Discover more from Rounding the Earth Newsletter
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.
First, let's take a look at what Phil Harper uncovered (or the part you can read without a subscription):
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.
Reminder: Unitaid is chaired by the former French Health Minister who ushered in the BSL 4 lab at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
What Else Will the Metadata Reveal?
If everyone was transparent, we might already know more about the Surgisphere scandal.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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!)