Is Prof. Andrew Owen from the University of Liverpool responsible for blocking ivermectin as a covid treatment?
By ethanh // 2022-03-15
Copy
 
About a year after the plandemic began, Dr. Andrew Hill from The University of Liverpool released for publishing powerful and compelling evidence showing the benefits of ivermectin in treating the Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19). That paper was mysteriously altered just days before publication to say the exact opposite, however, and the culprit is believed by some to be Prof. Andrew Owen. Dr. Tess Lawrie, director of the Evidence-based Medicine Consultancy, initiated an urgent Zoom call with Dr. Hill to discuss the changes, which the Daily Exposé describes as a "stunning" and "actually shocking" reversal of what the original said. During this call, Dr. Hall admitted that Unitaid, one of his study's sponsors, had a say in the paper's conclusions. He did not, however, reveal the name(s) of who did the alteration. Phil Harper, author of "The Digger" blog on Substack, conducted his own research into the identity of the "ghost" author, which ultimately led him to Owen. "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," Harper writes about his sleuthing. "None of those lines of inquiry came to anything." Then Harper had a thought: What about the PDF's metadata? This led him to the "v1_stamped" version of the paper which did, indeed, have metadata containing author information. "Unless someone used his computer, Andrew Owen has his digital fingerprint on the Andrew Hill paper," Harper writes.

What other plandemic lies were we told?

So, who is Andrew Owen? The guy took "research" money from both Vir and GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), both of which had a drug coming to market that would have been derailed by the widespread use of ivermectin. By corrupting Dr. Hall's study, Owen was able to prevent that from happening. You see, because of Owen's alleged tampering with Dr. Hill's study, the World Health Organization (WHO) concluded based on the "evidence" that ivermectin is neither safe nor effective for treating the Fauci Flu: case closed. It turns out that Owen also reportedly accepted cash and "consultancy fees" from Merck and Co., which also had a drug coming to market that, you guessed it: would have been derailed by ivermectin. "He was part of a study into that drug which concluded it was safe, despite very credible safety concerns suggesting it wasn't," Harper writes about Owen's involvement with the Merck drug. "The founder of the company that owns that drug was a co-author of that study. His department was in receipt of huge sums of money from Unitaid, the people Hill said 'had a say' in the conclusions of critical research papers." Owen was also a shareholder in a company that sought to commercialize a "long-acting injectable drug technology," which once again would have been derailed by ivermectin. (Related: Peer-reviewed research out of Japan found that ivermectin is powerfully effective and exceptionally safe in treating covid.) "He was also in receipt of consultancy fees from Gilead, who manufacture Remdesivir which also would have been derailed by the safety, efficacy, and cost-benefits of ivermectin," Harper emphasizes. "This is the person who prepared the evidence base on Ivermectin, the evidence base upon which the WHO would make their decision." So, you see, the "science" was never settled on ivermectin being unsafe or ineffective for covid. It was allegedly tampered with in the final hours before publishing to come to a much different conclusion, allowing those involved in the sham to profit heavily from other drugs. More related news coverage about the plandemic can be found at Pandemic.news. Sources for this article include: DailyExpose.uk NaturalNews.com
Copy