Thinking About Theology

You are here: Home / Covid & Vaccines / What Is Coming, How We Stop It, and How To Prepare

What Is Coming, How We Stop It, and How To Prepare


77 Comments

Post may contain affiliate links. Read my disclosure statement.

I have two recommended videos to share with you that are closely related. You will see overlap in the content, but each one is worth watching in full. Some of the best content in the first video is in the second half so I encourage you to watch all of it.

If these topics are new to you, I strongly encourage you to get up to speed as quickly as possible. Every time you understand something new about the situation in which we find ourselves, you empower yourself and have the potential to empower your loved ones.

If you follow the information I share in various places and watched the videos I shared in Vaccine Information From Doris Cahill, Ros Nealon-Cook, Ricardo Bosi, and Amazing Polly, then you are already aware of the mass psychosis we are currently living through. It’s estimated approximately 30% of people understand what is going on and are actively working against it. Another 30% are gripped or frozen by this psychosis and are religiously obeying the official narrative as a means of self-preservation. The other 40-50% know in their gut there is something very wrong, but they either can’t fully explain it or are afraid so they go along to get along and hope we can go back to the way things were before.

If you are in the 40-50%, it’s imperative that you fully grasp what is happening and move into the ranks of those who are fully awake to what is going on. You need to actively engage in pushing back against what is happening. As is said in the second video, we are at a time in history where you have to pick a side. There is no third option. By choosing to remain in the 40-50%, you will end up with those who are currently frozen in the mass psychosis group. If you know your history, you know that kind of situation never ever ends well.

If you don’t deliberately choose to move forward in the truth, you are choosing by default to walk in and support the lie. Fortunately you are here today and have the opportunity to hear the truth. Make the most of it.

Remember that the inclusion of a resource is not an endorsement of all of the content or the presenters themselves.

This is a great short follow-up to the previous video.

Visited 1 times, 1 visit(s) today

Category: Tag:

You Might Also Like

Reader Interactions

Comments

    • Hi Florence,

      Would you please be more specific? Which nonsense are you talking about? Point me to a specific fact or group of facts you disagree with so we can look at the evidence.

      Sallie

      Reply

    • Hi Florence,

      Would you please be more specific? Which nonsense are you talking about? Point me to a specific fact or group of facts you disagree with so we can look at the evidence.

      Sallie

      Reply

  3. Could you also let me know if you follow any of the information I share on Telegram or in my forum? That way I’ll have a better understanding of how much you have been following the stories they discuss in these videos.

    Sallie

    Reply

  4. Could you also let me know if you follow any of the information I share on Telegram or in my forum? That way I’ll have a better understanding of how much you have been following the stories they discuss in these videos.

    Sallie

    Reply

  5. I’m not out to argue. You have your inbred sources of information and I, of course, have mine. Peace to you and yours.

    Reply

    • What are “inbred sources of information” in your mind? You asked me point blank if I was believing “this nonsense” and I offered to provide additional information regarding what was shared in these videos as a way of defending my reputation. Do I agree with every word they say in these videos? No. I never completely agree with anyone I share which is why I included a disclaimer.

      But do I think they have a broad understanding of what is happening and the long game? Yes.

      I’m not here to argue either. But I am willing to stick my neck out and share information in the hope that it saves even a few families from devastating heartbreak.

      When the World Economic Forum says by 2030 “You’ll own nothing and you’ll be happy” what does that mean? It’s all over their website and the internet. Why?

      What does “Build Back Better” mean? Where did it come from? Who has been actively using that phrase around the world? What are they building back better?

      Why are we giving pregnant women an experimental injection? Why are stillborn rates rising?

      Why are people being denied the use of Ivermectin as I shared in another recent post? (See below)

      Why are the countries with the highest vaccination rates also experiencing the worst outbreaks?

      Why are athletes in the prime of their lives dropping dead on playing fields around the world at a rate that has never been seen before?

      I could go on and on like this.

