Coronavirus

[Dachsie]

PART 2 of 3


Patented Genocide: Dr. Martin Exposes Fauci As Mercenary of Death





https://rumble.com/vrhv67-patented-genocide-dr.-martin-exposes-fauci-as-mercenary-of-death.html

Rumble — Why was Fauci patenting coronavirus before the pandemic? Who are the other mercenaries of death who worked to kill Americans for blood money? Why are U.S. soldiers being used as guinea pigs by the communist cabal. Dr. Martin explains all this and more and shows the receipts of pandemic pre-planning, as he blows a hole in the medical mafia propaganda surrounding COVID-19.

19:04 video runtime+++++++++

[Dachsie]

Dachsie comment:

If you can tolerate the first few minutes of Hopium Dave's commentary about our saviors, "Trump and the patriots", this X221 report of Dec. 28, 2021, today, contains some good information about the PLANdemic hoax.

09:46 to @ 11:43 a few short video clips of the main PLANdemic Liars - priceless exposure of these evil entities
_____________________________



Ep. 2662b - They [DS] Are Fighting For Their Lives, Panic Mode, Something Big Is About To Drop


Ep. 2662b - They [DS] Are Fighting For Their Lives, Panic Mode, Something Big Is About To Drop

https://www.bitchute.com/video/n66qibI3XOUM/

First published at 00:14 UTC on December 28th, 2021.


46:15 video runtime

The [DS] narrative is now falling apart, they are fighting for their lives. Panic mode. They know the people are waking up, the pandemic did not deliver what they needed, it is now coming to an end. They will continue to push it and keep the fear but this will fail. The pushed the tests off until Dec, they knew that cold and flu season was coming and they used it to push their agenda. But now it will all fall apart. Something big is about to drop and the [DS] knows its coming, people will begin to witness the truth.

All source links to the report can be found on the x22report.com site.

[Dachsie]

https://www.bitchute.com/video/xCnmYWhmg26n/

2 Views on Why Trump is Promoting the Experimental COVID-19

Injections - Which View is Correct?

09:10


irst published at 18:18 UTC on December 28th, 2021.

HealthImpactNews

HealthImpactNews

Conservative talk show host Candace Owens continues to deal with controversy from her interview with Donald Trump, and recently published a video of her explaining her views on Trump.
She has publicly stated that she is against the COVID-19 shots:

“I just will never ever let that vaccine into my body. I believe firmly that Big Pharma is the greatest evil on the face of the planet. I am healthy, young, in shape and simply unafraid of Covid-19.”

And yet, she insists that her views on the shots do not conflict with Donald Trump publicly stating how he wants everyone to get the shots, and lying to the public by stating the same lies that are coming out of the mouths of Fauci, Biden, and others that the "unvaccinated" are filling the hospitals and dying from COVID right now.

A few days ago, Dr. David Martin, who has been one of the leading voices in the Alternative media exposing the fraud behind Sars COVID for the past two years, was interviewed by Conservative host Seth Holehouse of "Man in America" where the 1 hour interview was titled "Why Does Trump Keep Promoting the Vaccine?"

I have created a clip from that interview that I believe best sums up what Dr. David Martin said, and between what Candace Owens published, and the questions from pro-Trump Seth Holehouse that Dr. Martin answers, I think we have in under 10 minutes a succinct summary of the two current views about why Donald Trump is out pushing for everyone to get a COVID-19 injection.

Listen to this short video, and then answer this question for yourself: Which view is more credible?

Full article (comments submitted here): https://healthimpactnews.com/2021/2-...ew-is-correct/

[monty]

https://www.bitchute.com/video/xCnmYWhmg26n/

2 Views on Why Trump is Promoting the Experimental COVID-19

Injections - Which View is Correct?

09:10


irst published at 18:18 UTC on December 28th, 2021.

HealthImpactNews

HealthImpactNews

Conservative talk show host Candace Owens continues to deal with controversy from her interview with Donald Trump, and recently published a video of her explaining her views on Trump.
She has publicly stated that she is against the COVID-19 shots:

“I just will never ever let that vaccine into my body. I believe firmly that Big Pharma is the greatest evil on the face of the planet. I am healthy, young, in shape and simply unafraid of Covid-19.”

And yet, she insists that her views on the shots do not conflict with Donald Trump publicly stating how he wants everyone to get the shots, and lying to the public by stating the same lies that are coming out of the mouths of Fauci, Biden, and others that the "unvaccinated" are filling the hospitals and dying from COVID right now.

A few days ago, Dr. David Martin, who has been one of the leading voices in the Alternative media exposing the fraud behind Sars COVID for the past two years, was interviewed by Conservative host Seth Holehouse of "Man in America" where the 1 hour interview was titled "Why Does Trump Keep Promoting the Vaccine?"

I have created a clip from that interview that I believe best sums up what Dr. David Martin said, and between what Candace Owens published, and the questions from pro-Trump Seth Holehouse that Dr. Martin answers, I think we have in under 10 minutes a succinct summary of the two current views about why Donald Trump is out pushing for everyone to get a COVID-19 injection.

Listen to this short video, and then answer this question for yourself: Which view is more credible?

Full article (comments submitted here): https://healthimpactnews.com/2021/2-...ew-is-correct/

Thanks Dachsie. Trump's groupies should hear that, however they probably aren't open minded enough for it to sink in.

[Dachsie]

https://wentworthreport.com/

hat-tip reservist
Posted on 28 December 2021 by David Evans

[Dachsie]

https://rightedition.com/2021/12/28/...hat-you-think/

Robert F Kennedy, Jr. Explains Why They’re Going After the Kids — And It’s Not What You Think

By Jim Hoft

The PREP Act provides immunity from liability for the COVID-19 vaccinators. The purpose of the law is to protect Big Pharma.

Robert F. Kennedy recently revealed why Big Pharma and Dr. Fauci are going after the children and babies. Because the vaccines that are recommended for children get liability protection.

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr: “They are never going to market a vaccine, allow people access to a vaccine, an approved vaccine without getting liability protection. Now the emergency use authorization vaccines have liability protection under the PREP Act and under the CARES Act.

So as long as you take an emergency use vaccine, you can’t sue them. Once they get approved, now you can sue them, unless they can get it recommended for children. Because all vaccines that are recommended, officially recommended for children get liability protection, even if an adult gets that vaccine. That’s why they are going after the kids. They know this is going to kill and injure a huge number of children, but they need to do it for the liability protection.”

________________

Dachsie comment:

Article does not explain WHO it is that gets to grant the official "Recommended for children" status but the granting of that status is apparently more likely to happen the more children get jabs right now during the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) time.

So the children are the ticket for getting ALL jabs, on adults and children, of Pfizer "vaccines" forever liability-tree status. Using children as the Guinea pigs for the greater good of BigPharma's pocket book.

BigPharma and "science" justify their lying, killing stealing and murdering under the stated goal of ...

"Its for the children."

[Dachsie]

12/22/21
•

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/pfizer-vaccine-clinical-trials-poorly-designed/?itm_term=home

COVID › Views
Pfizer Vaccine Clinical Trials Poorly Designed From the Start, Analysis Shows

The Canadian COVID Care Alliance assembled a presentation that demonstrates how Pfizer’s purported randomized placebo-controlled, double-blinded study veered away from methodologies that would have definitively answered questions about the vaccine’s safety and efficacy.

By
Madhava Setty, M.D.




The disagreements around whether COVID-19 vaccinations are “safe and effective” stem not only from the subjective nature of such descriptors but also from the lack of consensus around the data used to substantiate or refute such a claim.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Reports (MMWR) often draw from limited observations, and their assessment of vaccine effectiveness is based on relatively small subsets of our population.

Their conclusions are sometimes reflective of outdated data and conflict with their own recommendations.

For example, here the CDC’s latest estimation of vaccine effectiveness is upwards of 80% in preventing COVID-19 (i.e. the risk of becoming infected is 5 times less if vaccinated). Why then the recommendation for boosters?

Note that this latest metric is based on the CDC’s most recent data from more than one month ago and represents data drawn only from 27 jurisdictions.

Eric Topol, a professor of molecular medicine at Scripps Research, is a former advisory board member of the Covid Tracking Project, a team that worked to collect and synthesize local COVID-19 during the peak of the pandemic.

