Ivermectin: How 'Ghost Authors' Played Down Hugely Positive Data In Dr Andrew Hill's Review of Trials For The WHO.
jaimejessop.substack.com
In October 2020, Dr Andrew Hill was tasked with presenting evidence to the WHO on the effectiveness of Ivermectin as an early treatment for Covid-19 disease. He agreed to work with Dr Tess Lawrie, Pierre Kory and others who had performed trials with this cheap, repurposed, unpatented drug, to publish a paper. Those trials were very promising indeed. But Hill went ahead early, without Tess and the others, and published the paper as a preprint which, whilst it highlighted the clinical effectiveness of Ivermectin, mysteriously and inexplicably recommended that further randomized larger trials be conducted before any authorisation was granted. This was when many people were dying in hospital and was just before the introduction of the 'safe and effective' vaccines.
Ivermectin: How 'Ghost Authors' Played Down Hugely Positive Data In Dr Andrew Hill's Review of Trials For The WHO.
Ivermectin: How 'Ghost Authors' Played Down…
Ivermectin: How 'Ghost Authors' Played Down Hugely Positive Data In Dr Andrew Hill's Review of Trials For The WHO.
In October 2020, Dr Andrew Hill was tasked with presenting evidence to the WHO on the effectiveness of Ivermectin as an early treatment for Covid-19 disease. He agreed to work with Dr Tess Lawrie, Pierre Kory and others who had performed trials with this cheap, repurposed, unpatented drug, to publish a paper. Those trials were very promising indeed. But Hill went ahead early, without Tess and the others, and published the paper as a preprint which, whilst it highlighted the clinical effectiveness of Ivermectin, mysteriously and inexplicably recommended that further randomized larger trials be conducted before any authorisation was granted. This was when many people were dying in hospital and was just before the introduction of the 'safe and effective' vaccines.