Professor tied to altered Andrew Hill paper also prepared 'Ivermectin Evidence' for World Health Organisation

Part 3: Who is Andrew Owen?

1. Ivermectin Part 1: The Very Unusual Paper

2. Ivermectin Part 2: A Very Unusual Business

3. Ivermectin Part 3: The People Behind the Curtain

   1. Part 1: An Unacknowledged Influence

   2. Part 2: The Conflicts of Interest of those who discredited Ivermectin

   3. Part 3: Who is Andrew Owen?

4. Ivermectin Part 4: Censorship, Controversy and attacks

In previous posts, I demonstrated that a critical research paper detailing how effective Ivermectin was against COVID was altered by ‘a very powerful lobby’. By January 2021, the world was already in possession of enough data to roll out Ivermectin as a treatment for COVID. That data suggested we could reduce deaths by 75% if we used Ivermectin. Even today, studies show the exact same thing, Ivermectin reduces death outcomes from COVID by 70%. Instead of rolling it out, a lobby ‘had a say’ in the conclusions of a critical research paper causing the cheap and effective drug to be stopped in its tracks. 

The lead author of the paper, Dr Andrew Hill, admitted that unnamed people influenced the outcome of the paper. The net effect may have cost hundreds of thousands of lives because Ivermectin was known to be effective, it was safe, and availability was very high. Had a lobby not deliberately ‘gotten rid of’ Ivermectin as a treatment for COVID, the lockdowns and restrictions after January 2021 may have been entirely unnecessary. 

In previous posts, I’ve examined who may have been involved in altering the paper. I looked at what conflicting interests those people had and how they discredit those people. If all of this sounds unbelievable to you, I don’t blame you, I would strongly encourage you to look back over my previous posts first. For a very quick summary on Ivermectin, there’s a summary here.

The Alleged Hidden Author Revealed

Sometimes information can be sitting right underneath your nose. Many suspected that ‘persons unknown’ had altered the paper, but we didn’t know who. Who are these people who nudge science into profitable shapes?! 

I was in the habit of finding and comparing as many different versions of the paper as possible.  The hope was that some artefact 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. None of those lines of inquiry came to anything, but the process prompted me on what exactly I was looking for. What if, when submitting the paper to a pre-print server, some metadata attached itself to the PDF? 

Metadata. Why had I not fully interrogated the metadata?

Sometimes it's the most obvious of things. 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 recognised…