Shamefully Ignorant Journalists...

Understanding the ways in which the media seeks to control the narrative and sway your opinions is explored by dismantling two recent shamefully crafted hit pieces that went after Dr. Kory and his Covid Critical Care Team.

Once you learn to spot leading phrases and slanted and biased words you gain power.

No longer can you be so easily manipulated by media hacks. You’ll regain your ability to be in control of your own ideas, thoughts and emotions.

In this episode, I explore how one of the most accomplished medical teams in the world, was characterized by the media as “fringe” and “conspiracy types” without any supporting context or evidence of any sort. It was smear-by-association only.

It was also deeply regrettable and displayed either a profound ignorance by the journalists involved (Steve Benen, Catie Edmondson, & Nicholas Fandos), or a deep, dark malice.

You decide.

Today’s Links:

MSNBC hit piece

NYTimes hit piece

Meta Review of Ivermectin (Pre-Print) – This is MEGA IMPORTANT!

Dr Kory and his team at Covid Critical Care


DISCLAIMER: THIS WEBSITE DOES NOT PROVIDE MEDICAL ADVICE The information, including but not limited to, text, graphics, images, videos and other material contained on this website are for informational and educational purposes only. No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Always seek the advice of your physician or other qualified health care provider with any questions you may have regarding a medical condition or treatment and before undertaking a new health care regimen, and never disregard professional medical advice or delay in seeking it because of something you have read on this website.

This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at

It’s been politicized for years but it shifted into high gear when Fauci and the Who started rigging the trials.
These reporters aren’t ignorant, they’re intentionally obfuscating and distorting the facts.
I no longer think it’s just about the pharma profits. They’re trying to reshape society in fundamental ways. Fear motivates people and the establishment traffics in it.

Stop watching main stream media and give independent news outlets a chance. Like Newsmax and One American News Network. On recent evenings Newsmax has interviewed Ron Johnson and at least two of the doctors including Kory. The proliferation of demeaning articles surfaced before anyone really would have had an opportunity to view the testimony. It’s NARRATIVE. From far higher up the ladder. The writers were told what they had to say. Of course Gary Peters knocked the testimony. He’s a democrat. Just more of the severely politicized treatment of all things C19.
Discredit all possible early treatments so the not-ready-for-primetime vaccines can obtain emergency use authorization standing, Trump looks like a buffoon, and the public is wrapped in perpetual fear.

I know you’ve taken a lot of flak for this, and will take more.
The campaign against people like you and Dr. Kory is appalling, but also revealing.
I’m grateful for your work in bringing some rationality to the whole pandemic story, and especially grateful for your refusal to back away from the truth in the face of attacks by those whose interests are threatened by that truth.
Responding to richcabot:
I think the journalists uncritically believe what they are told by their masters.
They’ve learned that doing actual journalism is not a good career move.

Admin: LOL. Deleted. You might as well have written:
Hi. I’m a ridiculously obvious troll. I made this account just minutes ago and am now trying to crap all over this site and Chris because that’s what I’m paid to do. Please ignore me as a useless idiot. Thanks.

Big John wrote:

[Chris] Martenson would better serve us by looking closely at the science that refutes ivermectin and determining how valid that is.
If you are aware of information refuting the effectiveness of IVM for COVID could you please post it here so that we can look at it? I understand your point that a non-emotional presentation style and content carries more weight with the scientific community.

Just came across a company in Toronto that seems to be having great success with it’s preclinical trials of Ivermectin.

Years ago there was a commercial which showed a couple goofy guys in front of a repair shop, one of whom said “We have lots of experience with transmissions, heck we’ve repaired this transmission 17 times”.
So yes, experience and publishing peer reviewed papers doesn’t guarantee that someone’s judgement about a topic is to be accepted unconditionally. Nobody’s should be. However it does mean that the person should be listened to and critically evaluated, not written off. If your group has thousands of peer reviewed publications and hundreds of years combined experience treating patients you have earned some credibility. The only mitigating factor should be whether your or your work is financed by someone with a vested interest in the outcome. That’s where people like Fauci and the WHO fall flat. Fauci has extensive ties to pharma and the WHO is financed by Bill Gates who has massive investments in vaccine manufacturing.
I agree about Chris’s demeanor in the videos. Dr Kory’s testimony is much more powerful precisely because he comes across as sincere, not arrogant.
I also agree that dissecting the anti Ivermectin material would be worthwhile. It would also be useful to invest some time in studying how people respond to presentation. I was sent the following in response to sharing Chris’s material with a friend:
“or maybe some peer reviewed studies show it doesn’t do anything and there’s the need to investigate further?
Despite it’s not clear to me how valid all of those are and/or if the studies were cherry picked. It may well be this treatment is effective but when the argument for its use is there’s a conspiracy theory to stop its use then its a huge mark against it. The doctors that I know would be all over a treatment that they had confidence in.”
The goal shouldn’t be to ridicule people, it’s to spread the truth, save lives and save what’s left of peoples livelihoods.

Chirs, I think you overreacted to Big John’s post. He was skeptical but I don’t think he was a troll.
He made some points that both Sand Puppy and I agreed with. I posted the link to an article that was put to me as refuting the evidence for Ivermectin. It used patients with advanced cases who were already on steroid treatment and, big surprise, didn’t find an improvement. However the 23 study summary didn’t show it so my friend thinks the summary study cherry picked results.
It’s hard not to have an emotional reaction to push-back when we see the evidence as compelling. I get those feelings too. The goal is to convince the skeptical and part of that is to listen to them. Remember the advice of the professor you had on many months back.

This is part of the history of how science died.
Our grandchildren will look back and ask how science died, and this video will be part of the story (along with others Chris has put out).
I studied biology, biochem, chemistry, botany, and business admin for my upper education at an agricultural college. We regularly had Monsanto reps hijack an entire lecture with anecdotal arguments, bandwagon appeals in rhetoric, and ad hominem attacks at anyone questioning gain-of-function frankenfoods that they manufactured. I had a lot of fun those days and made sure to grab a seat directly in front of the stage in the lecture halls because I saw these sessions as a chance to educate others with my interjections and embarrass the evil narcissists that Monsanto sent to make impressions on the impressionable (basically drug reps). In some cases, my professor would have to pull me aside as I effectively derailed the Monsanto reps propaganda session with questions they could not answer and research they vehemently defamed as it was not funded by them. The simple question that was always effective at getting me in trouble was: “Can you explain why Monsanto spends so much on media coverage, and how would you describe your company’s influence on our country’s agricultural policy - global policy?”
My experiences with being the Monsanto heckler perfectly illustrate what is going on in science today. “Top” scientists will never address the elephant in the room which is the shameful degree in which politics and money have encroached on the territory of true science being carried out. Why would there be a need for pumping PR money into a scientific endeavor? Why are the most cited studies almost always funded by the very same special interests that use them as a defense against competing theories? Adding to that, why would they also make attempts to conceal the source of funding by funneling it through many different NPOs etc.? Take note that most scientists that find flaws in big-agra/big-phamra (same thing really - chemical companies) either have their work retracted from publication, have their credibility attacked, or are “out-published” by the big companies as they have the advantage of nearly limitless funding. Go ahead and try to obtain grant funding from Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to find a non-vaccine route to push back this “epidemic.” I wont hold my breath for your award.
Another way that science is/has dying/died is this ultra-cringe approach of science by consensus. This one is ALWAYS used by media outlets. We have been intentionally conditioned to have short attention spans and communicate in very terse and informationally-deficient ways. Social media is not designed to be a tool to convey useful information or pursue a logical debate on said information. Many people dont understand the technical details of science and have no desire to. This is, unfortunately, unacceptable in our current age. This intellectually lazy approach has revealed an exploit that makes “scientific consensus” an acceptable argument rather than applying true, scrutinizing rigor to mainstream theories - yes, even from the little guys.
So when I say that science has died, maybe it is really more that critical thinking, logic, and civil public debate have died (along with common sense). All I know is my personal experience, and I can tell you that being a scientist with an inquisitive nature without bounds and an unyielding insistence for integrity is not what makes a successful “scientist” these days, though it rightly should.
The quintessential essence of what it means to “science” something is outlined by the scientific method. Hypotheses proposed in science should not be interred into the annals of scientific fact based on popularity. In fact, quite the opposite approach is what has led us to deeper understandings of the underlying mechanisms in the world around us.
Silver Lining: After civilization collapse, there can be a period of renaissance. let us all hope and pray things go this direction as we are in dire need of furthering our technology lest we become the main factor of our own extinction.

Lack of efficacy of standard doses of ivermectin in severe COVID-19 patients

A standard dose of ivermectin was given to a small number (13) patients late in the disease without obvious benefit. The discussion contains this (and some references) which seems important:
In the last years, high doses of IVM have been evaluated for the treatment of soil-transmitted helminths [710] and as a new vector control tool to reduce malaria transmission in malaria endemic areas [11]. Recent studies have evaluated doses up to 800 μg/kg, given in single dose or three consecutive days [9, 11, 12], showing a good safety profile both in adult and paediatric populations. Subjective ocular problems such as transitory blurred vision appeared, but no severe adverse events were reported with these high doses [11, 12]. These findings, including a recent meta-analysis of the safety of high doses of ivermectin [7], add evidence of the safety of IVM at doses up to 800 μg/kg, which has a safety profile comparable to lower doses of 200 or 400 μg/kg. Moreover, the results of the meta-analysis do not suggest an increased number of adverse events with increasing doses of IVM. The maximum doses of IVM given to study participants have been published in a study with a limited number of participants, in which doses up to 2000 μg/kg were received by 12 participants, showing a similar rate of adverse events than those receiving placebo [13]. However, the antiviral efficacy of these high doses of IVM should be still evaluated in clinical studies, since some authors have recently suggested that in vitro inhibitory concentrations of 5umol/L (those needed for a total eradication of SARS-CoV-2 in in vitro studies) would not be attainable even using high doses of ivermectin (2000ug/kg) [4, 14].
----- Several References 4.Caly L, Druce JD, Catton MG, Jans DA, Wagstaff KM. The FDA-approved Drug Ivermectin inhibits the replication of SARS-CoV-2 in vitro. Antiviral Res. 2020:104787. 7.Navarro M, Camprubí D, Requena-Méndez A, et al. Safety of high-dose ivermectin: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2020;75(4):827–834. 8.Muñoz J, Ballester RM, Antonijoan RM, et al. Safety and pharmacokinetic profile of fixed-dose ivermectin with an innovative 18mg tablet in healthy adult volunteers. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2018;12(1):e0006020. pmid:29346388 9.Wimmersberger D, Coulibaly JT, Schulz JD, et al. Efficacy and safety of ivermectin against Trichuris trichiura in preschool-aged and school-aged children: a randomized controlled dose-finding trial. Clin Infect Dis 2018; 67: 1247–55. 10.Buonfrate D, Salas-Coronas J, Muñoz J, et al. Multiple-dose versus single-dose ivermectin for Strongyloides stercoralis infection (Strong Treat 1 to 4): a multicentre, open-label, phase 3, randomised controlled superiority trial. Lancet Infect Dis. 2019;19(11):1181–1190. 11.Smit MR, Ochomo EO, Aljayyoussi G, et al. Human Direct Skin Feeding Versus Membrane Feeding to Assess the Mosquitocidal Efficacy of High-Dose Ivermectin (IVERMAL Trial). Clin Infect Dis. 2019;69(7):1112–1119. 14.Momekov G, Momekova D. Ivermectin as a potential COVID-19 treatment from a pharmacokinetic point of view: antiviral levels are not likely attainable with known dosing regimens. Biotechnology & Biotechnological Equipment, 34:1, 469–474. ---- This last reference by Momekov gives the opinion that the virocidal effects that Caly demonstrated of Ivermectin on SC2 infected tissue culture cells will not be seen in humans as it is just not possible to get the drug concentrations in humans using "known dosing regimens." So this is a summary of the "ivermectin is not effective" literature. I don't see discussion of the differential concentration of ivermectin by different tissues (known to be concentrated in lung tissue in cattle, for example) or the multiple studies showing clinical evidence of benefit.

Thank you for your comment.
Could you take this a step further and relate the degree of science loss with failure of a person or of a people?
When growing up, we learned that we had advanced out of a medieval past dominated by superstitions and old wives tales. We had a comfortable modern life because of the power of science to cut through the nonsense and finally allow us to really understand physical reality and abandon superstition. .And, the real big institutional failures of the modern world come from abandonment of logical thought. The destruction of the German army by stupidly going into Russia/Ukraine on foot during the winter; Japanese stupidly antagonizing an America having much more resources based on a belief in genetic superiority; Lysenko convincing Russian agriculture that they could feed the country by growing wheat in the winter , come to mind here as dreamworlds leading to failure. Arent we faced now with this kind of wide-scale dreamworld idiocy?
We should be able to map out the MSM mass delusion dreamworld phenomenon with failure. For example, which country is most broken by departing from using science as a reality check? Can we predict a more rapid collapse of America after the fascists force millions to take an un-safety tested vaccine based on a completely new type of biochemistry that in animal models caused a large percentage of death? I dont know about you but I look forward to our political class enjoying being the first in line to take their stupid vaccine that they believe so much in.
Is it possible to give a % reality vs dreamworld rating for countries or groups based on rejection of rational thought? It seems that such comparative knowledge would be very powerful and give an advantage to those of us who want to accumulate wealth or just prosperity.
Is there a chart or table that rates each country based on how unscientific its medical system is? Anyone who makes such chart would have some really valuable property. I would love to see this kind of analysis replace the political arguments on this forum.
Ditto with energy. some countries and regions are living in a dream state with respect to energy. Why cant we quantify this and use such knowledge for our own peak prosperity? Isnt this the kind of thing that people do who want to make a killing in real estate? In other words they get rich by seeing the true value of things while others are living in dreamstates.
Maybe instead of wringing our hands and bitching about the MSM we should take advantage of the fact that we live in a sea of dreamstater lemmings that absolutely must go over that cliff. In contrast we can quietly inherit the rich benefits of following science. No need to squander precious time arguing against the fantasy worlds of the Faucchis and the politicians and their dreamstater followers.

Bravo, Chris.
Call out the New York Times for exactly what it is - a useless propaganda rag.

I think we start a thread of board of shame of all these people, And perhaps someday we take these people to court when all the facts come out and we look back at how they managed to cause the damage. AND we hold them responsible… their actions are reprehensible.

He made some points that both Sand Puppy and I agreed with. I posted the link to an article that was put to me as refuting the evidence for Ivermectin. It used patients with advanced cases who were already on steroid treatment and, big surprise, didn't find an improvement. However the 23 study summary didn't show it so my friend thinks the summary study cherry picked results.
So, you don't like humor and you think I should entertain every troll, just to be, uh, rigorous? I disagree. Also, the study you cited isn't a study at all. The headline is grabby but it just as well could have read "Lack of efficacy of tocilizumab, high doses of steroids, tocilizumab and steroids in combination, tocilizumab and steroids and anakinra in combination, siltuximab, hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin, lopinavir/ritonavir, Remdesivir, ivermectin, and beta-interferon in severe Covid patients." Because that's the actual list of things they threw at these crashing patients. All 26 of them total, in both arms (13 each). Regardless of all but the most severe differential in outcome, this was certain to be an underpowered study that would not have yielded significant results. But it did yield results. 3/13 (23.1%) that did not get IVM went into the ICU while only 2/13 (15.4%) that did receive IVM went into the ICU. But I'm not going to try and make anything out of that at all. These too few patients received a massive and confusing cocktail of treatments. But back to the main point. The troll showed up insisting that I perform some more work to present to them and the world, while having a really sour, demanding tone. Par for the course. We're over enemy territory. Easy to spot, and, no, I don't feel it necessary to jump at every possible demand that I do this or that in order to satisfy some random brand new stranger. Makes sense, right? As always I prefer people come with data. You brought a paper. It's super weak and absolutely nothing can be concluded from it and talking about it won't improve the believability of the rest of the data. It's a distraction. I too would not include it in a summary of IVM. It's underpowered and a hot mess of potent drugs given in various amounts and combinations to subsets of an already too small sample.  

The discussion around the angst of having people choose and champion no effective solution instead an effective one, is not unfamiliar to me as a retired surgeon. It reminds me of a patient I was seeing in the emergency department with a smashed face (multiple #s), who was not distressed by his injury but he was inconsolable about his inability to stop people from speeding off the precipice that he had just managed to climb out of; people had swerved around him on the slick, black, rain covered highway as he tried to flag them down, cursing and swearing, some shaking fists as they sped off into the dark night (and into the abyss of the washed out canyon) to their deaths (10 or 12 died). Eventually he managed to stop a car (almost being run over) and then other cars stopped as well. A debris flow had taken out a bridge and a section of the highway. There was not much I could say.

Right now Ivermectin is on the cusp of either being disappeared by mainstream media or tied to the Republican/Trump bandwagon. How can we avoid this?
I would suggest that Chris should put together a video that is purely dedicated to the Ivermectin studies and science, one without much conversation about censorship or other topics… essentially a sales pitch video version of a power point and that we try to get that in the hands of people on the left who are known to be somewhat outside the mainstream. People like Andrew Yang, Tulsi Gabbard, Matt Taibbi, Bret Weistein even Jimmy Dore. We need to paint this with a bipartisen brush quickly to avoid being HydroChloroquined. The next person to try and get a hold of would be Joe Rogan. A possible news show to target would be
In addition to introducing the treatment to some of these big celebrities it could also be used at the individual level when show friends and family not to mention if you get covid and need something to convince your local doctor to give you a prescription.

Earlier today I mention Nassim Taleb’s Minority Rule as possible inspiration but your idea might be better. The Tipping Point mentality is all about Maven’s and Sales People.
I am neither though I could maybe be a bit of a Maven on my best days. Chris is for sure a Maven but we need those sales people in the mix too.

If the first big media person to mention Ivermectin is Tucker Carlson (who has shown some ability to step outside the mainstream narrative in the past) then Ivermectin will always and forever be painted with a Right-wing brush. We need people on the left to bring it up first. Then the people on the right can follow.

Ron Johnson: isn’t he the one who’s been digging into Hunter Biden’s sordid affairs? Could that be one reason the NYT went on the attack?
Thanks for making the clip. Watching now - brilliant as always!