Dr. Pierre Kory: The Editors of High-Impact Journals Had Standing Orders Not to Publish Positive Data on Repurposed Drugs

High-Impact medical journal editorial staff were getting orders to censor ivermectin studies from Big Pharma and “philanthropists” like Bill Gates.

Science is dead, Dr. Pierre Kory wrote, or at least any science that has financial implications against or for Pharma interests is dead.

No longer can we read them knowing that what appears in those journals is only and I mean only, what Pharma “allows to appear” in those journals … The NEJM, Lancet, BMJ, JAMA, Cochrane Library all have blood on their hands.

As the world came under attack by a novel and highly transmissible respiratory virus, the medical journals had a critical, life-saving responsibility to publish any and all studies of treatments that were either potentially effective or substantively effective in either preventing or treating the disease. They abdicated their primary responsibility. Millions have died as a result.

The Criminal Censorship of Ivermectin’s Efficacy by The High-Impact Medical Journals – Part 1, Dr. Pierre Kory, 16 September 2022

By Dr. Pierre Kory

Dr. Marcia Angell, a former long-time editor in Chief of the New England Journal of Medicine (“NEJM”) resigned in June of 2000 after twenty years in the post. She resigned because of what she described as the rising and indefensible influence being exerted by Pharma on the prestigious journal and its powerful affiliate societies. So, she wrote a book about it instead.

Some really important quotes of hers from “The Truth About Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What to Do About It” are:

Now primarily a marketing machine to sell drugs of dubious benefit, big Pharma uses its wealth and power to co-opt every institution that might stand in its way, including the US Congress, the FDA, academic medical centres and the medical profession itself.

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. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of the New England Journal of Medicine.

This one is nuts:

In 2003, the profits of the top 10 big Pharma exceeded that of the cumulative profits of the other 490 Fortune 500 Companies.


Dr. Relman, another former editor-in-chief of the NEJM said this, also 20 years ago:

The medical profession is being bought by the pharmaceutical industry, not only in terms of the practice of medicine but also in terms of teaching and research. The academic institutions of this country are allowing themselves to be the paid agents of the pharmaceutical industry. I think it’s disgraceful.

Richard Horton, editor in chief of The Lancet said this in 2015:

The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue.

As Dr. Aseem Malhotra (one of the most prominent physician Covid truth-tellers that has remained employed) recently tweeted a quote from an interview he did:

We have a wealth of evidence of the fraud that’s been committed by the pharmaceutical industry over the years ‘the real scandal is that doctors & medical journals collude with industry for financial gain & the regulator fails to prevent misconduct by industry.

I want to clarify the point above about “not being able to trust half the science in medical journals.”  I want to be clear that he is referring, in my mind, largely if not solely to what I call the “high-impact medical journals” and not all scientific journals. You should know that each journal is ranked by what is called an “impact factor” defined by Wikipedia as:

“A scientometric index calculated by Clarivate that reflects the yearly mean number of citations of articles published in the last two years in a given journal. As a journal-level metric, it is frequently used as a proxy for the relative importance of a journal within its field; journals with higher impact factor values are given the status of being more important, or carry more prestige in their respective fields, than those with lower values. While frequently used by universities and funding bodies to decide on promotion and research proposals, it has come under attack for distorting good scientific practices.”

Let’s look at the top 5 in the world today:

  1. New England journal of medicine
  2. JAMA: the journal of the American Medical Association
  3. BMJ. British medical journal 
  4. Nature reviews disease primers 
  5. Annals of internal medicine
  6. JAMA Internal Medicine

With the exception of the Annals of Internal Medicine, all the journals on the above list will feature heavily in this and my next post detailing their criminal collusion throughout the pandemic.

One journal not on the list above but that should be included is the Cochrane Library. Not because of their impact factor but because they are considered the premier journal publishing the highest form of medical evidence called a “systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials (SRMA).” I will argue below that, beyond the corruption of the ivermectin evidence by the WHO detailed in my two previous posts HERE and HERE, the Cochrane library’s rejection of Andy Bryant and Tess Lawrie’s SRMA followed by their publication of a fraudulent SRMA that can be blamed for the most deaths.

One of the most important powers of these journals is that they can drive headlines like nobody’s business. When a Pharma-friendly study gets published in one of those journals, it launches a PR media campaign that no amount of commercials or advertisements could accomplish. Conversely, if Pharma wants to prevent an effective generic drug or vitamin from being adopted widely, they pay researchers to design, conduct and publish fraudulent studies in these journals. When such a study is published, it triggers an equally effective “negative” PR campaign warning the world and its doctors against using such “dangerous” and “ineffective” therapies.

Big Pharma and BMGF (he gives money to a lot of medical journals) essentially control the high-impact journals. They figured out the importance of doing that many decades ago as numerous former editors have reported above. By doing that, Pharma can get the world to use ridiculous therapies like Remdesivir, Paxlovid and coronavirus vaccines while ignoring and recommending against the use of vitamin D, hydroxychloroquine, and ivermectin.

This post will detail the numerous, indefensible, and highly irregular rejections from publication of well-designed, positive trials of ivermectin. My next post will detail their use of a novel tactic whereby they got lesser impact journals that published positive studies of ivermectin to retract those studies.

Now, what I find interesting is that in the ‘Disinformation Playbook’ article by the Union for Concerned Scientists in 2017, they described 5 main disinformation tactics used by Pharma to attack emerging science that is “inconvenient to their interests.” The tactics were named using famous American Football plays as below:

These “journal censoring” tactics must be added to the Disinformation Playbook. I propose we name it “The Zone,” defined in American football as a defensive play where “a player is able to observe what the quarterback (truth teller) is attempting to do, anticipate where a pass may be thrown, and perhaps intercept the pass. Zone defences tend to produce interceptions of passes or outstanding collisions with receivers (welcome to my life) after they have made pass receptions.” Nailed it.

I would argue the “Zone” of censorship operated across three main types of information disseminators; legacy media (radio, print, television), social media (Twitter, Instagram, LinkedIn, etc), and the medical journals.

The reason why I remind you of the three main categories of information dissemination is because I maintain that all, and I mean all, of the media propaganda (later post) and media censorship of ivermectin was made possible solely by the actions of these high-impact medical journals. Dr. Flavio Cadegiani, my Front Line Covid-19 Critical Care Alliance (“FLCCC”) colleague and friend, this calls them the “Editorial Mafia.”

Further, by the Editorial Mafia dictating what scientific studies, fraudulent meta-analyses, and negative editorials were published, this then allowed national and international health agencies to issue corrupted recommendations against the use of ivermectin. These recommendations then led to the majority of the world’s doctors to refrain from using or even trying ivermectin.

The high-impact journal editors did four things to suppress the evidence of the efficacy of ivermectin in Covid:

  1. Rejected all positive trials of ivermectin, even (and especially) the high-quality ones, starting as far back as May of 2020. (That is what this post is about).
  2. Retracted positive ivermectin studies even after they passed peer-review and/or were already published (these actions were unprecedented in our careers as physicians and researchers). That is what my next post will be about.
  3. Published fraudulent trials and fraudulent meta-analyses, with the latter technique identical to that employed in the WHO’s corrupt recommendation against ivermectin HERE. This is a known disinformation tactic called “The Fake,” defined as “conduct counterfeit science and try to pass it off as legitimate research.”
  4. Published numerous anti-ivermectin editorials, which is also an already named disinformation tactic called “The Diversion.”

The rejections and retractions were the most damaging because any positive trial of hydroxychloroquine (“HCQ”) or ivermectin (“IVM”) published in a high-impact medical journal would have changed the entire trajectory of the pandemic. That is because the high-impact journals have the power to “move the needle” in terms of not only creating major media headlines but also in guiding healthcare policies by national and international healthcare agencies.

Recall how corticosteroids (my first Senate testimony in May 2020) later became the standard of care in Covid hospital patients overnight, immediately after the UK RECOVERY trial results from Oxford were reported in June of 2020. I can still fondly recall all of my former trainees and colleagues texting me the next day to say “we should have listened to Pierre” in regards to my testimony 6 weeks earlier. But that was before ivermectin. With rare exceptions, none have reached out to me in many months though. The silence started after ivermectin but became deafening when I (and later the FLCCC) came out against the vaccines.

Know that high-impact journal censorship of “inconvenient science” began very, very early in the pandemic. In THIS definitive documentary that first proved the lab-made origin of the virus, world-renowned scientists went on the record stating that their papers showing that the virus was man-made were getting rejected quickly from journals they had long published in. That was the “Editorial Mafia’s” first crime.

