By Neville Hodgkinson – Conservative Woman –
CORRUPTION in medicine, as detailed in a new book by American trial lawyer Robert Kennedy Jr, is nothing new.
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.
Fortunately, the help centre recovered from the attack and its work has been transformative in encouraging cancer treatment approaches that attend as much to a patient’s general wellbeing as to diagnosing and treating symptoms.
As detailed by Kennedy, however, medical corruption has today become so widespread as to compromise the lives and wellbeing of us all.
A stark example came in the response last week to a report from the US that many patients who received the Pfizer and Moderna Covid vaccines show signs of increased risk of a heart attack. Dr Aseem Malhotra, an NHS consultant, told GB News that a cardiology researcher colleague in the UK found similar results but was not prepared to publish for fear of the repercussions. ‘They aren’t going to publish their findings, they are concerned about losing research money,’ Malhotra said.
Later he told LBC Radio that he had been contacted by several others, raising more concerns about the findings. One was an eminent consultant cardiologist, fit and well and with no previous history of heart problems. ‘He informed me that within ten days of receiving a second dose of the Pfizer shot, he had a heart attack – a clot in his left anterior descending artery, the most important artery in the heart. Fortunately he survived and is doing OK now.’
Malhotra added that his own father, a GP, died from a heart attack in July. ‘This was a 73-year-old man who during lockdown ate very healthily – partly because he listens to his son, who is an obesity campaigner – but also was walking 10,000-15,000 steps every day. So, very fit and active.
‘Out of the blue, he had a heart attack with chest pain. I didn’t understand what had happened. The post-mortem showed a 90 per cent blockage. What I have determined, very clearly, knowing everything about my father’s history, is that he had rapid progression of coronary artery disease.
‘Let’s not just say this could be the vaccine. Until his data became available, I had narrowed it down to stress in the pandemic, and losing my mother three years ago. So he was diseased, stressed, living alone in the pandemic . . . that could have been a factor as well. But now this data has come in, I’m concerned that the vaccine may have played a significant role.’
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.
Kennedy describes multiple studies of the protective power of the cheap, long-established drug ivermectin in countering Covid, and estimates of hundreds of thousands of lives lost as a result of suppression of its use. Under US law, the Covid vaccines could not have received emergency approval if effective treatments for the disease had been acknowledged as available.
The book includes a riveting account of an exchange last January between Dr Tess Lawrie, director of the Evidence-based Medicine Consultancy in Bath, England, and Dr Andrew Hill, author of a favourable analysis of ivermectin studies. He had subsequently performed a ‘neck-wrenching’ U-turn on the issue, claiming the studies comprised ‘low certainty’ of value and that more trials were needed.
Lawrie was trying to persuade Hill to participate in and co-author an immediate review of all published ivermectin studies in the medical literature, to be conducted by the eminent Cochrane Network, which uses thousands of volunteers to make high-quality, independent treatment recommendations.
‘It was an exciting opportunity,’ Kennedy writes. ‘Under normal circumstances, Hill should have pounced on this chance to serve as lead author with some of the world’s most prestigious researchers. He was nevertheless noncommittal.
‘The following week, she spoke to Hill again, this time by Zoom. The Zoom call was recorded.
‘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.
‘The BMGF and Gates personally own large stakes in many of the pharmaceutical companies that profit from this boondoggle. Gates also uses Unitaid to fund corrupt science by tame and compromised researchers like Hill that legitimises his policy directives to the WHO.
‘Unitaid gave $40million to Andrew Hill’s employer, the University of Liverpool, four days before the publication of Hill’s study. Hill, a PhD, confessed that the sponsors were pressuring him to influence his conclusion. When Dr Lawrie asked who was trying to influence him, Hill said, “I mean, I, I think I’m in a very sensitive position here . . .”.’
Lawrie: ‘Lots of people are in sensitive positions; they’re in hospital, in ICUs dying, and they need this medicine.’
Hill: ‘Well . . .’
Lawrie: ‘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 per cent. So 80 per cent of those people who are dying today don’t need to die because there’s ivermectin.’
Hill: ‘There are a lot, as I said, there are a lot of different opinions about this. As I say, some people simply . . .’
Lawrie: ‘We are looking at the data; it doesn’t matter what other people say. We are the ones who are tasked with looking at the data and reassuring everybody that this cheap and effective treatment will save lives. It’s clear. You don’t have to say, well, so-and-so says this, and so-and-so says that. It’s absolutely crystal clear. We can save lives today. If we can get the government to buy ivermectin.’
Hill: ‘Well, I don’t think it’s as simple as that, because you’ve got trials . . .’
Lawrie: ‘It is as simple as that. We don’t have to wait for studies . . . we have enough evidence now that shows that ivermectin saves lives, it prevents hospitalisation. It saves the clinical staff going to work every day and being exposed. And frankly, I’m shocked at how you are not taking responsibility for that decision. And you still haven’t told me who is [influencing you]? Who is giving you that opinion? Because you keep saying you’re in a sensitive position. I appreciate you are in a sensitive position, if you’re being paid for something and you’re being told [to support] a
certain narrative . . . that is a sensitive position. So, then you kind of have to decide, well, do I take this payment? Because in actual fact, [you] can see [your false] conclusions are going to harm people. So maybe you need to say, I’m not going to be paid for this. I can see the evidence, and I will join the Cochrane team as a volunteer, like everybody on the Cochrane team is a volunteer. Nobody’s being paid for this work.’