Politico recently quoted Topol:

“I think we’ve done a horrible job from day one in data tracking for the pandemic. We’re not tracking all the things that we need to to get a handle on what’s going on. It is embarrassing.”

Meanwhile, vaccine injuries continue to accumulate in the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) and go unacknowledged, making any constructive discussion around risk impossible.

In order to find common ground, it is perhaps most appropriate to focus on published data from the vaccine trials themselves.

Was Emergency Use Authorization justified? Was the current confusion around vaccine effectiveness and safety predictable from the beginning?

A presentation by the Canadian COVID Care Alliance

Canadian COVID Care Alliance (CCCA) is a group of “Independent Canadian doctors, scientists and healthcare professionals committed to providing top quality and balanced evidence-based information to the Canadian public about COVID-19 so that hospitalizations can be reduced, lives saved and our country restored as safely as possible.”

CCCA assembled a presentation that comprehensively demonstrates how Pfizer’s purported randomized placebo-controlled, double-blinded study veered away from methodologies that would have answered the safety and efficacy questions definitively.

In this concise slide deck with an explanatory video, CCCA powerfully summarized why Pfizer’s trial was not designed to adequately demonstrate its product’s safety and efficacy.

Here are a few key points from the CCCA presentation:

Initial data demonstrated a high relative risk reduction of infection yet this amounted to an absolute risk reduction of only 0.84%. It is the absolute risk reduction that determines the risk-benefit ratio required to make informed decisions around inoculation.
Early unblinding: Several months before publishing six-month observational results Pfizer opted to offer its product to those participants who received the placebo. By eliminating nearly all participants in the placebo wing Pfizer effectively closed the curtain on its experiment because long-term comparisons can no longer be made.
All-cause mortality and morbidity, the only sensible outcomes to use in determining efficacy and risk, were not considered. Indeed, all-cause mortality was higher in the vaccinated group after six months.
Severe adverse events outnumbered cases of severe COVID prevented after six months of observation.
Trial participants were not reflective of the most vulnerable members of our population — more than 50% of people dying from COVID are 75 years of age or older. This age group made up only 4.4% of trial participants. Also, 95% of those who have died from COVID had one or more comorbidities. Nearly 80% of trial participants had none.
Not every trial participant was tested for COVID. Asymptomatic or paucisymptomatic (presenting few symptoms) cases were missed.

Questions regarding unblinding and data integrity

The CCCA presentation also resurrects a puzzling observation mentioned in a briefing document Pfizer submitted only to the FDA’s Vaccine and Related Biologic Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) of the FDA, but nowhere else — including the widely cited summary of the trial reported in New England Journal of Medicine.

According to the document, 3,410 participants were suspected from their clinical presentation of having COVID but they were excluded from efficacy calculations because a diagnosis could not be confirmed through PCR testing.

The CCCA presentation presumes this large group of participants was never tested. The wording in the VRBPAC briefing document is indeed vague, stating the participants were “not PCR-confirmed” in one sentence and “unconfirmed” in another.

Assuming Pfizer’s investigators followed their study protocol, these participants were in fact tested. Yet that forces us to accept that more than 3,400 participants who had symptoms of COVID were suffering from other illnesses, not COVID.

In other words, there were 3,580 participants who clinically presented with COVID (3,410 suspected and 170 confirmed). Of these, more than 95% tested negative. This is difficult to accept in a group where clinical suspicion is high.

However, with no further testing by the investigators, we are left to accept these numbers as reported.

Peter Doshi, Ph.D., senior editor at The BMJ, explained the implications of this result in detail, in an opinion piece published nearly one year ago.

In his widely discussed commentary, Doshi noted another baffling finding in the Pfizer data. Within 7 days of administration of the second of two doses, 371 (310 in the vaccinated group and 61 in the placebo group) trial participants were withdrawn from the study due to “important protocol deviations.”

Of course, protocol deviations occur, but why were five times more vaccine recipients excluded than placebo recipients at that point in the study?

Although there were nearly 40,000 participants in the evaluable population, only 170 contributed to the efficacy calculation with regard to protection from infection, and only 10 with regard to protection from severe infection.

In other words, just a handful of incorrectly diagnosed and categorized participants could easily result in a substantially different estimation of the vaccine’s efficacy and safety.

Statistician and educator Mathew Crawford pointed out the likelihood of such a disparity between groups is exceedingly unlikely. However, because the investigators should have been blinded, we must accept this as an extraordinary coincidence.

Incredibly, the very same disparity occurred in the pediatric trials (ages 5 to 11). Table 12 from the corresponding summary to the FDA’s VRBPAC indicated 3.1% of children were removed from the trial if they received the vaccine compared to 0.5% if they received the placebo.

Once again, there is a factor of 5 difference at exactly the same point in the trial (within 7 days of dose 2). It is true that the vaccine formulation requires steps prior to administration that are not required with the placebo, but why didn’t these protocol deviations happen with the first dose as well? What happened to these vaccine recipients soon after they received their second dose?

These remarkable “coincidences” can be best explained if we are willing to consider the possibility that the investigators were not, in fact, blinded. This is precisely the most damning allegation by whistleblower Brook Jackson, formerly a regional director at Ventavia, one of several clinical research organizations conducting Pfizer’s vaccine trials in 2020.

In addition to the unblinding of investigators, Jackson also accused Ventavia of falsifying data.

These are weighty accusations. Why should we believe her? Because her story is corroborated by the trial data themselves.

She was fired within a day of reporting her concerns directly to the FDA. Her story was covered in The BMJ Nov. 2. Mainstream media has yet to report on it.

Conclusion

Though public health authorities continue to proclaim these products are safe and effective, every week brings more and more evidence to the contrary.

A thorough analysis of data from Pfizer’s vaccine trials reveals more questions than answers. Claims the vaccine maker’s product is performing “as expected” may not be so far from the truth.

____



Suggest a Correction
Madhava Setty, M.D.'s avatar

Madhava Setty, M.D.

Madhava Setty, M.D. is senior science editor for The Defender

[Dachsie]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gTf...boYtOXw67B-pTo



1:06:46 video runtime

Live Q&A: Fauci’s Ties to Deadly NIAID Experiments On Children Exposed; Fed Gov Walks Back Mandates

[Dachsie]

Memo to the vaccinated: Do the right thing

by: WorldTribune.com 12/27/2021 Source: WorldTribune.com

Commentary by WorldTribune Staff, December 26, 2021

[Cognitivies dissonance, according to Wikipedia, is the perception of contradictory information. According to this theory, when two actions or ideas are not psychologically consistent with each other, people do all in their power to change them until they become consistent.]

Admit it. You screwed up. Your actions were perfectly justifiable in accord with the principles of self interest which govern life in the real world. But they were wrong.

You heeded the "authorities" who assured you that survival from Covid-19 was guaranteed by science in the form of vaccines provided by major pharmaceutical firms closely aligned with U.S. and world health organizations. You failed to follow the money and you did not connect the dots.

Your actions influenced billions worldwide who were looking to Americans for guidance in how to respond to this surreal pandemic.

Now you know. You should have had faith in God and science, not in bureaucrats and media bought and paid for by vested interests.

Your actions have compromised your own health and that of billions.

There is only one recourse. Say you are sorry. Loudly. Blame no one but yourselves for having faith in false gods rather than your own common sense and conscience.

The facts are available through the surviving Free Press in the United States of America. Read and act based on John 8:32: "You shall know the Truth and the Truth shall set you free." There is no other way to reduce the cognitive dissonance resulting from taking an unknown substance into your body with global implications.

[Dachsie]

Dachsie Comment:
This is how "Science" works. Produce whatever kind of "scientific study" Gates and Fauci demand and let half a million people die because of the manipulated study produced. Give millions of dollars to the university "scientists" and cook up whatever "scientific conclusions" ordered.

Dr. Hilll's original study said how helpful and good Ivermectin is.
Dr. Hill's latest study, which is now published, said how dangerous and bad Ivermectin is.

The conversation transcript from RFK Jr's book in this article is invaluable.

I wonder if Dr. Andrew Hill is still employed and if his horrible Big Lie against humanity was worth it to him.

_______________________________________



by WorldTribune Staff, December 9, 2021

In a stunning admission, virologist Dr. Andrew Hill acknowledged in a zoom call that publication of his study could lead to the deaths of at least a half million people.

