The Global Disinformation Campaign Against Ivermectin Part 2- The "Fix" at the WHO

How the biggest battle in the war on ivermectin was won by Big Pharma and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

In Part 1 of this series on the corruption leading up to the WHO’s non-recommendation of ivermectin in the midst of a global pandemic, I reviewed Doctor Andrew Hill’s role as the lead researcher for the WHO/Unitaid/BMGF team that was studying ivermectin. I detailed the initial interactions between myself, Paul Marik, Tess Lawrie, and Andy Hill. I ended with presenting the evidence of numerous manipulations of his review paper by unidentified colleagues (co-conspirators really).

---

So, who was the person making all the changes attacking ivermectin in Andy’s paper? Not mentioned during the recorded meeting with Tess Lawrie and Andrew Hill, but Hill later referenced a person named Dominique Costagliola. What is fascinating is that Phil Harper, acting as a journalist (which he is), actually got Andrew Hill to meet him for coffee in London to do an interview about ivermectin. He purposely gave Andy the sense that he was a “friendly” reporter doing a hit piece on ivermectin. By the time of that interview, Andy had been actively attacking the evidence in support of ivermectin. I suspect he was probably eager to take advantage of yet another opportunity to please his paymasters. Phil even got Andy to confirm that he had been discussing the paper with Dominique Costagliola during that earlier time period and that she had been advising him in some way. Twitter users quizzed her on it and she too confirmed it.

Note that although this tweet above remains public, if you look at the thread underneath it you discover several other tweets by her on the topic that have since been deleted. Curious no?

One still public tweet includes about the dumbest public defense imaginable on whether she had influenced Andy Hill’s paper. Check it out:

She must have forgotten that Pharma money as well as email, telephone and video communication technology was available at the time which would have allowed one person to influence another when separated by great distances and institutions. Insane.

So what did Phil find out about Dominique Costagliola? 

1. She is the Deputy Director of the Pierre Louis Institute of Epidemiology and Public Health in France. 

2. She speaks English as a 2nd language (this is important as the other “influencer” of Andy that you will soon meet below is English)

3. She had a history of attacking ivermectin, starting very soon after my testimony on the 19th of December 2020, as evidenced in this article “fact checking” the idea that ivermectin was effective in COVID. That article essentially started the narrative refrain we hear about still to this day - “the trials were are small, low quality” and that “proper, large rigorous” (i.e. Pharma controlled) trials are needed to validate the findings.

1. She is a Pharma-conflicted individual just like all the other research and regulatory agency operatives working against ivermectin. She receives lecture fees from nearly every corporation with a competing product against ivermectin.  Janssen, Gilead, Merck-Sharp & Dome (biopharmaceutical company), Viiv, Innavirvax and Merck Switzerland. She has taken money in the form of lecture fees, personal fees, and travel and meeting expenses.

I maintain that she is the one who inserted that bizarre weird phrase that no researcher or scientist would ever put in their conclusion, you know the one about “regulatory approval.” Phil discovered that in March 2021, she even used the same phrase in a tweet:

Again, no clinician or researcher thinks about regulatory authorities, we just do research and publish it. Ok, so Andy let others influence the report of his findings. It was a paper on a preprint server and although it got global attention, it was a pre-print, not published in a high-impact journal etc. The call for waiting for “large, well conducted trials” is exactly how Pharma will put the genie back in the bottle. Pharma was already busy designing trials like the TOGETHER trial, demonstrably one of the most fraudulently conducted in history. Yet it still managed to get published in the top medical journal in the world. Science.

What Phil discovered next, to me, is the “Scoop of the Century” given that I call what these people and others (Hi Billy G!) did to ivermectin, the “Crime of the Century.” Phil discovered who was really in control of both Andy and the evidence supporting ivermectin. It was the Professor that Andy had mentioned to me in our first ever conversation.

Phil discovered the Professor’s identity by simply looking at the “meta data” embedded in the PFD file of the preprint paper. It was finalized on the computer of Professor Andrew Owen of the University of Liverpool in the days leading up to the posting. Whoa. Thus, this was the same Professor that had suggested to Andy to “look into ivermectin” in November of 2020.

On what evidence do I make this claim? Not only the fact that Andy’s paper was doctored on the computer of Professor Owen but also on his insane conflicts of interest against ivermectin. Again, I maintain he was getting Andy to do “opposition research” without Andy knowing he was working for the other side at the time. Owen’s Big Pharma conflicts with competing products to ivermectin are unparalleled. Costagliola’s pales in comparison. To wit:

1. Owen studied molnupiravir for Merck, a direct competitor to ivermectin

2. Owen received research funding from ViiV Healthcare, Merck, Janssen, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Abbott Laboratories, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Tibotec, Roche Pharmaceuticals and Bristol-Myers Squibb.

3. Owen received consultancy fees from Gilead (another drug whose market ivermectin would decimate).

4. Owen is the Project Lead of the Center for Excellence in Long-Acting Therapeutics Program (CELT) at The University of Liverpool. CELT received $40 million from UNITAID on January 12, 2021 (the importance of this financial influence simply cannot be overstated, so I won’t. Just let it sink in for a moment). Further:

   1. CELT studies ways to use lipid nano-particles in pharmaceuticals, which is a foundational technology of the COVID mRNA vaccines.

   2. The UNITAID grant was shared with a spinoff start-up company in which Andrew Owen was the top shareholder. Phil Harper finds it possible that the grant agreement may have granted Unitaid to “have a say” in the conclusions of any research it commissions. Andy basically told Tess that. A FOIA request by Phil for a copy of the grant agreement was denied, so I suppose we will never know. But we know.

The next 3 paragraphs were taken directly from Phil Harper’s even more detailed post on Andrew Owen here:

On the very same day that the $40 million CELT deal was announced, the University of Liverpool also announced that it would be studying two new ‘groundbreaking’ therapies for COVID-19. They received “over £3m of investment from GlaxoSmithKline and Vir Biotechnology” to conduct this research. Notice that this was an investment, not a grant. The two therapeutics they were investigating were VIR-7831 and VIR-7832, novel therapies for COVID owned by the two companies. Andrew Owen was a part of that study. More than a year after the investment, no results have been published, with only an update on the recruiting progress for the planned trial. 

So, he was part of a Sotrivimab study which received £3 million. That no results were published from a £3 million investment didn’t seem to matter. Five months later, rebranded as Sotrivimab, the drug was given the thumbs up by the European Medicines Agency. By December, 220,000 doses had been ordered in a procurement deal worth up to $60 million. A course of Sotrivimab costs at least $275, around 100x the cost of Ivermectin.

1. Like all drugs coming to market in the EU, Sotrivimab must be compared with other available medicines before approval is granted. This is a key point that’s worth remembering whenever thinking about why there was a global war attacking Ivermectin:

   

   Comparing drugs to existing medicine is part of the process of bringing new drugs to the market. Source.

Now, the importance of what I am about to reveal is inestimable in its impact on depriving the entire world of access and use of a life-saving drug to treat COVID.

Andrew Owen was also given the responsibility to prepare the evidence base upon which the World Health Organization would make their recommendation to not use ivermectin “outside of a clinical trial” on March 31,2021.

A Professor swimming in financial conflicts of interests with pharmaceutical companies that had products directly competing with ivermectin in the now global “COVID marketplace” was put in charge of assessing the ivermectin evidence for the most powerful health care organization in the world.

As if that is not absurd enough, Owen’s conflicts of interest are not mentioned in the WHO recommendation document. Instead what appears is:

“Web searches did not identify any additional interests that could be perceived to affect an individual’s objectivity and independence during the development of the recommendations.’

What an absolute travesty. Conflicts of interest are discovered by asking the individual researchers to report them voluntarily. I have never ever heard of looking for them using “web searches.” I have literally run out of words to describe the nefariousness (OK, found one) of these actions.

In Owen and his colleagues assessment of the evidence base for ivermectin, what they did to suppress the evidence of efficacy was so openly corrupt, I immediately wrote a white paper about their brazen manipulations of the existing evidence (which I spent many many days on). The FLCCC sent out the paper via press release, trying to disseminate it as far and wide as we could. Good ole’ FLCCC. The Bad News Bears trying to take down the Yankees with a white paper. We tried folks.

My paper extensively detailed how they whittled down the evidence base to as few trials as possible, using arbitrary exclusion criteria. Then they graded the few remaining trials that showed large, positive effects as “low quality” and a large Pharma conflicted trial that showed no benefit as “high quality.” What is fascinating is that despite the fact that even amongst the paucity of remaining trials left, a massive reduction in mortality was found. They found a life-saving medicine in COVID. Yet they stated that this conclusion was of such “low certainty” it should not be acted on. Science baby. Disgusting.

Here are two slides summarizing their actions from a lecture I gave on an FLCCC webinar trying to expose this historic corruption:

Note that not one major media science journalist in the world bothered to call attention to these actions. Not one country’s health care leadership or government dared to object.

They reported 70 deaths per 1000 in the standard-of-care treated patients vs. 14 deaths per 1000 in ivermectin treated patients. An 80% reduction in mortality. Let me repeat that. An 80% reduction in mortality. Remdesivir doesn’t do that. Paxlovid doesn’t do that. Molnupiravir doesn’t do that. Monoclonal antibodies don’t do that. And Owen had conflicts with three of these “competitors” (it was not even close to a competition, except in price and profit potential).

See below. Note they grade the evidence as having “very serious imprecision.” Without going too deep, downgrading the quality of the evidence to the degree they did based on imprecision is simply wrong when the treatment effect is so large, the outcome prevented is death, and the medicine is one of the safest, least expensive, and most widely available in the world. Had I had a seat at the committee table I would have raged at this. But they don’t invite people like me onto captured regulatory agency committees. Because I don’t take Pharma money. Never have. Never will.

The most absurd statement in the recommendation was the one below. It was used to justify why they were recommending “against use outside of a clinical trial” despite finding a massive impact on mortality. Note how they even suggest there might be harms to using ivermectin, which is ludicrous and they knew it. I have never stopped being infuriated at whoever wrote these sentences:

So, what they are saying in the above superficially erudite, albeit sociopathic paragraph is that, in the WHO Guideline Committee’s opinion, based on some Pharma-conflicted academic blowhard’s opinion that the evidence showing an 80% lower risk of dying was of “low certainty,” the average human on Earth would prefer to not be treated with ivermectin “outside of a clinical trial.” I am again at a loss for words here. I didn’t know that the average breathless or dying COVID patient would so interested in supporting medical research with one of the safest medicines in history unless it was part of a Big-Pharma controlled clinical trial. What an unconscionably depraved opinion.

Now read the language underlying the corrupt recommendation which followed:

Reasonable cost? It takes a lot of money to corrupt those trials and researchers, just ask Ed Mills, the Principal Investigator of the fraudulent TOGETHER ivermectin trial in Brazil. Hey Ed, how are those Big Pharma research contracts coming in lately? Fast and furious?

Had the WHO recommended ivermectin, even using one of the conditional or “weak” recommendations available to them, it would have changed history and saved millions of lives across the world. Physicians would have adopted it globally at a time when there was no “official” early treatment option for COVID outside about a dozen low and middle income countries that had adopted ivermectin into their national or regional guidelines. A weak recommendation would have changed history by mitigating the disastrous scale and trajectory of the pandemic. And it would have prevented us from being subjected to the subsequent holocaust unleashed by lethal vaccines.

Quick interlude: if anyone reading this thinks that ivermectin doesn’t work in the treatment of COVID, you need to ask yourself why so much covert and duplicitous effort was put into distorting the evidence base showing efficacy of the drug. If it didn’t work, none of these actions would ever have been necessary. None. Because if the drug didn’t work we doctors would not have used it. I would know within my first 2-3 patients that it was doing nothing. It’s not that hard to tell if a drug works in a viral syndrome whose course, trajectory, and expected outcome is well known to an experienced clinician. Zelenko figured it out quick and went public about it. Peter McCullough, Harvey Risch, Thomas Barody of Australia, Dider Raoult of France, Andrea Stromezzi of Italy, America’s Front-Line Doctors and many others had quickly identified numerous effective early treatment options in early 2020. If only the world had listened to all of them from the beginning.

The analysis and arguments the WHO employed were so obviously corrupt yet no resistance was mounted by anyone on Earth (except for our little FLCCC white paper). Those actions still give me the “fantods” as my favorite author David Foster Wallace used to write. And that is how the biggest battle in the war on ivermectin was won. Andy Hill, Andrew Owen, Dominique Costagiola and their Pharma and BMGF sponsors killed Ivermectin at the global level. Fauci and his minions, using the captured U.S media, killed ivermectin in the U.S. Every advanced health economy had a Fauci-like figure who did the same. Despite my hatred of these individual’s actions, I agree with Phil Harper, that what happened is not really about two or three individuals. It is about a system that has immense power to influence the actions of the average human. Most humans are powerless against that system. Andy Hill et al were no exception. If it wasn’t those three that did it, it would have been three others.

Andrew Owen profited from his complicity with that system, while I think Andrew Hill simply submitted due to cowardice at the prospect of destroying his livelihood and future career prospects. Mess with BMGF and you are done in international Public Health. Done. So he did not have the courage or integrity to become a whistleblower. I still believe that Andy did not know he was doing opposition research at the beginning of his investigation into ivermectin. But, judging by the actions taken subsequent to the publication of his later, profoundly positive paper supporting the use of ivermectin, it is hard to argue he is not actively working for them now. They got him. They always do.

Why do I say this? Well, after his contract ended with Unitaid on April 1, 2021 (he never revised that pre-print by the way), he continued to work on his meta-analysis which later included an increasing number of positive trials. He did this work with funding from the Rainwater Foundation, a philanthropic organization that has done phenomenal work in funding research in COVID. Andy’s later published paper below was astoundingly positive (and ignored across major media and our health agencies). Note just how differently his findings were from the WHO’s. Below is from a slide I made for an FLCCC webinar:

But here is where things go south, again. Very soon after, a major “problem” arose. One of the studies he included was supposedly discovered to be fraudulent, the one by Elgazzar et al from Benha University in Egypt. The circumstances around the discovery of ElGazzar’s supposedly fraudulent source data for the trial was bizarre and I won’t go into it here but let’s just say there were inconsistencies and oddity’s around just how the source data was found and whether it was truly his source data.

ElGazzar told me and Tess when we reached out to him that what was publicly being attacked for fraudulence was “not his source data.” Although I wanted to believe him, he then went quiet real quick and nary an attempt at publicly defending himself was heard again. I do believe it lies within the realm of possibilities (ya think) that Pharma got to him. It was exactly what they needed as they were starting to lose the evidence-based-medicine battle due to increasingly positive trials being reported on an almost weekly basis. Andy’s paper must have struck terror into the enemies of ivermectin. It looked like the ivermectin side (the side of Truth) was starting to gain the upper hand. Egyptian researchers have a history of publishing fraudulent, made-up trials. Maybe that is why they picked him to go after?

Note that Open Forum Infectious Diseases is considered a high quality journal. With that one report of a supposedly fraudulent trial, combined with new and increasing allegations on other trials by two barely published (except on social media) “researchers” (I am being generous here) who started working with Andy, they were able to smear the entire evidence base in the media by constructing a new narrative that “a significant amount of the ivermectin trials are suspected to be fraudulent.” Of course this narrative was always paired with the refrain of “larger, more rigorous studies are needed to validate the evidence base.”

Now, the WHO had bombed ivermectin back into relative insignificance. But Andy’s paper was fueling a comeback for ivermectin. I maintain that the paper and it’s conclusions had to disappear. And disappear it did. How you ask? Well, it got retracted. Just like my comprehensive, wickedly positive review paper at the Frontiers in Pharmacology journal was suddenly retracted despite passing peer review by 4 expert level scientists (a story for another time). Just like Tess’s systematic review and meta-analysis was retracted despite passing peer review at the Lancet Respiratory Medicine Journal.

