\u201cIn our small community of Lytton, BC, we have one person dead, and three people who look as though they will be permanently disabled, following their first dose of the Moderna vaccine. The age of those affected ranges from 38 to 82 years of age,\u201d he wrote.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Hoffe was then banned from working in the local emergency ward and other provincial hospitals. He later submitted more than a dozen claims of vaccine injuries on behalf of his patients, but all were denied validity.<\/p>\n
*For more background, click tweet below by Dr. Mark Trozzi, another persecuted Canadian doctor for a summary of what is happening to Hoffe (and includes a powerful speech by Dr. Hoffe).<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/substackcdn.com\/image\/fetch\/w_424,c_limit,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep\/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F685bba25-2791-4f73-ad09-203c69a85bb6_369x367.png)
<\/picture>\n<\/div>\n<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n
Through FOIA obtained emails, Hoffe and his lawyer discovered that the College\u2019s first and only internal response <\/strong><\/em>was to find someone to report Dr. Hoffe for writing the letter. There is no evidence of any concern for the patients nor a request or investigation into Hoffe\u2019s patient records. They instead simply told him each report was a \u201ccoincidence\u201d and that it was best if he stop talking about this issue in the hospital. Both shocking and unsurprising I know.<\/p>\n He instead rightly began speaking out publicly and the three mainstream media outlets in Canada (there are only 3) have in turn, viciously and repeatedly done hit jobs on him, making him appear as the least credible doctor in the country (which my readers know well is a censoring tactic, i.e. make truth tellers appear as un-credible as possible so no-one will listen to or believe them).<\/p>\n More recently the Royal College began an investigation into Dr. Hoffe for numerous public comments he has made since his letter. This is a summary of the supposedly inaccurate statements made by Dr. Hoffe:<\/p>\n The College then hired an \u201cexpert\u201d named Dr. Trevor Corniel who submitted a 151 page report with a whopping 191 references. In that report he argues that each and every public statement made by Dr. Hoffe on the above topics was \u201cincorrect,\u201d \u201cmisleading,\u201d \u201cinflammatory\u201d and violated both the College \u201cPrudence Standard\u201d and \u201cHarm Reduction Standard.\u201d Know that these \u201cstandards\u201d are ethical codes of conduct that members of the College must abide by (remember ethics?). In my expert opinion, I argue that Corneil (knowingly or unknowingly) amassed data from fraudulent peer-reviewed literature and captured public health agency recommendations to support his conclusions that Hoffe is in violation of practice standards.<\/p>\n If Dr. Hoffe were to be found guilty as argued by Dr. Corniel, he is at risk of losing his livelihood (license) and could be fined up to $100,000. So they want to end his career and then take his money. I wonder how many future doctors will speak up against the next Big Pharma-Government fraud in Canada once Hoffe\u2019s fate becomes well-publicized? As far as I can tell, Canada only had less than a handful of publicly outspoken doctors and scientists in Canada during Covid (Charles Hoffe, Byram Bridle, Mark Trozzi, and Paul Alexander – if I am leaving anyone out, I apologize) . However, good luck hearing advice from un-conflicted doctors in the next pandemic.<\/p>\n Anyway, his lawyer, Lee Turner of Doak Shirreff Lawyers LLP in Kelowna, B.C. engaged me to defend a number of Hoffe\u2019s statements regarding ivermectin and shedding. I was proud to learn I was joining an All-Star team of medical dissident experts defending him such as Jessica Rose, Peter McCullough, Kevin McKernan etc. I plan to ask them to also post their expert reports on Substack, and I will create a central post linked to all for those interested.<\/p>\n Of note, Lee has been practicing trial law in British Columbia for 30 years and is experienced in administrative, public health, and personal injury law.\u00a0 He has been very busy in Covid as he has represented numerous nurses, physicians and other health care providers and individuals who were negatively impacted by Canadian Covid-19 public health measures and mandates (which as you know were far more draconian than here in the U.S).<\/p>\n I elected to do the case pro-bono and began by reading Corneils \u201cexpert\u201d report which viciously and repeatedly attacked Hoffe for his many accurate<\/strong> statements. I was so infuriated after reading it, I said to myself \u201cGame on (expletive)\u201d and immediately launched into a writing and researching frenzy over the last 5 days and I would say I put over 20 hours of work into my report. It is 47 single spaced pages with who knows how many hyperlinked references.<\/p>\n I hope I am not being too full of myself but I want to share what Lee Turner wrote to me after he read it,<\/p>\n \u201cPierre, I don’t even know how to express how incredible the information in your report is. \u00a0It is one of the most thorough and well written expert reports I have read in my 30 year career. And I have read a lot of expert reports. \u00a0I made a few minor corrections to spelling, and adding in punctuation (periods, commas or colons) and that was it. I think it is very well written and contains powerful evidence. \u201c<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Lets go through Count #1 against Dr. Hoffe shall we?<\/p>\n Dear Mr. Turner,<\/p>\n I acknowledge correspondence from you dated November 3, 2023, asking me to formulate an independent professional opinion concerning the safety and effectiveness of ivermectin as a treatment and prophylaxis for SARS-CoV-2 (Covid-19), as well as the science regarding Covid 19 vaccine \u201cshedding.\u201d<\/p>\n You have asked me to comment on the opinion expressed by the \u201cexpert\u201d, Dr. Trevor Corneil, relied upon by the College concerning these issues in his report dated September 26, 2022, specifically in sections 6.4, 6.5 and 6.10 of his report.<\/p>\n I am aware of my duty to assist the panel and I am not an advocate for any party. I have prepared this report with this in mind and am happy to testify in any setting to address questions regarding the matter.<\/p>\n I attach as Appendix B, a copy of your letter of instruction, including the list of documents which I have reviewed in forming my opinion.<\/p>\n My first comment on Dr. Corneil\u2019s report is that he carefully defines the following terms: \u201cmisleading\u201d, \u201cincorrect\u201d, \u201cinflammatory\u201d and then judges all of Dr. Hoffe\u2019s statements as to whether they meet the definitions of each term. He then articulates his opinion as to whether Dr. Hoffe\u2019s statements violate the College\u2019s \u201cPrudence\u201d and\/or \u201cHarm Prevention\u201d standards.<\/p>\n Similarly, for my below expert report, understanding the arguments I put forth requires knowledge of the word \u201cdisinformation.\u201d The Oxford English dictionary definition is \u201ca form of propaganda involving the dissemination of false information with the deliberate intent to deceive or mislead.<\/em>\u201d<\/p>\n Understanding my below expert opinion and how I arrived at it requires the knowledge that disinformation has been long deployed by select corporations across a range of industries, with the most skilled and aggressive being the pharmaceutical industry. In the article called \u201cThe Disinformation Playbook<\/a>\u201d written by the Union of Concerned Scientists, they write, \u201ccorporations manipulate science and scientists to distort the truth about their products, using a set of tactics made famous decades ago by the tobacco industry. We call these tactics the Disinformation Playbook.<\/strong><\/em>\u201d As you read through all the disinformation campaigns they cite, you realize that the pharmaceutical industry is over-represented in that list.<\/p>\n An important point to understand about disinformation tactics is that corporations deploy them when \u201cscience emerges that is inconvenient to their interests.\u201d\u00a0 The Disinformation Playbook was first developed in the 1950\u2019s by the Tobacco Industry to scientifically counter the emerging reports of greatly increased incidences of cancers in smokers. They successfully used disinformation for 50 years until the Master Settlement in 1995 with the US Attorney Generals of 50 states.<\/p>\n As one of the world experts in the use of ivermectin in the prevention and treatment of Covid-19, my first review paper called \u201cReview of the Emerging Evidence Demonstrating Efficacy of Ivermectin in the Prevention and Treatment of Covid-19\u201d is one of the most popular published scientific papers of the last 15 years with an altmetric score<\/a> ranking it the 10th<\/sup> most popular paper out of the last 25 million papers published.<\/p>\n Based on my intensive study of the ivermectin evidence base, including in-vitro, in-vivo, clinical and epidemiological studies, the evidence for efficacy is overwhelming. As of today, January 10, 2024, results are available from 100 controlled clinical trials, 47 of them randomized, with meta-analysis data finding statistically significant, large magnitude reductions in mortality, hospitalization, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance.<\/p>\n However, Dr. Corneil, along with numerous public health agencies and professional societies across the world\u2019s advanced health economies consistently ignore or systematically dismiss and distort the evidence of efficacy based on the widespread \u201copinion\u201d that the evidence base represents \u201clow-quality\u201d evidence that should not be relied on. This is a well-known Disinformation tactic called \u201cthe Diversion\u201d where the pharmaceutical industry co-opts 3rd<\/sup> party agencies and organizations to \u201cmanufacture uncertainty where little or none exists.\u201d<\/p>\n The reasons for the Disinformation campaign against ivermectin are multiple. First is that knowledge of ivermectin\u2019s efficacy in both prevention and treatment would have led to the revocation of the EUA supporting the massive Covid mRNA vaccine market and the global vaccination campaign and would also increase what public health authorities perceived<\/a> as the #1 enemy in the pandemic, that of \u201cvaccine hesitancy.\u201d A third reason is that knowledge of ivermectin\u2019s efficacy would greatly decrease profits from the competing, patented, highly profitable Covid medicines such as remdesivir, paxlovid, and molnupiravir.<\/p>\n From the article, \u201cThe Disinformation Playbook\u201d they name and define 5 main Disinformation tactics:<\/p>\n a.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 using fraudulent studies designed to achieve pre-determined results.<\/p>\n b.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 censoring the publication of positive studies in prominent medical journals<\/p>\n c.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 selectively publishing only negative studies in prominent medical journals<\/p>\n a.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 harassing scientists who speak out with results or views inconvenient for competitors of ivermectin.<\/p>\n a.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 using front groups and 3rd<\/sup> party organizations to \u201cmanufacture uncertainty where little or none exists.\u201d<\/p>\n a.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Buying credibility through alliances with academia or professional societies<\/p>\n a.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Manipulating government officials or processes to inappropriately influence policy.<\/p>\n For the purposes of this report, I will focus mostly on the first tactic above called \u201cThe Fake\u201d which describes the behavior of high-impact medical journals in their \u201cselective\u201d publication of brazenly manipulated trials intended to reach a \u201cpre-determined result.\u201d<\/p>\n Another aspect of \u201cthe Fake\u201d disinformation tactic is \u201ccensoring reports of positive studies.\u201d Evidence of dozens of rejection letters to investigators of positive studies of ivermectin (many of them personal colleagues) can be found in Chapter 28 of my book called, \u201cThe War on Ivermectin\u201d (Exhibit B). In Chapter 27 (Exhibit C), I detail unprecedented examples of positive peer-reviewed papers on ivermectin being retracted without accusations of fraud or plagiarism. My paper was one of them, and this action was unprecedented in the cumulative 120 years of me and my co-author\u2019s careers. The behavior of the medical journals in regards to ivermectin was, in my opinion, the foundation of the entire global disinformation campaign and has most contributed to the widespread false beliefs regarding ivermectin that are held by the global medical community.<\/p>\n Next, to understand the context of the numerous brazen and fraudulent manipulations of the published data on ivermectin that I will describe in my report, I think it is important that the College recognizes that the high-impact journals are nearly completely under the control of the pharmaceutical industry.<\/p>\n For support of my statement above that \u201cBig Pharma\u201d exerts immense influence of our most respected medical journals, I will reference the book written in 2001 by the former 20-year editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), Dr. Marcia Angell (she was also the first woman to serve in this role). The book is called Drug Companies & Doctors: A Story of Corruption. <\/em><\/p>\n A well-cited statement<\/a> of Dr. Angell is:<\/p>\n \u201cIt 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.\u201d<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Dr. Relman, another former editor-in-chief of the NEJM said this in 2002:<\/p>\n \u201cThe 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\u2019s disgraceful.\u201d<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Richard Horton, editor-in-chief of the Lancet has said<\/a>:<\/p>\n \u201cThe case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest<\/strong>, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness\u201d<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n With the above in mind, let\u2019s begin to examine the evidence cited by Dr. Corniel in his attacks on Dr. Hoffe.<\/p>\n (If you appreciate what I am doing for persecuted doctors pro bono, support in the form of paid subscriptions would be greatly appreciated as I am committed to continuing to do expert testimony without charge).<\/p>\n Subscribe now<\/a><\/p>\n Statement (d).<\/strong> Dr. Hoffe stated in an interview with Laura-Lynn Tyler Thompson, video of which was posted online on or around July 6, 2021, at 20:45 \u2013 21:23:<\/p>\n \u201c\u2026There are brilliant, very, very safe, very effective treatments for Covid, and for the medical authorities to tell them that they have to go home and do nothing is is utter negligence. \u2026 And for people to say that it is it is safer to do nothing than to take something like ivermectin, which is unbelievably safe \u2013 I mean, in many countries, it\u2019s available without prescription, I mean it\u2019s safer than aspirin, it really is safer than aspirin, um, so it is absolutely absurd [inaudible] that this is being denied from people\u201d.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n In Dr. Corneil\u2019s assessment of the accuracy of Dr. Hoffe\u2019s statement, he concludes the following in regard to the use of ivermectin to prevent or treat Covid-19:<\/p>\n 1)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Prior and current evidence strongly suggest that Ivermectin is neither a safe nor effective treatment or prophylaxis for COVID-19 illness. A meta-analysis published in April 2021 urged caution as available trials investigating the use of ivermectin for prophylaxis against COVID-19 exhibited a serious risk of bias and imprecision.141 A Cochrane systematic review conducted in July 2021 noted that the reliable evidence available did not support the use of ivermectin for treatment or prevention of COVID-19.142 Recently, a double blind randomized clinical trial of over 1400 patients observed that administering ivermectin did not prevent the occurrence of serious outcomes, hospitalizations or death from COVID-19.143 The World Health Organization issued a recommendation on March 31, 2021 against the use of ivermectin for patients with COVID-19, regardless of disease severity, except in the context of a clinical trial.144 On Oct. 19, 2021, Health Canada issued a public advisory not to use ivermectin to prevent or treat COVID-19.145<\/p><\/blockquote>\n I will now explore the published evidence that Dr. Corneil relied on to reach his conclusion above.<\/p>\n a)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Dr. Corneil writes above, \u201cA meta-analysis published in April 2021 urged caution as available trials investigating the use of ivermectin for prophylaxis against COVID-19<\/strong> exhibited a serious risk of bias and imprecision.\u201d<\/p>\n b)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 To support this statement he cites a meta-analysis in the BMJ from April of 2021 (Bartoszko et al<\/a>) which included only 2 randomized controlled trials of ivermectin in prevention of Covid. He also cites a Cochrane review<\/a> which included only one RCT that Bartoszko included.<\/p>\n The first observation I will make is that Dr. Corneil relied on only two RCT\u2019s to form his opinion when there are four that have been conducted to date. Second, he appears unaware of the evidence showing that both the BMJ and Cochrane review of prophylaxis trials are examples of the disinformation tactics called \u201cthe Fake,\u201d i.e. \u201cusing fraudulent studies designed to achieve pre-determined results.\u201d<\/p>\n The most brazen evidence that these papers were attempts to reach a \u201cpre-determined result\u201d is that the BMJ paper was published three months before the Cochrane review and included two randomized controlled trials (RCT\u2019s) while Cochrane only included one. Know that there were two published at the time of the Cochrane review, Seet et al<\/a> and Shouman et al<\/a>. Why would they ignore one of the RCT\u2019s?<\/p>\n Further evidence of fraud (bolded) can be seen in the abstract of the Cochrane review which states:<\/p>\n We found one study<\/strong>. Mortality up to 28 days was the only outcome eligible for primary analysis<\/strong>. We are uncertain whether ivermectin reduces or increases mortality compared to no treatment (0 participants died; 1 study,\u00a0304 participants; very low\u2010certainty evidence). The study reported results for development of COVID\u201019 symptoms and adverse events up to 14 days that were included in a secondary analysis due to high risk of bias. No study reported SARS\u2010CoV\u20102 infection, hospital admission, and quality of life up to 14 days.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n The first two sentences are easily proven false. In regards to the first sentence, there was more than one RCT available which studied ivermectin in prevention.<\/p>\n In regards to the second sentence, in the one trial<\/a> they included, the primary outcome was actually the development of Covid-19 symptoms, not mortality<\/strong><\/em> as they write above (further there were no deaths reported in the trial). Instead the study reported that the incidence of Covid-19 symptoms was 7.4% in those prophylaxed with ivermectin and 58.4% with standard of care. This was a very large magnitude and highly statistically significant reduction in risk of developing Covid symptoms, yet Cochrane reported it as being negative for an incorrectly stated primary outcome of mortality. The large, statistically significant numerical reduction in risk of contracting Covid is not mentioned.<\/p>\n Similar evidence of fraudulently ignoring or mis-representing the evidence base for ivermectin as a prevention of Covid can be found in the WHO Living Guideline for ivermectin<\/a>, published March 31, 2021 where they stated in Section 3.1, \u201cWhile ivermectin is also being investigated for prophylaxis, this guideline only addresses its role in the treatment of COVID-19\u201d.<\/strong><\/p>\n I believe the College should ask themselves why the WHO, in the midst of a global pandemic, would refuse to look at the evidence base for ivermectin as a preventative? Especially since the evidence base at that time (screenshot taken March 31, 2021 from the internet archive<\/a> of ivmmeta.com) included the below large series of controlled trials involving over 7,000 patients, all with large magnitude, statistically significant benefits:<\/p>\n As you can see above, there were results from 3 RCT\u2019s and 7 OCT\u2019s available, all finding large magnitude, statistically significant reductions in the risk of getting Covid (I excluded Hellwig and Tanioka because they were epidemiologic analyses and not controlled trials, although one could argue they were equally valid studies). I will note that the Elgazzar trial above was later retracted (disinformation tactic), however, other RCT\u2019s finding similar benefits were later added to the evidence base.<\/p>\n Why were observational controlled trials (OCT\u2019s) excluded from the BMJ, Cochrane, and WHO analyses?<\/p>\n I maintain that excluding OCT\u2019s is a form of disinformation in that OCT\u2019s can be done for little to no funds by independent investigators free of pharmaceutical conflicts of interests. The known and explicit bias of the massive funders of large RCT\u2019s are generally not present in OCT\u2019s. This is why the pharmaceutical industry and it\u2019s high-impact medical journals have increasingly avoided publishing OCT\u2019s in the last decade.<\/p>\n More damning is that there is no evidence to support this growing practice of systematically excluding OCT\u2019s from systematic reviews and meta-analyses. In fact, it is in violation of evidence based medicine (EBM) given that it willfully ignores decades of research which have found, on average, that OCT\u2019s and RCT\u2019s reach the same conclusions, like in this <\/a>definitive Cochrane review<\/a>. Further, prominent professional societies have issued policy statements<\/a> to reverse this practice by concluding, from their analyses of controlled trial designs, that \u201cobservational studies should be considered in developing clinical practice guidelines and in making clinical decisions<\/em>.\u201d Lastly, prior to Covid, the WHO routinely relied on more diverse sources of data and trial designs to inform their treatment recommendations. Not anymore.<\/p>\n Another astonishing violation of EBM is the repeated insistence that \u201clow quality\u201d trials be ignored from meta-analyses. The reality is that there is no published evidence that I am aware of that finds that \u201clow quality\u201d controlled trials reach different conclusions than \u201chigh quality\u201d controlled trials. In fact, there is only one paper<\/a> I know of which compared the conclusions of what current EBM grading systems determine is low quality and high quality. In that paper<\/a>, they found that low-quality and high-quality trials also reach the same conclusions on average.<\/p>\n Thus, it is my strongly held, evidence-based opinion that the systematic ignoring of both OCT\u2019s and \u201clow quality trials\u201d from meta-analyses are instead fraudulent efforts to create the myth that only \u201cBig RCT\u2019s\u201d that require massive funding can determine \u201cscientific truth\u201d or \u201cscientific consensus.\u201d<\/p>\n In the below expert opinion, I will provide extensive evidence that the bias (i.e. conflict of interest) of the funders of \u201cbig RCT\u2019s\u201d essentially pre-determine the results of the RCT\u2019s and those results are then used to establish a fraudulent \u201cscientific consensus.\u201d This occurs when what the \u201creal science\u201d I have described above reaches conclusions that are \u201cinconvenient to the interests of the pharmaceutical industry.\u201d I suspect that many members of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons are unaware of how rife disinformation is, or of the studies I just presented regarding the soundness and accuracy of non-RCT derived evidence.<\/p>\n In contrast to Dr. Corneil and numerous professional societies, many independent experts like me have, in line with this knowledge of the equivalence of OCT findings and RCT findings and high quality and low quality trials, chosen to rely upon a \u201ctotality of the evidence standard\u201d and include data from OCT\u2019s and supposed \u201clower quality\u201d trials. Note this practice is the most faithful to the foundational principles of Evidence Based Medicine (EBM). Recall that in the 1980s, responding to the need to overturn entrenched dogmas with scientific evidence, Gordon Guyatt coined the term \u201cevidence-based medicine,\u201d (EBM). Then in 1996, David L Sackett, published a widely cited article<\/a> defining exactly what EBM was: \u201cthe conscientious, explicit, and judicious use of current best evidence in making decisions about the care of individual patients.\u201d <\/em><\/p>\n Notice how Sackett does not define current best evidence as \u201cRCT\u2019s only\u201d:<\/p>\n \u201cBy best available external clinical evidence we mean (all?) clinically relevant research, often from the basic sciences of medicine, but especially from patient centred clinical research<\/strong> into the accuracy and precision of diagnostic tests (including the clinical examination), the power of prognostic markers, and the efficacy and safety of therapeutic, rehabilitative, and preventive regimens. External clinical evidence both invalidates previously accepted diagnostic tests and treatments and replaces them with new ones that are more powerful, more accurate, more efficacious, and safer.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Put differently, Sackett, proposed that three different considerations needed to be weighted equally<\/strong><\/em> in evidence based clinical practice:<\/p>\n \u2022Patient Values<\/p>\n \u2022Clinical Expertise<\/p>\n \u2022Relevant Research<\/p>\n In terms of \u201crelevant research\u201d, i.e. RCT\u2019s OCT\u2019s, epidemiologic analyses, the summary analyses of the controlled trials of ivermectin in prevention currently estimate<\/a> a highly statistically significant 88% reduction in your chance of getting Covid, far outperforming what we know now of the efficacy of the Covid mRNA vaccines. Yet, health agencies and professional societies across the world all ignored the OCT\u2019s and included only a subset of the RCT\u2019s, and in the case of Cochrane, mis-stated its findings and their importance. The WHO simply ignored the evidence base entirely when they studied ivermectin.<\/p>\n It is my professional opinion that these actions were willfully committed as a disinformation tactic to \u201carrive at a pre-determined result\u201d, which is to find that ivermectin is ineffective in preventing Covid-19 for the reasons I stated above. It should be unsurprising to know that the high-impact journals were under immense pressure from Big Pharma to support the vaccination campaign, and distorting and suppressing the evidence base for ivermectin (and hydroxychloroquine) was critical in that effort. Dr. Hoffe was almost certainly aware of this reality given his statement above is clearly supported by an expert knowledge of the available trials data.<\/p>\n To wit, the current evidence base<\/a> for ivermectin in the prevention of Covid includes:<\/p>\n a.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 14 controlled trials including 18,799 subjects of which: 4 are RCT\u2019s, 2 are propensity score matched trials (PSM \u2013 which also are equivalent to RCT\u2019s in accuracy), and 8 are OCT\u2019s.<\/p>\n b.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Each one of the 14 trials which studied ivermectin in prevention of Covid-19 found large benefits in reducing risk, and in 13 of the 14, the benefits were highly statistically significant.<\/p>\n c.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 In the RCT\u2019s alone<\/strong>:<\/p>\n i.\u00a0 Shouman et al<\/a>: 91% reduction in the incidence of getting Covid, p<.001<\/strong>, 304 patients<\/p>\n ii.\u00a0Chahla et al:<\/a> 95% reduction in the incidence of getting Covid, p=.002<\/strong>, 234 patients<\/p>\n iii. Seet et al<\/a>: 74% reduction in risk of getting Covid , p=.008<\/strong>, 1,236 patients<\/p>\n iv.\u00a0Desort-Henin et al<\/a>: 72% reduction in the incidence of Covid, p<.001<\/strong>, 399 patients).<\/p>\n d.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 In the propensity score matched trials:<\/strong><\/p>\n i.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Kerr et al<\/a>: 44.5% reduction in the incidence of Covid, 67% reduction in risk of hospitalization and 79% reduction in risk of death, p values all less than .001<\/strong>. Study included 6,068 patients.<\/p>\n ii.\u00a0Morgenstern et al<\/a>: 74% reduction in the incidence of Covid, 80% reduction in risk of hospitalization<\/p>\n e.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 In the observational controlled trials:<\/strong><\/p>\n i.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Carvallo et al<\/a>: 96.3% reduction in risk of Covid, p <.001<\/strong>, 229 patients<\/p>\n ii.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Behera et al<\/a>: 54% reduction in risk of Covid, p<.001<\/strong>, 372 patients<\/p>\n iii.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Carvallo et al<\/a>: 100% reduction in risk of Covid, p<001<\/strong>, 1,195 patients<\/p>\n iv.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Bernigaud et al<\/a>: 99% reduction in risk of Covid, p<.001<\/strong>, 3,131 patients<\/p>\n v.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Alam et al<\/a>: 91% reduction in risk of Covid, p<.001<\/strong>, 118 patients<\/p>\n vi.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Behera et al<\/a>: 83% reduction in risk of Covid, p<.001<\/strong>, 3,346 patients<\/p>\n vii.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Mondal et al<\/a>: 87.9% reduction in risk of Covid, p=.006<\/strong>, 1,470 patients<\/p>\n6.1. Patient Safety and Experimental Nature ………………………………………………………………… 23<\/em><\/h6>\n
6.2. Potential Harms to Fertility in Women …………………………………………………………………… 27<\/em><\/h6>\n
6.3. Myocarditis in Children ………………………………………………………………………………………. 30<\/em><\/h6>\n
6.4. Ivermectin for Treatment and Prophylaxis ……………………………………………………………… 33<\/em><\/h6>\n
6.5. Ivermectin Access ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 36<\/em><\/h6>\n
6.6. Harms to Pregnant Women …………………………………………………………………………………. 39<\/em><\/h6>\n
6.7. Microscopic Clotting ………………………………………………………………………………………….. 42<\/em><\/h6>\n
6.8. Adverse Events Following Immunization ………………………………………………………………… 46<\/em><\/h6>\n
6.9. Harms to Children ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 50<\/em><\/h6>\n
6.10. Vaccine Shedding ………………………………………………………………………………………………. 53<\/em><\/h6>\n
6.11. Statement (1). April 4, 2021, email to Dr. Carol Fenton from Dr. Charles Hoffe………………. 56<\/em><\/h6>\n
6.12. Statement (2). April 5, 2021, open letter to Dr. Bonnie Henry from Dr. Charles Hoffe ……… 60<\/em><\/h6>\n
6.13. Statement (3). April 21, 2021, email to Dr. Carol Fenton from Dr. Charles Hoffe …………….. 64<\/em><\/h6>\n
EXPERT REPORT – Dr. Pierre Kory, MD, MPA<\/h2>\n
Response To Section 6.4 of Dr. Trevor Corneil Expert Opinion<\/h2>\n
1)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u201cThe Fake\u201d<\/strong>:<\/h4>\n
2)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u201cThe Blitz\u201d<\/strong>:<\/h4>\n
3)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u201cThe Diversion\u201d<\/strong><\/h4>\n
4)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u201cThe Screen\u201d<\/strong><\/h4>\n
5)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u201cThe Fix\u201d<\/strong><\/h4>\n
\n<\/div>\nIVERMECTIN IN THE PREVENTION OF COVID-19<\/h2>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/substackcdn.com\/image\/fetch\/w_424,c_limit,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep\/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fa6c58769-d306-425b-aaae-150715bef191_898x331.png)
<\/picture>\n<\/div>\n<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n
\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/substackcdn.com\/image\/fetch\/w_424,c_limit,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep\/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F8fb9d3d6-b6fc-41bb-9c66-cbc49f6c559c_908x217.png "\\"\\"")
<\/picture>\n<\/div>\n<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/substackcdn.com\/image\/fetch\/w_424,c_limit,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep\/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F0c837809-ba31-4d21-95e8-fc46e1004e43_232x345.png "\\"\\"")
<\/picture>\n<\/div>\n<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n