Welcome to The Inspirational Blog

Your go to place for inspirational and motivational
quotes, memes and articles.

Dr. Pierre Kory’s presentation to
the British Parliament Dec. 4th 2023

Please note: due to censorship, no official recording or transcripts were made available. We have made this transcript as well as we could from mobile phone recordings that were not always very clear.

This is a partial transcript

Evidence to follow briefly about the suppression of the strokes

Next slide. The reason why this subject is so important is that this global vaccination campaign would not have been possible, it would have been illegal to issue an emergency use authorization, if effective, available therapy was identified.

So we've threatened literally hundreds of billions of dollars over time, throughout the entire pharmaceutical industry, and almost every country's health policy on Earth. So there's every reason to destroy that evidence of efficacy. And that's only the beginnings of the threats of these early effective repurposed drugs. The others are the competing patented pipeline drugs that were being rushed to market to treat things, drugs like Paxlovid, Molnupiravir, Remdesivir and monoclonal antibodies.

So the total of that market is almost incalculable of the threat to the financial interests of an entire industry and one of the most rapacious industries in the history of corporations.

Next slide. The way in which industries, counter science which is inconvenient to their interests, is called ‘disinformation’. It’s best articulated in an article called The Disinformation Playbook, written by the Union of Concerned Scientists. There are a number of tactics, all of these were pioneered by the tobacco industry to convince you that cigarettes were safe, and they were successful in doing that for 50. years.

They know how to manipulate information and get you to believe things that are not true. And they get you to believe things that harm, that could directly lead to your death. These are deadly tactics, and they are no more skilfully deployed than by the pharmaceutical industry. They have the longest history and practice in deploying these tactics. And concurrently today that industry has way more power over media, journals, agencies than they ever had. I will not go through all of the tactics today and in the interest of time, but I want to focus on the main and most powerful one which is called ‘the fake’.

Next slide. This is what's called a forest plot. It's it summarises all of the effective treatments or COVID. There are 47 treatments that have been identified as effective using controlled trials. Some evidence bases are larger than others. You can see the thin grey line going down the centre, then you see these green triangles. Everything to the left of that line is considered effective.

What you can't see unfortunately, due to the IT troubles that we've been saddled today, but what is circled is the prices of the only therapeutics approved for use in the United States, out of the 47. Do you think it's coincidence that the cost of every approved medicine is in the hundreds and 1000s of dollars and every $1, $2, $5 treatment is ignored. And right at the top of the list of the green triangles is Ivermectin. That's the largest evidence base of any of them, over 130,000 patients in 99 controlled trials.

Next slide. This is the most devastating tactic, it's called ‘the fake’ and this is what the tobacco industry literally perfected. It's it's basically designing and conducting studies with predetermined results. They know what the result is that they want to get, and they know how to get it, and how to publish it. And they know how to convince you of those lies. Further, through the control of medical journals, which has been described by editors of the highest impact medical journals for decades. They've written books about this, that you should not believe half of what is published in high impact medical journals.

Those are not my words. Those are long-time editors of the top journals in the world. And they do this by selectively censoring, whenever they need to. So they will not publish positive studies of effective early cheap drugs. And they will only publish negative studies, and then they will fill those journals with editorials warning to the world's doctors away from thinking that such drugs could be effective. Next slide. This is the evidence base for two of the most popular repurposed drugs. Ivermectin, 99 control trials, 1000 Scientists, 20 countries actually endorsed that evidence base.

And if you look at the green triangles, they are all to the left of the line, and very important outcome some larger than others. And those are highly statistically significant improvements.

Next slide. So how do they conduct the fake? It's not that hard. If you study this stuff, it's entirely believable, how they can create a trial to show something that is effective. They actually can prove that it's not effective.

And this is what they did with Ivermectin over and over. I wrote a book, about all the tactics that I just presented, and I go into detail on every single tactic. In fact, I brought some I'd be happy to leave with any number of parliament who’s interested in reading it.

But let's talk about the fake. What they did, is they conducted many of the trials in countries where Ivermectin was available over the counter, and widely used. When they conducted trials they made sure they took as little care as possible, excluding people who are already on Ivermectin, which makes it very difficult to prove that Ivermectin is better than Ivermectin. That's only one of the tactics they use. The other one is they gave us low a dose for short duration as possible. They left it as late in the diseases possible. They invented weak dosing caps, which have never been described with Ivermectin before. And they also enter only the healthiest patients, the ones where it's hardest to show something works, because they're going to do well anyway.

Next slide. These are what I call the Big Six. I have a chapter on it, let's go for a couple of them so I can show you some pretty powerful examples of the brazen tactics that they will deploy.

Next slide. So this is the NIH trial. In the middle of trial, they did something that should never ever happen in a trial, which is they moved the goalposts, they changed what it's called the ‘primary outcome’. Originally they were going to look at the differences in death and hospitalizations, at day 14. What do they do? They changed to day 28.

If you look at one example of a secondary outcome, and the bottom right, Isn’t it curious and they determined that anything with probability of 0.95 or above would be considered an effective treatment.

At day seven was 0.97. By day 14 was 0.98. In the middle of the trial they change it to day 28, and suddenly it's 0.74, and then they determine that there's no role for Ivermectin in the treatment protocol. One trial.

Next slide. Next one. This is from Oxford and I want to take one quick second to say that some of the greatest and most impactful fraud occurred in this country, the universities of Liverpool and Oxford have blood on their hands. There are a number of professors.

One in particular. I would like to ask you, to ask Professor Christopher Butler, why he's designed these two trials in this way. On the left, this is the design of the trial to study Molnupiravir. On the right is Ivermectin.

With Molnupiravir they managed to enrol and randomise 25,000 people, a median two days from symptoms. With Ivermectin, they allowed you to be 14 days from first symptoms to enter the trial. Similarly, they could enrol people older with co-mobilities, with Ivermectin, all you had to do was ??? (can’t make out what he’s saying here but from the slide I can see that with the Ivermectin trial, the design was changed part way through. Before the change they were accepting people with dyspnea and other co mobilities over 65 years of age. I’ll send you a photo of the slide.)

With Molnupiravir they treated for five days, twice a day, but with Ivermectin, only for three days, once a day.

And the other thing is most shocking is that trial was completed 16 months ago. The world has no idea what they found. They are sitting quiet on the results.

Every other therapeutic, the entire reason why they designed these trials, was for rapid identification of effective treatment. Why are they waiting 16 months to release the results? There's absolutely no rational reason for that. All of the other studies that they've done, the results are known. If you remember these studies on on Ritonavir, Remdesivir, Paxlovid and huge PR campaigns from the world's media before we ever saw the data. Here they're done we know nothing.

Next slide. Keep in mind they started attacking Ivermectin even before these trials. Merck put up. three brazen lies on February 4th 2001. On that day, that was the evidence base for Ivermectin (on the right) but Merck claimed there was no meaningful evidence for clinical activity.

(This is what the slide showed)
February 3rd 2021
Ivermectin for COVID
1936 trials
255 scientists
10,423 patients
18 randomised control trials
90% improvement in 10 prophylaxis trials
82% improvement in 11 early treatment trials and 71% improvement in 18 randomised control trials 78% improvement in 14 mortality results potential daily lives saved 9460


But the following day, on 4th of February 2001, Merck put out a statement about ivermectin claiming
1) no scientific basis for a potential therapeutic effect against COVID-19 from pre clinical studies,
2) no meaningful evidence for clinical activity or clinical efficacy in patients with COVID 19 disease,
3) a concerning lack of safety data in the majority of studies.)

These pharmaceutical companies will lie, just put up lies, no author, no data.

Next slide. Even the chief scientist if the WHO, during India's humanitarian crisis during that delta wave in 2021, she tweets in the middle of the delta wave citing the Merck statement, to not use Ivermectin. That as the evidence base at that time (pointing at the slide).

Next slide. And then the other most impactful fraud was actually two professors at the University of Liverpool. One of them was Andrew Hill and the other was Andrew Owens. They work together.

Dr. Hill ended up finishing his work for??? He was the lead researcher for Ivermectin for ??? and the WHO, and when he finished his contract with them, he went on to publish his analysis which was profoundly positive. Within a week there was a PR campaign, claiming that one of the studies was fraudulent, so what did he do?

Next slide. He retracted his study, and started removing all of the trials that he had included, using non scientific categories, something like ‘potentially fraudulent’ and ‘having some concerns’, those are non-scientific definitions.

He whittled down the evidence base and says it does not save lives.

Next slide. They also rejected, I have dozens of rejection letters from the top journals in the world, from highly positive studies they would not publish. Those of us who managed to get stuff published

Next slide. Had them retracted. One of those is Tessa Lloyd, one of the top researchers in the world, amassing evidence. She had a paper that passed peer reviewed in the lancet about respiratory diseases, They told them they would not publish it. Mine was published and then retracted without an acquisition of fraud or plagiarism.

Next slide. The WHO is, I think, responsible for millions and millions of deaths. This is what they did. Andrew Owens was in charge of amassing the evidence.

Next slide. One thing we did, this is a forest plot for prevention. 17 trials, 16 or 17 highly statistically significant result in reducing your chances of getting COVID. What did they do with that evidence base? I highlighted right here. They decided not to look at. It's right here in the document, they did not look at it.

Next slide. If you can't read this, I will just tell you about it. They took the evidence base that Andrew Hill had amassed, dozens and dozens of trials, and started throwing them out using arbitrary exclusions.

Next slide. Despite doing that, guess what they found? An 81% chance, reduction, in your chance of death, if take Ivermectin. I'm going to repeat. They found an 81% less chance of dying. So how dis they not recommend this to the world? I'm going to show you.

Number one. They decreed that the evidence was of low certainty, using arbitrary definitions of what ‘low certainly’ means.

Next slide. Then this ridiculous statement appeared. I want to read it to you. They said that “the committee inferred that, almost all well informed patients would want to receive Ivermectin, only in the context of randomised trial, given that the evidence left a very heigh degree of uncertainty in the effect on mortality”.

They want you to pretend that if you breath in six litres of oxygen, 30 times a minute, fearing that you're going to deteriorate and die, that if a doctor came in and said “I have the safe pill, the best evidence we have this is your chance of dying is 81% lower”, that you would then say that doctor. “I'm not comfortable taking that pill unless it's in the context of a randomised control trial”.

They also inferred, in the last month, the path anticipated a variation in values and preferences between patients. So they are literally telling you, every citizen on Earth, this is what you would think in that situation. Next slide. And so as a consequence, it allowed the global vaccination campaign to proceed, all the billions of dollars to be accrued, and all the millions of deaths to occur.

War on Ivermectin:
The Medicine that Saved Millions and Could Have Ended the Pandemic
Pierre Kory