Turns out that ivemectin is not a treatment for coronavirus, that is
not effective, and its efficacy was called into question in a recent study.
This is the largest study looking at the efficacy of ivermectin as a treatment for
coronavirus.
And here's what we have found, okay?
The study which compared more than 1300 people infected with
the coronavirus in Brazil, who received either ivermectin or a placebo.
Effectively ruled out the drug as a treatment for COVID.
There's really no sign of any benefit, said Dr David Boulware,
an infectious disease expert at the University of Minnesota.
So let me just pause for a second and say, for
all of the conspiracy theorists out there.
For all of the bad faith actors like Jimmy Dore that were spreading
disinformation about how they're not studying ivermectin,
they're not studying it, they did study it.
They studied it quite a few times actually, but
this is now the most extensive study.
And it is now proving definitively that ivermectin,
which is used to treat parasitic infections typically,
is not a sound treatment for coronavirus.
So what the naysayers would point to,
was a study that was done by Dr. Hill.
This was an early study where researchers were actually trying thousands of old
drugs against COVID-19,
to see if any of them could potentially be effective against it.
And a virologist named Andrew Hill concluded that ivermectin
appeared to be a treatment.
It significantly lowered the risk of death from COVID-19.
But then there were some issues with that study, that they kept pointing to.
Not long after Dr Hill published his review last summer, reports surfaced
that many of the studies he included in this meta analysis were flawed, and
in at least one case, alleged to be fraudulent.
Dr Hill retracted, he did this publicly, even on twitter several times,
retracted his original study and started a new one, which he published in January.
On their second review, Dr Hill and his colleagues focused on the studies least
likely to be biased, and in that stricter survey, ivermectin benefit vanished.
But Farron, that wasn't good enough for people, I guess they needed yet another
study to prove, that ivermectin really had no impact as a treatment for coronavirus.
But I'm curious if you think this latest study will have any impact
on what they think.
>> Honestly, probably not.
And the reason I say that, is cuz unfortunately I've had to deal
with the anti vax movement, and I'm bringing them up.
I know this is a vax, but I've been dealing with them since long before
the COVID anti-vaxxers and this thing became widespread.
And I'm sure a lot of people understand what I'm talking about,
if you know the history of ring of fire here.
The problem is, these hardcore deniers always think that if a study gets updated,
if a scientist comes out and retracts these studies.
They think it's because the industry put pressure on the individual to do it.
So they don't believe that the retraction is real, they believe it's smoke signals,
that there's some kind of coded language in there maybe.
That says that, hey, I'm doing this, but I'm being forced to do it,
that's not what happens.
I mean we've had plenty of studies now, showing that ivermectin is not effective
against this, is it wonderful against parasitic infections?
Hell yeah, it is, got the Nobel prize for that, not for
being a COVID treatment as some of these people have said, it won the Nobel prize.
Yeah, but you've got to finish that sentence before you move on to the next
thing, so no, it's not effective.
But unfortunately, these folks are so deep into this conspiracy theory,
that they can't just come out and say, oops, there it is, I guess we were wrong.
You know these guys as well as anybody else does, they have too much arrogance
and pride, to go out there and tell their audience they were wrong.
The hardcore movement out there beyond just the Youtubers,
they have too much riding on this, they have staked their reputations on this.
They're gonna continue to push it, and they're gonna say that the new study
is fake, then it was funded by Big Pharma to trash ivermectin,
because they don't seem to know that ivermectin zone by Big Pharma.
Not quite sure how they reconcile that, but they do somehow in their brains, and
I wish it would change their minds.
But I think these people are just too deep to let it go at this point.
>> Yeah, there's definitely something wrong with you when your own ego, or
your own arrogance,
takes priority over giving people information that could save their lives.
Because you know, you mentioned the anti vax movement, and
they're definitely not two separate issues.
Ivermectin was being touted as a substitute for the vaccine.
The very people who were promoting ivermectin as a treatment,
were essentially saying to people,
well, there are some dangerous side effects associated with this vaccine.
Oftentimes they were pretty ignorant, when they were arguing those points as well.
But then they would provide ivermectin as a possible alternative for
people who don't want to get vaccinated.
Listen, I'm happy that I'm fully vaccinated and boosted,
I can't imagine what I would feel like right now if I hadn't done that.
Because my symptoms with COVID have been very mild,
fatigue has been kind of annoying part of it, but it's not crippling
to the point where I can't do my job, I'm still able to do my job.
Today I have a little bit of a headache, but I'm not so
sick that I need to be hospitalized.
I'm not worried about dying from COVID, and this is where we want everyone to be.
We want people who might contract COVID in the future, to have mild symptoms, we
don't want them to get tremendously sick, we don't want them to be hospitalized.
But these goons out there, who have been peddling this stuff,
let's not forget about the component of honestly making money off of it, right?
And it's not just through their programming, it's also the very doctors
who have made money, slanging ivermectin as a COVID treatment through telemedicine.
That's a huge part of the story as well.
So there's a capitalistic angle to it, along with the egoists and
the narcissist, who just can't admit when they're wrong.
And it's it's a shame, because people die as a result.
And if you have a major platform, if you have let's say the top podcast in
the country, I think it actually bodes well for you.
It adds to your credibility, if you could admit when you're wrong.
But recently, Joe Rogan actually had another message in regard to his podcast,
and I wanna show you that video real quick.
Let's watch.
>> If I become something different because it grew bigger, I'll quit.
If it gets to a point where I can't do it anymore, where I have to do it in some
sort of weird way, where I walk on eggshells, mind my P's and Q's of that.
>> I don't want Rogan to walk on eggshells,
I wouldn't want anyone to have to walk on eggshells.
People should be free to speak their mind.
However, don't be peddling medical advice that is not sound, that is not proven,
because people will die as a result of that, and people trust him.
Whether he wants to believe it or not, whether he wants to accept it or not,
he has a responsibility as someone who has this massive platform full of guys who
trust him, and really do take his advice to heart.
>> You don't wanna call it a cult following, but
you kinda have to at the same time.
But yeah, you're right, I mean look, if you have a platform, whether you
want to have it or not, it comes with a responsibility, and you do have that job.
When you go out there and
you push these things, that are later proven to be untrue.
It's your responsibility, not even just as a podcast, or as a whatever, but
as a human being to go out there and own up to your mistake, and be like, hey,
man, I screwed the pooch on this one.
I'm really sorry guys, turns out I was totally wrong, I had to do it,
not frequently, thank goodness.
But there's been plenty of times where I have to go back and do another video and
say, hey, listen, I said a thing the other day turns out, man was I way off.
And it's not fun, it's not pleasant, but you can make it to where people
understand like, hey, I messed up, I didn't do my due diligence on this.
I maybe rushed the story to get out there, and that was my fault,
and I'm not gonna do that in the future, and as you move forward.
You start making those mistakes less and less.
But when you don't own up to it, that's when you just show that one,
you don't care about your audience, two, you don't care about your credibility, and
three, that you're going to continue to do it.
Because that's the real slippery slope that people don't think about.
Once you get lied to, once, you know you can get away with a lie,
it's gonna continue happening more and more, until you end up with something that
really is unrecognizable from what it started out as.
And I think we've seen that with a lot of these ivermectin pushers,
there sure is how not what they were five six years ago, compared to today.
And it's because they were on that slope, and this is just where they've landed.
>> Yeah, now I totally agree with you on that.
And I would just say, have faith in your audience, have faith
that they respect you and they respect when you can admit when you're wrong.
In fact my experience has been, when I'm willing to say, look,
I kind of got that wrong.
I mean, I'll give you a specific example,
my prediction about Russia invading Ukraine was wrong.
I mean, it was a prediction, and it's clear that I was predicting.
But when you get it wrong, you get it wrong, and you got to admit it, right?
It would be insane to somehow pretend as if no, no,
I got it right from the very beginning, I didn't make any mistakes.
Come on.