Steve Brown *, February 25th 2022
Ivermectin proves much better than vaccines in fighting Covid-19, says a new study from the American Medical Association Journal (JAMA). That means the CDC, FDA, NIH, WHO, Dr Anthony Fauci and mainstream media are spreading misinformation
This new study in JAMA provides ‘gold-standard’ proof that the government, its agencies, Dr Fauci, and the media have been deceiving you about Covid-19. But you won’t know it unless you read the entire paper from beginning to end. That is because the “abstract” for this study – the short summary at the beginning that describe what the study does, and what its results are – totally misrepresents the data presented in the study itself.
Which means that doctors and science reporters – who have no time to plow through long, complex medical articles, but rely almost totally on abstracts – will come away with the wrong impression. They will believe that the study shows that vaccines are safer and more effective than ivermectin -- even though it actually shows the reverse.
Here is what you should know.
Just days ago, on February 18, JAMA published a paper titled Efficacy of Ivermectin Treatment on Disease Progression Among Adults. The data in that paper clearly shows that if you want to survive Covid-19, you should ignore the CDC’s recommendation to get vaccinated, and instead take ivermectin --which the CDC strongly (and scarily) warns you not to take.
But the abstract doesn’t say that. What it does say is: “The study findings do not support the use of ivermectin for patients with COVID-19.” And that is what doctors and science reporters, who only read abstracts, will believe and report to the world. But they will be mistaken.
At this point, you might ask -- How do I know that the abstract misrepresents the article? Am I a doctor? Did I read through the entire JAMA article? No, but several doctors did read through the entire JAMA article. They were aghast at how brazenly the abstract misrepresented the data. One of those doctors was Pierre Kory, former Chief of the Critical Care Service and Medical Director of the Trauma and Life Support Center at the University of Wisconsin.
Kory is considered one of the world pioneers in the diagnosis and treatment of critically ill patients. He is currently President of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC), and his video testimony before Congress -- about ivermectin’s ability to prevent and cure Covid-19 -- went viral. It got more than 10 million views on YouTube within the first 10 days of posting. This upset Anthony Fauci and the giant drug companies, which were pocketing billions by selling vaccines to the U.S. and foreign governments. So (under who knows what kind of pressure) YouTube took down the video , which is perhaps the first time in history that a private company has censored the U.S. Congress). But pirate copies of the video clip began popping up all over the internet, and you can still view Kory’s remarkable testimony HERE.
Kory analyzes the JAMA article in meticulous statistical detail. He shows how the abstract betrays the data in order to mislead the public. But his analysis may be tough to follow, so you might want to check out this easier-to-absorb summary of its key points in this blog post by Steve Kirsch.
You might also ask -- Why on earth would JAMA falsify the conclusions of its own paper? How does that make sense? After all, JAMA is not only one of the most trusted and authoritative medical journals in the U.S.; it is also the most widely circulated general medical journal in the world, with more than 290,000 recipients of the print journal, more than 1.6 million recipients of electronic tables of contents and alerts, and over 44 million annual visits to the journal's website, plus more than 970,000 followers on Twitter and Facebook. Why would this pillar of international medical authority jeopardize its reputation by playing fast and loose with the truth?
Perhaps because JAMA, like every other medical journal, knows on which side its bread is buttered. According a February 24 article in The American Scholar (a very good article, which everyone ought to read): “Medical journals are utterly dependent upon pharmaceutical advertising, which can provide between 97 and 99 percent of their advertising revenue.” So it can be assumed that theowners of every medical journal send a very clear -- albeit unstated -- message to their publishers and editors. Which says: “Don’t f**k with our advertisers!"
So although doctors are ethically motivated and want to do what is best for their patients, the billionaire owners and CEOs of pharmaceutical companies couldn’t care less. They have bought and paid for our elected officials with huge campaign contributions, and have corrupted our medical journals with lavish advertising budgets, the cessation of which would force them to stop publishing.
The unsavory and corrupt alliance between the drug industry, on the one hand, and the medical journals that are supposed to keep them honest, on the other, is spectacularly rewarding to both parties. The journals reap millions of dollars in advertising revenue, and the drug companies reap billions of dollars in profits generated by their advertisements. This study shows that drug company ads in professional medical journal generate much higher profits than drug ads in consumer publications. If a consumer is influenced by an ad, it represents the possibility of only a single purchase, But if one doctor or hospital administrator reads an ad in a medical journal, it could result in hundreds or even thousands of purchases of that drug for patients of the doctor or hospital.
For every dollar spent on advertising in medical journals like JAMA, drug companies receive back $5.00 in revenue. Not bad, especially if one knows that a typical ROAS (Return On Ad Spending) in other industries is only 2.87:1.
The public is reluctant to face the obvious fact that medical journals routinely deceive doctors and science reporters to satisfy their lavish drug company advertisers. This is not merely my own dyspeptic assumption. It is shared by many professionals, such as Marcia Angell, MD, who says, “There’s a lot of bribery involved.” Angell should certainly know, since she is professor of social medicine at the Harvard Medical School, former editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine (which is even more prestigious than JAMA), and the author of The Truth About the Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What to Do About It.
To please their drug company advertisers, medical journals collude with them to downplay or obscure the adverse side effects of their drugs. As Angell also notes, “Silence reigns on side effects.” When she was editor, she reports:
“When we would spot bias and turn down a paper at the New England Journal of Medicine, we’d call the author to point out, ‘You didn’t mention side effects.’ He would say ‘The sponsor wouldn’t let us do that.’ Later, the paper would turn up unchanged elsewhere, in another journal.”
Another article, which questioned the safety of a drug being advertised by a large drug manufacturer, was rejected for publication by the editor of another prominent medical journal. The editor said this was because, “unfortunately, I have been overruled by our marketing department with regard to publishing your editorial …[which] apparently went beyond what our marketing department was willing to accommodate.”
Adverse drug effects have always been conveniently obscured by the media, as they were obscured for Merck’s wildly profitable drug Vioxx, which was prescribed to over 80 million people. Merck knew (as we know from their internal correspondence) that Vioxx was trigging strokes and heart attacks that eventually killed 60,000 people, but the drug was so profitable that they kept it on the market for 5 years, until public pressure (not, it should ne noted, pressure from the FDA) forced its recall. Not a single Merck executive lost his job, let alone went to jail, and Merck settled all claims against it for $4.85 billion. That may seem like a lot, but not when you know that Merck’s revenue from Vioxx was $5 billion per year, or a total of $25 billion. Paying $4.85 billion to earn $25 billion is a good business model, and an encouragement for Merck and every other drug company to continue lying to the public.
There is just so much money sloshing around in the drug industry that bribery and conflict of interest are the norm, not the exception. As The American Scholarnoted in its article of February 24:
Once, conscientious journals did not permit reviewers to take money from drugmakers. But so many physicians began to take Pharma money to subsidize their research, to give speeches on behalf of favored new products, and to switch their patients to newer, more profitable medications, that working as a medical reviewer in the pay of drugmakers has become normalized. Today, medical-journal editors estimate that 95 percent of the academic-medicine specialists who assess patented treatments have financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies, and even the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine gave up its search for objective reviewers in June 1992, announcing that it could find no reviewers that did not accept industry funds.
So although it may be immoral for JAMA to falsify the abstract of its paper to please the makers of vaccines who advertise in its pages, it is not unusual. Media genuflection to the wishes of drug companies is responsible for the widespread underreporting of Covid vaccine side effects, such as blood clots, heart attacks, strokes and miscarriages. The many deaths caused by these vaccines – more deaths in just one year than caused by all vaccines in history combined – are also underreported or covered up, as exposed by this recent New York Times article of February 20.
If you want to know the truth about ivermectin’s ability to prevent and cure Covid-19 – safely and more effectively than the vaccines so vigorously promoted by establishment propaganda -- stop believing what you hear from the government or read in the media. Instead, visit the website of Frontline Covid-19 Critical Care Alliance. Unlike the drug companies, the doctors who run this site have no axe to grind, only a desire to find the truth and use it to save lives. Here is their latest Summary of the Evidence for Ivermectin as a Prevention and Cure for Covid-19.
I can do no better than close with this chilling overview by PubMed:
Our prescription drugs are the third leading cause of death after heart disease and cancer in the United States and Europe … Our drug agencies are not particularly helpful, as they rely on fake fixes, which are a long list of warnings, precautions, and contraindications for each drug, although they know that no doctor can possibly master all of these. Major reasons for the many drug deaths are impotent drug regulation, widespread crime that includes corruption of the scientific evidence about drugs and bribery of doctors, and lies in drug marketing, which is as harmful as tobacco marketing and, therefore, should be banned.
* Steve Brown is a former director of the Pacifica Radio Foundation and WBAI-FM in New York. He is also a co-founder of the Progressive Radio Network (PRN), President of the Alliance for Community Elections (ACE), director of El Taller Latino America, and a member of the editorial board of CovertAction Magazine. He has run political campaigns for the U.S. Senate, Governor of New York, and Mayor of New York City.