Is JAMA Deliberately Misleading on Ivermectin??, 3802

Good morning, I’m still reporting on the public health coup.

One would think that with the ongoing collapse of Dr. Grouchy’s version of American public health policy, that one of the most important journals of physicians in the U.S. would certainly shift to the more truthful view of how COVID should be managed. However, it appears that the Journal of the American Medical Association – known as JAMA – may be attempting to keep the public confused about the use of Ivermectin.

Here is how. On Feb. 18, JAMA published a new study entitled, “Efficacy of Ivermectin Treatment on Disease Progression Among Adults With Mild to Moderate COVID-19 and Comorbidities.”

Then, under the heading, “Key Points” it summarized the findings:

“… a 5-day course of oral ivermectin administered during the first week of illness did not reduce the risk of developing severe disease compared with standard of care alone.”

Meaning:

“The study findings do not support the use of ivermectin for patients with COVID-19.”

That would be a stunning surprise in the wake of hundreds of worldwide studies showing just the opposite – that Ivermectin IS
effective in COVID treatment, especially if early treatment is used. So how in the world did this study show that Ivermectin is suddenly NOT effective.

Well, the truth appears to be that JAMA, for the first time I can recall in the history of medical journals, may have fabricated this topline abstract, hoping the world’s second-line of medical journal reporters would only read this first page of this report, and never dig into the details.

Can this be true? Can this gold-standard of the American medical profession have been so controlled by the medical aspect of this coup that they would try to trick second-line publications is such a desperate way? Certainly, they knew that this would be discovered, exposed and undercut their future credibility in a major way.

That appears to be the case because the data published on the remaining pages appears to draw just the opposite conclusion.

According to Steve Kirsch’s newsletter, which alerted me to this troubling turn of events:

“Do not fall for it. Read the paper if you want the truth. If you want to be misled, just read the abstract.”

You can read the entire paper here:
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2789362

The day after JAMA’s Feb. 18 Ivermectin takedown story, Dr. Pierre Kory, MD, MPA blasted it in his own report on the growing scandal:

“The Disinformation Campaign Against Ivermectin - JAMA's "Diversion"
Big Pharma influences high-impact journals to selectively publish (purportedly) negative studies while outright rejecting positive studies from publication. JAMA did it again yesterday.”

“One of the main corporate disinformation tactics used to suppress “science that is inconvenient to their interests” is to employ what is called the “Diversion,” defined by the Union of Concerned Scientists as “injecting doubt or uncertainty where there is none.” JAMA just did it to ivermectin for the 2nd time in the pandemic.”

“Although the above attack strategy on ivermectin is effective … it is really easy to see … the conclusion departs from not only the study’s own data, but the totality of the published evidence … which all show repeatedly shorter times to viral clearance, clinical recovery, fewer hospitalizations, and far less death when COVID patients are treated with ivermectin.”

Dr. Kory, then provided one example of lazy publications which didn’t bother to actually read the data within the study, and merely went with the headline sentence in the abstract - Forbes magazine.

Insert

This was a Reuters story which Forbes picked up, apparently without scrutiny. However, real doctors understand this fake news spin by JAMA. The Univ. of Minnesota’s Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy – known as CIDRAP – blasted JAMA’s interpretation of this study as:

“[leading] the idiotic media into frenzy .. and people die as a result…. Ivermectin has one of the most profoundly positive summary evidence bases of almost any medicine in history. And this study does nothing but further strengthen that signal.”

Insert U. of Minn.

How can this be true? Why is one-half of the medical profession in the United States so adamantly supporting blatantly non-scientific findings regarding a cheap as well as safe and effective legacy medication that clearly saves lives?

According to Dr. Kory:

“… the combination of profound ignorance paired with such deep and willful bias of those who have already staked their reputations, credibility, and most importantly, their anti-ivermectin recommendations and policies ….”

In other words, they followed the early lead of Dr. Grouchy, and now, are too proud to admit they made a mistake.

There are two other factors which Dr. Kory did not address – namely, big money. It is a brave academic physician indeed who will go against the big-money players in American medicine – the NIH and big Pharma funding of all their future medical research study proposals. Academic physicians only advance in their careers if they publish medical research that pushes the bounds of effective medicine.

This sad – nearly hopeless - situation can only be remedied if the truth about the hoax aspects of COVID treatment fully come out. Those with criminal liability need to be prosecuted to have any chance of changing medicine’s current money-driven course.

Until American medicine returns to operating under the precepts of the Hippocratic oath of first, doing no harm - where seeking the truth is the ultimate standard of care – this debate will continue to rage, and the future of patient-centered medicine will remain off course.

I’m still reporting from the citadel of world freedom. Good day.