Speaker 1: Welcome to Behind the Bastards, the only podcast where the host,
Speaker 1: Robert Evans could easily, and I mean easily, defeat Lebron
Speaker 1: James at basketball. Not a problem, not even a challenge.
Speaker 1: Everyone knows it. Everybody agrees. Let's just move on. Having
Speaker 1: made the point. This is Remember, I've seen your dunk
Speaker 1: I've seen your dunk reels on TikTok. You're very kid,
Speaker 1: Thank you, thank you, Yes, unparalleled. Some would say, um, now,
Speaker 1: Jamie bad, I'm speaking Jamie Loftus, How how are you,
Speaker 1: Jamie Loftus. I'm so, I'm so, I'm all over the place,
Speaker 1: but I'm good. I'm all right, all things considered. I
Speaker 1: brought my cat on a cross country flight yesterday. So
Speaker 1: that's what did you do? Was he good? What was
Speaker 1: the vibe? Was good? We were we were sitting like
Speaker 1: I was in the two rows. I was the only
Speaker 1: person that wasn't on the way to celebrate someone's thirtieth birthday.
Speaker 1: But they really took to the cat. They were we
Speaker 1: were all an emotional support unit. They were all watching
Speaker 1: Naruto on iPads. I was listening to an Amityville Horror
Speaker 1: audio book and just reaching down and petting my cat
Speaker 1: for six hours. It was. It was a real treat.
Speaker 1: How are you, Robert? I'm good, um, by which I
Speaker 1: mean terrible, by which I mean normal. Um okay, so
Speaker 1: nothing's changed since we last spoke that I just flew to.
Speaker 1: I was in Texas from my brother's wedding, and so
Speaker 1: I was. I got to be as I was when
Speaker 1: I left Texas there the day a new shitty law
Speaker 1: came into being. Um, okay, you need to stop going
Speaker 1: back your jinks. Yeah, I mean when I moved to
Speaker 1: l A, I had just like immediately. It was immediately
Speaker 1: after I attended the protests for Wendy Davis at the
Speaker 1: Capitol over the over abortion. Um, so that's just me
Speaker 1: and Texas. Baby. Wait, Robert, what is your what is
Speaker 1: I'm what is your vibe at a wedding? I can't
Speaker 1: picture you at a wedding, so I need to have
Speaker 1: trouble picturing me too at a wedding, Jamie. But I
Speaker 1: was to it was very Catholic wedding. Did you get
Speaker 1: to eat the tiny bread? No? No, no, I don't
Speaker 1: I don't take I love the tiny bread. It tastes
Speaker 1: so good. Tucksolved. I had to wear a tux I have.
Speaker 1: Where's the pictures? I felt bad about killing the photographer,
Speaker 1: but I just couldn't let there be a chance of
Speaker 1: those photos getting out. So send me a pick of
Speaker 1: you what I had to do? A smiling with teeth
Speaker 1: in the pics? No, but I did get extremely drunk
Speaker 1: at the it was thankfully it was um It was
Speaker 1: a Catholic wedding, but it was also a Mexican wedding,
Speaker 1: so the food was incredible and I was able to
Speaker 1: get very drunk afterwards, so that I can't believe you
Speaker 1: smiled with teeth. Also, my brother's happy. I guess that's
Speaker 1: important too. Yeah, who gives a ship? I don't know
Speaker 1: your brother allegedly whatever, Jamie, what how do you feel
Speaker 1: about the death of all hope? I feel, I feel
Speaker 1: I feel very numb to it. Yeah, that's a good
Speaker 1: way to feel about the death of all hope, Jamie. Today,
Speaker 1: I'm going to tell you a story, and it's a
Speaker 1: story about the end of the world. Now, this story
Speaker 1: doesn't involve a nuclear holocaust or global war. The culprit
Speaker 1: for our incipient apocalypse is the modern information ecosystem, which
Speaker 1: has doomed us all and cannot be reformed. Now to
Speaker 1: make it clear why I'm gonna tell you a story
Speaker 1: about ivermectin. I guess you've heard a lot about iver
Speaker 1: met in the last couple of days, haven't you. You
Speaker 1: sure have course paste um all that tends to be
Speaker 1: how people talk about it in social media. These idiots
Speaker 1: are taking horse paste um, which is It's one of
Speaker 1: those things where people who love horse paste will be like,
Speaker 1: we're not taking horse paste. Is. There's a bunch of
Speaker 1: different formulations. There's even human versions, and that's true. They're
Speaker 1: like a horse paste is the meanest possible I've I've
Speaker 1: seen versions of that, like saying it's horse paste is
Speaker 1: a little bit inaccurate when they say something else scary,
Speaker 1: I'm actually taking sheep dip um. But a lot of
Speaker 1: people are taking the human version of iver mecht in too,
Speaker 1: particularly when talking about Joe Rogan. Joe Rogan isn't going
Speaker 1: to a feed store in getting apple flavored horse paste.
Speaker 1: He's getting ivermectin prescribed him by a doctor because he's
Speaker 1: rich um. And ivermectin is very much kind of a
Speaker 1: miracle medicine, just not in the purpose is being used
Speaker 1: for um. It was discovered in nineteen seventy five and
Speaker 1: went on sale widely in the early nineteen eighties, and
Speaker 1: it is still today one of the most potent anti
Speaker 1: parasitic medications in existence. It is effective in livestock and
Speaker 1: also in humans. It is credited with curing a once
Speaker 1: devastating illness called river blindness, which I feel like the
Speaker 1: name describes more or less the problem. Um, I don't agree.
Speaker 1: What is parasites from unclean water make you blind and
Speaker 1: stops that? Okay, it's very it's very good stuff. The
Speaker 1: scientists who discovered it won a Nobel Prize UM and
Speaker 1: in two thousand fifteen it was even found that the
Speaker 1: anti parasitic drug is also effective at disrupting the transmission
Speaker 1: of malaria UM, which is great. And when taken as directed,
Speaker 1: iver mecton is extremely safe with minimal side effects, and
Speaker 1: it is cheap enough to produce that you can find
Speaker 1: it all over the world, or you could anyway. Before
Speaker 1: about like six this month, six or so months ago,
Speaker 1: iver macton has developed I think a really toxic fan base,
Speaker 1: and it's the Rick and Morty of anti parasitic drugs
Speaker 1: sure um, And like Rick and Morty, it will stop
Speaker 1: herds of horses from shifting worms out. It acts. Yeah, people,
Speaker 1: they have horses watching early seasons of ricking mortial ther
Speaker 1: to see what will happened to their bodies. You give
Speaker 1: season four, it'll keep shitting worms. So in September of
Speaker 1: Australian researchers found that huge doses of iron mectin, when
Speaker 1: ministered in a laboratory setting might stop or could stop
Speaker 1: replication of COVID in cell cultures in less than forty
Speaker 1: eight hours. This was potentially a big deal for obvious reasons,
Speaker 1: but also these are cell cultures, right, This is not
Speaker 1: in the human body. These are in in in a
Speaker 1: very controlled laboratory setting. So this is a very useful
Speaker 1: piece of data. And obviously follow up studies were immediately
Speaker 1: commissioned around the world to see if maybe this might
Speaker 1: be something that could help with COVID. Now pre vaccine
Speaker 1: doctors were looking at a wide variety of medications and
Speaker 1: treatment options that might act as stop gaps until there
Speaker 1: was a vaccine. One group of physicians who were doing
Speaker 1: this was the Frontline COVID nineteen Critical Care Alliance or
Speaker 1: f l c c c UM. This group had been
Speaker 1: formed by a number of critical care specialists with different
Speaker 1: medical backgrounds who wanted to try and hash together new
Speaker 1: ideas for treating the virus. Their first stab at this
Speaker 1: was to use cortico steroids to reduce mortality in severe
Speaker 1: COVID cases. Now, the man most behind this particular idea
Speaker 1: was a guy named Dr Umberto Maduri. He's known as
Speaker 1: the Guru of cortico steroids in lung disease. Conventional wisdom,
Speaker 1: what an amazing I hope there's a T shirt for that.
Speaker 1: I hope there's a T Yeah, he should get They
Speaker 1: announced him like it's a w w E wrestler when
Speaker 1: he comes out at medical conferences. I mean funcket. I
Speaker 1: want him to get a two Chains album, Like why not?
Speaker 1: I want to hook up with him? Why not? Yeah?
Speaker 1: Um so yeah, this guy has this idea that like, hey,
Speaker 1: maybe cortico steroids might be useful in this situation, and
Speaker 1: that was very controversial at the time. Conventional wisdom um
Speaker 1: was that steroids like that do more harm than good
Speaker 1: when treating a virus, like when treating a coronavirus. But
Speaker 1: Dr Marduri and his colleagues were pretty sure that their
Speaker 1: solution would help, and they distributed a new hospital protocol
Speaker 1: called MATH plus for patients hospitalized with severe COVID. Hospitals
Speaker 1: began trying it out because again, this is early in
Speaker 1: the virus. There's not it's kind of like throwing everything
Speaker 1: at the wall and seeing what sticks. Um, And there's
Speaker 1: evidence that this seriously slowed down mortality. It seems to
Speaker 1: have worked. Hospital administrators noticed rapid slowdowns and mortality when
Speaker 1: they adopted this, specifically for people who were very sick. Um,
Speaker 1: when you hire the guru, that's great, you're bringing the guru.
Speaker 1: So yeah, um, And there was of course, you know,
Speaker 1: they kind of started adopting this before there was a
Speaker 1: huge body of science, but a body of science was
Speaker 1: built as they started adopting this, and a large UK
Speaker 1: patient study in June of showed that steroid treatment that
Speaker 1: the FLCCC suggested really worked. The MATH plus protocol was greenlit,
Speaker 1: and hospitals around the United States praise for ed in
Speaker 1: for the f l c c C, who at this
Speaker 1: point looked like hard working doctors doing their damnedest to
Speaker 1: find creative ways to save lives in an incredibly challenging situation.
Speaker 1: Wait were they not? Well, this is not an easy
Speaker 1: answer to that question. Jamie, Okay, because um, they definitely
Speaker 1: did a good thing there and saved a lot of
Speaker 1: lives with that, they have also gone on to do
Speaker 1: some sketchy things And I don't have an easy summary
Speaker 1: for you of like the f l c c C is,
Speaker 1: like they're horrible grifters or there you know, decent medical
Speaker 1: you know, people who got something wrong or their their truth.
Speaker 1: Like I don't. I don't have an easy answer for
Speaker 1: you for what these people are. But things take a
Speaker 1: turn at this point. So one of the doctors, one
Speaker 1: of the co founders of the f l c c C,
Speaker 1: was a guy named Dr Pierre Corey. Now Dr Corey
Speaker 1: was not the brains behind Dr Murdery's cortico steroid plan,
Speaker 1: but he did helped found the f l c c C.
Speaker 1: He was very interested in the early in the early
Speaker 1: data that started coming out about iver mechton. In October,
Speaker 1: he and other FLCCC doctors noted that there had been
Speaker 1: several small successful trials using iver mecton as a preventative measure.
Speaker 1: These studies were not large or particularly high quality. We'll
Speaker 1: talk a little bit about them later, but in those
Speaker 1: pre vaccine days, a case could be made that they
Speaker 1: were not being irresponsible by adding iver mecton to their
Speaker 1: math plus protocol alongside a new preventative protocol called i'm
Speaker 1: ask plus. There's not vaccines yet. The pandemic October is
Speaker 1: kind of at the fucking worst it's been um and
Speaker 1: you know, you could also say, like, well, they kind
Speaker 1: of took a little bit of a stab on cortico
Speaker 1: steroids and that wound up saving lives. Might as well
Speaker 1: give it a shot with especially since iver mechten, when
Speaker 1: taken in quantities for humans, that's prescribed by a doctor
Speaker 1: fairly minimal risks. Right. I've never known anyone who's had
Speaker 1: river blindness, So yes, exactly exactly, you don't and I
Speaker 1: spray you with a lot of contaminated river water, Jamie.
Speaker 1: You do. You've been doing a lot of experiments, But
Speaker 1: I I do believe when you say, it's for the
Speaker 1: greater good of some So these guys are kind of
Speaker 1: operating off of the goodwill of having been semi successful
Speaker 1: before to experiment with, and they're they're also operating. You
Speaker 1: do have to acknowledge the situation when you're dealing with
Speaker 1: a pandemic of this severity, you can't necessarily wait, like
Speaker 1: you have to make You have to kind of triage
Speaker 1: when you wait to try something. And I can see
Speaker 1: in the case of being like look when you when
Speaker 1: taken when when giving people like normal human doses of
Speaker 1: iver mactin very minimal risk of side effects. If it
Speaker 1: might help, it's worth trying. You know you can you
Speaker 1: can make that case. And that's the case these people
Speaker 1: were making it at this point. They're not being bastards
Speaker 1: that I can tell um. And they imagine they're making
Speaker 1: a shipload of money also would that be I don't
Speaker 1: I don't have that information, Jamie, some of this. So
Speaker 1: one of the troubles with this, This is gonna be
Speaker 1: a little bit of a messier because a lot of
Speaker 1: this is still breaking. And in fact, one of the
Speaker 1: studies that I was talking about earlier, an article just
Speaker 1: dropped today kind of talking about it. So I think
Speaker 1: that we will learn more about the f l c
Speaker 1: c C in time as a result of some of
Speaker 1: the things we'll talk about. I don't know the extent
Speaker 1: to which people are making a profit off of it.
Speaker 1: I don't know enough to allege any that kind of
Speaker 1: fiscal wrongdoing. But there's something weird here at some being
Speaker 1: on the cutting edge as usual, Robert, thank you, Jamie,
Speaker 1: thank you. I am on the cutting edge like I
Speaker 1: am in the cutting edge of basketball strategies, here in
Speaker 1: the cutting edge of weddings, on the cutting edge of
Speaker 1: COVID analysis, on the cutting edge of smiling with your
Speaker 1: teeth and pictures. Thank you, thank you. You know I
Speaker 1: invented the four pointer recently. No one had ever done
Speaker 1: that in basket No kidding, Wow right, that's right, make
Speaker 1: me fire you again. So at this point, it's also
Speaker 1: important to enough that the FLCCC, they're saying, we're adding
Speaker 1: this might we're recommending this in certain situations for people
Speaker 1: who are sick and as a potential prophylactic to prevent COVID.
Speaker 1: They were not billing iver mectin as a replacement or
Speaker 1: an alternative to the vaccine, and in fact, they're early
Speaker 1: advocacy of iver mectin discussed it purely as a stop
Speaker 1: gap vaccines are not available at this point. There's some
Speaker 1: evidence that this might help stem the tide of infections,
Speaker 1: and we are at capacity in hospital, so this might
Speaker 1: reduce infections that might improve outcomes. We're going to recommend
Speaker 1: people take it until there's a vaccine, right, and I'm
Speaker 1: gonna quote from Yahoo News here to talk about some
Speaker 1: people who did use it in that situation. In a
Speaker 1: February local news segment, a Midland, Texas woman describes how
Speaker 1: she learned about iver mectin backed in October from the Internet,
Speaker 1: and she and her family had been taking it in
Speaker 1: animal form ever since. Though she wasn't taking the tablets
Speaker 1: for humans as the f LCCC recommends. In a way,
Speaker 1: she was taking it as intended as a bridge to
Speaker 1: the vaccine. I just got my first vaccine shot a
Speaker 1: few days ago, So no more horse paste, she told
Speaker 1: the reporter. So that is I do want to acknowledge here,
Speaker 1: that's not being unreasonable, like right, maybe I would recommend
Speaker 1: get the human version if you can. But whatever, people,
Speaker 1: I know a lot of poor people in the country.
Speaker 1: Sometimes you take veterinary medicine because it's what you can afford.
Speaker 1: I mean that the turn of phrase. So no more
Speaker 1: horse paste alone. But I'm not gonna say this is
Speaker 1: the most responsible decision of person could have made. But
Speaker 1: she got her vaccine right, and she there was I
Speaker 1: want you to I want you to type fl c
Speaker 1: c C into Google and pull up their web page
Speaker 1: and take a look at it. Because when she says
Speaker 1: she found it on the internet, and because this person
Speaker 1: took the vaccine, I don't know, that can mean a
Speaker 1: lot of things. That can mean somebody's like seeing someone
Speaker 1: on Reddit talk about taking random medication or like on Facebook.
Speaker 1: But if you look at the f l c c
Speaker 1: C page, this doesn't take credit. Call care dot com Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: it's a very reputable looking website. These are real asked
Speaker 1: doctors with real Jamie Lakes Community College popa for you
Speaker 1: twenty times and then it gets to the this had
Speaker 1: to have been an s e O disaster for the
Speaker 1: finger Figure Lakes Community College. Sorry, I forgot, I had
Speaker 1: a picture of I forgot. I had a picture of
Speaker 1: Joe Rogan in a tab and I just like it
Speaker 1: was like a jump scare Um, okay, COVID nineteen, critical
Speaker 1: care dot com. This does look like how I picture
Speaker 1: medical website to look like. Okay, and you can you
Speaker 1: can see how a concerned parent in the middle of
Speaker 1: a horrible fucking plague could come to this and be like, Okay, well,
Speaker 1: this seems like a reasonable thing to do for my
Speaker 1: family until I can get the vaccine, like avoid censorship
Speaker 1: connects to f l c c C alliance here, there's
Speaker 1: definitely definitely and that I think is is newer. Like
Speaker 1: you can see some kind of griff to your things
Speaker 1: getting in here, right, um, but you can also see
Speaker 1: how a perfectly reasonable person just trying to like do
Speaker 1: what's best for their family could be like, okay, well
Speaker 1: I'll give it a shot, right. And that's where fast too,
Speaker 1: like everything quickly and in February, you know you October
Speaker 1: to like January, October, January. People. I can see people
Speaker 1: just being like, okay, well this seems like it might help.
Speaker 1: I can't get a vaccine. So far, so good? Right,
Speaker 1: so far the fl C c C I can't. I'm sure,
Speaker 1: I'm sure there are things doctors could could quickly complain
Speaker 1: about here. There's definitely a debate to be had about
Speaker 1: certainly desperate, but there's no perfect choices you can make
Speaker 1: in a fucking pandemic either. Um. That said, while they
Speaker 1: haven't really gone off, they haven't broke bad yet. There
Speaker 1: were early signs that something was awry. In December of
Speaker 1: Dr Pierre Corey testified to a Senate panel about I
Speaker 1: for mectin, which he called a wonder drug. Now, when
Speaker 1: you hear the term wonder drug and they are not
Speaker 1: talking about delauded. The only wonder drug which I call
Speaker 1: a wonder drug because it's wonderful. What is that? You know,
Speaker 1: I don't know what a drug is. Delatted is the
Speaker 1: Toyota tacoma of opiates. It's liable, it's hard working, it's comfortable.
Speaker 1: Oh my god, it's so good like um yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: because fuck oxy um delatted, baby, it's all about delatted. Okay,
Speaker 1: that's good information for when I begin taking opiates. Yeah. Absolutely,
Speaker 1: everybody needs good information and that information is tried a
Speaker 1: lauded sponsors of the podcast. By the way, wait, he
Speaker 1: called it a lot a wonder drug to the Senate,
Speaker 1: which is not in court. He called it a wonder drug. Okay,
Speaker 1: that doesn't sound good. That doesn't sound good. That's not
Speaker 1: very especially since there is data in December of that
Speaker 1: suggests this might be a useful and and it's perfectly
Speaker 1: it would have been perfectly reasonably said, hey, we've got
Speaker 1: some data. This might help. Here's the situations in which
Speaker 1: the data suggests it might help. This is my recommendations
Speaker 1: that might be how a responsible doctor would say it.
Speaker 1: You don't call it doctor oz rhetoric exactly. Yeah, Well
Speaker 1: with the Senate, and so number one it this Senate
Speaker 1: panel was a Homeland Security Senate panel. So I don't
Speaker 1: know why the funk they're talking about that. Why none
Speaker 1: of you people like you're not even good at homeland security.
Speaker 1: Why are you talking about fucking COVID nineteen killing time?
Speaker 1: That's so bizarry, let's get a doctor up here. Now.
Speaker 1: The panel was chaired by Wisconsin Senator Ron Johnson, because flag,
Speaker 1: that's a real red flag right there. Okay, Now, the
Speaker 1: problem is that because of the fl CCCS reputation with
Speaker 1: Cortico steroids, Dr Pierre Corey isn't doesn't seem when he's
Speaker 1: coming up front, he's not just some yahoo. He is
Speaker 1: a real doctor working with an organization that took a
Speaker 1: very bold stab early in the pandemic and was very
Speaker 1: right about it, like and which then immediately jokerfied themselves
Speaker 1: and then they went jography. Yeah exactly, but like you
Speaker 1: can see why this is so dangerous, right, um? Right?
