ICWA News & Views

Weekly Stories about What’s Happening in Washington State and Stories of Interest to Washingtonions

by Gerald Braude

In this Issue:

The Ongoing Tale of Ivermectin

pastedGraphic.png
Dr. Scott Miller

While several states, including Tennessee, have passed legislation to increase access to ivermectin, acknowledging it to be a safe and effective drug for the treatment of Covid, Washington State remains unfriendly, even hostile. On October 12, 2021, the Washington Medical Commission (WMC) went so far as to suspend the medical license of Dr. Scott Miller for promoting and prescribing ivermectin for treating COVID-19 patients, claiming there is “no reliable clinical studies that establish its efficacy in preventing or treating COVID-19.”  

The WMC would have known that plenty of such studies exist if researcher Andrew Hill, PhD, had not succumbed to corporate pressure when he was on the verge of recommending ivermectin to the World Health Organization (WHO) for treating COVID-19.  

For starters, in 2015, two Merck scientists won the Nobel Prize for developing ivermectin because it had saved millions of lives since it was licensed for human use in the 1980’s. Furthermore, the WHO includes ivermectin on its inventory of “essential medicines”—its list of remedies so necessary, safe, efficacious, and affordable that WHO deems easy access to them as essential “to satisfy the priority health care needs of the population.”

The tale of the WHO’s failure to consider ivermectin for treating COVID-19 was first documented in a recorded January 13, 2021 Zoom call between Dr. Hill and Dr. Tess Lawrie. Dr. Lawrie’s consulting group, the Evidence-Based Medicine Consultancy, Ltd., performs the scientific reviews that develop and support guidelines for global public health agencies, including the WHO and European governments.

Dr. Hill’s research for the WHO at the University of Liverpool was a meta-analysis of six ivermectin studies that showed a cumulative 75 percent reduction of risk of death in a subset of moderate to severe COVID-19 patients in whom the drug reduced inflammation and sped up elimination of the virus. Dr. Hill also had testified enthusiastically in favor of ivermectin before the National Institutes of Health COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel. But during the Zoom call, Dr. Hill admitted to Dr. Lawrie that pressure from Unitaid caused him to do a volte-face. Unitaid is a quasi-governmental advocacy organization funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and several countries—France, the United Kingdom, Norway, Brazil, Spain, the Republic of Korea, and Chile—to lobby governments to finance the purchase of medicines from pharmaceutical multinationals for distribution to the African poor.

The following transcript of the Zoom call that appears in The Real Anthony Fauci  by Robert Kennedy Jr. spells out the conflicts of interest and corruption.  

Dr. Tess Lawrie: “This is what I don’t get, you know, because you’re not a clinician. You’re not seeing people dying every day. And this medicine prevents deaths by 80 percent. So 80 percent of those people who are dying today don’t need to die because there’s ivermectin.” 

Dr. Andrew Hill: “There are a lot, as I said, there are a lot of different opinions about this. As I say, some people simply. . . .”

Dr. Tess Lawrie: “We are looking at the data; it doesn’t matter what other people say. We are the ones who are tasked with . . . look[ing] at the data and reassur[ing] everybody that this cheap and effective treatment will save lives. It’s clear. You don’t have to say, well, so-and-so says this, and so-and-so says that. It’s absolutely crystal clear. We can save lives today. If we can get the government to buy ivermectin.” 

Dr. Andrew Hill: “Well, I don’t think it’s as simple as that, because you’ve got trials. . . .” 

Dr. Tess Lawrie: “It is as simple as that. We don’t have to wait for studies . . . we have enough evidence now that shows that ivermectin saves lives, it prevents hospitalization. It saves the clinical staff going to work every day, [and] being exposed. And frankly, I’m shocked at how you are not taking responsibility for that decision. And you still haven’t told me who is [influencing you]? Who is giving you that opinion? Because you keep saying you’re in a sensitive position. I appreciate you are in a sensitive position, if you’re being paid for something and you’re being told [to support] a certain narrative . . . that is a sensitive position. So, then you kind of have to decide, well, do I take this payment? Because in actual fact, [you] can see [your false] conclusions . . . are going to harm people. So maybe you need to say, I’m not going to be paid for this. I can see the evidence, and I will join the Cochrane team as a volunteer, like everybody on the Cochrane team is a volunteer. Nobody’s being paid for this work.” 

Dr. Andrew Hill: “I think fundamentally, we’re reaching the [same] conclusion about the survival benefit. We’re both finding a significant effect on survival.” 

Dr. Tess Lawrie: “No, I’m grading my evidence. I’m saying I’m sure of this evidence. I’m saying I’m absolutely sure it prevents deaths. There is nothing as effective as this treatment. What is your reluctance? Whose conclusion is that?” Hill then complains again that outsiders are influencing him. 

Dr. Tess Lawrie: “You keep referring to other people. It’s like you don’t trust yourself. If you were to trust yourself, you would know that you have made an error and you need to correct it because you know, in your heart, that this treatment prevents death.” 

Dr. Andrew Hill: “Well, I know, I know for a fact that the data right now is not going to get the drug approved.” 

Dr. Tess Lawrie: “But, Andy—know this will come out . . . It will come out that there were all these barriers to the truth being told to the public and to the evidence being presented. So please, this is your opportunity just to acknowledge [the truth] in your review, change your conclusions, and come on board with this Cochrane Review, which will be definitive. It will be the review that shows the evidence and gives the proof. This was the consensus on Wednesday night’s meeting with 20 experts.” Hill protests that NIH will not agree to recommend IVM. 

Dr. Tess Lawrie: “Yeah, because the NIH is owned by the vaccine lobby.” 

Dr. Andrew Hill: “That’s not something I know about.” 

Dr. Tess Lawrie: “Well, all I’m saying is this smacks of corruption and you are being played.” 

Dr. Hill: “I don’t think so.” 

Dr. Tess Lawrie: “Well then, you have no excuse because your work in that review is flawed. It’s rushed. It is not properly put together.” Dr. Lawrie points out that Hill’s study ignores a host of clinical outcomes that affect patients. She scolds Hill for ignoring the beneficial effects of IVM as prophylaxis, its effect on speed to PCR negativity, on the need for mechanical ventilation,  on reduced admissions to ICUs, and other outcomes that are clinically meaningful. She adds, “This is bad research . . . bad research. So, at this point, I don’t know . . . you seem like a nice guy, but I am really, really worried about you.” 

Dr. Andrew Hill: “Okay. Yeah. I mean, it’s, it’s a difficult situation.” 

Dr. Tess Lawrie: “No, you might be in a difficult situation. I’m not, because I have no paymaster. I can tell the truth . . . How can you deliberately try and mess it up . . . you know?” 

Dr. Andrew Hill: “It’s not messing it up. It’s saying that we need, we need a short time to look at some more studies.” Dr. Tess Lawrie: “So, how long are you going to let people carry on dying unnecessarily—up to you? What is, what is the timeline that you’ve allowed for this, then?”

Dr. Andrew Hill: “Well, I think . . . I think that it goes to WHO and the NIH and the FDA and the EMEA. And they’ve got to decide when they think enough’s enough.” 

Dr. Tess Lawrie: “How do they decide? Because there’s nobody giving them good evidence synthesis, because yours is certainly not good.” 

Dr. Andrew Hill: “Well, when yours comes out, which will be in the very near future . . . at the same time, there’ll be other trials producing results, which will nail it with a bit of luck. And we’ll be there.” 

Dr. Tess Lawrie: “It’s already nailed.” 

Dr. Andrew Hill: “No, that’s, that’s not the view of the WHO and the FDA.” 

Dr. Tess Lawrie: “You’d rather… risk loads of people’s lives. Do you know if you and I stood together on this, we could present a united front and we could get this thing. We could make it happen. We could save lives; we could prevent [British National Health Service doctors and nurses] people from getting infected. We could prevent the elderly from dying.” 

