The Highwire with Del Bigtree - FORMER W.H.O. CONSULTANT EXPOSES TAKEDOWN OF IVERMECTIN

Episode Date: March 11, 2022

Del sits down for a one-on-one with the former W.H.O. consultant & research scientist, Tess Lawrie MD, PhD, who was a critical part of the Ivermectin trials over a year ago with overwhelmingly positive conclusions. See data and recorded personal zoom calls that reveal how a key review was attacked from within, keeping the safe, life-saving drug out of the hands of millions of dying Covid patients for more than a year.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-highwire-with-del-bigtree--3620606/support.

We've been on this investigation of hydroxychloroquine, I believe that if you're going to have crimes against humanity, it'd be very hard to accuse these people that rushed out of vaccine, saying there was an emergency, they did the best they could, they didn't know it was going to, in fact, or transcribe into your genomic sequence. All of that would be very hard to, you know, get on them about. I think the biggest smoking gun you have is the possibility that they didn't life-saving treatments to those people that needed them. That is going to be the most important case that comes out of this entire pandemic. It was a worldwide shutdown of products that thousands of studies showed worked.

And so that is why the focus of the high wire in our investigation has been right there, right in the heart of hydroxychloroquine, Ivermectin, where are the studies, and who did the fraudulent studies, who funded them? And why was that what Tony Fauci was talking about? talking about. Who was behind it? Well, today, we have a really unique opportunity that another brilliant scientist, I think you could call her a whistleblower, if you will, test Lori, who is deeply involved in, you know, her work stands for itself. She has consulted the WHO for years. Her specialty is bioethics, scientific ethics, making sure that the scientific method was in place,

looking at studies to see if there were anomalies. She looks at things to say the WHO, you can trust this study. I have run it through my team, and we've looked at all the potential inconsistencies and can verify that this was appropriate science. This is who the WHO goes to. So when she decided to get involved with Ivermectin, it was simply because she thought,

I want to make a difference in the world, just like Pierre Corrie, just like Dr. Peter McCullough, just like Dr. Robert Malone. but what she has that we have not seen yet is perhaps an inside scoop. In her work, she had a Zoom call with somebody that may be standing right in front of that smoking gun, that group or that person or that thing that killed Ivermectin. I had the opportunity to sit down with her this week and have what may be one of the most important conversations we have had so far in our investigation of Ivermectin.

is Tess Lurie. I'm joined right now by Tess Lorry, who is the CEO of Evidence-Based Medicine Consultancy and EBMC Squared. Tess, due to the magic of technology, you are in England. I am here in Texas, but the technology is putting us in the same room to have this conversation. So it's almost like we're right there together. First of all, thank you for joining me today. Thank you, Dale.

It's wonderful to be speaking with you today. To begin with, for people that don't know who you are, the work that you do, and what sort of puts you in the middle of this ivermectin conversation, what would you say to people to understand your background? Well, I'm a medical doctor and a research consultant, and I have a company, the Evidence-Based Medicine Consultancy Limited that I've been running for the better part

of the last 10 years. What we do at EBMC Limited is that we provide evidence synthesis and help develop clinical practice guidelines. And we do this for organizations like the World Health Organization. We have no conflicts of interest. So this is why our work is really valued. And no shares in pharmaceutical companies or anything like that. And we've been helping the World Health Organization develop these guidelines for 10 years.

So very quickly, the WHO trust you, trust your objectivity, knows that when you're delivering information or looking at things for them, and doing an analysis on the evidence and the science, they can trust that you have no outside influences, which is why you've developed a very strong relationship with the WHO, correct? Correct. Okay.

Yes. So when, so I'm also, EBMC squared, you mentioned. Now, this is a nonprofit company that I started in March last year in response to the unmet needs, really, to safeguard the public and empower them to take more control of them. their own health during the COVID crisis. And so through that company, we have an initiative called the British Ivermectin

recommendation development initiative, which is now called Bird International. And through that, we've been doing research and advocacy work to promote Ivermectin as a safe and effective treatment for COVID. Now, in your work, do you often investigate drugs and vaccines and things like that? Is that sort of your wheelhouse? When you say, you know, you do evidence, you work with this? WHO, what are the types of things that you tend to look at and focus your investigations on? So what I do is, well, we'll get a list of interventions that need to be evaluated for a condition.

For example, I've worked on the antinatal care guideline for a positive pregnancy experience. These are documents like this. And in these documents, there's 40 or so interventions that may be, for effectiveness and safety. Not only effectiveness and safety, actually, we look at the acceptability and feasibility, the cost effectiveness and equity implications, and also what people's values and preferences are related to interventions. So there's a whole lot of different sorts of evidence that we integrate into what's called an evidence to decision framework and we prepare these documents and then usually I would go to Geneva for example and present

the evidence in front of a panel of stakeholders that would range from you know doctors to country representatives I would assist in guiding them to make a recommendation on whether to recommend an intervention in certain context for example research whether to recommend outright or not to recommend because there is insufficient evidence on effectiveness or concerns around harms. All right, great. So now let's get into Ivermectin. What got you into Ivermectin? Did WHO reach out to you, or was this something that you sort of decided to investigate on your own? No, it was not a commissioned piece of work. When COVID broke out, I wanted to do something useful and I didn't really have the opportunity. I wasn't working with the COVID team at

WHO. But I kept an eye on what was happening. I was concerned about the lack of evidence base, of an evidence base to support most of the strategies that the authorities were recommending. And then I saw Pierre Corrie's testimony. Somebody sent it to me actually on the 26th of December. So it was quite, it was a few weeks after he'd actually done it. And I thought, well, I know everyone at WHO is going to be on holiday at this time. Let me just quickly do a rapid review on the evidence based on the studies that Pierre Corey and his team had included in the review. All right. So very quickly, very quickly test.

Let me go ahead and play that video because we saw it too here on the high wire. This is Pierre Corey in the Senate speaking about ivermectin, really announcing that he believed there was a treatment. Take a look at this. We have evidence that ivermectin is effective, not only in prison. prophylaxis in the prevention. If you take it, you will not get sick. We just came across a trial last night from Argentina by the lead investigator of Ivan Benton in Argentina, Dr. Hector Carvallio. They prophylaxed 800 health care workers. Not one got sick. In the 400 that they didn't prophylax with Ivermectin, 58% got sick. 237 of those 400 got sick. If you take it, you will

not get sick. It has immense and potent antiviral activity. We know that from the first study in Monash, it has made the bench to the bedside. Prophylaxis, we now have four large randomized controlled trials totaling over 1,500 patients each trial showing that as a prophylaxis agent, it is immensely effective. You will not get sick. You will be protected from getting ill if you take it. In early outpatient treatment, we have three randomized control trials and multiple observation as well as case series showing that if you take Ivermectin, the need for hospitalization,

and death will decrease. The most profound evidence we have is in the hospitalized patients. We have four randomized control trials there, multiple observation trials all showing the same thing. You will not die, or you will die at much, much, much lower rates, statistically significant, large magnitude results if you take Ivermectin. It is proving to be a wonder drug. It is already won the Nobel Prize in Medicine. in 2015 for its impacts on global health in the eradication of parasitic diseases. It is proving to be an immensely powerful antiviral and anti-inflammatory agent. It is critical for its use in this disease.

So he obviously made very strong statements for a doctor. He's reticent about, but he said, I am saying it's a miracle cure. Obviously, very big statements. He talks about a body of scientists that he's been working with. So you decided to try and evaluate the information that he was referencing, the studies that they were pointing to. And so what did you see there? I must just point out, it was very strange to me to see a doctor having to stand and beg before politicians to use a safe old medicine. So my curiosity was piqued. And so I looked at,

I included the randomized controlled trials and I also included the observational controlled studies that I assessed as being of higher quality. And when I pulled the data, it was clear to me that Ivermectin was most likely a game changer for us. and that it should be used for both prevention and treatment. And an actual fact that it really made placebo-controlled trials unethical because you couldn't give a placebo to somebody after looking at that body of evidence. It was clear you had to at least give them a chance with ibupmectin. And you're talking about a drug that is, you know, when we think about emergency use

authorizations or things like that, this was not a brand new drug. It wasn't one that we didn't know the safety profile on. It's being used all over the world. Millions of people have been using it. So, you know, what were the benefits of ivermectin? You know, you know, but an idea. It's actually on the World Health Organization's list of essential medicines. And to be on that list, it's got to be incredibly safe.

And, you know, it is actually available over the counter in many countries to treat worms and scabies. It's only during the COVID time, suddenly all these restrictions. have been placed on its use and supply. So, yeah, at the time, I thought, well, this is going to be easy. You know, all I have to do is share this information with my colleagues at WHO, share it with the UK authorities, the US authorities and others, and then I can just get back to work. You know, that was my holiday, my holiday work. And I shared it with the UK authorities and WHO, and there was no response.

And at that time, they were, you know, certainly on the news, it seemed like tens of thousands of people were dying every day. And so a few days went past. A couple of days, I reached out to Dr. Andrew Hill, and it was Pierre Corey who put me in touch with him. Okay. Peer let me know that, in fact, WHO had a consultant already working on Ivermectin.

So I emailed Andrew Hill, And I said, let's work together. I can give you all my data. How can I help you? How can I support the work that you're doing? And so to be clear, Andrew Hill is at the WHO. He's a consultant for them. He is sort of working on COVID, looking at Ivermectin.

Pierre Corey has already been interacting with him. And so you said, let me jump in and help. Those are sort of the players. Who else are you talking to on Pierre Corey's side? Well, in actual fact, that wasn't really hard works. Andrew Hill was, he's at the University of Liverpool. And so he's not actually at the WHO, and he was employed by Unitate, it seems, who collaborates with WHO a lot.

But he certainly was the appointed WHO consultant to do the review. They were presenting at the NIH on, I think, the 6th or 7th of January. And I still had... Day being who? Who's the day that's going to be presenting at NIH? Pierre Corey. Pierre Corey and Paul Merrick, doctors from the Frontline Critical Care Alliance, and Andrew Hill. So the three of them were presenting to the NIH, and I still had no news from the UK authorities. So I made a video appeal to the UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson just to say, look, I'm a WHA consultant.

I've done this evidence synthesis. It looks like we've got safe established old medicine that works for prevention and treatment of COVID. I've reached out to your Minister of Health. He's got my details. Please, can you contact me? All right, so let me, we have that video. So let me just play that very quickly

so that we see what you sent to as a sort of plea to Boris Johnson. Here it is. Dear Prime Minister, my name is Dr. Tess Lorry, and I'm the director of the evidence-based medicine consultancy in Bath. My business conducts industry independent medical evidence synthesis to support international clinical practice guidelines. My biggest clients are the National Health Service and the World Health Organization.

I have recently authored a report called Ivermectin for preventing and treating COVID-19, a rapid review to validate the frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance, conclusions. In connection with its findings, I sent an urgent correspondence to Mr. Hancock and other members of Parliament on Monday the 3rd of January. Unfortunately, I have not yet had a reply, and due to the urgent implications of the report, I'm trying to reach you via this video. The good news is that we now have solid evidence of an effective treatment for COVID-19. It is called Ivermectin. Ivermectin is a very safe and effective anti-parasitic medication widely used in lower middle-income countries to treat

worms, lice and scabies in both adults and children. It has been around for decades, and not only is it on the World Health Organization's list of essential medicines, it is a Nobel Prize winning medicine due to its increasing usefulness across a range of different illnesses. Between Christmas and New Year, I independently reviewed 27 studies presented by the frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance as evidence of Ivermectin's effectiveness. The resulting evidence is consistent and unequivocal. Ivermectin works well, both in preventing COVID infections and in preventing deaths, at the same doses used to treat Lyce and other parasitic infections.

I am very pleased to inform you that this evidence, solidly substantiates the FLCC sees a recommendation that Ivermectin should be adopted globally and systematically for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19. Because I know there is a lot of fake news going about, I would like to assure you that you can trust the integrity of my report because I'm an experienced independent medical research consultant whose work is routinely used to underpin international clinical practice guidelines. In addition, I have no conflict of interest and have received no funding for this report. But most of all, you can trust me because I am also a medical doctor, first and foremost,

with a moral duty to help people, to do no harm, and to save lives. Please may we start saving lives now. Thank you very much for your help. Mr. Hancock's office should have my details. All right, so you make this appeal to Boris Johnson. You have Pierre Corrie, Merrick, and Hill are all going to the NIH to have a conversation. And I'm assuming at this point, everyone must be very excited. Like, we have a cure.

We can, this pandemic, essentially, we've got something that can really make a difference. So you must have been excited at that moment. Yeah, I was really excited. But also, I was getting a little bit worried that nothing had happened, you know, that there'd be no response because on the emails I put urgent, you know, and I'm available to talk any time. And nothing really happened. And I know that Dr. Corey and Merrick

were really disappointed with their meeting at the NIH. And so I reached out again to... Why were they disappointed, if you don't mind my asking? I mean, what was the sense of what had happened at NIH? Well, it was that they had been very underwhelmed by the evidence. They hadn't said, well, you know, thanks very much. we can, you know, we'll move on this. So, you know, they, they were hopeful, but I still got a sense that they were disappointed and it hadn't quite gone as they had hoped. And so I said to Andrew Hill,

let's work together and do a Cochrane review, a Cochrane style review, because I know from my work with WHO that this is the style of evidence that, that gets, you know, that they like. It's a very methodological, approach and he agreed to come on board to do with our team to do a rapid review. And I put together quite a strong team. Between us, we'd done more than 120 Cochrane Reviews, supported other authors to do Cochrane reviews. So we're a really strong team. So just so that we're clear, you're working with Andrew Hill.

