The Historic Suppression of Scientific Debate in COVID – Part 2

Pierre Kory | 1 Sep 2022

I just remembered that, contrary to what I wrote in Part 1 on this topic, I indeed have participated in debates on the topic of ivermectin! Whoops. Let’s review how they played out.

I was driving to the golf range to hit some balls yesterday evening right after publishing Part 1 of the “Suppression of Scientific Debate in COVID.” Fun fact: I recently took up golf given that it gets me out of my desk chair (where I spend 12-15 hours every day) and into the evening air where I have found that furiously whacking little balls deep into the sky has afforded me a pleasurable outlet for near constant stress. Anyway, as I was driving, I suddenly remembered that I had participated in three semi-public and/or private debates with true adversaries (ivermectin naysayers). So, I stand corrected in that “scientific” debates were indeed held, just not in major media. More like on the periphery of the internet, and in once case, deep in the bowels of a hospital. Let’s review how they went.


This one was a doozy. It occurred at the last hospital I worked at. I had been using high-dose ivermectin in ICU patients there for months when suddenly the world’s most deadliest propaganda PR campaign against ivermectin was launched in August of 2021, you know the “horse dewormer” one (I will lay out in chronological and structural detail how they conducted that campaign in my next post).

Anyway, it was a smallish hospital (200+ beds with like 32 ICU beds) where the head Infectious Disease doctor was initially neutral on ivermectin but we became colleagues, I found him open-minded, he asked appropriate questions and was receptive to receiving and digesting the data I had compiled. I began to share the mountains of data supporting ivermectin in COVID. He was shocked at how much data there was and he also instantly fell in love, like I did, with the site, a site which many researchers have relied upon in COVID as it is the most comprehensive and sophisticated compilation and analysis of the data supporting dozens (yes dozens) of effective therapies in the treatment and prevention of COVID. Although anonymous, I just want to say thank you to that group for the absolute superlative work you all have done. Their anonymity tells you that this isn’t their first rodeo in publishing “inconvenient science.” I wish they had warned us in the FLCCC. Or not. 🙂

Anyway, he ended up reviewing a fair amount of the trials data and was fully supportive of my use in the ICU. He even got the pharmacy to order more to support my clinical practice. It was incredible. So far so good.

However, he related to me that he was doing so over the objections of the head Infectious Disease Pharmacist… who was very, very much against the use of ivermectin in COVID. Simple reason: his diet consisted solely of edicts from captured high-impact medical journals and health agencies.

Anyway, the doc outranked him so my patients’ access to ivermectin was secure… until he was suddenly re-assigned to a different hospital in the system just prior to the start of Pharma’s PR campaign against ivermectin in August 2021. Uh oh. Not good.

Note that Pharmas’ opening salvo in the biggest battle of their War on Ivermectin (Title of my upcoming book) was when they got the CDC to issue a fraudulent memo which warned all U.S doctors and pharmacists that ivermectin poisonings were on the rise. The memo also reminded the nations doctors that the FDA had not “authorized” the drug for use in COVID (umm.. they don’t have to authorize it as my readers well know). That my friends, is just one of the “tells” that the CDC was trying to manipulate doctor behavior on behalf of their masters (Pharma). Anyway, that memo also went to every state Pharmacy Board and thus it landed in the inbox of every licensed Pharmacist of every state across the land within 24 hours. Whoa.

I am sure he was inspired by this move because he immediately decided to take down Dr. Kory and his penchant for treating patients with one of history’s safest medicines. Within days I was visited in my office above the ICU by the Chief Medical Officer who told me that the “P & T” (Pharmacy and Therapeutics) Committee was holding a meeting in a few days to decide whether ivermectin would continue to be stocked and available in the hospital pharmacy for use in COVID. Uh oh again.

Knowing that I was literally one of the world experts on the clinical use of ivermectin in COVID-19, he invited me to present to the Committee in order to inform any decision on ivermectin that they would make. I immediately knew where this was heading but, if you know anything about me by now, I don’t go down without a fight. So I accepted.

He told me that the Infectious Disease Pharmacist felt it should be removed (of course he did) and that if I wanted to continue to use it, I could present my argument for why it should remain on the hospital formulary. Note that these decisions are effectively what the P & T Committee in every hospital makes, i.e. they decide on what therapies should be made available and for what conditions depending on their efficacy, risks and especially costs.

Game on. Couple of days later, the meeting was held on Zoom, and I cleverly pretended I was having a computer issue so I was able to ask that he go first while I supposedly “worked it out” (tactics baby, I wanted this shmuck to go first, to see what kind of butter knives he was bringing to this gun fight so that I could counter optimally). I also knew lives depended on it.

This was his approach: he presented the two negative trials that had been published in high impact journals at the time, which I knew he was going to do, but the rest of his slides consisted simply of the logo of an important health agency and their individual recommendation against ivermectin. First slide: WHO: against use outside of a clinical trial. Infectious Disease Society of America: against use outside of a clinical trial. And it went on and on, slide after slide of him reading the same recommendation over and over. European Medicines Agency, American Medical Association, Society of Emergency Medicine etc. You get it. Not a bad move actually.

So then I went, first explaining the glaring issues with those two trials (and they were glaring), and then reminding the group that the highest form of medical evidence is a meta-analysis (i.e when you combine data from all existing trials to estimate the average level of benefit). Then I essentially presented the entire evidence base: meta-analyses of the RCT’s, the OCT’s, plus the health ministry data out of Mexico City, Peru, Brazil, Uttar Pradesh, Argentina etc. It was pretty darn convincing to me but whatever.

The highlight (or lowlight) of the meeting was when, just after I finished, I asked “Are there any questions?” There was a fairly long pause (Del’s “NIH pause”) until a Committee Member asked “Dr. Kory, why are your data and the recommendations of all the agencies so discordant?”

I also paused, took in a deep sigh and said, “there is really only one answer to that, and that is that me and my group have no conflicts of interest around the use of ivermectin.” Boom. Drop mic.


They thanked me for my time, and I left the zoom so they could have their discussion and then hold their vote. Two days later the CMO again came to find me personally, sat down in my office and informed me that the hospital had decided that they were removing ivermectin from the formulary and that I would no longer be able to prescribe it to patients.

Pierre 0, Clown World, 1.


Trial Site News invited me to do a podcast debate with a researcher from South America named Garegnani who was a respiratory therapist that had recently published a negative editorial on ivermectin in one of the highest impact journals in the world, the British Medical Journal (surprise!). In it, he argued with the usual narratives (“studies too small”, “studies were of low quality”, “effective concentrations cannot be reached,” yada yada yada). See below:

Please know that I hope that TrialSiteNews is also remembered in History as the first, and for a long time, the only media outlet that disseminated accurate, objective information about emerging therapeutics in COVID from around the world. I think they started posting articles on ivermectin in Spring of 2020. They were onto ivermectin, early and consistently. Their articles on Peru were critical to my ability to understand the impacts of Operation Tayta for our comprehensive review paper on ivermectin.

Anyway, here it is. Watch if interested. Now, since I am alone writing this you have to rely on my judgement of the outcome, but I pretty much crushed him. Like a bug. But you be the judge. I will say that my scoring of that debate was validated by all my friends and colleagues. Admittedly they are not the most impartial bunch, but that’s all I got. I am going to just go ahead and award myself a point here (unless my subscribers post objections to my scoring of that debate).

Pierre 1, Clown World 1.


This one was with my new “bestie” Mr. Alex Berenson, a former NY Times reporter who had been early and accurate in publicly calling out the fact that the vaccines were both failing and toxic. His work on that topic was excellent and he amassed quite a following, so much so that, as he told Joe Rogan recently, the White House told Twitter to take him off the platform. He discovered this during his lawsuit against Twitter to get himself re-instated. He won that lawsuit so kudos to Alex. Welcome back brother. Hmm… not?

Why not? Because he long ago staked a claim that ivermectin doesn’t work, again based on less than a handful of supposedly “rigorous” trials published in high-impact medical journals. He ignored all the “proper” meta-analyses (recall that massively fraudulent meta-analyses were published in high-impact journals too). Pharma really really knows what they are doing, and they have been doing it a loooong time.

But Alex fell for Pharma’s anti-ivermectin Disinformation campaign, hook, line, and sinker. What is so inexplicable about this is that he early on had figured out that Pharma and the Agencies were committing fraud by misrepresenting and censoring data with a huge amount of help from mass media and the medical journals.

He knew that if you didn’t just focus on what was being published in high-impact journals and blared out by the media and agencies, you could find data which led to very, very different conclusions than what was coming out of Fauci’s, Birx, Walensky’s, and Biden’s mouths. He skillfully compiled and analyzed data from numerous diverse sources such as from countries with health ministries that published real-time, weekly, granular and transparent data. And he figured out Pharma Fraud #1! Go Alex!

But on ivermectin, he seemingly only looked at a couple of “rigorous,” “large” trials published in a couple of captured high-impact journals, then listened to the captured media and captured agencies and arrived at a conclusion with almost no critical thought (or seemingly effort) applied.

He did what I am imploring everyone to no longer do, on any topic, not just on COVID. Recognize media and medical narratives for what they are – propaganda, which is “a story to get you to think or do something” as per propaganda expert Professor Marc Crispin Miller. So Alex is just another guy who fell for the greatest trick up Big Pharma’s sleeve. Control the journals, control the media, and you control the world.

Pharma did NOT want docs prescribing ivermectin. Just like they WANTED docs to push vaccines. How Alex can be so blind to this simple and painfully obvious evil synergy is a bit shocking actually. I mean, he knew that the EUA for the vaccines was contingent upon there being no effective early treatment for COVID! You have no vaccine campaign unless ivermectin (and HCQ) were first proven ineffective.

The enemy of propaganda is… Truth. That is why propagandists go after the truth tellers, like they went after Alex on the vaccines and then went after me and the FLCCC on ivermectin and McCullough and Risch and Zelenko (RIP) on HCQ. To fight propaganda, we need an intellectually unified fighting force of warriors shooting Truth at the other side. But Alex doesn’t want to join the side of Truth. Instead he prefers playing for two opposing teams at the same time. One one side he is winning against the propagandists with vaccine truths while on the other side he is somehow complicit in their very same propaganda.

The guy even went on Joe Rogan last week and displayed an ignorance of ivermectin so profound it was disturbing to listen to. You could tell that the hubris and arrogance he must have acquired (or already had?) after getting the vaccines right before most now propelled him into dangerous psychological territory. Commenting so definitively on a topic he knows next to nothing about to many millions of people that “ivermectin is no better than a placebo.” This from a non-doctor who has never treated a single COVID patient. Absolutely atrocious.

How can he be doubling down like this? One possibility is that he spends too much time thinking about his image than on getting at the truth. I say this because others have related to me comments he has made suggesting that by supporting ivermectin it would tarnish his image as he would be thrown in with all the tarnished “ivermectin advocates,” or more accurately the “ivermectin peddlers” which is what he described me as on Twitter the other night out of nowhere. An unprovoked insult fired at me. What the hell was that for Alex? Because you got your ass handed to you in the below debate?

I mean, you can’t make this stuff up. I have a guy that was shooting alongside of us, who then gets captured by the other side’s propaganda and then starts shooting at us, and then he decides to go behind me and shoot me in the back? Get your head on straight Alex, cause you ain’t helping. Be better Alex.

We need him on the team of Truth. But he is just not good enough to make the team. Be better Alex.

One interesting thought after Alex shot me in the back is that, in the comments below his tweet (and my response) people were calling him “controlled opposition.” It didn’t really make sense to me.. unless you know that destroying ivermectin is more important than criticizing vaccines. Whoa. Too much to contemplate there. So, there are lots of hypotheses as to why he is acting this way, but in the end only Alex knows, just like he is the only one who knows how much money he got from Twitter.

Anyway, a few weeks ago, Steve Kirsch got Alex to agree, not to “debate” me but rather to “discuss” ivermectin with me at the end of the Vaccine Safety Research Foundation (VSRF) weekly webinar. By the way, History has to remember Steve Kirsch as well. He founded and was the first major funder of the Covid Early Treatment Fund (CETF) which funded research into repurposed drugs from early on in the pandemic and his efforts discovered that fluvoxamine was an effective early treatment for COVID. Based on his efforts and the data that resulted, we added fluvoxamine to FLCCC protocols about 18 months ago. It was critical in late phase Delta. Further his work trying to bring attention to the toxicity and lethality of the vaccines is absolutely unparalleled. We should never forget what Steve did. The right man at the right time in History. Notice his name is not Alex. The FLCCC and CETF and later theVSRF have been naturally aligned since the beginning.

Now, I know Steve was not only super excited for the “discussion” between me and Berenson but also super jealous because Steve has been dying to debate (er, discuss) with anyone, anywhere, at anytime on not only vaccine data but on any aspect of early treatment data. I think he enjoyed it anyway.

You can view our “discussion” here, it starts at 1:00:49. Please note that I was on my absolute best behavior. I was cordial, respectful, and congratulatory to Alex of his work and efforts in helping uncovering the vaccine fraud. I truly thought I could help teach him where he was getting ivermectin wrong. For whatever reasons as listed above, I don’t think he listened to a word I said.

Again, in my opinion, and in the opinion of my friends and colleagues, it was not even close to a fair fight (er, sorry, “discussion”). An expert talking to an ignoramus. You be the judge but I am just going to go ahead and give myself another point here.

Pierre 2, Clown World 1.

Leave a Reply