.

A few days before Judy was released from the hospital, the writer of this story was interviewing her son Michael about the happy news that she was headed home, but he said the doctors were waiting a few more days because she was still a little “breathy.” Alarm bells went off in my mind after many interviews with Pierre Kory. I got word to Dr. Kory, who called Michael Smentkiewicz, who heard the doctor’s voice and became emotional. “It’s him, it’s the guy,” he said, holding his phone out for the family to hear. “Listen to his voice.” Kory walked the rehab center through the complicated step-down use of corticosteroids for elderly COVID-19 patients that is more attentive than the one-size-fits-all government protocols, which cause of lot of needless deaths when doctors treat on cruise control, Kory says. After a month in rehab, Judy went home, happy and healthy, to her children and her grandchildren.

She was quite amazed to learn from her children that while she was lying unconscious and near death with COVID-19 she became a front-page story in The Buffalo News and a Joan of Arc figure in a new revolution, the grandmother who won the first legal fight in the battle of Ivermectin. It is an unprecedented civil rights uprising of doctors, nurses, scientists, Nobel-Prize winning biologists, billionaire health philanthropists, civil rights activists, and thousands of ordinary people across Europe, Asia, South America, Africa, Canada, and the United States fighting a global, big-data-driven medical establishment. They’re fighting for the lost little things, the little data—the sanctity of the doctor-patient relationship, the survival of the Hippocratic Oath, and the most important of civil rights, the right to life.

Kory sometimes despairs at the forces against him. “Our little Ivermectin has so many big enemies,” he says. “It’s David versus ten Goliaths.” But word is getting out. More than twenty countries representing some 20 percent of the Earth’s population use Ivermectin, many in their national protocol. Every day it seems Kory hears from someone like the Toronto doctor, a Bulgarian, who used Kory’s data to convince the health ministers in his home country to sign on. Kory talks every day to his growing base of 17,000 Twitter followers, and his peer-reviewed paper on Ivermectin recently exploded online as one of the most-discussed scholarly papers ever posted out of seventeen million tracked by Altmetric.

Every Wednesday night, Kory stars in an FLCCC webinar hosted by former CBS correspondent Betsy Ashton that is an Ivermectin 60 Minutes, with Kory talking to the public and answering their questions. Recently he reported that Mexico, the “light and model of the world,” solved an India-like COVID-19 crisis last fall by testing and treating the population with Ivermectin, and now has some of the lowest case and death rates on the globe. He also posted an interview with a prominent surgeon and hospital owner in Visakhapatnam, India, who treats many COVID-19 patients in the tragic current “COVID tsunami,” and passed on the hopeful news that the All India Institute of Medical Sciences in New Delhi has recently approved Ivermectin for early and home treatment, “a game changer for India and for the world,” the surgeon said. Ivermectin “saved India in 2020 after it got official permission in Uttar Pradesh in August followed by many other states,” he wrote, but starting in January with many political changes, it “has been getting BAD propaganda by big pharma and big scientists,” and many doctors stopped using it, collapsing prevention and home treatment and seeding the crisis of overloaded hospitals and many needless deaths.

“We BEG health agencies and mainstream media in other countries,” the Indian doctor wrote, “NOT to give BAD PROPAGANDA of Ivermectin. Ivermectin is saving India and Africa.”

As he reported the news that night, Kory expressed disgust with “the physician-scientists in the ivory towers and public health agencies” who are “just not getting it;” it was up to doctors now to save lives as the scientists are “completely disconnected to how to treat this disease and what to do.” His mentor takes the longer view. “The saddest thing for us is we know this can make a difference and save lives,” Marik says, “and it seems like nobody really cares and wants to listen to us.” But “we feel we can’t be silenced, we just can’t be, because you know the truth will ultimately prevail.”

“This is how science always progresses,” says Dr. Berkowitz, who takes hope from the recovery of Judy Smentkiewicz. “This is what being a doctor is,” he said. “It says in the Talmud, if you save one life, you save the entire world

Quote from Fm1

he had since successfully treated “over 200 high-risk COVID patients” with Ivermectin, many over 100 years old, with none dying or needing “heroic” oxygen support. Fauci never replied.

Lets hope we will have a Nürnberg II trial and are able to send all these criminals to jail. This includes Boris, and also the new US president - he still can change his mind - and almost all owners of newspapers /TV channels.

But I guess that our world is already to sick and we will end up in war as the final solution...