One year in...

And still no answers

My conversation with Andrew Hill was a pivotal moment in the effort to get safe and effective covid treatment to the public, as it laid bare the extent to which regulatory science is vulnerable to corruption. One year in, we still have no answers. Why was the conclusion to his review changed to the detriment of public health? Why were such efforts being made to suppress this safe, old medicine? If there is nothing to hide, why not tell us what has been going on behind closed doors in the once hallowed halls of academic and public health institutions? Andrew has a rare opportunity to draw back the curtain on concerns about the industry, which are becoming mainstream. A chance that he may never be given again.

However, this is not about Andrew Hill. This is not personal. This is about the lack of transparency of industry-infiltrated systems that increasingly serve their influencers over the people and planet that they are meant to protect and serve. The story of ivermectin exposes this and so much more.

Seen from a purely logical perspective, the case against ivermectin makes no sense: since we know that ivermectin is one of the safest medicines available, what is there to lose, even if proven ineffective? And why do the same standards not apply to the novel pharmaceutical products, which have brought significant harm and/or made no notable difference?

We saw rapid approvals granted to various pharmaceutical products such as remdesivir, molnupiravir, paxlovid, yet the approval bar for ivermectin – over forty years old and on the WHO’s list of essential medicines – was set at an unreachable height. Why? These novel treatments were given extensive and positive media coverage, while highly qualified medical professionals and scientists speaking in favour of ivermectin (or other repurposed treatments) received no press or were attacked. Computer models were taken as gospel, while real-world evidence (e.g. Uttar Pradesh) remains ignored. What does it say about the state of our media when press releases and TV show quotes are held up as facts while research papers are ignored?

Public trust in our once revered institutions is rapidly eroding while vital questions remain unanswered. How can an effective public health policy ever be implemented when the public it is supposed to serve has lost trust in the system?

Should we not be trying to ascertain why this loss of trust happened and use the information to promote a better way of handling crises in the future? This better way must be based on openness, transparency and public and scientific debate. And finally, how can the very architects of the public health response to Covid be allowed to push forward a pandemic treaty that extends this opaque model in the absence of a public enquiry?

We simply cannot continue like this. We must use the mismanaged Covid crisis to drive the great change that is desperately and urgently needed if humanity is to survive the next ten years. When making health recommendations, especially during a health emergency of this magnitude, we must look to independent scientists and frontline physicians – those who serve the health and wellbeing of every man, woman and child and not corporate profit. And we must restore respect for individual choice.

I still hold out for Andrew Hill doing the right thing. In the meantime, we need to have the courage and integrity to recognise what is amiss, learn from our errors, and move forward.