Canadian community doctor Dr. Charles Hoffe was one of the first to notice something was “wrong” with the vaccines in April 2021 after he witnessed terrible injuries (strokes etc.) and even a death in the patients he was vaccinating. He then wrote an open letter to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia with his observations and concerns, suggesting that perhaps the jabs should be put on pause until their safety could be more assured. One paragraph from the letter said:

“In 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,” he wrote.

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.

*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).

Through FOIA obtained emails, Hoffe and his lawyer discovered that the College’s first and only internal response 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’s patient records. They instead simply told him each report was a “coincidence” and that it was best if he stop talking about this issue in the hospital. Both shocking and unsurprising I know.

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).

More recently the 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:

6.1. Patient Safety and Experimental Nature ………………………………………………………………… 23

6.2. Potential Harms to Fertility in Women …………………………………………………………………… 27

6.3. Myocarditis in Children ………………………………………………………………………………………. 30

6.4. Ivermectin for Treatment and Prophylaxis ……………………………………………………………… 33

6.5. Ivermectin Access ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 36

6.6. Harms to Pregnant Women …………………………………………………………………………………. 39

6.7. Microscopic Clotting ………………………………………………………………………………………….. 42

6.8. Adverse Events Following Immunization ………………………………………………………………… 46

6.9. Harms to Children ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 50

6.10. Vaccine Shedding ………………………………………………………………………………………………. 53

6.11. Statement (1). April 4, 2021, email to Dr. Carol Fenton from Dr. Charles Hoffe………………. 56

6.12. Statement (2). April 5, 2021, open letter to Dr. Bonnie Henry from Dr. Charles Hoffe ……… 60

6.13. Statement (3). April 21, 2021, email to Dr. Carol Fenton from Dr. Charles Hoffe …………….. 64

 

The College then hired an “expert” 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 “incorrect,” “misleading,” “inflammatory” and violated both the College “Prudence Standard” and “Harm Reduction Standard.” Know that these “standards” 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.

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’s 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, Paul Alexander, and William Makis – if I am leaving anyone out, I apologize). However, good luck hearing advice from un-conflicted doctors in the next pandemic.

**Since first posting this, subscribers have sent me other names of outspoken and/or persecuted Canadian docs so the list is larger than I thought: Rochagne Killian, Patrick Phillips, Chris Shoemaker, Daniel Nagase, Rodger Hodkinson, Patrick Phillips, Chris Milburn, Laura Braden, Michael Palmer, Crystal Luchkiw..

Anyway, Hoffe’s lawyer, Lee Turner of Doak Shirreff Lawyers LLP in Kelowna, B.C. engaged me to defend a number of Hoffe’s 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.

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. 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).

I elected to do the case pro-bono and began by reading Corneils “expert” report which viciously and repeatedly attacked Hoffe for his many accurate statements. I was so infuriated after reading it, I said to myself “Game on (expletive)” 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.

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:

“Pierre, I don’t even know how to express how incredible the information in your report is.  It 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.  I 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. “

Lets go through Count #1 against Dr. Hoffe shall we?

EXPERT REPORT – Dr. Pierre Kory, MD, MPA

Dear Mr. Turner,

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 “shedding.”

You have asked me to comment on the opinion expressed by the “expert”, 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.

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.

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.

Response To Section 6.4 of Dr. Trevor Corneil Expert Opinion

My first comment on Dr. Corneil’s report is that he carefully defines the following terms: “misleading”, “incorrect”, “inflammatory” and then judges all of Dr. Hoffe’s statements as to whether they meet the definitions of each term. He then articulates his opinion as to whether Dr. Hoffe’s statements violate the College’s “Prudence” and/or “Harm Prevention” standards.

Similarly, for my below expert report, understanding the arguments I put forth requires knowledge of the word “disinformation.” The Oxford English dictionary definition is “a form of propaganda involving the dissemination of false information with the deliberate intent to deceive or mislead.”

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 “The Disinformation Playbook” written by the Union of Concerned Scientists, they write, “corporations 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.” As you read through all the disinformation campaigns they cite, you realize that the pharmaceutical industry is over-represented in that list.

An important point to understand about disinformation tactics is that corporations deploy them when “science emerges that is inconvenient to their interests.”  The Disinformation Playbook was first developed in the 1950’s 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.

As one of the world experts in the use of ivermectin in the prevention and treatment of Covid-19, my review paper called “Review of the Emerging Evidence Demonstrating Efficacy of Ivermectin in the Prevention and Treatment of Covid-19” is one of the most popular published scientific papers of the last 15 years with an altmetric score ranking it the 10^th most popular paper out of the last 25 million papers published.

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.

However, Dr. Corneil, along with numerous public health agencies and professional societies across the world’s advanced health economies consistently ignore or systematically dismiss and distort the evidence of efficacy based on the widespread “opinion” that the evidence base represents “low-quality” evidence that should not be relied on. This is a well-known Disinformation tactic called “the Diversion” where the pharmaceutical industry co-opts 3^rd party agencies and organizations to “manufacture uncertainty where little or none exists.”

The reasons for the Disinformation campaign against ivermectin are multiple. First is that knowledge of ivermectin’s 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 as the #1 enemy in the pandemic, that of “vaccine hesitancy.” A third reason is that knowledge of ivermectin’s efficacy would greatly decrease profits from the competing, patented, highly profitable Covid medicines such as remdesivir, paxlovid, and molnupiravir.

From the article, “The Disinformation Playbook” they name and define 5 main Disinformation tactics:

1)    “The Fake”:

a.     using fraudulent studies designed to achieve pre-determined results.

b.     censoring the publication of positive studies in prominent medical journals

c.     selectively publishing only negative studies in prominent medical journals

2)    “The Blitz”:

a.     harassing scientists who speak out with results or views inconvenient for competitors of ivermectin.

3)    “The Diversion”

a.     using front groups and 3^rd party organizations to “manufacture uncertainty where little or none exists.”

4)    “The Screen”

a.     Buying credibility through alliances with academia or professional societies

5)    “The Fix”

a.     Manipulating government officials or processes to inappropriately influence policy.

For the purposes of this report, I will focus mostly on the first tactic above called “The Fake” which describes the behavior of high-impact medical journals in their “selective” publication of brazenly manipulated trials intended to reach a “pre-determined result.”

Another aspect of “the Fake” disinformation tactic is “censoring reports of positive studies.” 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, “The War on Ivermectin” (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’s 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.

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.

For support of my statement above that “Big Pharma” exerts immense influence over 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.

A well-cited statement of Dr. Angell is:

“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.”

Dr. Relman, another former editor-in-chief of the NEJM said this in 2002:

“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 has said:

“The 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, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness”

With the above in mind, let’s begin to examine the evidence cited by Dr. Corniel in his attacks on Dr. Hoffe.

(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).

Statement (d). 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 – 21:23:

“…There 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. … And for people to say that it is it is safer to do nothing than to take something like ivermectin, which is unbelievably safe – I mean, in many countries, it’s available without prescription, I mean it’s safer than aspirin, it really is safer than aspirin, um, so it is absolutely absurd [inaudible] that this is being denied from people”.

In Dr. Corneil’s assessment of the accuracy of Dr. Hoffe’s statement, he concludes the following in regard to the use of ivermectin to prevent or treat Covid-19:

1)    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

I will now explore the published evidence that Dr. Corneil relied on to reach his conclusion above.

IVERMECTIN IN THE PREVENTION OF COVID-19

a)     Dr. Corneil writes above, “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.”

b)    To support this statement he cites a meta-analysis in the BMJ from April of 2021 (Bartoszko et al) which included only 2 randomized controlled trials of ivermectin in prevention of Covid. He also cites a Cochrane review which included only one RCT that Bartoszko included.

The first observation I will make is that Dr. Corneil relied on only two RCT’s 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 “the Fake,” i.e. “using fraudulent studies designed to achieve pre-determined results.”

The most brazen evidence that these papers were attempts to reach a “pre-determined result” is that the BMJ paper was published three months before the Cochrane review and included two randomized controlled trials (RCT’s) while Cochrane only included one. Know that there were two published at the time of the Cochrane review, Seet et al and Shouman et al. Why would they ignore one of the RCT’s?

Further evidence of fraud (bolded) can be seen in the abstract of the Cochrane review which states:

We found one study. Mortality up to 28 days was the only outcome eligible for primary analysis. We are uncertain whether ivermectin reduces or increases mortality compared to no treatment (0 participants died; 1 study, 304 participants; very low‐certainty evidence). The study reported results for development of COVID‐19 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‐CoV‐2 infection, hospital admission, and quality of life up to 14 days.

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.

In regards to the second sentence, in the one trial they included, the primary outcome was actually the development of Covid-19 symptoms, not mortality 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.

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, published March 31, 2021 where they stated in Section 3.1, “While ivermectin is also being investigated for prophylaxis, this guideline only addresses its role in the treatment of COVID-19”.

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 of ivmmeta.com) included the below large series of controlled trials involving over 7,000 patients, all with large magnitude, statistically significant benefits:

As you can see above, there were results from 3 RCT’s and 7 OCT’s 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’s finding similar benefits were later added to the evidence base.

Why were observational controlled trials (OCT’s) excluded from the BMJ, Cochrane, and WHO analyses?

I maintain that excluding OCT’s is a form of disinformation in that OCT’s 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’s are generally not present in OCT’s. This is why the pharmaceutical industry and it’s high-impact medical journals have increasingly avoided publishing OCT’s in the last decade.

More damning is that there is no evidence to support this growing practice of systematically excluding OCT’s 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’s and RCT’s reach the same conclusions, like in this definitive Cochrane review. Further, prominent professional societies have issued policy statements to reverse this practice by concluding, from their analyses of controlled trial designs, that “observational studies should be considered in developing clinical practice guidelines and in making clinical decisions.” Lastly, prior to Covid, the WHO routinely relied on more diverse sources of data and trial designs to inform their treatment recommendations. Not anymore.

Another astonishing violation of EBM is the repeated insistence that “low quality” trials be ignored from meta-analyses. The reality is that there is no published evidence that I am aware of that finds that “low quality” controlled trials reach different conclusions than “high quality” controlled trials. In fact, there is only one paper I know of which compared the conclusions of what current EBM grading systems determine is low quality and high quality. In that paper, they found that low-quality and high-quality trials also reach the same conclusions on average.

Thus, it is my strongly held, evidence-based opinion that the systematic ignoring of both OCT’s and “low quality trials” from meta-analyses are instead fraudulent efforts to create the myth that only “Big RCT’s” that require massive funding can determine “scientific truth” or “scientific consensus.”

In the below expert opinion, I will provide extensive evidence that the bias (i.e. conflict of interest) of the funders of “big RCT’s” essentially pre-determine the results of the RCT’s and those results are then used to establish a fraudulent “scientific consensus.” This occurs when what the “real science” I have described above reaches conclusions that are “inconvenient to the interests of the pharmaceutical industry.” 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.

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 “totality of the evidence standard” and include data from OCT’s and supposed “lower quality” 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 “evidence-based medicine,” (EBM). Then in 1996, David L Sackett, published a widely cited article defining exactly what EBM was: “the conscientious, explicit, and judicious use of current best evidence in making decisions about the care of individual patients.”

Notice how Sackett does not define current best evidence as “RCT’s only”:

“By 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 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.”

Put differently, Sackett, proposed that three different considerations needed to be weighted equally in evidence based clinical practice:

•Patient Values

•Clinical Expertise

•Relevant Research

In terms of “relevant research”, i.e. RCT’s OCT’s, epidemiologic analyses, the summary analyses of the controlled trials of ivermectin in prevention currently estimate 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’s and included only a subset of the RCT’s, 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.

It is my professional opinion that these actions were willfully committed as a disinformation tactic to “arrive at a pre-determined result”, 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.

To wit, the current evidence base for ivermectin in the prevention of Covid includes:

a.     14 controlled trials including 18,799 subjects of which: 4 are RCT’s, 2 are propensity score matched trials (PSM – which also are equivalent to RCT’s in accuracy), and 8 are OCT’s.

b.     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.

c.     In the RCT’s alone:

i.  Shouman et al: 91% reduction in the incidence of getting Covid, p<.001, 304 patients

ii. Chahla et al: 95% reduction in the incidence of getting Covid, p=.002, 234 patients

iii. Seet et al: 74% reduction in risk of getting Covid , p=.008, 1,236 patients

iv. Desort-Henin et al: 72% reduction in the incidence of Covid, p<.001, 399 patients).

d.     In the propensity score matched trials:

i.     Kerr et al: 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. Study included 6,068 patients.

ii. Morgenstern et al: 74% reduction in the incidence of Covid, 80% reduction in risk of hospitalization

e.     In the observational controlled trials:

i.     Carvallo et al: 96.3% reduction in risk of Covid, p <.001, 229 patients

ii.     Behera et al: 54% reduction in risk of Covid, p<.001, 372 patients

iii.     Carvallo et al: 100% reduction in risk of Covid, p<001, 1,195 patients

iv.     Bernigaud et al: 99% reduction in risk of Covid, p<.001, 3,131 patients

v.     Alam et al: 91% reduction in risk of Covid, p<.001, 118 patients

vi.     Behera et al: 83% reduction in risk of Covid, p<.001, 3,346 patients

vii.     Mondal et al: 87.9% reduction in risk of Covid, p=.006, 1,470 patients

viii.     Samajdar et al: 79.8% reduction in risk of Covid, p<.001, 245 patients

To summarize, as above, there are 4 RCT’s, 2 PSM, and 8 OCT’s. Every single trial reports large reductions in the incidence of Covid among treated patients. 13 of the 14 trials find highly statistically significant differences. The largest trial by Kerr et al, of which I am a co-author, studied the results of a prospective prophylaxis program conducted by the City of Itajai in Brazil which included 133,051 patients. Both the non-propensity matched, and propensity-matched analyses in this study found statistically significant, large reductions in the risk of not only getting Covid, but also in the risk of hospitalization and death.

Thus, based on the totality of the highly consistent evidence base of 14 controlled trials all showing statistically significant efficacy and safety, I disagree with Dr. Corneil’s opposite conclusion above that “prior and current evidence strongly suggest that Ivermectin is neither a safe nor effective prophylaxis for COVID-19 illness.” I instead find that Dr. Hoffe’s statement is entirely accurate and not, as Dr. Corniel characterizes it, “misleading,” “inaccurate,” “inflammatory” or in violation of the Prudence and Harm Reduction standards of the College.

Pierre Kory, MD, MPA January 15, 2024

P.S Know that I offer the above expert report (and the other sections to come in my next posts) to any doctor in any country (or the world) for use as a legal defense if they are being persecuted for prescribing ivermectin as a prophylactic. I know of too many who have lost their licenses over ivermectin use in Covid. It is time to fight back and they need legal support. To my readers, know that I devoted an immense amount of effort which took me away from many other responsibilities, not least of which was my family. I plan to do the same for any doctor who needs it, even though each case requires an independent report which takes hours. If you appreciate what I am doing for doctors, support in the form of paid subscriptions would be greatly appreciated.

Ok, more to come in subsequent posts detailing my expert report defending Dr. Hoffe. Stay tuned.

P.P.S Our 3rd Annual FLCCC. Medical Conference is coming up! Come on down to Phoenix, I cannot tell you how not only informative they are, but also how spiritually and socially restorative as the community has some of the best people ever in it.

Gather with like-minded people from across the world, learn from leading medical experts and health freedom advocates, meet healthcare professionals, and take charge of your health and well-being!

-Also proud to report that my book has gained Best Seller status on and off in several countries and is climbing up the U.S Amazon rankings, If any of you have bought and read the book, please leave a review on Amazon? Thanks! Link: