The Global Disinformation Campaign Against Ivermectin - The "Fix" at the WHO Part 1
The biggest battle in the war on ivermectin was won by Pharma at the WHO and has since caused millions of preventable deaths. I had a front row seat to how it all unfolded.
Although this is technically Part 3 of what I initially titled “the Fix of Dr. Andrew Hill,” in Parts 1 and Part 2, I actually did not delve too much into what actually happened with Dr. Hill and his research on ivermectin. Instead I too often and too deeply digressed into treatises on the flaws and manipulations of evidence based medicine or went on trips down memory lane of the FLCCC’s origins and pre-ivermectin exploits. I ended Part 2 without even getting to the details of the historically catastrophic and corrupt actions committed by “Andy” and his colleagues to destroy and suppress the evidence of efficacy of ivermectin. So I am starting over, from the beginning of our interactions with Dr. Andrew Hill. The next two posts are long. Forgive me, but you simply cannot detail and document one of history’s most major crimes in a Tweet. Invest the time to educate yourself as to how it all happened. I think it is extremely important that more of society understand how the Science of Medicine has been corrupted and is being corrupted to this day. The time investment, in my mind, will be world-changing in perspective. But I will let you be the judge.
I first met Dr. Andrew Hill (“Andy”) soon after Senator Ron Johnson invited me to his historic Senate Hearings on early COVID treatment for the Department of Homeland Security Committee (DHS) on December 8, 2020. Yes, the same DHS that, since Congress was taken over by Democrats, has accused physicians like me of being “domestic terrorists” because our anti-U.S health policy opinions might “incite violence.” Whatever.
As a result of that testimony and the increasing attention to our comprehensive review paper on ivermectin that I had posted on a pre-print server a month before, I was invited to give the opening lecture a week later at an international conference put together by a French biotech company called MedinCell. They develop long-acting formulations of common medicines, allowing dosing to be as infrequently as every few months. Due to ivermectin’s protective efficacy against malaria, they were developing a long-acting formulation to be used in malaria prevention. They were also likely very interested in the potential application of ivermectin as a sort of “vaccine” against COVID (pretty cool huh?).
Anyway, the conference had about 12 lecturers from all over the world, from Dr. Kylie Wagstaff of the globally groundbreaking SARS-CoV2 cell culture study of ivermectin from Monash University in Australia, to some of the principal investigators of the then ongoing or recently completed ivermectin RCT’s in COVID. Even Prof. Elgazzar was there – he of the supposedly (possibly) “fraudulent RCT” to a researcher sponsored by the organizations Unitaid and the WHO by the name of Dr. Andrew Hill.
He lectured on the 3rd day of the conference, (which I missed but Paul Marik did not). Paul watched every lecture of the three-day conference while I was busy battling to get our massive paper ready to submit for publication with a reference manager that was behaving so badly that I was literally having to manually reorder and re-number over a hundred references. All during this historic reference manager battle, new ivermectin studies and trials were getting posted on pre-print servers every day making me spend most of my days renumbering references. A Groundhog Day of epic proportions. Forgive me for I digress. Again.
Anyway, Paul calls and asks, “Hey did you know that a guy from the WHO presented his systematic review of all the randomized trials on ivermectin in COVID?”
I was shocked. I thought our group was way ahead of everyone in our compilation of data (it turns out we were, more on that below).
I immediately wrote to the MedInCell CEO and asked for Dr. Hill’s slides and contact info. After receiving the slide deck, I was immediately blown away as it contained markedly positive RCT results, some of which I was not yet aware of. And he had done an actual data synthesis of the 11 RCT’s which was mind-blowingly positive in terms of reduced time to viral clearance, time to clinical recovery, need for hospitalization, and death. At the time, those trials included over a 1,000 total patients (note Paxlovid and Remdesivir got Emergency Use Authorizations based on less patients from just a single trial, using Pharma’s well-established “one and done” fast track approval process built for Pharma at the PFDA (the P is not a typo).
Andy responded immediately, we had an incredibly positive conversation, as any two researchers would when they think they may have stumbled upon data that potentially has global, historic implications. We started sharing our “origin stories” of how we had “discovered” the phenomenal data on the efficacy of ivermectin in COVID.
“Andy’s” origin story of when he started to focus his research on ivermectin in COVID was that he had been hired in June 2020 by Unitaid, an international health care organization funded largely by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) and several other countries BMGF is also the 2nd largest funder of the WHO after the United States. Unitaid was collaborating on the ACT Accelerator program with the WHO (note that this program was completely run and staffed by BMGF). Andy was in charge of a research team tasked with analyzing trials of repurposed drugs for use in COVID. At the time, I thought this was phenomenal as it was exactly what I shouted about in my Senate testimony, i.e. that our governmental health agencies were not initiating a coordinated effort to identify effective, readily available drugs to “repurpose” them to fight COVID. And here he was, the head of a team doing just that at the global level!
Given this background, I asked him, “How and when did you come to choose to study ivermectin?” His answer, even then, was a little suspicious, “Well, we had been researching numerous repurposed medicines since June 2020, like favipiravir, hydroxychloroquine (I forget the others) and none of them showed efficacy” (yeah right). He then said, “I was told by a Professor at my University to look into ivermectin in early November.” Note my review paper was uploaded on a pre-print server on November 13th, 2020. Hmm. Do you think Big Pharma scientists were monitoring pre-print servers for emerging evidence on repurposed medicines?
What you have to do here is remember the Professor that Andy mentioned. The, at that point, unknown Professor’s identity will be revealed later in this history, as I now know he was Big Pharma/BMGF’s “point man” that distorted and suppressed the evidence of efficacy of ivermectin at the WHO. He was the one in charge of compiling the evidence on ivermectin to the WHO Treatment Guideline committee. Note the WHO’s guidance is the most important in the world, influencing nearly every country on Earth (except the U.S given Remdesivir is the standard of care here despite the fact the WHO says it doesn’t work).
In another bit of foreshadowing, by the end of this post, I believe I will convince you, as I have since become convinced, that Andy’s real mission was to find evidence of efficacy of repurposed drugs so that BMGF and Big Pharma could initiate their Disinformation campaign immediately upon identification of any effective generic drug which would threaten, well, everything really.
Andy was doing opposition research, but we, nor he, did not know it (yet). During the early period of our collaboration, it was clear to me that he thought his job was to identify a repurposed drug for the WHO to actually recommend for use in the pandemic. When he finally found one (ivermectin), his paymasters quickly kicked off their historic and criminal Disinformation campaign, first by getting Andy to no longer speak publicly about his findings. Andy told me that right after his last public lecture to a South African group on January 29th, 2021, his Unitaid sponsors told him he could not longer give public statements or interviews. Apparently Andy’s last lecture was a bit too supportive and enthusiastic of ivermectin as he literally told the South Africans to “get ready, get supplies, etc.” In later months, Andy would show up on Twitter and/or post preprints attacking the evidence base of ivermectin as fraudulent. He even retracted his later published review paper, which, just like the FLCCC’s, found a massive reduction in mortality. His revised paper removed almost all of the evidence base and concluded that ivermectin had no impact on mortality. They eventually got him, hard. I am done with the foreshadowing here.
This mission of identifying effective generic drugs was critical to, well, all the profits that Pharma has amassed in COVID. Public awareness of any effective repurposed drug would have destroyed the global vaccine campaign as well as blown up the markets for all the pricey new patented COVID drugs that were currently in the pipeline of numerous pharmaceutical corporations. We in the FLCCC had no idea at the time that we were starting to mess with the Big Boys. Like, pretty much the most powerful corporations on Earth. Not so fun fact: Marcia Angell, a long time Editor-in Chief of the New England Journal Of Medicine (essentially the top medical journal in the world) wrote in her book detailing the influence of Big Pharma in modern medicine that, in 2001, the ten largest pharmaceutical companies in the Fortune 500 reaped more profits than the rest of the Fortune 500 combined. I repeat, the ten biggest Pharma corporations in the Fortune 500 were more profitable than the rest of the Fortune 500 COMBINED. And the FLCCC was poking that bear at a time when a hundred billion dollar marketplace for their wares was opening up. Gives me chills today thinking back on it. There are definitely moments when I wonder how I and we am still alive. Seriously.
Anyway, here we were, discovering that a researcher from the WHO/Unitaid had found a strong signal of benefit amongst just the randomized controlled trials (the signal was blaring actually). Note that the FLCCC review paper I authored included all ivermectin data, not only the RCT’s, but also many OCT’s and the results of Health Ministry programs.
