CORRUPTION in medicine, as detailed in a new book by American trial lawyer Robert Kennedy Jr, is nothing new.
A leading UK cancer specialist told me years ago how he was blackmailed by the Imperial Cancer Research Fund into staying silent over a fraudulent study the fund had sponsored.
Published in the Lancet, the study purported to show that patients treated holistically through the Bristol Cancer Help Centre did worse than those who had only orthodox treatment. It was junk science, aimed at discrediting the charity whose work had gained prominence – and funds – after being championed by Prince Charles.
The specialist was outraged when he had a preview of the study, and told the ICRF that he intended to challenge its findings at an upcoming press conference. Shortly afterwards a top official rang him to say that if he did so, his unit would lose its entire ICRF grant – which meant it would have to close. He consulted the dean of his medical school, and agreed not to go. He had worried ever since over whether he made the right decision.
Fortunately, the help centre recovered from the attack and its work has been transformative in encouraging cancer treatment approaches that attend as much to a patient’s general wellbeing as to diagnosing and treating symptoms.
As detailed by Kennedy, however, medical corruption has today become so widespread as to compromise the lives and wellbeing of us all.
A stark example came in the response last week to a report from the US that many patients who received the Pfizer and Moderna Covid vaccines show signs of increased risk of a heart attack. Dr Aseem Malhotra, an NHS consultant, told GB News that a cardiology researcher colleague in the UK found similar results but was not prepared to publish for fear of the repercussions. ‘They aren’t going to publish their findings, they are concerned about losing research money,’ Malhotra said.
Later he told LBC Radio that he had been contacted by several others, raising more concerns about the findings. One was an eminent consultant cardiologist, fit and well and with no previous history of heart problems. ‘He informed me that within ten days of receiving a second dose of the Pfizer shot, he had a heart attack – a clot in his left anterior descending artery, the most important artery in the heart. Fortunately he survived and is doing OK now.’
Malhotra added that his own father, a GP, died from a heart attack in July. ‘This was a 73-year-old man who during lockdown ate very healthily – partly because he listens to his son, who is an obesity campaigner – but also was walking 10,000-15,000 steps every day. So, very fit and active.
‘Out of the blue, he had a heart attack with chest pain. I didn’t understand what had happened. The post-mortem showed a 90 per cent blockage. What I have determined, very clearly, knowing everything about my father’s history, is that he had rapid progression of coronary artery disease.
‘Let’s not just say this could be the vaccine. Until his data became available, I had narrowed it down to stress in the pandemic, and losing my mother three years ago. So he was diseased, stressed, living alone in the pandemic . . . that could have been a factor as well. But now this data has come in, I’m concerned that the vaccine may have played a significant role.’
It’s heartening to hear from doctors sharing their concerns like this, but Robert Kennedy’s book demonstrates the rich incentives many receive to support the vaccine ‘gold rush’ – and do nothing to obstruct it. He writes, for example, that at the outset of the pandemic, Dr Anthony Fauci, the American government’s lead on Covid, ‘used wildly inaccurate modelling that overestimated US deaths by 525 per cent’. Neil Ferguson of Imperial College London was the author, with funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation of $148.8million. ‘Dr Fauci used this model as justification for his lockdowns.’
Bill Gates is principal investor in many of the new Covid vaccines, Kennedy adds, and Fauci has been championing a vaccine (Moderna) from which his agency and employees expect a lucrative outcome.
Kennedy describes multiple studies of the protective power of the cheap, long-established drug ivermectin in countering Covid, and estimates of hundreds of thousands of lives lost as a result of suppression of its use. Under US law, the Covid vaccines could not have received emergency approval if effective treatments for the disease had been acknowledged as available.
The book includes a riveting account of an exchange last January between Dr Tess Lawrie, director of the Evidence-based Medicine Consultancy in Bath, England, and Dr Andrew Hill, author of a favourable analysis of ivermectin studies. He had subsequently performed a ‘neck-wrenching’ U-turn on the issue, claiming the studies comprised ‘low certainty’ of value and that more trials were needed.
Lawrie was trying to persuade Hill to participate in and co-author an immediate review of all published ivermectin studies in the medical literature, to be conducted by the eminent Cochrane Network, which uses thousands of volunteers to make high-quality, independent treatment recommendations.
‘It was an exciting opportunity,’ Kennedy writes. ‘Under normal circumstances, Hill should have pounced on this chance to serve as lead author with some of the world’s most prestigious researchers. He was nevertheless noncommittal.
‘The following week, she spoke to Hill again, this time by Zoom. The Zoom call was recorded.
‘Dr Lawrie asked Hill to explain his U-turn on ivermectin, which his own analysis found overwhelmingly effective. “How can you do this?” she inquired politely. “You are causing irreparable harm.” Hill explained that he was in a “tricky situation” because his sponsors had put pressure on him. Hill is a Liverpool virologist who serves as an adviser to Bill Gates and the Clinton Foundation. He told me his sponsor was Unitaid.
‘Unitaid is a quasi-governmental advocacy organisation funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) and several countries – France, the United Kingdom, Norway, Brazil, Spain, the Republic of Korea and Chile – to lobby governments to finance the purchase of medicines from pharmaceutical multinationals for distribution to the African poor. Its primary purpose seems to be protecting the patent and intellectual property rights of pharmaceutical companies – which, as we shall see, is the priority passion for Bill Gates – and to insure their prompt and full payment. About 63 per cent of its funding comes from a surtax on airline tickets. The BMGF holds a board seat and chairs Unitaid’s Executive Committee, and the BMGF has given Unitaid $150million since 2005. Various Gates-funded surrogate and front organisations also contribute, as does the pharmaceutical industry.
‘The BMGF and Gates personally own large stakes in many of the pharmaceutical companies that profit from this boondoggle. Gates also uses Unitaid to fund corrupt science by tame and compromised researchers like Hill that legitimises his policy directives to the WHO.’
Four days before the publication of Hill’s revised study, Kennedy says, Unitaid gave $40million to the University of Liverpool. ‘Hill, a PhD, confessed that the sponsors were pressuring him to influence his conclusion. When Dr Lawrie asked who was trying to influence him, Hill said, “I mean, I, I think I’m in a very sensitive position here . . .”’
Lawrie: ‘Lots of people are in sensitive positions; they’re in hospital, in ICUs dying, and they need this medicine.’
Hill: ‘Well . . .’
Lawrie: ‘This is what I don’t get, you know, because you’re not a clinician. You’re not seeing people dying every day. And this medicine prevents deaths by 80 per cent. So 80 per cent of those people who are dying today don’t need to die because there’s ivermectin.’
Hill: ‘There are a lot, as I said, there are a lot of different opinions about this. As I say, some people simply . . .’
Lawrie: ‘We are looking at the data; it doesn’t matter what other people say. We are the ones who are tasked with looking at the data and reassuring everybody that this cheap and effective treatment will save lives. It’s clear. You don’t have to say, well, so-and-so says this, and so-and-so says that. It’s absolutely crystal clear. We can save lives today. If we can get the government to buy ivermectin.’
Hill: ‘Well, I don’t think it’s as simple as that, because you’ve got trials . . .’
Lawrie: ‘It is as simple as that. We don’t have to wait for studies . . . we have enough evidence now that shows that ivermectin saves lives, it prevents hospitalisation. It saves the clinical staff going to work every day and being exposed. And frankly, I’m shocked at how you are not taking responsibility for that decision. And you still haven’t told me who is [influencing you]? Who is giving you that opinion? Because you keep saying you’re in a sensitive position. I appreciate you are in a sensitive position, if you’re being paid for something and you’re being told [to support] a
certain narrative . . . that is a sensitive position. So, then you kind of have to decide, well, do I take this payment? Because in actual fact, [you] can see [your false] conclusions are going to harm people. So maybe you need to say, I’m not going to be paid for this. I can see the evidence, and I will join the Cochrane team as a volunteer, like everybody on the Cochrane team is a volunteer. Nobody’s being paid for this work.’
Hill: ‘I think fundamentally, we’re reaching the [same] conclusion about the survival benefit. We’re both finding a significant effect on survival.’
Lawrie: ‘No, I’m grading my evidence. I’m saying I’m sure of this evidence. I’m saying I’m absolutely sure it prevents deaths. There is nothing as effective as this treatment. What is your reluctance? Whose conclusion is that?’
Hill complains again that outsiders are influencing him.
Lawrie: ‘You keep referring to other people. It’s like you don’t trust yourself. If you were to trust yourself, you would know that you have made an error and you need to correct it because you know, in your heart, that this treatment prevents death.’
Hill: ‘Well, I know, I know for a fact that the data right now is not going to get the drug approved.’
Lawrie: ‘But, Andy – know this will come out. It will come out that there were all these barriers to the truth being told to the public and to the evidence being presented. So please, this is your opportunity just to acknowledge [the truth] in your review, change your conclusions, and come on board with this Cochrane Review, which will be definitive. It will be the review that shows the evidence and gives the proof. This was the consensus on Wednesday night’s meeting with 20 experts.’
Hill protests that the US National Institutes of Health will not agree to recommend ivermectin.
Lawrie: ‘Yeah, because the NIH is owned by the vaccine lobby.’
Hill: ‘That’s not something I know about.’
Lawrie: ‘Well, all I’m saying is this smacks of corruption and you are being played.’
Hill: ‘I don’t think so.’
Lawrie: ‘Well then, you have no excuse because your work in that review is flawed. It’s rushed. It is not properly put together.’
Lawrie points out that Hill’s study ignores a host of clinical outcomes that affect patients. She scolds Hill for ignoring the beneficial effects of ivermectin as prophylaxis, its effect on speed to testing negative for the virus, on the need for mechanical ventilation, on reduced admissions to intensive care, and other outcomes that are clinically meaningful. ‘This is bad research . . . bad research. So, at this point, I don’t know . . . you seem like a nice guy, but I am really, really worried about you.’
Hill: ‘Okay. Yeah. I mean, it’s, it’s a difficult situation.’
Lawrie: ‘No, you might be in a difficult situation. I’m not, because I have no paymaster. I can tell the truth. How can you deliberately try and mess it up . . . you know?’
Hill: ‘It’s not messing it up. It’s saying that we need, we need a short time to look at some more studies.’
Lawrie: ‘So, how long are you going to let people carry on dying unnecessarily – up to you? What is, what is the timeline that you’ve allowed for this, then?’
Hill: ‘Well, I think . . . I think that it goes to WHO and the NIH and the FDA [US Food and Drug Administration] and the EMA [European Medicines Agency]. And they’ve got to decide when they think enough’s enough.’
Lawrie: ‘How do they decide? Because there’s nobody giving them good evidence synthesis, because yours is certainly not good.’
Hill: ‘Well, when yours comes out, which will be in the very near future . . . at the same time, there’ll be other trials producing results, which will nail it with a bit of luck. And we’ll be there.’
Lawrie: ‘It’s already nailed.’
Hill: ‘No, that’s, that’s not the view of the WHO and the FDA.’
Lawrie: ‘You’d rather risk loads of people’s lives. Do you know if you and I stood together on this, we could present a united front and we could get this thing. We could make it happen. We could save lives; we could prevent [British National Health Service doctors and nurses] people from getting infected. We could prevent the elderly from dying.
‘These are studies conducted around the world in several different countries. And they’re all saying the same thing. Plus there’s all sorts of other evidence to show that it works. Randomised controlled trials do not need to be the be-all and end-all. But [even] based on the randomised controlled trials, it is clear that ivermectin works. It prevents deaths and it prevents harms and it improves outcomes for people . . .
‘I can see we’re getting nowhere because you have an agenda, whether you like it or not, whether you admit to it or not, you have an agenda. And the agenda is to kick this down the road as far as you can. So . . . we are trying to save lives. That’s what we do. I’m a doctor and I’m going to save as many lives as I can. And I’m going to do that through getting the message [out] on ivermectin. Okay. Unfortunately, your work is going to impair that, and you seem to be able to bear the burden of many, many deaths, which I cannot do.’
Lawrie then asks again: ‘Would you tell me? I would like to know who pays you as a consultant through WHO?’
Hill: ‘It’s Unitaid.’
Lawrie: ‘All right. So who helped to . . . Whose conclusions are those on the review that you’ve done? Who is not listed as an author? Who’s actually contributed?’
Hill: ‘Well, I mean, I don’t really want to get into, I mean, it . . . Unitaid . . .’
Lawrie: ‘I think that . . . it needs to be clear. I would like to know who, who are these other voices that are in your paper that are not acknowledged? Does Unitaid have a say? Do they influence what you write?’
Hill: ‘Unitaid has a say in the conclusions of the paper. Yeah.’
Lawrie: ‘Okay. So, who is it in Unitaid, then? Who is giving you opinions on your evidence?’
Hill: ‘Well, it’s just the people there. I don’t . . .’
Lawrie: ‘So they have a say in your conclusions.’
Lawrie: ‘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?’
Hill: ‘Oh, I’ll have a think about who to, to offer you with a name . . . but I mean, this is very difficult because I’m, you know, I’ve, I’ve got this role where I’m supposed to produce this paper and we’re in a very difficult, delicate balance . . .’
Lawrie: ‘Who are these people? Who are these people saying this?’
Hill: ‘Yeah . . . it’s a very strong lobby . . .’
Lawrie: ‘Okay. Look, I think I can see kind of a dead end, because you seem to have a whole lot of excuses, but, um, you know, that to, to justify bad research practice. So I’m really, really sorry about this, Andy. I really, really wish, and you’ve explained quite clearly to me, in both what you’ve been saying and in your body language that you’re not entirely comfortable with your conclusions, and that you’re in a tricky position because of whatever influence people are having on you, and including the people who have paid you and who have basically written that conclusion for you.’
Hill: ‘You’ve just got to understand I’m in a difficult position. I’m trying to steer a middle ground and it’s extremely hard.’
Lawrie: ‘Yeah. Middle ground. The middle ground is not a middle ground . . . You’ve taken a position right to the other extreme calling for further trials that are going to kill people. So this will come out, and you will be culpable. And I can’t understand why you don’t see that, because the evidence is there and you are not just denying it, but your work’s actually actively obfuscating the truth. And this will come out. So I’m really sorry . . . As I say, you seem like a nice guy, but I think you’ve just kind of been misled somehow.’
Hill promises he will do everything in his power to get ivermectin approved if she will give him six weeks.
Hill: ‘Well, what I hope is that this, this stalemate that we’re in doesn’t last very long. It lasts a matter of weeks. And I guarantee I will push for this to last for as short amount of time as possible.’
Lawrie: ‘So, how long do you think the stalemate will go on for? How long do you think you will be paid to [make] the stalemate go on?’
Hill: ‘From my side. Okay . . . I think end of February, we will be there, six weeks.’
Lawrie: ‘How many people die every day?’
Hill: ‘Oh, sure. I mean, you know, 15,000 people a day.’
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.’
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 . . .’
Lawrie: ‘You’re not doing everything you can, because everything you can would involve saying to those people who are paying you, “I can see this prevents deaths. So I’m not going to support this conclusion any more, and I’m going to tell the truth”.’
Hill: ‘What, I’ve got to do my responsibilities to get as much support as I can to get this drug approved as quickly as possible.’
Lawrie: ‘Well, you’re not going to get it approved the way you’ve written that conclusion. You’ve actually shot yourself in the foot, and you’ve shot us all in the foot. All of . . . everybody trying to do something good. You have actually completely destroyed it.’
Hill: ‘Okay. Well, that’s where we’ll, I guess we’ll have to agree to differ.’
Lawrie: ‘Yeah. Well, I don’t know how you sleep at night, honestly.’
Kennedy adds that at the conclusion of a January 14, 2021 conference on ivermectin, Dr Lawrie declared that had the drug been employed in 2020, ‘when medical colleagues around the world first alerted the authorities to its efficacy, millions of lives could have been saved, and the pandemic with all its associated suffering and loss brought to a rapid and timely end’.