In defending his reversal on the effectiveness of ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19, he discussed his “difficult situation” and said, “I’ve got this role where I’m supposed to produce this paper and we’re in a very difficult, delicate balance.”



The incident is recounted in Robert Kennedy Jr’s New York Times Bestseller, The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the global war on Democracy and Public Health.

Andrew Hill, PhD, is a senior visiting Research Fellow in Pharmacology at Liverpool University. He is also an advisor for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Clinton Foundation. As a researcher for the WHO evaluating ivermectin, Hill wielded enormous influence over international guidance for the drug’s use.

Hill had previously authored a analysis of ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19 that found the drug overwhelmingly effective.

On Jan. 6 of 2021, Hill testified enthusiastically before the NIH COVID-19 Treatment Guidlelines Panel in support of ivermectin’s use. Within a month, however, Hill found himself in what he describes as a “tricky situation.” Under pressure from his funding sponsors, Hill then published an unfavorable study. Ironically, he used the same sources as in the original study. Only the conclusions had changed.

Shortly before he published, Dr. Tess Lawrie, Director of the Evidence-based Medicine Consultancy in Bath, England, and one of the world’s leading medical research analysts, contacted Hill via Zoom and recorded the call (transcript below). Lawrie had learned of his new position and reached out to try to rectify the situation.

In a remarkable exchange, a transcript of which appears on pages 137 – 143 in Kennedy’s book, Hill admitted his manipulated study would likely delay the uptake of ivermectin in the UK and United States, but said he hoped his doing so would only set the lifesaving drug’s acceptance back by about “six weeks,” after which he was willing to give his support for its use.

Hill affirmed that the rate of death at that time was 15,000 people per day. At the 80 percent recovery rate using the drug, which Hill and Lawrie discussed earlier in the call, the number of preventable deaths incurred by such a delay would be staggering — as many as 504,000.

Lawrie was unable to persuade Hill, who instead of joining her team as lead author, went ahead and published his manipulated findings.

Four days before publication, Hill’s sponsor Unitaid gave the University of Liverpool, Hill’s employer $40 million. Unitaid, it turns out, was also an author of the conclusions of Hill’s study.

In the call, Lawrie berated Hill’s study as “flawed,” “rushed,“ “not properly put together,” and “bad research . . . bad research,” which Hill appears not to have denied.

Instead, when pressed he admitted his sponsor, Unitaid, was an unacknowledged author of conclusions.

“Unitaid has a say in the conclusions of the paper. Yeah,” he told Lawrie.

Flush Fake Media: Revive the American Free Press

Kennedy explained: “Unitaid is a quasi-governmental advocacy organization funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) and several countries . . . to lobby governments to finance the purchase of medicines from pharmaceutical multinationals” for distribution in Africa.

He reports:

“Dr. Lawrie knew that to make its ivermectin determination, WHO would rely on Hill’s study and another study from McMaster University known as the “Together Trial.” McMaster was hopelessly and irredeemably conflicted. NIH gave McMaster $1,081,541 in 2020 and 2021.61 A separate group of McMaster University scientists was, at that time, engaged in developing their own COVID vaccine—an effort that would never pay dividends if WHO recommended ivermectin as Standard of Care. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation was funding the massive “Together Trial” testing ivermectin, HCQ, and other potential drugs against COVID, in Brazil and other locations. Critics accused Gates and the McMaster researchers of designing that study to make ivermectin fail.”

In other words, the McMaster researchers, just like Andrew Hill, knew that a positive appraisal of ivermectin would cost their university millions of dollars.

In a terse exchange, Lawrie laid out the ethical and personal risks for Hill:

Lawrie: 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.

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.

Lawrie: Yeah. Middle ground. The middle ground is not a middle ground …You’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.



Much like “two weeks to flatten the curve,” in the intervening year Hill appears to have gone all-in on a deception originally envisioned to last only six weeks.

Kennedy reports that on Oct. 1, 2021, “Hill resurfaced on Twitter touting his upcoming lecture, ironically titled, ‘Effects of Bias and Potential Medical Fraud in the Promotion of Ivermectin.’”

Dr. Pierre Kory, of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance, commented, “Andrew is apparently making a living now accusing the doctors and scientists who support ivermectin of medical fraud.”

Regulatory acceptance of ivermectin did not delay only six weeks. Instead, almost a year later, it has still not been approved by health agencies in the United Kingdom or in United States. Instead The WHO, CDC, NIH, and FDA have suppressed the drug’s use.

Kory added, “Hill and his backers are some of the worst people in human history. They are responsible for the deaths of millions.”

Related: ‘Literally criminal’: Supressing data on ivermectin ‘cost half a million lives’ doctor charges, May 26, 2021

Related: Indian Bar Assoc moves against WHO scientist: ‘Deliberately suppressed’ ivermectin data , June 11, 2021

Related: Better than vaccines? Frontline doctors prescribe ivermectin to treat Covid-19 , March 25, 2021

[For further analysis, see Neville Hodgkinson’s article at the Defender, and Robert Kennedy, Jr.’s New York Times bestseller, The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the global war on Democracy and Public Health.]

Here is the transcript of the conversation between Lawrie and Hill:

Lawrie: Lots of people are in sensitive positions; they’re in hospital, in ICUs dying, and they need this medicine.

Hill: Well …

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.

Hill: There are a lot, as I said, there are a lot of different opinions about this. As I say, some people simply …

Lawrie: We are looking at the data; it doesn’t matter what other people say. We are the ones who are tasked with looking at the data and reassuring 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.

Hill: Well, I don’t think it’s as simple as that, because you’ve got trials …

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.

Hill: I think fundamentally, we’re reaching the [same] conclusion about the survival benefit. We’re both finding a significant effect on survival.

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 complains again that outsiders are influencing him.

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.

Hill: Well, I know, I know for a fact that the data right now is not going to get the drug approved.

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 the U.S. National Institutes of Health will not agree to recommend ivermectin.

Lawrie: Yeah, because the NIH is owned by the vaccine lobby.

Hill: That’s not something I know about.

Lawrie: Well, all I’m saying is this smacks of corruption and you are being played.

Hill: I don’t think so.

Lawrie: Well then, you have no excuse because your work in that review is flawed. It’s rushed. It is not properly put together.

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 ivermectin as prophylaxis, its effect on speed to testing negative for the virus, on the need for mechanical ventilation, on reduced admissions to intensive care, and other outcomes that are clinically meaningful.

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.

Hill: Okay. Yeah. I mean, it’s, it’s a difficult situation.

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?

Hill: It’s not messing it up. It’s saying that we need, we need a short time to look at some more studies.

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?

Hill: Well, I think . . . I think that it goes to WHO [World Health Organization]and the NIH [National Institutes of Health]and the FDA [U.S. Food and Drug Administration] and the EMA [European Medicines Agency]. And they’ve got to decide when they think enough’s enough.

Lawrie: How do they decide? Because there’s nobody giving them good evidence synthesis, because yours is certainly not good.

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.

Lawrie: It’s already nailed.

Hill: No, that’s, that’s not the view of the WHO and the FDA.

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.

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.

Lawrie then asks again: Would you tell me? I would like to know who pays you as a consultant through WHO?

Hill: It’s Unitaid.

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?

Hill: Well, I mean, I don’t really want to get into, I mean, it … Unitaid …

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?

Hill: Unitaid has a say in the conclusions of the paper. Yeah.

Lawrie: Okay. So, who is it in Unitaid, then? Who is giving you opinions on your evidence?

Hill: Well, it’s just the people there. I don’t …

Lawrie: So they have a say in your conclusions.

Hill: Yeah.

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?

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 …

Lawrie: Who are these people? Who are these people saying this?

Hill: Yeah … it’s a very strong lobby …

Lawrie: Okay. Look, I think I can see kind of 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.

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.

Lawrie: Yeah. Middle ground. The middle ground is not a middle ground … You’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 promises he will do everything in his power to get ivermectin approved if she will give him six weeks.

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.

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?

Hill: From my side. Okay … I think end of February, we will be there, six weeks.’

Lawrie: How many people die every day?

Hill: Oh, sure. I mean, you know, 15,000 people a day.

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.

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 …