Did Merck Interfere with publication of Dr. Pierre Kory's Manuscript on the Safe and Effective Use of Ivermectin for COVID?

First of all, thank you to all of the doctors who have paid for subscriptions to my newsletter. You folks are saying the most important things in the world, and you know you're not being reported fairly or adequately. I do what I can. There's a lot more I'd like to report. With more resources I would start a news organization and hire writers, because I'm more of a researcher than a writer.

Picture this: One million dollars buys 10 reporters at $100,000 per year, and I can keep them busy with outlines on articles like this all year. As it is, I’ll continue to work a blue collar job 50-60 hours a week and write when I can.

As a researcher, I naturally did a lot of research on Ivermectin after Pierre Kory's testimony to Congress in December 2020. I wrote stories on Ivermectin’s use in Japan, Nigeria, and India. I did a really deep dive on Merck’s history which I haven't published. I researched the history of Ivermectin and all of the studies on Ivermectin and COVID, which I haven't published, but other people have. The point is that I had a good understanding of the timeline of Ivermectin as it relates to COVID.

One of the things that really puzzled me was why Merck would write a statement saying that they did not believe Ivermectin should be used outside of clinical trials on February 4, 2021. Their motives are clear: Merck's at the very heart of the centuries-old "chemotherapy" scam (poison disguised as medicine). In fact I think I can say that Merck may have been the pioneer of it, so again Merck's motivation is not the question. The question to me is: Why this date: February 04, 2021?

February 04, 2021, was a little late in the disinformation campaign. The cat was way out of the bag by then.

Dr. Kory testified before the Homeland Security Committee on December 08, 2022, on Ivermectin. This was ground-breaking testimony, but it wasn't the only reporting out there on Ivermectin and COVID by this point. There were plenty of other major milestones. I'll list a few highlights.

On April 03, 2020, Dr Kylie Wagstaff of Monash University in Australia published results of an in vitro test of Ivermectin on SARS-CoV-2 cells which showed that Ivermectin killed SARS cells within 48 hours.

On May 30, 2020, doctors in India called for Ivermectin to be used for COVID. On August 06, 2020, Thomas Borody of Australia announced successful results of treating COVID patients with Ivermectin.

On November 13, 2020, Dr. Ahmed Elgazzar et al of Egypt published results of successful clinical trials of treating COVID patients with Ivermectin.

So those are some highlights. Apologies to those I left out. News out of Africa was generally unreported at all in the United States. For instance, one of the first papers was Mass Drug Administration and Worms Experience in Africa: Envisage Repurposing Ivermectin for SARS-COV-2, by Claire Njeri Wamae, published April 15, 2020. I bet you've never heard of it.

Merck's February 04, 2021 statement became a basis for "fact checkers" to censor the truth around the world. Soumya Swaminathan, Chief Scientist of the WHO, referred to Merck's statement on May 11, 2021 when she stated the World Health Organization's position that Ivermectin should not be used for COVID, but only in clinical trials. (Soumya was trying to stop people from dispensing Ivermectin in India at the time). Every professional "fact checker," government or media disinformation propagandist was referring to Merck's dismissal one way or another after Feb 4.

Here's Merck's February 04, 2020 statement, in part:

We do not believe that the data available support the safety and efficacy of ivermectin beyond the doses and populations indicated in the regulatory agency-approved prescribing information.

Merck's February 4, 2021 statement is the exact opposite of Dr. Kory's testimony to Congress - 3 months earlier.

Dr. Kory: Ivermectin is highly safe, widely available, and low cost. ...

We now have data from over 20 well-designed clinical studies, ten of them
randomized, controlled trials, with every study consistently reporting large magnitude and
statistically significant benefits in decreasing transmission rates, shortening recovery times,
decreasing hospitalizations, or large reductions in deaths.

It perplexed me why Merck would wait until February 2021 to show their true colors. It seemed like Merck would deny the truth early in the disinformation campaign against Ivermectin, or not at all. But that's the thing about research. The more research you do, the more facts you have, and finally one fact pops up that makes you ask a question (or form a hypothesis). The key fact that make's me question whether Merck was involved in suppressing publication of Dr. Kory's Ivermectin research was the date in which he was informed that the Journal would not publish it - "early February." That's way too much of a coincidence not to investigate further.

