In this case I’m referring to the British Principle Trial of Ivermectin, which was pauli planned, pauli executed and pauli applied. Excuse my spell checker.
This article sums up the saga of the late and inadequate delivery of this inadequate study. Back in 2021, when seeing one’s GP had been outlawed to prevent infections, I was trying to arrange a private dermatology consultation from mine, the NHS being more or less shut, and I added (in a GP professional-to-professional manner) that I had noticed in the surgery’s news that they were referring patients to the Principle Trial for ivermectin in COVID.
I asked if he did not think the trial seemed to have been set up to fail, its criteria including late referrals, and short and unusually low dosages of ivermectin, I quoted some of the very different regimes being used by those finding it a successful treatment.
Well, I got my referral, but no reply whatsoever to my discussion of the trial. And that confirmed to me the inexplicable death of my profession, or rather its descent into unquestioning official-narrative-echoing.
So, you’ll see from the fairly brief article I’ve linked to that, despite every attempt by (without much doubt) Big Pharma to turn in a negative result by any and every means, and publish it when the crisis is long-past, they got a statistically significant beneficial one, albeit small, anyway. And rather than examine any possible shortcomings in their trial design, they have concluded that there is no clinically significant benefit from ivermection, and so further study is required… no, that would be too racist and conspiratorial, wouldn’t it? No, they have concluded that nobody anywhere ought to do any further study on ivermectin in this context. Ever. Obviously, such drugs should be banned.
But you’ll vaguely remember such robust scientific results from your school physics course. It’s the Pauli Exclusion Principle, and it’s all you need to know.