      I don’t care if people disagree with me. We each have the freedom to do our own research and come to our own conclusions. But no one will be able to ask me why I never said anything if I knew this information. People can ignore everything I said. They can ignore everything I share. But they won’t be able to say that I stayed silent like so many others are right now.

      Sallie

      https://sallieborrink.com/recommended-video-dr-mary-bowden-houston-methodist-and-ivermectin-denials/

      Reply

  6. I’m not out to argue. You have your inbred sources of information and I, of course, have mine. Peace to you and yours.

    Reply

    • What are “inbred sources of information” in your mind? You asked me point blank if I was believing “this nonsense” and I offered to provide additional information regarding what was shared in these videos as a way of defending my reputation. Do I agree with every word they say in these videos? No. I never completely agree with anyone I share which is why I included a disclaimer.

      But do I think they have a broad understanding of what is happening and the long game? Yes.

      I’m not here to argue either. But I am willing to stick my neck out and share information in the hope that it saves even a few families from devastating heartbreak.

      When the World Economic Forum says by 2030 “You’ll own nothing and you’ll be happy” what does that mean? It’s all over their website and the internet. Why?

      What does “Build Back Better” mean? Where did it come from? Who has been actively using that phrase around the world? What are they building back better?

      Why are we giving pregnant women an experimental injection? Why are stillborn rates rising?

      Why are people being denied the use of Ivermectin as I shared in another recent post? (See below)

      Why are the countries with the highest vaccination rates also experiencing the worst outbreaks?

      Why are athletes in the prime of their lives dropping dead on playing fields around the world at a rate that has never been seen before?

      I could go on and on like this.

      I don’t care if people disagree with me. We each have the freedom to do our own research and come to our own conclusions. But no one will be able to ask me why I never said anything if I knew this information. People can ignore everything I said. They can ignore everything I share. But they won’t be able to say that I stayed silent like so many others are right now.

      Sallie

      https://sallieborrink.com/recommended-video-dr-mary-bowden-houston-methodist-and-ivermectin-denials/

      Reply

  7. Hi Sallie,

    I really appreciate you sharing these videos. I’ve only had time to watch the first one so far. Almost everything the speaker says lines up with Martin Armstrong, whom I have followed for years. I have yet to see Mr. Armstrong be incorrect with his assessments of the world.

    The agenda through Build Back Better and the WEF are one in the same, and it is very clear what the agenda entails. At least we know.

    And now that we DO know, we can pray over our families and prepare for the way forward.

    Thank you again –
    xo, Lauren

    Reply

    • Hi Lauren,

      You’re welcome. The plan is very clear if people open their eyes. The WEF and those who work with them are being very open about it. Hopefully more people realize what is at stake as soon as possible. It truly is a battle between good and evil.

      Sallie

      Reply

  8. Hi Sallie,

    I really appreciate you sharing these videos. I’ve only had time to watch the first one so far. Almost everything the speaker says lines up with Martin Armstrong, whom I have followed for years. I have yet to see Mr. Armstrong be incorrect with his assessments of the world.

    The agenda through Build Back Better and the WEF are one in the same, and it is very clear what the agenda entails. At least we know.

    And now that we DO know, we can pray over our families and prepare for the way forward.

    Thank you again –
    xo, Lauren

    Reply

    • Hi Lauren,

      You’re welcome. The plan is very clear if people open their eyes. The WEF and those who work with them are being very open about it. Hopefully more people realize what is at stake as soon as possible. It truly is a battle between good and evil.

      Sallie

      Reply

  13. From the article linked at the end:

    Despite ‘a pretty much unlimited budget to run trials’ they didn’t run one for masks ‘because they knew that they don’t work’. In effect, ‘the trial was Scotland versus England. And we found they don’t work.’

    For this government insider the implications are now too serious to remain silent because ‘we are lying when we say masks work. They are a signal, a psyop. And we’ve criminalised not wearing them. Masks also transfer the blame onto individuals for the epidemic spreading. We have people counting the unmasked on public transport, policing each other. It is deeply unethical that we have set people against each other in this way. It allows the creation of an “out group” to blame.’ He points out that it is the government we should be blame for not increasing healthcare capacity.

