Over one year ago, there were ample peer-reviewed, randomised controlled trials that provided strong evidence on ivermectin’s efficacy as a treatment for Covid in every disease phase.

A paper considering these many studies was written by lead author Dr. Andrew Hill at the University of Liverpool for the World Health Organisation (“WHO”). Dr. Hill was an early and vigorous proponent for ivermectin. His paper showed that ivermectin could reduce deaths by 75% if used throughout the world.

Inexplicably, just days before its publication, the paper appeared on a pre-print server, with its conclusions changed. Given the totality of scientific evidence for ivermectin, it was a stunning—actually shocking—reversal by Dr. Hill.

In an urgent Zoom call to Dr. Hill initiated by Dr. Tess Lawrie, Director of the Evidence-based Medicine Consultancy, Dr. Hill admitted to her that one of his study’s sponsors, Unitaid, had a say in the conclusions of his paper. But he would not divulge the name(s) of those who altered the paper’s conclusions.

(Read more: Ivermectin: The Truth vs Goliath | A letter to Dr Andrew Hill | Dr Tess Lawrie)

‘The Digger’ on Substack, Phil Harper, has revealed the name of the person who could have edited the paper’s conclusions—which led to the WHO’s non-recommendation of the use of ivermectin. That decision could have led to the unnecessary deaths of millions across the world.

Harper studied the PDF of the paper, wanting to learn the identity of its “ghost” author. “The hope was that some artifact on the PDF would reveal something, maybe a font was different, maybe there was a hidden comment, maybe some tracked changes had been saved to the document,” said Harper. “None of those lines of inquiry came to anything.”

Then it came to him. Was it in the PDF’s metadata?  And indeed, it was.  Harper writes:

“The ‘v1_stamped’ version of the paper did indeed have metadata. It even had author information inside the metadata. Expecting to see Andrew Hill listed as the author, instead, I saw a name I recognised. Andrew Owen.

“Unless someone used his computer, Andrew Owen has his digital fingerprint on the Andrew Hill paper.”

This is just the latest in a series of postings on ‘The Digger’ exposing the machinations and the backdoor wheeling and dealing to prevent ivermectin from saving lives so that other, more profitable (and scientifically proven more dangerous) designer drugs could take center stage.

(Read more: Professor tied to altered Andrew Hill paper also prepared ‘Ivermectin Evidence’ for World Health Organisation)

In the video below, Harper joined Dr. Pierre Kory to discuss the outcome of Dr. Hill’s paper on ivermectin. They discussed who and/or what influenced Dr. Hill to change the conclusion of his paper and why. The discussion about Dr. Andrew Hill and Professor Andrew Owen begins at 25 mins.

“It was really clear to me that Andrew Hill was very bullish about ivermectin all the way up until January 19^th and even, strangely, remained bullish about ivermectin publicly [for another two weeks] after [his paper was published].”

A lecture Dr. Hill gave in South Africa on 29 January was the last time he publicly spoke about ivermectin.  Shortly after this lecture Dr. Kory asked Dr. Hill if he would do an interview with the New York times, “he told me he’s not allowed to speak publicly anymore,” Dr. Kory said, “he didn’t give any more open lectures [and] didn’t do any interviews, they basically muzzled him after that.”

They then moved on to discuss Dr. Hill’s paper and the different “voices” that seemed to have contributed. “What we know is Andrew Owen’s name appears in the metadata of the pre-print. And I had to check it three times, it was actually in three different versions of the pre-print paper that I discovered,” said Harper.

It’s important to note that Prof. Owen is not listed as an author on the paper and both he and Dr. Hill work in the same department at the University of Liverpool.  Prof. Owen is the head of a project to develop long-acting injectables for the treatment and prevention of HIV, TB, malaria and HCV.  A project which, a week prior, had been awarded a £40 million grant from Unitaid.  Unitaid is the organisation Dr. Hill implicated as “having a say” in the conclusions of his paper on ivermectin. 

Harper compared a version of the pre-print paper dated 14 January to the version that was published dated 18 / 19 January. “That was when I could see these differences. Suddenly we had a paper in transition … I could see additional sentences that had been put into the paper between those two dates … as you mentioned [Dr. Kory] the forensic consultant had looked at the paper already” and the discovery of the version dated 14 January confirmed his findings of sentences inserted by “new voices” to “weaken the paper,” Harper said.  This would suggest, Harper explained, that other findings by the forensic consultant were also credible, such as a ghost contributor for whom English was not a first language.

“[But] it’s not just about one person because through this one particular connection you can see how this pharmaceutical lobby works.  We have a network of academics who receive research money, this is key.  The research money is key because once an academic is in receipt of research money they’re in a prominent position within their university to get that research money for their university again. 

“The second thing to note about Andrew Owen, like many other academics in the research medical literature, he’s in receipt of consultancy fees and lecture fees from pharmaceutical companies … this is considered normal inside medical research.

“The table is stacked towards high value pharmaceutical products.”

Click on the image below to watch the video on Odysee.

Sources and resources:

• Who Changed the Scientific Conclusions of a Paper that Could Have Saved Millions? At Last, We May Have a Name, FLCCC Alliance Community, 8 March 2022

• FLCCC Alliance website
• Pierre Kory – Corruption in the pharmaceutical industry, Phil Harper Podcast, 4 March 2022