Before I get into today's snippet (which is staggering in its implications), I want to mention a Black Friday and Thanksgiving weekend book sale organized by Hans G. Schantz. More than a hundred independent authors, including yours truly, have priced one or more of their books at 99c or less for that period. Many are free. If you want to pick up some fresh reading material at a bargain price, click over to Hans' place and see if anything interests you.
Now, on to today's snippet.
I cannot emphasize too strongly how important this book is. It completely uncovers and exposes every scrap of evidence out there, showing that Dr. Fauci and the medical-pharmaceutical industry have coordinated their response to the COVID-19 pandemic and have systematically tried to destroy the reputation of medications that are effective against it, instead reaping a harvest of billions of dollars for their vaccines that are considerably less effective and much more dangerous to the health of recipients.
My problem this morning is to select a snippet that will convince you of how important this book is to understanding where we are, how we got here, and where we go to get out of this mess. There's so much "meat" in its pages that I find it almost impossible to choose. I'll settle for the transcript of one interview that makes it clear how much interference the "establishment" has created to prevent the truth coming out. To drive home the utter disregard for facts, and for human life, demonstrated by the powers that be, I've highlighted several sections with a yellow background.
Dr. [Tess] Lawrie, a world-renowned data researcher and scientific consultant, is an iconic eminence among global public health scientists and agencies. The Desert Review has deemed her “The Conscience of Medicine” because of her reputation for competence, precision, and integrity. Lawrie’s consulting group, the Evidence-Based Medicine Consultancy, Ltd. performs the scientific reviews that develop and support guidelines for global public health agencies, including the WHO and European governments, as well as international scientific and health consortia like the Cochrane Collaboration. Her clients have included a retinue of virtually all the larger government regulators now involved in the suppression of IVM and other repurposed drugs.
At the end of December 2000, Dr. Lawrie happened on a YouTube video of Pierre Kory’s Senate testimony on ivermectin. Her interest piqued, Dr. Lawrie conducted a “pragmatic rapid review” between Christmas and New Year’s to validate the 27 studies from the medical literature that Kory cited, assessing each of them for quality and power.
“After a week, I realized it was a go. IVM’s safety was well-established as a widely used dewormer,” she told me. “I was startled by the magnitude of its benefits. Its efficacy against COVID was consistently clear in multiple studies. I thought that all these people were dying and this was a moral obligation—this drug should have been rolled out.” Dr. Lawrie dispatched an urgent letter to British Health Minister Matt Hancock on January 4 with her Rapid Review attached. She never heard back from Hancock. But in a suspicious coincidence, someone leaked a meta-review by WHO researcher Andrew Hill to the Daily Mail. Three days later, Hill posted a preprint of his study. In the one month since he testified enthusiastically beside Dr. Kory in favor of ivermectin before the January 13 NIH panel, Hill had made a neck-wrenching volte face. Cumulatively, the seven studies in Hill’s original meta-review still showed a dramatic reduction in hospitalizations and deaths among patients receiving IVM. The leaked version of Hill’s meta-review included all the same papers that formerly supported his gung-ho promotion of IVM as a miraculous cure for COVID. Hill had altered only his conclusions. Now he claimed that those studies comprised a low quality of evidence, and so although they yielded a highly positive result, Hill assigned the result a “low certainty.” He could then declare that WHO should not recommend IVM without first performing long-term, randomized placebo-controlled studies that would require many months if not longer. “Someone got to him,” suggests Kory. “Someone sent him the memo. Andrew Hill has been captured by some really dark forces.”
On January 7, Dr. Lawrie summarized the overwhelming evidence from her Rapid Review in a video directed at British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, urging him to break the logjam and roll out IVM immediately. Her video, says Dr. Kory, was “absolutely convincing.” She forwarded the video appeal to the British and South African Prime Ministers on January 7. She heard nothing from either.
. . .
The following week, she spoke to Hill again, this time by Zoom.
The Zoom call was recorded.
. . .
Dr. Lawrie asked Hill to explain his U-turn on ivermectin, which his own analysis found overwhelmingly effective. “How can you do this?” she inquired politely. “You are causing irreparable harm.”
Hill explained that he was in a “tricky situation,” because his sponsors had put pressure on him. Hill is a University of Liverpool virologist who serves as an advisor to Bill Gates and the Clinton Foundation. “He told me his sponsor was Unitaid.” Unitaid is a quasi-governmental advocacy organization funded by the BMGF and several European countries—France, the United Kingdom, Norway, Brazil, Spain, the Republic of Korea, and Chile—to lobby governments to finance the purchase of medicines from pharmaceutical multinationals for distribution to the African poor. Its primary purpose seems to be protecting the patent and intellectual property rights of pharmaceutical companies—which, as we shall see, is the priority passion for Bill Gates—and to insure their prompt and full payment. About 63 percent of its funding comes from a surtax on airline tickets. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation holds a board seat and chairs Unitaid’s Executive Committee, and the BMGF has given Unitaid $150 million since 2005. Various Gates-funded surrogate and front organizations, like Global Fund, Gavi, and UNICEF also contribute, as does the pharmaceutical industry. The BMGF and Gates personally own large stakes in many of the pharmaceutical companies that profit from this boondoggle. Gates also uses Unitaid to fund corrupt science by tame and compromised researchers like Hill that legitimizes his policy directives to the WHO. Unitaid gave $40 million to Andrew Hill’s employer, the University of Liverpool, four days before the publication of Hill’s study.
Hill, a PhD, confessed that the sponsors were pressuring him to influence his conclusion. When Dr. Lawrie asked who was trying to influence him, Hill said, “I mean, I, I think I’m in a very sensitive position here. . . .”
Dr. Tess Lawrie, MD, PhD: “Lots of people are in sensitive positions; they’re in hospital, in ICUs dying, and they need this medicine.”
Dr. Hill: “Well. . . .”
Dr. Tess Lawrie: “This is what I don’t get, you know, because you’re not a clinician. You’re not seeing people dying every day. And this medicine prevents deaths by 80 percent. So 80 percent of those people who are dying today don’t need to die because there’s ivermectin.”
Dr. Andrew Hill: “There are a lot, as I said, there are a lot of different opinions about this. As I say, some people simply. . . .”
Dr. Tess Lawrie: “We are looking at the data; it doesn’t matter what other people say. We are the ones who are tasked with . . . look[ing] at the data and reassur[ing] everybody that this cheap and effective treatment will save lives. It’s clear. You don’t have to say, well, so-and-so says this, and so-and-so says that. It’s absolutely crystal clear. We can save lives today. If we can get the government to buy ivermectin.”
Dr. Andrew Hill: “Well, I don’t think it’s as simple as that, because you’ve got trials. . . .”
Dr. Tess Lawrie: “It is as simple as that. We don’t have to wait for studies . . . we have enough evidence now that shows that ivermectin saves lives, it prevents hospitalization. It saves the clinical staff going to work every day, [and] being exposed. And frankly, I’m shocked at how you are not taking responsibility for that decision. And you still haven’t told me who is [influencing you]? Who is giving you that opinion? Because you keep saying you’re in a sensitive position. I appreciate you are in a sensitive position, if you’re being paid for something and you’re being told [to support] a certain narrative . . . that is a sensitive position. So, then you kind of have to decide, well, do I take this payment? Because in actual fact, [you] can see [your false] conclusions . . . are going to harm people. So maybe you need to say, I’m not going to be paid for this. I can see the evidence, and I will join the Cochrane team as a volunteer, like everybody on the Cochrane team is a volunteer. Nobody’s being paid for this work.”
Dr. Andrew Hill: “I think fundamentally, we’re reaching the [same] conclusion about the survival benefit. We’re both finding a significant effect on survival.”