Speaker 1: And I also understand, I mean with Ron Johnson, there's
Speaker 1: no excuse for anything he does. But I understand from
Speaker 1: like a regular, like a person consuming this media with
Speaker 1: not a lot of information, why it might have seemed
Speaker 1: like not the worst most dangerous thing in the world
Speaker 1: to do so at this point, there's some shady stuff
Speaker 1: going on that Senate testimony is questionable, right um, But
Speaker 1: there's also not really anything to suggest at the end
Speaker 1: of that ever mectin is about to become a public
Speaker 1: health problem. And in fact, while the US started ramping
Speaker 1: up and distributing vaccines at the tail end of early one,
Speaker 1: huge chunks of Latin America started adopting ever mectin as
Speaker 1: a standard treatment protocol. And the reasoning for this is
Speaker 1: as bleak as it is understandable. Latin America has some
Speaker 1: of the worst COVID death rates on the planet. Whitespread
Speaker 1: poverty meant that while the vaccine was starting to get
Speaker 1: rolled out in the United States, it was not going
Speaker 1: to be anywhere in the near future for millions tens
Speaker 1: of millions of people in Latin America. So while the
Speaker 1: wealthy countries hoarded vaccines for their own people, doctors in
Speaker 1: South and Central America looked at the early evidence on
Speaker 1: iver mactin and said, this is the best we can
Speaker 1: fucking do and we can afford it, you know, yeah,
Speaker 1: which is very sad, that's extremely blak. Yeah, it's real
Speaker 1: fucking bleak. Um and Peru included the drug and its
Speaker 1: basic treatment guide lines, and one health minister in the
Speaker 1: country told Nature magazine that clinical trials investigating the drugs
Speaker 1: efficacy had trouble recruiting control group participants because there were
Speaker 1: so many people already on the drug. Basically, they recommended
Speaker 1: people take this and then they had trouble studying it
Speaker 1: because they couldn't find people who weren't taking it. Um wow, okay,
Speaker 1: So it just and was this like a very fast process,
Speaker 1: like it went zero okay, And it's it's fast in
Speaker 1: part because you know, unlike when hydroxy cloquine, which we'll
Speaker 1: talk about a bit later, kind of went viral, there's
Speaker 1: not a lot of that ship, right, It's not just
Speaker 1: like an o TC thing like people had to get
Speaker 1: it prescribed. You don't just walk into a CD SID.
Speaker 1: You could walk into stores down the corner and pick
Speaker 1: up iver mecton. Because especially in like rural at in America,
Speaker 1: any rural place, there's a shiploaded animal feed stores. It's
Speaker 1: all over the place. Over the counter veterinary drug. Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: it's over the counter veterinary drug. It's not super you
Speaker 1: do have to get it prescribed for a person, but
Speaker 1: I think most these people are taking the veterinary version.
Speaker 1: But even the person version, it's extreme, especially since a
Speaker 1: lot of Latin America a lot of huge amount of parasites,
Speaker 1: so a lot of people are taking this anyway. It's available,
Speaker 1: is the point. It's available, and it's cheap, so it's
Speaker 1: once these people here, this might protect your family from COVID.
Speaker 1: They actually have the ability to get this stuff immediately.
Speaker 1: Um In Bolivia, healthcare workers pretty much instantly distributed three
Speaker 1: and fifty thousand doses. I Ever, met In also grew
Speaker 1: popular in South America for the same reasons poverty and
Speaker 1: desperation um so from the website Pharmaceutical Technology quote. The
Speaker 1: pro iver met In campaign has taken a particularly stronghold
Speaker 1: in South Africa, where coronavirus infection rates are among the
Speaker 1: worst in the continent and the vaccine program has yet
Speaker 1: to cover all the country's most vulnerable. Some doctors have
Speaker 1: been prescribing the worm drug to COVID nineteen patients, claiming
Speaker 1: anecdotally that it alleviates virus symptoms, despite the South African
Speaker 1: Health Products Regulatory Authority warning against its use. I ever
Speaker 1: met In is also thriving the country's black market, where
Speaker 1: one tablet can sell for as much as twenty five pounds,
Speaker 1: and sales of veterinary forms of the drug have skyrocketed.
Speaker 1: Grassroots collectives such as the iver Metin Interest Group formed
Speaker 1: of South African health practitioners, public health experts and medical scientists,
Speaker 1: have campaigned for approval of the drug, while civil rights
Speaker 1: group afro Form earlier this year filed a court case
Speaker 1: against SAFFRA, which is the South African Health Products Regulating Authority,
Speaker 1: to have the treatment approved for COVID nineteen patients. After
Speaker 1: initially allowing controlled compassionate use of the drug in an
Speaker 1: attempt to curb illegal sales, the health agency this month
Speaker 1: received a High court order to permit the off label
Speaker 1: prescription of iver mectin by doctors. Iver met And also
Speaker 1: took off in the Philippines, where viral social media posts
Speaker 1: sent the product flying off the shelves of veterinary suppliers.
Speaker 1: One doctor was found to have printed eight thousand iver
Speaker 1: mettin pills using his own recipe. The Philippines FDA. Yeah,
Speaker 1: the Philippines f d A attempted to reign this in
Speaker 1: and issued warnings that were not heated, but they also
Speaker 1: approved too limited studies on the use of iver mectin
Speaker 1: in hospitals, admitting that they had been pressured to do
Speaker 1: so by sheer public demand. So when we talk about
Speaker 1: I'm curious about, like how this information because you're saying
Speaker 1: like that there were like viral posts that got the
Speaker 1: word out very quickly. Were they just post from regular
Speaker 1: people that were taking off where they're like groups that
Speaker 1: were posting like how was So here's the way we're
Speaker 1: gonna talk about this more. But you have at the
Speaker 1: top of the list, you have actual scientific studies. Right,
Speaker 1: We're going to analyze a little bit, some of what
Speaker 1: you're sketchy, some of what you're real, some of which
Speaker 1: show a potential benefit. Those filter down to the f
Speaker 1: l C c C and some a couple other similar
Speaker 1: groups who are made up of doctors and start advising
Speaker 1: people to take iver mactin. That filters down to influencers too,
Speaker 1: people in media figures and whatnot who start advising people
Speaker 1: to take it, and that filters down to like face book,
Speaker 1: groups and ship where people start spreading memes and what
Speaker 1: the bassist area of the human psyche hidden Facebook groups. Okay,
Speaker 1: and that's how you get from the FLCCC saying doctors
Speaker 1: should consider prescribing this too. I'm going to buy horse
Speaker 1: paste and give it to my children. So it's just
Speaker 1: like the most sinister game of telephone ever, Yes, and
Speaker 1: it is. I do want to note as we as
Speaker 1: everybody continues laughing at the fucking stupid ass Americans who
Speaker 1: could easily get a free vaccine and take fucking horse paste,
Speaker 1: most of the people taking this stuff in mass have
Speaker 1: no options and are incredibly poor and live in the
Speaker 1: periphery in countries rights. What else are they've gonna fucking do?
Speaker 1: Doctors are telling them. There are a lot of doctors,
Speaker 1: and again they're very shady doctors, usually working off a
Speaker 1: very bad scientist, but they're fucking doctors and they're telling
Speaker 1: these people this could help your family, and they can't
Speaker 1: get a fucking vaccine. They have no options, right, Like,
Speaker 1: what are they? You're not dumb if you're in the Philippines,
Speaker 1: if you're in Latin America, South americ and you're like,
Speaker 1: this is what else am I gonna do, you know, right,
Speaker 1: if it it's the only option there's there's it's so
Speaker 1: urgent that there's no I mean, there's no time to
Speaker 1: get that's that's what is like sticking out to be
Speaker 1: here as like especially frustrating because there are very few
Speaker 1: options and like no time to get better information. So
Speaker 1: it is you're saying, what are you going to do?
Speaker 1: And it's it's also important to note that a lot
Speaker 1: of these people and a lot of these communities and
Speaker 1: their communities, I grew up in a community like not
Speaker 1: on like this. In the US, there's a decent chunk
Speaker 1: of of veterinary medicines that work just as well on
Speaker 1: people and are cheaper and more available. And sometimes poor
Speaker 1: people do that because again, what the funk else do
Speaker 1: you want me to do? Like my kid is sick? Um,
Speaker 1: and it doesn't like it's not always a bad idea,
Speaker 1: like it's never the thing that doctors are recommened, but
Speaker 1: fucking people do it, and there's things that it can
Speaker 1: work on, because like, what else are you gonna fucking do? Um?
Speaker 1: There's different anyway, I know, I'm not advising you to
Speaker 1: go by veterinary medicine for your family I'm saying people
Speaker 1: have done it for a long time, and it's not
Speaker 1: always a bad idea, and that's part of why people
Speaker 1: are like, well, sure, you know, I've taken like I
Speaker 1: had to give my kids some fucking antibiotics or whatever
Speaker 1: like that I got from a you know, like or
Speaker 1: I've mected because you got a fucking uh because you
Speaker 1: got a fucking parasite and I gave him, you know,
Speaker 1: a small dose of horse paste because I couldn't afford
Speaker 1: to go to a doctor and get it prescribed. I'm
Speaker 1: sure a number of these people like, again, these are
Speaker 1: not dumb people. I just really want to because so
Speaker 1: much of the discourse around this is like making fun
Speaker 1: of the idiots in America who do it, and a
Speaker 1: lot of them are very dumb and funk a lot
Speaker 1: of those people because they could be getting a vaccine um.
Speaker 1: But like most of these people just don't have an option, right,
Speaker 1: which like trickles down in so many different ways of
Speaker 1: like how broken the health care system is, Like that
Speaker 1: wouldn't even be a necessity. You wouldn't need to make
Speaker 1: that judgment call off if there were actual, you know,
Speaker 1: more viable options made available. But you know what, viable options.
Speaker 1: Everyone has, Jamie, what to engage with some light product
Speaker 1: and services, some light or some heavy. You know, you
Speaker 1: can you can stick, you can just kind of business,
Speaker 1: just the tip of the products and services, or you
Speaker 1: can go all the way in. That's your business, you know. Yeah,
Speaker 1: we don't. We don't judge, we don't ask questions. We
Speaker 1: just we just sell people products and occasionally services. Wonder products,
Speaker 1: Wonder services. Yeah, Wonder products and Wonder services. All right,
Speaker 1: here's an ad Ah. We're back. And boy, I don't
Speaker 1: know about you, but all of my depression thinking about
Speaker 1: the desperation that would lead people in cash for nations
Speaker 1: to self medicate because uh, wealthy nations have hoarded the
Speaker 1: vaccine in many cases for profit. Um. I don't know
Speaker 1: where I was going with this. I was trying to
Speaker 1: make a product and services joke, but now I'm just
Speaker 1: sad again. How are you doing, Jamie, you know, talking
Speaker 1: about pharmaceuticals under capitalism. I'm flying high. I feel incredible.
