Sleuthing Connections to Suppression of Medicine

The Chloroquine Wars Part CXII

The pandemonium has been so much chaotic…chaos that I've never even written up all the interesting details and connections that I noted along the way, but this tweet reminded me of one.

Alexandros Marinos @alexandrosM

Phil Harper just had a major breakthrough in the investigation of the Andrew Hill meta-analysis. The name of Andrew Owen, Prof at University of Liverpool and UNITAID grantee appears in the metadata of some digital versions of Andrew Hill's meta-analysis.

philharper.substack.comProfessor tied to altered Andrew Hill paper also prepared ‘Ivermectin Evidence’ for World Health OrganisationPart 3: Who is Andrew Owen?

First, let's take a look at what Phil Harper uncovered (or the part you can read without a subscription):

Professor tied to altered Andrew Hill paper also prepared 'Ivermectin Evidence' for World Health Organisation

From Phil's article,

To say I was surprised would be an understatement. His authorship is tied programmatically to the document, meaning a device or software programme registered to the name Andrew Owen saved off the document as a PDF.  When exporting a PDF, Microsoft Word automatically adds title and author information. Unless someone used his computer, Andrew Owen has his digital fingerprint on the Andrew Hill paper. A paper we have very strong reason to believe was altered by ‘people’ at Unitaid. 

Also,

Alexandros Marinos @alexandrosM

Quote:"The person who allegedly edited the Andrew Hill paper on Ivermectin, is the person in receipt of consultancy fees from pharma with competing products, is the person who prepared the evidence base for the World Health Organisation to make their recommendation on Ιvermectin"

Reminder: Unitaid is chaired by the former French Health Minister who ushered in the BSL 4 lab at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

Who Manages Unitaid? Context Behind the Lawrie-Hill conversation

---

What Else Will the Metadata Reveal?

If everyone was transparent, we might already know more about the Surgisphere scandal.

Jikky Kjj 🐭 @JikkyKjj

@alexandrosM Not suspicious at all.... David Grainger must have a record of the people that provided the data to #surgisphere who then produced fake manuscripts for them to publish They hold the key to #covid19 We need the original versions of these documents @RepThomasMassie #lancetgate

But let's go back a little further…

In the beginning…there were hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and remdesivir. Everyone on the planet who was in-the-know, aside from Anthony Fauci, thought HCQ would be the drug to use.

Why Did Dr. Anthony Fauci Leave Hydroxychloroquine Off the Early Pandemic Research Priority List?

Assuming that it happened as stated, the very first in vivo trial on remdesivir's potential efficacy against COVID-19 (Wang et al, 2020) included (at least) two very interesting names:

• Peter Horby

• Frederick Hayden

It appears that these were two of the three men (along with Professor Thomas Jaki) on the trial paper not running the study in Chinese hospitals.

Professor Peter Horby was one of the chief investigators in the WHO's RECOVERY trial. You can see my takes here and here.

How to Rig Research: The WHO Edition

While Horby's language is that HCQ failed to treat hospitalized COVID-19 patients, he doesn't seem to speak up about the common public pronouncements implying that his study showed that HCQ is [generally] "useless" at treating COVID-19.

Back in June, the Recovery scientists terminated a trial of the anti-malarial hydroxychloroquine, once touted by U.S. President Donald Trump as a potential “game changer," calling it "useless" for treating COVID-19 patients. That conclusion was instrumental in pivoting healthcare providers away from the drug and on to other, more promising options.

How Pf***ing convenient.

Obligatory reminder:

Why The Early Treatment Data is Better Than Anyone Imagines: Dr. Brian Tyson's Data

But who is Frederick Hayden?

Thanks for getting me back on track…

Frederick Hayden is the right-hand man of Klaus Schwab…

Just kidding. Let's try that again.

Professor Frederick Hayden is a University of Virginia virologist whose published work seems to have been at least partially-funded by remdesivir maker GILEAD, though the Declaration of Interests in the remdesivir study state that his work was "non-compensated", which could honestly be the case.

Who does non-compensated work for Big Pharma, anyhow? 

While the remdesivir study that Hayden directed failed to reach a statistically significant result, Hayden notably defended the notion that failure to achieve statistical significance does not imply "failure" (and he is certainly correct).

Where was this guy when the media was mischaracterizing Boulware's boulshit about HCQ failure despite better results than remdesivir achieved in the China trial?

But here's where it gets interesting: the metadata. Hayden's name appears as the author in the metadata of the preliminary report on the RECOVERY Trial.

Hello!

There are fingerprints. Fingerprints, everywhere. If only there were a system designed to investigate this sort of thing…

Necessary Addendum: A Letter to Andrew Hill by Dr. Tess Lawrie

(I wonder if it’s a love letter…only one way to find out!)