The High-Impact Journal Editors Harassment Of The World's Leading Clinical Researcher of Repurposed Drugs in the COVID Pandemic - Part 3

The FLCCC's Flavio Cadegiani performed one of the highest-quality studies in COVID, finding unprecedented reductions in mortality with proxalutamide. He has been under attack ever since.

You really need to read the first two posts (here and here) in this series to fully comprehend the scope and scale of harassment of Dr. Flavio Cadegiani and his colleagues.

So you think the BMJ story is over after they published an attack piece on him in the journal after rejecting the proxalutamide manuscript? Not even close. Get this, two months later, out of nowhere, an editor at The BMJ writes to Flavio to ask him to consider “appealing” the earlier rejection of his trial manuscript.

Wait, what? The BMJ rejected the manuscript after full peer review, and now, two months later, they ask him to submit it again? While, in the interim, they publish a hit-job editorial attacking him for ethical violations and suggesting he was responsible for the deaths of patients in his fully IRB approved, monitored, and well-conducted trial where control group patients were all given standard early treatments instead of placebo. Placebo controlled trials are unethical in the midst of a novel, deadly, viral pandemic. Shocker to hear this I know.

Quick interlude and foreshadowing here, but I am just going to come right out and say it. The BMJ was NEVER going to publish his trial, period. What they were doing here is trying to delay its publication to the world. And that is exactly what they proceeded to do. With this and the below ensuing actions, they ended up further delaying publication.

How do I know this is what they were doing? Recall from my earlier post that the Chief of the Frontiers journals, Dr. Frederick Fenter, tried to do the same thing to us after he retracted our review paper on ivermectin. He too followed that action by inviting us to re-submit to his journal for another full peer review. We thought that was hilarious, quickly declined the “offer,” and began a search for another journal to publish in. Flavio and team unfortunately (and naively) took the bait here. They, like the FLCCC, still retained an implicit faith in “the system” of Science and its “trusted” institutions.

I will just quickly summarize what happened next. The paper was re-submitted, this time with documentation of a commissioned, third-party review by three different scientists that Flavio and his team had requested to review independently. The paper was then accepted by the original four peer reviewers. Good to go, no? No.

A fifth peer reviewer was then assigned to analyze the raw data. He did the review and recommended acceptance. Good to go, no? No.

Then they invited two more peer reviewers. My God. I hope I do not need to explain how absolutely unprecedented this BMJ clown show was. The sixth peer reviewer was the BMJ’s Statistics Editor, who also reviewed the paper and the IPL data and almost recommended acceptance, instead leaving a “concern” over a ridiculous issue around how they randomized the patients (this overblown issue will come up again and again).

The seventh peer reviewer was supposed to do a “statistical analysis” of the paper, whatever that means as it had already been reviewed by six peer reviewers and the BMJ Statistics editor. This peer reviewer preposterously declared “no conflicts of interest.” Wait for it. Wait for it. Here is his bio:

First, COVAX. It is the vaccine pillar of the ACT Accelerator program, an effort that is almost entirely staffed and run by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

Now, CEPI:

It’s really known as a Gates initiative though. From two other articles:

If it can’t get any worse, check out Professor Evan’s comment to Dr. Fauci:

Here is Evans being trotted out to the press to deflect the early concerns over the safety of the mRNA injections:

Anyway, as you might expect at this point, the review by Evans is beyond nuts. First off, he makes numerous comments and concerns on the wrong paper (the outpatient study, not the inpatient study which was the paper under review). Was he drunk or distracted or just could care less? Second, he, like reviewer number six, offerred pseudo-expert mumbo jumbo amplifying what is essentially a minor concern, and certainly not one that would support rejecting the paper. But reject it they did. Many months after first submitting. After five peer reviewers accepted it, they brought in two (yes, two more) bagmen to carry out the hit. Done.

Flavio rebutted by arguing that these “concerns” were actually standard practices within trials and not valid to support such a rejection. He got no reply.

Flavio and his team then submitted their paper to a mid-level journal called Cureus where it successfully passed peer-review and was published.

---

Submission of The Outpatient Study of Proxalutamide: Frontiers in Medicine

The approach taken to retract their other study paper testing proxalutamide in outpatients at Frontiers in Medicine was almost identical to BMJ’s tactics above (and similar to the retraction of our FLCCC review paper on ivermectin at Frontiers in Pharmacology). Apropos of nothing, I point out the following unrelated fact about the Frontiers journals:

I trust I have provided enough evidence to prove that their approach appears to be right out of a playbook that high-impact journals use to get rid of studies that are inconvenient to their Pharma and BMGF masters.

As per my earlier post on the actions taken against Professor Paul Marik by the Sentara Health System, this process is analogous to what is called “sham peer review,” used by hospitals to get rid of any physician on staff whose views become “inconvenient to their interests.” This is what they do. After all the peer reviewers are satisfied, they bring in an anonymous “expert advisor” who concludes the study is invalid by using pseudo-expert sounding mumbo-jumbo statistical concerns that are overblown and yet somehow relied upon to invalidate the study’s findings and support a rejection.