Dr. Tess Lawrie: “No, I’m grading my evidence. I’m saying I’m sure of this evidence. I’m saying I’m absolutely sure it prevents deaths. There is nothing as effective as this treatment. What is your reluctance? Whose conclusion is that?”
Hill then complains again that outsiders are influencing him.
Dr. Tess Lawrie: “You keep referring to other people. It’s like you don’t trust yourself. If you were to trust yourself, you would know that you have made an error and you need to correct it because you know, in your heart, that this treatment prevents death.”
Dr. Andrew Hill: “Well, I know, I know for a fact that the data right now is not going to get the drug approved.”
Dr. Tess Lawrie: “But, Andy—know this will come out . . . It will come out that there were all these barriers to the truth being told to the public and to the evidence being presented. So please, this is your opportunity just to acknowledge [the truth] in your review, change your conclusions, and come on board with this Cochrane Review, which will be definitive. It will be the review that shows the evidence and gives the proof. This was the consensus on Wednesday night’s meeting with 20 experts.”
Hill protests that NIH will not agree to recommend IVM.
Dr. Tess Lawrie: “Yeah, because the NIH is owned by the vaccine lobby.”
Dr. Andrew Hill: “That’s not something I know about.”
Dr. Tess Lawrie: “Well, all I’m saying is this smacks of corruption and you are being played.”
Dr. Hill: “I don’t think so.”
Dr. Tess Lawrie: “Well then, you have no excuse because your work in that review is flawed. It’s rushed. It is not properly put together.”
Dr. Lawrie points out that Hill’s study ignores a host of clinical outcomes that affect patients. She scolds Hill for ignoring the beneficial effects of IVM as prophylaxis, its effect on speed to PCR negativity, on the need for mechanical ventilation, on reduced admissions to ICUs, and other outcomes that are clinically meaningful. She adds, “This is bad research . . . bad research. So, at this point, I don’t know . . . you seem like a nice guy, but I am really, really worried about you.”
Dr. Andrew Hill: “Okay. Yeah. I mean, it’s, it’s a difficult situation.”
Dr. Tess Lawrie: “No, you might be in a difficult situation. I’m not, because I have no paymaster. I can tell the truth . . . How can you deliberately try and mess it up . . . you know?”
Dr. Andrew Hill: “It’s not messing it up. It’s saying that we need, we need a short time to look at some more studies.”
Dr. Tess Lawrie: “So, how long are you going to let people carry on dying unnecessarily—up to you? What is, what is the timeline that you’ve allowed for this, then?”
Dr. Andrew Hill: “Well, I think . . . I think that it goes to WHO and the NIH and the FDA and the EMEA. And they’ve got to decide when they think enough’s enough.”
Dr. Tess Lawrie: “How do they decide? Because there’s nobody giving them good evidence synthesis, because yours is certainly not good.”
Dr. Andrew Hill: “Well, when yours comes out, which will be in the very near future . . . at the same time, there’ll be other trials producing results, which will nail it with a bit of luck. And we’ll be there.”
Dr. Tess Lawrie: “It’s already nailed.”
Dr. Andrew Hill: “No, that’s, that’s not the view of the WHO and the FDA.”
Dr. Tess Lawrie: “You’d rather… risk loads of people’s lives. Do you know if you and I stood together on this, we could present a united front and we could get this thing. We could make it happen. We could save lives; we could prevent [British National Health Service doctors and nurses] people from getting infected. We could prevent the elderly from dying.”
Dr. Tess Lawrie: “These are studies conducted around the world in several different countries. And they’re all saying the same thing. Plus there’s all sorts of other evidence to show that it works. Randomized controlled trials do not need to be the be-all and end-all. But [even] based on the randomized controlled trials, it is clear that ivermectin works… It prevents deaths and it prevents harms and it improves outcomes for people . . . I can see we’re getting nowhere because you have an agenda, whether you like it or not, whether you admit to it or not, you have an agenda. And the agenda is to kick this down the road as far as you can. So . . . we are trying to save lives. That’s what we do. I’m a doctor and I’m going to save as many lives as I can. And I’m going to do that through getting the message [out] on ivermectin. . . . Okay. Unfortunately, your work is going to impair that, and you seem to be able to bear the burden of many, many deaths, which I cannot do.”
