News & Commentary World

Evolutionary Biologist Calls Censorship of Ivermectin the “Crime of the Century”

Any low-cost, life-saving treatment is a distraction away from the vaccine rush cash-cow, and it involves “the deepest, most powerful opponents you can imagine.”

Front Line C19 Critical Care Alliance’s president and Chief Medical Officer, Dr. Pierre Kory has raised concerns about the suppression of data relating to the use of Ivermectin as an effective C19 treatment.

The doctor’s conversation with Bret Weinstein, an ostracised politically left, professor of evolutionary biology, alleged that the industrial size censorship of anyone daring to challenge the politics with the science insinuates, not only a betrayal of COVID victims but the intent to put big pharma profits and politics before people.

In a 15-minute clip posted on Weinstein’s ‘Dark Horse Podcast’ channel, which YouTube has now removed  (unintentionally proving Weinstein’s overall point) the FLCCC president said, “When you look at what is being recommended to treat this disease it’s deplorable. There’s not a lot of consistency on how [bureaucrats] made recommendations.”

Adding, “The WHO doesn’t recommend Remdesivir (an anti-viral) but the NIH does.”

According to Dr. Kory, since “the evidence for Remdesivir is ‘very weak’, but it’s expensive,” it makes those pushing Remdesivir, while censoring data about Ivermectin, look suspect.

He told Weinstein, “The one thing we know about anti-virals is they’re really only effective when you give it upon first symptoms, so we’re spending $3,000 a dose on a drug day 8 or 9 into an illness. The return on that is abysmal. It’s not a very effective drug.”

It’s the money talking, not the science.

Dr. Kory argued that “Our [U.S] system of care is vulnerable; it’s a system where the voices that get heard are those with lots of money behind them. We’re completely beholden to those with financial interests.”

Whereas, Ivermectin “is a little drug which has no patent. It’s manufactured throughout the world. No one’s making money off of it.”

Ergo, Ivermectin is ignored, and anyone not towing the approved party-line is de-platformed or worse.

Any low-cost, life-saving treatment is a distraction away from the vaccine rush cash-cow, and it involves “the deepest, most powerful opponents you can imagine.”

Weinstein then backed this by pointing to mass censorship of any and all rational discussions on proven C19 treatments, “You can’t go against the officialdom of the WHO and the CDC, with the backing of every social media platform. If Silicon Valley lines up with government against a treatment, the battle is herculean.”

A relevant example to insert here would be Facebook and Instagram’s ban of Independent Australian MP Craig Kelly, for his attempts to give frontline doctors a voice.

Dr. Kory said there’s a strong financial and political motive for quashing Ivermectin – as a preventative and treatment – evidenced by how the low-cost unpatented drug would “knee-cap the entire global vaccination policy.”

That’s because, as Weinstein, summarising Dr. Kory’s point said, Ivermectin “does the job that vaccines do.”

He then called the challenge to Ivermectin, bizarre. Explaining how odd it is for bureaucrats to declare a drug unusable not because it’s bad, but because of surreptitious claims that the evidence for Ivermectin as a plausible C19 treatment isn’t strong enough.

If Ivermectin is the effective C19 neutraliser it looks likely to be according to Dr. Kory’s data, and according to that of other advocates, such as America’s Frontline Doctors, and Australia’s C19 Medical Network, then as Weinstein points out, there would be no cause for emergency authorisation to roll-out a low-standard vaccine.

Furthermore, what’s behind the double-standard of “setting the bar low for a vaccine – even if a technological marvel – and setting the bar impossibly high for a drug?” Especially a drug that has an effective track record, and “is known to be safe.”

They conclude that the drivers behind what Weinstein labels as the “crime of the century”, isn’t a planned sociopathic killing spree (although they concede some in the system exist), it’s mostly a banal abdication of responsibility; “benign neglect and lazy intellectualism. Doctors just parroting what they’re told, without looking critically at it.”

The more gracious assumption said, Dr. Kory, is that rushed-vaccine advocates see mass vaccinations as the quickest way to answer C19, and they’ll do “their best to achieve that goal at all costs.”

Ivermectin is a viewed as “disrupting that goal.”

Thus, the dismissing of plausible C19 treatments, and the censoring of medical professionals, whose screams about the effectiveness of Ivermectin etc. are denounced as conspiratorial nonsense.

Weinstein in a side remark, lamented, “I don’t think that they’re worried enough about what we don’t know about the long term [effects of the vaccine]; and frankly I don’t think they’re worried enough about what shows up with respect to short-term stuff…”

For Dr. Kory, we’re hindering achieving herd immunity by demonising Ivermectin. It’s a “bridge” towards herd immunity. Those who want the vaccine, take it. Those who don’t, have an alternative; “it’s another tool in the toolbox.”

In an unrelated interview with India’s largest English-speaking news channels, ‘India Ahead News’, Dr. Kory explained “I have yet to meet a doctor who’s adopted Ivermectin in their practice and has reported back that it doesn’t work.”

Reflecting Craig Kelly’s argument to the Australian parliament, the Doctor said, bureaucrats “should stop interfering between the physician-patient relationship. Physicians know how to treat this disease we’re trying to share our experience and our knowledge.”

Dr. Kory then asserted, “When bureaucrats are recommending things and taking things away, they’re actually interfering with that [relationship]. I ask my fellow physicians around the world to think critically look at the evidence look at the review papers and come to your own decision.”

Kory and Weinstein seem to agree with similar comments I’ve made about excessive lockdowns, the vaccine push is evidently more political, than it is medicinal.