Who killed ivermectin?

Tess Lawrie is an MD and PhD, who has run her own medical research consultancy for 9 years, with the NHS and WHO being her two biggest clients. On 3rd March 2022, she appeared on The Highwire (ep.257) to discuss with Del Bigtree the global suppression of evidence and refusal to admit that ivermectin is and always has been an effective prophylactic and treatment for COVID-19.

Why was this repurposed drug, which had been proven over decades to be safe and effective as an antiviral and is on the WHO list of essential medicines, being sidelined? Why was testimony and evidence that it had saved lives being ignored? Why were doctors being censored and threatened for speaking out about it?

Who killed ivermectin, and why?

Dr Andrew Hill: why the volte-face?

In October 2020, Dr Andrew Hill, a senior Research Fellow at Liverpool University, was tasked to report to the World Health Organisation on the dozens of new studies from around the world suggesting ivermectin could be a remarkably safe and effective treatment for C-19. He was sponsored by the WHO and UNITAID.

During the course of his research, Dr Hill spoke at length to prominent ivermectin ‘enthusiasts’, Dr Pierre Kory, Dr Paul Marik and Dr Tess Lawrie. Their discussions were around getting ivermectin approved as soon as possible, all agreeing that it seemed like a cheap, safe and effective way to end the pandemic.

But on 18th January 2021, when he published his findings on a pre-print server - ‘Meta-analysis of Randomized Trials of Ivermectin to Treat SARS-CoV-2 Infection’ - despite confirming that studies showed ivermectin reduced COVID-19 deaths by 75% and increased viral clearance, he concluded by advising: “Ivermectin should be validated in larger appropriately controlled randomized trials before the results are sufficient for review by regulatory authorities.”

He also stated in the paper:

• Ivermectin did not show a statistically significant effect on survival

• Ivermectin displayed a borderline significant effect on duration of hospitalization in comparison with standard of care

• There was no significant effect of ivermectin on time to clinical recovery or binary clinical recovery

• Currently, the World Health Organization recommends the use of ivermectin only inside clinical trials.

Why? What caused Dr Hill to go from agreeing that the evidence in favour of ivermectin was overwhelming – even saying that if his older brother (a smoker) got COVID, he’d want him to have it - to reporting that its benefits weren’t significant enough to justify recommending it to the WHO as a treatment for C-19?

In a Zoom call with Tess Lawrie shortly after the publication of his report, he stated, “I’m in a very sensitive position here…” and confirmed that UNITAID had a say in the conclusions of the paper, although he didn’t want to give any names. (You can watch him wriggling in the video below.)

It’s worth noting that the BMGF awarded $50m to the WHO for investment in UNITAID between 2017 and 2021.

Here’s Dr Tess Lawie’s full video letter to Dr Hill, published on 4th March 2022 (18 mins):

It looks very much as though Dr Hill has been firmly commandeered by the BMGF and those who have coordinated the response to this pandemic, to be a ‘tool’ in their fight to suppress ivermectin. Who knows what coercion, bribery and/or blackmail tactics may have been used to buy his cooperation, but it’s obvious from his demeanour and responses in the video above that he knows full well he’s on the wrong side of this.

I think we can all agree with Pierre Kory’s message to Andrew Hill:

“That opportunity [to blow the whistle] required sacrifice. It required you resisting the forces that were telling you to allow them to write your paper – to dumb down and mute your conclusions – because they clearly had other objectives, whether it was to support a global vaccine policy or new novel drugs that would make money. And you were up against massive financial forces, and I knew that. But you were also in a position where you had an opportunity to speak up and it would have made a world of difference. History demanded a man in your position, who was willing and courageous, to speak up – and you did not. And your silence and your cooperation with the forces that wanted to hide the efficacy of ivermectin, this is an unconscionable thing that you did, and I think history is going to remember it.”