Dear Andy (Short Film)

Watch the new short film by Oracle Films, Dr. Tess Lawrie recites a letter to Dr. Andrew Hill and asks him what made him turn his back on a potential cure for Covid-19.

In October 2020 Dr. Andrew Hill was tasked to report to the World Health Organisation on the dozens of new studies from around the world suggesting that Ivermectin could be a remarkably safe and effective treatment for COVID-19.

But on January 18th 2021, Dr. Hill published his findings on a pre-print server. His methods lacked rigor, the review was low quality and the extremely
positive findings on ivermectin were contradicted by the conclusion. In the end, Dr. Hill advised that “Ivermectin should be validated in larger appropriately controlled randomized trials before the results are sufficient for review by regulatory authorities.”

The researcher seeking a global recommendation on Ivermectin had instead recommended against it. What were his reasons for doing so? Were his conclusions justified? Or were external forces influencing his about-face?

One year on, this film recalls exactly what happened from the perspective of somebody that experienced it first hand; Dr. Tess Lawrie; also featuring contributions from Dr. Pierre Kory and Dr. Paul Marik who worked closely with Dr. Hill during the same time frame.


Dear Andy,
It is approximately one year since I

shared with you my rapid review
of the evidence on Ivermectin for Covid.

It’s one year since my video address to
our Prime Minister, Boris Johnson,

advising him that we had a safe and
effective medicine to beat the pandemic.

And one year since you and I met,

to discuss working together to get
Ivermectin approved as soon as possible.

Early in January 2021,

we shared data and agreed that Ivermectin
looked like a cheap, safe and effective

way to end the pandemic,

that it needed to be
rolled out as soon as possible.

We agreed that working together would
facilitate this, and you joined our strong

author team, preparing to conduct
a Cochrane systematic review.

Before we could collaborate, however,
you published your paper as a preprint.

I will never forget reading
this paper for the first time.

You reported that Ivermectin was

associated with reduced inflammation,
faster viral clearance,

Ivermectin showed significantly shorter
duration of hospitalization,

and in moderate or severe infection,
there was a 75% reduction in deaths,

with favorable clinical recovery
and reduced hospitalization.


At a time when hospitals were overflowing,
people were being locked down to prevent

viral transmission and the
death count was rising.

Here we had a safe, established off-patent
medicine that could reduce

hospitalization, viral
transmission and deaths.

Yet your conclusions were

“Ivermectin should be validated in larger,
appropriately controlled randomized trials

before the results are sufficient
for review by regulatory authorities.”

People were dying.

We were told hospitals were overflowing.

We had a safe,
old medicine that could help.

Yet you called for more trials.

On the 17 January 2021,
I wrote to you asking you to retract your

paper saying that it would
cause immeasurable harm.

We met on Zoom the next day.

I’m in a very sensitive position here.

What I’m trying to do-

There’s lots of people in sensitive
positions, they are in hospitals and ICUs

dying and they need this medicine.


That’s what I don’t get, you know,
because you’re not a clinician.

You’re not at the call phase.

You’re not seeing people dying every day,
and this medicine prevents death by 80%.

So 80% of those people

who are dying today don’t need to die,
because there’s Ivermectin.

There are a lot.

As I said, there are a lot
of different opinions about this.

We are looking at the data.

It doesn’t matter what other people say.

We are the ones who are tasked, with the-

and we have the experience to look
at the data and reassure everybody,

that this cheap and effective
treatment will save lives.

It’s clear.

You don’t have to say, “Well so and so
says this, and so and so says this.”

It’s absolutely crystal clear. We can save

lives today if we can get
the government to buy Ivermectin.

Your manuscript appeared rushed to me
and its methodology was substandard.

I made no bones about
what I thought about it,

and I was not the only one alarmed

by the poor quality
and conclusions of your paper.

Dr. Korey and Dr. Marik wrote to you
and asked you to make corrections.

An independent forensic communication
specialist has since confirmed

that there were two or three
other voices in your paper.

These unacknowledged authors contrived

to manipulate the wording to undermine
the positive findings on Ivermectin.

Why did you let them
influence your conclusions?

Whose conclusions are those
on the review that you’ve done?

Who’s not listed as an author,
who’s actually contributed?

Well, I mean-

I don’t really want to get into it,
I mean.

I think it needs to be clear.
I would like to know.

Who are these other voices that are

in your paper that are not acknowledged?

Does Unitaid have a say?
Do they influence, what you write?

Unitaid has a say in
the conclusions of the paper.


So who is it in Unitaid, then?

Who is sharing? Who is giving
you opinion on your evidence?

Well, it’s just the people there.
I don’t think we need to start naming-

I thought Unitaid was just a charity,
Is it not a charity?

So they have a say in your conclusions?


You criticized studies from other

countries for not being
peer-reviewed or published.

The irony being that your manuscript was
neither peer-reviewed, nor-published

at that time, and it’s had
a profound impact on people’s lives.

Indeed, when we sent our own comprehensive

review on Ivermectin to UK authorities,
we were told that

Dr. Andrew Hill’s review says the evidence

on Ivermectin is insufficient
and that more trials are needed.

There was much at stake in January 2021
when you put your paper

on Research Square,
both in human lives and in profits.

Rest assured, I’m not going
to let this last for a long time.

I’m not saying we keep
going for another year.

But the fact that you’re saying
you’re not going to let it

last a long time,

makes you realize the impact of your work.

So how long are you going
to let people carry on

dying unnecessarily?

Up to you.

What is the timeline that you’ve
allowed for this, then?

Well, I think then it goes to WHO,
and the NIH and the FDA and the EMEA,

and they’ve got to decide
when they think enough is enough.

And how do they decide?

Because there’s nobody
giving them good evidence synthesis.

Because yours is certainly not good.

Well, when yours comes out,

which will be in the very near future,
at the same time, there’ll be other trials

producing results which will
nail it, with a bit of luck.

And we’ll be there-

It is already nailed.

What I hope is that this stalemate
that we’re in doesn’t last very long.

It lasts a matter of weeks.

And I guarantee I will push for this

to last for short amount
of time as possible.

So how long do you think the stalemate
will go on for? How long do you think,

your, your, Unitaid is going to allow the
stalemate to go on for?

From my side, OK, from my side,

every single new trial that comes through,

we’re going to be
aggressively adding it on.

And I think end of February will be there.

Six weeks.

How many people die everday?

Well, there is a whole group of people

who think that Ivermectin is complete rubbish.

I’m not talking about them.

I’m not talking about them.

I’m saying we know the evidence,
how many people die?

Oh, sure. I mean, 15,000 people a day,

times six weeks?

Yeah, sure. No, I get it!

-We have to try and get
it into the UK,

Because at this rate, all other countries
are getting Ivermectin, except us.

My goal is to get the drug approved and
to do everything I can to get approved.

Well you’re not doing everything
you can, because everything you can

would involve saying to those people

who are paying you,
I can see this prevents deaths.

So I’m not going to support
this conclusion anymore

and I’m going to tell the truth.

Billions have been spent on PCR tests,

PPE equipment and developing
drugs and new gene-based vaccines.

For a safe and effective early
treatment, none of the investments

in novel drugs, nor the restrictions
on our Liberty were necessary.

Our foundation is a bit
more than 10 billion

but we feel there’s
been over a 20 to 1 return.

So if you just look at the economic

benefits, that’s a pretty strong
number compared to anything else.

We both know that the evidence on Ivermectin

extends way beyond randomized
controlled trials.

Realworld data.

Plus all those conversations we have had

with doctors at the front line who are
using Ivermectin,

leave no doubt that Ivermectin is a useful
medicine to both prevent and treat Covid.

Are you right and all these doctors wrong?

This is very difficult because

I’ve got this role where I’m supposed

to produce this paper and we’re
in very difficult, delicate balance.

There are some people who say that we’re

already overstepping
the mark and this is too

strident because the mechanism
of action doesn’t support it,

I know I keep going back to that-

Who are these people saying this?