But get this, the Journal did not retract his paper. Andy himself retracted it. Note that we ended up publishing our (formerly retracted) paper in the American Journal of Therapeutics. And we did so simply by submitting the same “retracted” version of the paper to the editor along with detailed documentation of the three rounds of rigorous peer review it had gone through at Frontiers in Pharmacology. After the ElGazzar “scandal,” all we did to our published paper was update it with a “corrigendum.” Were simply removed ElGazzar’s data from our paper’s analysis. The conclusions of our paper did not change. Tess also did the same and her conclusions were not changed (she too had published in the American Journal of Therapeutics). Andy went further. Much further.

Here is what he did. He removed ElGazzar’s data and then re-calculated the impact of ivermectin on mortality, but used only trials graded as “low risk of bias.” That left only four trials to estimate mortality. And in those trials, there was no longer a statistically significant impact on mortality. He then went public with his finding that “there was no longer an impact on mortality.” Right in front of the world’s eyes, so brazen and unsubtle, yet no-one cared or was paying enough attention nor understood how evidence based black magic is practiced. But the FLCCC did. Tess did. I was demoralized at what I was witnessing. I just couldn’t believe it. So I lost it one night.

What happened is that I saw the below tweet by Andy a few weeks after the self-retraction of his paper. His original tweet is no longer on Twitter, but I found the text of the tweet on reddit.

I am not sure what I was doing up at 3:41 a.m but I became enraged (probably couldn’t sleep due to the angry clown world we were living in - and still are). So I fired back. With an expletive. Two of ‘em in fact. Whoops.

Not proud of that tweet but I also don’t regret it. However, I did delete the tweet the next day after being counseled to do so by highly respected colleagues (namely Bobby Kennedy Jr who I deeply admire).

Andy’s latest contribution to Medicine is this piece of opposition research below. I don’t think more needs to be said about it than the title.

It is now time to watch the short documentary made by Tess Lawrie’s husband which features Tess, Paul and myself. It is called “A Letter to Andrew Hill” and brings to life all that I have documented in these posts in a truly powerful albeit disturbing way. I have trouble watching it to this day.

To be fair, even if Andy had stuck to his guns or become a whistleblower, they would have destroyed him, somehow, someway, likely with fake accusations calling into question his credibility or skill or just by claiming all the trials were fraudulent. Maybe he knew that, who knows. The reality is that you can't do this alone. I think the only reason why we in the FLCCC “survived” (relative term) is that we were a group. And although we’ve suffered greatly, we did it together, mutually supporting each other during all the low points, both emotionally, spiritually, and even financially. Paul's career ended, Umberto's career ended, Joe's hospital is now closed, I've lost three jobs, and Flavio got accused of “crimes against humanity” at the International Criminal Court (his case was quickly dropped as it was an insane accusation but that is what they do).

But we keep going, backed by a team of some of the biggest hearted, ethically driven, committed and courageous “warriors” that an organization could ever ask for. Here’s to the entire FLCCC team. You know who you are and what you do. Here’s to all of our generous donors and followers and supporters. All the positive and supportive comments on our webinars are a major inspiration to us. Especially all the letters and testimonials and heartfelt gratitude. It is what keeps us going and we thank you all. Go FLCCC Army!

---

I just want to say how much I appreciate all the subscribers to my Substack, and especially the paid ones! Your support is so greatly appreciated.

P.S. I opened a tele-health clinic providing care not only in the prevention and treatment of acute COVID, but with a specialized focus on the study and treatment of both Long-Haul and Post-Vaccination injury syndromes. If anyone needs our help, feel free to visit our website at www.drpierrekory.com.

P.P.S. I am getting professional help (hah!) to write a book about what I have personally witnessed and learned during Pharma’s historic Disinformation war on ivermectin. Pre-order here for: