Think 'The Matrix' not 'Bernie Madoff'

Or in other words, don't contact Andrew Hill or Andrew Owen.

I wanted to send an update to all the new subscribers who arrived in the last couple of days. The response to the Monday article has been larger than everything else I’ve written on Ivermectin so far. Thanks to all my new subscribers and a special thank you to everyone who became a paid subscriber. Your support makes the work possible.

There’s something I think is important to address. This is not about one person. It’s about unveiling a network of special interests that corrupt our scientific process. You’re absolutely right to be angry, but remember, there is no Svengali. Thinking this boils down to one or two people totally obscures the scale of the issue we’re dealing with. Sponsored academics, wed to industry research grants, are rife across much of the western world. It’s a big issue, and it’s only a part of the broader problem we have in sensemaking in both science and journalism.

When Bernie Madoff was scapegoated as ‘the villain’ of the 2008 crisis, it served only to obscure the system that required an industry of Bernie Madoffs. What we needed was a proper investigation into the culture of finance and the special interests that corrupt the process. That might have led to change, instead, we got a sideshow.

***

For those who have come in fresh via Monday’s article on the Andrew Hill paper, I highly recommend you take a look at the other parts in the series. What I’ve written about over the past four weeks is a dysfunctional medical research industry where interests are not aligned with public health.

In ‘The very unusual paper’, I revealed that I had met with Andrew Hill personally. It was a strange meeting, but my impression was of a person stuck in a position inside a completely dysfunctional industry. Should he have pushed back against whatever ‘forces’ wanted to dilute his findings? Yes, I believe so. I wouldn’t be here if I thought otherwise, but I also believe that people are a product of the system they exist inside of. We all want to be courageous, but we all fear the consequences of speaking out.

Decisions on matters of health carry such huge responsibility that our courage is sunk by the weight. It’s easier to defer, to let others carry the water, that way successes can be sung from the rooftops and failures can be pushed up the food chain. We’ve all done it. It’s easier to ‘fall in line’ than to stand out. I wrote about this specifically in ‘Why You Can’t Trust the Science’. It’s this exact mechanism of inertia that propagates corrosive forces.

Everyone tells themself a story about their work, but perhaps that story isn’t always complete. I have spoken to wonderful people inside Unitaid. Are they aware they’re working for an organisation that ghostwrites critical research conclusions? Almost certainly not. As a matter of fact, I put that question to a representative who, off the record, told me ‘that’s not how science works!’ I believed that person’s sincerity and yet… we have compelling evidence that Unitaid does indeed alter research conclusions. Coming to ‘know’ that fact is at odds with the story we tell ourselves, and so we don’t allow ourselves to know it. The story the staff know is that Unitaid is an NGO that gets cheap medicine to Africa. It’s less complete, but here’s the headfuck: it’s just as equally true.

And so that brings us to Andrew Owen. I’m sure Andrew Owen is much like any other research professor who has made many valid and valuable contributions to research science. But something else is equally true: the research and consultancy money he and others receive nudge things in a way that’s favourable to the sponsors. It’s quite possible, and in fact, probable, that academics receiving this money tell themselves a story that does not fully include this reality.

Andrew Owen was part of a study that said Remdesivir, when combined with Ivermectin, was actually effective. Previous studies had demonstrated Remdesivir to be ineffective.

I’ve thought about this a lot. I’m inclined to believe it’s the fingerprint of someone uncomfortable with the direction things were headed, someone trying to build a compromise inside a system they’re not in control of. Someone trying to balance public good with their ‘role’ inside a runaway freight train. It is just speculation. But I am of the view that people want to do good, but the systems they work inside of nudge them in ways that force a compromise.

The issue at play is a broken system, not the people that staff it. As such, do not contact Andrew Owen, nor Andrew Hill. You are directing your anger at a button-sized pressure point on a gigantic matrix. Like Tess said in her brilliant video, we absolutely must be prepared to welcome people back, to forgive them, and help us to understand how a drug with an overwhelming body of evidence can get spiked at every step of the regulatory process. People are right to be upset, but if we can’t manage that I don’t believe we can manage change at all.

These things don’t happen because of ‘one person’, they happen because the table is stacked in favour of making a profit. Every decision, in a long tree of decisions, slightly gravitates towards the desires of those that fund the process. Rightfully, we have questions that need answering, and I will do my best to put those questions to people.

Change will come when we all do our part to help the public realise the ways in which special interests shape our scientific, medical and political understanding of the world. There is no audience for this unless we all create it.

Some housekeeping:

I’m on the FLCCC webinar this evening at 00:00GMT, which is 7pm E.T

FLCCC—Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance @Covid19Critical

Who were the unnamed people who influenced the outcome of Andrew Hill's paper on ivermectin? Might we have some names at last? Watch this week's webinar at 7 p.m. ET to find out. Register now: geni.us/FLCCC_Webinar_…