There are, there are, I mean,
when we met—

I’m just talking about overall feedback
I’m getting from all kinds of different

scientists, not just authors, but, uh…

The mechanism of action,

there are other examples of drugs where we
don’t know how they work, but they do work-


And we use them.

What has happened to the scientist
who stated in December 2020

difficult to see how bias assessment could
change such consistent treatment effects.

And in February 21,

Ivermectin causes faster viral clearance,
mass vaccination plus Ivermectin treatment

for anyone testing positive
is the way forwards.

Why have you now allied yourself

with the small group who have a mission,
it seems, to undermine Ivermectin studies?

And at the very least,

why have you not spoken up when the media
and the authorities have referred

to this Nobel Prize winning medicine,
as little more than a horse dewormer?

People are still taking
this Ivermectin.

That’s a horse dewormer.

You are not a horse.

You are not a cow.

Seriously Y’all, stop it.

What changed your mind?
I have often wondered about that time when

you said if your brother had Covid,
you’d want him to get Ivermectin.

I’ll give you an example.
My brother, he’s 58, he’s a smoker.

And if he was hospitalized with COVID-19,

I don’t know that there isn’t a way to get
supplies of Ivermectin into the UK.

If I could and I knew it was good quality.

I would want my brother to be taking it.

I will try and support you as best I
can with the data that comes through.

But for now,
what I’ve got to do, my responsibility,

is to get as much support as I can
to get this drug approved as quickly as we can.

Well, you’re not going to get it approved
the way you’ve written that conclusion,

you’ve actually shot yourself in the foot,
and you’ve shot us all in the foot.

Everybody trying to do something good.

You have actually completely

destroyed it.

Okay, well, that’s where I guess
we’ll have to agree to differ.

Well, I don’t know how you
sleep at night, honestly.

You had an opportunity
to make a difference.

You had an opportunity to save lives,
and you put your own career and

you were pressurized, presumably
by other forces, to change direction.


that reflects a lack of integrity,

a lack of moral being that such
a thing could have happened.

Knowing that there were cheap, safe,
available medicines that worked

and advocating for them and going
against official government opinion.

We’ve all lost jobs now.

I’ve had to leave my third job.

You kept your career in front of

you, put yourself in front
of the welfare of humanity.

I don’t know what your life is like now,
but ours isn’t easy, and life isn’t easy.

And this pandemic hasn’t
been easy on anyone.

And in fact, to say it’s not been easy,

it’s been tragic for good portions
of the globe, and not even from directly

from the disease itself,
everything around it, and it continues.

Had you spoken up and it would require you

blowing the whistle,
you would have had to go in public.

And at that time,
there may have been journalists or a media

outlet which would have
picked up the story.

I think now you would never get that,

because the media censorship
and propaganda is now near total.

But at that time, it was not.

That opportunity required sacrifice.

It required you resisting the forces
that were telling you to allow them

to write your paper, to dumb down and mute
your conclusions, because they clearly had

other objectives,
whether it was to support a global vaccine

policy or new novel drugs
that would make money.

And you’re up against
massive financial forces.

And I knew that.

But you were also in a position where
you had an opportunity to speak up.

And at that time, had you spoken up,
it would have made a world of difference.

And I will say many people,

I think in a lot of different institutions
had opportunities to speak up and become

an, in effect, a whistleblower.

But I don’t think their opportunities to do so,

they pale in comparison
to the opportunity you had.

History demanded a man in your position

who is willing and courageous
to speak up, and you did not.

And your silence and your cooperation

with the forces that wanted
to hide the efficacy of Ivermectin.

This is an unconscionable thing that you

did and I think history
is going to remember it.

I hope history is going to remember it

because it has to be a historic
lesson that we must speak of.

Especially when we’re in a position where

our voice makes all
the difference to humanity.

And you are not that voice.

In my opinion,

your preprint paper published
on the 18 January did three things.

One, it was instrumental
in restricting Ivermectin’s use.

Two, it led to the discrediting
and censoring of doctors recommending it.

And three, it facilitated the emergency use

authorization of the experimental
gene based Covid vaccines

With effective Covid treatments,

the authorities would not have been able

to authorize these new and experimental
drugs without better safety data.

And in my opinion, the public would never

have acquiesced to the experimental
gene-based therapies had they been made

aware that Covid was readily treatable
with safe, established medicines.

The cost in both human lives and nation
economies has been devastating.

If there was a point when we could have
averted the oncoming iatrogenic

humanitarian crisis, in my opinion,
it was that simple.

Together, you and I could have saved
millions of lives and so much suffering.

Look what they’re doing now, Andy.

They’re injecting our children
with experimental vaccines.

If only you had made a different choice.

And if only I could have persuaded
you to do the right thing.

I ask you now to make
that difficult choice.

To do what is in the best interests
of your friends and countrymen and to do

what is in the best interests
of humanity at large.

Help to expose the corruption of science
by coming forward to explain the pressure

you have been under to undermine
the evidence on Ivermectin.

Explain the delicate situation you were
in January 2021 and name the people

who influenced you
to change your conclusions.

Only then can we start to fix
fix the harm that’s been done.

We will forgive you,
Andy, but come forward

Yours sincerely, Tess.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


  1. Throughout the past 2 and a half years, I have had moments of ruminating over the state of the world, the corruption, the uselessness and unworthiness of people involved in the deceptions etc … and then, after months of a quiet, steady, thoughtful mind and heart … I watch your short film and I am deeply, deeply saddened and feel sorrow and pain in my soul … Andrew Hill (and I spit with venom saying his name) is another monster to add to the long list of many, and I wish and hope that his poisonous soul and heart (what is left of it) shrivels, weakens and dies.

    1. He is not a monster he has been seduced and corrupted by monsters this is how it works. We should all have mercy for his soul.

      1. @Kathryn Gannon: Oh really? You say that despite MILLIONS of lives lost worldwide, with the UK & US taking the brunt of the mortality burden. This is an atrocity & EVERY complicit person along the way is culpable. They are ALL monsters…..yes including the weak, weaselly yet self-absorbed actors. His position & influence was too large for him.

        Dr. Lawrie who continues to fight the good fight for truth, & others like her are the heroes‼️

  2. Dr Lawrie restores faith in humanity and so grateful for all the work she is doing in such a dignified, professional manner. This is a remarkable piece of film, but for the families of those that could have been saved it must be incredibly painful to watch. ‘First do no harm’ the forgotten oath

  3. I think it is important to add an understanding of psychological abuse by those with Narcissistic Personality Disorder. The patterns of behaviour of narcissists & psychopathic narcissists are evident in all that has unfolded over these past 2 yrs. As a target, (narcissistic supply) for such a person, I’ve been fighting for years to break the hold of manipulation & mind control. Andrew Hill is clearly not a narcissist. He is however, being controlled by them – like millions of others.

  4. unbelievable… seeing the truckers on the highways and the thousands of every-day- normal people lining up along their routes made me tear up every single time.. and still does when watching the videos again – … and so does this one by Tess !

  5. Andy, I know you’ll be reading this. You will either go down as a villain, for someone who made a mistake and tried to make it right

    What I do know is that now you will not walk the streets with your head high.
    . Not with your children, and not alone.

    You can have a legacy
    if you repent and then cover those behind this.

    Which will it be?

  6. Blood on his hands and on hundreds of others.

    I notice he avoided eye contact much of the time. He knows his shame. I hope he can live with it.

  7. I remember way way back when you published your letter and report that you were sending to the Government regarding your findings relating to Ivermectin. I emailed my own MP, the father of the house Peter Bottomley and attached your letter and report, requesting a response from him…..never received anything! As for the Principle trial being suspended another joke, supposedly due to shortage of Ivermectin. Great video Tess and thank you for never giving up.

  8. If the same trials were required for the Covid19 vaccines as were being required for Ivermectin (including the original trials that were needed for safety) when would the Covid19 vaccine have received general approval

    And for pregnant women

    And for children

    And for further comparison:

    How long after START of DEVELOPMENT would Thalidomide trials need to run for approval today

    How long would Thalidomide trials need to run today if it was developed using novel technology and science if longer

    How long after start of development were of Thalidomide were the dangers established