Together Trial: Manipulating Ivermectin Results
NZDSOS are one of many medical collaborations who recognise evidence for the benefits of Ivermectin in preventing and treating Covid-19. The politically charged suppression of this cheap, safe and effective drug has caused enormous confusion and resulted in unnecessary suffering and loss of life.
Corruption in medical publications is discussed in Dr David Bells opinion piece at Panda, When evidence and dogma diverge: The sad decline of our esteemed medical journals. The problem has long been acknowledged by others, for example Dr Marcia Angell. After two decades as an editor at The New England Journal of Medicine, she wrote in 2009 “It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines”, in Drug Companies and Doctors: A Story of Corruption.
Ivermectin Publications: Why Such Confusion?
The TOGETHER Trial was first published on 30 March 2022 in the New England Journal of Medicine article Effect of Early Treatment with Ivermectin among Patients with Covid-19. Authors report that symptomatic patients testing positive to SARS-CoV-2 and with at least one risk factor for disease progression were recruited from 12 public health clinics in Brazil. A total of 3,515 patients were assigned randomly with double blinding, to receive either Ivermectin, a placebo, or another intervention. The trial concludes that treatment with Ivermectin did not result in lower incidence of hospitalisation.
Anyone skimming over the article, or the great majority of us without skill in clinical trial analysis, would reasonably accept this conclusion at face value. It is no wonder that the general public either remain puzzled, or stand firmly in one or other ideological camp regarding Ivermectin, as those connected to big power and big funding publish such different conclusions to those independent of such conflicts.
Nevertheless, there are many with the right analytical skills who are not captured by the financial allure and/or security of pharmaceutical and philanthro-capitalist interests. Flaws in the study processes and suggestions of probable scientific misconduct have been identified and are under scrutiny by ethical analysts of international standing. Criticisms include manifold issues categorised by severity level in this summary as critical, serious, major, unknown and minor. Three examples of critical severity are blinding failure, randomisation violation and extreme conflicts of interest. Trial investigators have disclosed associations with Pfizer, Merck, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Australian government, Regeneron, AstraZeneca and multiple other groups whose interests are steeped in the sale of vaccines and new, expensive pharmaceutical products.
In his three-part article series Dr Pierre Kory calls out the TOGETHER Trial, comparing it to “the vaccine escapade”, both coordinated by Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and both “an immense fraud and humanitarian catastrophe”. See “Fraudulent Trial On Ivermectin Published By The World’s Top Medical Journal. Big Pharma Reigns” (Part I) and (Part 2), and “The False, Sinister, and Duplicitous Statements of the TOGETHER Ivermectin Trial Investigators“, all available at the substack Pierre Kory’s Medical Musings.
The World Council for Health published a statement on 12 June 2022, Scientific Misconduct Uncovered in the TOGETHER Ivermectin Trial, outlining the problem and calling for action from journalists, scientists and civil society, to shine a light on the conduct of the TOGETHER Trial investigators. NZDSOS have previously called on New Zealanders (and our call to action remains) to write to the government requesting that they follow the evidence and make this life saving treatment accessible for use in the New Zealand population.
The story of the TOGETHER Trial paints a grubby picture of medical fraud in which financial interests reign at the expense of public health. This underscores a practice which appears to have established itself as accepted academic and editorial conduct. Confronting those implicated is a necessary action as a means to protecting public health and returning medicine and science to their rightful place in society as disciplines of humanity and integrity.
Comments are closed.