Speaker 1: This is listen, I don't know that I needed to do this, but we have now a beautiful,
significant, statistically significant double blind, placebo controlled trial of that little
old drug, the Anti-Parasitic drug called ivermectin for COVID.
Now, I know it's been a while.
And so some people may be saying, David, where or why did you just pull this out of your
ear?
No, for months and months and months, the indifferent to the science right wing was
aggressively promoting something called ivermectin.
To treat COVID.
They would promote it prophylactically.
They would promote it as an acute treatment for COVID.
There were people like the candidate for Arizona governor, Carrie Lake, who claimed that she
was just taking it prophylactically to prevent COVID.
And my position was wasn't to test everything, test spinach, test niacin, test ivermectin,
whatever.
But let's have double blind, placebo controlled, randomized controlled trials so we can accurately
say these things do work for COVID or they don't.
It would be great if we found something cheap and widely available like apples or ivermectin
that was good for COVID.
But unless we know that it works, it's irresponsible to claim that it does.
And the right wingers said, You're suppressing this and you're blocking that, and you don't
want they they don't want the truth to be known.
And the more and more and more data that came out, the more we believed it didn't really
work.
We now have a very good study and indeed the sugar pills worked better.
Now, I want to be clear, the headline is kind of a joke, right?
The headline is Ivermectin Worse than sugar pills.
The sugar pills are a placebo, and what you have is almost identical effects between people
actually getting ivermectin and people getting the sugar pill.
So the headline is kind of a joke, but the truth is the ivermectin doesn't work.
Study released three days ago.
Effects of Ivermectin versus placebo on time to sustained recovery in outpatients with
mild to moderate COVID 19, a randomized clinical trial.
Okay.
The key elements here, the question they were asking folks, this is a science, right?
This is what this is how we figure things out.
QUESTION Does ivermectin daily for three days compared with placebo shortened symptom duration
among adult patients over 30 years of age in the United States with symptomatic, mild
to moderate COVID 19?
That's the question.
Now, you can always come in and say they didn't dose it correctly.
They should have tested five days.
They should have tested it only on severe COVID or only on mild or in patients of 25
years.
Okay.
Every test is only testing something.
That's this is what this test is trying to figure out.
And the findings determined that ivermectin should not be used in outpatients with mild
to moderate COVID because it didn't do anything.
Okay.
When you look at design setting and participants, this is this is how.
Speaker 3: We folks.
Speaker 1: This is how we figure out stuff.
This was a decentralized, double blind, randomized, placebo controlled trial.
Okay.
Decentralized means it wasn't all done at one location.
It wasn't.
Okay.
We're doing a test at this one hospital.
Everybody who's part of the test has to be right here.
It wasn't done that way.
It was double blind, meaning neither the patients nor the treating individuals, the medical
professionals knew.
Who gets the sugar pills and who gets the ivermectin?
It was randomized, meaning that there was not a selection of.
Okay, let's see.
You three go in this group and then you forego in the placebo group because that can then
be affected by the bias of the experimenters who might consciously or subconsciously say,
let's let's like put the healthier people in the ivermectin group because they're more
likely to do well.
It was it was randomized and placebo controlled, meaning some people got a fake drug, but they
didn't know.
Okay.
It was designed to evaluate repurposed therapies, meaning drugs that already exist but are being
explored for treating COVID in outpatients with mild to moderate COVID.
Okay, 1591 patients, 30 plus with COVID with at least two symptoms and an acute infection
less than seven days old, meaning they were started on the trial before seven days of
COVID had gone by.
Okay, very good.
Participants were randomized to get ivermectin or a placebo.
The results these are this is the most important stuff here.
Okay.
The most important things.
The median time to recovery was 12 days for the ivermectin group and 13 days for the placebo
group.
Now, you might say, well, look, the ivermectin group recovered one day quicker.
That difference of 12 versus 13 days is not significant enough to prove ivermectin is
more effective than doing nothing.
The difference in the number of people being helped by ivermectin in the placebo is so
small that there is not evidence that these that one day difference is anything other
than just chance.
It's essentially the same, and in fact, it's really a range.
The median time to recovery was 11 to 13 days for the Ivermectin group and 12 to 14 in the
placebo placebo group.
Now, importantly, what about more serious outcomes?
Well, there were ten hospitalizations or deaths in the ivermectin group and nine in the placebo
group.
There were fewer deaths in the placebo group and fewer hospitalizations and deaths.
Again, not statistically significant.
So the joke is the fewer people died with the sugar pills, the it's not a statistically
significant difference.
Now, let's say what would be significant in a group of 1600 people with COVID.
Right.
Imagine that only ten of the people getting ivermectin ended up in the hospital, but 200
of the people getting the placebo ended up in the hospital.
Then we would say, Whoa, that seems very unlikely to be by chance.
The ivermectin maybe was doing something.
So the a very clean, very, very good study.
Now, some of you might be saying, why did we get that early data, that ivermectin maybe
worked for COVID?
The best explanation we have for that right now is that ivermectin is an antiparasitic
drug.
Some of the early populations at whom they threw ivermectin were in countries with a
higher prevalence of parasitic infections in humans.
The ivermectin treated the parasites, and overall people do better, generally speaking,
when they don't have parasites.
So that would be the explanation of why the ivermectin may have shown a false signal at
being effective for COVID in some very small early tests.
All right.
We have the data.
We can put it to bed, except Kerry Lake still talks about how great ivermectin is.
Quick break.
Right back after this.
Lest anyone forget, I want to remind you that The David Pakman Show is a program that depends
on the support of our audience to do what we do.
We've grown over the years thanks to audience support.
Now, with the multiple YouTube channels and the multi-platform show, the live streams,
the podcast, the YouTube channel, all of it, you can sign up and support the work that
we do.
It's not a lot of money, but it really goes a long way.
At Join Pacman Dotcom.
Join Pacman Qcom.
You can also use the coupon code.
Obama Owner.
Speaker 3: Obama.
Speaker 1: To get a discount off of the cost of cost of your membership.
That is Obama and a man is mike nancy Obama and a and you'll get a tidy little discount
and instant access to the world famous bonus show.
Speaker 3: Oh, the bonus show where you want to make money.
Everybody else who makes money to fund themselves is bad.
Speaker 1: Very much so.
Appreciate everybody who signed up over the weekend.