Speaker 1: I don't have a problem in the world. Everything is
Speaker 1: perfect and great. Yeah, I want to die. I mean,
Speaker 1: I don't know we're what we're a half hour into
Speaker 1: the episode. I absolutely want to you know, just walk
Speaker 1: into traffic, Robert, is that what you want to hear?
Speaker 1: Because that's where I'm always at at this point in
Speaker 1: the episode, That's where we're at. That's where we're at.
Speaker 1: That's just so we're at. Jamie. You like science, Yeah, sure, yeah,
Speaker 1: I'm nothing against silence. I got nothing against science. I
Speaker 1: know what, do I have a brain for it? No?
Speaker 1: Does it make sense to me? No? No, of course not.
Speaker 1: I'm I'm glad people do it also, No, yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: which is my way to think I hate science. We're
Speaker 1: gonna talk a little bit about We're gonna talk a
Speaker 1: little bit about um fucking uh. One of the problems
Speaker 1: that science has, which is so the basic idea behind
Speaker 1: you know, doing science is you you conduct studies to
Speaker 1: test hypotheses, and you publish those results, and generally you
Speaker 1: do small studies at first to kind of see if
Speaker 1: if there's anything further to investigate or in you know,
Speaker 1: those small studies, if if they're promising, kind of lead
Speaker 1: to larger studies, and eventually you build a body of
Speaker 1: evidence that leads you to one conclusion or another. Right,
Speaker 1: that's the broad idea of how to sell the kind
Speaker 1: of science you learn in when you're in first grade. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that is that all that ship gets published, and oftentimes
Speaker 1: it means that these tiny studies are getting published and
Speaker 1: then people just assume, well, that's a study and it
Speaker 1: says this is good, so I'm going to do it,
Speaker 1: and then whole industries crop up around that while scientists
Speaker 1: are still trying to figure out if it works. And
Speaker 1: then another shady thing about it is that there's play
Speaker 1: is that lets you publish studies before the studies have
Speaker 1: been peer reviewed, which has some benefits. I've I've found
Speaker 1: some writing as two people say why that can be useful, um,
Speaker 1: But it also means that shady people who build themselves
Speaker 1: as scientists can put up a study that isn't really
Speaker 1: a study and hasn't been peer reviewed and has massive
Speaker 1: laws and make it look like there's evident supporting something
Speaker 1: when in fact there was not. And that's what we're
Speaker 1: going to talk about now. So Peru was as as
Speaker 1: far as I found, I think, the first nation to
Speaker 1: include iver mecton in its national coronavirus treatment guidelines. This
Speaker 1: was based on findings in a pre print of a
Speaker 1: study by health analytics company surges Fere and again a
Speaker 1: preprint not yet peer reviewed, so they're they're sticking to
Speaker 1: rough draft, right, you know, but if these are publicly
Speaker 1: I do think that it's like that is like a
Speaker 1: an ethics thing, Like no one knows what preprint means,
Speaker 1: so it's like you have to make I I wish
Speaker 1: that that was made clearer to I don't know. I
Speaker 1: don't know what I'm saying. It's really like I understand
Speaker 1: that if you're a scientist, you know what a preprint means,
Speaker 1: and you know that this cannot be taken at face value.
Speaker 1: This is preliminary ship. Uh, but I feel like you
Speaker 1: need to make that as readily apparent to the layman
Speaker 1: as possible. Yeah. Um, And I don't know. It's so
Speaker 1: let's talk about that Surgis Fear study. Sokay, before we
Speaker 1: talk about that, I do I want to talk about
Speaker 1: Surgius Fear a little bit because they've been involved in
Speaker 1: a controversy over the last medicine that wasn't really a
Speaker 1: medicine that went viral over COVID nineteen, which of course
Speaker 1: is hydroxy clerk wine. Now, if you've forgotten, hydroxychlork wine
Speaker 1: was a medicine that doctors briefly thought, based on some
Speaker 1: early studies, might have efficacy in treating COVID nineteen. Those
Speaker 1: early studies, while they were still trying to figure out
Speaker 1: if it actually did have efficacy, were turned into a
Speaker 1: magical cure, all because Trump started tweeting about them. He
Speaker 1: was desperate to open the country back up and the
Speaker 1: get the economy back on track in time for the election.
Speaker 1: Several people died trying to treat themselves with hydroxy chloroquine
Speaker 1: or drugs they thought were hydroxychloroquine. All the controversy over
Speaker 1: this drug obscured the fact that serious scientists were actually
Speaker 1: trying to understand if it might be useful for COVID.
Speaker 1: In mid May, the Lancet published an article suggesting that
Speaker 1: it was dangerous for patients with COVID to take hydroxy clorquin.
Speaker 1: This study was almost immediately retracted because the authors were
Speaker 1: unable to independently verify their data set, which had come
Speaker 1: from a large proprietary collection of electronic health records analyzed
Speaker 1: by Surgis Spear. So Surgis Spear had put together these
Speaker 1: health records that they were using to make claims that
Speaker 1: hydroxy clorquin was dangerous for certain patients. But when they
Speaker 1: attempted to verify the data set, Surgis Spear said, we
Speaker 1: can't show you the health records. We can't actually show
Speaker 1: you the records themselves, which like to study being retracted
Speaker 1: because they can't verify it. Yeah, now it might not
Speaker 1: seem like a problem because again, as we now know,
Speaker 1: hydroxychlorkquin is not helpful and treating COVID nineteen. So the
Speaker 1: facture I mean, which is like luck of the job.
Speaker 1: But that's so that's they can get that far into
Speaker 1: publishing something because they're like, oh, I don't know, but
Speaker 1: it's not even really luck of the draw because that
Speaker 1: thing doesn't seem to have been true. Um, And when
Speaker 1: the study got retracted, that just fueled paranoia that there
Speaker 1: was a conspiracy to trick people out of taking hydroxy clarquine.
Speaker 1: The next month, June, another paper was retracted, this time
Speaker 1: from the New England Journal of Medicine, due to unverifiable
Speaker 1: data from Surgio sphere. That study had found that a
Speaker 1: variety of heart of heart medications had no safety concerns
Speaker 1: when administered to COVID patients. The fact that these papers
Speaker 1: were being retracted after many doctors had taken action based
Speaker 1: on their findings. Was disastrous in the midst of an
Speaker 1: already chaotic time. I encourage. An Australian bioethicist called it catastrophic. Quote.
Speaker 1: It is problematic for their journals involved, It is problematic
Speaker 1: for the integrity of science, It is probably matic from medicine,
Speaker 1: and it is problematic for the notion of clinical trials
Speaker 1: and evidence generation. This right up from Nature explains exactly
Speaker 1: why Surgi Sphear's data was problematic. Quote. Both papers relied
Speaker 1: on propriety proprietary data analyzed from electronic health records that
Speaker 1: were apparently gathered from hundreds of hospitals around the world
Speaker 1: by Surgi Sphere, but after critics raised questions about the studies,
Speaker 1: the firm did not make its raw data available to
Speaker 1: third party auditors for validation. According to the attraction notice
Speaker 1: in the Lancet, Surgi Sphere was concerned that transferring the
Speaker 1: data would violate client agreements and confidentiality requirements. Since we
Speaker 1: do not have the ability to verify the primary data
Speaker 1: or primary data source, I no longer have confidence in
Speaker 1: the in the origination or and veracity of the data,
Speaker 1: nor the findings they have led to, said mandep mea
Speaker 1: cardiologist at Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts, who
Speaker 1: was the lead author on both studies. So this is
Speaker 1: and again with SURGEI sphere, there's something going on here
Speaker 1: and I don't know what it is with these guys.
Speaker 1: It's it's do you have any inkling of it? Just
Speaker 1: sounds like the sort of thing where it's like, what
Speaker 1: is the end game for doing that? It may be
Speaker 1: as simple as they're just kind of a shady company,
Speaker 1: um who's not very good at who was trying like
Speaker 1: that there They were trying to like make a quick
Speaker 1: buck providing these records to research scientists, but um weren't
Speaker 1: actually able to give the scientists as much information as
Speaker 1: they would need to be able to use that kind
Speaker 1: of stuff. UM short sighted, Like, yeah, that sounds very bizarre. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and it's it's a bunch of ships like that and
Speaker 1: it's coming in like you're getting like one of the
Speaker 1: problems with this is that, um, they they approve a
Speaker 1: study like or sorry they so the when the hydroxy
Speaker 1: clorquin article comes out saying that it's dangerous to give
Speaker 1: to certain patients, they stop a bunch of studies to
Speaker 1: trying to determine whether or not hydroxy workin works, and
Speaker 1: then they have to restart those studies later after it's retracted,
Speaker 1: which slows down the period of time after which we
Speaker 1: get concrete evidence that it doesn't work. So again, even
Speaker 1: though like it might not seem like that's a bad saying,
Speaker 1: it actually slows down the process of figuring out that
Speaker 1: hydroxy quorkin doesn't work. It's all part of this problem.
Speaker 1: Um that Yeah, that makes total sense because I'm so
Speaker 1: I'm so naive in these areas and I'm like, wait
Speaker 1: that wood fuck things up. Okay, Yeah, I love it's
Speaker 1: just bad. Now. One of the co authors of both
Speaker 1: retracted studies was a guy named Sapon Decide, and he's
Speaker 1: the founder of Surgei Sphere, so he's founds the company
Speaker 1: and is also one of the authors of both of
Speaker 1: the studies that get retracted. Um. And while his co
Speaker 1: authors kind of all come out and say, hey, we're
Speaker 1: were we no longer stand by these studies because of
Speaker 1: issues with the data, he's notely quiet. For the most part.
Speaker 1: I think he agrees to retract one of them and
Speaker 1: not the other. Now and two thousand and one or
Speaker 1: twenty one. Sapon Decide was the co author of another
Speaker 1: study using data from his company, surge Sphere, which claimed
Speaker 1: to find a large reduction in COVID mortality when patients
Speaker 1: were given iver mecten. It was first published to the
Speaker 1: Social Sciences preprint server SSR in on April six and
Speaker 1: a second version was posted on April nineteenth, And this
Speaker 1: is what caused PERU to add iver mecton to their
Speaker 1: national standards of care. So this guy, whose record couldn't
Speaker 1: be shadier visa v COVID nineteen studies, puts out another preprint,
Speaker 1: so not peer reviewed, not a finished thing on a server,
Speaker 1: because it immediately shows like, look, COVID iver mecton reduces
Speaker 1: COVID nineteen deaths and whole nations start taking action based
Speaker 1: on this. Now that is so can't they like I'm right,
Speaker 1: I'm like trying to it. They just put his credibility on.