I just want to give people a sense of where he was at. You thought emotionally as you were working with him. Here's a couple of tweets he had put out excited about, you know, he's working with Pierre Corey, Dr. Merrick, and so here's a couple of tweets, just so we have a sense of who Andrew Hill is. Ivermectin is showing effects on viral clearance, hospitalization, and survival across a wide range of randomized trials in different countries. Difficult to see how bias assessment could change such consistent treatment effects, excluding studies with any bias is too extreme. Ivermectin treatment is leading to faster viral clearance in several randomized trials.

Could this lower the risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission? Treatment as prevention works for HIV, Ivermectin meta-analysis reported in the financial times. The purpose of this report is to forewarn people that this is coming. Get prepared, get supplies, get ready to approve it, Dr. Hill said, we need to be ready. So obviously he was really pro the work that you were doing. He was as excited as you were, but then you get this document that is the one that's like a pre-print of what he's planning on going forward with. After you're all working together, you're supplying it with the evidence.

You're supplying him with details, have a team of people giving it to him, but the paper is not what you expected. Is that my sort of stating that clearly? Yes. When I read it for the first time, I emailed him and I said, I emailed Andrew Hild and I said, please retract this because it's going to cause immeasurable harm. What was it that stood out? From the work that you'd handed over, what was it that stood out?

Was it, you know, was the evidence in the paper? Was there evidence that the Ivermectin was working? Yeah, well, in actual fact, you know, in the paper, it says, I mean, I can read it for you if you like. Yeah, please do, please. In the results, it says that ivermectin is associated with reduced inflammatory markers. It causes less, reduces inflammation, faster viral clearance, so it gets rid of the virus quickly. And it's dose dependent, which is good. It means the more you give, the more likely it's going to work.

It says it shows significantly shorter duration of hospitalization. So the people in the Ivermectin arm were in hospital for a shorter time than those in the control arm. It says in the studies of severe infection, there was a 75% reduction in mortality. So 75% fewer deaths in the Ivermectin arm. And then it says, and there was favorable clinical recovery and reduced hospitalization. So there to fewer people actually being hospitalized. So that all sounded great. And then it says, many states.

that were included were not yet published or peer-reviewed, and meta-analysis are prone to confounding issues. So the fact that they're not yet published or peer-reviewed, not published, the pre-print servers were established during the Ebola health crisis, because in a health emergency, researchers need to get their evidence out really quickly. And so, you know, to say, well, this is a problem, is bizarre. And then it says all peer reviewed. Now, the process of systematic reviewing is, in essence, reviewing papers. And you're in the unique position to be able to ask the authors for clarification and more information or data or whatever. So it's really strange to me that they've undermined their own findings. And then it says a wide variation in standards of care

across trials. And I have a medicine dose and duration of treatment was heterogeneous, which means different. So the fact that there were wide variation in standards of care is also a strength in this context because many of these studies actually compared ivermectin to an active treatment. So, you know, so an actual fact it would have reduced, if ivermectin was still showing benefits, it would have actually, you know, it underestimates the effect rather than overestimates it. And then, most shockingly to me was that he says, ivermectin should be validated in larger, appropriately controlled randomized trials before the results are sufficient for review by regulatory authorities. So he's saying the authorities can't even look at this evidence until larger

randomized controlled trials are done. So it was very disappointing because we know how long, normally how long randomized controlled trials take to do and how expensive they are, although this hasn't happened in the context of other drugs that have been rushed through the studies during COVID. and approved by emergencies authorization. Remdesivir, other things like that, or even the vaccine itself. So essentially, you had the body of what you had,

the work you'd sent over, it was all there, showing 75% reductions. He's amazing, as Pierre Corrie put them, like almost miracle cure results in studies all around the world. Yet at the end, he's put this paragraph that essentially says, but, you know, it wasn't fully peer review,

We can't totally trust it because the studies were, you know, different in nature and used different approaches, which you says makes it a strength because it survived every way that it was used in the different variations. And then lastly, the nail in the coffin really is basically saying, and this is from the WHO perspective that he's representing this, he's saying, we cannot recommend this to anyone in the world until we do a full randomized control study. We need, you know, more investigation. It's positive, but let's put a hold on this. Is that essentially what that last paragraph does it? It takes it out of use, out of recommendation by the WHO at a time where thousands and thousands of people are dying every day.

Yeah. So what was the first thought you had when you read that sort of conclusion? What was running through your mind? I said to Andrew, we have to meet. let's meet. I said, you've got to retract this paper. I can help you revise it. And he said he would meet with me the next day. Were you concerned at all that maybe there was an outside influence that had come in? I was concerned that there was some influences. Yeah, I was. When I saw that, I thought, you know, what is what is going on here? Because he's been

saying he's going to work with us to get Avamactin approved, and then there's this. So that was the thing, is, you know, what is actually going on. So now we have this representative, a consultant for the WHO that you've been collaborating with. Pierre Corey, Dr. Merrick, have all been working with him, very excited about, you know, we are going to sort of bring this information in the world and perhaps really start saving lives. The paper comes out, it has this conclusion. You reach out.

