Neil Oliver Outlines Madness of New Push to Vaccinate Children 6 Months to 5 Years Old


Posted originally on the conservative tree house on June 25, 2022 | sundance

In this week’s discussion monologue, Neil Oliver outlines a recent push by U.S. and U.K. authorities to vaccinate children under 5-years of age.   Despite almost zero risk to their health from COVID-19 or any variant, in the U.S. the FDA has recently approved vaccinations for babies 6-months and older.

Mr. Oliver notes the risk vs- reward in this health protocol is ridiculous on its face.  There is no substantive risk from COVID19 to any healthy child or young adult, yet the government institutions of healthcare are seemingly blind to the medical evidence.   Oliver says, “leave our kids alone,” WATCH:

[Transcript] – In the USA they are jabbing babies with the COVID vaccine, six months old and upward.  Here in Britain the NHS has been targeting children at primary school – five to 11 years old – with posters and letters depicting those youngsters who submit to the procedure as ‘Superheroes’.

Smiling cartoon characters, children in superhero outfits, surely designed to persuade children as young as five years old that they might join the ranks of superheroes if they will just line up and bare an arm to the needle.

Looking for all the world like an invitation to a party, with large writing in bright colours, child-superhero branding and headlined – “Calling All Superhero Kids” – the blatant attempt to appeal to the fantasies of innocent children is clear.

The inference to be drawn by any child looking at such a poster is that they are lesser mortals – cowards even – if they would rather not take the jab.

That the NHS is targeting our youngest and most vulnerable in this way is, I say, morally reprehensible, unforgivable. Where in this shameful play on childish imaginations and urge to please is the compliance, demanded by the laws and ethical codes for informed consent, the necessary full disclosure of risks, benefits and alternatives?

And that is before we get to Advertising Standards Agency’s rules shaped to protect children from advertisers’ tricks. Among much else, it has long been the case that advertisers are not, when targeting children directly and specifically, to take advantage of, and I quote from the ASA rules, “… their credulity, loyalty, vulnerability or lack of experience.”

Last week on this channel Mark Steyn drew attention to figures used by the JCVI – the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation – that estimated how many children would need to be jabbed in order to stop one person – just one person – being admitted to an Intensive Care Unit with Covid. That figure is two million children – each jabbed not once, but twice – to stop one admission to ICU.

The average age of death from Covid, calculated early on in the pandemic, was 82 years, the same age as national life expectancy or even older. In the last three months that figure for average age at death from Covid has risen to 85 or 86 years of age.

How many grandparents and great grandparents would countenance the injection of 5 year olds – and who knows, if we follow the lead set by the USA perhaps 6 month old babies – to protect those elders … from any disease … up to and including the Black Death? My hunch is not many.

So far only nine percent of youngsters in the UK aged between 5 and 11 have taken the jab – so that all is not lost – not yet at least. Remember anyway that it’s estimated three quarters of British children have had Covid already, and so have natural immunity.

And that much is before we come to contemplate the increasing certainty that the vaccines are, anyway, causing deaths and harms of all kinds, and in huge numbers. Long behind us now are the days when anyone could say any of the jabs prevent infection with Covid or transmission of Covid.

Last gasp claims that the vaccines reduce the risk of severe symptoms and therefore hospitalisation are similarly undermined.

But the Internet is still awash with people – from the president of the US on down – saying that if you take the jabs you won’t catch Covid, that you won’t transmit Covid, that you won’t die of Covid.

By any sane person’s assessment, that is Covid misinformation, and yet the so-called fact checkers, paid for by billionaire technocrats, and the media platforms themselves leave those erroneous, nonsense statements untouched while continuing to censor and delete reports of death and harm.

Health secretary Sajid Javid bragged last week that those vaccines we’ve had forced upon us so far are just the start. He tweeted that NHS patients would benefit from the “next generation” of vaccines thanks to a new deal with Moderna.

A state of the art mRNA manufacturing and global Research & Development centre will be built here in the UK. According to Javid, it will cement our “science superpower status” – so it’s not just five year olds who are supposed to swoon at the prospect of super powers.

While our Health Secretary celebrates a new deal with Big Pharma, let us consider the latest figures from the VAERS – Voluntary Adverse Event Reporting System – in the US. The latest data, released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, showed 1,301,356 reports of adverse events experienced by all age groups after vaccination.

Remember too that it is a crime in the US to log false claims on the VAERS system, so that medics put their reputations on the line with every posting and are highly unlikely, to say the very least, to report nuisance or other likely erroneous claims of hurt. Among that figure are 28,859 reports of deaths and 238,412 of serious injuries between December 14, 2020 and June 10, 2022.

And yet now, while the figures rise concerning the risks associated with the present vaccines … while compensation is beginning to be paid out to victims’ families here in Britain, and while so much still remains unknown about the safety of mRNA vaccines, we are already invited by our Health Secretary to look forward to more of the same.

I said on this channel months ago that they should leave the children alone – but in my heart I knew they wouldn’t, and they haven’t.

These two years past have not been about taking care of people’s health. They have been about and continue to be about seizing and exploiting the control of the people themselves. Covid was used as a key, and it unlocked a door.

We have been isolated, divided and placed under house arrest. Many have had their livelihoods destroyed. We have been made to watch the economy driven off a cliff. We had our travel privileges revoked.

We have had our physical and mental health pushed to breaking point and beyond. Just as Covid ran out of steam, war broke out in Europe – a war with no end anywhere in sight. Now they’re telling us to once and for all bid farewell to coal, gas and oil to heat our homes and power our cars.

Everything everywhere is divisive, frightening, enraging or a mix of all three.

Apparently unstoppable illegal immigration on the southern coastline; fuel shortages, price hikes of hundreds of percent at a time.

The prospect of a summer of industrial action; travel chaos for millions. Most recently the overturning of Roe v Wade in the US and more riots in response. Division, division, division.

Take a breath and look at all of it: the fury and the hopeless impotence felt by millions of people is setting us at each other’s throats in every way imaginable. Like water flowing into cracks and fissures in rock, the fear must one day create so much pressure that the rock shatters. The more divided we become, the better it suits the agenda of those that would have us forget the world of before and just bend over ready to take it from the new world to come.

I say it will only get worse. Covid might as well be viewed as a dry run – or perhaps more accurately as an opportunity to probe defences in the minds of the public and so gauge reactions in preparation for the next, more determined assault. Isolated, frightened and angry people … cut off from work and social lives, trapped in their homes for weeks and months, turned to the Internet as a means to reach out to others, to find information different from the paid-for propaganda pumped out by the government and servile media outlets.

And what do we see now? – an Online Safety Bill. This, we are told, will clear out all that pesky misinformation and disinformation – which is to say information the government doesn’t like people seeing and hearing because it runs counter to official stories.

How very, very convenient. As one door closes, another one is slammed in our faces.

All over the world, under the cover of Covid darkness, new laws were passed in one country after another to limit the possibility of protest and dissent.

President Biden is already warning about the next pandemic. There’s Monkeypox – or whatever they decide to call it next – and most recently the discovery of Polio in a British sewer.

If they don’t seek to curtail yet more of our freedoms in response to a disease, they will surely try to have us submit to restrictions designed to save the planet, or stop the war in Ukraine, or whatever cause they can drum up next.

And now, as was always inevitable, and that could be seen from outer space if you had your eyes open, it comes down to our children. Adults have had some time to work things out for themselves, to take advantage of understanding and experience spread over years.

The brains of children are much more malleable, however, ready for imprinting and indoctrination. I have long wondered just how safe British schools are for our children anymore.

This latest scam by the NHS – calling all superhero kids – is only another glimpse among too many to mention of the enthusiasm for abandoning the need to teach children how to think and telling them what to think instead, what to do.  [VIDEO ENDS]

Look closely now and you can see another escape route for the uncooperative, the independently minded, being prepared for closure. For those uncomfortable with the education their children are receiving from their schools, home schooling has been an option. Away from an agenda pushed by the state, home schooling parents and guardians were free to nurture and encourage young minds in other ways.

Last month the government announced a new Bill to, and I quote, “level up education”. One way or another, I suspect there will be more control exerted over home schoolers, tendrils of control tightening, because this is about control, pure and simple.

It is about frightening people and keeping them frightened, and so infinitely more likely to take their medicine, real medicine or perhaps the cure for climate crisis, however bitter, who knows.

More and more it will be about our children. Their hearts and minds. The final obstacle to any totalitarian is always the family, and the protection afforded to children by their families.

