Corruption among the scientists? – British scientist Dr Tess Lawrie calls out colleague
Key studies authored by Dr. Andrew Hill, affiliated with the University of Liverpool, and Unitaid—affiliated organization of the World Health Organization (WHO) – were to pave the way for use of the low cost, safe and effective repurposed drug. But something unexpected happened at the last-minute. Hill published conclusions which put on the brakes for a collaboration of top scientists who had agreed to work together to save millions of lives. Unitaid, his sponsor is controlled by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. What happened to make Hill’s commitment to the scientists go south and sour?
In October 2020 Dr Andrew Hill was tasked to report to the World Health Organisation on dozens of studies from the world evaluating Ivermectin for the treatment of Covid-19. Dr Hill talked to two American physicians, Dr Paul Marik and Dr Pierre Kory, and British scientist Dr Tess Lawrie about the exciting data they were witnessing. Then something happened.
Read Dr Tess Lawrie’s recent letter below to Dr Andrew Hill and then view the video to hear their direct conversation
Note: As you watch the video in the post observe the body language and wording of Hill, the scientist who could have saved millions of lives with a safe, cheap and effective medicine – but didn’t. Why? Whatever the answer, somebody got to him – power and/or money – and millions of lives have been sacrificed and will continue to be sacrificed. 80% of the people who died did not need to die had they been given Ivermectin.
It is approximately 1 year since I shared with you my record review on the evidence on Ivermectin for covid-19.
It is 1 year since my video address to our Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, advising him that we had a safe and effective medicine to beat the pandemic. And 1 yr since you and I met, to discuss working together to get Ivermectin approved as soon as possible.
Early in January, 2021 we shared data and agreed that Ivermectin looked like a cheap, safe and effective way to end the pandemic, but it needed to be rolled out as soon as possible. We agreed that working together would facilitate this and you joined our strong author team preparing to conduct a complete systematic review.
Before we could collaborate however, you published your paper as a pre-print. I will NEVER forget reading this paper for the first time. You reported that Ivermectin was associated with reduced inflammation, faster viral clearance, Ivermectin showed significantly shorter duration of hospitalization and in moderate or severe infection, there was a 75% reduction in deaths with favourable clinical recovery and reduced hospitalization. Incredible! At a time when hospitals were overflowing, people were being locked down to prevent viral transmission. And the death count was rising, here we had a safe, established, off-patent medicine that could reduce hospitalization, viral transmission and deaths. Yet your conclusions were ‘Ivermectin should be validated in larger, appropriately controlled randomized trials, before the results are sufficient for review by regulatory authorities’
People were dying, we were told hospitals were overflowing, we had a safe old medicine that could help
Yet you called for more trials
On 17th January 2021 I wrote to you asking you to retract your paper, saying that it would cause immeasurable harm.
We met on Zoom the next day….”