    The timing of our conversation is interesting. He speaks to me just before the news about Downing Street Christmas parties breaks. People are rightly angry about hypocrisy and the pain of their own cancelled plans last year. The nation suffered last minute restrictions while Downing Street enjoyed revelry. More than one million pounds in fines have been served to nearly 2,000 Covid-19 rule breakers at Westminster magistrates court, including throwing and attending parties, while Boris Johnson evades punishment.

    But the real point is not the hypocrisy, or that we suffered while they did not. Rather it is that those who organised and attended the party had a different risk calculus. They did not feel imperilled by parties and gatherings. They knew they were safe, just as they know that masks don’t work. What we are expected to believe is another matter.

    As these distasteful double standards are unmasked, Ministers are considering whether to impose Plan B and roll out Covid Passes. When the Winter Plan was published, we were told that the trigger to move from Plan A to Plan B was if the NHS comes under ‘unsustainable pressure’. This was left deliberately vague. If you were watching cases and hospitalisations with an anxious eye, I’m afraid you were missing the more important signs: stories about doctors’ anger at the ‘selfish’ un-jabbed, daily polling via Twitter, TV shows and Yougov about the national appetite for Covid Passes and mandates, and the reintroduction of masks.

    There is an army of behavioural scientists, communications specialists and Covid task forces focussed on Covid. The government insider told me there are hundreds of people in this Covid apparatus, even though we are no longer in an emergency. Robert Higgs talks about the ‘ratchet effect’ in his book Crisis and Leviathan whereby the state expands in response to a crisis and then doesn’t recede afterwards to its former level. The aura of emergency will not fade and we risk ever more stringent and unpalatable restrictions unless this apparatus is dismantled. Furthermore, public reputations have been staked on enforcing restrictions, including journalists, scientists and politicians.

    The government insider is brutal about the reality of our situation: ‘England is teetering on the edge of a depressing, bureacratic, safety-obsessed society. We’re not at the level of Germany or Austria yet, but we’re on a precipice nonetheless.’ On his primary reason for calling me, he said he is ‘ashamed how much people believe in masks despite the lack of evidence’.

    https://lauradodsworth.substack.com/p/masks-were-to-soften-you-up-for-plan

    Reply

  14. From the article linked at the end:

    Despite ‘a pretty much unlimited budget to run trials’ they didn’t run one for masks ‘because they knew that they don’t work’. In effect, ‘the trial was Scotland versus England. And we found they don’t work.’

    For this government insider the implications are now too serious to remain silent because ‘we are lying when we say masks work. They are a signal, a psyop. And we’ve criminalised not wearing them. Masks also transfer the blame onto individuals for the epidemic spreading. We have people counting the unmasked on public transport, policing each other. It is deeply unethical that we have set people against each other in this way. It allows the creation of an “out group” to blame.’ He points out that it is the government we should be blame for not increasing healthcare capacity.

    The timing of our conversation is interesting. He speaks to me just before the news about Downing Street Christmas parties breaks. People are rightly angry about hypocrisy and the pain of their own cancelled plans last year. The nation suffered last minute restrictions while Downing Street enjoyed revelry. More than one million pounds in fines have been served to nearly 2,000 Covid-19 rule breakers at Westminster magistrates court, including throwing and attending parties, while Boris Johnson evades punishment.

    But the real point is not the hypocrisy, or that we suffered while they did not. Rather it is that those who organised and attended the party had a different risk calculus. They did not feel imperilled by parties and gatherings. They knew they were safe, just as they know that masks don’t work. What we are expected to believe is another matter.

