Joe Rogan, Ivermectin, Sanjay Gupta, CNN, the Culture War | A doctor reflects on the evidence
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 21 ต.ค. 2021
- My substack post:
vinayprasadmdmph.substack.com...
Ending Medical Reversal
www.amazon.com/Ending-Medical...
Vinay Prasad, MD MPH
Hematologist/ Oncologist
Associate Professor of Epidemiology & Biostatistics
www.vinayakkprasad.com
Host of Plenary Session Podcast
www.plenarysessionpodcast.com
/ plenarysession
Read our academic papers here:
www.vkprasadlab.com
Follow me on:
Twitter @vprasadmdmph
![แม่กลองสองใจ - ซีแกรม โตเกียว มิวสิค [ OFFICIAL MUSIC VIDEO ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/GSQfVjcr_f4/mqdefault.jpg)
As a treating physician I'm frustrated with the philosophy of waiting until we have completed gold standard studies. The meta-analyses on ivermectin are mostly positive while this is a known medication which is extremely safe at the doses used in these studies as well as extremely cheap. I vote for doing something instead of nothing not on a national level but at least allowing patients to take it and physicians to prescribe it if they decide to do so.
Don't you figure Prasad could be naive to the effective practices of a physician who sees patients, considering he is primarily a researcher/academic?
How often do you treat patients based on limited information regarding their condition? Would it be wise, or truly following your oath to "do no harm" to just sit on your hands and not try treatments with reasonable possibility to work, that also have no reasonable risk of harm?
Some Doctors are prescribing it. Some states are allowing it.
Final proof...a lot of people will die waiting for final proof and who gets to decide what level of evidence supplies final proof.
Speculative off label use so long as there is informed consent of a drug that is relatively safe with established doses and with doses in humans at almost 4 billion doses given doesn't seem irrational to me.
It may work.
It isn't proven to work.
It may not work.
It isn't proven to not work.
Even the NIH essentially says this!
Use now is speculative.
Off label use of, approved for use in humans, drugs is allowed.
As long as it isn't misrepresented to patients and prescribed by a doctor it's acceptable practice of medicine!
The argument about taking it instead of a vaccine is not the same argument as taking it after a diagnosis of Covid 19.
The waters are purposely being muddied by some...
They want a simple message, a simple narrative, get vaccinated, get a booster, wear a mask...
Anything else gets sacrificed on that altar...
That's why a drug that has almost 4 billion doses given to humans gets called horse dewormer repeatedly!
@@michaelkulman7095 Exactly, We know it's extremely safe at recommended dosages and its been out over 40 years. With efficacy of the shots waning, people see a friend recover very quickly and they have no need for studies, trials or media consensus.
@@michaelkulman7095 Tanks for your comment, I couldn't have made a better statement on this topic.
Thank you for talking. Censorship is not the answer.
When those with power censor it is always and every where an attempt to suppress the truth and cover corruption or crime.
War is perfect term! I question your own lack of neutrality ....firmly vested in RCT. Imo=politic funding 'war' ie: Tribal Religion of Science has lost the sacard cow status. 'It' got bought! Your the best one to broadly communicate w curiosity neutrally is your job, please. Move with the times please. Fighting statistics has exposed itself to all of us laymen, BADLY. Help us think wide and question, or we will not trust you either! Help shape the future evolve you beliefs accordingly. Show us bad science for example, where is the propaganda and why!!
Dr. Fraudchi silenced and experimented on dogs and people alike. He’s a monster.
The vaccine trials are not finished, why is it recommended but not ivermectin?
Especially when IVM has been approved for other uses for over 20 years. Hmm 🤔
Social control because civilization is collapsing🤫
Becau$e. How dare you ask a question.
Because they want to kill more people
Ever heard of money?
I love robust trials too. But why are we using one set of standards to assess IVM and another set of standards to assess the "pokes"? The pokes are still in phase III clinical trials. So much of the data is not in yet. Why are we comfortable promoting (no, MANDATING) those? Why is one of these treatments getting forced and the other banned? Seems way too polarized.
💯
And why is the VAERS website registering so many adverse effects and deaths but being ignored?
Whoa! Careful there. You’re making too much sense.
@@louisepage3842 Nothing is being ignored. You just don't understand how VAERS works.
Wrong. The phase III clinical trials concluded almost a year ago.
Uttar Pradesh isn't running an RCT, but the Indian State has a population of 230 million and look at the results there with their US$2.65 covid home kits. It's really disappointing that you also seem to think its OK and not at all suspicious that, in your own words, it will take another 6-12 months to run an RCT on ivermectin, when the costs are so low and safety profile (3.7 billion doses administered to humans) is so good.
I don't trust this guy. I don't think he's being honest. Let me be clear, I am being very particular with that determination. I don't think he just reached a different conclusion, that he simply reached a different opinion based on his interpretation of data. I think he knows this, and he is lying to us.
Epidemiological data is often used to guide public health policy.
There are no clinical trials proving smoking causes cancer. Yet it's generally accepted and is the official surgeon general's warning.
It's called Bradford Hill's Criteria for Causation.
The idea that the only way we can prove IVM works is with a huge and long RCT that won't be published for another year is an absolute lie and has never been the case, especially during a pandemic. There are numerous, current examples of that standard of evidence not being applied. Remdesivir and Molnupiravir are the most obvious ones.
I don’t think Uttar Pradesh is the best case for Ivermectin. I think there’s genuine concerns of undercounting of deaths there. That doesn’t discount that Ivermectin isn’t helping, just the quality of data is suspect. Goa data will likely be better. Also where is was used in some of the big cities because the death counting was much better.
"The fact that many people have antibodies against the virus means that a large proportion of the population is protected from disease to a certain extent, reducing the chances of new infections happening. In late July 2021, an article in the Hindustan Times reported that Uttar Pradesh was one of the states with the highest seropositivity rate (71%)."
@@guest_informant the fact that there's an incredibly high natural immunity rate in Uttar Pradesh should further support the notion that the cheap home kits are effective in treating covid - or are you suggesting that the state of Uttar Pradesh (and Delhi) have been burying tens of millions of unrecorded covid dead bodies without anyone reporting this fact?
I do disagree and think money for big pharma does have a large play in the whole issue. When attending physicians first started saying that Ivermectin was helpful, the CDC should have raised their head. They should have contracted for a study, not only on this but on any other Rx's that doctors felt might actually work. This is one of their jobs. Just like they dropped the ball when the two cruise ships and the carrier started showing significant outbreaks. This raised a very high possibility that air was the main source of transmission. No, they stuck with wash your hands 200 times a day and waited until about July to bring up airborne. Remember Remdesivir will lose its emergency status if something actually works. I do not find any fault with a doctor prescribing Ivermectin when they think it could help. From what I have seen, it is one of the safer Rx's, and it is better than what was taking place here locally and that is if a person did test positive, sent them home until they got sick enough to be admitted to the hospital.
The CDC is about to change the definition of fully vaccinated to those who have gotten the booster shot. The most data I looked at shows that immunity from the first 2 shots has not worn off and for a vaccinated person the odds of myocarditis are substantially higher than the odds of dying from COVID. The booster shot makes sense for high risk people but not the general population. The CDC pusing the booster shot on everyone without more saftey data is proof that Big Pharma is calling the shots. If the CDC has more recent data please show it to me, I don't trust the government for good reason but I will trust the data. I also find it troubling that the CDC is measuring immunity by the number of antibodies in you're blood and ignoring memory cell immunity. You still have immunity even after antibody levels have dropped.
None of the trials were done on people that recovered from covid. When the naturally immune become vaccine injured vaers scrubs it. Defund the CDC.
of course, money plays a huge impact but personally, I don't think Ivermectin will pan out to be the "miracle" its believers want it to be.
It is the NIH, not the CDC, that contracts for randomized control studies. Having stated this, just as the randomized control studies for Molnupiravir were discontinued because the potential harm to those receiving placebo outweighed the need for concluding these trials, so too withholding Ivermectin while randomized control trials are ongoing is not the proper approach.
What should have happened is, while denying the effectiveness of Ivermectin against Covid-19, the FDA should have encouraged doctors to grant the request of patients to take prophylactic doses of Ivermectin for hookworms, head lice, or other parasitic diseases, regardless of evidence of local infestations of these parasites. Ivermectin is one of those rare drugs that, when used at the proper dosage, is less harmful than most over the counter drugs, including aspirin. Patients could have been required to pay for their Ivermectin prescriptions out of pocket, unless there was proof of an actual infestation, in order to discourage patients taking advantage of this "parasitic infection prevention program" to use Ivermectin prophylactically against Covid-19.
In conjunction with this, the CDC could have established a database Covid-19 results of patients using Ivermectin "prophylactically against parasites" versus those not using Ivermectin. This could have yielded meaningful results before any vaccines were approved. Furthermore, if those in the vaccine trials were also permitted to take Ivermectin "prophylactically versus parasites", we could know with a fair degree of confidence, if taking Ivermectin prophylactically in addition to being vaccinated, was better than just being vaccinated.
An alternative strategy could have been to require the vaccine developers to use prophylactic Ivermectin "instead" of placebo, in their trials. Everybody in the trials could have received either prophylactic Ivermectin plus a placebo vaccine, or a placebo prophylaxis plus a real vaccine. It could of been up to the vaccine developers to prove or disprove the real effectiveness or lack thereof of Ivermectin, just in case prophylactic Ivermectin was as effective as their vaccines.
@@Weathernerd27 this is a disingenuous interpretation of CDC guidance on boosters. The language is not forceful at all, and the guidance on 10/21/21 merely says:
"CDC now recommends that certain people are now eligible to receive a COVID-19 booster shot, including those who received Moderna and Johnson & Johnson/Janssen COVID-19 vaccines"
Reading further, no where does it say that the boosters are necessary for the entire population. It actually says it's helpful for certain groups, incl what you mentioned.
That the CDC is changing the definition of fully vaccinated is your speculation.
Given that Ivermectin is cheap and unlikely to cause harm, I fail to see why it is so strongly discouraged. However, I too would really like to see the results of better conducted trials.
That's the point. You don't have to "embrace" it. If it's not harmful, and it clearly isn't (safety record is decades long), why not give it a chance? Because the patent expired, so pharma can't profit from it anymore. Duh. And much more importantly, if this was recognized as a valid treatment, there would be no "emergency use authorization" for the "vaccines." That's one of the conditions. We are talking about billions of dollars. Do the math.
Also, the same standard was never applied to the "vaccines." They were mandated for the entire population WITHOUT long term safety data. Again, billions of dollars at stake.
Doc we understand IVM might not work ...
But what are the chances that all the 80+ studies were flawed . There is rarely a study that don't show any +ve effect unlike Remdesivir.
If it's even 90% sureity that an intervention might work why wait for it.
And last Dec Dr Pierre Corry appeared in US senate to show that IVM is very effective as a prophylactic too like Vaccines. There is still no large RCT yet.
@@piyushyadav9006 I'm assuming that RCT are funded by pharma. Maybe we should crowd-fund a large IVM RCT. I'll donate.
did you guys see Dr. Tabans Ivermectin statement here on YT? 🤣🤯🤦🏻♀️ 90% liver damage …. wt f
Like Vinay said, it's mainly Culture Wars BS but, that aside, there is evidence of actual harm eg in the medium article _Why Bret Weinstein is dangerous - Because misinformation kills_
Opening text (accompanied by images):
His name was Leslie Lawrenson. He seemed to have bought into Bret’s misinformation. He then got Covid and died:
I ask two favorite Russian questions: Who is to blame? What should be done?
As some pundits have already pointed out, we are living in two pandemics: the Covid pandemic and the misinformation pandemic. The second one makes the first one deadlier than it has to be.
Besides Leslie Lawrenson, there have been other highly publicized cases of Covid killing people who bought into various Covid misinformation. Here are just a few recent ones:
Phil Valentine
Joe Manning
Marc Bernier
Caleb Wallace
Marcus Birks
Dick Farrel
Tod Tucker
Jimmy DeYoung Sr.
Stephen Harmon
Mikel Lowe
Between May and September 2021 Bret Weinstein has publicized dozens of false or unsubstantiated biomedical claims on his podcasts, collectively heard by millions of people. In fact, a project started by Bret’s superfan Alexandros Marinos, which was dedicated to examining Bret’s claims in just four podcasts, has collected 44 such potential claims, 36 of which were graded as false or unsupported by the only referee in that project with relevant biomedical experience.
The goal of this essay is to provide further, detailed evidence that Bret does not possess requisite competence to make biomedical claims
He then goes on to make a pretty convincing case. Rebel Wisdom and others have covered the same ground in even more detail. I was interested in IVM (I saw the original JRE on it), looked into it and, for now, these are the folks who are making the most sense of the actual evidence rather than the Culture Wars BS.
Explain how you can advise people to take any of the experimental Covid vaccines, when they have not yet completed required testing and rigorous peer review? If emergency authorization can be used for vaccines, why are they not being utilized for treatment therapies? Particularly Ivermectin, which has a long history of use and safety data, involving nearly 4 billion people, over the last 40 years.
It’s Warp Speed for some, and Turtle Speed for others! I don’t understand how “they” decide, which speed is the right speed for EUA, while we are waiting for the official results of large scale randomized research with meta analysis, (as it should be), for two “promising safe and effective(?)” prophylactics (not talking about cures here,) without having the possibility of having the long term known effects of the v/jab for, at least a few years?
You took the words right out of my mouth
No money in it.
Isn't Merck bringing out some form of (patented obviously) son of ivermectin??
@@marcarbory6042 there are a number of treatments coming out now. One is a nasal spray, Merck does have a pill they are trying to get emergency use authorization for, but these are for prophylaxis use, and, as Dr Prasad points out, not thoroughly tested
"It's so nakedly tribal it sickens me!" This is why we respect you 🙏
I thought exactly the same.
he recovered faster so did many others 3 days for multiple people prescribed by a drug that was a human product and cnn tripled down on the lies. They need to be sued
@@mercury13 Which of the several interventions did the trick? Your favorite one?
@@jonathanrabbitt they used regeneron anti bodies and ivermectin that's what rogan said look what florida is using too
@@jonathanrabbitt I had c19 just before it became known to the public. It was very nasty as it got worse. My doctor prescribed Z-PAC, and within 24hrs it started working. After 3 days I was doing great. Weird thing is Z-PAC never worked for me with the flu. So now I’ve had c19, and I have natural immunity. My family doctor prescribed IVM to keep on hand just in case. He also knows I have hereditary heart problems, And that I was never going to take their clot shots because of that alone.
As far as IVM, India and Japan are getting great results with it.
There isn’t any money to be made studying NPI’s either…. ‘Show me the incentives and I will show you the outcome” -Charlie munger
No, this not about drug money. It is about CNN increasing viewership.
*yes there is. especially when they are made by a lot of these same companies & their purchase is compulsory for every citizen alive. & you are punished if you dont buy them. & you can short stock around the dates these laws will be enforced or lifted. & you can insider trade before they are brought in.* you can make hundreds of millions in an afternoon. & people did. & even so, there is nearly no research on them anyway. eat a book sometime. -JC
I've watched drbeen youtube videos since the beginning of the pandemic and listened to more than a dozen of his guest speakers who treat Covid patients, some have treated 1000s including ICU department heads and other critical care clinicians who have given hour long detailed accounts. All have portrayed with astonishment the effectiveness of the drug and the transformation of their practice from that of a place of death to one where many patients can recover at home.
One take-away I've heard from most is how fast 24-48 hrs. patients with low oxygen saturation's in the low-mid 80s are restored to more normal levels, and can breathe again. The doctors delight at seeing this restorative effect is written across their face as they recount this surprising experience of a drug that doesn’t just help, but transforms.
Dr Been? Link please.
Dr Mobeen deserves an award. I believe he's a good and extremely intelligent man.
@@AlexaWilliamsMeisler Dr Mobeen Syed and his cat Loofy. He has a huge following. Provides graphs, links, and draws pictures to help understanding.
I also watch dr been, he is great, so is vinay, you guys are awesome
also dr been's ivermectin coffee mugs got censored and taken off the shelf, ridiculous. i told him he should sue.
We need Vinay Prasad in Joe Rogan's podcast!
Only if they have Pierre Kory or Tess Lawrie in on the same episode
Of course it's about money! those big double-blind randomised studies cost money and only big companies can afford to invest in them, and will do it only if there's money to be made.
It's quite arrogant to say that all those doctors who use the medicine and get good results don't know what they are talking about.
I’d love to see you have a conversation with Tess Lawrie. She’s an international expert on medical data analysis and has concluded that ivermectin works. Would be interested to see that back and forth.
Me too! Love her metadata and the clear explanation she gives.
He won't his biases have already lead him to believe that the studies in the meta analysis were poor studies.
I doubt he will. I don't think he is being fully honest with us.
There's a reason he does videos with Zdogg and not Robert Malone, Pierre Kory, or her.
@@Theviewerdude yeah he's blatantly stated he's progressive and on the left. he's just a bit more centered and honest to at least some degree
@@thedrunkenchefs4577 some of them were bad. Not as bad as the Kentucky study about natural immunity but not great.
Like masking. In schools. Where is the RCT for masking kids? My daycare kid does not mask, but my 1st grader must. The delta variant hit both campuses (mildly and on the upswing in rate of cases in September). I just have a hard time believing that a virus that is nanometers big cares about a porous cloth mask in a room that is shared with others for several hours.
He has talked repeatedly about the large clustered rct in Bangladesh on masks.
The thing is, you don’t really need to even do a new one..RCTs from the last several decades, and even newer ones done after Covid just confirm what was already known…specifically, cloth masks don’t do a damn thing..and that’s what the vast majority of people and kids are wearing. Every entity mandating masks are simply citing low level observational studies that fit their preferred result and ignoring all of the low level observational studies that show the exact opposite. Making broad sweeping policies off of these types of studies is ludicrous because you can just pick and choose whatever study you want to fit what you want to do. None of it based is solid science..it’s just a bunch of power hungry authoritarians that want to force everyone to do what they say so they find whatever study allows them to do it. And then when you question it they just label you as a “science denier” and say stupid shit like “just wear the damn mask”.
You don't need a "study" when the EVIDENCE is already overwhelming. Sweden never mandated them. The Nordic countries have the lowest face diaper use in Europe AND the lowest infection and death rates. And vice versa. Countries with the harshest "mandates" have the highest infection and death rates. What the hell do you need a "study" for?
@@scarletspider1240 That's the point. The face diapers were never about health or "safety." It was ALWAYS about blind compliance with authority and virtue signaling.
It's beyond me that with all the billions of dollars thrown around they couldn't at least have put hepa filters in the ventilation systems. I just hope and pray the virus or vaccines don't cause long term harm. so much to learn, so much we don't know.
Please talk about rendisivir being pulled from the 2018 Ebola study killing the kidneys. But yet it’s the standard treatment in the hospital for covid
Or the Merck early treatment drug they are trying to get an EUA for that was vilified when owned by a small company and glorious now the Merck own the rights.
And Remdesivir is not working!!
Dr. Bryan Ardis talks about the horrors that were done with Remdesivir. Kidneys were killed and people were being drowned. 😭
What happened in India? Why have cases gone down so dramatically since the beginning of the year?
Simple IVM . Someone wrote a book on how IVM saved India . I went back to Amazon the next day but it was already removed.
I think a large portion of India got immunity from natural infection. I also think the Indian government would have a hard time counting every case, I imagine in the poorer areas there are alot of cases that go unreported.
Unfortunately, you cannot trust numbers reported by India. The number of Covid deaths they report is ridiculously low.
@@williamolenchenko5772 you can't trust any ones numbers . They all use it for scare tactics.
IVM def. played some role with helping India, in addition to other vitamins. Thats why Indian lawyers are suing WHO for what they said about IVM
Can someone tell me why you shouldn't take ivermectin? It might work, and I don't see it doing any harm. So why not take it just in case?
That is the question. It is extremely safe, and inexpensive. Why is the CDC pressuring Dr.'s to not prescribe it and pharmacies to not fill prescriptions?
Yeah great point 👍 if it doesn't hurt and might help on a might if you take it what's the problem ? I have no idea but I'd like to know why people shouldn't take it.
Something something, horse dewormer...
There is no good reason not to try it. That simple.
EXACTLY. There's no reason to "wait" for a "study." If it works for you, great. If it doesn't, so what?
I have a better idea, get vaccinated. Then you don't have to worry about a drug that might or might not work. My apologies if this triggers you.
God bless you dr Prasad
Those RTC studies have been said to be in the oven for over a year now. They’re actually stalling not running those studies, while people are dying. That says a lot about which funding is obstructed and which isn’t. Clinical trials, on the other hand, are abundant, as is empirical evidence of outcomes from ICUs where individual needs and dosages were prescribed until the criminal suspension of physician autonomy became normalized. Waiting cannot be the ethical thing to do when people are dying.
Why would you not have recommended him taking IVM, when despite knowing if it's effective or not, you DO know that prescribing a course of it would at the very least not increase the risk of anything harmful coming about? If there is even a small potential for being helpful vs what is effectively zero risk of causing harm, why would you choose not to help? That makes no sense. At least 62 studies have been conducted already; some of them were of low quality, but not many. Most are done well. Does the existing evidence provided by the studies which have already happened count for nothing? How does a worldwide pandemic not meet your lofty standards for trying alternative medications if it presents even the slightest possibility of saving lives? I can understand sticking to your guns about that under normal conditions, but people are dying -- potentially needlessly. I have no idea how any doctor will reconcile the fact that people under their care have died only because that doctor sat on his hands, refusing to give their patient medication that could very well save the patient's life. The scale of the rationalization they must tell themselves to escape the guilt of ignoring treatment while their patient died, must be enormous. As far as I see it, you doctors are ignoring your oath. Shameful.
I think anyone who says they just don't know yet if IVM is effective against c-19, is being knowingly untruthful to themselves, or willfully ignorant. One only needs to look at the success of Uttar Pradesh to have that question answered. Hundreds of millions of people, in the midst of a potentially catastrophic outbreak, begin a regimen of vitamins and medications supplied by their government; shortly thereafter, not only was that outbreak thwarted, the case rate in that highly populated region is at *0.0* !!
There is a place in the world that quickly defeated this virus - eradicated it - but yeah let's wait another 18 months for some more goddam trials to finish up because 62 of them aren't enough already, but more importantly, because reasons. 🤪
We're all gonna be pretty screwed if all these people don't go looking for the mind they seem to have recently lost.. 😟
Completely agree!!! Dr Prasad is being disingenuous and shifty for some weird reason!!!!!!!!
Prasad is striking me as disingenuous. He seems genuine regarding vaccines, but not regarding IVM.
you are slightly wrong, according to John Hopkins, there were 349 cases and 10 deaths in Uttar Pradesh in the last 28 days, but on a per capita basis you are more than 5000 times likely to catch covid and more than 3000 times likely to die in the US than in Uttar Pradesh, so your conclusions are valid. There are a number of other Indian states with similar results.
@@sheryllittle6837 in India if you die, they just bury or burn your body. They don't have much medical facilities outside major cities so it could be assumed that India's COVID-19 deaths are undercounted regardless if IVM works.
@@sheryllittle6837 maybe it would make my statement slightly less wrong if I worded it something like, "... not only was that outbreak thwarted, shortly after receiving the government issued medical kits, the case rate in that highly populated region dropped as low as 0.0 for a time. And while new cases have since emerged, their numbers could reasonably be described as satistically insignificant."
Is that better?..
Dr Prasad, I enjoy watching your videos. But think about this rationally. 2 years in, no one has performed your gold standard IVM trial (Merck intentionally declined to participate in a Japanese trial when requested), the NHS PRINCIPLE trial is being run with a sub-optimal / potentially ineffective dosage and we haven't seen any results after 4-5 months. Meanwhile, if we wait another 6-12 months for an organisation (including government-sponsored) that's not driven by pure profit motives to sponsor such a trial before you will accept IVM as an effective treatment, then how many actual people would have needlessly suffered severe damage or died as a result of not having access to this cheap and safe treatment?
If the definitive double blind RCT is also (intentionally or unintentionally) poorly designed like was the case for the RECOVERY trial for Hydroxychloroquine, then the result we get after waiting all that time will also be virtually meaningless.
