Thread by @PierreKory

Thread re: retraction of the FLCCC paper from the Journal of Intensive Care Medicine
It is unfortunate that JICM retracted an entire paper based on their refusal to accept an update to 1 section of data that had little relevance to the focus or conclusions of the paper (1/8)

This was a comprehensive paper - 13 sections, nearly 200 scientific references detailing the science behind each MATH+ element of the 2020 protocol. The data in question was in 1 section and WAS ACCURATE when we originally submitted- i.e. a 6% COVID mortality at Sentara (2/8)

After peer-review & publication, a very unusual request came to us from JICM. Sentara Hospital asked the journal that the paper be updated with longer-term follow up data calculated differently (they never said our original data was inaccurate). (3/8)

Using Sentara's method, they came up with a 10% mortality - STILL FAR LESS than the 23% U.S hospital mortality average average we were loosely comparing it to. (4/8)

Best part: Sentara, in their ignorance, tried to call out the 28% mortality of patients who got all components of MATH+ as if it was a bad thing - without realizing those were ICU patients at a time when U.S institutions were reporting UP TO AN 88% MORTALITY in the ICU (5/8)

We then provided the only follow-up data we had - JICM refused to accept. We then offered to retract the entire section with the old Sentara data - JICM refused. The conclusion of the paper (it was a RATIONALE paper) still stands without the Sentara data even being included. 6/8

This action by the journal puts the FLCCC again on the growing list of scientists whose peer reviewed manuscripts on repurposed drugs have been retracted by editors throughout the pandemic (after passing peer review!). (7/8)

If medical research is there just to serve in supporting mainstream collective thinking and censor those who might have alternative approaches or differing interpretations, the future of medicine will be very dark. (8/8)