My Letter to Dr Andrew Hill Video
To address the many requests I get about where to locate this video, I’m posting it here for ease of sharing
In October 2020, Dr. Andrew Hill was tasked to report to the World Health Organization on the dozens of new studies from around the world suggesting that Ivermectin could be a remarkably safe and effective treatment for COVID-19.
But on January 18th 2021, Dr. Hill published his findings on a pre-print server. His methods lacked rigour, the review was low quality and the extremely positive findings on ivermectin were contradicted by the conclusion of the paper.
In the end, Dr. Hill advised that “Ivermectin should be validated in larger appropriately controlled randomized trials before the results are sufficient for review by regulatory authorities.”
Why this video is important
A Letter to Dr. Andrew Hill offers insight into how the science on effective, low-cost and safe Covid treatments was corrupted. It is an introduction to an alternative “safe and effective” narrative. It is an invitation to open the Covid Pandora’s Box, for which Ivermectin is the key.
What happened to the review on Ivermectin?
With a highly qualified team comprising three expert Cochrane systematic reviewers, a senior statistician, a health economist, two specialist clinicians and a patient representative (a retired physicist, PhD), we published our robust review entitled “Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of COVID-19 Infection: A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis to Inform Clinical Guidelines” in June 2021, without Dr Andrew Hill, who clearly had serious conflicts of interest, and without the support of Cochrane (which is another story).
The systematic review is currently ranked #8th out of more than 24 million tracked scientific articles and #1 out of all articles in the American Journal of Therapeutics.
However, it has never been referenced by any health authorities or regulatory agencies, to my knowledge, despite it being sent to the WHO, MHRA, FDA, NIH, SAPRHA, TGA and more, along with the British Ivermectin Recommendation Development (BiRD) recommendations on ivermectin for Covid-19 in early 2021.
Where to from here?
We were recently invited by the AJT Editor to update the review.
However, as highlighted in Alexander Merinos recent article, the corruption of subsequent trials that were designed to show that ivermectin doesn’t work makes such a task futile until we have full disclosure and transparency from the TOGETHER and other trial investigators – something that I doubt will be forthcoming without a warrant.
In any event, we know ivermectin works and is safe – further analysis is not necessary and we simply do not need to prove this anymore.
In fact, we probably never did! With a safe, older, inexpensive, widely-used, over the counter medicine, there was never anything to lose by giving it a try in a health emergency.
Common sense was all that was needed and word of mouth about it’s effectiveness for Covid-19 based on the experiences of doctors and patients should have sufficed. Sadly, common sense was a barrier to the billion dollar Covid industry and was strongly discouraged.
For those wishing to find out more about the 99+ ivermectin studies, which ones can be relied upon and which cannot, I refer you to www.ivmmeta.com. Every ivermectin study can be found at this web address, meticulously analysed and presented with care.
Whilst I have moved on from ivermectin data analysis feeling that my energy is best invested in creating accountable health systems through the World Council for Health initiative, so that what happened during Covid never happens again, I shall remain eternally grateful to the dedicated scientists behind this rigorous ivermectin collaboration.
Thanks guys, hopefully one day we will meet in person!
Many thanks also to Alexandros Merinos, Eva Tallaksen, and Phil Harper, for their tenacious investigative journalism exposing the corruption of science on ivermectin and those behind it.
Interested in Recent History?
If you want to know more about the ivermectin journey, you may be interested in visiting the BiRD Group website, which is in fact the seed of the World Council for Health.
Of particular interest is the video archive of the International Ivermectin for Covid-19 Conference held in June 2021, which was moderated by Dr. Mobeen Syed.
Speakers included Dr. Pierre Kory (USA), Prof. Hector Carvallo (Argentina), Mr Juan Jose Chamie Quintero (USA), Mr Andrew Bryant (UK), Dr. David Chesler (USA), Prof. Eli Schwartz (Israel), Dr. Wasif Khan (Bangladesh), Dr. Manjul Medhi (UK), Prof. Matjaž Zwitter (Slovenia), Dr. Tina Peers (UK) and me.
To see more, including the video, click here substack.com
Header image: ET Health World
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Expose The Lies About Covid 19
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Wisenox
| #
Complete garbage, and deception.
Ivermectin makes your blood brain barrier more permeable, and it crosses through breast milk in lactating women.
From the linked article:
“Meta-analysis of 15 trials found that ivermectin reduced risk of death compared with no ivermectin (average risk ratio 0.38, 95% confidence interval 0.19–0.73; n = 2438; I2 = 49%; moderate-certainty evidence). ”
Put that into perspective before you buy into their tricks. Phony covid had a 99+% survival rate. This crap, Ivermectin, only mitigates the fake risk by 49%. 49% of a 1% risk is less than 1/2 of 1% risk mitigation.
The side effects of Ivermectin introduce more risk than it mitigates in phony covid.
Ivermectin’s use in poultry houses was under scrutiny because it makes people sick.
Why would they want you to take it? Who knows, and you never will unless you start asking them. However, their agenda and publicly available reports give you a heavy indication. The patents cross the BBB and have carbon nanotubes in them. Their agenda centers on the internet of bio-nano things. Look up the reports on bio-nano things, and see if they’re planning on devices being in your brain. The answer’s yes, and they aren’t telling you about it. They will incessantly repeat drivel about medications that make your blood brain barrier more permeable. Think about it!
Reply