Soon after my testimony, a former Texas Health Commissioner named Reyn Archer reached out to me. Reyn was working as Chief of Staff for Nebraska Congressman Jeff Fortenberry who was on the committee that oversaw the budgets for the health agencies. Anyway, they convinced the NIH Treatment Guidelines committee to give me and Paul an audience to present our findings. The meeting was scheduled for January 6th, 2021. We decided to invite Andy Hill to present his more expansive RCT data along with us, plus he would bring more “credibility” because he was working for an international health care agency. Little did I know that meeting was going to be our first battle between the FLCCC and Fauci in what is now an ongoing 20 month war. Actually it is not really an active war anymore because it has unfortunately reached a stalemate. All the countries and all the doctors who have used ivermectin successfully will continue to do so no matter how many high-impact journal trials and editorials claim it doesn’t work. However, new adopters are likely near nil after the publication of history’s most fraudulent trial in the New England Journal of Medicine put the final “nail in the coffin” (literally and metaphorically) of ivermectin.
So on January 6, 2021, Paul Marik, Andy, and myself teamed up to give a 20+ minute presentation to the NIH guidelines committee. Andy essentially gave the same presentation he gave at Medincell’s conference 3 weeks earlier. This was the lecture he gave. I presented the epidemiological analysis paper by Juan Chamie, Jennifer Hibberd, and David Scheim which showed massive reductions in both cases and deaths in the wake of Peru’s magnificent ivermectin distribution program called Operation Tayta. Paul presented newly released and as-yet-unpublished experimental data from Caly and Wagstaff of Monash University which found that indeed, standard doses of ivermectin do reach effective anti-viral concentrations in the blood.
The academics and health bureaucrats on the committee were full of questions, skepticism, and dismissiveness, especially in regards to the results of the Peru program that I had presented. I suppose this was to be expected, plus it is kind of their job. But not one showed enthusiasm or optimism, that is for sure. The most telling part of the meeting was wild. It occurred at the very end, after the Committee discussion and questions, when first, Alice Pau, a Pharmacist in charge of co-ordinating the meeting, asked “Do you have any questions for us?” Paul Marik made a bold plea for the NIH to make a recommendation for ivermectin which I then emphasized. I hesitated asking my “real question” because our game plan going in was to not be confrontational, to be deferential and collegial, but I couldn’t help myself, so I called out one of the many parading elephants in the room.
I asked, “Of all the medicines currently being used and/or studied for the treatment of COVID, all have had either weak recommendations for use or neutral ones in the form of “there is insufficient evidence to recommend or not recommend” Drug X. Yet since August of 2020, ivermectin is the only medicine which had a negative recommendation to not use outside clinical trials. Can I ask why that is?”
Second after second ticked by, interrupted by Alice Pau trying to answer a question I really did not ask so I cut her off and asked my question again. Another long pause ensued. There were over 20 “experts” on the zoom call, and not one answered. The silence got long enough and uncomfortable enough that I started saying, “OK, I guess no-one knows why,” (I was pissed and, despite our plans of being collegial, decided to just be somewhat rude and dismissive of them). As soon as I said that, Chairman Cliff Lane talked over me and said to the group “Come on guys, we have to answer the question.”
He then proceeded to give a similar and as condescending an answer to the question that Alice Pau tried to answer. It was a question I did not ask nor did I need an explanation for. He started to explain to me that the “strength” of the recommendation was “expert opinion only” and what that meant etc. I knew it was expert opinion only and knew what it meant, but that is not what I asked. I had asked why the recommendation was against use outside of clinical trials while it was one of history’s safest medications. I know all about the different grades of strength of recommendations. But he explained it to me anyway. I was actually offended, what did he think I was, a medical student?
That ensuing silence in the face of a somewhat difficult question is what me and Del Bigtree now call the “NIH pause.” In an interview with Del, when I told him about what happened at this meeting, he laughed and said “that happened to us too!” Apparently, he and Bobby Kennedy Jr. once had a meeting with an NIH Vaccine Committee and asked them if any of the commitee members knew of any vaccine that had a randomized controlled trial to support it’s use, They too were met with silence for an uncomfortably long time.
Now, I have a video recording of that meeting, and I will share that part. I think my FLCCC colleagues (and our lawyers) are going to freak that I did this without telling them. But, I just don’t care anymore about rules and laws when they are so brazenly being flouted and ignored in our destruction. Plus I don’t think this is breaking any law as government officials, when in the line of duty, should not have an expectation of privacy. So, here it is below, have a look and a listen, I only included the question section which is 5 minutes long. Especially listen to Paul’s “plea” on behalf of the American people for the NIH top provide guidance to the nation’s doctors so that they will be supported in prescribing patients ivermectin.
