Was prize-winning medicine buried in favour of multi-billion dollar experimental vaccines?
IVERMECTIN: AN UNCOMFORTABLE TRUTH
Today, January 24, the United States Senate Hearing into the Pandemic Response was given evidence from Dr Pierre Kory, a Clinical Care Physician who has been arguing since late 2020 for the use of ivermectin as a cheap, safe and effective treatment for Covid-19. He will again prevent overwhelming evidence of the drug’s success around the world.
Was ivermectin deliberately ignored in favour of multi-billion dollar experimental treatments by Big Pharma?
It is an ongoing debate which has deep roots in the UK.
Mark Sharman reports
THE reported leak of United States Military documents, which appear to validate ivermectin as a treatment for Covid-19, should re-ignite the debate over whether this well-established drug was buried in favour of new multi-billion-dollar experimental vaccines.
The documents, authored by Marine Corps Major Joseph Murphy and obtained by the American organisation Project Veritas (projectveritas.com) contained this assessment:
“Ivermectin, identified as a curative in April 2020, works throughout all phases of illness because it both inhibits viral replication and modulates the immune response.”
Project Veritas claims Major Murphy’s report was for the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and also included information that ivermectin and other drugs had been suppressed.
Accordingly, six Members of Congress have written to the US Secretaries of Defence and Health and Human Services stating: “Millions of Americans suffered as curatives were hidden for unknown reasons. To what extent, if any, was there any attempt to suppress potential curatives identified in Major Murphy’s report?” Watch this space.
Ivermectin has been in use since the 1980s as a treatment for parasitic diseases, including malaria. Its development was recognised with a Nobel Prize in Medicine in 2015. Across the world more than 3.7 billion doses have been given and its safety record is better than Ibuprofen. On-going trials and studies offer evidence that it is effective as an anti-viral and anti-inflammatory drug to help treat Covid-19.
These latest developments will resonate in the Georgian city of Bath, 3500 miles from Capitol Hill. It was in here, over Christmas 2020, that a highly respected scientist was confident – even elated – that a treatment for the virus had been identified. Little did Dr Tess Lawrie know that this would bring only rejection, frustration and mistrust within the science community. And in common with other leading scientists who questioned the ‘official’ Covid narrative, she received a suspension from Twitter, presumably under the blanket ‘spreading misinformation’.
Dr Lawrie MBBch PhD is the Director of the Evidence-Based Medicine Consultancy. She has advised the World Health Organisation and her work informs clinical practice around the world. Her peer-reviewed publications have received more than 5000 citations
Intrigued by a plea for ivermectin by Dr Pierre Kory, an American critical care physician, in a testimony to the US Homeland Security Committee, she voluntarily undertook a meta-analysis (a research method that pools data from different studies to produce an overall estimate of the effect of a treatment for critical health outcomes).
She worked across that Christmas holiday concluding, like Dr Kory, that ivermectin was “an essential drug to reduce the morbidity and mortality from Covid-19.”
A Golden Ticket
“I was excited by the results,” she told me. “All I ever wanted was to save lives. I felt blessed to be working with the WHO. It was an opportunity. I thought this is it, an end to it all. I couldn’t wait to get it out there.”
On January 4, 2021, this world-renowned scientist emailed her results to the then Health Minister Matt Hancock under the heading: URGENT – Ivermectin for COVID-19 will save lives and prevent COVID-19 infection.
It looked like the golden ticket for a beleaguered Government, especially as results suggested that Ivermectin would reduce the risk of people dying by between 65 per cent and 92 per cent.
There was no response.
Two days later Dr Lawrie made a video, appealing directly to Boris Johnson.
She also sent the results to the WHO. Without success.
In fact, none of the health agencies engaged with Dr Lawrie.
“My work was ignored,” she says.
Meanwhile, Dr Andrew Hill from the University of Liverpool was also looking at the data. Via Zoom in December 2020, he presented encouraging results of trials on ivermectin, concluding: “Results from three more key randomised trials will be available in January… if we see these same trends consistently observed across more studies, then this really is going to be a transformational treatment.”
Understandably Dr Lawrie thought the two scientists should work together, but within days Dr Hill was talking down ivermectin. This week, by email, News Uncut asked him why.
He replied: “The first clinical trials of ivermectin looked good, in late 2020. However, some of these clinical trials were found to be at risk of medical fraud and bias. When these clinical trials have been removed, there is no evidence for clinical benefits.”