Then she asks again.
Dr. Tess Lawrie: “Would you tell me? I would like to know who pays you as a consultant through WHO.”
Dr. Andrew Hill: “It’s Unitaid.”
Dr. Tess Lawrie: “All right. So who helped to . . . ? Whose conclusions are those on the review that you’ve done? Who is not listed as an author? Who’s actually contributed?”
Dr. Andrew Hill: “Well, I mean, I don’t really want to get into, I mean, it . . . Unitaid . . . .”
Dr. Tess Lawrie: “I think that . . . It needs to be clear. I would like to know who, who are these other voices that are in your paper that are not acknowledged. Does Unitaid have a say? Do they influence what you write?”
Dr. Andrew Hill: “Unitaid has a say in the conclusions of the paper. Yeah.”
Dr. Tess Lawrie: “Okay. So, who is it in Unitaid, then? Who is giving you opinions on your evidence?”
Dr. Andrew Hill: “Well, it’s just the people there. I don’t . . . .”
Dr. Tess Lawrie: “So they have a say in your conclusions.”
Dr. Andrew Hill: “Yeah.”
Dr. Tess Lawrie: “Could you please give me a name of someone in Unitaid I could speak to, so that I can share my evidence and hope to try and persuade them to understand it?”
Dr. Andrew Hill: “Oh, I’ll have a think about who to, to offer you with a name…. But I mean, this is very difficult because I’m, you know, I’ve, I’ve got this role where I’m supposed to produce this paper and we’re in a very difficult, delicate balance….”
Dr. Lawrie interjects: “Who are these people? Who are these people saying this?”
Dr. Andrew Hill: “Yeah . . . it’s a very strong lobby . . .”
Dr. Tess Lawrie: “Okay. Look I think I can see [we’re] kind of [at] a dead end, because you seem to have a whole lot of excuses, but, um, you know, that to, to justify bad research practice. So I’m really, really sorry about this, Andy. I really, really wish, and you’ve explained quite clearly to me, in both what you’ve been saying and in your body language that you’re not entirely comfortable with your conclusions, and that you’re in a tricky position because of whatever influence people are having on you, and including the people who have paid you and who have basically written that conclusion for you.”
Dr. Andrew Hill: “You’ve just got to understand I’m in a difficult position. I’m trying to steer a middle ground and it’s extremely hard.”
Dr. Tess Lawrie: “Yeah. Middle ground. The middle ground is not a middle ground… [Y]ou’ve taken a position right to the other extreme calling for further trials that are going to kill people. So this will come out, and you will be culpable. And I can’t understand why you don’t see that, because the evidence is there and you are not just denying it, but your work’s actually actively obfuscating the truth. And this will come out. So I’m really sorry . . . As I say, you seem like a nice guy, but I think you’ve just kind of been misled somehow.”
Hill promised he would do everything in his power to get ivermectin approved if she would give him six weeks.
Dr. Andrew Hill: “Well, what I hope is that this, this stalemate that we’re in doesn’t last very long. It lasts a matter of weeks. And I guarantee I will push for this to last for as short amount of time as possible.”
Dr. Tess Lawrie: “So, how long do you think the stalemate will go on for? How long do you think you will be paid to [make] the stalemate… go on?”
Dr. Andrew Hill: “From my side. Okay . . . I think end of February, we will be there six weeks.”
Dr. Tess Lawrie: “How many people die every day?”
Dr. Andrew Hill: “Oh, sure. I mean, you know, 15,000 people a day.”
Dr. Tess Lawrie: “Fifteen thousand people a day times six weeks . . . Because at this rate, all other countries are getting ivermectin except the UK and the USA, because the UK and the USA and Europe are owned by the vaccine lobby.”
Dr. Andrew Hill: “My goal is to get the drug approved and to do everything I can to get it approved so that it reaches the maximum. . . .”
Dr. Tess Lawrie: “You’re not doing everything you can, because everything you can would involve saying to those people who are paying you, ‘I can see this prevents deaths. So I’m not going to support this conclusion anymore, and I’m going to tell the truth.’”
Dr. Andrew Hill: “What, I’ve got to do my responsibilities to get as much support as I can to get this drug approved as quickly as possible.”
Dr. Tess Lawrie: “Well, you’re not going to get it approved the way you’ve written that conclusion. You’ve actually shot yourself in the foot, and you’ve shot us all in the foot. All of . . . everybody trying to do something good. You have actually completely destroyed it.”
Dr. Andrew Hill: “Okay. Well, that’s where we’ll, I guess we’ll have to agree to differ.”
Dr. Tess Lawrie: “Yeah. Well, I don’t know how you sleep at night, honestly.”
At the conclusion of the January 14 BIRD conference, Dr. Lawrie delivered a monumental closing address that should be recorded among the most important speeches in the annals of medical history. Dr. Lawrie spoke out at considerable personal risk, since her livelihood and career largely rely on the very agencies she targeted for criticism.
Dr. Lawrie began by endorsing the miraculous efficacy of IVM.
Had ivermectin been employed in 2020 when medical colleagues around the world first alerted the authorities to its efficacy, millions of lives could have been saved, and the pandemic with all its associated suffering and loss brought to a rapid and timely end.
Dr. Lawrie told the audience that the suppression of ivermectin was a signal that Pharma’s pervasive corruption had turned a medical cartel against patients and against humanity.
The story of ivermectin has highlighted that we are at a remarkable juncture in medical history. The tools that we use to heal and our connection with our patients are being systematically undermined by relentless disinformation stemming from corporate greed. The story of ivermectin shows that we as a public have misplaced our trust in the authorities and have underestimated the extent to which money and power corrupts.
Dr. Lawrie called for reform of the method used to analyze scientific evidence.
They who design the trials and control the data also control the outcome. So, this system of industry-led trials needs to be put to an end. Data from ongoing and future trials of novel COVID treatments must be independently controlled and analyzed. Anything less than total transparency cannot be trusted.
Dr. Lawrie called out the corruption of modern medicine by Big Pharma and other interests and attributed the barbaric suppression of IVM to the single-minded obsession with more profitable vaccines.
Since then, hundreds of millions of people have been involved in the largest medical experiment in human history. Mass vaccination was an unproven novel therapy. Hundreds of billions will be made by Big Pharma and paid for by the public. With politicians and other nonmedical individuals dictating to us what we are allowed to prescribe to the ill, we as doctors have been put in a position such that our ability to uphold the Hippocratic oath is under attack.
She hinted at Gates’ role in the suppression.
At this fateful juncture, we must therefore choose: will we continue to be held ransom by corrupt organizations, health authorities, Big Pharma, and billionaire sociopaths, or will we do our moral and professional duty to do no harm and always do the best for those in our care? The latter includes urgently reaching out to colleagues around the world to discuss which of our tried and tested safe older medicines can be used against COVID.
Never before has our role as doctors been so important, because never before have we become complicit in causing so much harm.
Finally, Dr. Lawrie suggested that physicians form a new World Health Organization that represents the interests of the people, not corporations and billionaires, a people-centered organization.
There's so much more in the book that it's impossible to summarize. All I can say is, if you want the facts about how the treatment of COVID-19 has been politicized and monetized, causing literally hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths worldwide and paralyzing nations and regions, you need to read this book. It's utterly horrifying in its steady drumroll of incontrovertible evidence about what's been going on.
THIS BOOK IS ESSENTIAL READING. I can't put it more strongly than that.