So set up for me what you wanted to get across to Andrew Hill in your meeting, this Zoom call that was about to happen. Yeah. I wanted to just, I wanted to find out who was influencing him to make those conclusions. And I was hopeful that I'd be able to persuade him just to retract that paper and go ahead with us and do the Cochrane Review, which then would be definitive. Can I speculate that you felt like the Andrew Hill

you'd been working with was so positive that by reading this, you just assume there must be somebody else that stepped in because it was out of character. Was it out of character from what you'd known about it? It was out of character because even after our meeting, even after his paper had been published, that Financial Times clip that you posted just now

was from the 19th of January. So he published the paper saying that he needed, you know, that it couldn't be assessed, it couldn't be evaluated or recommended by the, or reviewed by the regulatory authorities. And then he was saying in the newspaper the next day, well, get ready, get supplies and all of that. And in actual fact, there was also another, I think on the 19th or 20th, he was, he presented in a panel in South Africa where he was asked about Ivermectin and what would he do if his brother got sick or a family member got sick with COVID, would he use Ivermectin and he said yes he would want his brother to get Ivermectin. So even after publishing

that it can't be used by the regulatory authorities or recommended he was saying well I'd like my brother to get it. So there was this kind of it was like you know these inconsistencies that were really hard to understand. Okay so you obviously you reach out to this person who is at the very least conflicted. We have some of the excerpts from your Zoom call which I think are very telling least we try to get a sense of what happened to ibermectin, why would the WHO not be promoting something that seemed to be showing such success around the world? This first clip, essentially, you're asking him, you know, who's involved? What's happening here? Let's take a look at this. I think I'm in a very sensitive position here. What I'm trying to do.

People are in sensitive positions. They're in hospital and ICU's dying and they need this medicine. This is what I don't get, you know, because you're not a clinician, you're not at the cold days, you're not seeing people dying every day. And this medicine prevents deaths by 80%. So 80% of those people who are dying today don't need to die because there's Ibermectin. There are a lot, as I said, there are a lot of different opinions about this. As I said, some people...

We're looking at the data. It doesn't matter what other people say. We are the ones who are tasked with the, and we have the experience to look at the data and reassure everybody that this cheap and effective treatment will save lives. It's clear. You don't have to say, well, so on so and so on 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. So here you're, you know, he's saying things like, well, I mean, there's not a consensus as other people that have different points of view. And you're like, they, they haven't researched this at the same level that we have. What was the energy that you were sensing from him? Well, he wasn't making eye contact. He was being very, you know, he was trying to avoid making eye contact. He was, he was kind of, it just felt like he was making excuses and just not, coming up front and just saying what was actually going on. And there were so many people's lives hanging the balance, and it seems like in this call,

you really tried to wake him up. Like, what are we talking about? Here's an excerpt where you try to really get him to admit, you do realize that people are dying in huge numbers. We could make a difference. It's, I guess, you know, an attempt to reach out and poke him through the Zoom call. Let's take a look at this. Rest assured, I'm not going to let this last for a long time. I'm not saying we keep going for another year. But the fact that you're saying you're not going to let it last for long time makes you realize the impact of your work.

So how long are you going to let people carry on dying unnecessarily? Up to you. What is the timeline that you've allowed for this then? Well, what I hope is that 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 this. short amount of time as possible. So how long do you think the stalemate will go on for?

How long do you think your... Well, okay. From my side, okay, from my side, every single new trial that comes through, we're going to be aggressively adding it on and I think end of February will be there, six weeks. How many people would die every day? Well, there is a whole group of people who think that Ivermectin is complete rubbish. Not talking about them.

I'm not talking about them. I'm saying we know the evidence. How many people die today? Oh, sure. I mean, you know, 15,000 people a day. 15,000 people a day times six weeks. Yeah, sure. No, I get it.

I mean, it's really shocking. You can tell this is a man who, it's like he's got a million voices in his head. He's trying to talk about these people that are saying they don't believe in an end of ourmectin. We don't know who those people are. But it's really amazing the point, six weeks. And frankly, the statement in his paper, his conclusion is that we're going to have to wait for randomized control studies to be done. So it doesn't matter if he wants to keep, you already had a pile of great studies. What is it, you know, adding new studies going to do?

