3 Replies to “On the suppression of Ivermectin in the UK: 80% of deaths could have been prevented”
As usual, you deliver the goods, Vlad.
Thank you; and praise be to God for truth tellers such as yourself.
“?In October 2020 Dr Andrew Hill was tasked to report to the World Health Organisation 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. 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.”
The researcher seeking a global recommendation on Ivermectin had instead recommended against it. A media onslaught against the medicine ensued. What were Dr Hill’s reasons for doing so? Were his conclusions justified? Or were external forces influencing his about-face?
As usual, you deliver the goods, Vlad.
Thank you; and praise be to God for truth tellers such as yourself.
“?In October 2020 Dr Andrew Hill was tasked to report to the World Health Organisation 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. 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.”
The researcher seeking a global recommendation on Ivermectin had instead recommended against it. A media onslaught against the medicine ensued. What were Dr Hill’s reasons for doing so? Were his conclusions justified? Or were external forces influencing his about-face?
One year on, this film recalls exactly what happened from the perspective of somebody that experienced it first hand; Dr Tess Lawrie; also featuring contributions from Dr Pierre Kory and Dr Paul Marik who worked closely with Dr Hill during the same time frame.”
https://brandnewtube.com/watch/a-letter-to-andrew-hill-dr-tess-lawrie-oracle-films_X4ZQwrke1kDafEu.html
On the beginnings of information release:
https://www.riotimesonline.com/brazil-news/modern-day-censorship/pfizer-covid-vaccine-has-1291-side-effects-reveals-official-documents/