Hiding Lies. The Deadly World of Rigged Research

How biased and pharma-connected researchers drove the world to fear Ivermectin.

In 2018, a video appeared across the internet of President Obama warning of the dangers of fake news. Only, the video itself was a fake. The image was manipulated, and AI used to create the voice.  Is deception acceptable for a worthy cause? Maybe “yes.” Maybe “no.” What we do know is the institutions and authorities we are accustomed to trusting deceive us on an unimaginable scale.

It was March of 2020 when I 1st realized the research and medical studies we rely on for advances in medicine, that inform doctors, and protect our health were anything but genuine.

My wakeup began when President Trump suggested Americans try hydroxychloroquine as a potential treatment for the COVID-19 virus. A harmless enough call. But within weeks peer-reviewed studies appeared destroying hydroxychloroquine as a COVID treatment warning the public of serious harm, injury, or death if used.

This seemed odd because I know people who have used hydroxychloroquine for rheumatoid arthritis in higher doses and for longer intervals than those recommended to treat COVID. In addition, the military gives soldiers tens of thousands of yearly doses of hydroxychloroquine and there have been no studies suggesting that it posed a threat.

In 2018, the CDC’s own Division of Parasitic Diseases and Malaria recommended hydroxychloroquine for international travelers.  (It’s noteworthy that by 2022 all references to HCQ as a malaria treatment had been expunged from the CDC’s travel site.)

In July 2020, when the Henry Ford Health Systems Study showed HCQ effective at saving the lives of the COVID infected, the work was quickly condemned by Dr. Fauci as “flawed”.

The anti-HCQ movement contradicted years of medical data, yet was so sudden and prolific, I decided to research the new studies. I found design lapses, protocol manipulations, and conflicting conclusions on a scale never thought possible in professional medical publications.  I created a video exposing the failures.

During the past 2 years the public has been fed a regular dose of the same methods used to debunk HCQ redirected to eradicate Ivermectin as an effective treatment for COVID-19 and its variants.

The real crime is drugs like HCQ and IVM have been so demonized, and doctors so threatened for their use,  they are afraid to prescribe treatments that are safe, effective, and inexpensive and it appears, far superior to the vaccines pushed by HHS and pharma. The compromised studies became the basis for the attacks.

Some study manipulations are so transparent they are hard to miss, others bury data in supplemental material and are rarely noticed. Below are some of the ways researchers have distorted studies to “prove” Ivermectin is ineffective against COVID.  In the pharmaceutical world, knowing the truth can save lives.

ACTIV-6 Trials

The original ACTIV-6 Trial studied 1591 adult outpatients with COVID-19. The study concluded, “Among outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19, treatment with ivermectin, compared with placebo, did not significantly improve time to recovery.” 

This conflicts with over 100 studies showing Ivermectin to be highly effective in treating COVID. A little digging shows why the disparity.

Practitioners using Ivermectin successfully tell us:

“Early treatment is critical and the most important factor in managing this disease. COVID-19 is a clinical diagnosis; a confirmed antigen or PCR test is not required. Treatment should be initiated immediately after the onset of flu-like symptoms.”

·         But, rather than begin dosing immediately, the trials began treatments 7 days after enrollment, which means dosing began the 8th day. Experts on the Ivermectin maintain the drug is nearly ineffective after 8 days.

·         The report shows “There were 10 hospitalizations or deaths in the ivermectin group and 9 in the placebo group.” Notice how hospitalizations and deaths are lumped together. What the appendix reveals is there was a single death in the Ivermectin Group. The patient died in the hospital before treatment began. This was still attributed to an Ivermectin death.

·         Next patients were administered Ivermectin for 3 days. As Dr. Pierre Kory cautions, “no antiviral has ever been dosed for such a brief period of time.” Practitioners recommend a minimum of 5 days or until symptoms resolve.

·         Instead of dosing by weight, all patients received the same amount of Ivermectin. Overweight participants were included, assuring that up to 23% of the patients were underdosed.

The ACTIV-6 Trials boast more than 20 research authors. Every one has ties to the pharmaceutical industry. The study was designed to make it impossible for Ivermectin to perform well against the disease or the mRNA injections.

Dr. Kory elaborates on the trial.

Follow-up ACTIV-6 Trial

Between February and July 2022, the ACTIV-6 program conducted a second Ivermectin trial. In this they acknowledged that the original trial offered too small a dose of Ivermectin for too short a period to be effective. They increased the dose, varied it by weight, and extended the treatment period to 6 days.

Still, the study concluded, “Among outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19, treatment with ivermectin, with a maximum targeted dose of 600 μg/kg daily for 6 days, compared with placebo did not improve time to recovery.”

You have only to look at the trial procedures to recognize how the authors managed to get the drug to fail again. “Delivery was tracked, delayed deliveries followed-up on, and participants must have received study drug within 7 days of enrollment to be included.” 

·         Again, rather than begin treatment immediately, Ivermectin dosing began up to 7 days after enrollment, a total of 8 days by which time it was too late for Ivermectin to be effective.

·         The study was estimated to have 80% power, meaning there is a 20% chance the study shows false negatives.

