The Playground

    Quote from Fm1

    You might want to check on the status of the rct trials, none have reached full enrollment, so I'm not sure where you are getting your information but doctors are more than willing to prescribe ivermectin

    IN the UK most GPs are not happy prescribing ivermectin nor any other drug not shown effective.


    Of course there are some doctors who will prescribe pretty well anything in any country - especially in the US.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    You know Shane that this idea (that ivermectin protects) is advocated by some pressure groups and internet opinion-setters but not commonly accepted by independent doctors.


    If you reckon that any doctor should be free to prescribe quack medicine because they think it works, there is a good case for allowing ivermectin. Otherwise not.


    The large RCTs in progress are not looking good: the only one terminating has been negative: positive results as good as dexamethasone would have been revealed by now in an interim report.

    The woman was all but dead, and her husband, children and grandchildren wanted to try Ivermectin as a last resort, but were prevented from administering. We always honor a condemned man's last meal before execution, but you can't honor this? Pitiful.


    You and this mainstream medical narrative you protect are heartless. I always thought the whole health care system was built on compassion, with the patients well being be priority one. But it has been so bastardized and corrupted by politics, and money, that the patient is now secondary to accumulating power, and enriching those at the top of the hierarchy..

    Quote from Shane D.

    The woman was all but dead, and her husband, children and grandchildren wanted to try Ivermectin as a last resort, but were prevented from administering. We always honor a condemned man's last meal before execution, but you can't honor this? Pitiful.


    You and this mainstream medical narrative you protect are heartless. I always thought the whole health care system was built on compassion

    Our doctors supposed to do their best to cure pateints, or to honour their wishes for non-working possibly harmful therapies?


    I have some sympathy with your view that doctors should dela with psychological issues if if somone believes a magic ring will cure them - give it them. Even if there is some small possibility of toxicity.


    But that is a tough call for mots doctors to make who are brought up with stories of the medical treatments that do harm and have been used for years by doctors because they and their patients believe in them.,

    Quote from LeBob

    Can you call the omicron variant a natural vaccine of sorts? For sure it's amazing that it appears to have both more transmission and not espouse dangerous features like a cold.

    This is the typical trace of mutations, e.g. be more transmittable and less severe, the virus has no interest to kill it's host

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    Our doctors supposed to do their best to cure pateints, or to honour their wishes for non-working possibly harmful therapies?

    Doctors do not have any qualms about using Remdisivir which they know does harm, and is it at best marginally effective. So why then would they object to giving IVM, which they know is safer than aspirin, water, and caffeine?


    And in most of these cases the patient arranged for another doctor to administer the IVM, so all the attending doctor had to do was step aside. That is when the hospital administration intervenes to prevent this sensible compromise arrangement to occur.

    Two Common Over-the-Counter Compounds Reduce COVID-19 Virus Replication by 99% in Early Testing

    The combination includes diphenhydramine, an antihistamine used for allergy symptoms. When paired with lactoferrin, a protein found in cow and human milk, the compounds were found to hinder the SARS-CoV-2 virus during tests in monkey cells and human lung cells.


    Highly Specific Sigma Receptor Ligands Exhibit Anti-Viral Properties in SARS-CoV-2 Infected Cells


    Highly Specific Sigma Receptor Ligands Exhibit Anti-Viral Properties in SARS-CoV-2 Infected Cells
    (1) Background: There is a strong need for prevention and treatment strategies for COVID-19 that are not impacted by SARS-CoV-2 mutations emerging in variants…
    www.mdpi.com