I'd heard Dr. Pierre Kory describe how he was denied publication of a 2020 research paper on Ivermectin was awhile back. I took some notes. I meant to add his statements to my timeline on Ivermectin. I finally did that a few days ago after I heard Dr. Kory once again tell his story about a Journal's censorship of Ivermectin research for COVID to a group of doctors discussing censorship on a Twitter Spaces group.

I'll blend some of Kory's remarks from two sources. Those remarks are included completely in a section below the main article REFERENCES, TRANSCRIPTS OF DR. KORY.

By the time Kory testified before the Homeland Security Committee in December 2020, he was working on a manuscript to publish in a journal. Dr. Kory wanted to publish in the then-prestigious New England Journal of Medicine, but set his sites on another promising Journal, Frontiers in Pharmacology.

Frontier's in Pharmacology was working on a special issue titled "The Use of Repurposed Drugs in COVID-19," a special issue suggested to the Journal by Robert Malone. Dr. Kory met Robert Malone in November of 2020.

Dr. Kory: When I did our first review paper on Ivermectin, I was trying to figure out what Journal to publish it in,  Obviously I wanted NEJM or,.. but ... I didn’t think our paper would ever be of the quality sufficient for NEJM because, you know, I was drawing on studies from pre-prints, observational trials, epidemiological data... I mean I made a very compelling argument, but it’s not something NEJM wants, you know, so I knew I couldn’t go top tier. 

And then I heard of the Journal Frontiers in Pharmacology.   You know, the Frontier’s journals are generally well-respected.  But by the end of my anecdote they won’t be anymore.  But, you know it’s a relatively high-impact journal, it’s called Frontiers in Pharmacology, and I learned that that Journal had a special issue proposed, which was “The Use of Available or Repurposed Drugs in COVID-19.”     

And the person who went to that journal to suggest such an issue was Robert Malone. So I met Robert in November of 2020. He was not Robert Malone then. The Robert Malone that you all know now. He was just this guy named Robert Malone and I heard that he had suggested a special issue. He was the editor of this special issue. And that's where I submitted my paper.

Dr. Kory's paper went through an extensive review process, and was accepted for publication by Frontiers in Pharmacology.

If you know anything about the history of that paper, it passed three rounds of peer review by high level government scientists that Robert had selected, because he's been in government for decades. And it finally got past peer review and was approved for publication.

Even though the paper had passed peer review, and people were dying all over the world, Frontiers in Pharmacology sat on Dr. Kory's paper without explanation.

And they wouldn't publish it. Week after week went by. People were dying all around the world and they were sitting on my paper.

The problem was, from the day it got accepted, week after week went by during that winter of 2020-21.   I mean cases were crazy.  There was a lot of dying, and that’s actually the peak of the dying, that winter, and they wouldn’t publish the paper.  And I kept sending emails, and emails, were are the proofs?  When can this thing go up?  Da da da da.  And I was getting, over time I was getting less and less response.

Dr. Kory became extremely frustrated and began calling Robert Malone frequently to ask for updates.

I mean I would call Robert all the time. I'd be like, Robert, what the hell's happening, what the hell's happening? And he could see that now I was in public,,, (after Kory's December 2020 testimony to Congress).

Finally, Dr. Kory threatened to go public with allegations of scientific misconduct against Frontiers in Pharmacology for refusing to publish a paper that had passed peer review and could have saved countless lives.

And I finally got so frustrated that I threatened to go public that there was scientific misconduct occurring. Because we could tell something was really wrong. It's an online journal. All that paper needed was to be proofed and published.

And then finally one day I wrote to the Journal and I said I suspect scientific misconduct and I’m going public.  Because it was like 7 weeks later.  And I told Robert I was threatening to go public. 

After Dr, Kory told Robert Malone and the Journal that he was about to go public with allegations of scientific misconduct by Frontiers in Pharmacology, Dr. Kory finally received some responses.

And then it came about that the editor of all of Frontier's journals, his name is Fredrick Fenter, suddenly reached out to Robert, and said that they were going to retract my paper. And they were not going to publish it.

Robert talked to the editor of the Journal and what came down guys, is essentially the Chief Editor of all the Frontiers Journals, the Frontiers in Pharmacology was only one of them, basically told Robert, that they’d gotten a complaint on my paper, that the editor had selected some anonymous third party reviewer who had reviewed my paper, and felt the conclusions were not supported by the data, and they were going to retract.   Despite the fact that I’d passed peer review with 4 different other peer reviewers, they just summarily retracted it.

The retraction of the peer-reviewed paper was "early February."

The retraction of the paper was early February.

HYPOTHESIS

Hypothesis: Merck Pharmaceuticals, or a subsidiary or independent representative of Merck Pharmaceuticals, reviewed the paper of Dr. Pierre Kory, and objected to Dr. Kory's conclusion that Ivermectin was a safe and effective treatment for SARS-CoV-2 and that Ivermectin should be used by the public to stop the Pandemic.

Merck published a written statement on February 04, 2021, which was in turn used by an "anonymous third party reviewer" to object to publication of Dr. Kory's manuscript on the safe and effective use of Ivermectin for COVID- an objection which was honored by Frontier's in Pharmacology. Frontier's in Pharmacology sided with Merck's position, or an organization or representative of Merck acting as an intermediary for Merck, over Dr. Kory's position, no matter that Dr. Kory's research was extensively documented and had passed the peer-review process.

Dr. Kory's research on Ivermectin for COVID was exhaustive to that point. By dismissing Kory's paper, Merck summarily dismissed all the studies and medical theories presented in the paper. Media and governments were able to refer to one document- Merck's dismissal- to "fact check" and deny all the research and medical theory of Ivermectin for COVID to date.

Merck did so with the intent to cause death from "COVID," (although I won't try to prove Merck's motives in this article).

EVIDENCE NEEDED TO PROVE OR DISPROVE HYPOTHESIS

Robert Malone is in an excellent position to provide material evidence to prove or disprove the hypothesis that Merck was involved in suppressing Dr. Kory's research. Robert Malone (1) has a 30+ year long association with Merck; (2) was the editor of the special issue of the Journal that denied publication to Dr. Kory; (3) and has a history of Ivermectin research which predates the COVID pandemic. Dr. Kory outlined the part about Robert Malone as editor for the Journal already, so let's take a quick look at Malone's association with Merck, and Malone's Ivermectin research.

ROBERT MALONE'S IVERMECTIN RESEARCH

This section is not intended to be a complete summary of Robert Malone's Ivermectin research.

Malone started Atheric Pharmaceutical, LLC, in February 2016 to develop repurposed "antiviral" drugs for Zika virus and other Flavivirus diseases using "high-throughput screening.

Atheric's website shows that Robert Malone is CEO of Atheric Pharmaceutical, and that Jill Glasspool Malone, his wife, is Vice President. (I would link to Atheric's website that I took this screeshot from, but I can't find the link to Atheric’s website any more).

In March 2016, Robert Malone, Jill Glasspool Malone, Michael Callahan, and others published Zika Virus: Medical Countermeasure Development Challenges, where they expanded on the basis for research for "countermeasures" for Zika Virus. The authors said that there were "no licensed medical countermeasures" for Zika and that "The Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) predicts that Zika virus will continue to spread and eventually reach all countries and territories in the Americas."

The paper's authors said that Zika had been introduced into Brazil in 2014 or 2015, and that Zika subsequently spread very rapidly in Brazil afterwards. The authors charted the spread of Zika in the image from the paper below

In March 2016, Robert Malone, Jill Glasspool Malone, Michael Callahan, and others published Zika Virus: Medical Countermeasure Development Challenges, where they expanded on the basis for research for "countermeasures" for Zika Virus. The authors said that there were "no licensed medical countermeasures" for Zika and that "The Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) predicts that Zika virus will continue to spread and eventually reach all countries and territories in the Americas."

The paper's authors said that Zika had been introduced into Brazil in 2014 or 2015, and that Zika subsequently spread very rapidly in Brazil afterwards. The authors charted the spread of Zika in the image from the paper below.

Malone and other authors published another paper on Zika in December 2016 titled: Molecular evolution of Zika virus as it crossed the Pacific to the Americas. They modeled the spread of Zika Virus around the globe from 1947 to present. (Illustration below). They said Zika had previously been considered to only cause benign infections, but was now more severe, because "viral evolution" may have caused Zika virus to cause "severe neuropathology" as it spread across the Pacific to the Americas.

On March 03 2017, Robert Malone gave a speech to Contagion Live on Zika Virus and discussed his research to date on Ivermectin and Zika virus.

Robert Malone said that he looked at Ivermectin as a possible treatment for Zika because there was a good deal of literature on the effectiveness of Ivermectin in treating yellow fever. Yellow fever, like Zika, is in the Flaviviridae family of viruses Malone said that his team at Atheric pharmaceuticals had replicated the research on Ivermectin and Yellow Fever and found Ivermectin to be "highly highly active against Yellow fever."

Ivermectin didn't that work well against Zika virus though, according to Malone: "The binding site and helicase that the Ivermectin drops into with yellow fever is slightly different in Zika.  It’s larger and more open than Zika.   So Ivermectin alone doesn’t work as well for Zika as it works for Yellow Fever."

I am not sure what Malone's definition of "antiviral"is, but it appears to reference a product that blocks adherence of a virus to receptors. Malone maintained that Ivermectin was not an antiviral in the summer of 2021. Instead, Ivermectin acted as an "anti-inflammatory."

Note that Dr. Kory used the term "anti-viral" in his testimony to Congress on December 08, 2020: "In the last 3-4 months, emerging publications provide conclusive data on the profound efficacy of the anti-parasite, anti-viral drug, antiinflammatory agent called ivermectin in all stages of the disease."

ROBERT MALONE'S ASSOCIATION WITH MERCK

Around 1989, Malone left the Salk Institute for Vical. At Vical, Malone developed "naked DNA gene therapy" and applied for many patents.

Merck began purchasing the rights to use Malone's DNA "gene therapy" from Vical in 1991.

"The vaccines will incorporate Vical's Gene Therapeutics technology, in which gene sequences from viruses are used to stimulate the production of antibodies. The three-year agreement includes undisclosed yearly research funding, milestone payments, option and license fees and royalty payments on sales of products resulting from the agreement."

In 1999, Merck tested the methods they purchased from Vical on humans in HIV vaccine trials. Merck spliced "three synthetically produced HIV genes" into an adenovirus and injected it into humans: "The Merck vaccine candidate is a mixture of three components, each made with a weakened version of a common virus (adenovirus type 5), that serves as a carrier, or delivery vector, along with three synthetically produced HIV genes known as gag, pol and nef." The trials of injecting HIV into humans resulted in increased amounts of HIV in Merck's volunteers (duh), and the trials were cancelled in 2007.

Robert Malone went to work AERAS Global TB (Fuberculosis) Vaccine Foundation in 2003, where his association with Merck continued

Robert Malone went to work AERAS Global TB (Fuberculosis) Vaccine Foundation in 2003, where his association with Merck continued.

Malone has a few bios that I've seen. If I'm reading them correctly, he began as a "consultant" for AERAS in 2003, then became "Director, Business Development and Program Management" in 2004.

The Gates Foundation announced in February 2004 that they had awarded AERAS $82.9 to develop new Tuberculosis vaccines. According to Malone, he provided consulting and leadership on tuberculosis vaccine development to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, The CDC, the NIH, and the Department of Defense (unspecified agency): " Initially serving as consultant, provided leadership primarily focused on tuberculosis vaccine development and proposal development to NGO (B&M Gates), USG (CDC, NIH, DoD)."

Malone did not mention an association with Merck in his bio, like he did with the other organizations. The omission of Merck seems to be an odd omission in the list of associations in Malone's "consulting and leadership" role in the development of tuberculosis vaccines. The reason that Merck was involved in the project was a simple one:

On September 22, 2003, Jerry Sadoff was named the President and CEO of the Aeras Global TB Vaccine Foundation.

