Andrew Hill vs. Tess Lawrie

Andrew Hill, Tess Lawrie & Bill Gates

Home  >  Andrew Hill vs. Tess Lawrie

Andrew Hill, Tess Lawrie & Bill Gates

Andrew Hill, Tess Lawrie & Bill GatesThe National Institutes of Health (NIH) COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel held a hearing on January 6, 2021. Leading the presentation was Andrew Hill (below), a virologist who had conducted a meta analysis of eighteen studies from around the world on Ivermectin's effect on COVID-19 and found convincing evidence that Ivermectin reduces COVID-19 deaths by about 80%. Hill presented his findings to the panel and strongly advocated deploying Ivermectin. He then continued to publicly advocate deploying Ivermectin against COVID-19. For example, he told The Financial Times, "This is coming: get prepared, get supplies, get ready to approve it" (source) on January 19, 2021, and tweeted shortly thereafter:

Andrew Hill Tess Tweet

What Andrew Hill, who is British, didn't realize is that the efficacy of Ivermectin, which the U.S. FDA approved in 1996, against COVID-19 threatened the emergency use authorization (EUA) that the U.S. FDA already had granted to the COVID-19 vaccines (EUA can only be granted to a new vaccine or drug if no existing drug is effective against a disease), as well as block the EUA from being granted to the drugs that were being developed against COVID-19 and that were going to be patented to generate unprecedented profits for Big Pharma.

So Big Pharma contacted Andrew Hill's employer, the University of Liverpool, whose chancellor is Colm Tóibín (below), and asked how much it would cost to have Andrew Hill change his mind about Ivermectin and turn against it. Forty million dollars, a fortune to a middle tier university but a pittance to Big Pharma, was delivered soon thereafter to University of Liverpool by Unitaid, a Big Pharma proxy chaired by Marisol Touraine (below). Four days thereafter (source), Andrew Hill published a paper which concluded that the data he had been presenting to support his calls for Ivermectin to immediately be deployed against COVID-19 is suddenly insufficient to support deploying Ivermectin.

When Dr. Tess Lawrie (below), one of the most respected medical researcher in the United Kingdom, confronted Andrew Hill about the sudden 180 degree reversal of his position on Ivermectin, he revealed that Unitaid had written the conclusion and even admitted that 15,000 people will die per day unabated as a result of it (video below and pages 137-143 in source):

Andrew Hill: “Okay. Yeah. I mean, it’s, it’s a difficult situation.”

Dr. Tess 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?”

Andrew Hill: “It’s not messing it up. It’s saying that we need, we need a short time to look at some more studies.”

Dr. Tess 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?”

Andrew Hill: “Well, I think . . . I think that it goes to WHO and the NIH and the FDA and the EMEA. And they’ve got to decide when they think enough’s enough.”

Dr. Tess Lawrie: “How do they decide? Because there’s nobody giving them good evidence synthesis, because yours is certainly not good.”

Andrew 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.”

Dr. Tess Lawrie: “It’s already nailed.”

Andrew Hill: “No, that’s, that’s not the view of the WHO and the FDA.”

Dr. Tess 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 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. Randomized controlled trials do not need to be the be-all and end-all. But [even] based on the randomized 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. Would you tell me? I would like to know who pays you as a consultant through WHO.”

Andrew Hill: “It’s Unitaid.”

Dr. Tess 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?”

Andrew Hill: “Well, I mean, I don’t really want to get into, I mean, it . . . Unitaid . . . .”

Dr. Tess 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?”

Andrew Hill: “Unitaid has a say in the conclusions of the paper. Yeah.”

Dr. Tess Lawrie: “Okay. So, who is it in Unitaid, then? Who is giving you opinions on your evidence?”

Andrew Hill: “Well, it’s just the people there. I don’t . . . .”

Dr. Tess Lawrie: “So they have a say in your conclusions.”

Andrew Hill: “Yeah.”

Dr. Tess 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?”

Andrew 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. . . .”

Dr. Tess Lawrie: “Who are these people? Who are these people saying this?”

Andrew Hill: “Yeah . . . it’s a very strong lobby . . .”

Dr. Tess Lawrie: “Okay. Look I think I can see [we’re] kind of [at] 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.”

Andrew 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.”

Dr. Tess 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.”

Andrew 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.”

Dr. Tess 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?”

Andrew Hill: “From my side. Okay . . . I think end of February, we will be there six weeks.”

Dr. Tess Lawrie: “How many people die every day?”

Andrew Hill: “Oh, sure. I mean, you know, 15,000 people a day.”

Dr. Tess Lawrie: “Fifteen thousand people a day times six weeks . . . Because at this rate, all other countries are getting ivermectin except the UK and the USA, because the UK and the USA and Europe are owned by the vaccine lobby.”

Andrew Hill: “My goal is to get the drug approved and to do everything I can to get it approved so that it reaches the maximum. . . .”

Dr. Tess 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 anymore, and I’m going to tell the truth.’”

Andrew 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.”

Dr. Tess 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.”

Andrew Hill estimated that the “Unitaid”-engineered conclusion of his paper will cause the deployment of Ivermectin to be delayed by “six weeks,” during which “15,000 people a day” will die, and concurred with Dr. Tess Lawrie earlier in the call that Ivermectin reduces mortality by 80%. Forty million dollars divided by 504,000 lives that could have been saved (6 weeks x 15,000 deaths x 80%) equals $79.37 per human life. Since the deployment of Ivermectin has been delayed much longer than 6 weeks, Big Pharma paid a lot less per person it killed to make its $10 trillion.

Unitaid lobbies governments to buy drugs from Big Pharma for distribution to the African poor. The greatest influence on Unitaid is wielded by a private individual who has given more than $150 million - more than most countries (source) have given - to it and whose foundation has a seat on its executive board. That individual is Bill Gates, the patron saint of vaccine makers who wants to rule human immune systems as he once ruled computer operating systems and said the Omicron variant "sadly" made his vaccines obsolete:

Andrew Hill Tess Lawrie Transcript
(Left to right: Colm Tóibín of University of Liverpool, Andrew Hill, Marisol Touraine of Unitaid, Bill Gates of The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation)

Dr. Tess Lawrie addresses Ivermectin and Big Pharma Corruption from 4:46:

>> Continued