Dr. Pierre Kory's Presentation to the International Covid Summit III in the European Parliament, Brussels

Watch the video, view the slides, and read the transcript

Dr. Pierre Kory was one of dozens of speakers at the recent International Covid Summit III, which took place in the European Parliament in Brussels on May 3.

• You can watch the video here or read the transcript below.

• Find Dr. Kory’s presentation slides here.

So thank you. I appreciate the invitation. I'm going to speak about a topic... I don't think any of the topics today are pleasant, but this one is particularly unpleasant to me. I'm going to talk about the global war on ivermectin, which was a massive global disinformation campaign whose only objective is to suppress the evidence of efficacy of this lifesaving drug. My colleague, Dr. Brouqui, just referred to the war on hydroxychloroquine. I'm going to take you through almost like a case study. This is what they do, and keep in mind what I'm going to talk about. It has nothing to do with ivermectin. It has everything to do with a decades long war. They've been doing these things for decades on any generic off patent drug which threatens their profits.

Keep in mind, this is a forest plot. There's a little gray line in the center. All the green triangles to the left of that gray line are medicines that have trials to show that they're effective. In COVID, we have 43 effective therapies. You've heard of almost none of them. If you live in United States, the only ones approved are the ones that are circled. They have something in common, which is they're all absurdly expensive and present massive profits to pharmaceutical companies. Any medicine, no matter how many studies, if it costs a dollar or $2, it will not find regulatory approval in any advanced health economy around the world. And what happens as a result? People die and they die frequently and in high numbers because there's a barrier to getting access to these medicines, having these recommended.

If you see the square, that's ivermectin. It has the most studies of any therapy. 95 controlled trials, over 40 are randomized and showing a massive evidence of efficacy.

Now, why would they attack ivermectin? Ivermectin — probably and hydroxychloroquine, they're... I would consider them almost equal — presented a massive threat. It would've halted the vaccine campaign if they were following the rules, which is you can't have an effective therapy. It would've skyrocketed the public enemy number one, which is something called vaccine hesitancy, because this was all about the vaccine. And so they had to go after these drugs.

It also threatens the profits of all of the therapeutics that they were rushing out and improving on ... barely ... on manipulated, actually fraudulent studies of single studies by these companies. So if you're talking about Remdesivir, Paxlovid and Molnupiravir, billion dollar contracts were written by our government before those studies ever were published. There was press releases issued and contracts signed, and billions of dollars went into the pharmaceutical company's hands. They could not have a competitor.

So how did they do this? Well, it's something called disinformation. And I'm going to be speaking specifically with the tactics that are used by industries when science emerges, that's inconvenient to their interests. Every industry does this when science emerges, that's inconvenient to their interests. There is no industry that is more skilled at this than the pharmaceutical industry in modern times with the consolidation of media power, their control over social media and their complete capture of regulatory health agencies across advanced health economies. What they can do is they can make you believe things that are true. They can make you believe things that they, that it is false and it can make you complicit in their own device. And it's largely centered around the use of propaganda and censorship, except their abilities to do both of those things are historically unparalleled. We now have a global media and communication system, which allows them to do this propaganda and censorship worldwide. The biggest and the foundation of this entire disinformation campaign, I'm sorry to tell you, it occurred at the level of the studies that were done by big agencies. So the most biggest and most funded studies were the most corrupt. And it has also occurred at the level of the highest impact medical journals in the world, as well as the world's leading health agencies, which you could consider one of which is in the US.

Keep in mind, they were, they were scared of ivermectin from the beginning. My colleague, Dr. Robert Malone and other researchers had already identified ivermectin as effective against at least a dozen RNA viruses before Covid began. They were worried about ivermectin and its anti-antiviral properties. And when the Nobel Prize-winning discoverer asked Merck, his old partner, I think we should study ivermectin in Covid. What did Merck say? No thank you. In the middle of a global pandemic.

Merck went even farther. And one night in February of 2021, when there was nothing to support these three statements, I will tell you this was their public relations team that put this on their website. Now, to find that a big, big pharmaceutical company would publish lies on their website is completely unsurprising to me. What was surprising is that this launched media campaigns around the world where media trumpeted over and over started to echo a pharmaceutical company whose three statements completely are protecting their profits, and this became a PR campaign that went around the world. 'Merck says that ivermectin doesn't work.'

So you could see this started early before there was any evidence to show that it didn't work. In fact, at the time of my testimony, which was two months prior to that statement, I already had 35 controlled trials, 17 of which were randomized controlled trials. There was already immense amount of evidence showing of its efficacy. As of two weeks ago we have 95 controlled trials with 134,000 patients. If you look at the forest plot to the side, all of the green squares that are going all the way to the left are showing large magnitude estimates of efficacy from dozens and dozens of trials. These are only the early treatment trials. It is the most proven medication in history, in history, yet not one advanced health economy around the world recommends it. Almost all hospitals, it's been removed from their formularies. And if you try to get filled at a pharmacy, any retail pharmacy in any of those developed countries, the pharmacists will not do it. They're scared to death.

The trials. So how come we have all of these big rigorous, large high quality trials, right? There's actually only been six of them. So out of the 95 trials, I will tell you the only ones you've seen on the front pages of your newspapers are what I call the big six. So out of that 95, there were six trials that were heavily funded and carried out by investigators. They're called the 'largest and high quality' trials. What did they show? They somehow concluded in contradiction to all of the other trials that ivermectin wasn't effective. How did they do that? They did it because they know how to do it and they've been doing it for a while. They can design trials to show you something works. They can design trials to show you something doesn't work. They pulled the same tricks over and over and over again. And I will tell you all you need to know about those six trials compared to the 95? With one exception, those were the only trials where every, almost every single investigator of that trial was drowning in pharmaceutical company financial conflicts of interests. Every other trial had no financial conflicts of interest. So you have to understand, ask yourself why they reached conclusions that completely departed from the rest of the evidence base.

These are the big six. And they, they, they appeared in the highest impact journals in the world: New England Journal of Medicine, the Journal of American Medical Association, British Medical Journal, the Lancet, and the Annals of Internal Medicine. Every time they were published, they launched PR campaigns across the world. You saw radio stations and television stations and newspapers blaring. 'Latest high quality study shows that ivermectin doesn't work.' And then there's lots of trials showing that the ivermectin a advocates of which I'm one. I will tell you every country around the world has experts on ivermectin who have had to watch and witness this propaganda campaign.

This is one of the more egregious samples. This is my own country. This is funded by the National Institutes of Health, which is our largest research funder. They just did a couple of trials on ivermectin in Activ-6. By the way, the lead investigator, Dr. Susanna Naggie, owns stock in a competitor to ivermectin and she also has conflicts of interest with Gilead, which makes Remdesivir as well as other products that compete with ivermectin. Do you think that she's an objective investigator and do you think it's an accident she was hired? It is not. She was hired on purpose to do this kind of stuff. And if you look at this trial, this trial was originally designed to look at the difference in symptoms at day 14, which would make sense for an acute viral illness. In the middle of the trial, mysteriously, they decided to change the endpoint from day 14 to day 28.

Why would they do that? Well, if you look at the results that they found, if you look at the posterior P efficacy column in the other table, anything above 0.95 is a statistically significant result, which would show that ivermectin is superior. In the middle... You can see this in the journal. It's completely public knowledge. No one talks about it. Do you see now why they moved it from day 14 to day 28? It was to disappear the statistical significance. This paper was published in one of the top journals of the world with the conclusion that ivermectin has no role in the treatment of COVID. You know, there's no major differences at day 28. And by the way, this is an all mild patients. Very few went to the hospital. There was one death and that was in the ivermectin group. They never got ivermectin because they died beforehand.

I call it the Big Six because they were the big ones that were published in the highest impact journals, but it's really seven. Let's talk about this seventh one. It was started a long time ago by the University of Oxford by the same investigator who did a 25,000 person trial on Molnupiravir, which has been completed. And we know the results, which shows that Molnupiravir doesn't work. But it's a little odd what happened to the ivermectin trial. It has been 10 months since the trial completed. Not one mention of the result. Does anyone find that anomalous or abnormal? When we had to hear results of Remdesivir and Paxlovid and Molnupiravir by press release before the data was available, these people at Oxford are sitting on a positive trial and you know it, they won't publish. They also did other stuff.

By the way, and look at, if you look at the designs of, I'm sorry, if you go back one, if you look at how the design, this is so brazen, right? If they wanna show something's effective, you're going to make sure you're going to get the study drug into that patient immediately and as early as possible to maximize benefit. So they did a median of two days in a 25,000 person Molnupiravir trial, which is a fantastic achievement. I would love to see that kind of science being practiced everywhere. The problem was the drug wasn't effective. What do they do with ivermectin? They allow up to 14 days to start the medicine. And we have evidence from some of the participants that they were totally well by the time they got their medicines. This is not a real trial, this is fake. But I, I think they weren't good enough at what they were doing because they're sitting on a positive result. There's no other explanation why 10 months have gone by. We haven't heard it. They're laying low, sitting quiet because they've seen that a lot of us around the world have found all of the fraud and brazen manipulations in the other large trials.

They also did something else curious, which is in the middle of the trial, they suddenly announced the halting of the trial and the trialist from Oxford literally claimed to the world that they ran out of ivermectin, which is so absurd. No self-respecting trialists would ever run out of a study drug in the middle. Funny thing is, there's one functioning journalist left in the world and that was at the Epoch Times. And you know what they did? They actually did something called journalism. They called the pharmaceutical company that was supplying the ivermectin to Oxford. And they had one quick question. They said, 'Hey, did you guys run out of ivermectin?' What was their answer? 'No, we have plenty.' This is the kind of stuff they're doing.

Beyond the publication, the selective publication of negative trials by pharmaceutical company conflicted researchers. I have in my book, which is soon to be published cuz I did a huge deep case study on this. I have numerous examples of researchers around the world with positive randomized controlled trials of ivermectin. They were uniformly and systematically rejected from publication, from any any, any journal in a first or second tier of medical journals uniformly rejected. There is an editorial mafia that controls our top medical journals. Science has been completely corrupted. Beyond the rejections are those that actually managed to go through peer review and get published. We were suddenly retracted for reasons we'd never heard of in our careers. Me and my group, we published over 1500 peer-reviewed articles, never had one retracted. First time in our lives was our ivermectin paper.

And then we had to read editorial after editorial, you know, propelling these narratives that circulated in the media relentlessly don't believe ivermectin science, the studies are all low quality, too small in different countries. The doses aren't the same. It can't be believed. Wait for the real science. These are the narratives that they've, that they've used to try to de destroy the evidence of efficacy.

And this is an example. They picked one trial and they, they supposedly found it to be fraudulent. It may or may not have been. There are fraudulent trials in any body of evidence. We all know it. It's about 20% of trials will be fraudulent. They are not unique to ivermectin. But the world's leading researcher hired by the W H O and Unitaid, who published a phenomenally positive meta-analysis, which was a summary of 24 randomized control trials, which showed statistically significant improvements in mortality, hospitalization, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance.

I hadn't talked to him in a few months and I saw that he published that paper and I couldn't believe how astoundingly positive that paper was. I could believe by the fact that the media was silent about it. It was not carried. And then they, then I think the other side got real worried because I'm going to stop in a second. The other side got real worried because Andy started behaving very differently. He - his own paper. And he started removing randomized controlled trials using invented categories. This is from his exact paper. It looks like a five-year-old who's trying to disappear the evidence of efficacy. So he makes up these categories: potentially fraudulent, no definition of what kind of study that is. And then this other category, which is: some concerns. So there's a category of evidence which is when Dr. Andrew Hill has some concerns. So he removes and disappears the evidence base to the point where it loses statistical significance. And now he's claiming it doesn't work. Little bit bizarre of a turnaround for this researcher.

The agencies, which we know they control. You cannot work at a health agency without making pharma happy. You know, your career is over, you're off of committees. You don't graduate from the agencies to get jobs in pharmaceutical unless you do their bidding. They're completely in lockstep. And I will tell you that what happened was with the ivermectin story in the United States is that in the middle of August of 2021, ivermectin prescriptions hit 90,000 a week. They were skyrocketing. Everyone was figuring out it was working, everybody was prescribing. In a very short sequence, you saw our CDC send out a memo to every state Department of Health, which then went to every licensed physician in that state. And that memo said, 'careful of ivermectin, we're seeing overdoses and people are getting injured.' They made it out to be a dangerous drug when it's one of the safest, if not the safest medication we have in history. And after that, where they said that it was dangerous, all the professional societies in the United States with no authority sent out memos to every doctor in the country. 'We call for an immediate cessation of prescribing of ivermectin.' And what happened then is the Horse Dewormer PR campaign was launched. And you can tell a PR campaign in the narrative when it's two weeks, four different channels. And that's what you saw. You saw late night talk show hosts, news hosts, newspapers, magazines, radio: horse dewormer, horse dewormer, horse dewormer. And at the end of those two weeks, no self-respecting doctor would ever prescribe such a dangerous and ineffective drug and no patient would want to get it. Do you think that PR campaign was invented in August of 2021? It was not. It was launched in 2021 because they saw they were losing this war against ivermectin. And here we are at the end of three years and it's been shut down in most of the advanced health com health economies around the world, one of the most effective drugs in history that would've saved millions of lives. This was a humanitarian catastrophe and a crime against humanity. Yet no one will go to jail for it.