The crackpots were right: COVID is a racket

Although I will put my COVID-skeptic credentials up against anyone’s – I tried to organize a public protest on day one of the lockdown – I confess to having seen Big Health’s actions as merely misguided. I was wrong.

The “crackpots” were right. The Big Health involvement did not progress along the Eric Hoffer spectrum from a good cause to a movement with benefits to a racket. It started as a racket, a massive racket that may go down as a Mao-worthy crime against humanity.

As the princeling of America’s reigning Democratic dynasty, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has his blind spots, but his dissection of Big Health’s war, not on COVID, but on those who are actually warring with COVID, is this century’s must-read book.

Rather than summarize Kennedy’s “The Real Anthony Fauci,” allow me to excerpt one particular conversation that speaks to the enormity of the debacle. The conversation, recorded on Zoom, involves two scientists. One is Dr. Tess Lawrie, a world-renowned data researcher from the U.K. with an international reputation for integrity. The other is World Health Organization researcher Dr. Andrew Hill, a senior visiting research fellow at Liverpool University.

Lawrie and 20 of the world’s leading experts had recently performed a meta-analysis of the research done on ivermectin (IVM), and the data overwhelmingly supported its value in treating COVID-19.

Like Lawrie, Hill had been a major IVM proponent before making a very suspicious about-face. As a WHO gatekeeper and adviser to both Bill Gates and the Clinton Foundation, Hill’s opinion mattered. His hasty counter-thesis blocked a worldwide ivermectin rollout.

“How can you do this?” Lawrie asks him. “You are causing irreparable harm.”

Hill explained that he was in a “tricky position” because his sponsors were pressuring him, the most important of which was Unitaid. Chairing the executive committee of Unitaid, an international quasi-governmental consortium, was the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation representative. Apparently, a $150 million donation buys the best seat at the table.

Lawrie was unmoved by the “sensitivity” of Hill’s position. “Lots of people are in sensitive positions,” Lawrie challenges Hill. “They’re in hospital, in ICUs dying, and they need this medicine.”

“There are a lot of different opinions about this,” Hill waffles. “As I say, some people simply …”

Lawrie cuts him off. “You don’t have to say, well, so-and-so says this, and so-and-so says that. It’s absolutely crystal clear. We can save lives today if we can get the government to buy ivermectin.”

When Hill reverts to his “some people” shtick, Lawrie counters, “We are looking at the data. It doesn’t matter what some people say.”

Lawrie explains Hill’s “tricky position” to him. “I appreciate you are in a sensitive position if you are being paid for something and you’re being told to support a certain position.” She then lays out the only acceptable moral response: “So maybe you need to say, I’m not going to be paid for this. I can see the evidence.”

One can understand how an apparatchik could buckle before a Stalin or a Hitler, but a Bill Gates? Dante would need a special Circle to accommodate bureaucrats as easily intimidated as Hill.

When Hill protests that the NIH would not agree to recommend IVM, Lawrie shoots back, “Yeah, because the NIH is owned by the vaccine lobby.” Hill cannot deny Lawrie’s claim. “That’s not something I know about,” he says lamely.

“Well,” she replies, “all I’m saying is this smacks of corruption, and you’re being played.” Responds the feckless Hill, “I don’t think so.”

When pressed, Hill admits that Unitaid “has a say” in his research. Lawrie then asks for a name of someone at Unitaid. Her goal is to “share my evidence and hope to try to persuade them to understand it.”

Hill will not oblige her and continues to waffle, “I mean this is very difficult because I’m, you know, I’ve got this role where I’m supposed to produce this paper and we’re in a very difficult, delicate balance.”

When Hill insists he occupies a “middle ground,” Lawrie denies him his “I was just following orders” alibi. “So this will come out, and you will be culpable. And I don’t understand why you don’t see that.”

Lawrie does not shy from telling Hill what he refuses to see: “All other countries are getting ivermectin except the U.K. and the USA and Europe are owned by the vaccine lobby.” Lawrie concludes by telling Hill, “I don’t understand how you sleep at night, honestly.”

As Kennedy documents, the racket runs deep. When I googled Lawrie’s name the first item to show up was a BBC article headlined, “Ivermectin: How false science created a Covid ‘miracle’ drug.”

When I googled Dr. Andrew Hill, the first article Google served up was this gem from the Guardian, “How my ivermectin research led to Twitter death threats.”

If it takes a crackpot to think that Big Pharma, Big Health, Big Tech, Big Media and Bill Gates would engage in a conspiracy so vast and so lethal, well then color me a “crackpot.”

For the long view, read Jack Cashill’s “Hoodwinked: How Intellectual Hucksters Hijacked American Culture” or check

Content created by the WND News Center is available for re-publication without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].


This article was originally published by the WND News Center.

Related Posts