Published on the American Thinker March 15th, 2022

Let me tell a story. It details probably the most important event in the suppression of the drug Ivermectin for treatment of Covid-19 a medication that had the potential to have saved many lives.

Dr. Teresa Lawrie is an MD, and the leader of the Evidence-Based Medicine Consultancy in Bath, UK. Her incredibly tedious job is to statistically evaluate medical studies and provide data to the National Health Service so that clinicians can decide on therapy guidelines. In Britain, she is been referred to as “the conscience of medicine”.

Andrew Hill MD, Ph.D. is a virologist and from his bio, a senior visiting Research Fellow in the Pharmacology Department at Liverpool University. He is considered an expert on therapy for HIV/AIDS. He is also a consultant to the World Health Organization. He is considered a very powerful voice who can influence medical practice worldwide.

UNITAID is a not-for-profit organization whose website states that it “connects innovators who develop better health products with people who need them the most”. It is been heavily funded by the Gates Foundation.

Apparently, in late 2020, studies began to accumulate looking at the potential of the drug Ivermectin in the treatment of SARS Co-V2. This antiparasitic agent was also known to have antiviral properties. This attracted the attention of both the WHO and Dr. Lawrie’s organization. The WHO contracted with Dr. Hill to evaluate the data. Independently, the Evidence-Based Medicine Consultancy took on the same task. This involved performing a meta-analysis. This is a process where studies on a topic are collected and are analyzed for their quality. The best studies are pooled and the results analyzed. There are very well-established protocols for this.

Dr. Hill and Dr. Lawrie completed separate analyses and the results for both were exciting. There seemed to be a real benefit to using Ivermectin as a treatment for Covid. They concluded that the reduction in deaths could be as much as 60 to 85%. Both were comfortable with the quality of their results.  According to Dr. Lawrie, they compared notes and together pledged to push hard for the rapid approval of the drug, given the prevailing pandemic.

In January 2021 Dr. Hill was among the scientists who testified in support of Ivermectin the NIH’s COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel. Subsequently, the NIH changed its recommendation from against the use, to neither for or against the use, the same designation given to convalescent plasma, and monoclonal antibodies, both of which have been subsequently used for Covid. Ivermectin continues to carry that recommendation on the current NIH website.

Then something odd happened. Dr. Hill finally released a preprint of his meta-analysis, with all of his data. But the conclusion of the paper questioned the quality of the data and called for more research. This was obviously an opinion severely at odds with his previous stance. Many people, were taken completely by surprise, most prominently Dr. Lawrie. She arranged for a meeting via Zoom. Here is a link to a documentary that describes these events, and includes a video of the actual meeting. It is completely infuriating.

During the meeting, Dr. Hill admits that people from UNITAID had input on his conclusions. You can observe his demeanor and draw your own conclusions.

Dr. Hill’s promise of continued support never materialized. In fact, he ended up withdrawing his meta-analysis due to accusations that one of the included studies was fraudulent. To my knowledge, the fact of that has never been proven. Interestingly, because Dr. Lawrie’s paper included more studies, she was able to remove that same questionable data without affecting the outcome significantly.

Another interesting fact: shortly after all of this, Dr. Hill’s parent organization, Liverpool University, received a $40 million grant … from UNITAID. This was to set up the “Centre of Excellence for Long-acting Therapeutics” which would appear to be part of Dr. Hill’s department of Pharmacology. Coincidence?

As Dr. Lawrie notes in the documentary, over the intervening year, there have been many more studies on Ivermectin as well as striking observational data supporting the drug’s efficacy. Yet despite the NIH’s “neither for nor against” position, the drug has become essentially unavailable in the states, and physicians have been disciplined for its use.

In the meantime, based on one company-sponsored study each, two expensive new drugs Pfizer’s Paxlovid and Merck’s Molnupivinir were quickly granted emergency use authorization and are becoming readily available. I for one, am glad of this. Paxlovid in particular may save lives. There is no safety data, however for either, unlike Ivermectin which has been literally given to billions of people and has been proven to be extremely safe.

I have no passion for the drug Ivermectin. I certainly do not have any financial ties to the medication. That I think, is the problem, because essentially no one does. This is likely why there have been no well-funded large studies. And if Ivermectin is indeed efficacious, it would threaten the profits made on vaccines, and now on the new antiviral medications. As I approach the end of my career, the thought that a promising treatment for Covid 19 has been actively discouraged is very troubling to this physician. It makes me wonder what other cheap and effective off-patent therapies have been similarly suppressed.

Thanks, Dr. Hill.

Thanks for nothing.

It has been a year and 5 months since we first experienced the work product of the Wuhan Institute of Virology.  I must admit, that if you would have asked me on March 16, 2020, the date we originally locked down, I would have assumed the issue of the virus would be well and truly over by this time.  It looks like I underestimated things. 

It appears that we are expected to become overwrought with each new variant. Unfortunately, there are 24 letters in the Greek alphabet. We are only on #4. 

Given that this is the end of Summer, we are dealing with controversies regarding school openings.  School boards were in a difficult position.  They were stuck trying to placate both sides of a fierce debate.   In general, it seems logical to let individual districts, with the input of parents, decide the issue.  

 Though it is unclear to me that masks do anything in the school environment, the decision to require them should be made based on the case burden locally.  What is appropriate for a rural district in, for instance, Potter County may be very different than an urban school district in Pittsburg.   

Now, the state Department of Health has stepped in and mandated masks for all schools in the state, taking the decision out of local hands.  I am sure school boards everywhere are sighing in relief. Still, this seems like Harrisburg overreach…again. 

The CDC has recently announced guidelines that support masking children in schools. They are citing an observational, retrospective study they sponsored, using data from multiple school districts in Georgia. 

The study was conducted on data from November and December 2020, prior to vaccine availability. It showed that improving ventilation in schools and the masking of teachers and staff (i.e.: adults, who are more susceptible to infection) resulted in a decreased incidence of infection. Improved ventilation as it turned out was statistically the much more effective intervention. It was a sloppy study with a lot of inconsistencies which reduces the power of the data. 

 Here is a paragraph from the article’s conclusion:  

 In the current study, the lower incidence in schools requiring mask use among teachers and staff members is consistent with research on mask effectiveness (6), and investigations that have identified school staff members as important contributors to school-based SARS-CoV-2 transmission (7). The 21% lower incidence in schools that required mask use among students was not statistically significant compared with schools where mask use was optional.  

Now, with teachers likely vaccinated, I’m not sure this data is valid. As evidence, this seems like a very “thin gruel” to require masks for entire student populations. 

Let’s turn now to a curious set of facts surrounding the FDA approval of the Pfizer vaccine.  It turns out that the current product, the Pfizer-BioNTech Covid vaccine, is not legally the FDA-approved product.  That vaccine is the Pfizer “Comirnaty” vaccine.  The original vaccine is still under “emergency use authorization”.  Interestingly, very little of the new product has been manufactured, but there is plenty of stock of the Pfizer/BioNTech product, which will continue to be given.   

Why would this be, you ask?  Well, remember that these vaccines have had a significant number of adverse events according to the VAERS data. The older product under EUA is immune from legal action, whereas Comirnaty recipients can sue Pfizer for any complications. 

I’m not trying to discourage vaccine use.  Again, let me say that I believe each person, with the input of their physician, should make this decision based on their particular risk-benefit ratio. 

Pfizer is obviously manipulating the situation, which doesn’t surprise me. I do find it very disturbing that the FDA seems to be cooperating with its efforts.  Pfizer clearly benefits from the P.R. generated by the approval without giving up its legal immunity. 

This manipulation also works for those in government that seek to mandate vaccinations.  Meanwhile unknowingly, we will still receive a product that is still experimental.  

Interestingly, two of the most senior people in the FDA involved with vaccine approval just suddenly resigned. Apparently, they were very unhappy with the rushed vaccine approval. 

 More to come on that, I suspect. 

Finally, I once again return to the matter of natural immunity.  2 articles caught my eye recently.  The first is an immunologic study from Cell Reports Medicine. This looked at the immune responsiveness over time (8 months) to Covid in 254 subjects who had contracted the disease early in the pandemic.  They studied serial blood samples, measuring antibodies and other immunological markers. They conclude that: Taken together, these results suggest that broad and effective immunity may persist long-term in recovered COVID-19 patients. 

Then there is a very large study in preprint from a group in Israel. They studied data from 700,000(!) patients. The study looked at recent infections with the delta variant. It compared those with natural immunity without vaccination, natural immunity with a subsequent dose of vaccine, versus Covid-naïve patients who have been vaccinated. All the previous Covid infections or vaccinations were in the January/February 2021 timeframe. 

  They came to several conclusions.  #1.  Vaccinated Covid-naive patients were 13 times more likely to have a breakthrough infection with the delta variant, than those with natural immunity. They were 27 times more likely to get significant symptoms.  Those results were among patients who had been infected in January–February 2021.  They then looked at a broader group of previously infected subjects whose illnesses go back as far as March 2020.  Those patients were still at an advantage with 5.7 times more infections in the vaccinated group.  They did find that a single dose of vaccine (Pfizer) seemed to have a slightly positive effect on those with previous infections but the data did not reach statistical significance.  

Still, with more and more data reinforcing the strong immunity of recovered patients, the CDC and the NIH ignore the issue and want to mandate “the jab” for the recovered. It is important to remember that the incidence of side effects of these vaccines is much higher in those previously infected. Those of us who are in that situation clearly have no ethical obligation to be vaccinated and are rightfully wary to do so. 

By the way, very quietly in the last week or so, the CDC changed its definition of vaccination. Here’s what things look like in late August:

Here’s what it looks like now:

One last topic. It is become fashionable among my vaccine-obsessed friends to use the term” horse wormer” to describe ivermectin. I believe this was pioneered by Rachel Maddow to mock its use. Ivermectin is a WHO essential medication, given to literally millions of people for treatment of parasitic infections. It is very inexpensive and very safe. Obviously, it is also used in veterinary circles.  

It has been known for some time to have antiviral properties.  There is now a significant amount of data to suggest that it is useful in the treatment and prophylaxis of Covid 19. I’ve been easily able to acquire the tablet form at my local pharmacy. The problem is medical boards that are suppressing its use, in concert with the NIH and Pharma. Remember, if Ivermectin works, there’s no EUA for any vaccines, per CDC policy.  

Interestingly, I understand Pfizer and Merck are coming out with a ”Covid treatment pill”. This will be on-patent, and likely fairly pricey. I wonder if they’ll call it Newvermectin.

It’s just a thought. 

If there is an overriding theme to this post, and to my previous posts, it is that this very real pandemic, has resulted in the unmasking of the players: public health authorities, and big Pharma who are not working for our welfare but for their own. They manipulate facts, ignore others, and create rules meant to increase their power and wealth, often at our expense. They deny us early treatment despite the data supporting it. Their partners in the media assist in their subterfuge. As a physician, this has caused me to question almost everything I have happily gone along with in the past. The scales have fallen off my eyes. 

I believe our best bet is to study closely the real data, to utilize vaccines, and medications when they will be efficacious, and remain very skeptical of the “facts” as presented, by government health agencies, and the pharmaceutical industry. 

Quite honestly, we’re on our own. 

As always, I’d be honored if you’d share this post.

Header image: Monarch Feeding (Fujifilm XE4, XF 55-200 f3.5-4.8)