How is that going to remedy this situation within six weeks? Was that sort of what you were thinking? That's not going to get the job done. Yeah, and it just felt like it was sort of delaying tactics. I could see, you know, it's unlikely to be six weeks. But I was hoping, you know, at the end, well, okay, if it's just six weeks, then, you know, but I didn't really have any reason to believe him. So as you're sitting in this call, I mean, I think it's pretty harsh.

You go right at him, right? I mean, you are really saying there are thousands of people, as he admits to dying, you know, every single day. Did you feel like if I can't get this shifted right now? I mean, the way the weight of the world is on your shoulders. If this paper goes forward, millions of people are going to die because they're not going to get a drug that you clearly have looked at and you said is saving lives. Did you feel like if I can't convince him here, all is lost? I did feel that it was our, it was a kind of make or break. You know, I didn't know really where we would go from there

because we're talking months now for new trials. And how are we going to get the message across? Because this is the WHO consultant. This is the WHO paper. And they were basically dictating. international health policy. So you decide to get from him who's behind this? What is going on?

You know, who's who's affecting you? Here's you sort of really drilling him to him on that question. So who helped to do who whose conclusions are those on the review that you've done? It's not listed as an author who's actually contributed. Well, I mean, I don't really want to get into. I think it needs to be clear. I would like to know who are these other voices that are in your paper that are not acknowledged. Does Unitate have a say?

Do they influence what you write? Unitate has a say in the conclusions of the paper, yeah. Okay. So who is it in Unitate then, who is sharing the who is giving you opinion on your evidence? on your evidence. Well, it's just the people there. I don't... I thought Unity-Date is just a charity.

Is it not a charity? So they have a say in your conclusions. Yeah. So in many ways, I feel like there you have it. You have the smoking gun. You're asking, who is it? And he says Unitate has a part of this conclusion, of writing this conclusion.

Can you give us a sense of who Unitate is? It's a non-governmental organization that really does a lot of collaboration with the World Health Organization. And Bill Gates is on the board and also is highly influential in the World Health Organization. So there was a lot of industry influence, I would say, because I don't really see Bill Gates as a philanthropist. I see him as a businessman. So, you know, I was concerned when I realized that in actual fact, the people at Unitaid were influencing the conclusions of a scientific manuscript. And in fact, you know, it really smacks of interference because the names, you know, usually

if you contribute to a paper, you're named either as an author or you're acknowledged in the acknowledgement section. and that was not the case. So we had a whole lot of authors listed of the primary papers, which was also another irregularity because usually the people who are involved in writing in the papers

don't go as an author on the review. And then we had... So just to be clear, let me just, for people that aren't used to like this conversation, this is a review. It's a meta-analysis review taking in all the papers that have been looking at Ivermectin

from around the world. and then the review tends to list those scientists and doctors were part of the review. You're saying that this giant list of names included those authors of the original papers that were being reviewed. So they put them in as though they were authors on this review, which is not the standard way this is normally done. Is that what you're saying? Yes. Yeah, it's not standard. Have you reached out to any of the people that were on those original studies or papers to see, did you agree? or like what did you feel about how your paper was used in this meta-analysis that basically said

these studies aren't enough to sort of warrant recommending ivermectin? Yes, I reached out to Professor Femi Babelola, who did a very good study, a double-blind, randomized control trial in Nigeria. And, you know, he said the whole process had been rather peculiar because, you know, had been considered part of this team on that preprint. And he had thought it was strange the way the conclusions had been, you know, kind of against Ivermectin, the use of Ivermectin. And then he was surprised that his name, you know, that had been taken off the subsequent,

the final publication, which, because that preprint only got published in July, despite it having an enormous impact on. on health practice and policy before then. Just on that point, when I contacted our UK authorities to say what's happening, and here is the evidence pack on ivermectin, they responded to say, well, you know, Andrew Hill's review says that the more studies are needed.

So even that wasn't published or peer reviewed, it had an enormous impact. And if you're actually, that's quite a good point. If you go back to his conclusions, in his paper, he says these studies were not peer reviewed or published. Well, his review wasn't peer reviewed or published until July, and it had a huge impact on health policy. Okay. We're all talking about, we've been talking about on the highway so much about where's the funding coming from, follow the money, like what's going on? Why would anyone change their tune? Well, we see a huge investment into the university.

Here's the headlines I want to bring to your attention. This is Unitate. Funding sees launch of World's First Long Acting Medicine Center at University of Liverpool. University of Liverpool is where Andrew Hill works. This is the university with which he's coming from. Unitate is funding. We're talking, you know, 40, it says establish as part of a 40 million international research consortium. That's January 12th. This funding comes into the university. and by January 16th, there's an early print, and then January 18th, a preprint that you're looking at, where suddenly there's this huge caveat shutting down the recommendation of Ivermectin for the WHO. Were you aware of that Unitate investment into his university at that moment?

No, I wasn't. I only found out afterwards, and also I'm aware that Unite has some investment in long-acting Ivermectin. So, you know, that's injectable ibupmectin. Okay. So, you know, which also subsequently I've realized would have, may have had an influence. And so in this last clip that we have were you're really trying to say, what are you doing? What I've got to do, my responsibility is to get as much support as I can to get this job approved as quickly. Well, you're not going to get it approved of what, the way you've written that conclusion. You've actually shot yourself in the foot and you've shut us all in the foot.

All of everybody trying to do something good. You have actually completely destroyed it. Okay. Well, that's where I guess we'll have to agree to differ. Yeah. Well, I don't know how you sleep at Matt, honestly. It's amazing to hear him say there that he obviously still believes in it. He's saying it's just a matter of time. yet we are now a year out from this conversation and Ivermectin is almost illegal. I mean it's almost illegal to use it. California here in America is looking to pass the law

that any doctor that prescribes things like Ivermectin can have their license taken away. This has become this, you know, this flash point in people's lives hang in the balance. And as you predict in that moment and he wants you to agree to differ, you're saying you're going to destroy ivermectin. Essentially, that is what happened here, isn't it? I think for me, what's really important about ivomectin is that ivermectin is actually the key to unlocking all the secrets of this pandemic. Because, you know, it turns out hydroxychloroquine was squashed as well.

And if ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine had been approved, there would have been no lockdowns. have been no masking or any of that necessary because they're really good at reducing transmission, ivermectin especially, so it works for prevention as well as treatment. So there would have been no emergency use authorization of experimental novel treatments. And that includes the new gene-based vaccines. So if you know, if you want to understand what COVID is all about, then you've got to start with Ivermectin and that really unlocks the whole mystery. And I think really as we say here, we're going to need an investigation into what, to me,

could lead to crimes against humanity. If there was a known solution, a miracle drug, if you will, that could have saved millions of lives and it was purposely stopped by some group of people or health departments, then we've really got a question the motive is there. I just want to go through a couple of beats. We've talked about a little bit, but to be clear, Andrew Hill is on your side. He is tweeting out how excited he is about the product. He's going to the NIH with Merrick and Corey. And then we have an investment.

Let's see this again. Investment into his university, $40 million by Unitate. Unitate fundings. He's launched at World's First Long Acting Medicine Center at Unite, University of Liverpool. These are the way they do things. We're going to give you a lot of money. So he says, in the end, he admits to you, yes, Unitate is a part of the conclusion. Who's funding Unitate? You mentioned Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. We looked that up. And so obviously Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation are investing a big part of Unitate.

We also know that Bill Gates and the Gates Foundation are really one of the primary funders of the WHO. And so when we start seeing this, you know, collaborative effort, it appears to stop Ibermectin, what do you think needs to happen? I mean, this is a drug that you are convinced has a 75% reduction. Pierre Corrie calls it a miracle drug. When you look at the lives that are lost, they're still being lost today. How do we hold accountable? How far should this go?

How important is this conversation in the world today? Well, as I say, I think it's really important because it's the key to understanding everything that's been going on, you know, how emergency drugs get approved so quickly, you know, the vaccines, how quickly they were rolled out. And it also highlights that the people need to actually educate themselves and take responsibility for their own health. you cannot rely on the authorities. We have been really trying. We've had so much correspondence with authorities around the world, including the FDA and the NIH,

just to say, here's the evidence, and please approve it. And they've just said, thanks for your opinion or thanks for your views. They never acknowledge that we've provided them with the evidence. And so it really is up to each and every individual to start being, more aware of what they put into their bodies, both, you know, what they put into their minds,

be it the TV or programming and all of that sort of thing, and also what they put into their bodies in terms of medical interventions. Are you at all concerned that since there's been such a heavy hand, it appears, involved? I don't think Andrew Hill is really the person that we're looking at is the cause, even though I think what we're looking at is the death of Ivermectin and who killed Ivermectin. But it's not Andrew Hill. It's someone behind him, someone influencing him. Are you concerned that these entities, their WHO is involved in maybe Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation,

that they have doubled down, you know, on this and put so much energy behind it, that they can never allow the truth to come out about Ivermectin? Do you think that there's going to be a concerted effort in the world to make sure that ivermectin just stays on this list of drugs that were perhaps dangerous and we're never going to be useful. Yeah, the forces have definitely doubled down on it. You know, the media, BBC and all of that, the trusted news initiative, you know, big on ivermectin being a horse dewormer and all the, you know,

the serious disinformation out there on ivermectin. And one has to wonder why. And I have a theory on that. and it's actually, and it's becoming more and more apparent that ivermectin is not only useful for COVID, acute COVID, it's useful for long COVID, and it's also useful for people who are suffering from side effects from the vaccines, these, the new COVID vaccines. So it's the first go-to now amongst doctors who are actually helping people with the side effects of vaccines, particularly neurological side effects, but ivermectin is top of the list there.

So the story of ivermectin doesn't end with acute COVID. We really need ivermectin to be available, and we need to be doing studies, but more population-based studies than these randomized controlled trials. And we need to be using it for individualized treatment of people who are suffering. you know, either from the long-term consequences of COVID or from the vaccines. Tomorrow you are releasing a short documentary about a letter that you have written to Andrew Hill. Do you want to tell me about that? What is it that you are trying to achieve in your interactions still with Andrew Hill?

I wrote a letter to Andrew Hill in January this year, really just saying, you know, it's a year on now. So much has happened. You know, so many doctors have been discredited for using ibemectin and members of the public and celebrities and so on. You know, ibemectin's being more than ever denigrated as being a horse medicine. And we are now vaccinating children with experimental vaccines. And so please can you consider coming out and revealing the corruption of science. You know, he is in a unique position, really. and this is a rare opportunity for him to actually reveal what we know now has been going on for

years and decades, you know, just given the, you know, the fact that the drug companies are the biggest, you know, they've paid the biggest fines for fraud and corruption over the years. You know, he's in a unique position to actually reveal this in the context of ivermectin. So I'm hoping that, you know, I didn't get a response to the letter, which is why we have now's short documentary. And I'm hoping that this might evoke the memory of what actually happened in that January last year that has actually led to the increasing denigration of a very useful award-winning Nobel Prize-winning medicine. So if you want to see this video, the moment it releases tomorrow, then all you have to do is text, I can, I see A-N, text 72022, and we will send you a link to that video the moment it's available. This is her plea to Andrew Hill to do what's right, to speak out about what's happened, to reverse, you know, the misstatements that are made. People's lives are hanging the balance.

We need the truth on Ivermectin. It's going to be a very powerful documentary, and we're excited to be a part of launching that so that the world can see the truth. First of all, I just want to say, you're amongst these unsung heroes out there. Clearly, you're putting your reputation on the line. Your work with the WHO has been impeccable.

Is this the first time you found yourself in a conflict position in the work that you do? It seems like you've been, like you've been celebrated by the WHO until you stumbled upon Ivermectin. Yes, yeah. It's the first time I've ever been, I'm really a behind-the-scenes person. I've never really been, you know, in media at all. And now I've had to really rely on media and small media groups to help raise awareness. And yeah, so it is a very...

strange position to find myself now. I have to say though that I think a lot of positive will come out of this because you know what what had what we do see now is that massive changes needed huge change and and and COVID and this I have a mectin story is providing the vehicle for change so we have have you may be aware have established a World Council for Health, which is a completely transparent non-profit initiative, and it's pretty much manned by volunteer scientists and doctors and legal experts from around the world. And we are really trying to provide the best, most clear and independent evidence information

for the public so they can empower themselves, take responsibility for the health, take control of their health and not be so dependent on, you know, what they're fed via the TV and mainstream media and the, you know, so-called health authorities. Well, you continue to do amazing work. You're obviously a champion of the people. I want to thank you for helping us in the high wire with our investigations. We continue to try and get to the bottom of what has happened here in this world. So many anomalies that don't make sense. science literally hanging in the balance so much of the work you do has to do with evidence-based medicine evidence-based review we are looking at a time

where we may see the end of evidence-based anything when it comes to science so for championing science and being there I want to thank you for taking the time today to join us thanks very much thanks very much Del I do think that you know we are we at a completely new stage because we are, you know, we've got a whole lot of new emerging diseases appearing and we're not going to have time to do randomised control trials on them. So I think it's a whole new stage of medicine and science. We've also been let down hugely by so-called allopathic or, you know, the conventional

approaches to medicine. So I think we really, you know, we're at a phase where we're going to be having to look at new ways of managing our health and moving forward and making sure, exposing the corruption, making sure that this never, ever happens again. I agree with you completely. And that will be, and it is sort of a rallying cry and a mission for the work that we do. We will be standing with you into the future as we try to make sure that we don't live in a world where we're only. testing new drugs when there are drugs that could be repurposed and just because they don't make any money for anybody they could be saving lives they need to be a part of the discussion and as people like you dr. Robert Malone

Pierre Corey so many of you are now standing up for this moment in science at such a critical time you're a hero I want to honor you today for your work and just know that we are supporting you our prayers are with you thank you for representing us Thank you, Dale, for everything you do for listening to. Take care.