    Abstract

    (1) Background: There is a strong need for prevention and treatment strategies for COVID-19 that are not impacted by SARS-CoV-2 mutations emerging in variants of concern. After virus infection, host ER resident sigma receptors form direct interactions with non-structural SARS-CoV-2 proteins present in the replication complex. (2) Methods: In this work, highly specific sigma receptor ligands were investigated for their ability to inhibit both SARS-CoV-2 genome replication and virus induced cellular toxicity. This study found antiviral activity associated with agonism of the sigma-1 receptor (e.g., SA4503), ligation of the sigma-2 receptor (e.g., CM398), and a combination of the two pathways (e.g., AZ66). (3) Results: Intermolecular contacts between these ligands and sigma receptors were identified by structural modeling. (4) Conclusions: Sigma receptor ligands and drugs with off-target sigma receptor binding characteristics were effective at inhibiting SARS-CoV-2 infection in primate and human cells, representing a potential therapeutic avenue for COVID-19 prevention and treatment. View Full-Text

    Quote from Shane D.

    using Remdisivir which they know does harm, and is it at best marginally effective. So why then would they object to giving IVM, which they know is safer than aspirin, water, and caffeine?

    This is you (an avowed non-scientist) thinking your judgement here is better than the scientists.


    Ivermectin: we do not know it is safe - anything with complex effects on the immune system could overall be good or bad. It could be bad in some specific cases. Safety unrelated to COVID does not mean it is safe as COVID treatment.


    Remdesivir: its use is very limited. The regulators have evidence it improves outcomes for that groups of patients.


    Now, you can disagree with those judgements - they are complex in both cases. I have not seen compelling evidence (in fact any evidence) that they are wrong.

    Sounds good -


    But the unanswered question is how do the COVID inhibition levels relate to human somatic acceptable doses (cell toxicity can be very far above that).


    It would be good to have some idea of that - even approximately - generally when the answer is good papers will emphasise it.


    THH

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    Our doctors supposed to do their best to cure pateints, or to honour their wishes for non-working possibly harmful therapies?


    Doctors are supposed to not subject their unconscious patients to medical experiments.


    From the original article: “But when vaccines became available, they couldn’t take them because of direct ties to aborted fetal cells.“ …




    Quote from Fm1

    Two Common Over-the-Counter Compounds Reduce COVID-19 Virus Replication by 99% in Early Testing

    Its more like over the cow-udder....


    What wiki says::


    Lactoferrin in sufficient strength acts on a wide range of human and animal viruses based on DNA and RNA genomes,[44] including the herpes simplex virus 1 and 2,[45][46] cytomegalovirus,[47] HIV,[46][48] hepatitis C virus,[49][50] hantaviruses, rotaviruses, poliovirus type 1,[51] human respiratory syncytial virus, murine leukemia viruses[41] and Mayaro virus.[52] Activity against COVID-19 has been speculated but not proven.[53][54][55]

    The clowns are back!... Ivermectin is not safe - according our jumping jacks.... - > 5'000'000'000 people have been treated with Ivermectin so far, world wide. And so far no death nor serious adverse reaction is known. It's used in all countries for scabies, Rosacea, Lemblia... Aspirin yearly kills some 1000 people due to stomach destruction...or stroke...Who did never take it??


    Be aware these clown are fascist. They like to see you suffering either from a gene therapy damage or even more eagerly from CoV-19 damage due to no treatment.


    I never expected that Dr. Mengele has so many followers like Zeus46 or THHuxleynew

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    This is you (an avowed non-scientist) thinking your judgement here is better than the scientists.

    Well pardon moi! :) My comment was based on logic, not science, so perfectly allowable for me, a mere non-scientist mortal, to question a doctors judgement.


    And it makes perfect sense for anyone to question why a doctor would willingly administer Remdesivir, but deny giving Ivermectin. My guess is that if asked, their answer would be more about keeping their job, doing what they were told to do, than any actual science comparison of the two drugs.


    Medicine IMO, has become more oriented around politics and money, than what is best for the patient. And when it comes to those "judgement" issues, yours truly has a lot of good observations to make.

    The Case of Dr. Andrew Hill: Was their Unethical Activity Associated with his Ivermectin Meta-Analysis or Just Another Drug Dev Day?


    The Case of Dr. Andrew Hill: Was their Unethical Activity Associated with his Ivermectin Meta-Analysis or Just Another Drug Dev Day?
    By late last year with mounting numbers of ivermectin clinical trials, mostly from low-and middle-income countries (LMICs), the potential for ivermectin
    trialsitenews.com



    By late last year with mounting numbers of ivermectin clinical trials, mostly from low-and middle-income countries (LMICs), the potential for ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19 gained significant movement. Key studies from McMaster’s TOGETHER study to a meta-analysis 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, repurposed drug. But due to a purported under-dosing in the TOGETHER study and some questionable last-minute changes in the Unitaid-sponsored Hill meta-analysis, the pro-ivermectin consensus went south. With pharmaceutical companies developing vaccines in support of a universal vaccination program, any low-cost alternatives for early care weren’t well supported by any influencers in the medical establishments of North America and Europe. Additional companies such as Gilead, Merck, AstraZeneca, Regeneron, and Pfizer were busy securing in the aggregate billions of taxpayer dollars to develop antivirals and monoclonal antibodies. The market for early-stage antiviral care for mild-to-moderate COVID-19 involves big stakes, and key industry players know it. The potential market could be worth $10 billion per year—clearly, blockbuster-plus territory. The vaccines could produce $100 billion in the first two years of the pandemic for Pfizer—just unprecedented amounts of money. Did a combination of well-intended vaccination and advanced therapy programs coupled with industry interests and regulatory capture lead to the sabotage of ivermectin initiatives? If true, does this implicate an entire drug development system that became painfully obvious during the first modern pandemic? If this is the case, then Andrew Hill becomes a poster child for bias, questionable ethics, and possibly even corruption at the highest levels. On the other hand, was it just a system working the way it has evolved to work?


    According to UC Hastings College of Law professor Robin Feldman, the drug development system is profoundly biased in favor of expensive, branded drug development. Feldman’s position is articulated in the book “Drugs Money and Secret Handshakes: The Unstoppable Growth of Prescription Drug Prices.”


    Given the forces worldwide aligned for mass-universal vaccination as an answer to the pandemic as a first and primary measure, any subsequent treatments would be pharma-produced, including expensive antivirals, (Gilead generated $3 billion in the first 10 months of the pandemic due to the accelerated approval of remdesivir) and monoclonal antibodies, representing billions of dollars of taxpayer funds allocated to industry and academic medical research via agencies such as the National Institute of Health (NIH) and their ACTIV COVID-19 program. TrialSite chronicled this bias during the pandemic extensively. For a critique of the ACTIV program follow this link, while an early account of bias in taxpayer spending can be found here.


    The Hill Situation

    Enter Dr. Andrew Hill, considered a hero to the ivermectin movement. The mainstream academic researcher was big on ivermectin, even joining founders of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC), including Drs. Pierre Kory and Paul Marik, in a meeting with the NIH. TrialSite reported on the event when the NIH’s COVID-19 treatment guidelines panel invited the ivermectin researchers to discuss their observations and findings.



    Hill, affiliated with Liverpool University, also advised several groups, including Unitaid, affiliated with the World Health Organization (WHO). His research was to have a profound influence on whether WHO would accept ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19.


    While Hill’s original meta-analysis raised significant positive findings—again, the researcher went out of his way to support the FLCCC when they visited the NIH and then the Senate; however, once his manuscript was completed in draft form and ready for review, modifications diminishing the impact of ivermectin ensued.


    TrialSite has followed the work of Dr. Andrew Hill and his efforts investigating ivermectin extensively. Early on, he was a big proponent for the low-cost, repurposed drug, however, he thereafter changed his mind, as various data surfaced that effectuated his original point of view. Noteworthy, however, some of the studies producing questionable results were associated with serious ethical issues, as reported by TrialSite, such as the problematic Lopez-Media study.


    World Tribune recently covered the interview between Dr. Hill and ivermectin proponent, Dr. Tess Lawrie, Director of the Evidence-based Medicine Consultancy in the UK and contributor to TrialSite. She, along with a group of colleagues, also authored a meta-analysis showcasing the potential of ivermectin as at least a supportive early-stage treatment against COVID-19.


    During a Zoom call with both Lawrie and Hill, the latter opened, sharing with the ivermectin proponent his predicament over the paper, disclosing that he found himself in a “tricky situation.” Apparently, his funders were going to enforce changes to the manuscript outcomes—whether he liked it or not.


    But was there industry and academic pressure to lessen the impact of these findings, or were the changes simply the result of legitimate updates in the review cycle? Were industry and government money ties too strong of a biasing influence? The fact that Hill shared his predicament as “tricky” does indicate a little more than just academic disagreement.


    According to the interview between Lawrie and Hill, the Liverpool-affiliated researcher acknowledged that his study was materially modified—and some would argue “manipulated” in such a way that would ensure delay in any acceptance of the drug by at least six weeks after which Hill would fully support use. Unitaid helped support the study.


    The Funders

    Hill’s meta-analysis was sponsored in part by Unitaid, an affiliate of the World Health Organization. Unitaid was founded in 2006 to work with low-income countries to prevent, diagnose, and treat major diseases. Hosted by WHO, the group was funded by various governments originally including Brazil, Chile, France, Norway, and the UK. Much like the WHO itself, Unitaid found itself increasingly a beneficiary of large grants, and by 2019 they managed a portfolio of nearly 50 grants worth north of $1.3 billion. Many argue that the phenomenon of industry capture has clearly overtaken WHO and possibly other health-related NGOs, such as Unitaid. This concept was covered in the documentary called TrustWHO.


    What Changed

    While the original Hill manuscript was obviously favorable to ivermectin, that changed when the paper was modified during the final stages of the meta-analysis paper review process by influencers other than Hill. While Hill acknowledged in an email transaction to TrialSite several months ago that he was fully fine with the changes, accepting the modifications as part of the process, some critics propose that Hill was part of what is essentially an unethical, highly biased reactive process designed to delay any positive rulings associated with the generic antiparasitic drug.


    Adding fuel to the conspiratorial fire was the report that just days prior to publication of his meta-analysis, his sponsor, Unitaid, awarded $40 million to the University of Liverpool, according to the World Tribune account. TrialSite confirmed this funding via the Unitaid website.


    In the interview with Hill transcribed by Dr. Lawrie, the UK-based researcher acknowledged Unitaid was influencing the final conclusions—again, markedly different from Hill’s original position in the manuscript. Those final changes made the ultimate meta-analysis findings not strong enough for the WHO to make any decision other than that more clinical trials were needed.


    Was Hill himself corrupted or merely part of an underlying system, rife with bias based on industry-centric logic and drivers? Is this a system that reinforces the importance of pharmaceutical-sponsored drug development much like is exposed in Robin Feldman’s work?


    TrialSite can certainly attest to the material bias in the form of mainstream media coverage and even U.S. Food and Drug Administration shenanigans. Media bias was apparent by the hit pieces TrialSite fact-checked from the Los Angeles Times, The Atlantic, and other prominent purportedly “unbiased” and “objective” media.


    Moreover, TrialSite observed many instances of unethical censorship via Facebook, YouTube, and other social media. One example includes when TrialSite reported that the nation of Slovakia authorized ivermectin for a six-month emergency period during the pandemic. Facebook scrubbed the posting as “misinformation.” Yet, this was a fact. The news was no longer objective, at least not in social media and many mainstream media sources. How could a fact be represented as misinformation? That this kind of censorship occurs regularly indicates the severity of the problem,


    TrialSite even discovered corruption with Wikipedia when we asked “Who is Declaring What’s Legitimate Information vs. Misinformation on Wikipedia?”


    TrialSite suggests the underlying drivers leading to problematic, biased behavior during this pandemic arise not from a few bad apples or gullible, passive investigators but rather powerful, deep-seated underlying systemic forces needing considerable and multi-layered reform. This reform will need to occur both within government and importantly, from outside, arising out of organized external pressures for a more rational, people-centric set of policies and programs.


    We emphasize that the pharma industry is incredibly important and should be embraced in such a reform movement. After all, they [pharma] know how to develop and commercialize drugs more than any other group worldwide, and that innovative industry contributes breakthrough after breakthrough. TrialSite has repeatedly argued that pharma is full of great people trying to do the right thing. They are forced to drive profits—if they do not shareholders sell off equity and people are terminated. An underlying system enforcing profits over public health considerations in a pandemic is perhaps the ultimate culprit here.


    Perhaps, in a reformed world, profit margins in some cases won’t be as high—especially during a pandemic– but sometimes just as important as profit is widespread, sustained public health. After all without the latter, the former becomes ever more problematic and at-risk, particularly with rapidly growing income polarization in the developed economies—now accelerated by COVID-19 government responses. The age of COVID-19 won’t lead to the “normalcy” all folks long for. Today is the first day of the rest of your life.


    Researcher Andrew Hill’s conflict: A $40 million Gates Foundation grant vs a half million human lives
    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…
    www.worldtribune.com

    Quote from Fm1

    During a Zoom call with both Lawrie and Hill, the latter opened, sharing with the ivermectin proponent his predicament over the paper, disclosing that he found himself in a “tricky situation.” Apparently, his funders were going to enforce changes to the manuscript outcomes—whether he liked it or not.


    But was there industry and academic pressure to lessen the impact of these findings, or were the changes simply the result of legitimate updates in the review cycle? Were industry and government money ties too strong of a biasing influence? The fact that Hill shared his predicament as “tricky” does indicate a little more than just academic disagreement.


    According to the interview between Lawrie and Hill, the Liverpool-affiliated researcher acknowledged that his study was materially modified—and some would argue “manipulated” in such a way that would ensure delay in any acceptance of the drug by at least six weeks after which Hill would fully support use. Unitaid helped support the study.

    I read the transcript exchange between Dr. Hill/Dr Lawrie the other day. Was waiting for Trialsitenews to write about it, which they did, and thanks for posting it like always. So here is the transcript:


    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 …

    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 any more, and I’m going to tell the truth.”

    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.

    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.

    Hill: Okay. Well, that’s where we’ll, I guess we’ll have to agree to differ.

    Lawrie: Yeah. Well, I don’t know how you sleep at night, honestly.

    Kennedy adds that at the conclusion of a Jan. 14 conference on ivermectin, Lawrie declared that had the drug 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.”

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    The clowns are back!... Ivermectin is not safe - according our jumping jacks.... - > 5'000'000'000 people have been treated with Ivermectin so far, world wide. And so far no death nor serious adverse reaction is known. It's used in all countries for scabies, Rosacea, Lemblia... Aspirin yearly kills some 1000 people due to stomach destruction...or stroke...Who did never take it??


    Be aware these clown are fascist. They like to see you suffering either from a gene therapy damage or even more eagerly from CoV-19 damage due to no treatment.


    I never expected that Dr. Mengele has so many followers like Zeus46 or THHuxleynew

    I have, as you will all have noticed and be very grateful for, not been feeding the antivax trolls.


    Just one point - it is a straw man so often given here - no-one is saying that ivermectin is proven not safe.


    Zeuss put it nicely - because we do not know (and cannot know - easily) that it is safe - most doctors are unwilling to subject patients to medical experiments without proper ethical oversight, which is what you get when you jump through the hoops for high quality trials.


    The whole pro-ivermectin structure is built in false memes like "tests are not needed because it obviously works", "the negative large RCTs do not count", "most doctors on the ground want to use it but a stopped by an evil pharma industry".


    These memes play well and are demonstrably not true. Many nice balanced videos can be found discussing all sides of the issue which do not pre-judge ivermectin and do agree with the current (normal) policy.


    There are a few on-the-ground doctors - like our very own UK Tess whi has jumped from gynaencology to thinking she understands antiviral drug discovery better than the experts and when challenged just says "I know I am right so I'm not answering that question".


    Fascinating video:

    External Content www.youtube.com
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.