I will say that, whatever we presented and pled for did have an effect. Several weeks later, out of the blue, the NIH recommendation was changed. They no longer recommended “against use outside a clinical trial,” and instead they changed it to a “neutral” recommendation, you know, the one where they write “there is insufficient evidence to recommend or not recommend” ivermectin.
Win? Actually I thought not. Again, what these guys pull is so brazen to anyone knowledgeable, but no one's paying attention and very few are knowledgeable. But what you need to know is that there are many different strengths of recommendations, they can give a weak, moderate, or strong recommendation for a drug in the treatment of a disease. You can make a weak or moderate recommendation solely on observational trials data! Plus, the unparalleled safety profile of ivermectin combined with the existing highly positive data in over 1,000 patients and 12 randomized controlled trials should have led to at a minimum a weak recommendation in the midst of a humanitarian catastrophe (the winter of 2020-2021 was particularly brutal in U.S hospitals).
However, had they done that, the entire country’s (and world’s) doctors would have started treating all COVID patients with ivermectin. They knew they could not do provide any recommendation stronger than “neutral.” Plus Fauci would never let that happen (remember, as a public servant, it is well documented that he has worked in the service of the pharmaceutical industry his entire career). So that's what they did.
There was a lot of attention on Ivermectin after my testimony so they had to do something. Knowing what I know now of the immense powers of Big Pharma, I suspect that even if they had delivered a “weak” recommendation for use, it may not have moved the needle much. I say this largely because the market competitors of ivermectin had many other tactics they could use (and did) to prevent widespread adoption (i.e. their devastatingly effective “horse dewormer” public relations campaign deployed using synchronized messaging amongst all major TV, radio, and print outlets. Plus they probably knew that the WHO was going to update their recommendations based on Andy and his team's continued research over the next two months, so they punted. I would argue that they knew the fix was in at the WHO already. But this is when things get even crazier.
Although we knew the NIH was not going to recommend (actually we really didn’t at the time as our collective naiveté and optimism was still profound), we became excited at another development. We were made aware of another deeply expert, well known researcher and physician named Tess Lawrie from the United Kingdom (and a South African like Paul Marik). Apparently, she saw my testimony video and was highly intrigued by my presentation of the evidence supporting ivermectin. She asked herself, “What is this doctor talking about?
Tess has for decades been an expert reviewer of medical evidence. Her expertise is in conducting what are called “systematic reviews” and “meta-analyses” of the medical evidence for various therapeutics, just like Andrew Hill was doing for WHO/Unitaid. A systematic review and meta-analysis is considered the strongest form of medical evidence. She has published such reviews in the top medical journals, including many for the Cochrane Library, once considered the gold standard of such analyses (but no longer as they are now bought and paid for by Pharma/BMGF). Further, she has contributed in the development of treatment guidelines for the WHO, UK’s NHS, and other national and international health agencies.
After watching my testimony, she immediately began to dig deep into the published and posted trials data on ivermectin in COVID. Note that experts generally rely on what is called “pattern recognition” and in her review of the evidence she recognized a remarkable pattern of results from the trials - consistent, often large magnitude benefits in time to clinical recovery, hospitalizations and death from varied countries and centers around the world.
So, not only the 5 of us highly published clinicians and researchers in the FLCCC, but now there was a 2nd independent, deeply expert researcher who was also impressed with the same data signal. Tess was so impressed with the strength of the data, she immediately sprang into action and recorded a video on January 7 pleading with Boris Johnson and the UK gov’t and health authorities to look at and try to disseminate ivermectin to help her country. I don’t have the video but this was the screen shot of what turned out to be an incredibly compelling, impassioned plea to Boris Johnson and the UK Health Authorities to recommend ivermectin to treat COVID.
Her emotions were exactly matched with how I felt when I was uploading my paper to a preprint server two months prior on Nov 13, 2020. Problem: Tess’s video plea was quickly taken down by YouTube, one of the first distressing actions taken to suppress the evidence of efficacy of ivermectin. It was the first shot in what is now a 20 month-long war.
Soon after we saw Tess’s video, Paul and I found her contact info and quickly scheduled a zoom meeting with her. We were so impressed with her decades of experience, thoughtfulness, and dedication - she knew we had identified an effective drug and that people were dying all over the world and that this information had to get to health authorities and treatment guideline developers. I told her about Andy and his work so she reached out to him because she knew he had the most updated data from the randomized control trials that were being conducted. She invited him to work on a systematic review and meta-analysis for the Cochrane Library, a journal that had published many of her expert reviews in the past. She knew that time was of the essence because there were masses of people dying during the COVID surge in the winter of 2020. She knew that a review supporting ivermectin published in the Cochrane Library would immediately be noticed by doctors around the world.
He apparently agreed to collaborate on the review. Andy would be extremely important to such an effort because the scope of his work for Unitaid was to search the clinical trial registries from all over the world to find any registered RCT on ivermectin in COVID. He had already found 59 registered RCT’s and had compiled a list of contacts of all the Principal Investigators for those trials and began having bi-weekly meetings with them. He was getting trial results way before any manuscript was being posted or published. And Andy was sharing the data with me and Paul. It was incredible hearting about positive results before anyone else in the world.
But suddenly everything went south, and fast. On January 16, 2021, Andy suddenly posted his review of the RCT’s on a preprint server. Back then preprint servers were incredibly important in COVID, because researchers could post their data and have it publicly available without waiting for the many months of peer review and publication processing and proofing required prior to publication in an established medical journal.
Paul and I read his posted pre-print review and were shocked. The conclusions did not match the data. For the first time in my career, I found myself reading a scientific manuscript by a researcher presenting such profound and compelling data yet whose conclusions argued against the findings. If there is anything that scientists and researchers tend to do when publishing original work, is that they tend to over-interpret the potential importance and impact of their data. But here there was such overwhelmingly positive data yet the paper and conclusions read as if the conclusions were very uncertain and too “heterogenous” to act on.
In addition, it was poorly written, with repeated expressions of the limitations of the data including false statements about how effective concentrations could not be reached with standard dosing (something we knew Andy knew was false). In addition the conclusion did not match the data presented. Paul and I immediately suspected scientific misconduct was occurring so we immediately wrote to Andy with our concerns and provided him with a complete peer-review of his paper containing our many comments and recommendations for changes. We demanded that he immediately take down his paper and implement the suggested revisions to be more consistent with the existing data. Among other demands, we asked that he remove the statements about how effective concentrations could not be reached in the blood with standard doses (we had as a group presented data disproving that to the NIH). Further we called out the numerous irregularities in his paper like the repetitive citation of the “limitations” of the data presented.
We knew something was off, like really off and so did Tess. But we didn’t know exactly what was going on “behind the scenes.” It was not until a year later when we found out who and what were behind these manipulations trying to distort and suppress the evidence of efficacy of ivermectin. Those details were uncovered by a man named Phil Harper. I consider him a polymath with a diverse background of interests and accomplishments having worked in journalism and documentary filmmaking among other pursuits. He was a UK citizen and had been living in India during the early pandemic and was shocked when he returned to UK in mid-to-late 2021 and found a country without any early treatment strategy that was instead attacking, suppressing, and legislating against ivermectin which was in wide use at the time in India. So he dug into the topic. Note his Substack is called “the Digger” and it is masterful. What he discovered about the events that occurred over those weeks is absolutely stunning. I credit his work and his publications on his Substack with much of the finer and personal details of what I will present as having happened over those weeks. Please read it. Please also consider donating to help fund his proposed documentary project called “The Research Cartel.” I believe it will have major impacts on exposing all that is rotten in medical research.
In regards to Andy’s preprint paper, again, the most stunning abnormality was the wording and content of the conclusion. It was markedly different than the version of his paper that he had sent Tess a week prior. I know this now because Phil performed a “document analysis” directly comparing all changes from the version that Andy had sent to Tess with the one that was posted on the preprint server. He found numerous changes inserted to the later preprint version. Every single change softened or reversed the importance of the findings and/or argued against the efficacy of ivermectin. A really weird statement about “what is sufficient for review by regulatory authorities” appeared.
However despite this paper and its muted conclusions and numerous limitations and suggestions, it went further and argued “more studies needed to be done.” While people were dying at horrific rates around the world and all the available RCT evidence (plus OCT and Health Ministry data), were showing that one of the safest, least expensive, and widely available medicines in history could save lives in a global pandemic of a highly transmissible, viral illness.
Andy knew the importance of this finding too. In several public lectures he gave that month, he was as enthusiastic and supportive of ivermectin as Paul, Tess, and I were. He did an interview with a French publication called Bon Sens (they were one of my first interviews after my testimony in the Senate) and he even emphasized the “dose-dependent” effects of ivermectin. Note that a “dose dependent relationship“ is one of the strongest pillars of support for efficacy of a therapeutic, defined as measuring greater benefits as the dose is increased). This is what he said at the time:
We are seeing very clear antiviral effects. We see smaller effects when the drug is given for one day, then in dose-ranging studies, we see more and more of an effect. And then if the drug is given at a high dose, for five days, we see the strongest effect. So, how could that be happening if the drug does not stop the virus from replicating? It simply does. It does. And we’ve got the evidence to prove it…. It’s just a matter of time before it gets approved.”
