1/6 🧵Now lets talk about the #$%! captured medical journals. High impact ones will ONLY publish studies that although they show benefit, don't meet statistical significance. Then they write stuff like "this does not support the use of IVM in COVID" jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/…
2/6 Meanwhile, so much unprecedented crazy shit has happened in journals to positive studies of IVM and other repurporsed drugs it is INSANE. First, know that in the FLCCC's over 100 year academic career (1500 papers), never has any been retracted after passing peer review..
3/6 Here we go:
1) Frontiers in pharmacology (funded by BMGF) retracted our paper... AFTER passing rigorous peer review
1a) They then retract other accepted repurposed drug papers.. editors quit en masse
2) Lancet Respiratory retracted Bryant meta-analysis..AFTER peer review
4/6 3) NEJM rejected Cadegiani's proxalutamide paper...AFTER passing rigorous peer review & holding it for a month
4) Eli Schwartz, researcher from a top university in Israel, did a sophisticated double blind RCT showing faster viral clearance with IVM & cant get it published
5/6
5) Shouman's RCT showing massive reductions in transmission within households treated with IVM.. reviewed then rejected by NEJM, Frontiers (again), and EMRO (the WHO's prestigious journal) after holding for a long time - another "tactic": delay, defer, deny
6/6 Another positive IVM prophylaxis trial held by JAMA for 2 months.. without sending out for peer review.. then returned with an apology. Delay defer deny
The high impact journals let you see the science Pharma wants you to see, not the science that is out there. Sad sad state
Share this Scrolly Tale with your friends.
A Scrolly Tale is a new way to read Twitter threads with a more visually immersive experience.
Discover more beautiful Scrolly Tales like this.