    As these distasteful double standards are unmasked, Ministers are considering whether to impose Plan B and roll out Covid Passes. When the Winter Plan was published, we were told that the trigger to move from Plan A to Plan B was if the NHS comes under ‘unsustainable pressure’. This was left deliberately vague. If you were watching cases and hospitalisations with an anxious eye, I’m afraid you were missing the more important signs: stories about doctors’ anger at the ‘selfish’ un-jabbed, daily polling via Twitter, TV shows and Yougov about the national appetite for Covid Passes and mandates, and the reintroduction of masks.

    There is an army of behavioural scientists, communications specialists and Covid task forces focussed on Covid. The government insider told me there are hundreds of people in this Covid apparatus, even though we are no longer in an emergency. Robert Higgs talks about the ‘ratchet effect’ in his book Crisis and Leviathan whereby the state expands in response to a crisis and then doesn’t recede afterwards to its former level. The aura of emergency will not fade and we risk ever more stringent and unpalatable restrictions unless this apparatus is dismantled. Furthermore, public reputations have been staked on enforcing restrictions, including journalists, scientists and politicians.

    The government insider is brutal about the reality of our situation: ‘England is teetering on the edge of a depressing, bureacratic, safety-obsessed society. We’re not at the level of Germany or Austria yet, but we’re on a precipice nonetheless.’ On his primary reason for calling me, he said he is ‘ashamed how much people believe in masks despite the lack of evidence’.

    https://lauradodsworth.substack.com/p/masks-were-to-soften-you-up-for-plan

    Reply

  19. Tell me again this is about health over a virus with a 99.5% recovery rate WITH NO INTERVENTION. How many people will die because they are not getting diagnosed and treated for many other problems? Now they can’t even get a necessary surgery.

    Wake up.

    “Over 500 Hospital workers in Western New York (around Buffalo) fire today over vaccines. Kaleida Hospital fired 200, Catholic Hospital fired 180, ECMC fired 106, and the Memorial Medical Center fired 40. . This at a time when NY hospitals have seen a major increase in patients. Because of this now 7 Western New York hospitals have stopped doing surgeries”

    https://gab.com/1776Stonewall/posts/107412825171150673

    Reply

  20. Tell me again this is about health over a virus with a 99.5% recovery rate WITH NO INTERVENTION. How many people will die because they are not getting diagnosed and treated for many other problems? Now they can’t even get a necessary surgery.

    Wake up.

    “Over 500 Hospital workers in Western New York (around Buffalo) fire today over vaccines. Kaleida Hospital fired 200, Catholic Hospital fired 180, ECMC fired 106, and the Memorial Medical Center fired 40. . This at a time when NY hospitals have seen a major increase in patients. Because of this now 7 Western New York hospitals have stopped doing surgeries”

    https://gab.com/1776Stonewall/posts/107412825171150673

    Reply

  25. From the article linked at the end. It is definitely worth clicking over and reading the entire thing so you understand the context of this conversation.

    NEAR BEGINNING OF ARTICLE:

    “Andrew Hill, MD, is a senior visiting Research Fellow in Pharmacology at Liverpool University. He is also an advisor for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Clinton Foundation. As a researcher for the WHO evaluating ivermectin, Hill wielded enormous influence over international guidance for the drug’s use.

    Hill had previously authored a analysis of ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19 that found the drug overwhelmingly effective.

    On Jan. 6 of 2020, Hill testified enthusiastically before the NIH COVID-19 Treatment Guidlelines Panel in support of ivermectin’s use. Within a month, however, Hill found himself in what he describes as a “tricky situation.” Under pressure from his funding sponsors, Hill then published an unfavorable study. Ironically, he used the same sources as in the original study. Only the conclusions had changed.

    Shortly before he published, Dr. Tess Lawrie, Director of the Evidence-based Medicine Consultancy in Bath, England, and one of the world’s leading medical research analysts, contacted Hill via Zoom and recorded the call (transcript below). Lawrie had learned of his new position and reached out to try to rectify the situation.

    In a remarkable exchange, Hill admitted his manipulated study would likely delay the uptake of ivermectin in the UK and United States, but said he hoped his doing so would only set the lifesaving drug’s acceptance back by about “six weeks,” after which he was willing to give his support for its use.

    Hill affirmed that the rate of death at that time was 15,000 people per day. At the 80 percent recovery rate using the drug, which Hill and Lawrie discussed earlier in the call, the number of preventable deaths incurred by such a delay would be staggering — as many as 504,000.

    Lawrie was unable to persuade Hill, who instead of joining her team as lead author, went ahead and published his manipulated findings.

    Four days before publication, Hill’s sponsor Unitaid gave the University of Liverpool, Hill’s employer $40 million. Unitaid, it turns out, was also an author of the conclusions of Hill’s study.

    In the call, Lawrie berated Hill’s study as “flawed,” “rushed,“ “not properly put together,” and “bad research . . . bad research,” which Hill appears not to have denied.

    Instead, when pressed he admitted his sponsor, Unitaid, was an unacknowledged author of conclusions.

    “Unitaid has a say in the conclusions of the paper. Yeah,” he told Lawrie.

    Kennedy explained: “Unitaid is a quasi-governmental advocacy organization funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) and several countries . . . to lobby governments to finance the purchase of medicines from pharmaceutical multinationals” for distribution in Africa.

    FROM ZOOM CONVERSATION:

    Hill had previously authored a analysis of ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19 that found the drug overwhelmingly effective.

    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.

    Lawrie then asks again: 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.

    https://www.worldtribune.com/researcher-andrew-hills-conflict-a-40-million-gates-foundation-grant-vs-a-half-million-human-lives/

    Reply

  26. From the article linked at the end. It is definitely worth clicking over and reading the entire thing so you understand the context of this conversation.

    NEAR BEGINNING OF ARTICLE:

    “Andrew Hill, MD, is a senior visiting Research Fellow in Pharmacology at Liverpool University. He is also an advisor for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Clinton Foundation. As a researcher for the WHO evaluating ivermectin, Hill wielded enormous influence over international guidance for the drug’s use.

    Hill had previously authored a analysis of ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19 that found the drug overwhelmingly effective.

    On Jan. 6 of 2020, Hill testified enthusiastically before the NIH COVID-19 Treatment Guidlelines Panel in support of ivermectin’s use. Within a month, however, Hill found himself in what he describes as a “tricky situation.” Under pressure from his funding sponsors, Hill then published an unfavorable study. Ironically, he used the same sources as in the original study. Only the conclusions had changed.

    Shortly before he published, Dr. Tess Lawrie, Director of the Evidence-based Medicine Consultancy in Bath, England, and one of the world’s leading medical research analysts, contacted Hill via Zoom and recorded the call (transcript below). Lawrie had learned of his new position and reached out to try to rectify the situation.

    In a remarkable exchange, Hill admitted his manipulated study would likely delay the uptake of ivermectin in the UK and United States, but said he hoped his doing so would only set the lifesaving drug’s acceptance back by about “six weeks,” after which he was willing to give his support for its use.

    Hill affirmed that the rate of death at that time was 15,000 people per day. At the 80 percent recovery rate using the drug, which Hill and Lawrie discussed earlier in the call, the number of preventable deaths incurred by such a delay would be staggering — as many as 504,000.

    Lawrie was unable to persuade Hill, who instead of joining her team as lead author, went ahead and published his manipulated findings.

    Four days before publication, Hill’s sponsor Unitaid gave the University of Liverpool, Hill’s employer $40 million. Unitaid, it turns out, was also an author of the conclusions of Hill’s study.

    In the call, Lawrie berated Hill’s study as “flawed,” “rushed,“ “not properly put together,” and “bad research . . . bad research,” which Hill appears not to have denied.

    Instead, when pressed he admitted his sponsor, Unitaid, was an unacknowledged author of conclusions.

    “Unitaid has a say in the conclusions of the paper. Yeah,” he told Lawrie.