Tess knew even more than we did that something really rotten was going on. She knew that someone had altered his paper and his conclusions and his analysis. She asked him for a Zoom meeting to discuss, and he agreed! She recorded the meeting illegally and thus was reluctant to make it public for a time, but as the war went on with ever increasing devastation to the human race, she eventually decided to make the video public.
It is an astounding video. Andy actually admitted to Tess that his “sponsors” influenced the writing of the paper. Tess asked him for names but he refused. And we all know that whoever had altered that paper they were not listed as an author of the paper. This was clear scientific misconduct. She included the most relevant parts of this meeting in a devastatingly effective video called “A Letter to Andrew Hill” which essentially covers all of the most relevant and impactful events that I am detailing in these posts. I have included it at the end of Part 2. It is a must watch and likely communicates more than I ever can with words. Please hang in, hold, read this through, and then watch the video.
Now at that time, even before Phil Harper came on the scene, Paul and I were in lots of communication with a man named Lynden Alexander who was “investigating” all the shenanigans around the lack of a recommendation early in in the pandemic for the use of corticosteroids in severe, hospitalized COVID patients (recall that my first Senate testimony in Senator Ron Johnson’s hearings was in May of 2020 when I called out the critical need for corticosteroids in COVID).
Lynden was a deeply expert and wickedly intelligent “forensic science communication expert.”Among many of his skills, he does linguistic analyses. He began to examine in great detail the language, grammar, and writing style(s) of the preprint version of the paper, without knowing Tess had a different version from days earlier (Phil is the one who found that out). However, despite not knowing this, he was convinced there were multiple ‘voices’ appearing within the paper. For at least one of those voices, English was a second language. Further, based on the language used, he knew that this person was involved in regulatory activities. That was in January of 2021 when he told Paul and I about this. It was not until Phil Harper came on the scene in February of 2022 that we learned who that person was.
Now, from Phil Harper’s analysis of the two versions of the paper, these were the principal changes inserted:
“Preliminary” was added to the title.
In the section on funding, “Unrestricted research grant provided by Unitaid” was removed.
A new “limitations” section was added to the introduction. This was what had freaked me out the most about Andy’s preprint paper. When publishing original research and analysis, there is always a section which highlights the limitations of the data presented and the conclusions that can be made. The standard location of this section is at or near the end of the paper, just before or at the end of the “Discussion/Conclusions” section. Andy did have a “limitations” section at the end as was standard, however, in the new version, a second, additional “limitations” section popped up at the end of the introduction. Before the methods and results were presented. What the hell is this I thought? It was as if someone was trying really hard to weaken the importance of the data presented.
An emboldened discussion section was added, and in it, a new sentence was inserted: "Furthermore, there was a wide variation in standards of care across trials, and ivermectin dose and duration of treatment was heterogeneous."
An additional ‘limitation’ sentence was added on page 7: “Limitations of current analysis is important as it is being performed with secondary data from a wide variety of different trials in many different parts of the world with designs that were not originally meant to be compatible. Further refined analysis, including direct data examination, are warranted."
Note that Lynden had identified this exact sentence as one which had likely been inserted, even though he was not aware of the existence of the January 14th paper that Phil had compared it to when he compiled his report.
Lynden also noted that the language of the insertions was different from the language and style employed in the rest of the paper. The verb conjugations were ‘off’ in these new sentences but were not in the rest of the paper. He concluded there were at least two voices within the paper: one was a native English speaker, and the other was not.
In Part 2 of “the Fix at the WHO” I introduce the identity of the researchers and detail the actions they took in manipulating not only Andy but also the WHO’s recommendation against use of ivermectin issued on March 31, 2021. Go to my Substack main page for Part 2. It is devastating.
I just want to say how much I appreciate all the subscribers to my Substack, and especially the paid ones! Your support is so greatly appreciated.
P.S. I opened a tele-health clinic providing care not only in the prevention and treatment of acute COVID, but with a specialized focus on the study and treatment of both Long-Haul and Post-Vaccination injury syndromes. If anyone needs our help, feel free to visit our website at www.drpierrekory.com.
P.P.S. I am getting professional help (hah!) to write a book about what I have personally witnessed and learned during Pharma’s historic Disinformation war on ivermectin. Pre-order here for: