WHY IS VIRUSECRECY SO EVER-PRESENT WHEN IT COMES TO COVID19?
The growing doubts in relation to the Oxford Drug /Astrazeneca trials have not been helped by the revelation that the one good sample outcome they achieved was the result of dosage error – something of a speciality with Professor Peter Horby (left). Virusecrecy still rules in Britain – and if anything, it’s getting worse.
The somewhat glossed-over and devious presentation of the Oxford results left almost everyone confused, as further investigation of the data showed some alarmingly small sample sizes (any subgroup analysis should be specified in the protocol in advance and the RCT should be sufficiently powered for the sub-group analysis in order to have faith in the results). But the greatest confusion of all lies in what Horby’s real role in the project is.
In the Spring, we were informed by Horby that HCQ “has no beneficial effect”, but Pete the Prof overdosed every poor devil given it – and accidentally failed to add the all-important Zinc cocktail that has produced stunning Covid infection management results when applied in New York, France, India and China.
Having falsely dismissed it (and thus obviously increased the death toll among older patients) Horby and his team splashed the misleading results and doomed HCQ (a very cheap drug) to the blacklist of history. But now things are going wrong in the Astrazeneca trials, Professor Horby does everything in his power to present a moving target: his profile is low, his responsibilities unclear. He is not a man who enjoys accountability; but he is a tireless self-publicist when it comes to success.
Thus, in the Summer (despite the HCQ deception) Horby was confirmed as the man in charge of the Stage III Recovery trials. When the initial spin of Astrazenica/Oxford outcomes was released, he felt able to give a peer review of his own project:
“This is very welcome news, we can clearly see the end of tunnel now.”
Nothing like being able to give yourself a double-jointed pat on the back; but as the week progressed and the spin was revealed for what it is, the worthy Professor and fan of the North Vietnamese government became more circumspect (my emphases):
“I am co-Chief Investigator of the RECOVERY trial. I am an employee of University of Oxford with salary supported by Wellcome Trust and NIHR. I do not accept any personal honoraria payments directly or indirectly from the pharmaceutical, biotechnology, or food industries.”
Ah – OK: so now, our Peter is not the Uberstumbannfuhrer, but merely the investigative overseer in a position he shares with another. A good sinecure to have when things are going wrong.
But it remains a misleading statement that contradicts what we were told by the media at the outset:
“Research centres run by Prof Horby have received £14 million from Astrazeneca.”
Well of course Peter Horby isn’t a personal beneficiary of all that money. But without the input of Astrazeneca, would he have either the prestige or the salary he enjoys? It’s a perfectly valid observation, and must represent the sort of conflict of interest so clearly laid out in a recent British Medical Journal OpEd.
Horby’s ‘co-investigator’ buddy is Martin Landray. A senior French media editor earlier this year told me that Landray “lied to us about the [HCQ] trials, either to hide incompetence or bias”.
All the foregoing will of course be rejected out of hand by all media points from the BBC to the toady Daily Mail, and from the New York Times to the Washington Post, as fake new disinformation.
But all I want to know is this:
- Why do most of the Government’s Covid19 advisers have a lineage so easily traced back to the Pharmafia?
- Why are the Lockdowners so consistently dependent on Big Pharma to support their research?
- Why are the academics so equally reliant on vaccine manufacturers?
- Why are trial data treated as Top Secret?
- Why are those in charge of the trials so consistently Left wing?
- Why, when interrogated, do the Fergusons and Horbys of this world feel so ethically grubby.
Of course, we have a Prime Minister of similar ilk. But if valid criticism of them is forbidden, then we might as well all go home and hide under the Peter Jones duvet.