luisenriquereyes | 24 points
Dr. Tess Lawrie Discusses her Ivermectin Meta-Analysis, the FDA, and Dr. Andrew Hill[-] stereomatch | 9 points
This TrialSite interview of Dr Tess Lawrie goes over the recent developments.
Dr Tess Lawrie drops a bombshell in this interview - it seems Dr Andrew Hill who was making a report has had his conclusions in his report overwritten by his "sponsors" (I don't know who was sponsoring his report).
at the 5:48 minute mark:
https://youtu.be/y2FWPQm6sxw?t=349
As a result Dr Lawrie was shocked and declined to work with him on the Cochrane review her team was hoping to work with him on.
He told her the conclusions were not his but had been replaced by his sponsor.
Here is an earlier version of Dr Andrew Hill's meta-analysis available as a pre-print, that while overall positive, has a muted conclusion that calls for more trials before it can be recommended (presumably this conclusion was inserted at the behest of Unitaid, the sponsor?):
https://assets.researchsquare.com/files/rs-148845/v1_stamped.pdf
This led to Dr Tess Lawrie and Dr Andrew Hill's plans for a combined Cochrane review to go awry, as Cochrane then declined to work with Dr Tess Lawrie and were seeing her as the one who was compromised (more likely a troublemaker), what with her YouTube video to Boris Johnson etc.
The Lancet who was earlier prepared to work with her, has also stepped back.
This is a full soap opera in the making.
The pygmies have won round one.
On the other hand a number of scientists have put their professions at risk to support Ivermectin - this is not going to end well when one side has committed to it, and their bridges are already burned.
Note that Dr Lawrie is an independent consultant who has worked for the NHS and WHO, and is the contributor to a number of Cochrane reviews.
What is the penalty that is being brought to bear on her head? Total and complete non-employability with her usual contacts.
Dr Andrew Hill has operated as the typical consultants would operate ie act in the interests and at the behest of their sponsors - essentially a ghost-writing gig where the consultant's reputation is being parlayed to lend credibility to the employer.
I do not see this ending prettily, as a number of people in organizations are going to find it increasingly difficult to manage this information flow if individual countries start doing their own one hospital trial before going nationwide - as seen in Czechia recently.
What would be interesting is if TrialSite or a journalist were to interview Dr Andrew Hill or the many co-authors, and ask them if they agree with the conclusion (having checked with Dr Andrew Hill off the record whether Dr Tess Lawrie's recollections were correct). This would allow Dr Andrew Hill a convenient "out" - otherwise he will be in a tough spot, having championed ivermectin and then delivered a wimpy conclusion and being unable to say it was forced on him - it is possible he may be feeling like he was used.
EDIT: accompanying article:
https://trialsitenews.com/news-roundup-dr-tess-lawrie-discusses-her-ivermectin-meta-analysis-the-fda-and-dr-andrew-hill/ News Roundup | Dr. Tess Lawrie Discusses her Ivermectin Meta-Analysis, the FDA, and Dr. Andrew Hill By TrialSite Staff March 15, 2021
Dr. Lawrie is the director of E-BMC Ltd. and is committed to improving the quality of healthcare through rigorous research. She is a frequent member of technical teams responsible for developing international guidelines. Her peer-reviewed publications have received in excess of 3000 citations and her ResearchGate score is among the top 5% pf ResearchGate members.
[-] bikes4paul | 9 points
This past year has opened my eyes to the pervasive corruption of the healthcare systems in the high income countries globally. I knew Big Pharma wielded a damaging amount of influence in the USA through massive campaign contributions/lobbying budgets, massive advertising revenues to MSM and Big Tech platforms, and infiltration into our regulatory bodies (FDA/NIH). However, I was naive about the power that they wielded in other countries without our perverse, broken healthcare systems.
Their control of the scientific medical journals is also a new shocking revelation to me. The JAMA choosing to publish one of the worst papers on Ivermectin and choose to ignore high quality meta-analyses is unconscionable. Their arrogance that they believe this level of manipulation and assault on science would go unnoticed by their readers is insulting. Multiple journals pulling well researched and defended papers is unheard of while at the same time they publish papers with primary end point changes mid study that show no reduction in mortality and the novel, expensive therapeutic becomes the standard of care (Remdesivir). Then it's given full approval after a much less biased large study (SOLIDARITY) already proves it doesn't work except to harm renal function. Is it a coincidence that the manufacturer of the only drug that has received full approval for C19 has the most representation on the NIH Covid-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel? Dr. Andrew Hill being forced to change his conclusions by his sponsor is immoral. All of this to block an extremely safe therapeutic because it only costs .05cent/pill! That is the root of the problem here.
Unfortunately, this will play out with any cheap, effective therapeutic (fluvoxamine, colchicine, calcifidiol, statins, etc.)
He's the WHO call for rapid preprints during health emergencies, she quotes in the beginning:
https://www.who.int/medicines/ebola-treatment/blueprint_phe_data-share-results/en/
And another WHO bulletin refererencing it.
https://www.who.int/bulletin/online_first/16-170860/en/
Might be useful for arguing with people who refuse to look at anything but formally published peer-reviewed study.
[-] stereomatch | 2 points
Thanks.
[-] Besensiblewouldya | 2 points
Whilst not anything to do with Ivermectin, here's a little cartoon that asks a serious question at the end of it?
When the question is asked - apply it to this situation that you are so exercised. See if your answer is the same as the final response.
Enjoy but sorry if you can't pick up everything because the accents are really strong Irish accents.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://m.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DfczLLvBY3xA&ved=2ahUKEwjuk_p4bLvAhXjVRUIHQ26D8sQtwIwAHoECAMQAg&usg=AOvVaw0bw0oGmOEIAPNTQVkD7x1O
[-] Besensiblewouldya | 3 points
If anyone has watched it and doesn't quite get what I'm alluding to here's what I mean.
The conversations that go on on this platform and many others remind me of these two characters. One is really, really exercised about something he deems really important and the other is oblivious to it.
When it does get through to the second what the first is going on about he's also starts getting concerned about it
But when asked what he's going to do about, after a pause, he's just going to go for a shite - in other words nothing.
And that is what is happening on this platform and every other platform. People, including me, are getting more and more exercised about what is of concern to them, and getting more and more irate, and looking for more and more people to blame but in the end there is absolutely sweet FA that we can or are likely to do about it, except vent.
We'd be as well off getting into bed and pulling the duvet covers over our heads.
But that is not to say that people do not have legitimate concerns. As Shakespeare said, revenge is a dish best served cold; unlike burgers which should be piping hot the whole way through.
[-] Exposition_Seeker | 1 points
There is something we can do about it. We can obtain Ivermectin for ourselves and loved ones. That's what I did. I can't fix the corruption that's suppressing it for a much bigger agenda. But I can look after myself and loved ones. I'll continue to watch how this deliberate Virus evolves and act accordingly to information I deem is the truth.
Whether someone else believes it or not I couldn't care less.
[-] [deleted] | 1 points
[deleted]
[-] Haitchpeasauce | 9 points | Mar 15 2021 14:37:21
So it seems Dr Andrew Hill's review analysis of Ivermectin clinical trials has a soft conclusion that does not match the strong positive results at the direction of his sponsor. This is disappointing. Is there anybody left in positions of influence that has integrity?
The pattern is clear that journals simply refuse to publish studies with positive results for Ivermectin for COVID-19, irrespective of passing peer review. At this point the only parties refusing to investigate and consider using Ivermectin are the gatekeepers.
It's frustrating beyond words that Ivermectin stands little chance of receiving the attention it deserves unless a pharmaceutical company with a patent is there to push a study for publication and to lobby governments.
No surprise then that a "negative" and seriously flawed study is the one to go straight to JAMA and gets picked up by the media.
permalink