The story of Andrew Hill illustrates how Pharma is able to exploit human nature to manipulate people into rationalizing away their moral convictions and guilty conscience
Imo here is the crux of the matter: “a drug with an established safety profile in use for decades”
Even if ivermectin wasn’t effective in some or even most cases, using it did no harm. Banning a safe substance is the tell that evil lurked in this choice. And I am with the authors here: most people don’t think of themselves as doing evil. They just have another goal that trumps (ha) it.
Exactly. I can't find the exact quote immediately, but the gist of what Steve Hickey, PhD, and Hilary Roberts, PhD, said in their self-published but (or perhaps 'therefore') excellent monograph, Ascorbate: The Science of Vitamin C, is that, if a medicine is known to be safe, as ivermectin is, then one needn't require multi-million dollar RCTs to establish efficacy before using them, especially in an urgent situation, because the risk:benefit ratio will be low, since the numerator (risk) is known to be low. Even if the denominator is low, harm likely won't be done. It's when the numerator, the risk, is unknown, that the need for more evidence is much higher, as, of course, with the injections and with paxlovid. Most of the people and institutions we trusted to, at the very least, follow the law and the regulations on human subjects research have done far more than just let us down. I hope for repentance by all of them. The likelihood of earthly justice seems dim (though I hope for it, too, even if it is no more than damaged or destroyed reputations and widespread loss of trust and confidence in them). If they fail to repent, then they will discover that "the wheels of justice grind slowly, but they grind exceeding small; though with patience He stands waiting, with exactness grinds he all."
"Medical experts often suggest that a high degree of conservatism is required in the acceptance and authorization of new medical treatments. However, this rule applies more to some treatments than to others. A new treatment must be shown to be both effective and harm-free. In the case of new drugs, this statement is certainly correct, since many have significant side effects. On the other hand, the safety of vitamin C is already established, as it is a normal part of the diet and is even essential to life. Given that a treatment is known to be safe, the evidence required for its effectiveness is lower. For an extremely safe treatment, we only need to know that there is some small advantage to its use."
- in the chapter called Social Influences on Science, the section sub-titled Do No Harm.
Andrew Hill is infamous because you’ve seen him behaving badly.
Unfortunately there are worse ordinary evil people too. I know several of them.
Sir Patrick Vallance.
Dr James Merson.
Dr Mathai Mammen.
Sir Mene Pangalos.
Dame Kate Bingham.
All ordinary. All involved at executive level in great evil. All should be ashamed of themselves. They’ll probably waft away with great riches & honours.
“Ergo, Pharma understands that if they get someone to commit the initial act of corruption, they will have control over that person going forward, because they will need to rationalize that what they did was not wrong, corrupt, or evil. “
Saddam Hussein allegedly used similar tactics. When he was torturing his victims, he would have one of his minions actually pull the trigger when it came time to dispatch them. Complicit in the crime, they knew they would go down if he did. So they rationalized their participation as moral and just and defended Saddam.
Great case study of someone we watched descend into moral bankruptcy, despite people getting ill and dying. This is the constant pull of pharma's hundreds of billions of dollars on anyone they can reach.
Yup. People have a near limitless capacity to convince themselves of anything, especially when their self-perception/identity/worldview is threatened in a severe way.
Did you see this medpage article? It's practically a handbook to much of the nature of med community/academic corruption re covid et al, it's kind of a bit surprising they'd actually publish such a damming account so bluntly ;)
How a Suicide in a Clinical Trial Turned a Bioethicist Into a Whistleblower
Watching and remembering how he squirmed during that interview. As much as Walensky, Fauci, Collins, Daszak and Baric, he is a mass murderer.
Imo here is the crux of the matter: “a drug with an established safety profile in use for decades”
Even if ivermectin wasn’t effective in some or even most cases, using it did no harm. Banning a safe substance is the tell that evil lurked in this choice. And I am with the authors here: most people don’t think of themselves as doing evil. They just have another goal that trumps (ha) it.
Exactly. I can't find the exact quote immediately, but the gist of what Steve Hickey, PhD, and Hilary Roberts, PhD, said in their self-published but (or perhaps 'therefore') excellent monograph, Ascorbate: The Science of Vitamin C, is that, if a medicine is known to be safe, as ivermectin is, then one needn't require multi-million dollar RCTs to establish efficacy before using them, especially in an urgent situation, because the risk:benefit ratio will be low, since the numerator (risk) is known to be low. Even if the denominator is low, harm likely won't be done. It's when the numerator, the risk, is unknown, that the need for more evidence is much higher, as, of course, with the injections and with paxlovid. Most of the people and institutions we trusted to, at the very least, follow the law and the regulations on human subjects research have done far more than just let us down. I hope for repentance by all of them. The likelihood of earthly justice seems dim (though I hope for it, too, even if it is no more than damaged or destroyed reputations and widespread loss of trust and confidence in them). If they fail to repent, then they will discover that "the wheels of justice grind slowly, but they grind exceeding small; though with patience He stands waiting, with exactness grinds he all."
https://www.phrases.org.uk/bulletin_board/59/messages/975.html
Found it:
"Medical experts often suggest that a high degree of conservatism is required in the acceptance and authorization of new medical treatments. However, this rule applies more to some treatments than to others. A new treatment must be shown to be both effective and harm-free. In the case of new drugs, this statement is certainly correct, since many have significant side effects. On the other hand, the safety of vitamin C is already established, as it is a normal part of the diet and is even essential to life. Given that a treatment is known to be safe, the evidence required for its effectiveness is lower. For an extremely safe treatment, we only need to know that there is some small advantage to its use."
- in the chapter called Social Influences on Science, the section sub-titled Do No Harm.
Or in short, a new drug is presumed guilty until proven innocent. An old drug proven innocent should be presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Andrew Hill is infamous because you’ve seen him behaving badly.
Unfortunately there are worse ordinary evil people too. I know several of them.
Sir Patrick Vallance.
Dr James Merson.
Dr Mathai Mammen.
Sir Mene Pangalos.
Dame Kate Bingham.
All ordinary. All involved at executive level in great evil. All should be ashamed of themselves. They’ll probably waft away with great riches & honours.
“Ergo, Pharma understands that if they get someone to commit the initial act of corruption, they will have control over that person going forward, because they will need to rationalize that what they did was not wrong, corrupt, or evil. “
Saddam Hussein allegedly used similar tactics. When he was torturing his victims, he would have one of his minions actually pull the trigger when it came time to dispatch them. Complicit in the crime, they knew they would go down if he did. So they rationalized their participation as moral and just and defended Saddam.
Exactly
Like gang initiation - making them murder someone to get in.
Great case study of someone we watched descend into moral bankruptcy, despite people getting ill and dying. This is the constant pull of pharma's hundreds of billions of dollars on anyone they can reach.
This model -the banality of it all - is exactly where I found my thinking on this.
We really can rationalise anything, even the most obvious and irrational absurdities. Evil is too simple.
Yup. People have a near limitless capacity to convince themselves of anything, especially when their self-perception/identity/worldview is threatened in a severe way.
Did you see this medpage article? It's practically a handbook to much of the nature of med community/academic corruption re covid et al, it's kind of a bit surprising they'd actually publish such a damming account so bluntly ;)
How a Suicide in a Clinical Trial Turned a Bioethicist Into a Whistleblower
https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/features/101088
Big pharma's payoffs work wonders for their bottom line.
Thank you for this post!
You're welcome :))
Unfreakingbelievably shameless. I guess he's sleeping just fine.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GO0JaecRWy0
"What the Hell Andy" is the perfect accompaniment from our very own Dollyboy:
• https://margaretannaalice.substack.com/i/68654621/new-album-covidians
🤣🤣
The VIC have got something on Andrew Hill. Like Dorris/Borris Johnson they've done a 180 degree. Skeletons in cupboards?
Andrew Hill needs to go to jail. For a long long time