Project Veritas: Military Documents about Gain of Function contradict Fauci testimony under oath, timestamp 4:23 mins
Posted on 01/17/2022 9:05:31 AM PST by ransomnote
Last week Project Veritas revealed that US Military documents contradicted Fauci’s sworn testimony about gain-of-function. Since then six Congressional Members have sent letters to the CDC, Secretaries of Defense and Health and Human Services demanding answers on the origin of Covid-19 and the DARPA documents.
Within these documents there appears to be a damning section in support of ivermectin as a Covid treatment, see timestamp 4:23 of Project Veritas video.
Major Joseph Murphy’s report, Page 4, states that many of the early treatment protocols ignored by authorities work because they inhibit viral replication or modulate the immune response to the spike proteins.
“Some of these also inhibit the action of the engineered spike protein. For instance, Ivermectin (identified as curative in April 2020) works throughout all phases of illness because it both inhibits viral replication and modulates the immune response,” Major Murphy wrote.
Dr. Tess Lawrie has been a champion for the use of ivermectin as a treatment for Covid. But she has faced systemic bias, some might say corruption, towards ivermectin initiatives and in corporate media coverage, as well as being subjected to unethical censorship.
In an interview with Dana Loesch, Dr. Lawrie discussed the effectiveness of ivermectin which has a unique ability to detox the body from the spike protein’s adverse reactions. It is an affordable, effective and safe treatment for Covid. She says we could have ended this pandemic a long time ago if we had treated patients with these effective medicines.
Dr. Lawrie is co-founder of the World Council for Health, co-founder of the BIRD Group, director of Evidence Based Medicine Consultancy, and consultant to both the World Health Organisation (“WHO”) and the UK’s National Health Service (“NHS”).
She also spoke to Loesch about her conversations with Dr. Andrew Hill.
Dr. Hill is affiliated with Liverpool University and advisor to several groups, including the Clinton Foundation and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. He is also affiliated with the WHO and advisor to Unitaid, Covid Strategies wrote, his research would have a profound influence on whether WHO would accept ivermectin as a treatment for Covid.
During a Zoom call with Lawrie, Hill shared his predicament over his study, disclosing that he found himself in a “tricky situation.” Apparently, his funders were going to enforce changes to the manuscript outcomes—whether he liked it or not.
While the original Hill manuscript was obviously favourable to ivermectin, that changed when the paper was modified during the final stages. Hill acknowledged Unitaid, who helped support the study, was influencing the final conclusions. Those final changes made the ultimate findings not strong enough for the WHO to make any decision other than that more clinical trials were needed.
ransomnote: video available on the DailyExpose.com website and on YOUTUBE.
Dana Loesch: Dr. Tess Lawrie on The Safety of Ivermectin, Suppression of Info (18 mins)Resources:
I am of the opinion that states with the GOP trifecta, should pass laws that:
1) allow physicians to prescribe Ivermectin for Covid without threat or investigation into their medical licenses.
2) allow any person who has tested positive for Covid to receive a “Covid kit” that includes Ivermectin, supplements, and decongestants.
3) prevent any hospital from denying Ivermectin from patients who have been prescribed the drug as treatment for Covid
Bookmark
A drug that won the Nobel Prize for saving thousands and thousands and thousands of lives!
Ivermectin: a multifaceted drug of Nobel prize-honoured distinction with indicated efficacy against a new global scourge, COVID-19
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34466270/
So How do i get a prescription for it if and when I get Covid?
I would like to know.
******
His response was that this was either a false flag operation to discredit Project Veritas or that someone at DARPA was trying to "throw Doctor Fauci under the bus".
He went on to say that he felt confident that the documents were being reviewed by the appropriate party and that he had confidence that the truth about these documents would come out, but that the veracity was not yet unequivocal.
(Keep in mind that if it was established that the legitimacy of these documents was as solid as you suggest, there would have been a very public reaction to this.)
The interview with Dr. Malone can be found here; the subject of the Project Veritas documents is covered in the first 10 minutes and 40 seconds of the video: www.rumble.com
Not only did it help me turn COVID into a big non-event here, but it, along with Zinc, Quercetin and VitD3 seem to also have quickly cleared up my regularly-scheduled, post-Christmas bronchitis.
I am listening to a conversation between Dr. Tess Lawrie and another physician where she explains her findings, and she confirms IVM can be used through all phases with varying degrees of effectiveness.
She thinks its effectiveness in later stages might be due to its anti-inflammatory properties.
