Dr. Andy Hill was asked to evaluate several studies that showed Ivermectin as an effective treatment for COVID-19 for the World Health Organization (WHO) in late 2020. At the same time, U.K. doctor Dr. Tess Lawrie, and two U.S. doctors, Pierre Kory, M.D. and Paul Marik, M.D., were sharing with Hill data and hopeful anecdotal evidence substantiating the effectiveness of Ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19. Hill had agreed to collaborate, but he instead preempted any further dialogue. “Before [they] could collaborate,” says Lawrie, “Hill published his paper as a preprint” in early 2021. His paper was later retracted.
Hill’s findings on Ivermectin were primarily positive. However, despite seeing evidence of Ivermectin’s effectiveness, Hill concluded in his paper that Ivermectin was still not ready for prime time. Shortly after that, millions began to receive the mRNA vaccines even though there was plenty of evidence showing Ivermectin was saving lives.
Dr. Hill’s preprint reflected a systematic study of trial data on the efficacy of Ivermectin in treating COVID-19. Despite his having written in his review that “Ivermectin was associated with reduced inflammatory markers…faster viral clearance by PCR, significantly shortened duration of hospitalization, and favorable clinical recovery,” his conclusion perplexingly stated otherwise.
In the end, Dr. Hill concluded, “Ivermectin should be validated in larger appropriately controlled randomized trials before the results are sufficient for review by regulatory authorities.'” It was his conclusion in the face of evidence to the contrary that Lawrie couldn’t accept. Moreover, Lawrie could not get Hill to be more specific about the outside influences that pressured his decision to resist the recommendation of Ivermectin.
A profoundly poignant 19-minute documentary, entitled “Dear Andy: A Letter to Andrew Hill,” released just over a year ago on March 4, 2022, was Lawrie’s “letter” to a man who, uniquely positioned to save millions of lives, tragically failed the test of courage. The film looks back on the time when in early 2021, Lawrie met with Hill via Zoom call to encourage him to approve Ivermectin “as soon as possible” in the treatment of COVID-19.
By early January 2021, it was evident to Lawrie that Ivermectin was saving lives. She believed talking with Hill could have changed the pandemic’s trajectory and saved millions of lives. In addition to numerous data, she had anecdotal evidence from well-respected, practicing physicians who saw meaningful positive results using the Ivermectin protocol.
The film shows excerpts of a running dialogue from a Zoom call between Lawrie and Hill, during which Lawrie repeatedly and quite pointedly challenges Hill’s actions. Ultimately, despite Lawrie’s best efforts, Hill refuses to acknowledge the truth of her statements fully and fails to alter his behavior. The stakes at the time were enormously high, and Lawrie reminded Hill of his unique position on multiple occasions during the call. His inaction effectively left millions more to die and paved the way for the novel, untested mRNA vaccines.
At the end of the film, Lawrie wistfully looks back on the Zoom call with Hill with pained regret, wondering what else she might have done to avert the suffering she saw all around her. She recalls her thoughts on Hill’s preprint paper and the devastating consequences of his failure to retract his conclusion.
“In my opinion, your preprint paper, published on January 18, did three things. One, it was instrumental in restricting Ivermectin’s use. Two, it led to the discrediting and censoring of doctors recommending it. And three, it facilitated the emergency use authorization (EUA) of the experimental gene-based COVID vaccines.
With effective cover treatments, the authorities would not have been able to authorize these new and experimental drugs without better safety data. And in my opinion, the public would never have acquiesced to the experimental gene-based therapies. Have they been made aware that COVID was readily treatable with safe, established medicines?
The cost in both human lives and nation economies has been devastating. If there was a point when we could have averted the oncoming iatrogenic humanitarian crisis, in my opinion, it was that Zoom call. Together, you and I could have saved millions of lives and so much suffering.”
At one point in the film, FLCCC doctor Pierre Kory laments Hill’s actions:
“History demanded a man in your position who was willing and courageous to speak up, and you did not. And your silence and your cooperation with the forces that wanted to hide the efficacy of Ivermectin. This is an unconscionable thing that you did, and I think history is going to remember it. I hope history is gonna remember it because it has to be a historic lesson that we must speak of, especially when we’re in a position where our voice makes all the difference to humanity. And you were not that voice.”
Shortly before Lawrie met with Dr. Hill, she also posted a “video letter” to Boris Johnson, Prime Minister at the time, begging him to look at her “rapid review report” entitled “Ivermectin for Preventing and Treating COVID-19.” She analyzed the findings from the FLCCC doctors (Marik and Kory, among others) who reviewed 27 studies using Ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19.
Lawrie’s “rapid review” concurred with the FLCCC doctors about the evidence showing “Ivermectin demonstrates a strong signal of therapeutic efficacy.” She also concluded that Ivermectin should be “adopted globally and systematically for the prophylaxis and treatment of COVID-19.”
Few physicians or scientists who made videos like the one above came through the pandemic unscathed. Every single “outlier” expert who spoke boldly against the prevailing narrative was targeted, suppressed, censored, lost their job, or suffered a combination of the four. To this day, it is terrifying to contemplate how powerful forces were actively engaged in suppressing and censoring reputable physicians, costing millions of lives. It has been only the courageous few who have persisted.
COVID-19 set in motion some of the most unconscionably tragic behaviors ever witnessed. When people like Dr. Lawrie did speak up, they were met with unprecedented and often, as was the case with Dr. Hill, utterly nonsensical pushback.
Lawrie states at the end of the film that she is willing to forgive but only if Hill “comes forward to explain the delicate situation he was in—in January 2021.” She again kindly offers him another chance at redemption.
“Together, you and I could have saved millions of lives and so much suffering. Look what they’re doing now, Andy. They’re injecting our children with experimental vaccines. If only you had made a different choice, and if only I could have persuaded you to do the right thing.
I ask you now to make that difficult choice to do what is in the best interest of your friends and countrymen and to do what is in the best interests of humanity at large. How to expose the corruption of science by coming forward to explain the pressure you have been under to undermine the evidence on Ivermectin.
Explain the delicate situation you were in—in January 2021 and name the people who influenced you to change your conclusions. Only then can we start to fix the harm that’s been done. We will forgive you, Andy. But come forward.
Yours Sincerely, Tess”
At one point in the documentary, Dr. Paul Marik speaks about how the wheat was separated from the chaff in the scientific community during the pandemic. To continue to tell the truth became a question of how strongly one was tethered to moral fortitude and integrity. Speaking to Hill, Marik says:
“You had an opportunity to make a difference. You had an opportunity to save lives. But you put your own career ahead of all else and were pressurized—presumably by other forces to change direction. And you know, that reflects the lack of integrity, a lack of moral being that such a thing could have happened.”
There are times in life when “angels” come alongside to whisper the truth. Whether it is angels, conscience, or the voice of a concerned colleague, the messages are there for a purpose. The choice to listen or ignore is yours.
So much about the truth of the pandemic has yet to unfold. Dr. Lawrie was Hill’s angel. She was a gift. And yet, Hill chose to be silent. If you watch the film, you will see Lawrie was uncommonly, heartbreakingly—clear and persistent. As I watched, I couldn’t help but think how courageous she was at every turn. The hardest part, however, is knowing that this film represents many such conversations that could have changed the course of history and saved many lives.
Mistakes Were NOT Made https://t.co/rHeCOH2imd
— Dr Tess Lawrie (@lawrie_dr) April 9, 2023
And Lawrie is absolutely right. If people like Hill do not come forward to name those who influenced such terrible decisions, we will never fix the harm that was done. Forgiveness alone is not enough. Without an admission of what was wrong, this will happen again.