Stop Listening to Corrupt Institutions
Bret Weinstein, biology Ph.D., talked on Benjamin A Boyce podcast about the corruption of the institutions, that have proven to be not listened to any longer. They pushed for over a year the narrative that the Lab-Leak Hypothesis was a right-wing conspiracy and now turn their opinion 180 degrees in fewer than two weeks and try to retrospectively rewrite history. We need to start listening to the people that get the Signal vs. Noise ratio of predictions right and are not politically or financially motivated to push a specific agenda.
Why should we any longer believe them? They lied to us about all kinds of things. An unholy alliance of Big Tech, authoritarian Governments, and corrupt media outlets lied about the importance of Vitamin D, mask effectiveness outside, the disadvantages of obesity, the safety of the vaccines, and much more.
We have just watched the system of institutions grudgingly acknowledge that this virus may have been the result of a high-level program to prevent pandemics. It may be a self-inflicted wound. And that the institutions that dictate the boundaries of responsible discourse have been on the wrong side of the question for more than a year. Do you want that system now to tell you:Oh, the vaccines are safe, they are necessary to the solution of this pandemic. Ivermectin is dangerous, you must not take it.I don’t want an institution that couldn’t figure out that puzzle frankly to drive me home at the end of the evening. It’s not safe, it is a dangerously corrupted institution and it almost doesn’t matter, what force corrupted it. The fact is if we look at its track record, it’s drunk off its ass and it’s in no position to tell us how to think about these matters. It needs to get out of the way and it needs to allow people who do know how to think about these things to have a frank conversation. And yes, it has to happen in public in spite of the hazard of that.
Bret Weinstein, Bret Weinstein: Four Years Later, 46:25
In What Covid Reveals About our Leaders Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying talked in detail about Ivermectin, but he summarizes the bizarre story behind the drug again on another podast:
So, Ivermectin is a drug. It is a drug that has been in use widely for more than 40 years. The drug comes from – I believe soiled bacteria, was discovered by a Japanese scientist Satoshi Omura who shared his discovery with a chemist at Merck. And what they created with this discovery was a drug that fights several different parasitic infections, most prominently river blindness. This drug is been proven to be exceedingly safe. It’s on the list of “who essential medications”, approved for use in very small children and it appears to have extremely potent impact as a prophylaxis for COVID-19 and also as a treatment. It greatly reduces the likelihood of contracting COVID-19, and it greatly reduces symptoms in somebody who has contracted it. Now, you will get pushback on that point, but if you look at the data, there is quite a lot of it, there are several meta-analyses that have looked at all of the various studies that have looked into the question and the signal is quite strong in these meta-analyses and that information that points in this direction is growing, I would say weekly.
The place where the story gets very strange is that if you imagine that there is … oh, the key to the story may well be this drug is no longer under patent, it’s so old that anybody can make it. Right? So, there’s not a lot of money to be made, it’s very cheap. So, the amount it costs per dose, there’s a range of estimates, but it’s somewhere from the single digits in dollars up to I’ve seen 30 bucks. The competitor drug Remdesivir is something like three thousand dollars a dose or a treatment.
In any case you’ve got a cheap drug, well understood to be very safe, it’s a drug that’s so safe that people in many parts of the world take it weekly and have for decades. It is approved for children, it prevents COVID at a high level, if we understand the evidence, if the evidence is accurate and it certainly seems to be compelling, it prevents COVID and it doesn’t carry the risks of interfacing with the immune system in the way that a vaccine does. Right? This is not functioning by changing the programming of your immune system in a way that could have unforeseen consequences, it’s interfacing with the immune system in a generic way.
So. The question is why given that there has been evidence for its efficacy and that the drug is widely available, inexpensive, and has been established to be safe. Why are we not using it? Why is it at least not on the recommended list of treatments? And that is where things become bizarre. The manufacturer of the drug has in fact declared that it is not safe for use in COVID which is bizarre, because frankly, they have given away millions of doses of the drug for the treatment of parasitic infections, so they obviously believe in its safety in one context and they’ve never explained why they don't believe in its safety in this context.
So, the funny thing is that you will find in for example the community guidelines for YouTube that you are forbidden to discuss the efficacy of Ivermectin. […] But there is something funny going on where despite the fact that there is an apparently safe and effective treatment for COVID that also works as prophylaxis, there is institutional reluctance to admit that it works. […]
So, why is it being downplayed, why does the […] FDA or the CDC have a specific warning about not using it for COVID? A warning that suggests it’s dangerous until you get down to the exact language which seems to imply taking too much of it would be dangerous which would seem to be a tautology.
But in any case this seems to be a mystery and the one suggestive piece of evidence is that the emergency use authorizations for vaccines require that there is no safe and effective treatment available for the disease in question, therefore if Ivermectin were understood to be safe and effective, the vaccines would not have been granted emergency use authorization and if Ivermectin were understood now to be safe and effective that authorization would apparently have to be removed.
Is that the explanation for why the world seems to be ignoring a perfectly useful and safe treatment? I don’t know. But it is a discussion we’re going to have to have.
Bret Weinstein, Bret Weinstein: Four Years Later, 49:32