She is an interesting figure, in that she came out early for IVM (Ivermectin) and in her study one of the investigators submitted a great study that was a home run for IVM, but when the study was published, the conclusion did not recommend use for COVID.
When she called the investigator Dr. Andrew Hill (which she recorded) his shameful response showed that his sponsors for the study forced him to change his conclusion, even though the data did not change. When pressed, he revealed his sponsor was Unitaid. (their website is https://unitaid.org/#en, and when looking at it, there is only one conclusion-they are a vaccine advocacy company, and forced him weeks before publishing to change his conclusions.
Any normal person reading that transcript understands that he was forced to change his conclusions in order to get money. This is the conversation that took place when she called him between the decision for his study to be included in her overall analysis, and his publication. Keep in mind, she is calling him on the carpet for unexpectedly and without reason changing his conclusion in his study right before it was published.
****************************************************************
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 percent. So 80 percent 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 hospitalization. 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.
Hill: I think fundamentally, we’re reaching the [same] conclusion about the survival benefit. We’re both finding a significant effect on survival.
Lawrie: No, I’m grading my evidence. I’m saying I’m sure of this evidence. I’m saying I’m absolutely sure it prevents deaths. There is nothing as effective as this treatment. What is your reluctance? Whose conclusion is that?
Hill complains again that outsiders are influencing him.
Lawrie: You keep referring to other people. It’s like you don’t trust yourself. If you were to trust yourself, you would know that you have made an error and you need to correct it because you know, in your heart, that this treatment prevents death.
Hill: Well, I know, I know for a fact that the data right now is not going to get the drug approved.
Lawrie: But, Andy — know this will come out. It will come out that there were all these barriers to the truth being told to the public and to the evidence being presented. So please, this is your opportunity just to acknowledge [the truth] in your review, change your conclusions, and come on board with this Cochrane Review, which will be definitive. It will be the review that shows the evidence and gives the proof. This was the consensus on Wednesday night’s meeting with 20 experts.
(Hill protests that the U.S. National Institutes of Health will not agree to recommend ivermectin.)
Lawrie: Yeah, because the NIH is owned by the vaccine lobby.
Hill: That’s not something I know about.
Lawrie: Well, all I’m saying is this smacks of corruption and you are being played.
Hill: I don’t think so.
Lawrie: Well then, you have no excuse because your work in that review is flawed. It’s rushed. It is not properly put together. (Lawrie points out that Hill’s study ignores a host of clinical outcomes that affect patients. She scolds Hill for ignoring the beneficial effects of ivermectin as prophylaxis, its effect on speed to testing negative for the virus, on the need for mechanical ventilation, on reduced admissions to intensive care, and other outcomes that are clinically meaningful.) This is bad research … bad research. So, at this point, I don’t know … you seem like a nice guy, but I am really, really worried about you.
Hill: Okay. Yeah. I mean, it’s, it’s a difficult situation.
Lawrie: No, you might be in a difficult situation. I’m not, because I have no paymaster. I can tell the truth. How can you deliberately try and mess it up … you know?
Hill: It’s not messing it up. It’s saying that we need, we need a short time to look at some more studies.
Lawrie: So, how long are you going to let people carry on dying unnecessarily – up to you? What is, what is the timeline that you’ve allowed for this, then?
Hill: Well, I think . . . I think that it goes to WHO [World Health Organization]and the NIH [National Institutes of Health]and the FDA [U.S. Food and Drug Administration] and the EMA [European Medicines Agency]. And they’ve got to decide when they think enough’s enough.
Lawrie: How do they decide? Because there’s nobody giving them good evidence synthesis, because yours is certainly not good.
Hill: Well, when yours comes out, which will be in the very near future … at the same time, there’ll be other trials producing results, which will nail it with a bit of luck. And we’ll be there.
Lawrie: It’s already nailed.
Hill: No, that’s, that’s not the view of the WHO and the FDA.
Lawrie: You’d rather risk loads of people’s lives. Do you know if you and I stood together on this, we could present a united front and we could get this thing. We could make it happen. We could save lives; we could prevent [British National Health Service doctors and nurses] people from getting infected. We could prevent the elderly from dying. These are studies conducted around the world in several different countries. And they’re all saying the same thing. Plus there’s all sorts of other evidence to show that it works. Randomized controlled trials do not need to be the be-all and end-all. But [even] based on the randomized controlled trials, it is clear that ivermectin works. It prevents deaths and it prevents harms and it improves outcomes for people...I can see we’re getting nowhere because you have an agenda, whether you like it or not, whether you admit to it or not, you have an agenda. And the agenda is to kick this down the road as far as you can. So … we are trying to save lives. That’s what we do. I’m a doctor and I’m going to save as many lives as I can. And I’m going to do that through getting the message [out] on ivermectin. Okay. Unfortunately, your work is going to impair that, and you seem to be able to bear the burden of many, many deaths, which I cannot do. 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.
Hill: Yeah.
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 …
Lawrie: Okay. Look, I think I can see kind of a dead end, because you seem to have a whole lot of excuses, but, um, you know, that to, to justify bad research practice. So I’m really, really sorry about this, Andy. I really, really wish, and you’ve explained quite clearly to me, in both what you’ve been saying and in your body language that you’re not entirely comfortable with your conclusions, and that you’re in a tricky position because of whatever influence people are having on you, and including the people who have paid you and who have basically written that conclusion for you.
Hill: You’ve just got to understand I’m in a difficult position. I’m trying to steer a middle ground and it’s extremely hard.
Lawrie: Yeah. Middle ground. The middle ground is not a middle ground … You’ve taken a position right to the other extreme calling for further trials that are going to kill people. So this will come out, and you will be culpable.
And I can’t understand why you don’t see that, because the evidence is there and you are not just denying it, but your work’s actually actively obfuscating the truth. And this will come out. So I’m really sorry … As I say, you seem like a nice guy, but I think you’ve just kind of been misled somehow.
Hill promises he will do everything in his power to get ivermectin approved if she will give him six weeks.
Hill: Well, what I hope is that this, this stalemate that we’re in doesn’t last very long. It lasts a matter of weeks. And I guarantee I will push for this to last for as short amount of time as possible.
Lawrie: So, how long do you think the stalemate will go on for? How long do you think you will be paid to [make] the stalemate go on?
Hill: From my side. Okay … I think end of February, we will be there, six weeks.’
Lawrie: How many people die every day?
Hill: Oh, sure. I mean, you know, 15,000 people a day.
Lawrie: Fifteen thousand people a day times six weeks … because at this rate, all other countries are getting ivermectin except the UK and the USA, because the UK and the USA and Europe are owned by the vaccine lobby.
Hill: My goal is to get the drug approved and to do everything I can to get it approved so that it reaches the maximum …
Lawrie: You’re not doing everything you can, because everything you can would involve saying to those people who are paying you, “I can see this prevents deaths. So I’m not going to support this conclusion any more, and I’m going to tell the truth.”
Hill: What, I’ve got to do my responsibilities to get as much support as I can to get this drug approved as quickly as possible.
Lawrie: Well, you’re not going to get it approved the way you’ve written that conclusion. You’ve actually shot yourself in the foot, and you’ve shot us all in the foot. All of … everybody trying to do something good. You have actually completely destroyed it.
Hill: Okay. Well, that’s where we’ll, I guess we’ll have to agree to differ.
Lawrie: Yeah. Well, I don’t know how you sleep at night, honestly.
Booketymark!
So lets get the Nuremburg trials going!
The majority of doctors that are employed by hospitals do not care if you die as long as they get paid.
I just got three more tubes of horse paste in the mail yesterday. And some oats.
Not if 90% of the population knows nothing about it. The MSM and big tech are in full lockdown mode. If they could have debunked these documents they would have done so immediately but they can't.
Right now they are working overtime on how to spin their way out of it.
“But it was the result of DC carefully boxing him into impossible positions.”
The CDC sure played their part, but it looked to me like it was Fauci and Birx calling the shots (no pun intended).
Project Veritas saying, "Hey, look what we found!" simply isn't enough to haul anyone off in handcuffs.
As I'm sure you know, the whole Emergency Use Authorization for these shots is predicated on the pretense that nothing else is available. If the veracity of these documents can be confirmed, the ramifications are enough to make the solar system shudder.
Everyone knows this, which is why even those on the alternative news sites aren't screaming about these from the rooftops; before any of our allies in the government or in the media make this kind of a claim, they understand that they had better be certain.
More backpedaling.
They are changing the narrative in time for midterms.
By summer, Covid will be a bad memory, the vaxxes won’t be forced, and the liberals will declare themselves heroes for finding an early prophylactic treatment called ivermectin.
HCQ, quinines, worked well in the lab against SARS on test tissue. 2005 study. When it was tried on people as a prophylactic for covid, SARS-2, it was a disappointment. The subjects caught covid at the same rate.
This would be the point of a trial. (I give these people the same presumption of innocence I would expect myself.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.