A short film is out with Dr. Tess Lawrie's zoom call with Dr. Andrew Hill admitting that his sponsor, UNITAID, was an unacknowledged contributor affecting the conclusion of his Ιvermectin meta-analysis. It was treated as authoritative by the WHO & governments.
Part 1:
Part 2:
Here's the website for the documentary, and perhaps there's a longer version in the works if I understand correctly? oraclefilms.com/alettertoandre…
Before anyone jumps in to make claims about whether ivm does or does not work, this isn't the issue here, and we can all have our disagreements on that. The question is whether we followed the established scientific process, whether we gave this drug and others a fair hearing.
The Andrew Hill controversy is just the first of many strange coincidences with Tess Lawrie's meta-analysis. Both Cochrane and the Lancet dragged the process out and delayed the publication with arbitrary editorial decisions. More: rumble.com/vngg18-news-ro…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Which is basically Kendi's agenda of an unelected body that can oversee every other institution and veto anything it determines will have unequal outcomes.
Phil Harper just had a major breakthrough in the investigation of the Andrew Hill meta-analysis.
The name of Andrew Owen, Prof at University of Liverpool and UNITAID grantee appears in the metadata of some digital versions of Andrew Hill's meta-analysis. philharper.substack.com/p/professor-ti…
Quote:"The person who allegedly edited the Andrew Hill paper on Ivermectin, is the person in receipt of consultancy fees from pharma with competing products, is the person who prepared the evidence base for the World Health Organisation to make their recommendation on Ιvermectin"
Subscribe to this man's substack if you can afford it.
OK, tell me about everything dodgy about Event 201.
The first mention of Event 201 I can find on the web is on August 21, 2019. This is important because it's not implausible that a lab leak could have happened before then.
I'm not just being glib. Even if it is research by deeply conflicted people who are implicated in the original coverup or at least suppression of the lab leak hypothesis, and committed academic misconduct along the way, the findings should be examined.
I'll document this case of aggressive dishonesty from @AviBittMD as a reference for why I will no longer be engaging him in the future, as he's heavy on the insults and light on the substance.
So, he claims that my claim was false because remdesivir succeeded in a similar trial.
A 🧵 of cases where data has been withheld or updates suspended, explicitly because the Authorities did not want the Commoners to "misunderstand" and "misinterpret" it.
As usual, I'll start with the ones I know, and please respond with more cases you are aware of.