**UPDATE March, 2022**

Just today, the spin doctors are at it again to vilify a cheap, effective treatment for COVID.

The research involved 1,348 adults in Brazil who tested positive for COVID-19 and were all at risk of developing a severe case.

  • Half of the patients were prescribed a course of ivermectin pills for three days
  • the other half received a placebo

The study looked at the following variables in patients who took ivermectin:

    • whether they were less likely to require hospitalization
    • whether they cleared the virus faster
    • whether their symptoms resolved sooner
    • whether they were in the hospital or on ventilators for less time
    • whether there was a difference in death rates between the cohorts

Findings, which are awaiting publication, showed ivermectin didn’t improve patient outcomes for any of these factors, but please see the following:

https://rumble.com/vwfia3-a-letter-to-andrew-hill-dr-tess-lawrie-oracle-films  Video Here (Approx. 19 Min)

Published March 4, 2022

Story at-a-glance

  • While ivermectin has been widely vilified as either useless, dangerous or both, studies have repeatedly demonstrated its usefulness against COVID-19
  • A study published in the March 2022 issue of the International Journal of Infectious Diseases again found that treatment with ivermectin reduced mortality in COVID-19 patients to a greater degree than remdesivir
  • Another recent study found ivermectin was the most effective drug treatment against the Omicron variant out of 10 drugs, including nirmatrelvir (Paxlovid), which was granted emergency use authorization against COVID in December 2021
  • Remdesivir costs between $2,340 and $3,120, and nirmatrelvir (Paxlovid), costs $529 per treatment, while the average treatment cost for ivermectin is $58
  • In 2021, Dr. Andrew Hill published a meta-analysis on ivermectin against COVID. While he’d expressed great enthusiasm about the data and had agreed to work to get ivermectin approved as soon as possible, the conclusion of his paper was that more large-scale studies were needed before regulators could take action. It appears one or more people pressured him to change the conclusion of his paper, and some believe at least one culprit may now have been identified

Has the ‘Shadow Author’ Been Identified?

Producer/director Phil Harper now claims he may have identified the “shadow author” who fiddled with Hill’s conclusion.28 The Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) reports:29

“‘The Digger’ on Substack (aka producer/director Phil Harper) has revealed the name of the person who could have edited the paper’s conclusions — which led to the WHO’s non-recommendation of the use of ivermectin. That decision could have led to the unnecessary deaths of millions across the world …

Harper studied the PDF of the paper, wanting to learn the identity of its ‘ghost’ author. ‘The hope was that some artifact on the PDF would reveal something, maybe a font was different, maybe there was a hidden comment, maybe some tracked changes had been saved to the document,’ said Harper. ‘None of those lines of inquiry came to anything.’

Then it came to him. Was it in the PDF’s metadata? ‘Sometimes it’s the most obvious of things,’ Harper writes. ‘The ‘v1_stamped’ version of the paper did indeed have metadata.

It even had author information inside the metadata. Expecting to see Andrew Hill listed as the author, instead, I saw a name I recognized. Andrew Owen. Unless someone used his computer, Andrew Owen has his digital fingerprint on the Andrew Hill paper.

As it turns out, Andrew Owen is a Professor of Pharmacology & Therapeutics and co-Director of the Centre of Excellence in Long-acting Therapeutics (CELT) at the University of Liverpool. He is also scientific advisor to the WHO’s COVID-19 Guideline Development Group. Just days before Dr. Hill’s paper was to be published, a $40M grant from Unitaid, the paper’s sponsor, was given to CELT — of which Owen is the project lead.

‘The $40 million contract was actually a commercial agreement between Unitaid, the University of Liverpool and Tandem Nano Ltd (a start-up company that commercializes ‘Solid Lipid Nanoparticle’ delivery mechanisms) — for which Andrew Owen is a top shareholder,’ says Harper.”

If it turns out that Unitaid had anything to do with the alteration of Hill’s conclusion about ivermectin, then it has completely violated its mission and mandate, which is to “[find] innovative solutions to prevent … and treat diseases more quickly, cheaply and effectively.”30

This is critical because, for COVID, ivermectin was one such solution. Front line doctors and researchers knew it in 2020; Hill knew it; and therefore Unitaid knew it. Did they subvert the truth and let people die? If so, for what? A commercial agreement for a novel lipid nanoparticle product? Perhaps.  Source

https://rumble.com/vwpi0x-ivermectin-more-evidence-dr.-john-campbell.html  Video Here (Approx. 20 Min)

Ivermectin, more evidence – Dr. John Campbell

%d bloggers like this: