Acoleman73 | 35 points
Dr. Andrew Hill confirms UNITAID changed the conclusion of their sponsored study on Ivermectin.Dr. Andrew Hill confirmed to Dr. Tess laurie that the conclusion to the Preliminary meta-analysis of randomized trials of ivermectin to treat SARSCoV-2 infection study they UNITAID sponsored were influenced by UNITAID and were not the conclusions of Dr. Andrew Hill.
UNITAID forced Dr. Andrew Hill to put this conclusion to the study.
"Despite the encouraging trend this existing data base demonstrates, it is not yet a sufficiently robust evidence base to justify the use or regulatory approval of ivermectin. However, the current paucity of high-quality evidence only highlights the clear need for additional, higher-quality and larger-scale clinical trials, warranted to investigate the use of ivermectin further. "
UNITAID Does not want Ivermectin approved as a treatment for covid19, the bias is shocking.
This is a crime against humanity.
https://assets.researchsquare.com/files/rs-148845/v1_stamped.pdf
https://youtu.be/y2FWPQm6sxw?t=349
https://preview.redd.it/r5vpqskvakn61.png?width=1410&format=png&auto=webp&s=1c321a6728b46ef24b1f9eabdb9fbef2c348224e
[-] stereomatch | 6 points
To be fair to Dr Andrew Hill and the other co-authors, we have yet to hear directly from them - whether the conclusion was imposed by Unitaid.
It would be great if TrialSite, or David Rose or others could reach out to each of the author to get the full picture of what went on.
[-] stereomatch | 6 points | Mar 17 2021 10:57:01
Also check out:
Dr Tess Lawrie drops a bombshell in this TrialSite interview about the conclusions of Dr Andrew Hill's meta-analysis (reportedly were inserted by the sponsors of the report):
https://www.reddit.com/r/ivermectin/comments/m5kr7b/_/gr0lsjl
permalink