Dr. Tess Lawrie: “These are studies conducted around the world in several different countries. And they’re all saying the same thing. Plus there’s all sorts of other evidence to show that it works. Randomized controlled trials do not need to be the be-all and end-all. But [even] based on the randomized controlled trials, it is clear that ivermectin works… It prevents deaths and it prevents harms and it improves outcomes for people . . . I can see we’re getting nowhere because you have an agenda, whether you like it or not, whether you admit to it or not, you have an agenda. And the agenda is to kick this down the road as far as you can. So . . . we are trying to save lives. That’s what we do. I’m a doctor and I’m going to save as many lives as I can. And I’m going to do that through getting the message [out] on ivermectin. . . . Okay. Unfortunately, your work is going to impair that, and you seem to be able to bear the burden of many, many deaths, which I cannot do.” Then she asks again. 

Dr. Tess Lawrie: “Would you tell me? I would like to know who pays you as a consultant through WHO.” 

Dr. Andrew Hill: “It’s Unitaid.” 

Dr. Tess Lawrie: “All right. So who helped to . . . ? Whose conclusions are those on the review that you’ve done? Who is not listed as an author? Who’s actually contributed?” 

Dr. Andrew Hill: “Well, I mean, I don’t really want to get into, I mean, it . . . Unitaid . . . .” 

Dr. Tess Lawrie: “I think that . . . It needs to be clear. I would like to know who, who are these other voices that are in your paper that are not acknowledged. Does Unitaid have a say? Do they influence what you write?” 

Dr. Andrew Hill: “Unitaid has a say in the conclusions of the paper. Yeah.”

Dr. Tess Lawrie: “Okay. So, who is it in Unitaid, then? Who is giving you opinions on your evidence?” 

Dr. Andrew Hill: “Well, it’s just the people there. I don’t . . . .” 

Dr. Tess Lawrie: “So they have a say in your conclusions.” 

Dr. Andrew Hill: “Yeah.” 

Dr. Tess Lawrie: “Could you please give me a name of someone in Unitaid I could speak to, so that I can share my evidence and hope to try and persuade them to understand it?” 

Dr. Andrew Hill: “Oh, I’ll have a think about who to, to offer you with a name…. But I mean, this is very difficult because I’m, you know, I’ve, I’ve got this role where I’m supposed to produce this paper and we’re in a very difficult, delicate balance….” 

Dr. Lawrie interjects: “Who are these people? Who are these people saying this?”

Dr. Andrew Hill: “Yeah . . . it’s a very strong lobby . . .” 

Dr. Tess Lawrie: “Okay. Look I think I can see [we’re] kind of [at] a dead end, because you seem to have a whole lot of excuses, but, um, you know, that to, to justify bad research practice. So I’m really, really sorry about this, Andy. 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.” 

Dr. Andrew 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.” 

Dr. Tess Lawrie: “Yeah. Middle ground. The middle ground is not a middle ground… [Y]ou’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. And I can’t understand why you don’t see that, because the evidence is there and you are not just denying it, but your work’s actually actively obfuscating the truth. And this will come out. So I’m really sorry . . . As I say, you seem like a nice guy, but I think you’ve just kind of been misled somehow.” Hill promised he would do everything in his power to get ivermectin approved if she would give him six weeks. 

Dr. Andrew Hill: “Well, what I hope is that this, this stalemate that we’re in doesn’t last very long. It lasts a matter of weeks. And I guarantee I will push for this to last for as short amount of time as possible.” 

Dr. Tess Lawrie: “So, how long do you think the stalemate will go on for? How long do you think you will be paid to [make] the stalemate… go on?” 

Dr. Andrew Hill: “From my side. Okay . . . I think end of February, we will be there six weeks.”

Dr. Tess Lawrie: “How many people die every day?” 

Dr. Andrew Hill: “Oh, sure. I mean, you know, 15,000 people a day.” 

Dr. Tess Lawrie: “Fifteen thousand people a day times six weeks . . . Because at this rate, all other countries are getting ivermectin except the UK and the USA, because the UK and the USA and Europe are owned by the vaccine lobby.” 

Dr. Andrew Hill: “My goal is to get the drug approved and to do everything I can to get it approved so that it reaches the maximum. . . .” 

Dr. Tess Lawrie: “You’re not doing everything you can, because everything you can would involve saying to those people who are paying you, ‘I can see this prevents deaths. So I’m not going to support this conclusion anymore, and I’m going to tell the truth.’” 

Dr. Andrew Hill: “What, I’ve got to do my responsibilities to get as much support as I can to get this drug approved as quickly as possible.”

Dr. Tess Lawrie: “Well, you’re not going to get it approved the way you’ve written that conclusion. You’ve actually shot yourself in the foot, and you’ve shot us all in the foot. All 

of . . . everybody trying to do something good. You have actually completely destroyed it.” 

Dr. Andrew Hill: “Okay. Well, that’s where we’ll, I guess we’ll have to agree to differ.” 

Dr. Tess Lawrie: “Yeah. Well, I don’t know how you sleep at night, honestly.”

It has been fourteen months since Dr. Hill’s predicted time that the stalemate would end. Dr. Lawrie’s “A Letter to Andrew Hill” documentary released on March 4, 2022 appeals to him to admit the error of his ways. 

In that documentary, Dr. Pierre Kory, who had invited Dr. Hill as the WHO’s meta-analysis author to testify along with him before the aforementioned  National Institutes of Health COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel, made the following statement to Hill that best sums up this ivermectin tale thus far:  

“Knowing that there safe, cheap, effective medicines available, and advocating for them, and going against official government opinion,  you know, we’ve all lost our jobs, I’ve had to leave my third job, but you have kept your career, you put yourself in front of the welfare of humanity. I don’t know what your life is like now. But ours isn’t easy, and life isn’t easy, and this pandemic has not been easy on anyone. It has been tragic for good portions of the globe and not directly from the disease itself but everything around it. 

“Had you spoken up, gone public, and blown the whistle, maybe at that time there would have been journalists or a media outlet that would have picked up the story. But now you’ll never get that because the media censorship and propaganda is now near total, but at that time, it was not. That opportunity required sacrifice. It required to resist the forces that were telling you to write your paper, to dumb down, and mute your conclusions because they clearly had other objections, whether it was to support a global vaccine policy or new, novel drugs to make money, and you’re up against massive financial forces, and I knew that. But you are also in a position where you had an opportunity to speak up, and at that time had you spoken up, it would have made a world of difference. And I will say many, many people, I think in a lot of institutions had an opportunity to speak up and in fact become a whistle blower. But I don’t think those opportunities exist today to do so. They paled in comparison to the opportunity that you had. 

“History demanded a man in your position who was willing and courageous to speak up, and you did not. Your silence and your cooperation with the forces that wanted to hide the efficacy of ivermectin, this is an unconscionable thing that you did. And I think history is going to remember it. I hope history is going to remember it, because it has to be a historical lesson, because we must speak up, especially when we’re in a position where our voice makes all the difference to humanity, and you were not that voice.”

Dr. Pierre Kory

The next scene in the documentary had Dr. Lawrie state the following: 

“In my opinion, your preprint paper published on the eighteenth of January did three things. 

  1. It was instrumental in restricting ivermectin’s use. 
  2. It led to the discrediting and censoring of the doctors recommending it. 
  3. It facilitated the emergency use authorization of the experimental, gene-based COVID vaccines. With effective COVID treatments, the authorities would not have had been able to authorize these new, experimental drugs without better safety data.”

Speaking of fixing the harm being done, it should not take Dr. Hill coming forward for the WMC to step back, see the coercion and crimes happening, examine the full body of real science supporting ivermectin, and reinstate Dr. Scott Miller’s medical license during his hearing set for August 8, 2022.

And if voters pay attention to the medical freedom stance of those running for office, then maybe next year, the Washington legislature will pass some legislation that actually supports the health and health choices of citizens, such as HB2065. 

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
close

Like what you learned? Subscribe to our Feed to get email notice of new posts.

Get new posts by email: