Sun Ng's Recovery with Ivermectin

Sun Ng's Recovery with Ivermectin

What is your life worth? More to the point, what is your loved one's life worth? What value would you place on your child, your mother, father, or spouse?

When the world experienced an average of nearly 15,000 COVID deaths per day, Dr. Andrew Hill decided on the price of a human life. Dr. Hill made that calculation during a conversation with Dr. Tess Lawrie, in January of 2021, during the peak of the Winter Surge.

In a zoom conversation between Dr. Tess Lawrie, nicknamed the "Conscience of Medicine,"  and Dr. Andrew Hill, then the most influential Ivermectin advocate in the world, Dr. Hill chose dollars over human lives. 

https://www.thedesertreview.com/opinion/letters_to_editor/dr-tess-lawrie-the-conscience-of-medicine/article_ff673eca-ac2d-11eb-adaa-ab952b1d2661.html

Hill's parent institution, the University of Liverpool, had just received a 40 million dollar donation from UNITAID four days before Hill's Ivermectin paper was published, and Dr. Hill's conclusion was changed 180 degrees from his position just a few weeks earlier.

Andrew Hill admitted that his sponsors (UNITAID) pressured him to alter his conclusion. Hill explained, "I think I'm in a very sensitive position here."

Dr. Lawrie called Hill out. She stated, "Lots of people are in sensitive positions; they're in hospital, in ICUs dying, and they need this medicine."

Lawrie criticized Hill, "This is what I don't get, you know, because you're not a clinician. You're not seeing people dying every day. And this medicine prevents deaths by 80%. So 80  percent of those people who are dying today don't need to die because there's Ivermectin."

Hill responded that the NIH would not agree to recommend IVM.

Dr. Tess Lawrie fired back, "Yeah, because the NIH is owned by the vaccine lobby...This is bad research. So at this point, I am really, really worried about you."

Hill answered, "Okay. Yeah. I mean, it's a difficult situation."

Lawrie responded, "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 up...you know? So, how long are you going to let people carry on dying unnecessarily - up to you? What is the timeline you've allowed for this, then?"

Andrew Hill reacted, "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 is enough."

Dr. Lawrie pointed out the obvious, "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...

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."

Dr. Lawrie demanded to know the identity of the unknown UNITAID author who changed Dr. Hill's conclusions, the person whose influence was to cause so many preventable deaths.

"So who is it in UNITAID, then? Who is giving you opinions on your evidence?"

Hill answered, "Well, it’s just the people there. I don't..."

Dr. Lawrie pressed Hill, "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?

Dr. Hill evaded, "Oh, I'll have to think about who to, to offer you with a name...But I mean this is very difficult because I'm, you know, I've got this role where I'm supposed to produce this paper and we're in a very difficult, delicate balance...Yeah, it’s a very strong lobby..."

The conversation concludes with Dr. Hill promising to do everything in his power to get Ivermectin approved if she could give him six more weeks.

Dr. Lawrie, "So, how long do you think the stalemate will go on for?"

Dr. Hill, "From my side. Okay...I think end of February, we will be there in six weeks."

Dr. Tess Lawrie, "How many people die every day?"

Dr. 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."

Dr. 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, The Conscience of Medicine, concluded with this, "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.’"

Finally, Dr. Lawrie added, "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...I don't know how you sleep at night, honestly."

The fact that Dr. Andrew Hill allowed another person to change his paper's conclusion has been known for more than six months and was published in the book, Ivermectin for the World

"However, he [Dr. Andrew Hill] was reigned in before more damage [to the vaccine lobby] was done:

  1. He was invited to the NIH, along with Dr. Marik, probably to give the appearance of propriety.
  2. He was given a gag order and told not to speak to any more press until The WHO made an official decision on Ivermectin. It turned out that this decision would go against the drug despite Dr. Hill's findings.
  3. Dr. Hill's conclusion would be changed by someone else, and the rest is history."

 https://www.amazon.com/Ivermectin-World-Justus-R-Hope/dp/1737415909

What was not known, until the transcript of the zoom conference between Dr. Hill and Dr. Lawrie was leaked, were the specifics of the quid pro quo. It turns out that the height of the COVID-19 Winter surge, when about 15,000 people per day were dying, was precisely the same time as the zoom conference, held on January 18, 2021. Moreover, it was days after Andrew Hill’s University of Liverpool took the $40 million payoff.

The transcript of this conference call appeared in Robert F. Kennedy Jr.s’ book, The Real Anthony Fauci, and in this article published by "The Defender" newsletter:

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/ivermectin-big-pharma-rfk-jr-the-real-anthony-fauci/

https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/The-Real-Anthony-Fauci/Robert-F-Kennedy/Children-s-Health-Defense/9781510766808

World daily COVID deaths were averaging around 15,000 per day on January 18, 2021, and six weeks later were averaging some 9,700. Currently, the world is seeing about 7,500 per day die.

80% of these or more could have been prevented with Ivermectin, a statement with which Dr. Hill would likely agree.

Overall, since that fateful decision of Andy Hill to allow his sponsor to "change" his paper's conclusion, 2.475 million people [11 months x 30 days per month x 7500 deaths per day] have died, 80% of them could have been saved had Ivermectin been approved. So precisely 1.98 million lives were lost as a result of the betrayal.

The price per life?

Forty million dollars was the value of the donation made to the University of Liverpool by UNITAID. This sum comes out to 20 dollars and 20 cents per life. That is what we are all worth in the calculus of the vaccine lobby.

UNITAID bills itself as a “global health agency” hosted by the World Health Organization and supported by the vaccine lobby. 

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation contributed hundreds of millions to UNITAID. In October, they committed $120 million more to the new expensive Merck drug molnupiravir, a costly and genotoxic competitor of Ivermectin.

https://www.gatesfoundation.org/ideas/media-center/press-releases/2021/10/gates-foundation-commits-120-million-for-molnupiravir-covid-19-drug-access

https://www.pharmaceutical-technology.com/features/molnupiravir-safety-questions-approvals-approach/

Some experts say it will stimulate the emergence of viral mutants and worsen the pandemic.

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/covid-pill-being-rolled-among-121237206.html

If that prospect is not concerning enough, consider this: One dose of Remdesivir, a drug that does not save lives, but one that is widely used on most United States ICU COVID cases, costs $3,100 per dose, or to put it bluntly, one dose of Remdesivir is worth roughly 153 lives. Yet, the worst drug earned the FDA’s approval while the best one, Ivermectin, was suppressed for money.

Ivermectin, a drug that has nearly eradicated River Blindness in much of the world, a safe drug already given to humans in over 4 billion doses, can be purchased mail-order from India at 1,000 12mg tablets for $163. That comes out to 16.3 cents per dose. 

Dr. Alan Bain recently saved the life of 71-year-old Sun Ng thanks to a court order issued by Judge Paul Fullerton. Following the hospital's initial refusal, Ng's family sued Edward-Elmhurst Health and Sun Ng was administered the Ivermectin for five days. After the treatment, Ng “removed his breathing tube” and was taken out of ICU. 

Dr. Bain, unable to get a local pharmacy to fill the prescription for Ivermectin, obtained the mail-order version and saved Ng's life.

https://patch.com/illinois/naperville/covid-patient-given-ivermectin-edward-improving-report

https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_app/dying-covid-19-patient-recovers-after-court-orders-hospital-to-administer-ivermectin_4130754.html

Thus, five 12 mg doses cost about 82 cents but are worth more than the 20 dollar value placed by the vaccine lobby and Andrew Hill on a human life because pennies were all it took to purchase the Ivermectin that saved Sun Ng.

Ivermectin has 27 randomized controlled studies involving tens of thousands of patients showing reduced time to viral clearance, hastened recovery time, and reduced mortality. On the other hand, the vaccine lobby’s choice, Remdesivir, was rejected by the WHO as a drug that failed to improve survival and other outcomes.

https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/SUMMARY-OF-THE-EVIDENCE-BASE-FINAL.pdf

https://www.who.int/news-room/feature-stories/detail/who-recommends-against-the-use-of-remdesivir-in-covid-19-patients

One thousand doses of Ivermectin can be purchased online for $163. Yet, UNITAID paid $40 million to change Dr. Hill's conclusions to call for more studies [delaying Ivermectin approval], essentially condemning millions of human beings to death from COVID-19. So while 82 cents may be the price of life, it seems that twenty pieces of silver remains the price of death. 

https://biblehub.com/sermons/auth/dalton/joseph_betrayed_and_sold_for_twenty_pieces_of_silver.htm

Dr. Justus R. Hope, writer’s pseudonym, graduated summa cum laude from Wabash College where he was named a Lilly Scholar. He attended Baylor College of Medicine where he was awarded the M.D. degree. He completed a residency in Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation at The University of California Irvine Medical Center. He is board-certified and has taught at The University of California Davis Medical Center in the departments of Family Practice and Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation. He has practiced medicine for over 35 years and maintains a private practice in Northern California.

(8) comments

FocusAbove

None of this is going to matter if we don't hold these same Global Leaders responsible for Climate Engineering.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=4646&v=rf78rEAJvhY&feature=e

Searcher

I saw this: https://twitter.com/GidMK/status/1470968955250503685 Which says the donation from Unitaid to the University of Liverpool https://news.liverpool.ac.uk/2020/01/31/24m-boost-for-revolutionary-long-acting-medicine-research/ Occurred in 2019 not 4 days before said zoom conference as is described here. Do you have any thoughts on this?

Think twice

How is it that 2 of the most corrupt organizations that exist, with proven track records of lies, crimes, cover ups, and unmeasurable harm they've inflicted upon the people they are supposed to be protecting, have become the only voice of truth, knowledge, wisdom and guidance, so much so their leading the pack right off the cliff. And everybody else that doesn't trust them as far as they can throw them, because of the evidence of nefarious behavior, is wrong? When have we ever trusted our health to organized crime to whom we are nothing but a money making commodity. Say what you will, think what you will but for truth's sake, when has it been advisable, reasonable to trust criminals that would rather kill you than heal you?

rickmacken

https://www.ama-assn.org/delivering-care/public-health/why-ivermectin-should-not-be-used-prevent-or-treat-covid-19

Skeptic

It is very sad to see one of the few local IV news sites being so centered around anti-vax conspiracy theories and pseudoscientific claims during the pandemic. When all is said and done, all of these articles since the hydroxychloroquine craziness and now with the ivermectin, will not look good. These articles will not age well. What a shame.

Stormishere

It’s interesting how “Skeptics” and others who throw out “conspiracy theory” and other convenient catchy woke terms always fail to provide any factual scientifically validated studies to refute the claims made here. They deny any collusion between health agencies and Big Pharma when a few simple (even using Google search) would show the conflicts of interests within these organizations and their history of approving drugs that make a lot of money for certain companies but whose actual effectiveness and the side effects are hidden and not reported. For God’s sake, any rational thinking person has to seriously wonder why the FDA would request 75 years to publish the Pfizer - BioNTech data. Why? Because the results would be very damaging and people would be arrested for the cover-up. No conspiracy theory here. The truth hurts.

grumpy

It's not a conspiracy theory when you claim two organizations are working together, and you note that they fund each other. And their staff is the same people, in the revolving door. Such as Dr. Gotlieb who may be a great guy but it's hard to change hats from FDA chair to Pfizer and Illumina board member in a matter of weeks. That's not the exception, that's the rule. Do your govt service, and then get a real job at the company you "regulated". How did Oxycontin get its "safer" label? Nothing happened to the FDA guy who did it, he got rich. No evidence from trials needed for profitable patent drugs. There will never ever be enough evidence to approve unprofitable off-patent drugs.

jlronning

May the name "Andrew Hill" take its place alongside that of "Benedict Arnold" and "Judas Iscariot."

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.

What issues worry you the most?

You voted: