This first section of this week’s news capsule is one you might wish to bookmark for when you have a chunk of time to yourself. But if now’s a good time for you to dive in, put on your scuba gear. We’re taking a deep dive so you can see how the New England Journal of Medicine — and the deferential media that has become subservient to an orchestrated COVID-19 narrative—have once again conspired to deceive. Deceptions—while loathsome indeed—can often be benign in their impact. But this? Uh…NO. THIS is an unchecked, vicious malignancy that can only be surmounted by a steady truth drip. So here we go.
Start HERE. This is a chronicle of every flaw that has been uncovered (to date) in the FLAW-dulent TOGETHER trial. Knowingly including —and subsequently submitting— corrupted data and protocols in such a well-publicized and critical trial constitutes something other than mere “flaws.” It’s called FRAUD. Fraud that has been perpetrated on every person on the planet and abetted by one of the most venerated medical journals on the planet. The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM).
The NEJM did not retract their study. Nor did the New York Times retract or amend its story which relied on fraudulent data. They gleefully screamed out the headline that ivermectin did not impact COVID hospitalizations—though had they taken the time to read and analyze the data, they would have known that the trial actually showed a BENEFIT for the use of ivermectin.
Once you have reviewed the study (whose myriad flaws pointed out by numerous scientific experts are summarized in the image above), it would be an act of great humanitarianism to write to Carl Zimmer, the author of the story in the Times. ([email protected]) The humanitarian part comes in when you SHARE your letter on social media with the hashtag #TogetherFail. Maybe Mr. Zimmer does not yet know his story is standing on a firm foundation of flimsy feathers. Help him out, OK?
Author Daniel Horowitz’s article is a must-read. “[The media] know that this paper is so riddled with problems that anything else that is not narrative-protected would have been rejected on these grounds.”
On Substack, Alexandros Marinos writes that, there was “no mention of ivermectin in the exclusion criteria…This one issue is probably sufficient to disqualify the study on its own, unless there has been an obvious omission in the materials shared. People taking ivermectin may have been in the control group. Dr. Ed Mills (the trial lead) had indicated there isn’t much ivermectin use in the general community in Brazil and stated that the half-life was so short for ivermectin that it shouldn’t be a major concern. In fact, ivermectin is easily available over the counter in Brazil, was recommended by the government, and there are reports from the time of the trial reporting 9x growth in sales around the area of the trial.”
Dr. Tess Lawrie of Bath, England—Director of E-BMC Ltd, and E-BMCsquared CiC, a community interest research company—is often referred to as the world’s “The Conscience of Medicine”. She reports that the overall estimate of the effect of ivermectin on mortality from COVID suggests an average 55% reduction in deaths for the group that received ivermectin compared with those that did not. “Whenever new trial data comes along, as with the Together trial, it is essential to put it in context,” writes Dr. Lawrie. “That is, it must be evaluated in relation to all the relevant and reliable evidence available.” Indeed.
Watch the April 6 FLCCC Weekly Update. During the program, Dr. Pierre Kory and Dr. Flavio Cadegiani walked viewers through the litany of flaws and frauds in the trial.