Intro by Jon Davy
The war in Ukraine provides for those responsible for the Covid fake pandemic and resultant booby-trapped pseudo vaccine mass poisoning event what they hope will be the timely distraction of a new terror operation that will get them off the hook for the atrocities they have committed against their own people.
They need all the help they can get because the mounting pseudovax death toll and the evidence for their culpability in the fabrication of what may turn out to be a man-made catastrophe of immnse prportions is becoming an avalanche.
When we say “man-made” catastrophe, we mean of course a “criminal-made” catasrophe and so vast are these crimes if w are to enjoy any kind of tolerable civilisation we MUST bring those criminals to justice and put some heads on pikes to deter any future psychopaths who decide to wage war on humanity.
A case in point is that of Ivermectin, a safe, workable, known remedy for Covid 19 and similar infections that was cynically suppressed. The reason it was suppressed (and Dr Tess Lawrie explains this clearly at 1:50 of the video below) was that had its use been allowed there would have been no health emergency. The “pandemic” would have been impossible to propagandise or fake and the citizenry could not have been terrorised into submitting to the booby-trapped pseudo-vaccines. And tens of thousands of lives would have been saved.
As it happened, the suppression of Ivermectin and other known remedies amounted to standing by, withholding treatment and letting die thousands of people who need not have died. Moreover, the suppression of safe remedies cleared the way for the deployment of the far less safe pseudo vaccines whose death toll is now climbing steadily as the medium and long term adverse effects begin to kick in and manifest.
All those who played their part in the suppression of safe and effective remedies and the mas deployment of the deadly vaccines have blood on their hands and must be held to account, the distractions of an orchestrated conflict between WEF puppets in Ukraine notwithstanding.
The criminality behind this mass poisoning runs deep and it amounts to an evil almost too much for decent people to easily confront.
But confront it we must unless we want to let those responsible for the murder of our friends, family, children and fellow citizens get away with it.
With that in mind, we feature an article with a stunning revelation followed by a video which discusses the Ivermectin issue from the 1:11 mark.
First, the article (SOURCE)
Who Changed the Scientific Conclusions of a Paper that Could Have Saved Millions?
At Last, We May Have a Name
This is a scandal of immense proportions that warrants an immediate investigation.
If what you are about to learn was playing out onscreen, the collective gasp of the audience at the moment of reveal would register at deafening decibels.
First, let’s set the stage:
— Over one year ago, there were ample peer-reviewed, randomized 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 Organization’s COVID Guideline Development Group. 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. Instead of concluding that ivermectin—one of the world’s safest and most inexpensive drugs— should be rolled out globally, it now concluded that more studies on ivermectin were needed before it could be recommended worldwide. 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.
But now, “The Digger” on Substack (aka producer/director 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.
Mr. 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? “Sometimes it’s the most obvious of things,” 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 recognized. Andrew Owen.
“Unless someone used his computer, Andrew Owen has his digital fingerprint on the Andrew Hill paper.”
Professor Andrew Owen is the person who allegedly edited the critical Andrew Hill paper on Ivermectin. He was also in receipt of consultancy fees from pharmaceutical companies with competing products.
As it turns out, Andrew Owen is a Professor of Pharmacology & Therapeutics and co-Director of the Centre of Excellence in Long-acting Therapeutics (CELT) at the University of Liverpool. He is also scientific advisor to the WHO’s COVID-19 Guideline Development Group. Just days before Dr. Hill’s paper was to be published, a $40M grant from Unitaid, the paper’s sponsor, was given to CELT —of which Owen is the project lead. “The $40 million contract was actually a commercial agreement between Unitaid, the University of Liverpool and Tandem Nano Ltd (a start-up company that commercializes ‘Solid Lipid Nanoparticle’ delivery mechanisms)— for which Andrew Owen is a top shareholder,” says Harper.
Furthermore, Harper writes that, “Andrew Owen is prolific in the art of receiving money from pharmaceutical companies. He’s received research funding from ViiV Healthcare, Merck, Janssen, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Abbott Laboratories, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Tibotec, Roche Pharmaceuticals and Bristol-Myers Squibb.”
Read the entire essay HERE. In it, Harper reveals much, much more. 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 and make bank.
And now the video
The whole episode is worth watching but an interview with Dr Tess Lawrie and a cogent explanation of the Ivermectin issue starts at the 1 hour 11 minutes mark so skip forward to there if you are of a mind to.
The People’s Media
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.