Ok, so where were we? Oh yeah, I recently covered the rejections and retractions of positive ivermectin studies by the Editorial Mafia that control the high-impact medical journals. Now let’s go over the trials that they did publish on ivermectin. Note the very first play from the Disinformation Playbook, a tactic created and perfected by the Tobacco Industry over decades:...
...The “negative” studies they published are what fueled the massive media and health agency Disinformation campaigns (false narratives) against ivermectin. Make a special note of how to identify “narratives,” i.e propaganda campaigns.
A friend of mine has a rule he calls the “2 by 4.” If the story runs for 2 weeks on 4 different media or TV channels, not only is it a narrative (not always a false one but rarely if ever totally accurate) but more importantly, it is what takes hold of the minds of the majority of the country and becomes “mainstream” thinking. 2 by 4. Remember that. Although not every one of these trials triggered a 2 by 4, each time the papers and television stations across the world trumpeted the “negative” study results over at least the next several days after publication. The real “2 x4” propaganda campaign was the “horse dewormer” one which was triggered, not by a publication, but by a massive rise in U.S ivermectin prescriptions in mid-August of 2021. More on that soon...
...The publication of the numerous fraudulent or severely flawed studies supposedly “proving” ivermectin ineffective in COVID then launched massive negative PR campaigns using almost every communication medium possible - social media, newspapers, radio, televisions news programs, late night talk shows etc. They all told identical “stories” or “narratives.” The average American citizen (and physician) reading or listening to these stories found their thoughts directed as follows;
- Ivermectin is a dangerous medication suitable only for deworming horses.
- Positive studies of ivermectin were all low quality, poorly designed, or outright fraudulent and thus cannot be trusted.
- The only positive ivermectin studies occurred in areas where parasitic infections were endemic.
- Physicians claiming ivermectin is effective do not know how to interpret studies correctly and rely on “bad science.”
- Physicians cannot tell if a drug they gave to a patient with an acute viral syndrome is effective unless an RCT is done to “prove it.”
- Ivermectin “advocates” are igno
- rant of the “real Science” and thus have a religious or political belief in the medicine rather than a scientific one.
- Those who interpret ivermectin studies as supporting its use in COVID are misguided, not credible, ignorant, or are “anti-vax” conspiracy theorists.
- In contrast to the low quality studies showing ivermectin to be effective, the “real” studies, i.e. “well-designed,” “rigorous,” “large,” “properly done” trials instead proved it is ineffective in the treatment of COVID.
- That studies of its use in prevention should be ignored since the vaccines have already been proven to be “safe and effective.”
All of the above engendered “thoughts” quickly directed people’s actions in the following ways;
- Made health care providers refrain from treating COVID patients with ivermectin.
- Made patients avoid seeking an ivermectin prescription from a health care provider.
- Made patients refuse a prescription for ivermectin if offerred one by a health care provider.
- Made pharmacists unwilling to fill a prescription for such a dangerous, ineffective medicine.
- Made hospital and pharmacy administrators remove the dangerous, ineffective drug from hospital formularies.
- Made health care leaders propose policies and/or legislation to disallow providers from treating patients with such a dangerous, ineffective medicine.
- Made U.S Customs willing to search for and confiscate incoming shipments of such a dangerous, ineffective medicine.
- Supported health agencies in formulating recommendations against use of such a dangerous, ineffective drug.
- Made medical boards investigate and de-license physicians who prescribed ivermectin to their patients.
Again, although many societal forces participated in censoring data and disseminating propaganda on ivermectin, none of their actions would have been defensible or possible without the supporting “science.” The problem is that the only “science” that society seems to pay attention to or be guided by is that which appears in high-impact medical journals.
Thus, if you control the high-impact journals, you control the “science.” The Pharmaceutical Industry figured this out long ago, and is a reality that has been written about extensively, often by previous high-impact journal Editors like Dr. Marcia Angell and others. Despite their efforts in exposing this truth, the implicit faith and trust in the wisdom and quality of the science in those journals has still not been shaken. Not by the media, the doctors, or the laypeople. Especially the doctors. They revere those journals and do exactly what those journals tell them to do.
Remember that the worlds highest-impact medical journals are the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), NEJM, The Lancet, the British Medical Journal (BMJ), and the Annals of Internal Medicine (Cochrane Library is the top journal of systematic reviews/meta-analyses). Although the definition of “high-impact” is a scientific one, i.e. that the papers in those journals are the most cited among all scientific manuscripts, I interpret the term differently.
High-impact to me means that when a study is published in those journals, it can immediately drive news headlines. The press is alerted prior to publication of any new important study finding, whether positive or negative. Science reporters (which technically do NOT exist anymore) get to ask the study investigators questions about the study design, conduct, or conclusions and thus they can write up newsworthy headlines and articles which appear on the same day as the study’s publication. Since the world’s eyes were on ivermectin as a possible treatment, the studies appearing in those journals made big headlines. It should go without saying that the positive studies published outside the high-impact journals, no matter how large or high quality, never generated any headlines in major media outlets...