They were always going to try and reach the children in the end. Whatever happens next – or indeed does not and must not happen next – is up to every one of us. (link)

Pfizer CEO Says Annual COVID Vaccine Booster is Almost a Certainty


Posted originally on the conservative tree house on June 25, 2022 | sundance 

June 25, 2022 | sundance | 320 Comments

This brief soundbite from last week is somewhat of a precursor to the points raised by Neil Oliver this week.  The financial interests of the Big Rx corporations are directly tied to government.  This is the origin of the biggest issue behind government mandating the forced vaccination program for SARS-CoV-2 and any COVID-19 variant.

The adverse medical consequences from the COVID-19 vaccination program are only just now starting to surface while the government and Rx corporations continue to hide data showing adverse impacts.  At the same time as this massive conflict of interest and general health controversy is being debated, Pfizer CEO Albert Poula says he is “almost certain” that mandatory vaccine boosters will be part of the requirement by government each year.  WATCH (1 minute):

There is something very disturbing about these people.

Biden: There’s Going to Be Another Pandemic


Armstrong Economics Blog/Corruption Re-Posted Jun 24, 2022 by Martin Armstrong

The US government ordered 3.5 million additional Pfizer vaccines and 1.3 million from Moderna. Yet, Biden is requesting more funding from Congress for pandemic initiatives. “We don’t just need more money for vaccines for Children. Eventually, we need more money to plan for the second pandemic. There’s going to be another pandemic. We have to think ahead,” the president mumbled. A SECOND PANDEMIC?

We survived the “winter severe illness and death for the unvaccinated” that the Biden regime touted as a fear tactic. Studies now show that hospitalizations are less likely among the unvaccinated population. There are a plethora of damaging side effects from the vaccination. What plan do the elites have to ruin our society once more to push forward the Great Reset?

They tried to present monkeypox as the next pandemic, but it backfired once it was determined that it spreads more frequently among gay males as that does not fit their agenda. They leaked the Roe v. Wade document to encourage civil unrest, but even single-issue voters cannot ignore the abhorrent state of the economy and their lowered standard of living.

The politicians supporting the New World Order are declining in popularity and will do anything to gain votes. So, what exactly is the “second pandemic?” Perhaps we will find out closer to the next election.

DeSantis on Vaccines


Armstron Economics Blog/Disease Re-Posted Jun 24, 2022 by Martin Armstrong

My computer had forecast that Florida would be the best state to migrate to 6 years ago. I ran the studies on hurricanes. Everything came up roses. We held our World Economic Conferences here in Orlando because there were very few places we could have even had a conference. People ask me if I will support DeSantis for President. The answer is NO!. Washington will only eat him for launch and create every possible scandal they can manufacture. I think he should stay here in Florida for we will end up separating from Washington, DC.

Manchin Votes No on Build Back Better | Armstrong Economics

It was the election of Abraham Lincoln on November 1860 which was the final straw for many southerners. They believed that Lincoln’s goal was to ignore the state’s rights and attack their very way of maintaining a workforce which has become during colonial times indentured servitude. The King had turned any crime into profit selling you to the plantation owners to work off your sentence.

With the American Revolution, the Dutch stepped up its supply of Africans who they were told were the “spoils” of war and qualified to be sold as a slave. England then began shipping its alleged criminals to Australia which became known as a “penal colony” after the American Revolution.

While the first state to actually secede from the Union was South Carolina on December 20th, 1860 with a vote that was unanimous – 169 to 0 for secession. It is noteworthy that they nearly seceded also during the debate over tariffs in the 1830s. That is when John C. Calhoun helped to solve the problem and South Carolina thus remained in the Union. The other curious footnote was that Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina, and Tennessee did not secede until after the Battle of Fort Sumter on April 12, 1861. However,  West Virginia secede from Virginia which was formed on October 24, 1861, when the western portion of Virginia chose to break away from the rest of the state instead of seceding and remaining with the Union.

