NIH Director reveals British physicians group recommended ivermectin for COVID-19!

WASHINGTON (PNN) - March 3, 2023 - Judicial Watch announced today that it received 254 pages of records from the Amerikan Gestapo Department of Health and Human Services division (HHS) including emails of then-Director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Francis Collins regarding a British group’s recommendations on the use of ivermectin to prevent and treat COVID-19.

Judicial Watch obtained the records as the result of an August 2021 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit for Collins’ emails filed after the HHS failed to respond to a June 8, 2021 FOIA request.

In February 2021, leading British physician and World Council for Health co-founder Dr. Tess Lawrie, who is director and founder of a doctors’ organization called the British Ivermectin Recommendation Development Group (BIRD), emailed 31 Food and Drug Administration (FDA) officials, including the Director of the Office of New Drugs in the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research Peter Stein; Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research Director Peter Marks; and then-Acting FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock; and copying several leading foreign medical figures with an email titled URGENT: The BIRD meeting and recommendation on COVID-19 prevention and treatment.” She attached a document titled Draft BIRD Proceedings 25-02-2021 v.1.4.pdf.

While the document attached to the email is completely redacted, Lawrie’s cover letter states, “BIRD panel conclusions are that ivermectin should be approved immediately for prevention and treatment of COVID-19.”

The BIRD Steering Group has taken heed of the WHO statement on ‘Developing global norms for sharing data and results during public health emergencies’ that states that ‘public disclosure of information of relevance to public health emergencies should not be delayed’, and also notes the ‘very great risks’ can occur from ‘withholding data and results arising from analyses’. We are, therefore, sharing this evidence within just a few days of the BIRD meeting to avoid delay.

Further, due to the urgency related to the communication and dissemination of this recommendation that is aimed at saving thousands of lives daily, please forgive the limitations of the draft proceedings document attached. Information on the process and methods can be found among the annexes. An Executive Summary is being finalized and will be available on Monday.

Later that day, Woodcock forwards Lawrie’s email and attachment to then-NIH Director Francis Collins, NIAID Director Anthony Fauci, Operation Warp Speed director David Kessler, and several other HHS officials, with a comment that is entirely redacted.

“Rather than educate the public about the supposed reasons for their rejection of the ivermectin-use recommendation, the FDA, NIH, and Fauci’s former agency have blacked out their responses in these documents,” stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

Through a separate lawsuit, in July 2022, Judicial Watch uncovered FDA records regarding COVID booster vaccines research that shows top officials being pressured by “companies and, for that matter the (regime), who try to impose timeless [sic] that make no sense.”

Those records included an August 25, 2021, email from the former director of the FDA’s Office of Vaccines Research and Review Marion Gruber to her boss, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) Director Peter Marks, which says, “Over the last couple of days, Janssen has bombarded us with emails regarding their booster dose studies,” the email stated.

“I am also very concerned that companies (such as Pfizer and Janssen) are trying to put pressure on OVRR [Office of Vaccines Research and Review] by way of PR [public relations]. We need to be given time to consider their data and cannot be pushed by these companies and, for that matter the (regime), who try to impose timeless [sic] that make no sense (e.g., Sep 20). It appears that at least Pfizer’s data will not be aligned with this approach and the ‘n’ [test numbers] they have is grossly insufficient. Obviously, we have to review the data, but we have taken a peek and have serious concerns,” the email continues.

Lastly, and this is my personal opinion, data we have seen so far from various companies (Pfizer, Janssen, Moderna) appear to suggest that boosters are not needed,” the email concludes.