TOGETHER

The TOGETHER trial compared the results of Ivermectin versus a placebo on 1358 patients from 12 public health clinics in Brazil.

The study’s authors concluded, “Treatment with ivermectin did not result in a lower incidence of medical admission to a hospital due to progression of Covid-19 or of prolonged emergency department observation among outpatients with an early diagnosis of Covid-19.”

But the study details tell a different story. Here’s how they got their desired conclusion.

·         In Brazil, Ivermectin is a common OTC treatment for parasitic infections.  The study claims to have “extensive screening”, but nowhere in the study does the screening specifically apply to Ivermectin. It is probable many in the placebo group were already taking Ivermectin.

·         The majority of the Ivermectin group was enrolled early in the pandemic while case fatality rates were much higher. The placebo group enrolled later during the milder variants.

·         Patients were randomized within 7 days of the first symptoms and began dosage on the 8th day. As in the ACTIV-6 trials, this assured minimum efficacy for Ivermectin.

·         The Ivermectin was administered on an empty stomach reducing the absorption rate to 15% to 40% of what current clinical practices suggest is optimal.

·         Treatment was limited to a total of 3 days rather than the prescribed 5 days or more.  (Starting to sound familiar?)

·         The study was capped at a set amount of mg for those 200 pounds or more. According to the study’s body-mass data, this indicates as many as 30% to 50% of the participants received too little medication to  be effective. (And the little dose they did receive was poorly absorbed on an empty stomach and delivered too late in diseas progression to effectively fight the infection.)

The authors conclusion failed to note that buried in the data, the TOGETHER study found that Ivermectin was associated with:

·         a 12% lower risk of death,

·         a 23% lower risk of mechanical ventilation,

·         a 17% lower risk of hospitalization, and

·         a 10% lower risk of extended ER observation or hospitalization. 

You would think that positive news would have made it into the author’s study conclusions. It did not.

That’s how biased researchers make an effective drug look like a failure.

Researchers Charles L. Hooper and David R. Henderson outlined more of the TOGETHER trial’s shortcoming.

Meanwhile, the media crowed the results.

·         “Largest Study of Ivermectin Shows No Protection Against COVID-19 Hospitalizations.”

·         “Clinical Trials Show Ivermectin Does Not Benefit COVID-19 Patients, Contrary to Social Media Claims”

·         “Largest ivermectin trial to date: 'No sign of any benefit'”

Following the skewed trials, none other than the FTX Foundation donated $15 million to support the global expansion of the ‘Trial of the Year’ award winning TOGETHER Trials!

This is the same FTX owned by Sam Bankman-Fried who attempted to gain political favors from the Democratic Party while misappropriating billions of dollars of customer money for personal use.

Each of these studies received massive promotion and headlines around the globe. Yet, they all have a single point in common. They were designed to guarantee that the studied drug, Ivermectin, could not possibly show a significant benefit.

These fraudulent studies, promoted by international governments and the media have influenced physicians and policymakers to deprive their patients of inexpensive, life-saving drugs in favor of costly, unsafe, and ineffective vaccines that we now know are causing injuries and death.

We do not have to stand by and watch this happen. Here’s what we can do to save lives.

1.       Know who you can and can’t trust.

·         It wasn’t Cardiologist, Dr. Peter McCullough, Dr. Pierre Kory, or Prof. Harvey Risch who tried to bury their vaccine studies for 75 years. That was the FDA, CDC, AND PFIZER.

·         It wasn’t Dr. Bhakdi and Dr. Burkhardt who had to refute their pathology results showing 93% of cases examined following post vaccination autopsies died directly from the COVIDS vaccine. It is the  FDA who refuses to release their autopsy results.

·         Harvard University public health student Rushabh Doshi  was not forced to renounce his findings the mRNA vaccines can spread COVID. It was the CDC who walked back the misinformation that vaccines blocked COVID from spreading.

·         It is not the public who hoarded critical lifesaving data on vaccine injuries, but the CDC and their carefully controlled non-public V-Safe database.

Each of the doctors above have been threatened with loss of their board certifications, or licenses, and livelihoods, and maligned in the media.  Dozens of copycat articles have attempted to repudiate their work. Yet, thanks to them and many others, the truth is emerging, and more lives are being saved.

2.       You can read and share trusted information outside the borders of the legacy and government fed media here. Download the free pdf and share the link with your neighbors, and friends. Check out the new expanded section on “Health, COVID-19, Vaccines, and Masks.”  As with all information do your own checking for validity.

3.       Share what you learn with your doctors, nurses, and other medical professionals. This is the fastest way to make a difference and save lives. Here is a pdf handout, ”3 Respected Doctors”, you can fold, place in an envelope, and give your friends and those in your professional support circles.

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn was a prisoner in a Soviet Gulag for 11 years.  He let the world know that communism was not about freedom, but about lies, slavery and violence. In many ways we are beginning to see these 3 spread across our beloved America now. The lies about readily available treatments that can save lives is one example.

We don’t have to be passive victims. At his 1970 Nobel Prize lecture  Solzhenitsyn gave us the answer to holding onto freedom. “One word of truth outweighs the whole world.”

Never allow a lie to stand. Speak up. Share this article with all you know.

Won’t you please share this article with someone you know. Thank you for caring.