Sadoff was he former Executive Director for Clinical Vaccine Development at Merck from 1995-2003, a period in which Merck purchased and tested Malone's patented "DNA gene therapy" methods. Perhaps because Sadoff had resigned his position from Merck a few months earlier, Malone may have felt that it was technically incorrect to include Merck in a list of associations that he provided consulting and leadership to.

Malone's association with Merck continued past the beginning of the "COVID" pandemic. On December 20 2019, the FDA approved Merck’s Ebola vaccine- the first vaccine approved for Ebola. Robert Malone, as CEO of RW Malone MD, LLC, said that he was "instrumental" in moving the "Merck Ebola" vaccine forwards to biologics bicense applications (BLA) and ultimate approval.

Malone worked "with the World Health Organization" somehow on Merck's Ebola vaccine. Have you ever heard an interview ask Malone to describe his work with the World Health Organization on Merck's Ebola vaccine?

The World Health Organization announced that they had "prequalified" Merck's Ebola vaccine on December 04, 2019.

Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said that Merck's vaccine "will make it easier to manage future outbreaks" on December 20, 2019

.

Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said that Merck's vaccine "will make it easier to manage future outbreaks" on December 20, 2019.

CONCLUSION

I've never seen a "document" from Merck outlining how and why they suppressed the use of Ivermectin for COVID other than what they published. Although Malone is in an excellent position to know, given his history, he has steadfastly refused to speculate on anything that is not "documented" to his satisfaction. In the same Jan 8, 2023 Twitter Spaces discussion on censorship that included the extensive comments by Dr. Pierre Kory on his censorship by Frontiers in Pharmacology, of which Malone was an editor of a special issue, Malone outlined his position on "inferences:"

Malone: "And I try really hard to stay within the guardrails of things that are documented.  And remind people that I cannot read minds.  So I can’t know what hidden agendas are.  Or what individuals intents are."

Sufficient "documentation" exists on "transnational organizations" to satisfy Malone's standards, however, as anyone who has heard him speak much lately is well aware:
"There’s no question that there is rich documentation in frankly most of these transnational organizations of an assessment and expressed desire to reduce the burden of human population on the earth.  And this goes even further in some cases to explicit plans."

Not so for pharmaceutical companies. Malone: "I have not found any clear documentation that in the case of these (pharmaceutical) products, that (depopulation) was an expressed intent, and so one can only infer, and I don’t do that."     

And that's fine with me, honestly. I like to make my own inferences. I don't trust Robert Malone to make inferences from facts. And that's all I want to hear from Malone for now, the relevant facts about the Merck's likely role in the suppression of Dr. Kory's 2020 manuscript on Ivermectin's safe and effective value in treating COVID.

In the interest of settling the question on Merck's role in suppression of Dr. Kory's manuscript, I would like for Malone to publish his records of any and all communications or financial transactions between himself and the organizations Frontiers in Pharmacology, Merck, and the FLCCC, including the employees, contractors, or representatives of these organizations, between January 1, 2019 and the present, including emails, phone records, meetings, and detailed personal recollections of his conversations with all of these organizations in this period. I'm certain Malone will not object to providing such factual evidence for the purpose of allowing others to infer whether or not Merck was involved in an effort to suppress Dr. Kory's manuscript on the safe and effective use of Ivermectin for COVID, a suppression that spread to all media, resulting in greatly increased death totals due to "COVID," aren't you?

In case you didn't know, Robert Malone sued Ginger and Peter Breggin on October 30, 2022. According to Ginger Breggin, "I have been told to preserve all my papers, my emails, my letters, and records of phone calls, as well as all internet transactions." I think Malone can do likewise on such an important issue as the role of a foreign corporation in intentionally increasing death totals in the United States and the world. What is more important, Malone's reputation, which he claims is "damaged" in his lawsuit, for which he is due compensation, or getting to the heart of an effort to kill mankind?

REFERENCES, TRANSCRIPTS OF DR. PIERRE KORY

August 27, 2022. CDC Philippines Weekly Huddle Aug 27, 2022 Live with Dr. Pierre Kory Part 2.

1:01:26.  Dr. Pierre Kory:

"I’ll tell you one last little anecdote. I don’t want to go too long here  guys but I always tell this funny anecdote, so...  when I umm did our first review paper on Ivermectin, I was trying to figure out what Journal to publish it in.  Obviously I wanted NEJM or you know… but I also, I kind of knew even then like… I don’t know why I didn’t… You know, I didn’t think our paper would ever be of the quality sufficient for NEJM because, you know, I was drawing on uhh studies from pre-prints, observational trials, epidemiologic data... I mean I made a very compelling argument, but it’s not something NEJM wants, right?   So I knew I couldn’t go top tier."  

"And then I heard of the Journal Frontiers in Pharmacology.   You know, the Frontier’s journals are generally well-respected.  But by the end of my anecdote they won’t be anymore.  But, you know it’s a relatively high-impact journal, it’s called Frontiers in Pharmacology, and I learned that that Journal had a special issue proposed, which was 'The Use of Available or Repurposed Drugs in COVID-19.'”     

"And the person who went to that journal to suggest such an issue was Robert Malone."

"So I met Robert in November 2020. He was not Robert Malone then- the Robert Malone that you all know now. He was just this guy named Robert Malone, and I heard that he had suggested a special issue. He was the editor of this special issue. And that's where I submitted my paper."

"If you know anything about the history of that paper, it passed three rounds of peer review by high level government scientists that Robert had selected, because he's been in government for decades. And it finally got past peer review and was approved for publication. And they wouldn't publish it. Week after week went by. People were dying all around the world and they were sitting on my paper."

"And I finally got so frustrated that I threatened to go public that there was scientific misconduct occurring, because we could tell something was really wrong. It's an online journal. All that paper needed was to be proofed and published."

"And then it came about that the editor of all of Frontier's journals, his name is Fredrick Fenter, suddenly reached out to Robert, and said that they were going to retract my paper. And they were not going to publish it. That was my first lesson that the fix was in, guys. That's when I was like, I mean you should have seen that day with the FLCCC, I mean we were like, we were like in stunned silence. We knew exactly what was happening. That paper would present very inconvenient science to the marketplace. But my point is this. After that paper was retracted, this is also after the testimony."

"That was my first lesson that the fix was in, guys. That's when I was like… I mean you should have seen that day with the FLCCC, I mean we were like, we were like in stunned silence. We knew exactly what was happening. That paper would present very inconvenient science to the marketplace. And, but my point is this. After that paper was retracted, this is also after the testimony."

"So the testimony was December 2020. The retraction of the paper was early February."

"I'd been working with Robert for weeks. I mean I would call Robert all the time. I'd be like, Robert, what the hell's happening, what the hell’s happening?  And he could see that now I was in public. I was becoming a little bit of a public figure and there was massive headwinds coming at me."

"And the point, the whole lead up, is to say one thing. I remember this one day, where I was like Robert, because he was so wise, he was so kind, he was so supportive, he was so knowledgable, and I said Robert man, you know why aren't you out here with me, man?   I'm getting killed. I'm fighting a good fight and you're a guy that you have a stature, you have a credibility, you have this incredible career, and you're considered an expert. I'm like why aren't you out here? And you know what he told me back then? He said, if they can't see you, they can't shoot you."

"All right, so this is February of 2020 (I think he meant 2021). The whole scandal with the paper ended and like, Robert and I weren't talking everyday anymore because we're doing other stuff. And like two to three months later, I'm like suddenly, I'm like looking at TV and newspaper and this guy Robert Malone out there. And I was like, Robert?? He suddenly... He's literally at at the tip of the spear with the biggest target on his back in history. And I was just like, oh Robert, you came out to play. Because literally months earlier he said if they can't see you, they can't shoot you. So that was my fifth criteria. It's not really necessary to say, but you do want someone who's willing to sacrifice you know their personal careers, assets, and speak inconvenient truths."