One of my favorite quotes: "I don’t think I have watched television news to learn facts for more than a decade now." - Vinay Prasad MD
How did Molnupinivir do RCTs so fast but they still can’t figure out if IVM is effective after 18 months?
Hmmmmmmmmm
HCQ did not fail when used with zinc within the first 5 days of symptoms in those with comorbidities.
Yet Zinc is more effective in the absence of HCQ. I wish HCQ had turned out to be useful against Covid but it didn’t. So be it.
Exactly, the establishment is hung up with testing everything in the hospital setting to which they have control. Give us control to treat ourselves outpatient. The drug is not dangerous unless taken at wildly overdose levels or in the hospital setting when the patient is in the inflammatory stage. HCQ and zinc work synergistically. The RCT just test one drug.
Yes it did fail. And so do you.
@@aldphillip2003 Bullshit. Apparently you believe the retracted studies that used near lethal doses on ICU patients. True it failed in those cases.
@@lindawolfe2885 where have you seen zinc being more effective without HCQ?
How hard is it to say “I don’t think it will help but it’s still being tested. However, it will do no harm and may just save your life so go for it”
Too much common sense at a time when doctors are being punished for expressing it
Physicians who are actually treating patients with ivermectin and having great results are the doctor that I would trust, not someone with no experience. Should be up to the patients to accept the risk, just like the vaccines, big pharma doesn’t have any risk with the vaccine. If Joe Rogan and his physician think that’s the best course for him, that’s their business. It worked for him, much to the dismay of the left, they were so aggravated he didn’t die.
Exactly 💯
Let's not leave out the fact that Joe's doctor prescribed all his medications including the Ivermectin (he didn't just procure some from the black market). I have a real question since you so strongly advocate for the vaccine (for those who need it), how deeply have you looked at the vaccine trials and the methodology used. Have you looked at who was and was not included in those trials. I know of at least one instance where a child in their teens was in one of the trials then got sick (I don't recall if it was from an adverse event or from a covid infection) then was kicked out of the trial and later passed away, then at the end of the trial this teen was not included as a trial participant. After looking at their methodology, ask yourself if you were in charge is that the methodology you would be comfortable with? Keep in mine these were not performed by third party independent researchers, these were performed researchers on the pharmaceutical payroll. That sounds conspiratorial, but it's not nothing especially when you consider just how recent and often these huge Pharmaceutical companies have been fined Billions of dollars for criminal negligence (lying, falsifying data, ect.). Seems the medical establishment has short term memory problems when it comes to extreme recent history.
Joe Rogan himself advocates for the vaccine for those in risk group.
@@decadence8473 That doesn't mean anything to what was said. Joe isn't the authority on any of this and most people who say that are trying to cover their ass.
@@EricTitansSmith I agree that it's not the answer to the question posted, just a remark to that piece about Joe that is not too relevant to the question either.
This is one of the reasons VP has decided to devote half his time researching the research. What he saw in cancer research is horrifying. It's likely why he is against Ivermectin without solid research...it's consistent with his values.
@@Hibernia2324 Hopefully it inspires him you look carefully into how the vaccine research was done. Nothing should be beyond questioning.
Personally I'm more fine with the side willing to try alternatives that have low risk of bad side effects then the side that insists on avoiding all other solutions except the one from the mega corporations that sponsor them.
Might as well just have gummy bears then. They have about the same chance of working, and have even lower risk.
@@saintkamus14 So the NIH isn't ruling in or out that Ivermectin helps with Covid 19.
31 studies are going on now but none of them address gummy bears as an alternative treatment or control.
Hi Vinay. My father was recently given the Pfizer booster in the UK. The nurse told him the formulation had been updated by Pfizer. They were not required to run a new clinical trial for this. It seems like more and more corners are being cut. Please comment on this.
Friend that happens to be a Australian surgeon sent me a table of medication he found in the NIH website…guess what’s listed as a human medication…for the treatment of COVID.
Got a link?..
I don’t think the NIH is recommending the use just walking through the pros and cons of medication that may be helpful. If you look at the article the NIH posted on Ivermectin it lists both good and bad depending on the study.
I think all doctors should be able to discuss the pros and cons with patients and then they can decide together what is right for them. I don’t agree with the culture war coming after doctors or a medicine just to align with a political party or stance. But I also don’t think people should just jump to the assumption the government is with holding treatments.
@@pennydaytreasures8173 given all of the evidence at hand, I don't think it's accurate to call this scenario of doctors sitting on their hands instead of writing prescriptions to save their patient's lives, an "assumption "..
All I ever heard about it was one decision maker early on let it be know that it (IVERMECTIN) was "not recomended" and that was rather quietly changed to "neutral" and this was never much explained that I have been able to tell. Meanwhile the FDA goes all anti Ivermectin with talk down to the public horse paste precautions. One agency hedging its bets the other doubling down. Talk about consistancy.
Lemsip?
Very much agree w/ you doctor. Their ratings are way down, I think they want rogan to sue them.
If Iver was recognized as prophylaxis the vac companies wouldn't have been granted emergency authorization.
Also, could you explain what the difference between the vet Iver and human Iver
Thanks
Animal IVM and human IVM are essentially the same thing, except the animal IVM can sometimes be less pure, containing additives that might be toxic to humans (check the label). Human IVM comes in pill form; animal IVM comes in a paste usually and the dosing schedule to follow for say a horse would be different. But it's the same drug.
@@LucaAnamaria Thank you. Super
Flavour for animals
💯 People who believe that vaccine PROFIT does NOT enter into it, IMO, is naive
The parting advice that the head of Rheumatology at Northwestern (Dr. Richard Pope) gave me when I was done with fellowship in 2002 was to make medical decisions that are based on evidence based medicine whenever possible I have lived by that mantra and believe it has served my patients well. It is so refreshing to see a physician/scientist like yourself preach the need for good RCT/evidence based medicine. I agree with everything you say whole heartedly. Please continue to spread this message.
Hi Rui! So funny I would stumble upon a comment from you here! I pray you guys are all doing well and have made it through this whole mess unscathed. Tell Jane I said hello! Take care!
There is a legitimate debate to be had of how effective this approach is, when time is of the essence.
Relying solely on the best of the best data means very slow reaction times. When it is established that a treatment will do no harm, but has a reasonable potential to provide a benefit, worst case scenario the treatment does nothing. Best case scenario, it works and saves someone's life or from being maimed.
Nothing to lose by trying it, only potential to save lives. If you operate by the creed of "do no harm", that necessitates trying safe treatments with reasonable possibility to work, as you are only possibly doing harm by not giving available treatments that work.
@@Theviewerdude mmmhmmm and the issue I have with iver is it's gotten so toxic they are even withholding it from people they tried everything else on. I mean if you're going to lose them anyways... a family in, I think it was in NY, sued the hospital, won and they appealed it. Poor fella passed the night before the appeal hearing.
Damn…Dr. Prasad. You are a brilliant man and a diamond in the ruff. Unfortunately….most of your colleagues are really smart as well, but cowards.
Lol love it. One of them is z dogg😂
Just a diamond, all the ruff has been polished off
We understand IVM might not work ...
But what are the chances that all the 80+ studies are flawed . There is rarely a study that don't show any +ve effect unlike Remdesivir.
If it's even 90% sureity that an intervention might work why wait for it.
And last Dec Dr Pierre Corry appeared in US senate to show that IVM is very effective as a prophylactic too like Vaccines. There is still no large RCT yet and some small RCTs are sponsored by big pharma companies .
Ivermectin HAS been approved to be taken in the body. Maybe not for COVID. But can enter the human body! $.06 a tablet!
PLENTY OF PROOF IT WORKS!
Over the Counter in Canada!
Available by prescription in NYC.
Vinay, I enjoy your videos immensely. I understand your reluctance to Ivermectin due to a lack of comprehensive studies. I get it. Now, let’s do COVID vaccines. Ready, go....
Don't hold your breath lol
But muliopivr (sp) tested 300 some people. Half placebo, half med. trial was stopped cause it was SO successful. What’s up with that?
If it looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck …
And not large enough to get to statistical significance anyway
I don't think in this pandemic, there was enough time to do a randomised controlled trail on anything. Yet the $$ vaccines got emergency approval.
The cheap treatment needs tick all the boxes. Are you kidding me.
Ivm has very little side effect. So using it is worth a shot. Not using it just because some higher body says its not a confirmed treatment is just crazy.
the reason I no longer subscribe to the views and news of MSM... they are dang full of partisanship affecting even science... dang them!
Been waiting for this ☺️
We all need to remember negative comments and dislikes still propel videos to be seen and help videos earn add revenue just as much as likes and positive comments.
It disgusted me that Gupta went back on what he said once back on the air with CNN🤦🏻♀️ made him look like he was much for lining his pockets and keeping his job than actually standing up for medical science
So much for following the science
My very first thought was that when he went back to work, they told him he would double down with them, or face termination.
IMDB says Sanjay Gupta is just an actor, doesn't mention that he is a doctor...at all...I mean HE WAS the "doc" they used in Contagion.
How long is it going to take to do these trials on ivermectin? In the meantime I will do what Utter Pradesh and Goa are doing? Look at the numbers.
They won't do trials on IVM because it is effective, inexpensive and widely available. Also the FDA would not have authorized EUA's if therapeutics were available.
oxford is doing one study on ivm but it's already designed to fail. other ivm studies so far shows efficacy for early stage. oxford is doing 2 weeks after symptom onset. that's not early nor prophylactic at all
@@nomnomyam9379 Unfortunatly anything can and will be manipulated when politics and money are involved. It takes work to find truth if one is genuinely objective. The FLCCC was the best source of info for me.
How does your "standards" somehow conform with the thin body of these vaccine trials ? Little weird but i have a guess.
What a breath of fresh air. Like him or not, it's not a moving goal post of standards to fit a tribal goal. And the lack of demonization of the other side is refreshing as well.
One good thing that comes out of any crisis it is that, once the dust settles, you clearly see the honest, the liars and the in-betweens; crisis sharpens any previously blurred boundaries between them.
Thank you Dr.Vinay for sticking to honesty.
Great video, enjoyed the objective medical perspective 👏
Isn’t ivermectin a very safe drug? If so and doctors that are treating patients are saying it works, why not people make the decision to try it? People are dying needlessly. I would love for u to debate or respond to dr. Pierre kory about this.
VINAY!!! Love hearing your thoughtful perspective on this! Thank you for sharing man! I hope your popularity continues to grow because your voice of reason is needed in the mainstream of society for sure:)
Dr. Vinay Prasad, you are a unique authentic doctor who speaks from the heart! Intelligent, knowledgeable and truthful from your point of view. I love it! Thank goodness for people like you and Zubin Damania etc.....your reasonable, common sense, scientific approach gives me hope for the future.
Why are significant results in a RCT the only measure to prescribe? 1. One can design hundreds of RCT showing no difference between ANY treatment and a placebo and drug companies take advantage of that. 2. You should not only have to show a possible significant result BUT ALSO have to show a RISK BENEFIT analysis. Case in point Molnupiravir. Shure, effective in the population tested, but the risks are incredibly high not only for the patients and their progeny or future cancer outcomes but also for the development of new viral mutants.
You're on the money.
Prasad doesn't flesh out his argument about "ending medical reversal" (not giving him $ either when I'm not convinced he's being honest with us), but it does present a valid consideration.
That said, it doesn't hold up if you consider it. Waiting to make any decisions until there is only the most highest quality and perfect evidence showing what exactly will happen makes absolutely zero sense in the middle of an emergency, and really seems to be quite antithetical to how doctors often treat patients based on limited information.
If it is established a treatment will do no harm, worst case scenario it does nothing. Potentially, it saves lives. The only potential avenue to be doing harm is by not giving patients a life saving treatment because you're waiting for a year long RCT to be published.
Academics often shit on clinicians for being bad at running clinical triald and putting together studies but it seems to me that researchers are equally as bad at pragmatism and actually practicing medicine.
Best case scenario Prasad is just naive and overestimating the value of his methods in a practical setting. Although I'm beginning to think he understands this and is intentionally trying to deceive us.
There will be answers in 6 to 12 months! This craziness has been going on for 18 months now. Very early on respected clinicians were talking about IVM as an effective treatment-why were trials not instigated way before now(especially given the safety record of the drug)? It is very difficult to come up with a non-cynical answer!
He shouldn't have taken it....BUT ...he got BETTER....UNFORTUNATELY he couldn't wait for the randomized trials 😑
@@WinstonSmithGPT I was being sarcastic....sorry if it didn't come across as such...I just thought it was a silly thing to say that he shouldn't have taken something from a physician that has had so much success!😁
@@WinstonSmithGPT No worries we are most def saying the SAME thing!🙂
@@WinstonSmithGPT what a ridiculous thing to say.
I'm pretty sure it's well over 30 showing efficacy by now... 😜
Why is CNN poking his lying nose into Joe Rogan’s personal business?? They have no good intension. If Joe Rogans want to take Ivermectin that is his own choice none of anybody’s including CNN liar liar
Do you account somehow for the financial incentives embedded within the system whereby high-quality RCTs get funded?
Again, you're such a clear voice for scientific reasoning, Dr. Prasad. I hope the networks on all sides keep putting you front & center of the American people. And please don't be reticent about the global need for some of these substances that much of the world can't afford to purchase but certainly deserve as much as any Westerner. You're the man!
I recommend Dr. Campbell’s youtube video with Dr. Lawrie (watch hour long version) for a good discussion on the review process & methodology using Cochrane & other accepted guidelines, use of forest plots, determining confidence intervals, etc., which Dr. Lawrie employed for her meta-analysis of ivermectin. Dr. Lawrie also conceived and created, with many other scientists the UK based BIRD group advocating the efficacy of the drug.
I still don't understand your reservations using ivermectine that has been on the market for years and not the Covid vaccine! A thoughtful and honest talk as always. Thank you Dr. Prasad
Appreciate your objectivity and level headedness in all of your videos. Makes you a very trustworthy figure on COVID in my eyes, and one of my go-to sources.
The signals of ivms efficacy emerged a year and a half ago. So why are we only now seeing a randomized controlled trial? Our gvt should have pursued all possible beneficial treatments and performed science to sift out the best treatments. The fact that these trials have only commenced now is profoundly suspect. It is a life ending dereliction of duty, literally.
Because they could not legally do an EUA on the experimental vaccines if there was an effective therapeutic for Covid. Follow the money.
@@alandockrill4924 that is true, eua is only allowed in the absence of another effective treatment
In your argument against rushing into use of ivermectin, you say you are reluctant to try a novel medication, but ivermectin is not novel, only the application is novel.
Also, it was necessary to eliminate alternatives to the vaccine in order to enable an EUA for the vaccines; EUA's cannot be granted if there exists an available alternative. Thanks for your thoughtful videos.
I love your mind Dr. Prasad!!!! Can’t wait to see you back with Dr. Z!!!!
Sir, you are a just man, with courage of convictions. In many ways these are unacceptable in our world, but you know this. Thanks for the efforts.
I will have to disagree on this point that we should wait for a randomized control trial before prescribing Iver.
We have a high risk demographic of those over 65. Waiting for the infection to take over to the point they need to be admitted to ICU only raises the risk level.
What is the risk then of using a known safe prophylactic like Iver in early stages of infection? If it keeps even 1% out of ICU is that not beneficial?
Risk vs Benefit remember?
Second, new gene based vaccines were approved for EUA within a 6 month period....WHY are we almost 20 months into this pandemic and still waiting for treatment approval on a drug that has been used safely on humans for at least 30 years????
I would refer you to Dr Peter McCullough a leading epidemiologist based in Texas on this matter.
If a patient asks for Ivermectin to treat covid, and you know that it is safe for them (even if it does not help), then just give it to them. The placebo effect is strong and very well documented.
The problems is IVM is extremely safe. Safer than aspirin so people should be allowed to take it. Period.
The non western world doesn't care - after over twenty RCTs showing efficacy places like India and Indonesia just get on with 'First, do no harm". Check the real world data.
Developing countries lead the way while first world countries sit on their thumb. Lol
I agree that we need evidence before trying novel therapies. What about the COVID-19 vaccine which does not have long term studies to determine long term effects
Why is it ok to say “I don’t think it will work” (with 0 evidence), but not ok to say “i think it might work” (with 70ish studies backing)?
Especially with no real safety concern.
If we find out it does work, how many people could have been saved?
If we find out it doesn’t work…what have we lost?
Why not err in the side of saving lives?
Wait what? You're the dude that published "ending medical reversal?!" Damn read that book six years ago, it blew my mind as pre-med...
You are so correct. I hope you never grow tired of repeating the fact that real medicine has a real method.
I just bought both of your books. I enjoy your footnotes.
Woah
I enjoy watching and LEARN from you Dr. In my opinion IT IS all about the $$$$. Always Always Always has been......through all of time! For some, human life is expendable.
Well spoken. As a clinician I will say that clinical trials don't always provide good clinical guidance in the way case studies do. This is particularly true due to individual variation. And as an herbalist clinical trials on herbs supplements are often very poorly designed. For one the herbs are often used not as a herbalist would use them (the studies are designed with no practitioner present) and sometimes they use the wrong plant, the wrong dose, the wrong part of the plant etc...A practitioner looking for a means to treat their patients should rely on their own experience and medical intuition along with the best available evidence. If no proper trials have been conducted, and the risk of the "medicine" is low than why not use it....And yes what works or doesn't work might vary greatly from persons to person. After all are we directly addressing the virus or the risk factors? An intervention that decrease systemic inflammation and supports immune function and improves blood sugar regulation is a clinically valid and functional approach. However the problem with partisanship and cherry picking is absolutely true and the horrendous hypocrisy has certainly caused a great deal of suffering!
We ignore clinical expertise at our peril. Humans are complex biological organisms. In an ICU you can change a variable and often times get rapid feedback in the form of a response positive or negative from the organism. Do this over and over and you develop a positive treatment protocol that includes many variables. This is how we learned what works and what doesn’t for most of our history. What about synergy? RCT’s are very useful when done correctly but it isn’t the only tool in the toolbox.
If you are my doctor and you left me to get seeker and even die because there is no randomized control trails, then I don’t want you as my doctor… I expect good doctors to use their brain, their experience and instincts, especially when there is no harm expected.
Hi Vinay new to your channel, I don't agree with all the content, but I totally love your search for truth through science. I too am super focused on data driven treatment algorithms, however, in the absence of these, when we pick up a signal in lower tier evidence, it means we use caution, but we do not exclude these protocols or products from the conversation and possible path to solve health care problems. My grandmother knew cure-alls for many ailments to treatment her grandchildren... and they worked....no RCTs to back her knowledge.
BEFORE MAN LOOKED UP AT THE STARS TO REALISE THEY EXISTED, THE STARS WERE LOOKING DOWN ON THEM FOR MILLENIA!
Thank you so much Dr. Prasad! Your integrity is so appreciated & needed! Have a great & blessed evening!
I started using the phrase “something I do with less evidence than Ivermectin is…” when I talk to my medical students and residents about medical practices I do that aren’t evidence based.
Vinay, I don't know if you'll see this. I was a vaccine hesitant, eventually got he J&J as a 34 year old male. I've got big question I had and still have that you could maybe help me out with. I may be wrong, which is where I'd like to be corrected, but, the Pfizer vaccine trial did not seem to show any change in all cause mortality from the vaccine vs placebo. 15 deaths in the vaccine group vs 14 in the placebo. Is that enough of a signal to determine that the vaccines didn't actually reduce all cause mortality? If not, what did the trials actually prove? That the vaccine reduces covid infections? Agreed. It did not seem to prove that it reduces mortality. Am I wrong about that?
You're not wrong and don't expect a direct reply from him as he never has from what I've seen.
You're on the money... look at all cause mortality and absolute risk reduction.
They often reference relative risk reduction, which is meaningless in many contexts. A 50 something percent relative risk reduction when your base risk was already 0.02 or lower, isn't meaningful, especially when there are greater risks you are exposing yourself to in the process.
Many of the studies showcased in the media "proved" an x% reduction in severity of symptoms.
Is that meaningful for people who were only experiencing a mild or moderate illness not requiring hospital admission?
How do you quantify a difference between a moderate and mild illness? How do you quantify a difference between a mild and milder than mild illness?
@@Theviewerdude You are spot on with the relative risk vs absolute risk point. No one ever talks about it that way.
If you're not obese or have other comorbidities you should be fine. Getting a booster likely won't do much. If you look at the majority of COVID-19 deaths, about 90% had some form of comorbidities. 78% of COVID-19 patients in the ICU are overweight or obese.
But, do you feel that the new medications approved for covid use were studied adequate? Do you feel like there is a double standard being applied?
I love listening to smart, informed scientists talk. Thank you for all you work for us:)
We have had RCT’s and MA’s for many months (some for a year now). Across the board showing benefit from IVM. Also Joe Rogan was saying the reason why IVM would be censored is because it was generic and couldn’t be sold at much of a profit. IVM and others alike would undercut these pharma companies ability to make a new product (Vaccines, Antivirals etc) and sell them at market. If IVM, Vit D work (hint they do) then they can be produced and sold very cheaply and that would bring the demand for the new products with no long term safety data too near zero. He is dead on with this point.
Please interview Dr Peter McCullough who is a cardiologist in Dallas, Texas, and discuss his protocols in helping his covid patients. I take his word over most all what I have heard. He is not a quack, but I feel Fauci is a quack.
We are in experimental trials with the jabs.
Maybe you should talk and interview some of the doctors from FLCCC. Best of luck to you o won’t be viewing your channel anymore
What's FLCCC?
@@NightOwl222 A coalition of frontline doctors promoting early treatment. If you Google them, you'll find protocols on what to use should you get sick and how much of it to use.
I think I'm with you on this one
Love your videos. I love to here your perspective. One tip, please drink water beforehand as to stop the licking of the lips… but other than that excellent! Thanks.
I am so thankful for your videos, sir. Thank you so much for being a calm and rational voice sharing your thoughts.
What about the meta analysis that’s out on Ivermectin? I will take when I get covid.
Worked great for me.
Currently the number of Ivermectin prescriptions dispensed per WEEK in the United States is estimated at 88,000, (According to the National Prescription Audit database {NPA Weekly}, as of 8/31/2021), a roughly 2000% increase since the beginning of the year. An increase in calls to poison control would naturally follow. So media and government reports of increases are meaningless. The WHO also has an adverse drug effects database (Vigibase) supporting the impeccable safety record of IVM.
The poison control argument really is laughable when you consider the already established safety data. You make a good point.
and many many more buying from outside the country at crazy prices as well as other versions that can be had over the counter.
Yeah poison control calls are up but most are dosage inquiries not actual poisoning events. Pro-PhRMA media played it for fear of IVM and not truth.
@@lemoynecastle6213 Yep, when there is a smear campaign this big, you know there is something worth covering up.
Interested to know your thoughts on the harm that could come from Ivermectin. Is it safe to try as part of the treatment plan? In other words what is the potential risk benefit analysis of use.
You are speak8ng my mind on the novel meds too!
There are many reasons it's opposed..a couple hundred billion rea$ons. What we need is a public way to push this through the approval process for the good of humanity
Looks like lemon and 8 of his friends didn't like what you had to say 😂
"Keep it neutral and agnostic." Such an insightful comment. Thanks Dr. Prasad!
Thank you so much for your clear headed thinking & telling us the truth. It is so needed. This is real leadership 🌹
Dr Prasad can you please present on the evidence to date on IVM and also the trials on the new drug by Pfizer for which they stopped the trials early. How can that be ok - just one study that was halted early bs many trials in IVM that seem to show positive benefits?
Would love to hear you break it down why you don’t think the results so far aren’t good enough.
Thank you kindly
Wait but youre in favour of the vaccine right despite the trials not being over? Can you talk us through this?
I have a hard time trusting any Doctor these days. Especially the ones that push for kids to be vaccinated.
Dr., I really admire your videos. And I would like to know, how many treatments ou medicaticons do you use were from randomized studies?
Thank you for your balanced commentaries. So uncommon in general, and extremely so in this pandemic.
You're so naive!
And still smart and adorable.
Vax warp speed. Antivirals turtle speed
His opening statement would infer he’s also skeptical about the current vaccinations...right?
Thanks for sharing your wisdom VP. You're a great communicator and scientist.