Who Manages Unitaid? Context Behind the Lawrie-Hill conversation
The Chloroquine Wars Part CIV
"Show me the incentive and I will show you the outcome." -Charlie Munger
Apologies for the substantial background behind this article up front. The payoff is large. Like mega-Nicki Minaj large.
Earlier this month, an article by author and medical and science correspondent Neville Hodgkinson circulated and created a buzz. The article leads with brief discussions of the endemic fraud and corruption in the biomedical sciences,
A leading UK cancer specialist told me years ago how he was blackmailed by the Imperial Cancer Research Fund into staying silent over a fraudulent study the fund had sponsored.
Published in the Lancet, the study purported to show that patients treated holistically through the Bristol Cancer Help Centre did worse than those who had only orthodox treatment. It was junk science, aimed at discrediting the charity whose work had gained prominence – and funds – after being championed by Prince Charles.
The specialist was outraged when he had a preview of the study, and told the ICRF that he intended to challenge its findings at an upcoming press conference. Shortly afterwards a top official rang him to say that if he did so, his unit would lose its entire ICRF grant – which meant it would have to close. He consulted the dean of his medical school, and agreed not to go. He had worried ever since over whether he made the right decision.
Hodgkinson then gives a teaser regarding the content of Robert Kennedy, Jr.'s new book.
It’s heartening to hear from doctors sharing their concerns like this, but Robert Kennedy’s book demonstrates the rich incentives many receive to support the vaccine ‘gold rush’ – and do nothing to obstruct it. He writes, for example, that at the outset of the pandemic, Dr Anthony Fauci, the American government’s lead on Covid, ‘used wildly inaccurate modelling that overestimated US deaths by 525 per cent’. Neil Ferguson of Imperial College London was the author, with funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation of $148.8million. ‘Dr Fauci used this model as justification for his lockdowns.’
Bill Gates is principal investor in many of the new Covid vaccines, Kennedy adds, and Fauci has been championing a vaccine (Moderna) from which his agency and employees expect a lucrative outcome.
But the headline content of the article focuses on a conversation between Dr. Tess Lawrie and Dr. Andrew Hill, each of whom has published meta-analysis regarding ivermectin's efficacy in treating SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19, a drug with a large number of positive studies backing its efficacy claim, though there are a handful of those studies being challenged.
The politics over ivermectin efficacy has gotten truly whacky at times (here and here and ten thousand corners of the interwebs).
Lawrie has been the target of numerous media hit pieces, including one that was until just recently entirely out of character for Scientific American. Whackiness of the breadth and proportions we've seen only make sense in the midst of mass formation or a propaganda campaign where many unrelated actors have to tie threads together in real time, though I'm open to other possible explanations. Alien mind control for the lulz?
Back to the conversation between Lawrie and Hill. The conversation came on the heels of Hill backing down from his initially published opinion that was extremely positive in encouraging use of ivermectin in the treatment of COVID-19. From the BBC:
These channels have co-ordinated harassment of doctors who fail to prescribe ivermectin and abuse has been aimed at scientists. Dr Andrew Hill, from the University of Liverpool, wrote an influential positive review of ivermectin, originally saying the world should "get prepared, get supplies, get ready to approve [the drug]".
Now he says the studies don't stand up to scrutiny - but after he changed his view, based on new evidence emerging, he received vicious abuse.
A small number of qualified doctors have had an exaggerated influence on the ivermectin debate. Noted proponent Dr Pierre Kory's views have not changed despite the major questions over the trials. He criticised "superficial interpretations of emerging trials data".
The skew in the article is nothing we don't or shouldn't expect from major media at this point. Details of source context aside, you can see how Hill's backpedaling might not be appreciated by his colleagues who stuck their neck's out with him to face the pharmaceutical Kunlangeta.
I heard that Dr. Kory deleted his tweet or apologized. Probably for misspelling 'Pfuck you'.
A French Web of Connections
I encourage you to read the whole exchange, of course, but here is a snippet:
‘Dr Lawrie asked Hill to explain his U-turn on ivermectin, which his own analysis found overwhelmingly effective. “How can you do this?” she inquired politely. “You are causing irreparable harm.” Hill explained that he was in a “tricky situation” because his sponsors had put pressure on him. Hill is a University of Liverpool virologist who serves as an adviser to Bill Gates and the Clinton Foundation. He told me his sponsor was Unitaid.
‘Unitaid is a quasi-governmental advocacy organisation funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) and several countries – France, the United Kingdom, Norway, Brazil, Spain, the Republic of Korea and Chile – to lobby governments to finance the purchase of medicines from pharmaceutical multinationals for distribution to the African poor. Its primary purpose seems to be protecting the patent and intellectual property rights of pharmaceutical companies – which, as we shall see, is the priority passion for Bill Gates – and to insure their prompt and full payment. About 63 per cent of its funding comes from a surtax on airline tickets. The BMGF holds a board seat and chairs Unitaid’s Executive Committee, and the BMGF has given Unitaid $150million since 2005. Various Gates-funded surrogate and front organisations also contribute, as does the pharmaceutical industry.
Lawrie then asks again: ‘Would you tell me? I would like to know who pays you as a consultant through WHO?’
Hill: ‘It’s Unitaid.’
Lawrie: ‘All right. So who helped to . . . Whose conclusions are those on the review that you’ve done? Who is not listed as an author? Who’s actually contributed?’
Hill: ‘Well, I mean, I don’t really want to get into, I mean, it . . . Unitaid . . .’
Lawrie: ‘I think that . . . it needs to be clear. I would like to know who, who are these other voices that are in your paper that are not acknowledged? Does Unitaid have a say? Do they influence what you write?’
Hill: ‘Unitaid has a say in the conclusions of the paper. Yeah.’
Lawrie: ‘Okay. So, who is it in Unitaid, then? Who is giving you opinions on your evidence?’
Hill: ‘Well, it’s just the people there. I don’t . . .’
Lawrie: ‘So they have a say in your conclusions.’
Lawrie: ‘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?’
Hill: ‘Oh, I’ll have a think about who to, to offer you with a name . . . but I mean, this is very difficult because I’m, you know, I’ve, I’ve got this role where I’m supposed to produce this paper and we’re in a very difficult, delicate balance . . .’
Lawrie: ‘Who are these people? Who are these people saying this?’
Hill: ‘Yeah . . . it’s a very strong lobby . . .’
At first look, this is just another Gates Foundation domination story. Depending on who you are, throw it in the pile or ignore it. But there's more…
The Chair of the Executive Board of Unitaid is the former French Health Minister Marisol Touraine. Touraine is a career vaccine proponent who worked to dramatically increase vaccine mandates in France (from 3 to 11) and always seems to think that vaccination will necessarily be the answer, even for rare diseases, than other forms of medical intervention. More or less directly related, she inaugurated the Wuhan Institute of Virology's (WIV) Level 4 Biosafety Laboratory (BSL4)—the first of its kind in all of China (Taiwan has two). The WIV planned to host 50 French researchers in residency who were to provide technical and safety training for researchers at the French-designed lab, though China canceled those plans soon after. That project began in 2004 despite French intelligence warnings that China's history of poor biosecurity could lead to a catastrophic leak.
Also present in that photo-op is (you're going to want to click this link—>) former INSERM CEO Ivey Levy, whose wife Agnes Buzyn took over Touraine's post as French Minister of Health and Solidarity (yes, that's what they're calling it now) shortly after the WIV broke ground.
Unitaid runs an international organization called Medicines Patent Pool (MPP) that aims at providing less expensive medicines to poorer nations. That sounds great assuming that the medicines work, don't kill people, and are wanted. Unitaid works closely with the World Health Organization in its goals.
Unitaid is the official co-convener of the therapeutics partnership and an active partner of diagnostics and health systems strengthening pillars. Resources to Unitaid will serve to ensure that medicines and diagnostics are adapted to everyone, everywhere, in both the North and South. We will focus on unblocking market barriers to these products.
Why is it that a several-sentence paragraph that could be summarized as "We work toward better global healthcare" sometimes feels like hypnosis?
While Touraine's Unitaid rhetoric sounds broad, we find that she was somehow already focusing on a vaccine solution for COVID-19 early during the pandemic, even though,
No coronavirus vaccine research was ever successful before,
Many options were available for treatment, including *ahem*,
SARS-CoV-2 can be beat by numerous simpler means.
Touraine has also been instrumental in delivering millions of vaccine doses to Africa, where her husband serves as an ambassador.
A few years ago, Touraine offered to organize a debate over vaccines. I wonder if she will answer that call now.
Confession Through Projection?
In 2016, Touraine publicly accused a political opponent of wanting to (translated) "give the keys to health to private, complementary or mutual insurance." She has criticized a poorly run vaccine trial that killed…that took place under her regulatory watch.
I was debating this with someone on Twitter who says they do meta analyses. I pointed to Tess' work, they naturally pointed to Dr. Hills'. I put up the transcript and they told me it was "likely decontextualized". Some people, you just can't... It was like arguing with my brother when he had psychosis.
They also referred me to Romani's and another meta analysis but I think Tess pointed out rightly that heterogeneous studies like those can hide efficacy. Easy enough to pick unfavorable studies, especially inpatient treatment and say you have quality concerns with the rest, voila! ivermectin looks ineffective... but understanding stats inside and out I'm sure you know this too well, Matthew.
Bill Gates has been building these NGO groups and staffing regulatory agencies around the globe for well over a decade that I've been tracking and the money has changed everything with respect to gmo foods that are as helpful as these jabs. This is shocking but hardly a surprise.
"Lawrie has been the result of numerous media hit pieces, including one that was until just recently entirely out of character for Scientific American."
Gotta disagree it is out of character for Scientific American. SA have been happy to put out smear pieces and baseless "science" for critics of the approved narrative since 9-11 where they defended free-fall collapse of WTC7 while attacking architects and engineers who cite physics.. same with gmo food the spin is the same as the HCQ hit jobs.... They are no better than NYTimes or the others.. sometimes you get the truth but when the big money is against reality they serve %$#@ with the best of them.