Monkeypox – Old Virus, New Vaccine


Armstrong Economics Blog/Disease Re-Posted May 25, 2022 by Martin Armstrong

The US Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) is already developing a vaccine for monkeypox. Although the disease may seem novel, the first reported outbreak in monkeys occurred in 1958, and the first human infection was reported in the 1970s in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). According to the Centers for Diseases and Prevention (CDC), the virus is transmitted to humans through direct animal-to-human or human-to-human contact. Before they change the transmission guidelines, I will report what they stated on their website:

“Transmission of monkeypox virus occurs when a person comes into contact with the virus from an animal, human, or materials contaminated with the virus. The virus enters the body through broken skin (even if not visible), respiratory tract, or the mucous membranes (eyes, nose, or mouth). Animal-to-human transmission may occur by bite or scratch, bush meat preparation, direct contact with body fluids or lesion material, or indirect contact with lesion material, such as through contaminated bedding. Human-to-human transmission is thought to occur primarily through large respiratory droplets. Respiratory droplets generally cannot travel more than a few feet, so prolonged face-to-face contact is required. Other human-to-human methods of transmission include direct contact with body fluids or lesion material, and indirect contact with lesion material, such as through contaminated clothing or linens.”

The disease can reportedly occur through sexual encounters as well. This is NOT an airborne virus – masks and lockdowns would be useless. Cases of the virus are appearing throughout the world, but again, this virus was never limited to one continent. In 2003, 47 cases of monkeypox were reported in the US after pet prairie dogs became infected after being housed with small animals imported from Ghana.

BARDA plans to release JYNNEOS, a smallpox vaccine, to treat monkeypox cases by 2023. The company has already produced almost 13 million freeze-dried doses of the vaccine that are expected to be manufactured in 2024 and 2025.

President and CEO of Bavarian Nordic Paul Chaplin said, “We are pleased to announce the exercise of the first options under our contract with the US government to deliver a freeze-dried version of the smallpox vaccine with an improved shelf-life, which will be manufactured at our new fill and finish facility. This marks a significant milestone in our long-standing partnership with the US government to ensure availability of life-saving vaccines for the entire population.”

The European Medicines Agency approved the medication to treat monkeypox in 2013, and the FDA quietly approved its usage in 2019. Since this seems to be a rare illness, why are they planning to manufacture millions of doses to save “the entire population?” The media has only just begun reporting cases of the virus, and it would not be surprising if they pushed yet another unnecessary vaccine on the global population for profit and control.

Trudeau Admits He Does Not Understand Basic Math


Armstrong Economics Blog/Canada Re-Posted Apr 27, 2022 by Martin Armstrong

In an old video that has resurfaced from Justin Trudeau’s days as a West Point Great Academy teacher, the now prime minister admitted that he struggles with basic math. “I have a slight learning disability…that was never addressed,” the 29-year-old teacher stated. “I am dysnumeric,” Trudeau said after self-diagnosing why he cannot understand small math problems. Trudeau said that his learning disability did not prevent him from later teaching children mathematics. “Dysnumeric” is not a medical term, although there are learning disorders involving numbers.

Trudeau admitted he could not remember phone numbers. He said that he was still unsure of his multiplication tables.

Ironically, Trudeau says, “Questioning as a skill is not taught anymore.” Perhaps it is so that tyrants like Trudeau can invoke martial law over a peaceful protest and shriek at people to stay inside and trust the ever-changing “science.” Feasibly his revelation explains why he thought only a “fringe minority” of Canadians wanted to escape his COVID restrictions. He goes on to say that he also does not understand computers, but that his skill is teaching the youth how to think. “It’s not about teaching facts anymore,” he admitted years ago. It is about manipulating the people to trust what government claims is factual and implementing penalties for anyone who questions the status quo. It is no wonder that Schwab scooped Trudeau up to be one of his Young Leaders.

Antidepressant Prescription Sales Spike


Armstrong Economics Blog/medicine Re-Posted Apr 27, 2022 by Martin Armstrong

A SingleCare Team study revealed the majority of the US population takes some form of a prescription pill. The insurance agency found that the number of people reliant on prescriptions significantly rose after the pandemic. In fact, medications for mental health issues are on the rise. The company reported a 70% increase in prescriptions for the antidepressant Lexapro, a 31% increase in Zoloft, a 21% increase in Trazadone, a 20% increase in Prozac, and a 16% increase in Adderall. The agency noted that the American Psychological Association reported an uptick in individuals self-medicating illegally with opioids as well.

Currently, around 66% of adults in the US are reliant on Big Pharma. Canada is in a similar situation, albeit with lower prescription costs, with 65% of their adult population on prescription medicine. In contrast, only 26% of adults in the UK and 35% of adults in Australia are reliant on medications.

Why are people in the US and Canada more likely to take prescription medication? One could argue the US population is not as healthy as other nations due to obesity and limited walkable cities, but that does not account for the large disparity. One big reason is marketing – but that does not apply in Canada. Only in the US do you see commercials and billboards promising a pill to cure the woes of life. It is not common practice in other countries for people to ask their doctor for a specific medicine.

This all comes down to business and corporate profits. The average American takes FOUR different pills each day. So over 131 million Americans are reliant on at least one medication. Citizens in the US spend more than any nation on prescription drugs, with the average consumer spending $1,229. Canadians spend around $879.

In addition to the billions Big Pharma made on COVID-related drugs and vaccines, they have also profited from COVID restrictions deteriorating the public’s mental health. In mid-June 2020, when many restrictions began to ease, SingleCare reported a 50% increase in antidepressant medication. The same increase was reported during the third week of March when lockdowns began. “Between the concern over job loss, isolation, and general anxiety, this growing trend in antidepressants over the past few months may well be due to the pandemic’s impact on mental health,” Ramzi Yacoub, Pharm.D., the chief pharmacy officer at SingleCare stated. Insurance and pharmaceutical companies believe the need for prescription drugs will only continue. Thanks to COVID, antidepressants are now the most prescribed medication in the US and the second-most prescribed medication in Canada.

Rhode Island Lawmakers Propose Doubling Taxes for Parents of Unvaccinated Children


Armstrong Economics Blog/Uncategorized Re-Posted Apr 25, 2022 by Martin Armstrong

Democrats in Rhode Island have prepared legislation that could double taxes for parents of unvaccinated children. Senator Sam Bell, who is championing the bill, claims that there is a need for a universal mandate. Under the proposed law, unvaccinated residents would face a $50 monthly fine for noncompliance. Employers would also be required to mandate vaccines for all employees or face a $5,000 fine per violation. The biggest burden – “Any person who violates this chapter shall be required to pay a monthly civil penalty of fifty dollars ($50.00) and shall owe TWICE THE AMOUNT OF PERSONAL INCOME TAXES.”

To receive an exemption for a minor, three separate doctors must confirm that the child is “not fit for immunization.” Then the state would need to investigate each claim and determine whether or not the parents should be financially ruined. So even if three different doctors say that a child should not be vaccinated, the state may override them.

Biden lost his bid to implement a federal vaccine for employers last year, but the battle is not over. State lawmakers still have the capabilities to force compliance through any means possible. Bell wants to make the state of Rhode Island unlivable for the unvaccinated. While this is unlikely to pass, the fact that they are still attempting to force vaccinations in April 2022 shows that the war on medical freedom has not ceased.

The BMJ: Evidence Based Medicine has Been Corrupted by “Corporate Interests, Failed Regulation, and the Commercialization of Academia”


Posted originally on TrialSite by Staff originally on April 21, 2022

A March 16 opinion piece in The BMJ raises some serious questions about what they call, “The illusion of evidence based medicine.” Authors Jon Jureidini and Leemon B. McHenry posit that the prominence of evidence-based medicine constituted a paradigm shift, meant to give a solid foundation in science for our medical care system. But the validity of the paradigm depends of accurate data from clinical trials, and most of these are conducted by the pharma industry and then published under the name of “senior academics.” Public release of what had been confidential pharma industry documents gives the medical world key insights into the level to which pharma-sponsored trials are mischaracterized. Getting a bit philosophical, The BMJ argues that critical rationalism is key for both the integrity of science and the role of science, “in an open, democratic society.” But this ideal is under threat by corporate power, a world in which, “financial interests trump the common good.” The dominance of massive pharma firms involves some competition, but all these players are united in working to expand the general pharma market. And while what the authors call, “free market champions” have embraced privatization, “the unintended, long-term consequences for medicine have been severe.”

Medical Schools Take Neo-Liberal Approach

Knowledge and data ownership hamper progress in science due to the fact that the pharma industry tends to suppress negative trial outcomes, not report adverse events, and not share their raw data with the research community. To quote The BMJ, “Patients die because of the adverse impact of commercial interests on the research agenda, universities, and regulators.” And duty to shareholders’ “hierarchical power structures” prioritizes both product loyalty and public relations over integrity. Further, while our fancier universities face influence from their endowments, “they have long laid claim to being guardians of truth and the moral conscience of society.” And facing reduced government funding, these schools have taken the, “neo-liberal market approach,” seeking out pharma funding, with strings attached.

Doctors as “Product Champions”

And thus, science departments at a broad swath of our universities can be seen as “instruments of industry.” When you combine firm-level control of the research agenda and the “ghosting writing of medical journal articles and continuing medical education,” scholars can transform into promotors of commercial products. Further, media reports of “industry-academe partnerships[s]” add to a general mistrust of our academic institutions that betrays the very vision of an open society. And what The BMJ calls the “corporate university” itself undermines the idea of academic leadership. Where once deans were folks with “distinguished contributions to their disciplines,” now they are more of fundraisers/academic managers who must show their “profitability” and ability to attract corporate sponsorship. And medical academia’s stars, who tend to be opinion leaders, advance their careers via industry opportunities. These folks are hired based largely on their influence on the “prescribing habits” of other doctors. The opinion leaders are also often well-paid by pharmaceutical advisory boards and speakers’ bureaus in the context of presenting results of pharma industry trials. And instead of being “independent, disinterested scientists,” they can become “product champions,” in the parlance of marketing executives.

Reforms Called For

Proposals for reform can include, “liberation of regulators from drug company funding; taxation imposed on pharmaceutical companies to allow public funding of independent trials; and, perhaps most importantly, anonymized individual patient level trial data posted, along with study protocols, on suitably accessible websites so that third parties, self-nominated or commissioned by health technology agencies, could rigorously evaluate the methodology and trial results.” For readers seeking more information, the American Medical Association’s Code of Medical Ethics Opinion 7.1.4 sets out that organization’s policies on conflicts of interest in industry-funded research.

A March 16 opinion piece in The BMJ raises some serious questions about what they call, “The illusion of evidence based medicine.” Authors Jon Jureidini and Leemon B. McHenry posit that the prominence of evidence-based medicine constituted a paradigm shift, meant to give a solid foundation in science for our medical care system. But the validity of the paradigm depends of accurate data from clinical trials, and most of these are conducted by the pharma industry and then published under the name of “senior academics.” Public release of what had been confidential pharma industry documents gives the medical world key insights into the level to which pharma-sponsored trials are mischaracterized. Getting a bit philosophical, The BMJ argues that critical rationalism is key for both the integrity of science and the role of science, “in an open, democratic society.” But this ideal is under threat by corporate power, a world in which, “financial interests trump the common good.” The dominance of massive pharma firms involves some competition, but all these players are united in working to expand the general pharma market. And while what the authors call, “free market champions” have embraced privatization, “the unintended, long-term consequences for medicine have been severe.”

Medical Schools Take Neo-Liberal Approach

Dr. Jackie Stone Put it All on the Line to Treat the Ill During the Pandemic: Zimbabwe Throws Criminal Charges at Her


Posted originally on TrialSite New by StaffApril 12, 2022

TrialSite chronicled the efforts of Dr. Jackie Stone in Zimbabwe during the worst stages of the pandemic. Born in Zimbabwe, Dr. Stone has been fascinated by research since a young age, and her commitment to caring for people during the pandemic has been legendary. While her off-label ivermectin-based combination regimen was identified with the saving of many lives in this southern African country, the medical establishment isn’t too keen on thinking outside of the box, even during the worst pandemic in a century. Dr. Stone now faces a court trial with criminal charges for merely treating COVID-19 patients with an early outpatient treatment protocol based on a combination of off-label treatments that includes ivermectin. This, even though Dr. Stone treated many in the Zimbabwe government and military successfully. In fact, for a while, the Medicines Control Authority of Zimbabwe (MCAZ) authorized access on an emergency basis for research—which amounted to care in this low-and middle-income country. The regulatory agency did a turnaround with ivermectin due to the results in the clinic of Dr. Jackie Stone.

Articles about Dr. Stone and Zimbabwe can be found at TrialSite. A fighter to the end originally of English and Norwegian descent, curious, and tough, yet elegant and empathetic, she grew up in the bush in this part of Africa, as her father was involved with geology and mining. Dr. Stone’s ethos, integrity, and commitment to doing good should have led her to awards from groups such as the World Health Organization.

Together Trial Mainstream Media Interpretations Could Put Low-Cost Regimen at Risk in MICs

Stone recently got together remotely with TrialSite’s founder Daniel O’Connor to discuss her concern with the Together Trial. While mainstream media have pounced on the findings, at least a dozen physicians and scientists are findings various issues with the data. 

