machinelearny | 11 points | Apr 01 2021 17:55:32

I find the silence from Andrew Hill deafening.

He was extremely positive on ivermectin and after a certain date didn't utter a single word on the subject.

Furthermore, he claimed to have weekly meetings with ongoing studies worldwide and compiling the results into a comprehensive meta-analysis as it comes out. It seemed like he had the most up-to-date information and I was waiting for updates on the current state of research, but nothing came.

I really wonder what the complete reason for his silence is. I can think of a few scenarios:

1. He suddenly realized he was being too optimistic and saw something that made him realize the studies he was putting too much faith in were actually so severely flawed so as to be meaningless. Hence he just distanced himself from it so as not to harm his reputation. This would be very unlikely though...
2. He saw something specific, perhaps the results of a large study that never got published or something like that, that made him realize ivermectin doesn't actually work. So he distanced himself so as not to harm his reputation. If this was the case, then it would be highly un-ethical of him not to speak out and tell everybody about this major flaw/issue whatever he noticed. So again, highly unlikely. For 1. above I would also consider it unethical not to publicly speak out if indeed he realized he was wrong before.
3. He was told by the WHO not to make any public statements since it could be used to cast doubt on his work, imply bias etc. I thought this might have been the case, back when I was still a naive little boy thinking the WHO would do the right thing soon. But now that they came out against, I cannot imagine this to be the case.
4. He was told by somebody else not to make statements/promote IVM for other reasons, or else...
5. He realized by himself that the IVM fight was a lost cause and he didn't want to risk his career by fighting for something that will never bear fruit anyway. Made a calculated decision to not support it anymore. Thinking to himself (and justifying it with) that the vaccines are being highly successful so it's not a big deal anymore.

Anyway, all of the above are depressing and he has gone from a bright light in this whole depressing void of an international crime against humanity to one of the silent promotors of the narrative that the only solution is the vaccine.

I would have loved to hear the actual results of the weekly meetings and tracking of current IVM research that he said he was doing. As well as his perspective on this topic. But I guess that will never be.

permalink