To wit, after the outpatient trial manuscript passed peer review, they did just that. Frontiers in Medicine again brought in an anonymous “outside expert” whose critique made no scientific or statistical sense. It was completely baseless and easily refutable. The mathematician and statistician Dr. Daniel Tausk did a brilliant takedown of this “expert advisors review” here. Complex but masterful.

The authors again rebutted, pointing out to the editors how preposterous and unfounded his/her analysis was. Didn’t matter. Retracted.

---

Both their outpatient and inpatient studies have now been published in Cureus. The inpatient study took 18 months after first submitting the results to the NEJM. 18 months of a lot of people dying while a highly effective drug had been found that could have been used in outpatient as well as inpatient treatment to great effect.

Now, interestingly, Cureus is the same journal that formerly had harassed us when we published our first paper on Itajai’s ivermectin prevention program there. How did they harass us you ask?

Well, after publication, presumed Pharma rats tried to get them to retract our paper by writing to the journal accusing us of not reporting our conflicts of interest. What conflicts of interest you might ask? We wondered the same. Turns out it was that I/we did not disclose our membership in a non-profit medical education and research organization called the FLCCC alliance. A non-profit that does not manufacture, distribute, or sell ivermectin. Another conflict was my private medical practice because I prescribe ivermectin as one of many therapeutics in the care of patients with long haul and vaccine injury syndromes (I do not sell or distribute ivermectin here either). The editors actually took this accusation seriously and threatened to retract. We finally negotiated the following “Correction” that now appears above the article. Check it out (note the “paid consultants” statements of Dr. Cadegiani and Kerr were for minimal amounts and that Dr. Cadegiani had immediately donated):

We really should have just disclosed that we were paid consultants for Pfizer, Merck, Janssen, Boehringer Ingelheim from the start and we would have been fine. You really, really cannot make this stuff up. Check out this comment attacking me under the article by a complete ignoramus who has no idea as to the complexity nor the time that me and my partner devote to the care of our patients. I included a rare but much appreciated defense. Thanks Simon Reich whoever you are.

If this episode has not reached the absolute height of absurdity and corruption, sorry folks, but I am about to take it a step further. Three months ago, right around the same time that Flavio and team finally published their proxalutamide study, the New England Journal of Medicine published a pharmaceutical company sponsored trial (Veru Inc) of a patented drug called sabizabulin. Wanna guess how that drug works? Yep, you guessed it, it blocks androgen activity. They reported a massive reduction in mortality with its use (20.2% vs 45.1%). They also found a reduction in ICU days, mechanical ventilation days, and hospital days. They also found fewer adverse events compared to placebo (?). Question: did the NEJM review Veru Inc’s IPL data? My god. The only thing left to wonder is how much money Biden will pay for this drug.

Finally, know that the FLCCC long ago incorporated combination anti-androgen medicines into our protocols for severe cases, or in patients that did not respond to our first line therapies (we added anti-androgens on April 27, 2021 to be exact - the same time as Flavio’s original submission to the NEJM). Although not as individually potent as proxalutamide, by using a combination of anti-androgen medicines we found incredible efficacy in the many outpatient cases I was managing (I cared for hundreds of patients pro-bono over 15 months until I was forced to start a practice to treat long-haulers and the vaccine injured who are far more complex and require ongoing, careful, chronic care).

In my acute covid patients during that time, androgen-blockade was critical in many cases to keep patients out of the hospital, particularly during what I call “late phase Delta” (the months of September to December 2021) as those patients were quite ill and ivermectin and HCQ alone were not enough to keep them out of the hospital, especially if treatment was started late. For the physicians following FLCCC protocols at the time, they too realized that the anti-androgen therapies saved a lot of lives. With Omicron, until the BA5 variant, the virus was not using the TMPRSS enzyme to enter the cell, so anti-androgens were not needed. They are applicable again with BA.5, but almost never needed as Omicron is a lot easier to treat and first-line therapies work in most. Just never forget the Editorial Mafia blockade of Flavio’s landmark study. Had that been published by the NEJM in when it first passed peer review in June of 2021, it would have saved millions of lives.

---

Now, although Cureus was a lower tier journal than NEJM, the two proxalutamide papers start to get noticed. Two countries (U.S and China) began to show interest in evaluating the use of proxalutamide under an Emergency Use Authorization. And that is when things really start to get out of hand. Proxalutamide was threatening to enter the “COVID marketplace” ruled by Big Pharma. Uh oh.

Part 4 details actions and threats against Dr. Cadegiani that are categorically and substantively of a very different nature than the ones in the first three parts. They are also significantly more troubling and threatening. However, I have just been informed that I cannot at this time publish details of these actions given the current political unrest in Brazil. I fully expect to be able to at some point in the near future. It will definitely be in the book.

---

I just want to say thanks to all my subscribers, especially the paid ones! Your support is greatly appreciated as it allows me to devote what is often large amounts of time I spend researching and writing my posts, so again, thanks.

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 We are organizing the world’s first conference on understanding and treating Spike protein induced disease (i.e long haul COVID and vaccine injury syndromes). Tell your doctor to come. Link below:

P.P.P.S. I am writing a book about what I have personally witnessed and learned during Pharma’s historic Disinformation war on ivermectin. Pre-order here for: