If You Don't Think 'Big Brother Is Watching You', Check This Out...

Dec 06, 2023

Six days ago, I published an article entitled “Home of Evidence-Based Medicine Says Ivermectin is Effective Against COVID-19“. It was about a well-informed physician who dared to follow the real science by using ivermectin as an early intervention strategy to help their patients properly diagnosed with COVID-19. Consequently, they had their medical license restricted to prevent them from prescribing any more ivermectin. Then, their regulatory college forced them to undergo re-training by using a resource at McMaster University, the home of so-called ‘evidence-based’ medicine. Specifically, they were required to review the literature that McMaster University had pre-screened and approved to inform clinical practice. What this good doctor learned is that what they did by prescribing ivermectin is exactly what was recommended. In other words, they were punished for doing what they were supposed to, and had to be re-trained so they could be informed that they should ‘rinse and repeat’. At the end of covering this remarkable story, I posed the following question…

“Who wants to take a guess as to how long it will take for McMaster University to alter the results of this particular literature search to match ‘the narrative’ as opposed to the truth?“

Many of the readers of my previous article also made this call, asking me to report when (not if) the search result got changed.

Well, I have learned from the good doctor that the answer is ‘less than six days’!

Indeed, performing the search for “ivermectin, covid-19” in McMaster’s database of pre-approved literature to inform clinical practice yielded the following just six days ago…

Now, just after publishing my previous article, this what the search yields…

…a second article has been added to counter the other one. Unsurprisingly, it supports the narrative. It has been given a 10/10 quality control rating; the previous rating got a very strong, but not-as-strong 8/10. It is a review that was highly selective with the data that made the cut for inclusion. Note that high selectivity by scientists that lack integrity can sometimes be used to yield biased selections of literature that get reviewed.

One thing that I noted is that McMaster University did not include their own paper about ivermectin and COVID-19 that described the results of the ‘Together trial’. I guess this makes sense because to do so, would have only made a joke of their quality control rubric because the study had several fatal flaws. It was clearly designed to make ivermectin look bad and should be retracted. If I conducted my preclinical studies the way the Together Trial was done, I would never be able to get my data published.

I wouldn’t be surprised if McMaster University continues to ‘massage’ the search results over time. I’m guessing there was some concern that making too drastic a change too soon might make it obvious that Big Brother is watching. On that point, they failed. Propaganda techniques are too obvious to those who are awake to it.

I would love to know if McMaster University made this change on their own volition or if they were encouraged to do so by the regulatory college.

Isn’t it sad that we live in a day and age when the machinations of the propaganda enterprise have become so obvious and predictable to so many, yet still remain invisible to too many others? For the latter, keep showing them these cases. Perhaps they will eventually wake up to reality.

In this case, we have the screen shots and the story seared into history. The good doctor completed their re-education before this change was made. Their re-training exonerated them and condemned their regulatory college as being hypocritical. It is obvious that the change was made because of the reported results of the re-education program. A review that had been published in June 21, 2022, was just discovered one-and-a-half years later, in December, 2023, immediately after ‘foul’ was called on the medical college’s re-education program. But, I am sure they would like us to believe this was a mere coincidence.

Some days I can’t believe how closely my every action is followed by ‘Big Brother’. On one hand, the people that fall under this designation seem like my biggest fans. Sometimes they post their social media vomit about talks that I give before I even leave the speaking venue. But, on the other hand, being constantly stalked by these sick and demented people is rather disconcerting. They are people who genuinely need help and they need much better things to do with their lives. For the sake of the world, we must model the way to make life better for ourselves and our fellow human beings. We need to be the change that we want to see. I recommend that consideration be given to ‘doing unto others as we would have done to ourselves’. We should be investing efforts into finding ways to help those in need around us, not seeking ways to harm them.