Ed Mills, the principal investigator, did the right thing investing his time as well as raising money to study repurposed drugs. While the Together trial’s primary endpoint failed to show efficacy for ivermectin, even Mills went on the record in a private email declaring ivermectin proponents should be upbeat about some of the data generated in the study. But Mills’ data was taken by mainstream media and used as a weapon to attack the use of the drug worldwide. This isn’t Dr. Mills’ fault–again he took the time to investigate the drug as well as other important repurposed drugs.

But Stone’s concern centers on the needs of low and middle-income countries (LMICs) for low-cost, available regimens for early care. Stone told TrialSite, “in poor and up-and-coming countries we don’t always have the luxury of waiting around for gold standard evidence. Rather, in the case of the pandemic, we need to move fast, and we did, leading to the saving of many thousands of lives.”

She continued, “My concern now is that papers such as the New York Times or Wall Street Journal pounce on data, often misinterpreting quotes from the PI can lead to a cutting off of life-saving approaches in LMICs such as my country.”

“Dr. Stone’s commitment to LMICs cannot be denied based on a clear track record of success. With COVID-19 came politics around the use of off-label drugs such as ivermectin, and unfortunately, Dr. Stone is caught in the middle of a political battle, but she is one of the most resilient individuals I have ever come across,” reports TrialSite’s O’Connor.

What about Together?

Dozens of scientists and doctors now pour through data of the Together Trial. Recently, Dr. David Wiseman, affiliated with TrialSite, shared a dozen bullet points of concern associated with Together, including inputs from Dr. Flavio Cadegiani and others that TrialSite poses as questions.

Together Trial Questions: Ivermectin

#Question/Concern Issues for Discussion with Together Trial
1.Did the ivermectin arm of Together run later than the placebo arm, a time when a more virulent strain was present in that part of Brazil?
2.Why wouldn’t the protocol call for screening for ivermectin use—after all the drug was used in many parts of Brazil.  Were those participating already using the drug? It would be hard to prove now.
3.The critics fret about the lack of reported boosts in gastrointestinal side effects in the ivermectin arm leading to what they believe is a fundamental problem with the study—either A) placebo group was on ivermectin or B) those taking ivermectin were not administered real study drug
4.Were these placebo pills produced to look identical to the study drug?  As the drug is commonly used, this would have unblinded the study.
5.Together used ivermectin alone yet the early care community uses the drug in combination with other economical safe drugs such as antibiotics, steroids, as well as nutraceuticals such as vitamin D, C, and zinc. The study of ivermectin alone doesn’t mean much to frontline doctors.
6.Together started up to 8 days post symptom onset, but frontline ivermectin proponents declare the drug should be given immediately upon symptomatic infection. The P.1 variant also saw a faster progression to severe illness only compounding the problem.
7.In the Together study, they used a dose of (0.4 mg per kilo per day) which many critics called inadequate for ill patents–was the study underdosed?
8.Given ivermectin proponents suggest using the drug till symptoms are resolved, why did the Together protocol only call for use for 3 days?
9.Why did the protocol call for administration of the drug on an empty stomach when proponents declare the drug works best when associated with consumption of fatty food?
10.Why is so much basic data missing from the study results such as Recruitment Period, Recruitment Locations, Recruitment and allocation order per sit, Description of how the molecules and placebo were produced or compounded to look identical (otherwise loss of blinding); why is there missing age data for 98 patients?  Other gaps in data or anomalies are present for those interested
11.Some basic math shows that the numbers listed in the trial paper for the different arms and outcomes in the trial do not add up to the totals and percentages that they give – either a gross mathematical error or fraud. To see many of the strange mathematical discrepancies which invalidate the trial conclusions, go to investigative journalist Phil Harper’s article: Moreover Wiseman declares And the alteration of the death count in the trial data raises serious questions:

Seeking more information about Dr. Stone?

For all of those interested in Dr. Stone’s story check out the many articles published in TrialSite along with this important letter authored by Dr. Eleftherios Gkioulekas, Professor of Mathematics Undergraduate Program Coordinator at The University of Texas — Rio Grande Valley School of Mathematical and Statistical Sciences in Edinburg, Texas.

Call to ActionTrialSite suggests a fund to support Dr. Stone in her legal battle if needed.