A year ago, one man sold his soul.
People were dying, hospitals were overflowing, but even by January 2021 we already knew ivermectin could save three quarters of those who died. Randomized trials of 2,282 people showed that only 2% of people on ivermectin died, compared to nearly 10% of the hapless people who missed out, yet he picked the “missed out” path.
Everything pointed in the right direction. The result of the meta-study was highly significant (p=0.0002!), the risks were almost nothing, the outcome was extraordinary, the effect was dependent on the dose, and the blood markers of inflammation were also reduced, as we’d expect. Yet the conclusion of the same paper was that we needed larger trials before the results could even be reviewed. And this single line that contradicted nearly everything in the paper, was quoted everywhere to say the evidence was “inconclusive”.
This was from the same man who said Ivermectin was “the way forward” and that he would give ivermectin to his own brother. Then suddenly he flipped.
A forensic analysis of that strange contradictory paper shows there were two or three other voices who influenced the wording. They were not named. When pressed, Dr Andrew Hill admitted that even The charity Unitaid has a say in the conclusions… This is how the brand name ScienceTM works. It’s not the data that matters.
Watch him squirm, as Dr Tess Lawrie grills him:
Dr Andrew Hill: “I’m not going to let this last for a long time”… (he knows it’s wrong).
He knew 15,000 people were dying every day. “It’s just six weeks” said Hill. That works out to nearly half a million people who could have been saved. And it ended up being a lot longer than six weeks. It was an opportunity missed. The paper was used to sack good doctors, slow research, and feed corporations billions of dollars for treatments that didn’t work.
Follow the documentary maker on Telegram: t.me/OracleFilms
Ivermectin is an antiparasitic drug being investigated for repurposing to SARS-CoV-2. In-vitro, ivermectin showed limited antiviral activity and a COVID-19 animal model demonstrated pathological benefits but no effect on viral RNA. This meta-analysis investigated ivermectin in 18 randomized clinical trials (2282 patients) identified through systematic searches of PUBMED, EMBASE, MedRxiv and trial registries. Ivermectin was associated with reduced inflammatory markers (C-Reactive Protein, d-dimer and ferritin) and faster viral clearance by PCR. Viral clearance was treatment dose- and duration-dependent. In six randomized trials of moderate or severe infection, there was a 75% reduction in mortality (Relative Risk=0.25 [95%CI 0.12-0.52]; p=0.0002); 14/650 (2.1%) deaths on ivermectin; 57/597 (9.5%) deaths in controls) with favorable clinical recovery and reduced hospitalization. Many studies included were not peer reviewed and meta-analyses are prone to confounding issues. Ivermectin should be validated in larger, appropriately controlled randomized trials before the results are sufficient for review by regulatory authorities.