In her office in Bath, Dr Lawrie was concerned at this sudden change of direction. She suspected third-party intervention. So, on January 18, 2021, less than a month after Dr Hill’s upbeat Zoom presentation, she challenged him via the internet. The conversation went like this: Dr Lawrie: “It needs to be clear. I would like to know who are the other voices that are in your paper, that are not acknowledged? Has Unitaid had a say? Do they influence what you say?”
Dr Hill: “Unitaid has had a say in the conclusion in the paper, yes.”
Unitaid is a global health agency engaged, says their website, in finding innovative solutions to prevent, diagnose, and treat diseases more quickly, cheaply and effectively. The organisation is partly funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
On January 12, 2021 right between Dr Hill’s original presentation and his conversation with Dr Lawrie, the same Unitaid launched the world’s first long-acting medicines centre at the University of Liverpool, funded by Unitaid, as part of a $40 million international initiative.
News Uncut asked Dr Hill, by email, whether Unitaid’s influence on his conclusions was in any way connected to the multi-million-dollar grant.
He replied: “I did not know that this grant from Unitaid was being considered. I had no knowledge of its existence. The accusations are without any foundation.”
To be clear, News Uncut were not making any accusations, merely asking an obvious question.
For the record, one year earlier Liverpool University’s own website had announced an award of “more than £24.5 million ($32m) in funding from Unitaid as part of a £30.5 million ($40m) global research consortium project led by Liverpool academics to develop new medicines for low and middle-income countries.”
Dr Lawrie said she was shocked by her conversation with Dr Hill. “There was a mismatch between the evidence and the conclusion. I felt anger, outrage. We, in the UK, were in a dire situation.”
Since then, Dr Lawrie has continued her research and formed the British Ivermectin Recommendation Development Group (Bird-group.com) and, with others, has had a peer-reviewed study published in the American Journal of Therapeutics.
However, she continues to be the subject of articles undermining her work, including from the BBC.
Meanwhile ivmmeta.com, a real-time meta-analysis of 75 Ivermectin studies around the world, indicate that, after exclusions, 45 of 49 tests in 21 countries show ‘statistically significant improvements… for mortality, ventilation, ICU admission, hospitalization, recovery, cases, and viral clearance’.
Asked for comment, Dr Hill replied: “The ivmmeta.com website is not a reliable source of evidence. This website mixes randomised and non-randomised trials and does not screen out the trials suspected of medical fraud or bias.”
Vaccines Unproven Therapy
Dr Lawrie has become a campaigner as well as a doctor, fighting to prove that ivermectin was an answer to Covid. And she has been scathing about the policy of rolling out experimental mRNA vaccines. In a speech last year she said: “Mass vaccination was an unproven novel therapy. Hundreds of billions will be made by Big Pharma and paid for by the public. With politicians and other non-medical individuals dictating to us what we are allowed to prescribe to the ill. We as doctors, have been put in a position such that our ability to uphold the Hippocratic oath is under attack.”
Dr Lawrie has seen the latest American developments and says: “It confirms what I have suspected.”
How does that make her feel?
“I’m philosophical. We can’t undo what has been done. My role now is to help us all get out of it. I want to show people what to do to stay healthy. Something good should come out of this mess. It’s now or never for humanity.”
To further that goal, Dr Lawrie co-founded the World Council for Health, “a worldwide coalition of health-focused organisations and civil society groups that seek to broaden public health knowledge and sense-making through science and shared wisdom.” (worldcouncilforhealth.org).
Pointedly, their website states: “We are entirely publicly funded which enables us to continue to make the best health decisions for the people, free from conflicts of interest and pharmaceutical industry ties.”
Meanwhile the WHO has recently issued a Guidance note advising that ivermectin is only to be used to treat COVID-19 within clinical trials. Not surprisingly, Dr Lawrie has resigned her advisory role.
*News Uncut contacted Matt Hancock to ask why he had ignored Dr Lawrie’s email of January 4, 2021. We received no reply.
The suppression of vitD supplementation as a covid preventive is equally scandalous with that of Ivermectin. In November 2020, a letter signed by Hancock was sent to all the Cvd vulnerable in Eng & Wales, all two million of them, the frail-elderly, diabetic, morbidly obese, chronically unfit. All the covid deceased in the UK have come from this group. If the letter had gone out with a free bottle of vitD tablets (one a day, 4000IU), very few would have died.
Thank you, Mark Sharman.
Andrew Hill's criticism of the very large meta-analysis is disingenuous as such large meta-analyses may routinely include both randomised & non-randomised clinical trials.
Also, I strongly suspect ( without evidence however - call it a hunch ) that Hill is casting in his aspersions about "fraudulent trials" completely arbitrarily, just to poison the well.