Page 1
Page 1
Started By
Message

More ivermectin cover-up

Posted on 1/26/22 at 9:42 am
Posted by Bdub79
Member since Aug 2018
39 posts
Posted on 1/26/22 at 9:42 am
So a very prominent researcher, Andrew Hill PhD, with a major conflict of interest doctored his research to secure grants from Bill Gates Foundation and Unitaid.

quote:

Andrew Hill, PhD, is a senior visiting Research Fellow in Pharmacology at Liverpool University. He is also an advisor for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Clinton Foundation. As a researcher for the WHO evaluating ivermectin, Hill wielded enormous influence over international guidance for the drug’s use. Hill had previously authored a analysis of ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19 that found the drug overwhelmingly effective. On Jan. 6 of 2021, Hill testified enthusiastically before the NIH COVID-19 Treatment Guidlelines Panel in support of ivermectin’s use. Within a month, however, Hill found himself in what he describes as a “tricky situation.” Under pressure from his funding sponsors, Hill then published an unfavorable study. Ironically, he used the same sources as in the original study. Only the conclusions had changed.


This dude should be in jail asap.

World Tribune article

Twitter link w/video of Hill being confronted
This post was edited on 1/26/22 at 10:20 am
Posted by I Love Bama
Alabama
Member since Nov 2007
37763 posts
Posted on 1/26/22 at 9:56 am to
Wow.
Posted by SECSolomonGrundy
Slaughter Swamp
Member since Jun 2012
16007 posts
Posted on 1/26/22 at 9:57 am to
Hang Gates next to him
Posted by xxTIMMYxx
Member since Aug 2019
17562 posts
Posted on 1/26/22 at 9:57 am to
Save link and send it to everyone
Posted by LSUAngelHere1
Watson
Member since Jan 2018
8266 posts
Posted on 1/26/22 at 10:09 am to
This is why I always say that data can say whatever the highest bidder wants.
Posted by ABearsFanNMS
Formerly of tLandmass now in Texas
Member since Oct 2014
17520 posts
Posted on 1/26/22 at 11:06 am to
H
O
L
Y

S
H
I
T
Posted by BamaAtl
South of North
Member since Dec 2009
22040 posts
Posted on 1/26/22 at 11:18 am to
quote:

he used the same sources as in the original study


No, he didn't. Some of the studies previously included were shown to be either fraudulent or at very high risk of bias, so were removed.

Shockingly, upon removing the fake / biased studies, the positive effect disappeared.

Posted by ABearsFanNMS
Formerly of tLandmass now in Texas
Member since Oct 2014
17520 posts
Posted on 1/26/22 at 11:23 am to
quote:

BamaAtl


You are obviously stuck in an echo chamber and unwilling to read the transcripts or watch the video. Any person with half a brain would have some serious questions after doing so!
Posted by BamaAtl
South of North
Member since Dec 2009
22040 posts
Posted on 1/26/22 at 11:28 am to
quote:

ABearsFanNMS


You would have preferred he left the fraudulent studies in, because it confirms your biases?

Why not come live in the real world for a minute.
Posted by AUHighPlainsDrifter
South Carolina
Member since Sep 2017
3121 posts
Posted on 1/26/22 at 11:30 am to
quote:

You would have preferred he left the fraudulent studies in, because it confirms your biases?

Why not come live in the real world for a minute.


Interesting that he didn't mention anything about these fraudulent studies in his conversation with Dr Lawrie.
Posted by ABearsFanNMS
Formerly of tLandmass now in Texas
Member since Oct 2014
17520 posts
Posted on 1/26/22 at 1:06 pm to
quote:

You would have preferred he left the fraudulent studies in, because it confirms your biases? Why not come live in the real world for a minute.


Funny thing is he didn’t mention that 1 time in the article nor the video….but he did allude to political pressure and saying he would correct himself within 6 weeks…..but you likely didn’t do anything but parrot talking points…..go back to your echo chamber sir!
Posted by ABearsFanNMS
Formerly of tLandmass now in Texas
Member since Oct 2014
17520 posts
Posted on 1/26/22 at 1:08 pm to
What is missing is now there are over 70 documented studies (you can debate on their validity) plus a current CDC sponsored on-going…..why would the CDC be looking at something that is so thoroughly debunked years after the debunking?
Posted by FredBear
Georgia
Member since Aug 2017
15078 posts
Posted on 1/26/22 at 1:15 pm to
quote:

You would have preferred he left the fraudulent studies in, because it confirms your biases?




My God, the blatant irony here. Unreal
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram