Pierre Kory

Kory and other doctors sued California authorities, arguing that a policy permitting discipline for dissenting Covid advice violated the First Amendment. An initial application for an injunction failed, the Ninth Circuit upheld that decision and the Supreme Court denied certiorari in April 2026. Following new Supreme Court decisions cited by the applicants, the federal court reconsidered the issue and granted a preliminary injunction in August 2026 protecting the applicant doctors against viewpoint-based sanctions.

State of the evidence

Documented

Attribution

Protagonist is the complainant

The estate of Edward James Waters accused Kory of negligence during remote Covid treatment in December 2021, notably prescribing high doses of prednisone without medication to protect against ulcers. Waters subsequently suffered an ulcer perforation and died. The district court had allowed negligence and informed-consent claims to proceed. In August 2026, the Second Circuit held that Kory benefited from PREP Act immunity and that all claims must be dismissed.

State of the evidence

Allegations

Attribution

Accused

After rejection by Frontiers, a revised version of Kory's review was published in the American Journal of Therapeutics, concluding that ivermectin provided substantial benefit. In February 2022, the publisher issued an Expression of Concern following allegations of inaccurate data collection or reporting in at least one primary study; excluding suspect data called the mortality effect into question.

Attribution

Directly implicated

Kory continued to present ivermectin as effective against Covid-19 and co-authored an observational study in Itajaí, Brazil, concluding that it substantially reduced infection, hospitalisation and mortality. Epidemiologists highlighted the lack of randomisation and serious risks of confounding, while several higher-quality randomised trials showed no convincing clinical benefit.

State of the evidence

Documented

Attribution

Directly implicated

Frontiers in Pharmacology withdrew a review by Kory and colleagues before publication, following provisional acceptance. The publisher stated that the article contained a series of strong claims insufficiently supported by the cited studies, failed to provide an objective and balanced contribution and inappropriately promoted the authors' own protocol.

Attribution

Directly implicated