Then came the Surgisphere fraud published in the Lancet which drew the first blood against HCQ. Then David Boulware published his inept trial of HCQ prophylaxis and when we asked questions about his conduct of the trial and presentation of the data, he started misrepresenting to us about what exactly happened. My brilliant colleague David Wiseman went after him in this pre-print paper which I co-authored (but David did most of the work). For my subscribers, recall that Dr. Boulware was a central figure in the corruptive influence of the TOGETHER Ivermectin Trial given his indefensibly inaccurate and damaging quotes to New York Times reporters. He too has blood on his hands.

Our dear colleague Dr. Norman Fenton and his team performed an analysis of England mortality data and found that the UK government was miscategorising vaccination status so badly that it hid the evidence of its inefficacy and toxicity. It still sits on a pre-print server.

Similarly, experts from prestigious Universities analysed US and European databases and found increased all-cause mortality among the vaccinated, particularly among children. Their paper still sits on a pre-print server.

Jessica Rose and Peter McCullough’s paper on myocarditis rates after the Covid vaccines was withdrawn by the publisher after publication because they didn’t like the conclusion. There is still nobody speaking out against Elsevier for unethically censoring science. Not one person from the pro-vax side thinks censoring science is wrong. It’s stunning because it is so objectively unethical. Nobody can defend this so everyone is instead silent about it.

And it is getting worse. The other day a paper was posted that found for every hospitalisation supposedly prevented by Covid jabs, up to 98 serious adverse events would be suffered by young people between the ages of 18-29. Chances of getting published? Zero. Publishing “Pharma-inconvenient science” is nearly impossible nowadays.

Now, had the high-impact journals published even one positive trial for IVM or HCQ, millions of lives could have been saved. But that is not what happened. Those journals specifically blocked from publication any paper with “statistically significant” results supporting the use of IVM or HCQ. Never forget this. Ever. It is these Editorial Mafia actions which fuelled the twin mass killings by Covid and the vaccines.

Millions died due to the fact that no early treatments or preventatives were recommended across all the advanced health economies. Contrast how those economies fared compared to all the low and middle-income countries where IVM or HCQ are commonly used in prophylaxis programs for malaria and/or parasites and were thus widely used. It’s not even close.

Beyond the fact that IVM or HCQ would have blown up the markets for Pharma’s pipeline drugs like Paxlovid and Molnupiravir, recognise they also threatened the many billions going into the vaccines.

I maintain that the editors of the high-impact journals had standing orders to not publish positive data on repurposed drugs. So, the editorial mafia rejected and retracted positive studies while publishing fraudulent studies and editorials.

The above is taken from Dr. Pierre Kory’s article ‘The Criminal Censorship of Ivermectin’s Efficacy by The High-Impact Medical Journals – Part 1’.  You can read the full article HERE which goes on to detail the struggle that was happening behind the scenes for honest scientists who were trying to get their studies on ivermectin published.  Dr. Kory selected the five most significant positive studies that were rejected by high-impact journals:

  1. The rejection of Tess Lawrie et al’s “Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of Covid-19 Infection: A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis to Inform Clinical Guidelines” by the Cochrane Library is to me the single most damaging action taken against ivermectin, Dr. Kory wrote.
  2. Dr. Eli Schwartz is a world-renowned Professor of Tropical Diseases at one of the top universities in Israel. His sophisticated double-blind RCT effectively “proved” the anti-viral properties of ivermectin against SARS-CoV2 when he found that both viral cultures and PCR tests cleared faster in those treated with ivermectin.
  3. Retired Professor Hector Carvallo who submitted a paper to JAMA showing massive impacts of an early treatment protocol he devised centred around the use of ivermectin, dexamethasone, aspirin, and enoxaparin, i.e., the IDEA protocol (all now validated as effective).
  4. Professor Waheed Shouman of Zagazig University in Egypt conducted an even higher quality randomised controlled trial of ivermectin in the prevention of Covid. He found massive reductions in the incidence of infection among those treated with ivermectin. A high-quality study from a reputable university.
  5. Professor Olufemi “Femi” Babalola of Nigeria conducted a double-blind RCT showing numerous statistically significant reductions in important endpoints among ivermectin-treated patients. He sent it to the WHO.

Featured image: Leading Journals Agree That Big Pharma Manipulates Medical Research, Waking Times, 24 June 2015 and The Disinformation Playbook, Union for Concerned Scientists, 18 May 2018