Speaker 1: I mean he doesn't have any credibility obviously, but just like,
Speaker 1: can how can you continue to publish preprints when your
Speaker 1: track record is that horrific? Like how how? Yeah? That's why? Fuck? Okay,
Speaker 1: So so that preprint comes out and that that is
Speaker 1: what like result in ivermectin taking off. Yeah, that's what
Speaker 1: results in it taking off In Latin America. The f
Speaker 1: l c c C, I think, has much more of
Speaker 1: a job of the tape. But this this feeds into
Speaker 1: that too because it's one of the studies that they're siting.
Speaker 1: So one of that studies authors again, Sapondasi has co
Speaker 1: authors on these studies who are more credible people, and
Speaker 1: one of the studies co authors pulls it from the
Speaker 1: pre print server because, as he told Nature, he did
Speaker 1: not feel it was ready for pure review. So it
Speaker 1: does get pulled, but the damage is done. By that point,
Speaker 1: he's already convinced the Peruvian government to add it to
Speaker 1: their official like COVID protocol, and Bolivia followed soon after. Now,
Speaker 1: when the study seems like the pattern with this, right,
Speaker 1: it's just like you put something out, you say, oh, sorry,
Speaker 1: never mind, that information is terrible, but it's too late
Speaker 1: because the information has already had consequence. There's again when
Speaker 1: you look at like the way the disinformation spreads, it's
Speaker 1: a lot like how COVID spreads, Like you have, they're
Speaker 1: both they're both spreading. It's like a person fox up
Speaker 1: and walks into a room without a mask on, not
Speaker 1: realizing he's been exposed, and he might realize an hour later,
Speaker 1: but by that point he's already passed it on to
Speaker 1: four people who then all go to the grocery store whatever.
Speaker 1: Like it's it's the same way with disinformation. It spreads
Speaker 1: like a virus and it and it's like just too yeah.
Speaker 1: So it just takes like one bad actor intentionally doing
Speaker 1: it to Jesus chrisis. And I think it's often a
Speaker 1: mix of bad actors and people who are acting in
Speaker 1: good faith but aren't quite careful enough. Um now, So
Speaker 1: the good news is that PERUME removes iver mectin from
Speaker 1: their treatment guidelines as soon as the study gets pulled.
Speaker 1: But by that point other South American nations have started
Speaker 1: using it and they don't all stop. And again, even
Speaker 1: outside of that, regardless of what the state health authorities
Speaker 1: are saying, people are now taking it in mass right. So,
Speaker 1: back in January of one, the n i H, the
Speaker 1: National Institutes of Health in the United States had changed
Speaker 1: its guidance on iver mectin for the COVID treatment from
Speaker 1: against to neither for nor against. So there's enough data.
Speaker 1: By January the sayre not against this, and we're hedging
Speaker 1: it's complicated. Yeah, exactly, Okay, got it. Now, in a
Speaker 1: reasonable world, this would not have counted as a positive endorsement.
Speaker 1: But we don't live in a reasonable world. The NIH
Speaker 1: made this change after Dr Corey, from the fl C
Speaker 1: c C and w H O consultant Dr Andrew Hill,
Speaker 1: presented data to the n i H Treatments Guidelines Panel.
Speaker 1: That same month, Dr Corey released a study with the
Speaker 1: f l C c C co founders and several other
Speaker 1: doctors that they believed would convince the CDC and FDA
Speaker 1: to approve iver mect in for use against COVID. Now,
Speaker 1: by this point, doctor Corey had become convinced that iver
Speaker 1: met in was a bona fide wonder drug, as he
Speaker 1: told the Senate, but the people he asked to publish
Speaker 1: his study, the study that he thought was going to
Speaker 1: convince the FDA to approve it for COVID, we're less convinced.
Speaker 1: Frontiers is an open access platform for peer reviewed science journalism,
Speaker 1: and they investigated the integrity of the study and announced
Speaker 1: on March second that they were rejecting the article for
Speaker 1: quote a series of strong unsupported claims based on studies
Speaker 1: with insufficient statistical significance and at times without the use
Speaker 1: of control groups. Oh my god, this guy is going
Speaker 1: to have to start publishing in like Highlights magazine. This
Speaker 1: is so ridiculous. Now, I'm not a scientist, Jamie, I'm
Speaker 1: in fact legally the opposite, um, but I know that
Speaker 1: control groups are important. If you want to know if
Speaker 1: the thing does something, you need a group of people
Speaker 1: who aren't doing the thing and movies before they can
Speaker 1: come out much less fucking pharmaceutical like. That's absolutely yeah.
Speaker 1: So by this point, vaccines were increasingly available in mass
Speaker 1: around the United States. In December, it had made sense
Speaker 1: that iver Mecton had been on the FLCCCS protocol because
Speaker 1: kind of a desperate time. But by March, iver Mecton
Speaker 1: is still part of their protocol, but none of the
Speaker 1: vaccines had been added to their recommended preventative protocol. So
Speaker 1: this is the point where they're very clearly doing something shady. Yeah, exactly,
Speaker 1: fucking December, people can't get vaccines. There's evidence iver Metin
Speaker 1: might help. It's debatable whether or not it's responsible to
Speaker 1: put it on there, but still completely but there's an
Speaker 1: ument more sense to make attempt to make that argument prevactive.
Speaker 1: By March, motherfucker's are walking into their cvs and getting
Speaker 1: vaccinated and they still haven't added that to their protocol.
Speaker 1: But the horse paste, I mean again, they're not telling
Speaker 1: people to take the horse pace, They're telling people to
Speaker 1: get it prescribed. But whatever, I'm gonna call it horse
Speaker 1: paste sometimes. So Dr Corey also grew more combat combative
Speaker 1: from this point forward, telling the Huffington's Post quote when
Speaker 1: I came out and told the world that cortico steroids
Speaker 1: were critical to save lives. I got crushed for that
Speaker 1: until the recovery trial came out and it became the
Speaker 1: standard of care worldwide overnight. Which is true that cortico steroids,
Speaker 1: that use was criticized and they wind up being helpful.
Speaker 1: But also, wasn't your idea? Broheim? Quick? Yeah, like what
Speaker 1: you Is that actually his voice? Or is that just
Speaker 1: you just made him Ben Shapiro. Everyone's been Shapiro, Sophia.
Speaker 1: It was about to say, like, what is it? I
Speaker 1: was like, do you just wanted to sound like a dork?
Speaker 1: And then I found out that was your Ben Shapiro voice? Okay,
Speaker 1: that all tracks. That's 's just float probably right, Yeah,
Speaker 1: if I hate him, there, Ben Shapiro, that's the way
Speaker 1: it works. Again. I'm just like, what is the end game?
Speaker 1: There's no endgame, Jamie. It's Joker Ship. I hate it
Speaker 1: is Joker Ship. It is Joker Ship. It's it's and
Speaker 1: you know what's Joaquin Phoenix got to say about any
Speaker 1: of this. That's what I want to know, Jamie. I
Speaker 1: don't know. He's like five six. I can't hear him.
Speaker 1: Oh okay, so I forgot your You're a you're a
Speaker 1: height chauvinist. So the other thing about cortico steroids, well,
Speaker 1: he's right that people were like, I don't think this
Speaker 1: is a good idea, and we're proven wrong when the
Speaker 1: FLCCC embraced cortico steroids. Cortico steroids were also very quickly
Speaker 1: shown via extremely reputable studies to be useful in COVID treatments, right,
Speaker 1: um it, it's actual science backed it up. And the
Speaker 1: same unequivocal evidence did not come out for iver mecton.
Speaker 1: Well we start to get right, yeah at this point. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and and so we have not especially by March. Again,
Speaker 1: it's still a mix of small studies that shows not
Speaker 1: all of which suggests that it works, some of which
Speaker 1: are shady, whereas by March there's fucking excellent data that
Speaker 1: the vaccines are very effective. Um so it's not the
Speaker 1: same thing, you know, it just isn't. He's trying to
Speaker 1: he's trying to make that that claim because the it's
Speaker 1: it's his organizations claim to fame. But like, it's not
Speaker 1: the same situation. There were quickly studies that backed up
Speaker 1: the cortico steroids thing there aren't isn't the same body
Speaker 1: of evidence for ivermectin, And there's a lot of evidence
Speaker 1: for vaccines, and you're not telling people to take vaccines. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's fucked up. Uh Yeah, this is absolutely fucked up.
Speaker 1: So when he was asked why he's not telling people
Speaker 1: to get vaccinated, Dr Pierre Corey said, most of what
Speaker 1: we feel, and especially me, is that the data on
Speaker 1: vaccines is moving so fast and it's non transparent. I
Speaker 1: just really don't know what to say about these vaccines.
Speaker 1: I just don't feel comfortable with the kind of data
Speaker 1: that we're getting again, the big ivermine. I cannot be
Speaker 1: more specific about this at this time. Yes, the data
Speaker 1: is not transparent enough. What about the fucking Surgis spear
Speaker 1: study showing ivermectin is useful. Things had to get pulled
Speaker 1: because they wouldn't give anyone access to the fucking medical
Speaker 1: data anyway. In February, YouTube pulled two videos from the
Speaker 1: December eight Senate hearing where Dr Corey called it a
Speaker 1: wonder drug. Specifically, they pulled the portions discussing iver mecton
Speaker 1: and this included part of Dr Corey's testimony. Ron Johnson,
Speaker 1: a Republican senator from Wisconsin, immediately took to the pages
Speaker 1: of the Wall Street Journal to author an op ed
Speaker 1: titled YouTube cancels the US Senate. God, every part of
Speaker 1: that sentence is the biggest loser ship I've ever heard
Speaker 1: of my night. Absolute virgin stuff, right Jesus, Yeah yeah
Speaker 1: so quote and this is from Ron Johnson. Dr Corey
Speaker 1: is part of a world renowned group of physicians who
Speaker 1: developed a groundbreaking use of cortico steroids to treat hospitalized
Speaker 1: COVID patients. His testimony at a May Senate hearing helped
Speaker 1: doctors rethink treatment protocols and saved lives. At the December hearing,
Speaker 1: he presented evidence regarding the use of ivermectin a cheap
Speaker 1: and widely available drug that treats tropical diseases caused by
Speaker 1: parasites for prevention an early treatment of COVID nineteen. He
Speaker 1: described a just published study from Argentina in which about
Speaker 1: eight hundred healthcare workers received ivermectin and four hundred didn't.
Speaker 1: None of the eight hundred contracted COVID nineteen fifty eight
Speaker 1: percent of the four hundred did. So here's the thing
Speaker 1: about that. Here's the thing about makes you think what
Speaker 1: Ron Johnson said, you're telling me there's gonna be holes
Speaker 1: in this. This is the one that, like, just today
Speaker 1: there's a great BuzzFeed news article about that Argentinean study, UM,
Speaker 1: which is super inconsistent. One of the problems with it
Speaker 1: is that depending on like where you read, like what
Speaker 1: part of the study you read, it gives you different
Speaker 1: numbers of how many people were actually part of the
Speaker 1: test group and control group. UM. Like it's it's it's
Speaker 1: just not a well conducted study, and there's actually debate,
Speaker 1: there's actually a serious question as to whether or not
Speaker 1: the study was conducted at all. UM. So, again, this
Speaker 1: just came out, So I'm going to scroll down to
Speaker 1: the relevant point here. UM. Yeah. Meanwhile, the clinical trial
Speaker 1: database stated stated there were two participants, but other things
Speaker 1: didn't add up. It said the control group had seventy
Speaker 1: two women and twenty six men, even though the paper
Speaker 1: said fifty one women and forty eight men. The ages
Speaker 1: also seemed mathematically improbable. The paper states that nearly se
Speaker 1: participants taking the therapy were under age forty. Despite this,
Speaker 1: the clinical trial website states that the median age, the
Speaker 1: age at the midpoint of the group was forty two.
Speaker 1: Those might have been errors. Carvallo conceded in the interview
Speaker 1: which was which is one of the study authors, which
Speaker 1: was largely conducted large errors. We are not a statistical people,
Speaker 1: he said. We are not statistical people, he said, Which
Speaker 1: is like, if you're doing a study, you should be
Speaker 1: someone in the study should be a statistical person because
Speaker 1: you're using statistics to try to show that the medicine
Speaker 1: where um, yes, it's wow, okay, okay, So this is
Speaker 1: just a fucking disaster. They're doing a terrible job at
Speaker 1: like even pr cleanup is just like nonsense, it's just parts. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and it's the journal charges uh, like the BuzzFeed found
Speaker 1: that the journal, which is a very new journal UM
Speaker 1: charged two thousand dollars almost to publish the article. UM,
Speaker 1: and then after BuzzFeed asked about the feed, they dropped
Speaker 1: the price on their website. UM. Carvallo admitted the study
Speaker 1: author admitted that local drugmakers had covered the expense of
Speaker 1: publishing the study and that he and his colleagues had
Speaker 1: paid the rest out of pocket. Um, there's a bunch shocked.
Speaker 1: That's weird here, UM, and it's it isn't weird. Yeah,
Speaker 1: there's it's We're gonna talk about a lot of other uh,
Speaker 1: sketchy shit. And one of the problems is that like
Speaker 1: least one of the hospitals where the study was supposedly
Speaker 1: conducted denies that it was conducted there. Um. So there's
Speaker 1: a lot that's wrong with this study, Like the study
Speaker 1: that Ron Johnson, again is what Dr Corey cited in
Speaker 1: the Senate and was what Ron Johnson points out as like,
Speaker 1: look what he's being canceled for sharing science is toxic.
Speaker 1: Especially that I mean it's like that truly wasn't even
Speaker 1: something that would have occurred to me, that the study
Speaker 1: didn't even happen, Like they couldn't be bothered to create
Speaker 1: a fake fucking study it's not the only time, and
Speaker 1: it seems more likely that, like there were some places
Speaker 1: where they did a study and did it kind of
Speaker 1: poorly because like also large parts of it, like the
Speaker 1: control group stuff was taken on the honor system. Um,
Speaker 1: so you shouldn't do that. This is this is the
Speaker 1: most opposite in terms of steaks comparison. But I've been
Speaker 1: deep in hot dog culture for the last couple of months,
Speaker 1: and there was a study that was released last week
Speaker 1: saying that every time you eat a hot dog you
Speaker 1: lose thirty six minutes of your one human life, which
Speaker 1: is such a wild and bizarre claim to make, and
Speaker 1: if you bear it out, it's very like anyone can
Speaker 1: publish a study and it's and I feel like any
Speaker 1: time and obviously it's like I'm is kind of that
Speaker 1: at the highest level and the highest stakes possible. But
Speaker 1: whenever something gets published, it's just like people are going
Speaker 1: off of the headline of like, well, if a study
Speaker 1: says it, it must be true, and there's very little Uh, well,
Speaker 1: who is conducting the study, what are their qualifications, do
Speaker 1: they have any reason to have ill intent or whatever?
Speaker 1: Like all I have to say this studies bullshit and
Speaker 1: I firmly believe the hot dog thirty six minutes study
Speaker 1: is bullshit because clearly each hot dog takes ninety minutes
Speaker 1: off of your life. Um, if that were true, Robert,
Speaker 1: I would be rocketing backwards in time right now. I
Speaker 1: would be in seventeen something. I would be wearing fucking
Speaker 1: five D petticoats. I don't I don't know where it
Speaker 1: would be. I would not be I would not be alive,
Speaker 1: and I would be transcending dimensions in time. It's just
Speaker 1: I just feel like it's demonstrably untrue. Also, being happy
Speaker 1: makes you live longer, so I very least it evens
Speaker 1: out people happy. Well, it is my potential, it is
Speaker 1: my It is my stance that hot dogs do kill people,
Speaker 1: and that that's not a bad thing because climate change, Baby,
Speaker 1: we got to reduce emissions. Do you like hot dogs, Robert?
Speaker 1: I love hot dogs, Jamie. How what's your weight, what's
Speaker 1: your what's your like? What's your go to? I mean,
Speaker 1: is literally any hot dog and I throw everything on it.
Speaker 1: But the best hot dog I've ever had, Jamie, And
Speaker 1: I guess we can argue as to whether or not
Speaker 1: it's a hot dog. I was in Lisbon and I
Speaker 1: was at this street market and it was the bun
Speaker 1: was black because it had squid ink in it. And
Speaker 1: instead of a hot dog, it was an octopus tentacle
Speaker 1: and there was like some sort of weird creamy salad on.
Speaker 1: It was incredible. It was so fucking tasty. Oh my god.
Speaker 1: So I have to tell you, Robert, and this is
Speaker 1: gonna be really hard to hear. What you ate was
Speaker 1: not a hot dog. It was a piece of an octopus.
Speaker 1: I think it's at that sounds like it was literally
Speaker 1: an amazing day for you. If it's a hot dog,
Speaker 1: it's a hot dog. It's a hot dog. You have
Speaker 1: the goll to to zoom dot you I am tell
Speaker 1: me octopus is hot dog. I cannot believe that you
Speaker 1: can claim to be a hot dog lover and say
Speaker 1: that it is possible to discriminate about what is or
Speaker 1: isn't a hot dog based on the kind of meat involved. Look,
Speaker 1: a hot dog is a mixture of garbage. You can
Speaker 1: do it in ocean trash, but that's one piece of
Speaker 1: ocean trash. You need the different butts of five things
Speaker 1: in there were probably filled with plastic because of the
Speaker 1: post and then vegetarian hot dogs are made out of
Speaker 1: different vegetable trash. So it's like, sorry, I'm going to
Speaker 1: take this debate offline. You listen to these products and services.
Speaker 1: She and I prepare to engage in a traditional traditional
Speaker 1: knife fight of our people. I liked red huts in
Speaker 1: New Jersey, so they're enjoy your products and services. We're back,
Speaker 1: and I'm livid at Jamie lived, but we have to
Speaker 1: put our differences aside. Bleeding to talk about ivermectin the
Speaker 1: hot dog of anti parasitic medications. I mean that's an
Speaker 1: accurate comparison. Hot dogs get cot talks, get bad enough
Speaker 1: rep but you know getting an unfair rep too. It's
Speaker 1: saved a lot of lives before. You know this before yeah,
Speaker 1: before it got before found YouTube. Yeah, we're not canceling ivermected.
Speaker 1: If you get a parasite, please take it. If you
Speaker 1: go into the river and start feeling blind, take some ivermectin.
Speaker 1: But you know that you can't deny it. You can't
Speaker 1: deny it. It's proven. River blindness is just that's going
Speaker 1: to stick with me because I just didn't stay the
Speaker 1: funk away from rivers. Jamie. It's like people in Philadelphia
Speaker 1: so far jumping in the flooded streets. It's like I've
Speaker 1: walked down the street in Philadelphia. I've smelled the sewers.
Speaker 1: You should not be in that water, guy, you really
Speaker 1: should not of Yeah, the subways in New York. It's
Speaker 1: just wow to to be alive at the end of
Speaker 1: the world. It's it's amazing. No fun. It looked way
Speaker 1: more fun in movies, yeah, because it seems like you
Speaker 1: were going to fall deeply in love and then the
Speaker 1: world was going to end. It turns out that's not
Speaker 1: how it goes. And also in the movies, every single
Speaker 1: person doesn't have a U t I. But it turns
Speaker 1: out when the world falls apart, everybody starts getting U
Speaker 1: t I s. I've got a U t I on
Speaker 1: Splash Mountain once. That was my sound t I. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I'm surprised that you don't hear about that more. Every
Speaker 1: time I tell the ant people people should talk about
Speaker 1: their U t E s, they're very uncomfortable. And I
Speaker 1: feel like if I knew I've had have you ever
Speaker 1: had a conversation with someone and after they're like, I
Speaker 1: had a U t I when we hung out that day,
Speaker 1: and that's why I was being very bizarre in my behavior.
Speaker 1: I feel like you should we should just normalize telling
Speaker 1: each other we have U, T I S. So then
Speaker 1: if you're being a weird hang, there's context. M we
Speaker 1: could get like a necklace of some sort or a
Speaker 1: bracelet like a swinger's party. Yeah, but so um yeah
Speaker 1: Johnson talked about this Argentinean study is full of ship
Speaker 1: and an idiot um um and fuck him. I should
Speaker 1: also note that even even based on the inaccurate uh like,
Speaker 1: even like the study itself is bad, but even based
Speaker 1: on what the study said, he got it wrong, like
Speaker 1: the study claims to have had uh. He claims that
Speaker 1: the study had eight hundred participants, it had three hundred, um,
Speaker 1: which means that even based on his own claims, he
Speaker 1: got the study wrong by a third. Um well, he said,
Speaker 1: he's not like. I mean, look, these guys aren't stats guys.
Speaker 1: There's there's science, guys, and science famously doesn't involve numbers
Speaker 1: or accuracy. So I should also note that there was
Speaker 1: a follow up study in Argentina or released in July
Speaker 1: that showed quote no significant effect on preventing the hospitalization
Speaker 1: of patients with COVID nineteen that goes against the claims
Speaker 1: of a prophylactic effects. And this is how many demonstrative
Speaker 1: evidence against this. At this point we haven't even gotten
Speaker 1: into the worst one. Um. But again it's all part
Speaker 1: of the same problem where it is not bad and
Speaker 1: it is fact, in fact, a necessary part of medical
Speaker 1: science to do a series of small studies into whether
Speaker 1: something might work before you do larger studies that are
Speaker 1: more robust. The problem with that is idiots and grifters
Speaker 1: who will take this study on thirty people that may
Speaker 1: one day be useful and eventually arriving at a treatment,
Speaker 1: and instead say, start buying up all of this ship
Speaker 1: that you can and take it. And if anyone tells
Speaker 1: you not to, it's not because the science isn't ready yet,
Speaker 1: it's because they're trying to stop you from taking control
Speaker 1: of your own health and they don't want you to.
Speaker 1: They want to but a micro chip in your body
Speaker 1: and your yeah, it's a threat. Here. Independence listen to
Speaker 1: me about your healthcare. I did m m A. Anyone
Speaker 1: who did mm A. There's certain things I will listen
Speaker 1: to people who did m m A about, like, for example,
Speaker 1: m m A if Joe Rogan, if I have a
Speaker 1: problem getting someone in a headlock, and Joe Rogan offers
Speaker 1: me advice. I will take that advice. Motherfucker's pretty good
Speaker 1: at that. I'm not going to take Joe Rogan's advice
Speaker 1: about whether or not vaccines are legitimate. Well, look, i'll
Speaker 1: meet you. I'll meet you there. If if I needed
Speaker 1: to learn how to look sweatier than anyone's ever looked
Speaker 1: in a fully air conditioned room, I would ask Joe
Speaker 1: Rogan because he has done the hours for that. He's
Speaker 1: done it for over ten thousand hours. He's he's the
Speaker 1: best looking sweaty in a small room. He's incredible at
Speaker 1: it virtue, so he's got the money. It's it's there's
Speaker 1: it's a fair conditioned thing. Man, Like, what is wrong
Speaker 1: with you? Anyway? I believe that because the art episodes
Speaker 1: that first of all, it's performance, right, No, it's but
Speaker 1: the guest is never sweaty. I think that he's the
Speaker 1: room is forty two degrees and he's just sweating, sweating,
Speaker 1: sweatings because of all of the random pills he takes.
Speaker 1: That looks his brain is under an intense amount of
Speaker 1: pressure from all of those pills. God, what a loser. Okay,
Speaker 1: it's amazing. It's amazing that he's the most single, most
Speaker 1: influential person in global media. Um, and he looks like
Speaker 1: a stick of salami. He looks like a thumb. Fuck
Speaker 1: to hot dog again with the hot dog slander. Think
Speaker 1: they're the same shade of red Jamie, So yeah and again.
Speaker 1: One of the other problems with this so again. One
Speaker 1: problem is that you get a bunch of small studies.
Speaker 1: People will pick and choose and grab studies that really
Speaker 1: may not be as as because they're not super scientific literate.
Speaker 1: They may think that that study says more than it does.
Speaker 1: Another problem is that when you have a bunch of
Speaker 1: small studies, you might get It's very common you can
Speaker 1: have five or six small studies that are all good
Speaker 1: studies and I'll tell you opposite things because they're small.
Speaker 1: And when you have a small study, minor variables can
Speaker 1: throw off your results, which is part of why again,
Speaker 1: science is an iterative process. But the way put blushing works,
Speaker 1: all the studies are just getting shotguned out into the
Speaker 1: public sphere. This is not an issue with obscure topics
Speaker 1: because researchers are the only ones looking at the data
Speaker 1: and they understand how this stuff actually works. But it's
Speaker 1: a problem with these epidemics because again there's all these
Speaker 1: fucking grifters out there looking for alternatives to the deep
Speaker 1: State vaccine. And then, of course there is the other
Speaker 1: another issue, which is that not every scientist involved in
Speaker 1: the research process is acting in good faith. You have
Speaker 1: guys like doctor to Sigh and Surges Sphere putting out
Speaker 1: shady data for unclear reasons, but probably with some financial benefit.
Speaker 1: And then you have people who put up studies and
Speaker 1: public porpositories that have not been peer reviewed, and they
Speaker 1: know that most of the public won't know the difference,
Speaker 1: they'll just see that it's a study. And you have
Speaker 1: guys like Dr Pierre Corey, who, when he was criticized
Speaker 1: for his sketchy Senate testimony, said I still stand by it,
Speaker 1: and I think history will prove it to be true,
Speaker 1: even though history didn't. So by early nearly all of
Speaker 1: the studies that purported to show a benefit from iver
Speaker 1: mectin use were small. There was one hugely influential exception,
Speaker 1: a November study published by Dr Ahmed el Ghazar of
Speaker 1: Binja University in Egypt. It claimed to be a randomized
Speaker 1: control study that had found early iver met in use
Speaker 1: not only reduced transmission of COVID but reduced mortality by
Speaker 1: as much as nine If true, this would have been
Speaker 1: huge world changing news. This would have meant that a cheap,
Speaker 1: widely available anti parasitic was as effective as the best vaccines.
Speaker 1: The fact that this study was so large, again there's
Speaker 1: like four hundred people. I think in this study um
Speaker 1: had impacts that ripple out far and minde because most
Speaker 1: of the studies are smaller. In cases like ivermectin, when
Speaker 1: researchers are analyzing a bunch of far flung little studies
Speaker 1: to try to determine whether or not something works, they
Speaker 1: like to bunch all of those studies together and do
Speaker 1: something called a meta analysis. To explain what a meta
Speaker 1: analysis is, I'm going to quote from a write up
Speaker 1: by epidemiologist Giddy and my earrowitz Cats, who again is
Speaker 1: an epidemiologist and who like analyzes scientific studies for a
Speaker 1: living uh, and is thus the kind of person you
Speaker 1: would go to for information about this, as opposed to
Speaker 1: a random pulmonologist anyway. Quote. To solve the problem of
Speaker 1: multiple small trials, we conduct things called systematic reviews and
Speaker 1: meta analyzes. These are scientific aggregations of research that pool
Speaker 1: all of the known studies on a topic into a
Speaker 1: single place and then combine them into a statistical model
Speaker 1: so we can see what the overall effect of a
Speaker 1: drug might be. Instead of a dozen small studies, we
Speaker 1: get one big aggregated estimate, which in theory is the
Speaker 1: final word on whether or not a treatment is effective.
Speaker 1: The only problem with these analyzes is that if a
Speaker 1: single study has a large enough number of participants or
Speaker 1: a huge effect, it can sway the overall trend into
Speaker 1: something positive, even though on the whole the studies have
Speaker 1: not found a result. Now, generally this isn't a huge issue,
Speaker 1: but it does mean that you sometimes have an entire
Speaker 1: body of literature saying that something works using the gold
Speaker 1: standard aggregation of many studies that is actually based on
Speaker 1: the results of a single piece of research. Uh, yeah,
Speaker 1: you see. And how this could be a problem this
Speaker 1: I you know, I'm starting to get the picture of
Speaker 1: how this ship. Uh and what is I mean, it's
Speaker 1: what is the fucking solution? I don't you know that?
Speaker 1: That is the thing. The problem is very clear to me.
Speaker 1: The way that the way that we have the way
Speaker 1: that medical scientific studies are released and shared, and that
Speaker 1: this information like it does not work with the way
Speaker 1: the modern information ecosystem works, right, and that is a
Speaker 1: problem if you're looking for a solution. I'm not a scientist,
Speaker 1: I'm not your guy. I am a disinformation study or professionally,
Speaker 1: and I can tell you where the problem is coming in, right, right,
Speaker 1: the problem, I mean, the way you just laid it out,
Speaker 1: the problem is extremely clear, but the actionable solution is
Speaker 1: not at all. It's a mix of thing. You know.
Speaker 1: It's not just that this stuff gets published early in
Speaker 1: people at cherry pick studies. It's also this problem of
Speaker 1: like some of these studies are sketchy, some of these
Speaker 1: places allow you to publish things before the period. Like
Speaker 1: there's a number of problems, but the problems are clear,
Speaker 1: the solution less so so, and the consequences are extremely
Speaker 1: clear yea too. And the stakes are extreme, are really high. Okay,
Speaker 1: So in June, it's just what it feels like to
Speaker 1: have Joe Rogan's brain. It just feels like really tight,
Speaker 1: Like how sweaty are you right now? Jamie? I'm I'm
Speaker 1: sucking drenched and I'm sitting in me freezer. So I
Speaker 1: feel like I might feel like he feels. Now is
Speaker 1: your best friend an incredible jiu jitsu expert who also
Speaker 1: believes the moon landing was fake in the Earth is flat?
Speaker 1: Because if so, you might actually just be Joe Rogan.
Speaker 1: Wait a second, that would explain so much of you do.
Speaker 1: Hang out with Eddie Bravo a lot. So I keep
Speaker 1: screaming to for comedians to move to Austin and then
Speaker 1: they hate it and then they leave because it's a
Speaker 1: terrible place anyway. Um So. In June, the first large
Speaker 1: meta analysis of iver mectin studies was published in the
Speaker 1: American Journal of Therapeutics. It found quote moderate certainty evidence
Speaker 1: finds that large reductions and COVID nineteen deaths are possible
Speaker 1: using iver mectin. Now that kind of wording and a
Speaker 1: meta analysis published in a reputable journal had huge reverberations.
Speaker 1: By the end of June, iver mecton was being discussed
Speaker 1: on Our Friend Joe Rogan Show in its first ever
Speaker 1: emergency episode was so importan and he did an emergency
Speaker 1: is just giving all thoughts a chance from her. I
Speaker 1: don't know what's wrong with I think every thought a chance.
Speaker 1: I think it's vacated. He might be. We'll talk about Joe,
Speaker 1: and we'll talk about Joe in part two. Honestly, YEA.
Speaker 1: In this emergency episode, Dr Corey sits down Joe Rogan,
Speaker 1: Dr Pierre Corey of the f l C c C
Speaker 1: and Brett Weinstein, who will talk about in part two
Speaker 1: but is a grifter, uh, sit down to talk about
Speaker 1: how iver mectin is a fucking wonder drug. Now that
Speaker 1: episode dropped days after that first meta analysis was published.
Speaker 1: I cannot overstate the influence of having that big meta
Speaker 1: analysis like played on kind of making this look more
Speaker 1: like a thing than it really is. Weinstein claimed, quote,
Speaker 1: the censorship campaign obscuring iver mectin is a prophylactic against
Speaker 1: stars cove two and as a treatment for COVID nineteen kills.
Speaker 1: Is it about shareholders in EU as? Now this discussion
Speaker 1: merged with Rogan's own worries about vaccine passports and whether
Speaker 1: or not young healthy people needed the vaccine. Ever, Mecton
Speaker 1: was now built as a replacement to the vaccine, where
Speaker 1: six months before Dr Corey himself had pushed it as
Speaker 1: just a stop gap until the vaccine was ready, and
Speaker 1: for a while that meta analysis, and Dr Elgassar's study
Speaker 1: gave Dr Corey and other iver mectin advocates a link
Speaker 1: to stand on. They could point to this massive study
Speaker 1: and say, hey, why isn't the mainstream media covering this?
Speaker 1: It must be because I ever, mecton is a generic
Speaker 1: over the counter drug, and so they're not big farm
Speaker 1: is not going to make money, so they're hiding it. Now.
Speaker 1: The reality is that iver Metton was sucking everywhere. It
Speaker 1: was all over alternative media, like the Joe Rogan podcast,
Speaker 1: which has a vastly larger reach than any mainstream news network.
Speaker 1: He gets like a hundred million downloads in a month.
Speaker 1: Reputable reporter, Yeah, like CNN is not as fucking influential
Speaker 1: as Joe Rogan. At this point, reputable reporters were hesitant
Speaker 1: to write too favorably about iver mectin, though, because as
Speaker 1: soon as that Egyptian study dropped, there were questions about
Speaker 1: its veracity. And the study of course proved to be gus, which,
Speaker 1: as we talked about earlier, throws the entire net meta
Speaker 1: analysis into question. Gideon my Erowitz Coon or whatever Gideon
Speaker 1: MK is how he writes on the I've read his
Speaker 1: full name early whatever, Gideon that epidemiologist I quoted earlier.
Speaker 1: He has a hobby of analyzing bad scientific studies and
Speaker 1: pointing out why they're disreputable. He is an actual scientist
Speaker 1: and an actual epidemiologist. He's not a Joe rogue, and
Speaker 1: unlike Dr Corey, he specializes in a field relevant to
Speaker 1: talking about whether or not iver mect and fucking works.
Speaker 1: In July, he wrote a devastating piece about Dr Elgasar's study.
Speaker 1: A number of his technical criticisms of the study are
Speaker 1: not things I understand, but this bit here should be
Speaker 1: clear to everyone. Quote the entire introduction appears to be plagiarized. Indeed,
Speaker 1: it's very easy to confirm this. A copy pasted a
Speaker 1: few phrases from different paragraphs into Google, and it is
Speaker 1: immediately apparent that most of the introduction has been lifted
Speaker 1: from elsewhere online without attribution or acknowledgement. So I hope
Speaker 1: of it like the first chapter of A Babysitter's Right
Speaker 1: off the bag. That's a problem. That's a little bit
Speaker 1: of a problem. Right, that's a little bit of a problem.
Speaker 1: But what's worse is that the numbers in the study
Speaker 1: are frankly impossible which has thrown considerable doubt again on
Speaker 1: whether or not the study was actually conducted at all.
Speaker 1: Quote in Table four, the study shows means, standard deviation,
Speaker 1: and ranges for recovery time and patients within the study.
Speaker 1: The issue is that with the reported range of nine
Speaker 1: to twenty five days, a mean of eighteen, and the
Speaker 1: standard deviation of eight, there are very few configurations of
Speaker 1: numbers that would leave you with this result. You can
Speaker 1: even calculate this yourself using this tool developed by the
Speaker 1: clever fraud detectives James Heather's, Nick Brown, Jordan and Ia
Speaker 1: and Tim Vandersey. To have a mean of eighteen days.
Speaker 1: Consistent with the other values, the majority of the patients
Speaker 1: in this group would have had to stay in the
Speaker 1: hospital for either nine or twenty five days exactly. So
Speaker 1: a lot of like when you actually do the data
Speaker 1: weird shit. Somehow, it gets even worse. Turns out that
Speaker 1: the authors uploaded the actual data they used for the
Speaker 1: study into an online repository. While the data is locked,
Speaker 1: one of the like people in analyzing this managed to
Speaker 1: guess the password in the file, which was one two
Speaker 1: three four, and gain an act access to the anonymous
Speaker 1: patient level information that the authors used to put the
Speaker 1: paper together. I've got a copy, and it's amazing how
Speaker 1: obvious the flaws are even at a casual glance. For example,
Speaker 1: the study reports getting ethical approval and beginning approval in
Speaker 1: beginning on the eighth of June, But in the data
Speaker 1: file uploaded by the authors onto the website of the preprint,
Speaker 1: fully one third of the people who died from COVID
Speaker 1: nineteen were already dead when the researchers started to recruit
Speaker 1: their patients. Unless they were getting dead people to consent
Speaker 1: to participate in the trial, that's not really possible. Moreover,
Speaker 1: about the entire group of patients who were recruited for
Speaker 1: the support supposedly prospecs perspective randomized trial appeared to have
Speaker 1: been hospitalized before the study even started, which is either
Speaker 1: a mind boggling breach of ethics or a very bad
Speaker 1: sign of potential fraud. Even worse, if you look at
Speaker 1: the values for different patients, it appears that most of
Speaker 1: groups Group four are simply clones of each other, with
Speaker 1: the same or largely similar initials co morbidities, lymphocyte scores, etcetera.
Speaker 1: So this is the worst life. Like we're recruiting ghosts
Speaker 1: were recruiting clumps. We got a lot of ghosts in
Speaker 1: the study, the big farmaties. I want you to know
Speaker 1: what ghosts have to say about medicine, so I will like,
Speaker 1: oh my god, mhm, problems that not mistakes but like lies. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's a lot of problems. And getting is not the
Speaker 1: only guy breaking this down and blowing A number of
Speaker 1: people try to But by the time this gets thoroughly debunked,
Speaker 1: it had been downloaded a hundred and fifty thousand times
Speaker 1: and cited in two different meta analyzes that showed iver
Speaker 1: mectmus having a huge medical benefit, and it was the
Speaker 1: largest study in both meta analyzes. So again, when you've
Speaker 1: got a bunch of small studies and one big study,
Speaker 1: this one involved foreign to test subjects, that large study
Speaker 1: can skew the results of a meta analysis, which is
Speaker 1: what happened here. Quote. If you look at those large
Speaker 1: aggregate models and remove just this single study, ivermectin loses
Speaker 1: almost all of its purported benefits. Take the recent meta
Speaker 1: analysis by Bryant at All that has been all over
Speaker 1: the news. They found a sixty two percent reduction in
Speaker 1: risk of death for people who were treated with ivermectin
Speaker 1: compared to controls when combining randomized trials. However, if you
Speaker 1: remove the Algazar paper from their model and rerun it,
Speaker 1: the benefit goes from six to fifty two percent and
Speaker 1: largely loses its statistical significance. There's no benefit scene whatsoever
Speaker 1: for people who have severe COVID nineteen, and the confidence
Speaker 1: intervals for people with mild or moderate disease become extremely wide.
Speaker 1: If you include another study that was published after the
Speaker 1: Bryant meta analyses came out, which found no benefit for
Speaker 1: iver mected on death, the benefits scene in the model
Speaker 1: disappear entirely. For another recent meta analysis, simply excluding el
Speaker 1: Gazar is enough to remove the positive effect entirely, and
Speaker 1: so in one fell swoop, the very best scientific case
Speaker 1: for iver mecton as a COVID treatment kind of collapses
Speaker 1: within the medical field reaction to the word Gidding and
Speaker 1: others had done busting this bad study was Swift, the
Speaker 1: preprint Servery that had published dr Elgazar study before peer
Speaker 1: review pulled it due to ethical concerns. The meta analyzes, though,
Speaker 1: are still out there and still being cited, and that's
Speaker 1: I guess all. We're gonna talk about in part one.
Speaker 1: Oh good's it's probably yeah, this is this is this
Speaker 1: is so troubling, I mean and it's I mean, I
Speaker 1: knew the studies were gonna be it was gonna be
Speaker 1: bad for sure, but this is like a level of
Speaker 1: disinformation and negligence that I had not anticipated. Wow, Wow, Wow,
Speaker 1: what name? What a nightmare? Um all, Jamie, you got
Speaker 1: a plug things? Oh yeah, I could plug things. Uh here,
Speaker 1: here's a plug. You can listen to all of ac
Speaker 1: cast out now, which is my podcast about the history
Speaker 1: of Kathy comics and twentieth century American feminism. Uh yeah,
Speaker 1: or you could uh listen to the Bechtel Cast, or
Speaker 1: you could follow me on Twitter or Instagram and Twitter
Speaker 1: is Jamie left his help. Instagram's Jamie christ Superstar. And
Speaker 1: that's all. I think. That That's all I have to say. Oh. Also, also,
Speaker 1: I am still soliciting hot dog recommendations. I've been to
Speaker 1: a lot of places I've tried. I think, all the
Speaker 1: all the big dogs, all the places that are on
Speaker 1: the listicles, I've been to all of those. But if
Speaker 1: there is an obscure hot dog place that you think
Speaker 1: I should try in the Continental us because I cannot
Speaker 1: we can't go anywhere. Uh, let me know, I'm interested. Yeah, Oh,
Speaker 1: there's a great there's a great uh hot dog place
Speaker 1: in Lisbon where you can get something that I will
Speaker 1: argue as a hot dog, where you can get a
Speaker 1: piece of octopus on a hot dog bun. If it's random,
Speaker 1: it's a hot dog. It's not random meat. If it's
Speaker 1: just one meat, it could be random. You could just
Speaker 1: stick your knife in the ocean. Sometimes you're gonna get random.
Speaker 1: It could be wearing a Jack Skellington sweatshirt. That's not random, Jamie,
Speaker 1: that's a popular media phenomenon. I look, I I I
Speaker 1: had a Jack Skellington hoodie before I had ever seen
Speaker 1: that damn movie. And then I watched it Certain Dido
Speaker 1: or Ring creepy. Yeah, I know. Before. Well, that's just
Speaker 1: if you want to be taken serious by the kids
Speaker 1: who play Hackey Sack outside, you gotta have a Jack
Speaker 1: Skellington t shirt. That's just how the social time it
Speaker 1: was at that time. Well, there's some free advice if
Speaker 1: you want children to like um in two thousand and seven.
Speaker 1: In two thousand and seven, if you're traveling back in
Speaker 1: time in two thousand and seven, and it is critical
Speaker 1: that fourteen year olds think you're cool. Jamie Loftis has
Speaker 1: the I have a thirty dollar solution for you. It's
Speaker 1: called the Jack Skellington Hood solution for you is more
Speaker 1: money back then though, so keep that in mind. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's good. That's a couple of weeks of allowance. Well,
Speaker 1: follow us a pasters spot on, turn Instagram or at
Speaker 1: cool Zone Media for all the things. We'll be back Thursday.
Speaker 1: I oh,