The Possible End of Covid-19 - Dr. Bret Weinstein
By - NPredetor_97
He just completely explained his confirmation bias and didn’t even flinch or think to question himself. That is really something for such an important issue.
He is high off his own supply or doing a great acting job. Either way, it’s shitty.
I think it's funny he's so balls deep over something that, if that study is correct, *may possibly* prevent covid by about 80%, when the vaccines are at 94-96%. Nothing like rejecting current science just to make grifting overlords happy. It's hilarious the things people will do just to own the libs and grift.
And with Ivermectin you'd have to take it fairly regularly and indefinitely as the theory goes I think? Which would mean even harder to get the whole population to stay on board. It's hard enough to get actual sick elderly people to take their medication consistently. Vaccine on other hand would probably only need to be taken annually at most after the initial shots.
"This is the most important sentence written this century"
i honestly dunno why rogan is constantly bringing these weinstein dorks on and lets them jerk off for 4 hours
Because Joe Rogan only wants to have his own dumbass beliefs re-affirmed. He does not like being challenged or challenging anyone himself.
It's weird that all the people championing ivermectin are able to cite these studies but i'm yet to have a single person be able to explain to me why the data being analyzed is high power and of high quality. I'm yet for ONE person to be able to say "ok look at this paper by x et al, here's why it's a great paper and gives a lot of credibility toward the drug being used"
Instead its just HERES A META ANALYSIS REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE here's what some dude said REEEEEEEEEEEEE
You guys are the ones saying "look into it!" but your idea of looking into it just seems to be misunderstanding scientific data and puppeting your favourite hacks talking points
I'd love someone to prove me wrong though
Exactly!! Anyone who so rapidly denies actual science and peer-reviewed studies in order to promote their own contrarianism to own the libs is just an intellectually-stunted taint whom you should just walk away from; they're not worth the time and energy wasted.
Imagine being so contrarian and so desperate, that you think you know better than literally the best doctors, scientists, researchers, geneticists, and eggheads on Earth, who all put their time and resources together to fight Covid, developing new vaccines and therapies. But yeah bro, "I read on FB that ivermectin is the *real* cure, and *THEY* don't want you to know or take it because wargarrrbbbllleleeee..."
It's so goddamned pathetic and selfish, and ultimately dangerous since all the willfully-ignorant antivaxxers are the reason we're seeing the delta variant and many others to come.
The Weinstein brothers have claimed Eric, Eric’s wife and Brett have produced work worthy of Nobel prizes but the “disc” has just stopped their work from gaining traction or it was stolen.
If anybody actually believes any of that shit they’re literally on another planet. Brett has published 2 papers in 2 decades in academia and Eric hasn’t published anything beyond his silly geometric unity which is laughable to serious physicists.
Also they are super skeptical of scientifc papers but if it's an ivermectin paper they suddenly trust doctors and scientists do do things properly and without bias.
Which is why it's always about being contrarian no matter what, because their delicate little egos demand that they think they know more than professionals who dedicate their lives and careers to this stuff.
Not disagreeing with you, just trying to understand this issue… in this podcast Weinstein and Kory stated that metanalyses of peer reviewed studies are a stronger form of evidence than single peer-reviewed studies as they can correct for flaws in the single studies with aggregate data. Is that not right?
Yes that is the great thing about meta-analysis... the problem with the meta-analysis that Weinstein and co were looking at was it was full of bad data so you've got a case of garbage in garbage out - if you had no good data to begin with all you're correcting for is more bad data... if that makes sense
I'm a physician. I remain skeptical that Ivermectin is an effective treatment for COVID for a number of reasons. Most glaring is that there really is no high quality evidence that it is effective.
Before people angrily reply consider this: thousands and thousands of drugs are "promising" and show preliminary data that they could be effective treatments. Thousands of cancer drugs are investigated every year in the USA and all of them show promising preliminary data. The problem is preliminary data that uses retrospective cohorts design, randomization without placebo, etc are fraught with issues. For those who have been in the field of healthcare, we've been burned so many times by reports of "promising drugs" that outright FAIL when tested by the gold standard: randomized placebo controlled prospective studies with patient-centered endpoints.
Let's take an example of this, aducanumab. Preliminary data showed that it could reduce amyloid plaque burden in patients with Alzheimers. Fantastic! But it actually failed to show clinical benefit when it came to patient centered endpoints (halting progression, improving cognition) and the clinical trial was initially halted for futility. Unfortunately for us, the FDA approved this drug on the basis of the secondary outcome, not a patient centered outcome.
Anticipating another criticism I hear: "well, Ivermectin is a generic and there's no money in it so of course the prospective placebo controlled trial wasn't done". To be frank, that's total hogwash. You just need to look at the RECOVERY trial done for dexamethasone. The trial showed mortality benefit for a subset of COVID + patients. Dexamethasone is like 3-4 cents/pill.
Finally, I want to put a caviet here: I will be the first to admit I was wrong if the 5 prospective clinical trials being done right now show benefit in patient-centered endpoints. These should be coming out in the next 6 months.
You can't say the words "I'm a physician" and then go against the narrative the people on this sub follow.
They'll laugh at you because obviously no real physician would contradict their non-physician non-expertise.
!RemindMe 7 months
Your answer makes no sense to me. If this drug is safe, like its old, has billion doses given out to all types of people, and medical community knows the short and long term side effects since its been around forever. Why do we need to wait on all of this "golden" data to try it against covid? Especially when the standard for vaccines has been lowered, and rightfully so, since its an emergency. And this drug isn't a new thing, its a very well known commodity.
According to this podcast, in Mexico they were giving this drug out to people who tested positive for covid at test locations and had people who live with them take is as a prophylaxis. The moment that policy kicked in, numbers went down. In India there is a province that was giving it out and another province that didn't, they have the data that shows a difference. Is that not enough to try it out?
In 6 months if this thing is proven to be working, are there going to be any heads that will roll for the fact that we spent months not helping people when a clear treatment existed? Even though the treatment is really safe and clearly better than the current protocol of "go home and quarantine, come back to the hospital if your lips turn blue".
>In 6 months if this thing is proven to be working, are there going to be any heads that will roll for the fact that we spent months not helping people when a clear treatment existed?
Is the vaccine (which is FREE for everyone) somehow not helping people? Overwhelming majority of those that are hospitalized with Covid, are NOT vaccinated. And there are no lines to get the vaccine.
It’s simple, we know the efficacy of covid vaccines; they are very high.
We don’t know the efficacy data of ivermectin.
Hydroxychloroquine is a very safe drug, it’s also not effective against covid. If something isnt effective against the condition you’re worried about, even a .00001% chance of adverse effect isnt good enough because the benefit is still 0.
Again, I point out my previous analogy, there’s real harm in promoting drugs “that might work”. Thousands of cancer drugs show promise but the vast majority of them fail to show benefit once they are tested in proper studies.
> In 6 months if this thing is proven to be working, are there going to be any heads that will roll for the fact that we spent months not helping people when a clear treatment existed?
the problem is that it's *not* a clear treatment to anyone with even a first year level of university stats and study design understanding. The only people saying it is clearly effective don't know what they're talking about.
Principia Scientific International and the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons are the groups that are touting the wonders of Ivermectin. Principia is just a fringe webpage with a name to make it sound like a think tank. AAPS is arguably worse. From their Wikipedia:
> The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) is a conservative non-profit association that promotes medical disinformation, such as HIV/AIDS denialism, the abortion-breast cancer hypothesis, vaccine and autism connections, and homosexuality reducing life expectancy.
It's not "golden data." The gold *standard* for research is randomization because it removes so many issues that can contribute to results. Randomization in a controlled setting means you remove factors that could be contributing to the results other than the studied factor.
So in your Mexico case--it could be ivermectin, but there are literally thousands of things people taking ivermectin are doing that could contribute to a drop in Covid. It could have literally nothing to do with ivermectin.
And it sounds like you're saying, "why do we have to have the gold standard to move forward with the research?" You don't. The gold standard is used to say ivermectin works, not that it should be researched, and the post you replied to clearly said that those studies were currently happening.
So, if, in six months the med works, NO heads will roll because the researchers did what they were supposed to do.
If Brett really plays his cards right on this one, he’s lining himself up for a 3rd Nobel prize that he’ll be cheated out of because the gate keepers are out to get him.
I mix Ivermectin in my Bullet Proof Coffee as my post Sauna beverage of choice
Thats ONNIT, O-N-N-I-T
Hell yeah brother.
What’s becoming increasingly clear to me is Rogan is highly insulated himself from people who disagree with him. Very very few people that come on his podcast have the balls to even get into an argument with him anymore because they know the power of the podcast. They want to get back to sell their book/promote their project etc and Rogan has a massive audience of people with disposable income.
And sadly, Rogan doesn't understand the responsibility that comes with the power and reach he has, and ultimately, it'll kill a lot of people. In fact, it already has with the delta variant, which is affecting (and killing) younger people who probably listened to him months ago when he said "if you're young and healthy, I wouldn't get the vaccine, just OD on vitamin D bro".
Oh well, that's what you get with a snake oil salesman. ¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯
That sounds awesome
Please listen to Eric Topol instead
Can we get a tl;dl?
TL:DR: Whinestein and others are basically BSing everyone. They cite flimsy studies with small populations while deriding massive studies with robust outcomes. They also cite data that has not been interpreted correctly. Anyone taking their advice is really putting themselves at unnecessary risk. Basically the vaccine is safer than eating peanut butter and all the anti vax stuff is going to kill people unnecessarily
Atleast that is what I heard but there was a lot packed into this short listen.
This is a great podcast :)
Hasn’t that study been withdrawn since then? Due to plagiarism and inconsistent data?
It's funny because people think that the study being withdrawn for its faults is MORE evidence for their conspiracy.
Study is good = evidence of conspiracy
Study is flawed = evidence of conspiracy.
They just really really want to believe.
One of Joe's guests told this joke:
Flat Earther dies. goes to heaven, and meets God. He asks God: "I believed in flat earth my whole life, please God, tell me - the earth IS flat, right?" God answers: " I am sorry to disappoint you, but it is very round". The flat earther goes: "Wow, this thing goes way deeper than I thought!"
Joe pauses for five seconds:
“… that’s hilarious”
It wasn't even just flawed. It straight up fabricated data
I had much respect for both brothers. Now I’m realizing they are grifters. I feel betrayed by them. Im tired of respecting people who turn out to be charlatans
You think you feel hurt? Think of all the people that got convinced Brendan Schaub was a comedian.
Great guy b, never meddum
I realised that me not liking his comedy was just me being a hater who works at Changs
More efficient grifting to a closed-off audience is why they created the IDW.
I'm convinced that the only reason Bret did Unity2020 was to accumulate more of a following of gullible contrarian people. There is no way he actually thought it was a plausible plan. They are like pied pipers for people who want to think they are smart after living a life of finding out they aren't so sharp.
one more quick note on Bret Weinstein. I'm someone who fell into conspiracy BS 20 years ago. I spent a lot of time thinking about why and also thinking about the tactics that are used to promote those sorts of things. And I have all sorts of patterns I am weary of. And Bret Weinstein was very much embodying a couple of them. Basically any time someone is making an urgent or big claim to a public forum, and is telling people that their ideas are being oppressed you can pretty much write them off.
>much respect for both brothers. Now I’m realizing they are grifters. I feel betrayed by them. Im tired of respecting people who turn out to be charlatans
Did Unity2020 not hammer the point home enough for you? Did Eric's grand claims about his unreleased theory not do it for you?
The campaign where neither of the candidates agreed to it and where neither of them have anything in common?
Yeah the one that was birthed 2 months before the election.
When both had already endorsed the official candidates of each party. It was the most obvious grift by Bret.
Yeah, the Unity2020 thing was nuts. He literally said "if we act fast, it could work"...while schmoozing Dan Crenshaw as a potential Unity guy.
Not making this up. BOTH of the Weinstein brothers praised Andy Ngo as hero-like.
He was on the first episode of Bret's podcast, I think
I can't stop barfing
There was an allowance we give to people and I’ve stayed true to it but near the end, I found myself being dishonest to myself. I let the words inspire me but now after all this time, brought home by two points.
Sams recent podcast who has a guy that criticized Brett for the corana thing, then Eric a couple months ago on the rogan podcast.
I have to develop a better lense of getting to the truth and the agenda of each matter.
Fair enough. When Bret first turned up on the Rogan show I thought his story sounded funny but really ignored him until he started coming out with more outlandish attention grabbing claims. So I went back and did some background research on the Evergreen ordeal. If you really fish through a lot of the details it becomes clear he was highly dishonest about it from the very beginning (the event was clearly voluntary) and he pressed the issue for attention and hoping for a strong reaction.
If you are interested in how to spot these type of grifterish behaviors I strongly advise you to check out the Decoding the Gurus podcast. It's a couple of active academics (anthropologist and psychologist) breaking down some of their materials and pointing out the persuasion tactics they use.
It's a great podcast, if you can get past the japanese-irish accent.
Props to you for facing the painful introspection head-on, my dude.
Serious question: Why did you have respect for them in the first place?
Bret and Harvey were both canceled by woke mobs, so we must then listen to everything they say
You're getting downvoted, but that's literally why a lot of people followed these grifters
And Bret forced that to happen on purpose for an event that was explicitly noted to be participation optional.
Even before the Day of Absence, he was already known as the guy who made a big stink about [diversity hiring](https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/05/30/escalating-debate-race-evergreen-state-students-demand-firing-professor). Whenever he talks about students walking around campus with bats, he never mentions how his Fox News appearance [sparked shooting threats (towards students) from nearby neo-Nazi groups](https://www.thestranger.com/slog/2017/06/07/25198365/neo-nazi-group-posts-flyers-at-evergreen-state-college-after-student-demonstrations). These are accounts from other faculty there at the time, including from one who taught with Bret and said he was a pretty mediocre teacher:
This thread on r/samharris also has some info on how he misrepresented the event: [https://www.reddit.com/r/samharris/comments/e7wfrd/has\_brett\_weinstein\_been\_misrepresenting\_what/](https://www.reddit.com/r/samharris/comments/e7wfrd/has_brett_weinstein_been_misrepresenting_what/)
For audio form (podcasts), I recommend [IDSG](https://idontspeakgerman.libsyn.com/60-bret-weinstein-and-heather-heying) on their analysis of Bret and his wife
Wait, the radical leftist woke mobs turned out to be right ***again***?!?! What could possibly explain their continued success at identifying grifters years before the average JRE listener???
Essentially, I liked Eric’s mind and I thought Bretts actions against woke culture was impressive.
Honesty, it was more Eric than Brett. He spoke to subjects I would think about in the spaces of time in my mind.
This past year, I’ve had nothing but podcasts to keep me somewhat connected but I should have allowed criticism in instead of dismissing anything that was said against them. I should have analyzed both sides.
I was wrong. Very wrong
Because he's a sad human
perhaps its time to stop relying on trust circles of youtubers to ingest information.
“This might be the most important sentence of the century”
Lol what a clown
It seems like the Weinsteins make a discovery of the century about once a week.
LOL this was last week.
I'd it wasn't for that evil DISK the would be ruling the world.
One of the studies was withdrawn. Was it this one?
The only study that mattered was withdrawn.
Well that's not true at all. You can easily search promising results around the world for over a year now.
[The Argentinian Physicians](https://gumshoenews.com/2020/10/23/ivermectin-one-story-of-superb-success-and-one-story-of-sordid-skullduggery/) thing is pretty incredible.
>Three months ago, the protocol was extended and 1,200 health care workers were involved in total. Some 800 received the preventive protocol and another 400 did not, but only because they personally chose not to adhere to the protocol. Regardless, they agreed to be considered purely for comparison purposes. In this group of 400, there were 252 contagions – more than half – while the group of 800 had zero contagion.
All of the links in that article are to shit websites and not peer reviewed research.
Im not gonna click gumshoenews but if you have another link. I'm just referring to what the other JRE celebrity doctor said to mr weinstein a couple weeks ago.
It just seems weird that any mention of a treatment other than the current vaccines are labeled heresy. Shouldn’t we be looking at all possible methods of treatment? What’s weird is scientists and doctors are getting destroyed for mentioning anything about these drugs.
> Shouldn’t we be looking at all possible methods of treatment?
We are. Anyone can access this drug and Oxford is doing some actual trials right now. Whether or not they actually do anything is another story.
Exactly. It’s pathetic that America is not at the helm on treatment plans. The U.S. has fallen to the wayside cuz of politics and stigmatized opinions.
America is typically at the helm of developing *profitable* treatment plans.
Profitable and therefore 'effective'
Who is at the helm of developing *unprofitable* treatment plans? Evidence please.
In the US we have the vaccines readily available, we know they work, and they are free to all of our citizens. Ivermectin has not been proven and in the majority of it's studies was used on small pools of less than 100 people. The biggest study for Ivermectin was recently heavily criticized for plagiarism as well as questionable data.
Now Ivermectin may end up working, but on the flip side it also may not work. It's being pushed by conservatives as a reason to not get the vaccine, which we know for sure works. I think that's why it's been receiving a heavy amount of criticism.
Basically HQC all over again. They were saying the EXACT same shit about HQC and now that its pretty much dead in the water they moved to Ivermectin.
Hell, there was a major anti-vaxer who was being prescribed Ivermectin and he still got covid and ended up in the hospital. Some radio show host I believe.
You should research both sides because you're obviously only listening to one - and that's Bret. You were taken away by his title, his manuerisms, his intelligence and he fueled your preheld biases that medicine doesn't care about health, its all about money, theyre out to get you, "they're" censoring you, etc.
It seems weird because it isn't true.
There are TONS of content on treatments. Even Bill Gates has multiple early blogs on his site GatesNotes.com (spelling not sure) that go into hopeful treatments and therapies. I can provide you a ton of mainstream news that 1) Highlights the hopefulness of many treatments and 2) Casts a shadow on vaccines. So stop acting like "the elite" or the MSM is all gun ho on vaccines and theyre anti-anything else. You think reporting on every single case of mild blood clots (17 of 33M) isn't being negative towards the vaccine? It doesn't create fear? It did and it does. And I can find multiple social media "accepted" (not banned or red flagged) that highlight therapies other than vaccines even Hydroxichloriquine had hope.
But what happened was stupid people take that miniscule science and act like its the cure. Like we can now go back to "normal" because this "medicine" you just consume can help us.
Lol - no. No evidence supports this.
This is like polio and measle days when "naturalists" thought the cure was in some elixir. And were so anti the new thing called a "vaccine" to prevent infection. Imagine even wanting to infect someone lol. Like that has no negative effect in it of itself. Like its the common cold or less lol. Like allergies.
Lets get specifics.
Ivermectin is not controversial. In order for a treatment to be considered by the CDC and WHO they need very good data to support it. Just because bret is able provide you a study or two, doesn't mean it's a good study, nor does it mean that its the only.
In a quick look on what the actual experts say, most data shows conflicting results. And positive is very small.
Mind you, most of the good data seems to come from studies that aren't well put together. They use a small case number. Or the data is shaky. Or some studies have been unpublished. A lot of the data is coming from 2nd world countries.
But dont act like its not being studied. Ivermectin is a widely popular study of choice right now. There are hundreds of papers on it. And dozens of papers in pandemic.
Its social media that choose individually to censor content or just demonetize it (which makes most sense to me because the company just says you can show it, but we wont pay for it).
And i say who cares? Its like screaming fire in a building. Or bomb on a plane.
This shit isn't for the general public to make a opinion on. This is for medical practice to go its way and find best approach. Not for Joe in his basement PC to argue with people on internet.
I dont like the weinstein brothers
I just love Ivermectin despite it's inconclusive results doing what I think it does.
It’s not weird to criticize someone referencing inconsistent data or flawed studies though. There’s nothing wrong with searching for alternatives. But there is something wrong with pushing alternatives that aren’t actually backed by science. Like drinking bleach or ingesting a drug used to kill heartworms in dogs.
Most prescription drugs can have different uses, ketamine is used in animals and humans. Saying any molecule is unfit for medical treatment because of its other uses is ridiculous. Thats like saying cannabis is only fit for textile production even though the by product (cannabinoids) is proven to be effective for multiple human ailments. The reason ivermectin is used for heart worms is because its an effective antiparasitic drug. Covid has a lot of parasitic qualities even though it its self is not a parasite. That’s like using super glue to close a wound, its intended use can be used unconventionally and still be effective.
Ultimately i feel like people are focusing on the wrong thing here. If you asked the families of people who were ravaged by covid (death or otherwise) if a harmless already well documented drug can be used to save their loved ones that they should at least try it. They should at least know that there is an option.
I’m not saying a drug can’t have more than one use. Ketamine is approved to be used in both humans and animals. It is approved because it went through clinical trials. You can use drugs “ off label “ but it’d be foolish to tell the general population cause then these dumbasses would be drinking bleach. I don’t understand why your all dead set on pushing snake oil like treatments instead of just getting the vaccine.
Ivermectin has been around for decades and is already in use with little to no side effects. I have no issues with the vaccines but ivermectin can be used to keep COVID at bay. There’s no reason both can be used as a treatment, its like wearing a condom while your wife also uses birth control. The concept is “covering all your bases”, contraception and infection, to reduce the transmission of COVID (or any disease for that matter). The argument I’m making is that no one wants to acknowledge that there are other treatments available, and the ones that do have their livelihoods threatened.
Yes. Ivermectin is approved for humans for parasitic worms. The FDA does not approve ivermectin for Covid. And yes there is something wrong with using both because ivermectin can interact with other medications and people can overdose on it.
Other countries have been using ivermectin to successfully treat COVID patients, the case for opening it up for trials here in the US despite that evidence is what’s being contested. There’s no reason it can’t be given a trial run. Overdosing is true of ANY substance, water, salt, sugar can be overdosed. The FDA didn’t approve the vaccines either, that was the whole point of Op warp speed. by your logic ivermectin is the more plausible treatment since its has 35 years of documentation and, at this point, several countries report its more effective than the vaccine alone. Imagine the efficiency if the vaccine and ivermectin were used in tandem, now imagine telling a family their loved one will die because they don’t want to accidentally possibly hypothetically kinda sorta die.
Thought it was HQC they were using? Did they get tired of HQC and suddenly change up?
People around here like to hold up India as an example of somewhere using ivermectin with great success in the fight against COVID-19..... except India stopped using it at the start of June due to being ineffective lel
Don’t use his narrow logic against him, it’s impolite
Exactly, Ive made my points and provided sources, used analogies and ultimately i don’t care what someone decides to do or not do.
>Other countries have been using ivermectin to successfully treat COVID patients
If this was the case we would have literature backing it up. That simply isn't the case.
People can get ivermectin in the US. There is no restriction on doctors prescribing it off label other than their own good judgement. You seem to have a lot of bad assumptions. Stop just listening to Bret.
While we are on FDA approval... Neither are the vaccines but that has been driven down our throats ad nauseam.
So let’s say you’re one week into Covid and got double pneumonia on supplemental oxygen. Can it be used then? I’m legit asking for a friend haha
[Ivermectin treatment was associated with lower mortality during treatment of COVID-19, especially in patients with severe pulmonary involvement. Randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these findings.](https://journal.chestnet.org/article/S0012-3692(20)34898-4/fulltext)
According to these knuckleheads in the video, it is very effective as a preventative measure and early stages of COVID. The argument I’m making is that it could not hurt to ask a doctor since The side effects are trivial in relation to almost certain slow death.
Go ahead and call every GP in your county. Not a single one would recommend HeartGuard as a covid preventative.
Using a drug that has a proven track record on humans for various illnesses is not the same as drinking bleach you idiot. You are using terrible comparisons to make a point. There is enough evidence that makes you certainly not worth hearing out on the subject.
Ivermectin does NOT have any track record of being taken as a daily or weekly dose months on end...
It's usually taken as literally ONE DOSE for parasites.
Read the back of dog deworming medication... It specifically warns against repeated or extra dosing.
Would you assume that getting a Vax shot every week for the next 6 months is perfectly safe because 1 shot seems very safe ?.... Why not ?
Why not get 25 JnJ vaccinations shots over the next 6 months ? After all one shot is safe in over 99% of people....
Apply the same argument to any medication that you'd like.
Drinking too much water can kill you for crying out loud... it's 100% r-worded to assume safety as you greatly ramp up dosing.
That's the argument Bret is basically making... whether he realizes it or not.
Fair point. I should have said hydroxychloroquine
Oh it's not. There are researcher looking into treatment at universities all over this country. Just none of them are dumb enough to say what this guy is saying because they don't have sufficient evidence.
I am not saying they won't get suffevidence for whatever treatment. I am just saying they haven't.
Let me know when they find one.
Until they do, **we should all get vaccinated.**
I think they receive criticism because there's a lack of proof in the effectiveness of Ivermectin. If it works, great, but we want to be careful and not let this turn into hydroxychloroquine 2.0.
Even worse, some people are avoiding the vaccine's which do work, in favor of trying Ivermectin instead, which is still unproven. The vaccines are readily available and free, to the point where the US is now giving them to other countries simply because people here don't feel like taking them.
It is mentioning unproven cures that is criticized. Trump was touting hydroxychloroquine before any studies had been done about it and was rightly criticized for being reckless. Even if he had been right about it, he was wrong to recommend a drug that was unproven. With ivermectin it became clear pretty quickly that it was being pushed by certain people as a miracle drug with little evidence. Then it turned out that evidence was fabricated.
I have no problem with people recommending treatments that have robust science backing it up(like the vaccines), but I will continue to criticize people who recommend crackpot treatments with no evidence to show its effectiveness(like hydrixychloroquine and ivermectin).
Treatments are being studied everyday. But a lot of people are wrongfully drawing vast conclusions about healthcare based on weak or inconclusive data.
Bill Gates talks about possible treatments multiple times. He hopes it can workout but a vaccine is just logically the most efficient, effective and safest measure.
You guys act like vaccines side effects are the plague. But you make it seem like medicine has no side effect whatsoever lol. I mean cmon.
It does seem weird. It is also weird that the people who constantly voice support for wealth redistribution and anti-corporatism have no questions or qualms with giving billions of dollars and no-fault contracts to mega pharma corporations for an experimental cocktail.
It sucks. But conservatives have been screaming crying baa killing people to stop the change. So now we sit here with no other choice
This is what I’ve been saying
Nobody's against finding another way to solve the problem.
We're against people saying they found a way when they don't have enough evidence to claim that.
Have you not wondered why the people in control have refused to use the word immunity in a context other than the entire nation?
It was standard practice to test for antibodies and t-cells (which the COVID t-cell test is FDA approved) before administering vaccines, only before COVID-19 outbreak.
Now, we have completely ignored this standard practice (although FDA approved and available) and we only focus on ways to prove who has been VACCINATED.
Or in other words, you’re only considered healthy if big pharma has gotten their check.
I for one have been taking regular blood tests and my natural immunity has been equal to or greater than synthetic immunity via vaccines.
If anyone doesn’t believe me, just do your own research. Do yourself a favor and use “before:MMDDYYYY” in your google search on how immunizations work before the outbreak to prove to yourself how much they have backtracked on known scientific practices.
A bit out of the loop, but I am guessing this convo was pre-vaccine b/c why would they try to find a drug that works when there are 3 diff vaccines available?
It was in fact not pre vaccine. He’s been spreading anti vax propaganda for months.
whoa that's wild
He has refused to take the vaccine and promoted anecdotal problems with the vaccine on Twitter. He ignores the massive studies showing very few deaths related to the vaccine and instead discusses ivermectin studies relentlessly.
Bret Weinstein is not even well regarded in his field
He was a professor at evergreen college which is a joke of an institution
He was/is a nobody in his field of evolutionary biology. He's not someone who has any modicum of expertise in either immunology or infectious disease.
Obviously his genius level intellect and next level ideas are too much for your simple minds To grasp. And your criticism is clearly just a feeble attempt at trying to censor his genius because the risk it poses, or something or other and cancel culture, or something, you guy know the talking points.
He claims that since he's an evolutionary biologist, and that everything is related to evolutionary biology, he can basically chime in on every topic with authority.
He's a douche.
I have a pretty good understand of basic infectious disease, immunology, and evolutionary biology. Two are closely related and one is not related at all. Also, his ability to appraise medical research is pathetic.
I believe in 2 decades of being in academia he only published 2 papers as well. He was just a teacher at a poor quality school with illusions of grandeur.
Bro if those kids at that random ass school didn’t freak out we would not be in this situation.
He’s basically Alex Jones in a cap and gown, educated far beyond his intelligence. No one who works in academia believes his bullshit Evergreen story anyway. Full disclosure, I am a professor.
How sad to have spent all that time getting a doctorate and becoming a professor only to end up doing no good with it and making a living by peddling conspiracy theories.
His brother is even less trustworthy.
Same origin story as Jordan Peterson
I personally think the Evergreen stuff was overblown. I’m as far left as you can be, but fuck, those kids from that random school really turned him into a martyr.
It was overblown by Weinstein the same way bill c-16 was overblown by Peterson. All for the anti-woke grift
It's interesting that you blame the kids for turning him into a martyr rather than the entirety of the right wing mediasphere that amplifies the complaints of 'anti-woke' grifters until that's literally all that can be heard.
I totally agree with you. It was an isolated incident from kids at a school no one had ever heard of. So your right, it was the RW media and honestly Rogan too that amplified these voices.
Here is a different Meta Analysis looking at 10 studies. Says NO effect on prevention, treatment, death or reduction in symptoms.
>[Up to February 2021, the PAHO identified twenty two ivermectin randomised clinical trials through a rapid review of current available literature.34 There is considerable heterogeneity in the population receiving ivermectin, with studies administering it to family contacts of confirmed COVID-19 cases as a prophylactic measure29 and other studies using ivermectin for treatment of mild and moderate infected cases28 or even severe hospitalised patients.30 Applied dosis and outcomes of interest were also highly variable. Additionally, patients also received various cointerventions, and control groups received different kinds of comparators ranging from placebo or no intervention to standard care or even hydroxychloroquine. The authors claim that pooled estimates suggest beneficial effects with ivermectin, but the certainty of the evidence was very low due to high risk of bias and small number of events throughout the included studies. Most study results have been made publicly available as preprints or unpublished, with no peer review or formal editorial process. Others incorporated their results only in the clinical trial register, but nearly half of these randomised clinical trials had not been registered. Registering clinical trials before they begin and making results available fulfils a large number of purposes, like reducing publication and selective outcome reporting biases, promoting more efficient allocation of research funds and facilitating evidence syntheses that will inform stakeholders and decision-makers in the future.](https://ebm.bmj.com/content/early/2021/05/26/bmjebm-2021-111678)
Here's a great review by an actual group of scientists who call out the nonsense research, that has been pushed by many individuals, with very specific critiques of why the current literature being used to justify ivermectin is seriously flawed.
The same people who buy into this bullshit are the same ones that don't believe the vaccine data that shows amazing efficacy in preventing severe disease and death. The vaccines have been heavily scrutinized and they are still being recommended by most physicians due to how effective they are.
Yea they will cite studies from Iran, Egypt and Argentina on Ivermectin and dismiss studies on the vaccine from Europe, The US and other places. It’s ultimately the same anti vax nonsense seen in the past just being dressed up with more scientific language.
Enough with the Weinsteins already.
Wait so they’re saying you take this drug before going out when you have a chance of being in contact with covid and it gives you over 80% reduction in infection and illness and this could be the end of covid
Why exactly are they against the vaccine again?
They're against the vaccine because it profits them to do so. There is a gigantic group of desperate-to-be-lied-to people out there who are so contrarian, they'll put their life on the line just to own the libs.
It's hilarious how they neg the vaccine, with its 94-96% effective rate, while peddling an untested drug that *might* have an 80% reduction in infection and illness. Meanwhile, they're vectors for spreading covid, along with dangerous misinformation.
The mRNA vaccines are amazing, based on game changing, decades-old tech that will produce many other effective and super safe remedies.
Bret has relentlessly talked promoted on his Twitter individual anecdotes about the problems with the vaccine. Yet ignores the studies that show a tiny tiny number of deaths caused by the vaccine and the many lives it’s saved.
It’s Weinstein not Weinstein bro!!! How dare you 😏
“This might be one of the most important sentences written this century” Brett Weinstein
“I discovered the universal theory of everything” Eric Weinstein - and which Einstein and many others couldn’t get close to despite a lifetime of trying.
Weinstein’s parents have got a lot to answer for
I have a feeling if we knew more about their upbringing it would explain an awful lot about their behaviour
This roided out garden gnome is responsible for singlehandedly giving career to 95% of the grifters out there right now. It’s pathetic.
Why does Joe elevate such charlatans?
Reaffirm his reactionary beliefs
He sells alphabrain
he's a rube
Why are they charlatans?
Because Bret abjectly and categorically doesn’t know what the fuck he’s talking about. He has no experience as a real scientist, let alone in medicine or running clinical trials.
Sam Harris had Eric Topol on this week, who legitimately is a world expert on this stuff (he’s *the* most cited medical scientist of all time). And he thoroughly dismantles Bret’s insane rhetoric on it, if you’re genuinely interested.
I'm down, thank you
Bret is making a lot of assumptions and coming to a lot of conclusions based on one sentence. It’s almost Alex Jones-esque.
It’s funny I see so many people equating Bret to Jones on here. Unoriginal and lazy.
Show me one instance where Bret is in any way similar to Alex Jones. Is being cautious is conspiratorial?
I dunno, “claiming to be censored while speaking to their huge audience” comes to mind.
Being conspiratorial is conspiratorial.
This fucking sub...
It’s full of a bunch of haters. A wise man once told me that people want to see you do well, just not better than them. Since Rogan is doing better than 99.9% of the planet, the do-nothing keyboard warriors come out in droves to disparage anything & everything that happens on his podcast. I think this sub is full of Spotify’s finest transgender employees.
Yeah I criticize Rogan for his shit takes on like Covid, because I didn't get a Spotify deal like him.
I just miss watching the podcast on youtube, before discovering this sub. Also, I can't watch it on Spotify. POS app. The world evolves, sometimes for good, sometimes not so much..
so sick of seeing this moron’s stupid fucking head. piss off bret, yer done.
I used to like Brett, not sure what happened to this goober.
I think he means we'll and probably is right to an extent. This is just a touch one to win for lack of a better term. Especially with the hate some people already have for him
He is right though, if someone doesn't want the vaccine...why not just give em this shit. Couldn't hurt....
The vaccine is the end of covid. We already have it at our fingertips. By refusing it, you are actively hurting and prolonging covid.
Self report: I didn’t watch the video and felt like shitting on Brett. That’s not cool of me. Feel free to downvote
I feel like he makes it so clear all of the time with this they he's not the expert but...it wouldn't hurt to give these other meds to those who do not want the vaccine. I took one of the medications in the past but I think that's as common sense as the mask stuff but it's all good
1/ I believe that as an anti parasite treatment ivermectin is a short-term treatment. Is their any research to suggest it is “safe” for long term use?
2/ if people don’t want to take the vaccine is it better to persuade them to take the vaccine e that to suggest an alternative, the testing of which at the moment is sparser
Any opinion this guy has I can't take seriously. Knowing that he is just an egomaniac that lies to make himself look good or intelligent is more than enough for me to just ignore everything that comes from his mouth. Can't fucking stomach these kinds of people who live in their own bubble upon their own throne and then prance around like everyone should take their word as gospel.
This guy is so insanely irresponsible.
Oh my god how is this man so boring I can’t even finish the video
Does this guy give himself Dutch ovens?
Bret .. to my understanding…ok lol
I wish he would stop bringing these dark web charlatans on. I know he has his own agenda, but dud it really makes it hard to like you when your spreading misinformation and sneaky racism/discrimination on your platform. Just stick to historians and comedians PLEASE!
What if... Joe Rogan actually agrees with these dipshits and wants their message to spread far and wide?
This is the most plausible reason. Joe really believes this shit and wants it spread far and wide, since he's so insulated from repercussions and responsibility.
I fucking hate this bitch
Better keep on clicking on links to people you hate then. Really get that seething going.
Ivermetctin might not be a 100% "miracle" cure, but it does indeed help treat covid infections. Why is that controversial. American journal of therapeutics [concluded that Ivermetctin](https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/Fulltext/2021/08000/Ivermectin_for_Prevention_and_Treatment_of.7.aspx) does have a positive impact on fight the pandamic. One of the studies on thier paper even said "Meta-analysis of 15 trials, assessing 2438 participants, found that ivermectin reduced the risk of death by an average of 62% (95% CI 27%–81%) compared with no ivermectin treatment". Whether or not your pro/anti vax shouldn't matter, but bashing and censoring an effective treatment(especially because it's perceived as "alt right conspiracy trash by mainstream platforms " ) that worked for many people is not right.
>Ivermetctin might not be a 100% "miracle" cure, but it does indeed help treat covid infections. Why is that controversial.
You're talking about a meta-analysis of 15 trials that were done in 2nd/3rd World countries with shit hole medical systems. Bangledesh, Egypt, Iran, Columbia, India, Turkey, etc.
Sorry but a review of 2,400 total patients given ivermectin in places like Iran and Bangledesh does not prove the drug works as you insist. Sure it could work but there is no proof.
> You're talking about a meta-analysis of 15 trials that were done in 2nd/3rd World countries with shit hole medical systems. Bangledesh, Egypt, Iran, Columbia, India, Turkey, etc.
Wait wouldn't that show Ivermectin is even more effective if the medical system sucks? That means under worse conditions, those with Ivermectin had a high survival rate. Regardless you're grasping at straws.
> Sorry but a review of 2,400 total patients given ivermectin in places like Iran and Bangledesh does not prove the drug works as you insist. Sure it could work but there is no proof.
"Proof." Sure, there is only a meta-analysis of 15 trials. Not sure what the hell you mean by proof but ok.
You guys are either straight up crazy or paid foreign trolls.
You refuse to trust the FDA and CDC. [https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/why-you-should-not-use-ivermectin-treat-or-prevent-covid-19](https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/why-you-should-not-use-ivermectin-treat-or-prevent-covid-19)
But you have no problem trusting a 100 person study from Iran that had a reported 62% success rate.
I trust the FDA and CDC. You trust Iran. Hmmmmm.....
The FDA has fucked Up so many times with approving drugs and denying others that work that it’s laughable you think they’re a trustworthy source. Yes, the government agency that also subsidizes but pharma and lobbies is the go to.
Ok? There’s plenty of doctors in the US who have reported use of Ivermectin and promising results. It’s also incredibly safe so why not at least try it?
But ok, say I support Iran lol.
Listen to the Sam Harris podcast on this. Basically, studies with 2.5k people show what looks to be promising results that means there should be far larger studies. It does not mean you start prescribing it now and recommend taking it instead of vaccines with studies including hundreds of thousands and 9 months of real world data
15 trials, meta analysis with 2500 people, is definitely evidence.
There’s nothing to lose in believing that.
cite me your favourite research paper which demonstrates validity for the use of ivermectin against COVID-19 and what makes you believe it is a high quality study worthy of attention. I'm not talking about a meta-analysis I'm talking to the most high powered study which was put into your favourite meta-analysis.
If people dont take the vacine because they believe this is a cure then the hundreds of people that may die is something to lose in my opinion.
My brother listens to JR every night. He won't take the vaccine because "there are other perfectly fine treatments available."you can't trust anyone who has pro-vax agenda" big pharma, the government, mass media. His magic pills should be arriving in the mail any day now. Also the drug companies have no liability! There has been no phase 4 testing and if all the sheep who got vaxxed get gravely sick in a few months (20 percent chance btw) they don't have to pay out! What does that tell you!!!!??? sigh*
there are people in other countries who may not have access to the vaccine but easily have access to this.
If people who don’t want the vaccine have an alternative, that is good to.
the goal is to eradicate the virus, not be on the winning side.
>with shit hole medical systems.
Donald, is that you?
Only bamboo helps against the Panda-mic
I love how he states the confidence levels, as if it means anything. The study would not have been published had it been a lower confident level. The truth of the matter is Bret is an abstract researcher. He just reads cherry picks and reads conclusions.
Why start listening to science now?
Widely used in Mexico.