    Kennedy explained: “Unitaid is a quasi-governmental advocacy organization funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) and several countries . . . to lobby governments to finance the purchase of medicines from pharmaceutical multinationals” for distribution in Africa.

    FROM ZOOM CONVERSATION:

    Hill had previously authored a analysis of ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19 that found the drug overwhelmingly effective.

    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.

    Lawrie then asks again: 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.

    https://www.worldtribune.com/researcher-andrew-hills-conflict-a-40-million-gates-foundation-grant-vs-a-half-million-human-lives/

    Reply

  39. Eastport-South Manor School District (Suffolk, County, NY) sends letter to Governor Hochul on November 23, 2021, expressing concern regarding mandating jabs in children

    Read letter here (PDF)

    In December, the school sent out the following message to K-12 parents seen in screenshot below. Here is part of the text describing they have hired a special doctor and developed plans to deal with Sudden Cardiac Arrest in a K-12 SCHOOL DISTRICT:

    The district is very pleased to introduce our new district doctor, Melina Khwaja, MD. Dr. Khwaja is an Emergency Medicine Board Certified Physician with over 10 years’ experience as an attending at University Hospital at Stony Brook treating patients, teaching, and supervising medical students and residents. Currently, Dr. Khwaja is the owner and operator of independent urgent care centers in West Babylon and Manorville, NY. Dr. Khwaja has already spent a great deal of time working with our school nurses to improve our systems, practices and to implement all new required regulations.

    One such effort has to do with new regulations regarding Sudden Cardiac Arrest. All districts are now required to ensure that nurses and coaches can address the treatment and monitoring of students who exhibit signs and symptoms of sudden cardiac arrest. In addition, districts are required to make sure that all staff are aware of the warning signs of sudden cardiac arrest and what to do if a person experiences sudden cardiac arrest. Please see the attached information on Sudden Cardiac Arrest.

    I was a teacher. We NEVER EVER had to plan for ‘Sudden Cardiac Arrest” in our students. Why is this happening?

    Reply

  40. Eastport-South Manor School District (Suffolk, County, NY) sends letter to Governor Hochul on November 23, 2021, expressing concern regarding mandating jabs in children

    Read letter here (PDF)

    In December, the school sent out the following message to K-12 parents seen in screenshot below. Here is part of the text describing they have hired a special doctor and developed plans to deal with Sudden Cardiac Arrest in a K-12 SCHOOL DISTRICT:

    The district is very pleased to introduce our new district doctor, Melina Khwaja, MD. Dr. Khwaja is an Emergency Medicine Board Certified Physician with over 10 years’ experience as an attending at University Hospital at Stony Brook treating patients, teaching, and supervising medical students and residents. Currently, Dr. Khwaja is the owner and operator of independent urgent care centers in West Babylon and Manorville, NY. Dr. Khwaja has already spent a great deal of time working with our school nurses to improve our systems, practices and to implement all new required regulations.

    One such effort has to do with new regulations regarding Sudden Cardiac Arrest. All districts are now required to ensure that nurses and coaches can address the treatment and monitoring of students who exhibit signs and symptoms of sudden cardiac arrest. In addition, districts are required to make sure that all staff are aware of the warning signs of sudden cardiac arrest and what to do if a person experiences sudden cardiac arrest. Please see the attached information on Sudden Cardiac Arrest.

    I was a teacher. We NEVER EVER had to plan for ‘Sudden Cardiac Arrest” in our students. Why is this happening?

    Reply

  45. Dear Friends, Sorry to Announce a Genocide
    It’s Really True: They Know they are Killing the Babies
    Dr Naomi Wolf

    “I’ve been silent for some weeks. Forgive me.

    The truth is: I’ve been rendered almost speechless — or the literary equivalent of that — because recently I’ve had the unenviable task of trying to announce to the world that indeed, a genocide — or what I’ve called, clumsily but urgently, a “baby die-off” — is underway.

    The WarRoom/DailyClout Pfizer Documents Research Volunteers, a group of 3000 highly credentialled doctors, RNs, biostatisticians, medical fraud investigators, lab clinicians and research scientists, have been turning out report after report, as you may know, to tell the world what is in the 55,000 internal Pfizer documents which the FDA had asked a court to keep under wraps for 75 years. By court order, these documents were forcibly disclosed. And our experts are serving humanity by reading through these documents and explaining them in lay terms. You can find all of the Volunteers’ reports on DailyClout.io.

    The lies revealed are stunning.”

    https://naomiwolf.substack.com/p/dear-friends-sorry-to-announce-a?s=r

    Reply

  46. Dear Friends, Sorry to Announce a Genocide
    It’s Really True: They Know they are Killing the Babies
    Dr Naomi Wolf

    “I’ve been silent for some weeks. Forgive me.

    The truth is: I’ve been rendered almost speechless — or the literary equivalent of that — because recently I’ve had the unenviable task of trying to announce to the world that indeed, a genocide — or what I’ve called, clumsily but urgently, a “baby die-off” — is underway.

    The WarRoom/DailyClout Pfizer Documents Research Volunteers, a group of 3000 highly credentialled doctors, RNs, biostatisticians, medical fraud investigators, lab clinicians and research scientists, have been turning out report after report, as you may know, to tell the world what is in the 55,000 internal Pfizer documents which the FDA had asked a court to keep under wraps for 75 years. By court order, these documents were forcibly disclosed. And our experts are serving humanity by reading through these documents and explaining them in lay terms. You can find all of the Volunteers’ reports on DailyClout.io.

    The lies revealed are stunning.”

    https://naomiwolf.substack.com/p/dear-friends-sorry-to-announce-a?s=r

    Reply

  61. Looking at this post a year later and then adding the updates, especially about pregnant women and the poor babies, makes me want to vomit all over my keyboard.

    We knew. We warned people.

    YOU NEVER GIVE UNTESTED ANYTHING TO PREGNANT WOMEN.

    EVER. EVER. EVER. EVER. EVER. EVER. EVER. EVER. EVER. EVER. EVER. EVER.

    It was the biggest red flag that something was horribly wrong with all of this. That ONE THING ALONE should have made everybody stop and think.

    I feel so incredibly sick. It’s all so horrifying what has been done to the babies and children.

    Reply

  62. Looking at this post a year later and then adding the updates, especially about pregnant women and the poor babies, makes me want to vomit all over my keyboard.

    We knew. We warned people.

    YOU NEVER GIVE UNTESTED ANYTHING TO PREGNANT WOMEN.

    EVER. EVER. EVER. EVER. EVER. EVER. EVER. EVER. EVER. EVER. EVER. EVER.

    It was the biggest red flag that something was horribly wrong with all of this. That ONE THING ALONE should have made everybody stop and think.

    I feel so incredibly sick. It’s all so horrifying what has been done to the babies and children.

    Reply

  67. I will add this. If I am wrong about everything I shared in these comments, I will GLADLY AND JOYOUSLY acknowledge that the information was incorrect. I will reply to every comment I left with statistics that are shown to be wrong with this:

    These statistics were wrong.
    Everything is fine.
    The babies and mothers are fine.
    The children are fine.
    I rejoice to be shown that these statistics painted a false reality.

    I will be THRILLED to be shown these are wrong. I will GLADLY type that update over and over again.

    How likely is it that you think I’m going to have to do that?

    Sallie

    Reply

  68. I will add this. If I am wrong about everything I shared in these comments, I will GLADLY AND JOYOUSLY acknowledge that the information was incorrect. I will reply to every comment I left with statistics that are shown to be wrong with this:

    These statistics were wrong.
    Everything is fine.
    The babies and mothers are fine.
    The children are fine.
    I rejoice to be shown that these statistics painted a false reality.

    I will be THRILLED to be shown these are wrong. I will GLADLY type that update over and over again.

    How likely is it that you think I’m going to have to do that?

    Sallie

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *