22-Jun-21
This Joe Rogan podcast features a conversation with Dr. Pierre Kory, an ICU and lung specialist, and Bret Weinstein, an evolutionary biologist. The primary focus of the discussion revolves around the controversial drug Ivermectin and its potential efficacy in treating and preventing COVID-19. Both guests are outspoken proponents of Ivermectin’s use, highlighting its safety, affordability, and the overwhelming body of evidence supporting its effectiveness. However, they face fierce resistance from the establishment, including health agencies like the CDC and WHO, and tech giants like YouTube, which have actively censored their discussions and suppressed scientific data.
The podcast also touches on a range of other topics, including the origins of COVID-19, the potential lab leak theory, the effectiveness of vaccines, the dangers of long COVID, and the influence of pharmaceutical companies on public health policy. The guests critique what they perceive as a biased and often illogical approach to pandemic management, where profit-driven interests appear to overshadow scientific evidence and public well-being.
Underlying themes throughout the podcast include the importance of scientific skepticism and independent research, the need for open and transparent dialogue, the potential dangers of censorship and information control, and the urgent need to address the global pandemic effectively and ethically.
Major Topics and 4-Point Summary:
- Ivermectin and COVID-19:
- Dr. Kory argues that Ivermectin is a safe and effective treatment for COVID-19, citing a large body of evidence including numerous clinical trials and real-world data.
- He highlights the drug’s affordability and widespread availability, making it a potential solution for both treatment and prophylaxis.
- The guests express frustration with the resistance from health agencies and the pharmaceutical industry, suggesting that profit motives may be hindering the adoption of Ivermectin.
- They argue that the obsession with large randomized controlled trials is an inappropriate standard for a pandemic and a tool for disinformation.
- Censorship and Information Control:
- Both guests have experienced censorship on YouTube and other platforms for discussing Ivermectin and related topics.
- They argue that this censorship is harmful to scientific progress and public health, as it prevents open dialogue and the dissemination of vital information.
- They point to the suppression of the lab leak theory as a previous example of harmful censorship, where authorities dismissed evidence and silenced critics.
- The guests express concern about the potential for capture of both regulatory agencies and media outlets by powerful interests.
- The Lab Leak Theory:
- The podcast revisits the lab leak theory as a potential origin of COVID-19, emphasizing that this theory is no longer considered fringe and has gained traction within the scientific community.
- The guests discuss the timing of the virus’ emergence in Wuhan, the location of the Wuhan Institute of Virology, and the illness of researchers at the institute in late 2019.
- They point out the silencing of scientists and researchers who raised concerns about the lab leak theory early in the pandemic.
- They suggest that the initial dismissal of the lab leak theory was motivated by political and financial interests, and not scientific evidence.
- The Effectiveness of Vaccines:
- The podcast discusses the role of vaccines in controlling the pandemic, acknowledging their benefits while also raising concerns about their safety and efficacy.
- The guests discuss the rushed development of the vaccines under emergency use authorizations and the lack of long-term safety data.
- They express concerns about the potential dangers of the spike protein, which is used in the mRNA vaccines, and its potential for causing long COVID and other adverse effects.
- They argue that Ivermectin could be a valuable tool for both preventing and treating breakthrough cases in vaccinated individuals.
- The Importance of Open Dialogue:
- The podcast champions the importance of open dialogue and scientific debate, arguing that censorship stifles progress and prevents society from learning from its mistakes.
- They highlight the benefits of having diverse perspectives and challenging established narratives in the pursuit of truth.
- They emphasize the need for credible sources of information and the dangers of relying solely on government agencies and mainstream media.
- They encourage listeners to critically evaluate the evidence and engage in their own research.
- The Role of Pharmaceutical Companies:
- The podcast critiques the influence of pharmaceutical companies on public health policy, suggesting that their profit motives may not always align with the best interests of public health.
- They point to the prioritization of expensive, patented drugs over cheap, repurposed drugs like Ivermectin as evidence of this influence.
- They discuss the potential for conflicts of interest within health agencies and the need for greater transparency and accountability.
- They suggest that the push for widespread vaccination may be driven by financial interests rather than pure scientific evidence.
- Long COVID and its Treatment:
- The podcast discusses the challenges of long COVID and the limited understanding of its causes.
- They highlight the potential effectiveness of Ivermectin in treating long COVID, based on anecdotal evidence and emerging research.
- They discuss the persistent inflammatory processes that may be involved in long COVID and the potential for Ivermectin to modulate inflammation.
- They emphasize the need for further research and clinical trials to establish definitive evidence for Ivermectin’s use in long COVID.
- The Need for Ethical Treatment of COVID-19 Patients:
- The podcast advocates for an ethical approach to treating COVID-19 patients, emphasizing the need to prioritize patient well-being and provide access to safe and effective treatments.
- They criticize the current practice of withholding potentially beneficial treatments like Ivermectin due to arbitrary and unscientific standards.
- They highlight the potential for significant harm to patients who are denied access to effective therapies.
- They advocate for the application of the precautionary principle, which states that it is better to err on the side of caution when potential benefits outweigh potential risks.
- The Successes of Ivermectin in Real-World Settings:
- The podcast highlights several real-world examples of Ivermectin’s success in controlling COVID-19 outbreaks, citing data from Mexico, India, and other countries.
- They describe the implementation of nationwide Ivermectin treatment programs and the subsequent dramatic declines in hospitalization and death rates.
- They argue that this real-world data provides compelling evidence for Ivermectin’s efficacy and its potential to drive the virus to extinction.
- They express frustration with the lack of media coverage and attention given to these successes.
- The Future of Ivermectin and the Fight for Open Science:
- The guests express optimism about the potential of Ivermectin to combat future pandemics and viral outbreaks.
- They highlight the drug’s versatility as both an antiviral and an anti-inflammatory agent, suggesting it may play a role in treating a range of diseases.
- They are committed to continuing their research and advocacy, fighting for open science and the right to access safe and effective treatments.
- They believe that the fight for Ivermectin is not just about a single drug, but about a larger battle for scientific integrity, transparency, and the well-being of humanity.
Memorable Quotes:
- “We are probably the foremost experts on the use of Ivermectin in COVID in the world.” – Dr. Pierre Kory
- “We were beginning to detect that there was something about the fact that time spent in a room in which somebody had had COVID was creating these super spreader events, which was suggesting that this wasn’t a highly proximity dependent… there was a clock ticking and the room filled up with the stuff.” – Bret Weinstein
- “The science around Ivermectin is up against 1 of the largest and most powerful disinformation campaigns I think almost ever.” – Bret Weinstein
- “I mean, even if those agencies were perfectly immune to capture. We have to be able to figure out where they’ve got it wrong so that they can get smarter.” – Joe Rogan
- “This is not adding up. The MattAI B article, which is… so III you know, I got interviewed for it, and I thought it was a fair fair representation. You know, he balanced both sides, but I liked his phrase. He called me some sort of ghost of the Internet because wherever I go, things get things disappear.” – Dr. Pierre Kory