The Ivermectin discussion

That is Hill covering his ass and complying with those who 'influenced' his paper.

For anyone who cares to see it, there is video evidence of such influence where he says that the conclusions of the paper were written by an outside source.

Part of the conversation is reproduced in that link ..... here it is in case you did not read it ....

#########

Andrew Hill admitted that his sponsors (UNITAID) pressured him to alter his conclusion. Hill explained, "I think I'm in a very sensitive position here."

.......

Dr. Lawrie demanded to know the identity of the unknown UNITAID author who changed Dr. Hill's conclusions, the person whose influence was to cause so many preventable deaths.

"So who is it in UNITAID, then? Who is giving you opinions on your evidence?"

Hill answered, "Well, it’s just the people there. I don't..."

Dr. Lawrie pressed Hill, "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. Hill evaded, "Oh, I'll have to think about who to, to offer you with a name...But I mean this is very difficult because I'm, you know, I've got this role where I'm supposed to produce this paper and we're in a very difficult, delicate balance...Yeah, it’s a very strong lobby..."

The conversation concludes with Dr. Hill promising to do everything in his power to get Ivermectin approved if she could give him six more weeks.

Dr. Lawrie, "So, how long do you think the stalemate will go on for?"

Dr. Hill, "From my side. Okay...I think end of February, we will be there in 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..."

The truth ........ and the video evidence of it is available should you ever wish to see it.

I read it. It's barely coherent but I struggled through it. And it's all bollocks.

Hill was (allegedly) talking to Tess Lawrie, another famous anti vax liar. He just happened to confess to fabricating data to the one woman who desperately wanted this evidence?? I mean, that's pretty convenient, right?

And that's the thing about ivermectin, it's the same people cropping up all the time. This allegedly global phenomenon that has saved millions of lives is being driven by about half a dozen very dodgy people.

Like I said, cranks and right wing lunatics. There is no science here, only nasty people with fncked up agendas.

That's how you appeal to the ignorant and uneducated. First, scare them, then offer them a solution in patronising terms which they may understand, however hollow or grifting the solution may be.

Some of that metadata analysis is based on dubious data and FLCCC have been pushing Ivermectin relentlessly for 2 years. Talk about dogma! As others have said if it was really that good we'd be be hugging each other at massive NYE parties. But it's not, disappointingly for all of us. Even more disappointingly some people just will not let it go.

It makes perfect sense - other drug manufacturers either don't have competing offerings on patent or they are not willing to engage in sharp corporate practice during a pandemic.

Tinfoil hat? One of the first things taught in business school is that a company's primary goal is to increase share value. Until you look at the actions of a company through that lens you will remain naive.

Lawrie's letter is perfectly reasonable and even cites Lawrence who has been highly critical of meta-analyses.

Yeah, even if there is some big conspiracy at the heart of modern medicine, none of that changes the fact that ivermectin doesn't work for Covid.

We are two years into this argument and still there is no solid evidence that Ivermectin can ever be used. At this stage ,apart from pointless battles in dusty forgotten parts of the interweb, science has moved on and we have actual antivirals that work for COVID and Ivermectin is at teh bottom of a very steep hill to convince anyone. If all the wasted energy that has gone into this had been channelled into better studies we'd have a far less muddy answer on this.

They were allowed to be used in multiple trials that have shown it has no effect, it's an approved prescription medicine, the bar for getting it approved for other treatments is quite low and not that costly yet this hasn't been done and isn't even in the pipeline. Doctors don't just prescribe random medicines to people on the off chance it may work, that's not how medicine works (and funny that the IVM pushers that want to horse it into everyone are generally aghast at vaccines that have properly went through the approval process).

All the scientific evidence backs one side.

So there's that.

Well that really and truly debunked that study!

The problem is that those who are pro-Ivermectin did not set out to get more data to support their case, they just kept shouting about how right they were or indulged in conspiracy theories.

Those are your words and there are whole lot of words I never mentioned in my post. The drivers of it claimed that they were being prevented from getting it out it to people for a variety of somewhat dubious reasons, cheapness, Big Pharma blocking them, they knew better etc. Rightly so in my view given the lack of evidence of its efficacy with COVID. The answer to all of that was better data. Instead all we really saw was a carousel of studies quoting each other and once some of them proved to be weak, the case weakened considerably.

I am on the side of good trial data confirming one way or the other and like others who posted on this thread saw the merit of it being proved to be useful. But it never was and doubtful it will ever be now.