January 08, 2023. “New Year Reunion: Censorship killed millions. Free Speech saves lives”,

2:27:35. Dr. Pierre Kory:

"So we were not into early treatment early on.  We didn’t focus on it, because the first 6 months, we were buried in ICUs.  But we were watching all the data.  I have to admit, I’m going to say this on behalf of myself and all my colleagues in FLCCC, we were totally fooled by hydroxychloroquine.   Every single one of us thought hydroxychloroquine was bullshit.  And it’s because we didn’t do the deep dives.  We didn’t do our own research.  We, we had our eyes on the high impact medical journals.  And those journals were saying all this frenzy around hydroxychloroquine, these trials show it doesn’t work.  And we still put those high-impact journals on a different level, and so, you know, I gotta admit, we got fooled by hydroxy."     

"But when we were watching all the data, and we saw the Ivermectin data, we were blown away.   And you guys probably know our history, is that I gave testimony, and you know suddenly, as a result of becoming an expert, and I spent months, you know reading every paper on Ivermectin, and I put that review paper, I gave the testimony. I literally thought guys that when we came out with that, we had a press conference the week before, trying to tell everybody that an effective early treatment therapeutic had been found, I gave the testimony. 

I really thought the world, not that they were going to have a ticker tape parade for us, but that this would be very warmly received, and things would start to change.  And I would say the first thing that happened, I’ll pick up on what happened to Jessica, and Robert’s on here.   Little do you guys know, but I’ve known Robert Malone since he was, before he was THE Robert Malone. 

And the reason why, is when I finished my review paper, a couple of weeks before my testimony, I was looking for a journal to publish in.  I wanted the highest impact journal I could.  And I heard that there was a journal called Frontiers in Pharmacology, for whom a special issue was suggested, and that issue was going to be called “the use of available or repurposed drugs for COVID.”  And I said, perfect.  That is the perfect journal.  And I came to discover that the guy who suggested that Journal, and who was the editor of that special issue, was Robert Malone. 

And Robert, I know you’re out there, you and I have had quite an education together, although Robert’s way more worldly and knowledgeable about the wider world than I am.  I’ve been buried in ICU for 15 years.  I would say he and I have still learned a lot.  And I think we were very naive in the beginning, but the story is, and you talk about censorship.  So this was a paper I’d worked on for months.  Highly referenced, 200 references, trials from all over the place, reports from health ministries, it was an astounding amount of evidence in support of Ivermectin. 

Robert chose 4 peer reviewers.  3 of them senior governmental scientists, you know, colleagues of his from the NIH and the FDA, and I went through 3 rounds of peer review.  Finally it was accepted for publication.  And I literally thought like the world was gonna be a better place because this thing was going to be published.  And it was an online journal. 

The problem was, from the day it got accepted, week after week went by during that winter of 2020-21.   I mean cases were crazy.  There was a lot of dying, and that’s actually the peak of the dying, that winter, and they wouldn’t publish the paper.  And I kept sending emails, and emails, were are the proofs?  When can this thing go up?  Da da da da.  And I was getting, over time I was getting less and less response. 

And then finally one day I wrote to the Journal and I said I suspect scientific misconduct and I’m going public.  Because it was like 7 weeks later.  And I told Robert I was threatening to go public. 

Robert talked to the editor of the Journal and what came down guys, is essentially the Chief Editor of all the Frontiers Journals, the Frontiers in Pharmacology was only one of them, basically told Robert, that they’d gotten a complaint on my paper, that the editor had selected some anonymous third party reviewer who had reviewed my paper, and felt the conclusions were not supported by the data, and they were going to retract.  

Despite the fact that I’d passed peer review with 4 different other peer reviewers, they just summarily retracted it.  And I would say that was a big turning point in my life.   Like I realized the fix was in.  And that we were up against something big. 

And now I’ll finish by saying since that time, I have had to learn about the decades to century of essentially not only total control of American medicine, but I would say all Western medicine by financial interests and the pharmaceutical industry.  And reading and learning about the incessant, repeated frauds of pharmaceutical products as well as vaccines for so long.  It’s really shocking.  It’s kind of hard to sit in my skin, because I look at the world very very differently now.  I used to be a lot more trusting.  I used to believe that their was something called good government.  I thought the government of the last century was kind of the ideal with their social programs, and how it made things more equitable, you know the 50s and 60s, and you know now, I just see unending (continues)….. 2:33:03          

If you would like to support my research, please consider upgrading to a paid subscription, or Buy Me a Coffee.        

Thank you,

Charles Wright