Did Bill Gates interfere with ivermectin research?

The first is a recurring target of conspiratorial spheres. The other is, on the contrary, one of the subjects ardently defended. Bill Gates and ivermectin resurfaced in the news after the publication of a blog post on December 9. We read, in English, that the Bill Gates Foundation would have donated a “subsidy of 40 million dollars (…) against half a million human lives”.

A title translated and then taken up in France by many figures in the anti-vaccine and anti-restriction sphere. “The Gates Foundation and Unitaid pressured researcher Andrew Hill to reverse his findings on ivermectin,” thus ensures an Internet user on December 13. Another regrets that this “scandal” passed “under silence” by the media. But is this a proven information?

To understand everything on this subject, we have to go back to the beginning of the year. It is then January 19, 2021 when Andrew Hill, researcher at the University of Liverpool, publishes a meta-analysis “preliminary” on ivermectin, this antiparasitic that some saw as a miracle cure for the virus. As a reminder, a “meta-analysis” is a scientific practice which consists of combining the results of several studies in order to draw global conclusions. Based on this method, the microbiologist observes that this drug is extremely effective against Covid-19.

However, in July 2021, this fervent defender of the molecule radically changes his tone. However, according to the blog cited above, this turnaround is linked to the “delicate situation” in which the researcher would have found himself. Citing a single testimony, the blog assures that Andrew Hill was put under pressure by his financiers, including “the Gates Foundation”, via the organization Unitaid. An admission that is based on a meeting on Zoom transcribed by a single participant, in a book published by a certain Robert Kennedy Jr. Kennedy’s nephew is sadly known to be considered one of 12 people who propagated more than 65% of false information about vaccination and Covid-19.

This source is therefore not reliable. And its conclusions leave much to be desired. First of all, because of the chronology of the facts. The article claims that Unitaid, an international organization buying drugs for developing countries, pressured researcher Andrew Hill to change his findings by paying him back “40 million dollars (…) four days before the publication of its study” who was going to advise against the drug. This is entirely false. As the organization itself welcomed on its social networks, it donated $ 32 million to the University of Liverpool, where the researcher works, on January 12, 2021. That is a week before Andrew Hill publishes his study which recommended ivermectin.

On the other hand, the reasons why this researcher changed his mind about ivermectin are nowhere near as obscure. And are justified by a purely scientific argument. As he himself has explained on multiple occasions, he had to reverse the conclusions of his meta-analysis because of criticism of one of the studies he cited. Accused of fraud, the Elgazzar study, withdrawn on July 15, indeed represented 20% of its total data. As Andrew Hill summarized on Twitter, the problem with meta-analyzes is “that they depend on the underlying data”.

An argument supported by science, more rational than that of an organization seeking to put pressure on a researcher. And what about the relationship with Bill Gates? Here again, the blog’s link with the multibillionaire is astonishing. According to him, the hand of this immunization advocate is hidden behind this “pressure” of Unitaid. However, a quick examination of the finances of this organization which fights for access to medicines shows that with “only” ten million dollars a year, the Gates Foundation contributes only a tiny part of the budget, in the order of 4%. In fact, the main donor of Unadif is … France! With $ 1.7 billion committed since 2007, France is not only the largest contributor, but also the founder of this institution.

In summary, in substance, this rumor multiplies the inaccuracies, relying on public funding, to evoke a conflict of interest difficult to prove and forgetting the researcher’s rational explanations. And formally, it comes from a single, unsubstantiated testimony cited by one considered to be one of the biggest perpetrators of online disinformation.

Do you want to react to this article, ask us questions or submit information that does not seem reliable to you? Do not hesitate to write to us at [email protected]