Profit and Science Are a Deadly Mix: A Sincere Message to Fauci and Andrew Hill

The people who supported the vaccine and remdesivir killed Science. They should and will be held responsible. They are no longer welcome in Science.

Now that the COVID-19 vaccination program is universally recognized by legitimate scientists as a dismal and permanent failure*, the vaccination proponents are urging the public to “get your boosters and learn to live with the virus”.

In other words, their gravy train is all set. Or so they think.

Looking back at how we got to “eternal boosters” as a public health strategy, there have been a few moments when crimes against humanity have been conducted, in public, by people who stood to benefit from their select pathway for all of us. They should be, and will be, held accountable.

When Fauci announced that the Henry Ford hospital that showed 50% reduction in mortality in patients who received corticosteroids and hydroxychloroquine was “flawed”, he simultaneously dismissed the peer review process, and then distorted the interpretation of the study as if had been designed to study only the effect of hydroxychloroquine. I’m paraphrasing, but his message to a Senate Committee was “A lot of things get through peer review”, he told the Senate committee, “and we know the patients also received corticosteroids, so we don’t know if the effect was due to the hydroxychloroquine or corticosteroids”.

As if 50% reduction in mortality didn’t matter.

Henry Ford subsequently stopped promoting hydroxychloroquine due to the denial of an Emergency Use Authorization.

The latest real-time meta-analysis on Hydroxychloroquine shows this was a colossal mistake. Considering early treatment studies:

• 97% of the 33 early treatment studies report a positive effect (14 statistically significant in isolation).

• Meta analysis using the most serious outcome reported shows 64% [54‑72%] improvement for the 33 early treatment studies. Results are similar after exclusion based sensitivity analysis and after restriction to peer-reviewed studies. Restricting to the 8 RCTs shows 46% [16‑65%] improvement, and restricting to the 13 mortality results shows 75% [60‑84%] lower mortality.

• Late treatment is less successful, with only 67% of the 202 studies reporting a positive effect. Very late stage treatment is not effective and may be harmful, especially when using excessive dosages.

• 83% of Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) for early, PrEP, or PEP treatment report positive effects, the probability of this happening for an ineffective treatment is 0.0038.

• There is evidence of bias towards publishing negative results. 76% of prospective studies report positive effects, compared to 71% of retrospective studies. Studies from North America are 2.7 times more likely to report negative results than studies from the rest of the world combined, p = 0.0000000365. The probability that an ineffective treatment generated results as positive as the 300 studies is estimated to be 1 in 944 trillion.

• Negative meta analyses of HCQ generally choose a subset of trials, focusing on late treatment, especially trials with very late treatment and excessive dosages.

• While many treatments have some level of efficacy, they do not replace vaccines and other measures to avoid infection. Only 5% of HCQ studies show zero events in the treatment arm. (Source: c19early.com).

One of the criticisms of the Henry Ford study was that it was “only” a retrospective study. Just like every single study on the link between vaccines and autism. They cherry-pick the situation in which retrospective studies are strong vs. weak evidence to suit their profit agenda.

FDA made the wrong call on hydroxychloroquine, and many other effective early treatments, leaving the EUA open for remdesivir.

When Dr. Tess Lawrie interviewed Andrew Hill, a pharmacologist/virologist at the University of Liverpool's Institute of Translational Medicine and Senior Visiting Research Fellow, Pharmacology Department, University of Liverpool about his decision to change his conclusions about ivermectin (from support to non-support), she extracted from his an outright confession that his move was necessary to keep the funding coming to his Institution.

Most of what you read below is from this article, published Dec 9, 2021 by The World Tribune. It includes a quote from Robert F. Kennedy Jr’s latest book, “The Real Anthony Fauci”. Another article, at Kennedy’s site The Defender, by Neville Hodgkinson, contains the full transcript of the exchange between Dr. Lawrie and Hill.

On Jan. 6 of 2020, Hill testified enthusiastically before the NIH COVID-19 Treatment Guidlelines (sic) 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, 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.

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.”

The problem with manipulating perspectives to promote your own solution is that if you are successful, the rest of society fails to ramp up production, and when Science comes through and shows you were dead wrong, society is going to remember that.

My message to Hill and Fauci and others who have misled the world on the efficacy of early, aggressive treatments: get a shrink. Quit now. Get your heads checked. Please.

And get the fuck out of Science.

Because when the alternative structures we are building replace your broken system, including new ways of funding and doing real Science, the world will not be a kind place for you.

*Only vaccine activists, not scientists, continue to promote ineffective vaccines.