WND's Ivermectin Chronicles
WorldNetDaily reporter Art Moore misleadingly promoted a dubious study from a pro-ivermectin group touting the drug's alleged effectiveness against COVID-19 -- and he pushed misinformation and fearmongering about vaccines.
By Terry Krepel
A new, peer-reviewed study finds that one of the cheap, widely available drugs that has been dismissed by the left, establishment media and many in the health establishment as a treatment for COVID-19 reduces infections, hospitalizations and deaths by about 75%.But Moore never reported what happened next: A week later, the journal withdrew the article before actual publication, stating that it contained unsubstantiated claims and violated the journal’s editorial policies.
The study was manufactured by something called the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance, which was formed to push unapproved treatments like ivermectin. The journal that ultimately rejected the study noted that the authors, who are key officials at FLCCC, "promoted their own specific ivermectin-based treatment which is inappropriate for a review article and against our editorial policies."
Meanwhile, the Food and Drug Administration has taken a pretty solid stance against ivermectin absent genuine, objective research.
But that wasn't the end of Moore promoting this study -- he continued to falsely promote the study as "peer-reviewed" and published.
In a May 2 article, Moore largely copied-and-pasted from his original (and now false) Feb. 25 piece:
In February, a peer-reviewed study found that ivermectin which has been shown to inhibit the replication of SARS-CoV-2 in cell cultures reduces infections, hospitalizations and deaths by about 75%. In more than 30 trials around the world it caused "repeated, consistent, large magnitude improvements in clinical outcomes’ at all stages of the disease," according to the study published in the U.S. journal Frontiers of Pharmacology
Moore did another false plug in a May 10 article:
In February, a study published in the U.S. journal Frontiers of Pharmacology found ivermectin reduces COVID-19 infections, hospitalizations and deaths by about 75%. In more than 30 trials around the world, the drug causes "repeated, consistent, large magnitude improvements in clinical outcomes’ at all stages of the disease," according to the study.
Those quotes from Kory actually come from a FLCCC press release announcing publication of a version of its study in the American Journal of Therapeutics, which is where it landed after Frontiers in Pharmacology rejected it.
Moore also wrote in that article: "Meanwhile, a new peer-reviewed study published by the American Journal of Therapeutics concludes that ivermectin can end the COVID-19 pandemic. Reviewed by a team that includes three top U.S. government senior scientists, the research finds the drug significantly reduces the risk of contracting COVID-19 when used regularly." But that and the Frontiers of Pharmacology study are the exact same study.
Moore was still repeating the false claim in a May 17 article:
In February, a peer-reviewed study found that invermectin reduces coronavirus infections, hospitalizations and deaths by about 75%.
In a May 31 article promoting a study claiming to show that ivermectin was a successful treatment in Mexico City -- while omitting the facts that the study is based on a database analysis, not a clinical study, and it was a preprint that had not been peer-reviewed -- Moore wrote:
A study by the American Journal of Therapeutics that analyzed 18 randomized controlled treatment trials found ivermectin elicited "large, statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance" in COVID patients.
Moore promoted the study again in a June 23 article: "Worldwide, more than 50 peer-reviewed studies have shown the effectiveness of ivermectin as a treatment and prophylaxis against COVID-19. A recent study by the American Journal of Therapeutics that analyzed 18 randomized controlled treatment trials found ivermectin elicited 'large, statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance' in COVID patients." He added:
Known for his congressional testimony about the effectiveness of ivermectin, Dr. Pierre Kory is urging White House coronavirus adviser Dr. Anthony Fauci to reconsider his opposition to ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment.
Moore didn't report that Kory was one of the co-authors of that study, or that the FLCCC paid for it.
Moore repeated his false claims again in a June 30 article:
Worldwide, more than 50 peer-reviewed studies have shown the effectiveness of ivermectin as a treatment and prophylaxis against COVID-19. A recent study by the American Journal of Therapeutics that analyzed 18 randomized controlled treatment trials found ivermectin elicited "large, statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance" in COVID patients.
Again, the study was not published in the American Journal of Therapeutics in February.
Moore promotes McCullough's misinformation
That's not the only misinformation Moore has forwarded on COVID and vaccines. The main thrust of the May 10 article in which he promoted the ivermectin study was to tout an interview Fox News' Tucker Carlson did with Dr. Peter McCullough, an aggressive promoter of questionable treatments like hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, in which he attacked COVID vaccines, claimed thousands of people have died from them, and insisted that immunity obtained from having coronavirus is better:
He insisted it's a "false narrative that you can get the infection twice."
WND has already had to walk back the bogus claim that PCR tests are prone to false positives. Meanwhile, a fact-checker has pointed out how misleading McCullough's claims are (as well as other claims he made that Moore didn't note):
Don't look for Moore to correct his article -- it has already served its purpose of instilling fear into WND readers.
In a May 21 article, Moore uncritically repeated another claim from McCullough:
McCullough warned that the randomized vaccine trials excluded people who had been infected with COVID. That means there is no safety data and no indication of the effectiveness of the vaccine for people who have been infected, he said.
In fact, the Centers for Disease Control recommends that people who have recovered from COVID-19 receive a vaccination because having the disease is no guarantee against catching the virus again (though studies suggest that they may need only one dose of the vaccine). If there's "evidence of harm" in getting the vaccines, there's certainly a greater degree of it from the virus itself.
Moore devoted an entire May 25 article to McCullough's dubious argument:
Dr. Peter McCullough, a prominent cardiologist, internist and professor of medicine who has testified to the U.S. Senate, has explained that he is not against vaccines, and many of his patients have been vaccinated for COVID-19.
In fact, a report of an adverse effect to VAERS does not mean there is a proven link to those events and the vaccine, and anti-vaxxers like McCullough are simply trying to scare the public, not impart any useful information. In other words: McCullough is lying, and Moore refuses to call out his lie.
Moore touted more McCullough medical misinformation in a June 10 article:
Last November, renowned cardiologist Dr. Peter McCullough was among the physicians who in Senate testimony decried the politicization of hydroxychloroquine, invermectin and other drugs as COVID treatments.
In another June 10 article, Moore copied-and-pasted McCullough's earlier lie about "4,000 dead Americans" from the vaccine. On June 14, Moore recycled McCullough's bogus claim that the vaccine is "getting the vaccine is too risky, taking into account the fact that most people have a 99% survival rate" -- a claim Moore repeated in a June 15 article.
We've said it before: Lying to your readers does not build the kind of trust a news organization needs to be treated as credible. It's unknown why WND thinks it's exempt from this rule.
Moore's reporting has been factually inaccurate and dishonest. It's what we've come to expect from WND, but it's not what WND needs if it wants people to pay for its so-called reporting.