Become a Creator today!Start creating today - Share your story with the world!
Start for free
00:00:00
00:00:01
Ivermectin For COVID - 19
6 Plays4 years ago
In this episode of Critical Matters, we will discuss Ivermectin as a potential treatment for COVID-19. During the COVID-19 Delta surge, we have seen a sharp increase in the noise surrounding the use of Ivermectin. A record number of prescriptions have been filled during the last months and numerous news stories report families suing hospitals refusing to provide Ivermectin to patients. We will discuss the available evidence and the role of misinformation in this phenomenon.
Additional Resources:
The FDA approved drug Ivermectin inhibits replications of SARS-CoV2 in vitro: https://bit.ly/3ayUhvE
Ivermectin to prevent hospitalizations in patients with COVID-19 (IVER-COVID 19): https://bit.ly/3DCOwJZ
Effect of Ivermectin on Time to Resolution of Symptoms among Adults with Mild COVID-19: https://bit.ly/3v8QaQw
Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of COVID-19 Infection: A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis to Inform Clinical Guidelines: https://bit.ly/3lB7rPh
Ivermectin for the Treatment of Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis: https://bit.ly/3mU9s8w
Ivermectin for preventing and treating COVID-19: Review: https://bit.ly/30dDzQD
Books Mentioned in this Episode:
Think Again: The Power of Knowing What You Don’t Know by Adam Grant: https://amzn.to/3j1CrGy
Recommended
Transcript
Introduction to Critical Matters Podcast
00:00:06
Speaker
Welcome to Critical Matters, a sound podcast covering a broad range of topics related to the practice of intensive care medicine.
00:00:14
Speaker
Sound provides comprehensive critical care programs to hospitals across the country.
00:00:19
Speaker
To learn more about our programs and career opportunities, visit www.soundphysicians.com.
00:00:26
Speaker
And now your host, Dr. Sergio Zanotti.
Ivermectin for COVID-19: A Controversial Topic
00:00:32
Speaker
In today's episode of Critical Matters,
00:00:35
Speaker
We will try to answer the question, should we use ivermectin for COVID-19?
00:00:41
Speaker
This is a very relevant topic to what has happened in our country for the last several months with the Delta wave.
00:00:48
Speaker
It's also a controversial topic.
00:00:51
Speaker
And considering that, I have decided to do something a little bit different for this episode.
00:00:56
Speaker
Instead of having our traditional expert guests with whom I discussed the topic,
00:01:01
Speaker
I will just share with you my thoughts and my reviews on the topic.
00:01:08
Speaker
We have talked about ivermectin for COVID-19 as one of the potential therapies since last year.
00:01:15
Speaker
However, with this delta wave, especially here in the United States, there's been a significant increase in the volume or the noise around ivermectin.
00:01:27
Speaker
And we have seen a tremendous rise in the number of weekly prescriptions for ivermectin in the U.S. But also we have seen, and a lot of us have felt this, at the bedside, an increasing number of news stories reporting families suing hospitals because physicians are not prescribing ivermectin to their loved ones with COVID.
00:01:52
Speaker
This is something that we've seen in many ICUs where families
00:01:57
Speaker
of unvaccinated patients have become very belligerent, stating that we should be giving their loved ones ivermectin.
Legal and Ethical Challenges in Prescribing Ivermectin
00:02:05
Speaker
And there have been multiple news outlet reports of lawsuits being filed in Chicago or in Ohio, in Texas.
00:02:16
Speaker
The truth is that there's a lot of reports of these lawsuits being filed, but not one single doctor that I could find
00:02:25
Speaker
who did not believe that they should prescribe ivermectin has been forced by a court to prescribe ivermectin to a patient.
00:02:33
Speaker
So ultimately, I believe that the courts have upheld our rights to practice medicine.
00:02:41
Speaker
And if we don't believe that this is a drug that should be utilized, like any other drug, families can't be forcing us to prescribe it without evidence.
00:02:52
Speaker
So we'll talk about ivermectin in more details.
00:02:55
Speaker
But I think that probably where we should first go is try to understand what is the available evidence in favor or against ivermectin, and when does this discussion really start from a scientific standpoint?
Scientific Studies on Ivermectin's Effectiveness
00:03:08
Speaker
There is one study that came out early last year, published in Antiviral Research by Leon Kalli and collaborators out of Australia, that was titled, The FDA-approved drug ivermectin inhibits the replication of SARS-CoV-2 in vitro.
00:03:24
Speaker
This is a laboratory study that basically demonstrated that very high doses of ivermectin placed in a Petri dish could inhibit the viral replication of SARS-CoV-2.
00:03:38
Speaker
And this was really the first scientific laboratory study that suggested plausibility to some that perhaps there is a mechanism or perhaps there is value in exploring ivermectin for COVID-19.
00:03:56
Speaker
What's also important to mention about this particular study, and I'll put the references and the links in the show notes, is that the doses that are utilized in these laboratory exams in Petri dishes are doses that far exceed the doses that we're able to achieve in humans with clinical dosing.
00:04:15
Speaker
So that is one problem.
00:04:17
Speaker
The other issue that I think is important to emphasize
00:04:21
Speaker
is that similar studies with ivermectin have been done for other viruses, including Cica, dengue, HIV, and none of these have ever resulted in a positive clinical trial.
00:04:34
Speaker
As a matter of fact, the only one that was pursued further after a laboratory experiment was in dengue because that is a very common disease in many parts of the world that does not have effective treatments or vaccines, and it was a negative study.
00:04:49
Speaker
The fact that in a laboratory controlled experiment, a very high concentration of any agent can inhibit replication of a virus does not necessarily translate in real life to an effective clinical therapy.
00:05:04
Speaker
But this is the study that a lot of people have quoted.
00:05:08
Speaker
It's the first study published and peer reviewed that suggested perhaps there's a mechanism.
00:05:13
Speaker
And I do believe that at the beginning of the pandemic,
00:05:17
Speaker
We didn't know anything about this emergent virus and disease.
00:05:21
Speaker
And people were desperate trying to figure out what they could utilize to treat COVID-19.
00:05:28
Speaker
And this and many other studies, I think, push people to evaluate or consider potential new treatments.
00:05:37
Speaker
Now, the same type of rationale was utilized for hydroxychloroquine that obviously in clinical trials was demonstrated not only to not work,
00:05:46
Speaker
but to potentially be dangerous.
00:05:48
Speaker
Now, when we look a little bit further in terms of, okay, what's the next level of evidence?
00:05:53
Speaker
And obviously at this point, with over 250 million patients worldwide with COVID, and we have seen an enormous amount of clinical trials being published with large number of patients, both pragmatic trials, adaptive platforms, and other high level randomized trials, considering the difficulties of doing these trials,
00:06:16
Speaker
within a worldwide pandemic, I would start by looking at PubMed, what's published, and looking at specifically at randomized controlled trials.
00:06:26
Speaker
I mean, ultimately, there is no reason why we shouldn't be doing randomized controlled trials with the number of COVID patients that we've seen over the last two years.
00:06:35
Speaker
So if you go to PubMed and you type in ivermectin plus COVID-19 and you filter by randomized controlled trials, what you get is 14 hits.
00:06:46
Speaker
and most of these in 2021.
00:06:49
Speaker
I looked at each one of these studies.
00:06:52
Speaker
Some of them are reporting protocols, some of them are very small, but ultimately, two stand out in terms of their size and their quality.
00:07:01
Speaker
And these are really what are available, peer-reviewed, published RCTs, indexed in PubMed, and they are the IvorCor COVID-19 study.
00:07:12
Speaker
ivermectin to prevent hospitalizations in patients with COVID-19, a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial, and they basically evaluated over 22,000 patients who assessed for eligibility.
00:07:27
Speaker
They randomized ultimately 501 patients.
00:07:29
Speaker
250 patients were assigned to ivermectin.
00:07:31
Speaker
251 patients were assigned to placebo.
00:07:37
Speaker
and all these patients were included in the intention to treat analysis.
00:07:42
Speaker
And what they found is that at the end, the hospitalization-free survival was really no different between placebo and ivermectin with a p-value of 0.22.
00:07:53
Speaker
So it was reported as a negative study.
00:07:57
Speaker
So this was trying to prevent hospitalizations.
00:08:00
Speaker
Primary outcome was the number of hospitalized patients.
00:08:04
Speaker
We can see that the number was low
00:08:07
Speaker
in both groups, 14 for the ivermectin and 21 for the placebo.
00:08:11
Speaker
The odds ratio went from 0.32 to 131, so obviously had a p-value that was non-significant.
00:08:18
Speaker
They also looked at other secondary outcomes that included time to hospitalization days in those who were hospitalized, looking at the medium, the need for invasive mechanical ventilation, time to invasive mechanical ventilation support in those who needed it,
00:08:36
Speaker
negative nasal swab days at day three, the number, the number of negative nasal swabs at day 12, the need for dialysis, all-cause mortality, and then any safety events.
00:08:49
Speaker
And once again, when you look at the secondary outcomes, not one of these really met any significance, and really the odds ratio were not there, and ultimately,
00:09:04
Speaker
This was reported as a negative trial, suggesting that the use of ivermectin in patients who are positive for COVID-19 but not hospitalized does not really improve outcomes in preventing hospitalizations or preventing the need for mechanical ventilation or mortality.
Meta-Analyses and Trial Outcomes on Ivermectin
00:09:21
Speaker
The second trial that I found that was also remarkable in terms of its size and quality was published in JAMA.
00:09:32
Speaker
It's the effect of ivermectin on time to resolution of symptoms among adults with mild COVID-19, a randomized clinical trial.
00:09:40
Speaker
This was a trial that tried to address the question of what is the effect of ivermectin on duration of symptoms in adults with mild COVID-19.
00:09:48
Speaker
Again, these are patients who are not hospitalized.
00:09:51
Speaker
And then this randomized clinical trial that included 476 patients,
00:09:56
Speaker
The duration of symptoms was not significantly different for patients who received a five-day course of ivermectin compared with placebo.
00:10:04
Speaker
The medium time to resolution of symptoms was 10 versus 12, and the hazard ratio for resolution symptoms was 1.07.
00:10:12
Speaker
They concluded that these findings did not support the use of ivermectin for treatments of mild COVID-19, but also, I mean, also shared that perhaps larger trials may be needed
00:10:25
Speaker
to understand the full effects and other clinically relevant outcomes and trying to figure out what is really the role, if any, for ivermectin.
00:10:34
Speaker
But I share these two studies because these are the ones that are peer reviewed, that are published, that are available on PubMed, that are considerable size, good quality, and really, they really didn't show any advantage or any effects for ivermectin.
00:10:50
Speaker
This particular study I just mentioned
00:10:52
Speaker
The primary outcome was resolution of symptoms.
00:10:55
Speaker
That was not significant.
00:10:56
Speaker
They looked at other outcomes, such as deterioration by more than two points in an ordinal eight-point scale.
00:11:04
Speaker
They looked at the difference between fever since randomization, escalation of care since randomization.
00:11:10
Speaker
They looked at deaths.
00:11:12
Speaker
They looked at post hoc outcomes that included
00:11:16
Speaker
escalation of care occurring more than 12 hours since randomization, and emergency department visits or telemedicine consultations.
00:11:23
Speaker
And once again, really there was no significant difference in terms of those patients who were treated with ivermectin or placebo.
00:11:31
Speaker
Now, another high level of evidence that we usually recur to is obviously when we're trying to figure out a new therapy is the use of meta-analysis.
00:11:42
Speaker
And with meta-analysis,
00:11:43
Speaker
There is a particular meta-analysis that I'll share first that was published in American Therapeutics.
00:11:49
Speaker
This was by Bryant and collaborators, Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of COVID-19 Infection, a Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis to Inform Clinical Guidelines.
00:12:01
Speaker
This included multiple studies, most of them not published, most of them available either by pre-publication MedArvix or something of that sort,
00:12:14
Speaker
They looked at mild to moderate COVID-19, severe COVID-19, and mild to moderate and severe COVID-19 altogether.
00:12:22
Speaker
When they looked at the, they included a large number of studies.
00:12:28
Speaker
Most of these studies though had low volumes, but the total that they looked for in the analysis at the end was around 2000 plus patients included in all these studies.
00:12:40
Speaker
And they also did a,
00:12:43
Speaker
quality of evidence grade for the findings they did.
00:12:46
Speaker
And in terms of the outcome of death from any cause, they found that 48 fewer deaths per 1,000 in the ivermectin group.
00:12:56
Speaker
They gave that a relative effect of 0.38 for 2,400 participants in 15 trials, and they gave that a quality of evidence grade moderate.
00:13:08
Speaker
For the other outcomes that included recovery time to negative PCR tests in days,
00:13:13
Speaker
time to clinical recovery in days, time to clinical recovery in days, mild to moderate, time to clinical recovery for those severe inpatients, admissions to the ICU.
00:13:23
Speaker
They gave all of those positive findings, smaller number of patients, but they also gave the quality of the evidence grade as very low.
00:13:33
Speaker
So again, this was presented as a positive clinical trial.
00:13:39
Speaker
It was really a
00:13:42
Speaker
shared and socialized extensively by promoters of ivermectin.
00:13:49
Speaker
One of the complaints that some academics had about this particular meta-analysis was that they included a lot of trials that had very low quality, including a couple of large trials that were ultimately retracted for presumed fabricated data.
00:14:06
Speaker
So the authors have since then stated that they rerun
00:14:10
Speaker
all the stats and that it still holds.
00:14:13
Speaker
I have not seen or have not been able to find a new version of this study in the website, but this is a study that a lot of people have quoted and we also will include in the show notes.
00:14:25
Speaker
The conclusion though of the authors is a little bit more nimble and humble than the way this study has been quoted by many proponents.
00:14:38
Speaker
So they have
00:14:39
Speaker
Many have quoted this as incontrovertible evidence that ivermectin saves lives in COVID-19.
00:14:47
Speaker
Their conclusion verbatim, quote-unquote, was moderate certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin.
00:14:57
Speaker
Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease.
00:15:03
Speaker
The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact
00:15:08
Speaker
on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally.
00:15:11
Speaker
So this again is one clinical trial, I'm sorry, one meta-analysis that I think a lot of people have talked about.
00:15:18
Speaker
One that came in sequentially after this one was published in Clinical Infectious Disease, Ivermectin for the Treatment of Coronavirus Disease 2019, a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
00:15:32
Speaker
They included less trials
00:15:34
Speaker
because they were much more selective in terms of the quality of the trials, trying to find trials that could really be studied together.
00:15:43
Speaker
So they were more rigorous in their selection of the available trials.
00:15:47
Speaker
They included a total of a little bit under a thousand patients total.
00:15:55
Speaker
And when they looked at the results of this,
00:15:58
Speaker
they found that the summary of findings on the effect of ivermectin compared with standard of care in placebo or placebo in patients with coronavirus disease, for all-cause mortality, they found that the risk reduction really crossed the line of non-significance with the confidence interval was 0.2 to 1.3, and the certainty of evidence was very low.
00:16:18
Speaker
So that's quite a different finding than the previous meta-analysis.
00:16:23
Speaker
In terms of length of stay, again, they found that certainty of evidence was very low and there was no significant effect.
00:16:31
Speaker
In terms of adverse events and serious events, same thing.
00:16:35
Speaker
The odds ratio was very wide in terms of the confidence interval and low and very low level of evidence.
00:16:43
Speaker
And for viral clearance, the same story.
00:16:46
Speaker
So they really concluded that their meta-analysis was negative and did not support
00:16:53
Speaker
the use of ivermectin in COVID-19.
00:16:57
Speaker
Now, looking at the same trials, how do people find different results?
00:17:03
Speaker
I think that if you look in more detail at the methodology, you will find that the second study, the one that was published in clinical infectious disease, was more rigorous in terms of the studies that they included.
00:17:17
Speaker
And this is always a challenge with meta-analysis.
00:17:21
Speaker
Obviously, it depends also on
00:17:22
Speaker
How do you compare trials?
00:17:24
Speaker
What are the trials that I include?
00:17:25
Speaker
And what a lot of people have argued is, do you really have patient-level data, or are you just looking at summary aggregates?
00:17:34
Speaker
Cochrane Library, as many of you know, is a database of systemic reviews.
00:17:39
Speaker
They are considered, I think, pioneers and leaders in high-quality systematic reviews and meta-analysis.
00:17:46
Speaker
They also have an ongoing meta-analysis
00:17:52
Speaker
for ivermectin for preventing and treating COVID-19.
00:17:57
Speaker
As of now, the main results that they have found is that among 14 studies with almost 1,700 participants investigating ivermectin compared to no treatment, placebo, or standard of care, they have not been able to find really a positive effect.
00:18:16
Speaker
They do mention that none of these studies compared ivermectin to an intervention with proven efficacy.
00:18:22
Speaker
There were nine studies treating participants with moderate COVID-19 in inpatient settings and four treating mild COVID-19 cases in outpatient settings.
00:18:30
Speaker
One study investigating ivermectin for prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection.
00:18:35
Speaker
Eight studies had an open label design.
00:18:37
Speaker
Six were double-blind and placebo-controlled.
00:18:40
Speaker
Of the 41 study results contributed by included studies, about one-third were at overall high risk of bias, which is usually low or very low certainty of evidence.
00:18:49
Speaker
Ivermectin doses and treatment durations varied among
00:18:52
Speaker
included studies, and they identified 31 ongoing and 18 studies awaiting classification into publication of results or clarification of inconsistencies.
00:19:03
Speaker
So based on the available evidence, the Cochrane Library authors concluded that based on the current very low to low certainty evidence, we are uncertain about the efficacy and safety of ivermectin used to treat or prevent COVID-19.
00:19:18
Speaker
The completed studies are small and few are considered high quality.
00:19:22
Speaker
Several studies are underway that may produce clear answers and review updates.
00:19:27
Speaker
Overall, the reliable evidence available does not support the use of ivermectin for treatment or prevention of COVID-19 outside of well-designed randomized trials.
00:19:36
Speaker
So when you look at the aggregate of the available meta-analysis and you really take the time to look at the available studies, I think the solid conclusion is that we do not have evidence to support the use of ivermectin, which
00:19:51
Speaker
Also, I think it's fair to say that we don't have any evidence to say that it does not work.
00:19:57
Speaker
But the available evidence so far does not indicate that we should expect it to be positive and that what we really need is high quality studies, which like I said before, in the midst of a pandemic with 250 million patients, this is the time to get those answers once and for all and really move science forward as we've done with dexamethasone, as we've done with anticoagulation,
00:20:21
Speaker
as we've done with convulsant plasma.
00:20:25
Speaker
And we have really been able to show with large studies and meta-analysis whether these interventions work or don't work for COVID-19.
00:20:36
Speaker
A lot of scientists have written about the problem with a lot of these meta-analyses that are going to be relying on summary data of unpublished trials.
00:20:50
Speaker
Also, what they argue is that what you put into a meta-analysis is going to determine the output, but that we have to be very careful in terms of just conglomerating a whole bunch of small, low-quality trials and expecting something reliable to come out of that.
00:21:07
Speaker
What can we say about the numerous trials that are being cited over and over again or talked about by proponents of ivermectin?
00:21:14
Speaker
And the reality is that the vast majority of these trials have not been published.
00:21:19
Speaker
They are usually presented as pre-peer review, pre-print, early access in the MedRx or MedRvix, I mean, websites of that nature.
00:21:32
Speaker
Many of these studies actually that were touted initially as positive and quoted have been investigated and have been found to either be severely flawed or have been found to be basically fake.
00:21:47
Speaker
and they have been retracted in some instances.
00:21:49
Speaker
There is a group of scientists that includes Gideon Meyerowitz, Dr. James Heathers, Dr. Nick Brown, and Dr. Kyle Shedrick, among others from Australia, the UK, who have been investigating, I mean, a lot of the studies that have been proposed in COVID-19 with the intention really of getting to the validity and the integrity of these studies.
00:22:17
Speaker
And in one particular review that they shared, they looked at 26 major trials that included randomized trials and large observational trials regarding ivermectin.
00:22:28
Speaker
What they found is that a third of these trials for the drug use for use on COVID-19 have serious errors or signs of potential fraud.
00:22:42
Speaker
None of the rest show convincing evidence of ivermectin's effectiveness.
00:22:46
Speaker
And the major problems that they have come upon, which just really requires looking at the data in more detail, asking the authors to share their original data when possible, which a lot of times does not happen because obviously authors do not respond, and that obviously raises concerns immediately.
00:23:04
Speaker
But the major problems in these unpublished trials included the same patient data being used multiple times for supposedly different people, fabrication and fake data.
00:23:14
Speaker
Evidence that a selection of patients for test groups was not random obviously introduces tremendous amount of bias.
00:23:21
Speaker
And in a situation where you have millions of patients with COVID-19 around the world, that should not be a problem.
00:23:27
Speaker
We should be able to do randomized trials.
00:23:29
Speaker
Numbers unlikely to occur naturally.
00:23:31
Speaker
These are things that you can look statistically.
00:23:34
Speaker
Percentages calculated incorrectly.
00:23:36
Speaker
When the math doesn't add up, it makes you wonder.
00:23:39
Speaker
And then a lot of these trials occur with local health bodies unaware of the studies without proper
00:23:46
Speaker
clearance from authorities in terms of whatever it might be of regulatory ethical authorities, which again raises questions on the validity and quality studies.
00:23:57
Speaker
So that's a problem.
00:24:02
Speaker
It's a problem that we have to deal with when we look at what's been published and peer reviewed.
00:24:08
Speaker
It's very scant.
00:24:09
Speaker
It's not very supportive.
00:24:11
Speaker
We look at the
00:24:13
Speaker
at the variation among the different meta-analysis.
00:24:16
Speaker
The higher quality meta-analysis of higher rigor are negative so far, and I think it reflects the available studies.
00:24:23
Speaker
There is one study that has been announced, the TOGETHER trial, which is a large adaptive platform out of the UK that has looked at repurposing different drugs.
00:24:37
Speaker
They have studied ivermectin with a dosing schedule of three to six
00:24:43
Speaker
six milligram tablets, weight dependent every 24 hours for three days.
00:24:46
Speaker
And they have announced that they have stopped that trial for futility in their interim analysis, that there's a manuscript in development.
00:24:52
Speaker
So the largest study so far, the TOGETHER trial is not published yet, but again, has been reported as a negative study.
00:25:01
Speaker
So when you look at the available evidence, there's really not a lot of science to support its use.
00:25:08
Speaker
I think that any drug potentially
00:25:13
Speaker
with potential benefit should be studied, but based on very, very feeble laboratory data that has occurred in other circumstances without a clinical – without translation to a clinical benefit, I think that we have not been able to find that with ivermectin.
00:25:32
Speaker
Yet in this last delta wave, the noise around ivermectin continues to increase.
00:25:38
Speaker
So we'll talk more about that in a second.
00:25:41
Speaker
What I do want to share also is the current guidelines from the CDC.
00:25:45
Speaker
They clearly say that, sorry, from the NIH, they clearly say there's insufficient evidence for COVID-19 treatment guidelines panel to recommend either against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19.
00:25:57
Speaker
Results dramatically power well-designed and well-consuming technical trials are needed to provide more specific evidence-based guidance on the role of ivermectin and the treatment of COVID-19.
00:26:07
Speaker
Basically saying there's no evidence, let's do trials.
00:26:10
Speaker
The IDSA has also recommended that in hospitalized patients with COVID-19, the panel suggests against ivermectin outside of the context of a clinical trial.
00:26:20
Speaker
And in ambulatory patients with COVID-19, the panel suggests against ivermectin outside of the context of a clinical trial.
00:26:28
Speaker
Again, there's no evidence.
00:26:29
Speaker
Let's do the trials.
00:26:30
Speaker
The CDC, the FDA, and the WHO have all sent or published advisories against using ivermectin off-label.
Official Health Guidelines on Ivermectin Use
00:26:39
Speaker
and especially against using ivermectin that is not designed for human consumption.
00:26:43
Speaker
We will address that a little bit later when we talk about safety.
00:26:49
Speaker
Merck, who designed ivermectin and produces ivermectin, has a very clear statement that there is no scientific evidence to suggest that it would work for COVID-19.
00:26:59
Speaker
People might argue that they have a
00:27:02
Speaker
secondary motives because they have a new drug that's very expensive that they want to use.
00:27:06
Speaker
And even some conspiracy theorists have said that that drug is basically ivermectin.
00:27:10
Speaker
That is not true.
00:27:12
Speaker
That has been demonstrated to be an antiviral.
00:27:15
Speaker
Now, again, I do believe that when you look at the science, which is what we have available, this is where we are today.
00:27:24
Speaker
Regarding safety,
00:27:26
Speaker
Ivermectin is a safe drug.
00:27:27
Speaker
It's been utilized for decades to treat multiple parasitic infections.
00:27:32
Speaker
It's usually used as a one-time dose.
00:27:34
Speaker
We use it for treating tapeworm, for treating other types of parasites, for even treating lice in kids.
00:27:42
Speaker
So Ivermectin for human consumption at the doses that have been utilized for these therapies is safe.
00:27:49
Speaker
However, many of the proponents of Ivermectin for COVID-19 have come up with
00:27:55
Speaker
all sorts of different dosing regimens that have never been studied in terms of their safety and that are associated with potential toxicity due to the higher doses.
00:28:06
Speaker
A lot of these toxicities are usually mild in terms of symptoms, but there have been increased calls to poison centers related to toxicity from ivermectin.
00:28:16
Speaker
There have been some cases of even severe toxicity, which can happen with any medication, and this is people probably self-medicating,
00:28:25
Speaker
And there's also been reports of using animal formulations of ivermectin, which obviously is not safe and is not recommended.
00:28:34
Speaker
But I do believe that when we talk about safety, we should recognize that ivermectin at the study doses for antiparasitic treatment is a safely accepted drug.
00:28:45
Speaker
However, in addition to utilizing outside of the context that we know it to be safe, outside of the context of using formulations that are not for human consumption,
00:28:55
Speaker
and outside of the context of overdosing, there are real dangers.
00:29:00
Speaker
The first danger is that this use of this miracle drug, as we'll see, has been embraced by anti-vaxxers.
00:29:08
Speaker
And it's a way of, or a belief that if they utilize ivermectin, they don't have to accept or utilize evidence-based treatments that have demonstrated to make a difference in COVID-19, specifically vaccines.
Misinformation and the Ivermectin 'Miracle Drug' Belief
00:29:22
Speaker
So that is a huge danger.
00:29:23
Speaker
The more we talk about a miracle drug, it gives people an excuse not to consider what the current scientific evidence would suggest is more likely to save lives.
00:29:35
Speaker
A second real danger that we have all probably experienced in our ICUs is that it leads to delays in care.
00:29:43
Speaker
People self-medicating with ivermectin for days, days, and eventually get to the hospital in very bad shape.
00:29:50
Speaker
They usually get care much later than they should have.
00:29:54
Speaker
I am sure that many of you have experienced what I have experienced, which is I saw very little people during the Delta wave in my ICU who were very, very sick, who had received vaccinations, but I definitely saw plenty of people who had taken ivermectin.
00:30:10
Speaker
So again, the evidence not suggesting that that's the way to prevent the disease and just leads to delays in care.
00:30:19
Speaker
Another very important danger, real and present danger,
00:30:23
Speaker
is it has created a distraction from meaningful progress in our conversation about the pandemic.
00:30:28
Speaker
If there is potential for drugs to work, we should do the trials based on real science, get the trials done as soon as possible and move on.
00:30:37
Speaker
We've done that with many drugs in the last two years.
00:30:40
Speaker
Most have not worked, unfortunately, but some have demonstrated to work.
00:30:45
Speaker
And we'll talk a little bit more about that as well.
00:30:48
Speaker
Finally, I think what we've seen during Delta, it's created
00:30:52
Speaker
an unnecessary escalation of tension and distrust between patients and families and physicians and other healthcare workers trying their best to care for very sick COVID-19 patients.
00:31:03
Speaker
Obviously, especially those who don't believe in vaccines, they basically will demand that we give the loved ones ivermectin.
00:31:12
Speaker
They will say things like they've done their research.
00:31:15
Speaker
And again, when you look at the evidence available for vaccines versus the evidence available for ivermectin,
00:31:22
Speaker
It's not, there's no match.
00:31:24
Speaker
The vaccines have been studied extensively.
00:31:27
Speaker
They have demonstrated to be effective.
00:31:30
Speaker
There's obviously still a lot that we don't know about the vaccines, but the amount of data and randomized trials and follow-up trials is overwhelming that they're effective.
00:31:39
Speaker
And we know historically that vaccinations have been perhaps alongside hand hygiene, two of the most impactful interventions in public health
00:31:51
Speaker
and in medicine in terms of saving lives.
00:31:54
Speaker
Yet that is not true for the use of ivermectin and COVID-19, but there still seems to be a tremendous amount of noise around this, and we'll talk about that next.
00:32:07
Speaker
So one of the unique aspects of the COVID-19 pandemic has been the infodemic, and the amount of information that has been shared has never been
00:32:21
Speaker
so big and has never moved so fast.
00:32:24
Speaker
Information spreads like a virus, right?
00:32:27
Speaker
So does misinformation and disinformation.
00:32:30
Speaker
So information is facts or data that are based on scientific evidence and real, real, real, real data, right?
00:32:40
Speaker
So for example, we report the number of patients we have in our ICU who have COVID-19 based on positive tests, and we can report the number
00:32:49
Speaker
or percent of those who are in our ICU who are unvaccinated versus vaccinated, that is information.
00:32:55
Speaker
When we present the results of multiple randomized trials, such as what we did for dexamethasone and COVID-19, and then show the aggregation of those trials in well-designed, prospectively agreed meta-analysis, such as the prosperous meta-analysis, we show that there's an impact on mortality, that is information.
00:33:15
Speaker
There's also misinformation.
00:33:17
Speaker
which is information that is believed to be true, but is shared and ultimately ends up being false.
00:33:24
Speaker
Perhaps there were people who believed that hydroxychloroquine would work and they were sharing that as a potential therapy for COVID-19.
00:33:34
Speaker
But as soon as we did the trials and found that not only it doesn't work, but could be dangerous, we kind of retracted that.
00:33:40
Speaker
That's misinformation.
00:33:41
Speaker
So information that is shared with good intentions, but might be incorrect.
00:33:45
Speaker
And finally,
00:33:47
Speaker
There's disinformation, which is information that we know, that somebody knows is false, that they share with alternative motives or just to create more confusion among the public.
00:34:01
Speaker
And there's been plenty of that.
00:34:03
Speaker
Obviously, a lot of that has been shared through social media.
00:34:07
Speaker
What's important is that misinformation and disinformation or the lack of spreading good information all can be deadly.
00:34:15
Speaker
and we need to critically assess information before we share it.
00:34:18
Speaker
That's our responsibility.
00:34:19
Speaker
But also when you look at how these things propagate, a lot of these videos or social media posts or headlines might show up in a fringe kind of extreme social media platform.
00:34:34
Speaker
They're then picked up in more mainstream social platforms, a local
00:34:40
Speaker
newscast might pick it up and then a national newscast and all of a sudden these things go viral and people are sharing and re-sharing some of these videos, some of this information that again might be completely wrong and can lead to problems such as death when we're talking about a severe pandemic such as COVID-19.
00:35:02
Speaker
When we look at the themes of misinformation and COVID, by far the most prominent one is miracle cures.
00:35:09
Speaker
And that obviously is where ivermectin falls.
00:35:15
Speaker
There's tremendous amount of misinformation and disinformation regarding the benefits or the evidence behind the use of ivermectin.
00:35:25
Speaker
Another important aspect of this infodemic is that something that says that we have a simple solution to a terrifying worldwide complex problem is always going to travel faster
00:35:39
Speaker
than somebody that says that this is a negative study or this doesn't work, right?
00:35:45
Speaker
Positive studies are gonna definitely move a lot quicker.
00:35:49
Speaker
When you look at any of these ivermectin meta-analysis, those that are positive, such as the first one I shared, despite being published in much lower quality and lower impact factor journals, have a lot more tweets and shares
00:36:06
Speaker
than those who are higher quality, higher rigor.
00:36:10
Speaker
And I think it just speaks to what people want to hear is that something works.
00:36:17
Speaker
Before we dive deeper into what happened with ivermectin specifically and the role of some of our colleagues in that, there are some tips that we can all apply and share with others for navigating this epidemic.
00:36:31
Speaker
So number one, assess the source.
00:36:34
Speaker
When somebody sends you something or you see something,
00:36:37
Speaker
Try to figure out who shared that information with you and where did they get it from.
00:36:42
Speaker
Even if it's a friend or a family, you still need to kind of vet their source.
00:36:44
Speaker
Where did this come from?
00:36:46
Speaker
A lot of times you eventually get to a source that is a fringe source or something that does not really have a lot of reputation or that really just shares a lot of misinformation and you can immediately kind of assess the quality of where that came from.
00:37:00
Speaker
Go beyond the headlines.
00:37:02
Speaker
Headlines may be intentionally sensational or provocative.
00:37:05
Speaker
I have seen in
00:37:07
Speaker
large clinician kind of forums, people go crazy around headlines regarding some of these lawsuits, talking about how now the judges are dictating what we do as doctors.
00:37:22
Speaker
And all you have to do is read the whole article.
00:37:24
Speaker
And what you find out actually is that the judge is not dictating to doctors what they're doing.
00:37:29
Speaker
What the judge said originally in an Ohio case was that if a doctor prescribed the ivermectin,
00:37:35
Speaker
and has privileges in the hospital, the hospital should give it.
00:37:38
Speaker
So they basically are upholding and defending the right we have as clinicians to prescribe sometimes off-label medications if we believe they're going to help our patient.
00:37:48
Speaker
So go beyond the headlines.
00:37:50
Speaker
Read the actual article before you share it or before you comment on it.
00:37:54
Speaker
Identify the author.
00:37:56
Speaker
Search the author's name online to see if they're real or credible.
00:37:59
Speaker
People present themselves as accomplished scientists,
00:38:05
Speaker
world-renowned, and all I have to do is Google search some of these authors and find what they published before.
00:38:10
Speaker
And what you find, for example, with a lot of the proponents of ivermectin is that they publish a lot of opinion pieces in low-quality journals, but they really haven't published any randomized clinical trials or they really haven't participated in high-quality science.
00:38:25
Speaker
So identify the author, and that sometimes helps you understand also where they're coming from.
Responsible Information Sharing in the Pandemic Era
00:38:30
Speaker
Check the date.
00:38:32
Speaker
Is it up-to-date and relevant to current events?
00:38:34
Speaker
Has a headline image or statistic been used out of context?
00:38:37
Speaker
So people are still sharing sometimes data on stuff that we were talking about in May of last year that has been debunked.
00:38:45
Speaker
I recently got, for example, a protocol for anticoagulation that was from June of 2020, which is way before we had published studies on perhaps the role of anticoagulation
00:39:00
Speaker
COVID-19 in critically ill patients.
00:39:02
Speaker
So again, check the date because people keep resharing things that might be outdated.
00:39:06
Speaker
And we have learned with COVID that information moves very, very quickly these days.
00:39:11
Speaker
So you really have to figure out where this came from.
00:39:16
Speaker
Examining the supporting evidence.
00:39:20
Speaker
Credible stories back up their claims with facts.
00:39:23
Speaker
If you look at some of these claims and you actually go and look at the references, start pulling the references, you will find that often in disinformation or misinformation pieces, there's a lot of websites that are not official.
00:39:40
Speaker
There's a lot of pre-peer-reviewed studies, quote-unquote, that have not been published.
00:39:47
Speaker
There's a lot of...
00:39:49
Speaker
data that really comes from very, very questionable sources.
00:39:54
Speaker
So pull the references, look for the studies that people are quoting, and when you read the studies, a lot of times you'll find that maybe an article took the study totally out of context.
00:40:04
Speaker
It might be a very small study, which obviously has tremendous biases.
00:40:09
Speaker
And again, these are usually, if anything, if they're positive,
00:40:13
Speaker
They just indicate that we need to study the topic more, not that we should be utilizing something based on a small end with a tremendous potential for bias.
00:40:22
Speaker
Check your own biases.
00:40:24
Speaker
Think about whether your own biases could affect your judgment on what is or is not trustworthy.
00:40:29
Speaker
So if you believe that ivermectin works, anything that's positive will confirm your bias.
00:40:35
Speaker
And if you believe that it's probably not going to work, you're going to give a lot more credence to negative studies.
00:40:42
Speaker
So for example, based on what I've seen so far, my bias is that ivermectin is unlikely to work based on its track history with other viruses, based on the fact that the available evidence does not suggest it works, and based on what I've seen over and over again, and the fact that people are just using anecdote, but every time that we try to study it, it really hasn't panned out.
00:41:04
Speaker
However, I always tell myself,
00:41:07
Speaker
If I see well-designed studies that show that in certain situations it might be, it will work, I have to be able to check my bias and change the way I'm thinking.
00:41:21
Speaker
And there are some people who just are unwilling to change the way they think no matter what, and that is something that is very, very dangerous.
00:41:29
Speaker
And finally, turn to fact checkers.
00:41:31
Speaker
Consult trusted fact checking organizations
00:41:34
Speaker
There's an international fact-checking network, global news outlets focusing on debunking misinformation.
00:41:41
Speaker
Look at guidelines.
00:41:44
Speaker
We're clinicians.
00:41:45
Speaker
We are experts in critical care.
00:41:47
Speaker
The depth of expertise in our current society is a problem.
00:41:52
Speaker
We should be able to trust colleagues who dedicate their lives to science.
00:41:57
Speaker
Nobody has all the answers.
00:41:58
Speaker
But I think that there's a lot of sites like the NIH guidelines where a lot of clinicians are looking at all the available data and trying to give us the best available recommendations.
00:42:08
Speaker
They have all they recommend is based on references.
00:42:12
Speaker
You can check those references.
00:42:14
Speaker
And I think that we should really trust the experts because that's how we got where we are today in society, by creating expertise, by creating studies, and by following the science.
00:42:26
Speaker
So don't forget that.
00:42:27
Speaker
is also an important tip.
00:42:31
Speaker
So let's get back to ivermectin and how did ivermectin become this wonder drug that all of a sudden everybody is talking about, especially those who are sick and refuse vaccines?
Critique of FLCCC's Stance on Ivermectin
00:42:43
Speaker
Well, there are a couple of prominent groups that have pushed narratives against vaccines in favor of certain unproven therapies, but there's one in particular
00:42:54
Speaker
that I think has been very prominent in the critical care world.
00:42:58
Speaker
It's a group of colleagues that they call themselves the Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance.
00:43:05
Speaker
And they have been promoting prevention and treatment protocols for COVID-19, often without good science.
00:43:15
Speaker
But they are strong believers in this.
00:43:17
Speaker
And they're people who have really, they have this frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance or
00:43:24
Speaker
The FLCCC Alliance is also confirmed not only by clinicians, but they also have media experts and news reporters that have really organized a very deliberate campaign to promote some of their protocols, but ultimately to really promote ivermectin.
00:43:45
Speaker
One of the leaders of this group back in December of 2020 actually testified
00:43:52
Speaker
to members of the Senate Homeland Security Committee and quote-unquote said, Ivermectin is effectively a miracle drug against COVID-19.
00:44:01
Speaker
He stated that the data showed profound efficacy of the drug in all stages of the disease.
00:44:08
Speaker
And his conclusion was that if everyone were to have access to this drug, Ivermectin, the pandemic would end, the economy can reopen,
00:44:17
Speaker
and social interaction activity can resume and life can normalize.
00:44:20
Speaker
So those are extraordinary, extraordinary assertions that really require extraordinary data, which, as I've shown you so far, is nonexistent.
00:44:30
Speaker
Now, when you go to their website, there are three things that they talk about, I think, prominently or that they have multiple times have said is, number one, that they are high-quality scientists.
00:44:45
Speaker
who are just trying to really promote what's best for patients, that they have no financial skin in this game, that they really have no financial interest.
00:44:58
Speaker
And number three, this and other groups have promoted perhaps that there is some conspiracy among expert institutions, among pharmaceuticals to push unproven, very expensive drugs and kind of
00:45:15
Speaker
eliminate the evidence of drugs that would not make them a lot of money.
00:45:19
Speaker
So let's look at those three things.
00:45:22
Speaker
So in terms of the science, they tout themselves as being respected scientists and believers in science, yet they don't talk about vaccines.
00:45:36
Speaker
They do very little mention of things that have been shown to not work that they promoted initially.
00:45:40
Speaker
Vitamin C is something that they promoted for a long time before COVID.
00:45:45
Speaker
Some of these members, large randomized studies have shown it's not effective.
00:45:50
Speaker
They don't talk about those studies.
00:45:51
Speaker
They usually criticize any study that is negative against what they believe.
00:45:56
Speaker
So that's a problem.
00:45:57
Speaker
The fact that they are pushing ivermectin stronger and stronger now really probably relates to the fact that it's been embraced by a large group such as anti-vaxxers, extreme fringe right-leaning groups, also conspiracy theorists,
00:46:14
Speaker
So obviously it's giving them a captive audience, a large audience of support.
00:46:19
Speaker
They talk about the fact that they don't make any money from this.
00:46:22
Speaker
We don't know that, but the first thing that you'll encounter on their website is a big asking for contributions and donations.
00:46:29
Speaker
We also know that large captive audiences are very valuable financially these days, and they have a following, almost a cult-like following of people who are against the establishment.
00:46:40
Speaker
And number three, they've also...
00:46:43
Speaker
kind of push this idea that everything is a conspiracy, that we're just trying to use what's expensive.
00:46:49
Speaker
Well, vaccines have been around forever.
00:46:51
Speaker
They've been demonstrated to save lives.
00:46:53
Speaker
The evidence for vaccines is extremely powerful.
00:46:56
Speaker
They don't talk about that with a lot of emphasis to kind of minimize that.
00:47:01
Speaker
Before vaccines, they talked about ivermectin as a bridge to vaccines, but now they're not pushing their followers to get vaccines.
00:47:08
Speaker
That is a little bit, I mean, concerning.
00:47:11
Speaker
And finally, in terms of the science, when you look at what they tout, they talk about ivermectin for COVID-19.
00:47:17
Speaker
There are 65 trials, 655 scientists, 40,000 patients, 32 randomized controlled trials, 86% improvement on prophylaxis, 66% improvement on early treatment, 40% improvement on late treatment, 57% improvement on mortality.
00:47:35
Speaker
Again, you go to their medical
00:47:37
Speaker
ivmmeta.com where they do their ongoing meta-analysis and you find retracted studies, their forester plot makes no sense, the way they calculate things is unclear, and really just very quickly you can poke holes into the rigor of their science.
00:47:55
Speaker
Same thing when you look at their protocols and extensively reference, but a lot of the references are articles they wrote themselves, which are opinion pieces or tweets, or they reference
00:48:05
Speaker
what has happened observationally in places like Paraguay last year when they don't mention what has happened more recently in Paraguay in those same places.
00:48:14
Speaker
Same thing with India, they attribute these declines in rates to the use of ivermectin.
00:48:19
Speaker
Ivermectin has been utilized probably in many places for some time now for COVID without any real effect.
00:48:26
Speaker
So again, they cherry pick the observational data and they really promote a lot of data that has not been published as proof
00:48:35
Speaker
that they work.
00:48:35
Speaker
And most of what you'll find is news reports of lawsuits, news reports of where people can get ivermectin.
00:48:43
Speaker
But again, the science does not seem to be there.
00:48:49
Speaker
Most of their social interactions are on fringe social media platforms, just basically talking to an audience that wants to believe them.
00:48:59
Speaker
So unfortunately, if they were true scientists,
00:49:05
Speaker
they probably would have done a study by now.
00:49:08
Speaker
They probably would have promoted the use of vaccines, and they probably would have been more interested in finding answers than in telling us why their answer is absolutely correct.
00:49:21
Speaker
So what are some of the conclusions that we come, kind of my perspective on ivermectin?
00:49:29
Speaker
They're currently
00:49:30
Speaker
is no credible scientific evidence to support its use in COVID outside of the context of a well-designed clinical trial at the present moment.
00:49:39
Speaker
Could that change?
00:49:40
Speaker
Perhaps.
00:49:41
Speaker
But as of what we have right now, the plausibility is low.
00:49:45
Speaker
And the studies that have been done are either super, super low quality, really, I mean, laughable almost, or the ones that I've done that are published that have good quality have not really shown any signal.
00:49:57
Speaker
With 270 or 250 million COVID patients around the world, if it really worked, shouldn't we be able to figure it out?
00:50:06
Speaker
The second issue in terms or the second conclusion I have is that there's a deliberate, organized, and well-funded campaign to promote misinformation and disinformation regarding COVID-19 right now.
00:50:18
Speaker
A lot of this is centered around ivermectin because ivermectin has become a flag for a lot of the groups that feed into this
00:50:27
Speaker
into this campaign, the anti-vaxxers, those that are against the established expertise, those who really are trying to minimize COVID-19 as a worldwide problem.
00:50:39
Speaker
And we have to not be naive and recognize that there are colleagues who are part of those campaigns.
00:50:45
Speaker
Their motives are unclear, but it would be nice for them to share more information of why they believe this to be the way
00:50:53
Speaker
and why they're not doing randomized trials like they would do for any therapy that we're trying to figure out.
00:51:02
Speaker
They know better than anybody that the way for trials, the way for therapies to be accepted is with good science.
00:51:09
Speaker
The argument that they know that it works for a fact so it would be unethical, they don't have that equipoise is BS.
00:51:17
Speaker
That's an excuse basically to keep promoting misinformation.
00:51:22
Speaker
Families and patients are victims.
00:51:24
Speaker
They're victims of this deliberate campaign of misinformation and disinformation.
Communication with Patients About Ivermectin Requests
00:51:30
Speaker
And when we encounter them at the bedside and they bring these things up where they didn't get vaccinated or they want us to give ivermectin, we should be compassionate and explain in simple terms why we do not use ivermectin if we don't use it to treat COVID-19 at this time.
00:51:46
Speaker
I think that it's very easy to lose empathy and to become antagonistic
00:51:51
Speaker
But if your loved one was dying, you would probably hold on to anything that looks credible and that really gives you hope, right?
00:51:58
Speaker
And if you were to Google ivermectin or treatment for COVID-19, you probably would see these fringe websites pop up immediately, which tell you probably all the things that they have done in the back burner to have their search optimization pushed up.
00:52:15
Speaker
And finally,
00:52:17
Speaker
we have ongoing trials such as the COVID out trial, active six trial, and a UK based principal trial.
00:52:23
Speaker
They're actually trying to, in a serious, rigorous way, evaluate, is there a role for ivermectin and COVID-19?
00:52:32
Speaker
I anticipate that we will have results of those trials soon.
00:52:35
Speaker
Hopefully they'll provide more evidence, but I also think that that's the way forward.
00:52:40
Speaker
If there are drugs that people believe could work,
00:52:43
Speaker
we should be trying to organize ourselves to do the trials.
00:52:46
Speaker
This is the time to do trials for a pandemic because we have the patients.
00:52:50
Speaker
Now, granted that we are seeing the number of patients with COVID-19, especially during this Delta wave in the United States go down, and that's a positive trend.
00:53:00
Speaker
I do think that there are lessons to be learned
00:53:03
Speaker
from this infodemic and especially from the ivermectin story during this delta wave that we need to be able to apply to other situations in the future.
00:53:14
Speaker
Recently there was a family member that was demanding a patient get ivermectin and one of the colleagues just asked me, why would we just not give it, wouldn't that be easy?
00:53:23
Speaker
It's not going to hurt the patient.
00:53:25
Speaker
But I think that we have to be careful in terms of letting families dictate what we should do based on bad information
00:53:33
Speaker
or based on campaigns that are predatory and target people like them.
00:53:39
Speaker
Because where do you draw the line?
00:53:40
Speaker
Are they going to tell you then give somebody full dose anticoagulation when they're bleeding?
00:53:44
Speaker
Are they going to tell you what people should get or should not get?
00:53:47
Speaker
So we have to be able to draw the line but be compassionate.
00:53:51
Speaker
But we also have to remain humble and recognize that we don't know everything and that we can only act based on the best available information.
00:53:59
Speaker
And we should make the effort
00:54:01
Speaker
to look for that information and those sources ourselves to try to understand a little bit better what the situation is.
00:54:09
Speaker
I like to finish the podcast usually by asking our guests a couple of questions.
00:54:13
Speaker
We talk about books and some of the things that they hold dear that other people don't believe.
00:54:19
Speaker
But what I wanted to finish with is maybe a book recommendation.
00:54:22
Speaker
There's a recent book I read by Adam Grant called Think Again, The Power of Knowing What You Don't Know.
00:54:30
Speaker
which I think is really a phenomenal read for what we've been through with COVID in terms of misinformation, disinformation, and how we behave throughout the last two years and a lot of what is happening right now with colleagues in terms of treatment options for COVID.
00:54:48
Speaker
One of the things that he argues in this book is that often people are either in a preacher, prosecutor, or politician mode.
00:54:56
Speaker
So a preacher is somebody who has found the truth and is only trying to bring people to see their truth.
00:55:02
Speaker
So there is no question that this is the truth.
00:55:06
Speaker
And a lot of the proponents of ivermectin have become preachers, right?
00:55:11
Speaker
When asked in interviews what would make them think differently, they clearly have stated that they know that ivermectin works, that people are trying to suppress it, and that there's nothing that would make them think differently.
00:55:23
Speaker
Well, for a scientist and a clinician,
00:55:25
Speaker
That is probably not the best position to be in.
00:55:28
Speaker
Another mode is prosecutor.
00:55:30
Speaker
Well, all you try to do is bring down the ideas that oppose yours, right, as a prosecutor and bring up all the flaws.
00:55:37
Speaker
So a lot of people on the other side of the camp, the people who don't believe in ivermectin, have become prosecutors.
00:55:43
Speaker
And every trial that is negative or every trial that is possible that's retracted, we kind of prosecute that idea and keep trying to confirm what we believe, which is it doesn't work, right?
00:55:54
Speaker
So we have to be careful with that.
00:55:55
Speaker
I mean, there's things you need to prosecute, but you should also prosecute your own ideas and just try to figure out, okay, what would make me think differently?
00:56:03
Speaker
Or what would be the evidence that I need to change the way I think or think again?
00:56:07
Speaker
And then fine, there's politicians who are just trying to accommodate the louder voices or whoever suits their benefits.
00:56:14
Speaker
And that might be some hospitals or some clinicians who, if somebody wants ivermectin, they'll give them ivermectin if somebody wants
00:56:21
Speaker
to not use ivermectin, they won't use ivermectin.
00:56:23
Speaker
But again, these are very common and we probably all have played these roles in different points of our life or the pandemic.
00:56:31
Speaker
But ultimately, we want to be a scientist.
00:56:35
Speaker
And scientists, when you look at what they know or what we know, you can think of concentric circles.
00:56:42
Speaker
The smallest circle is the things I know I know.
00:56:47
Speaker
A little bit larger is the next circle, which is things I know.
00:56:52
Speaker
The third circle, which gets a little bit larger, is the things I think I know.
00:56:57
Speaker
And then by far, the largest circle around all those is the things I don't know.
00:57:04
Speaker
So as a scientist, we start with being humble and recognizing that there's too much we don't know.
00:57:11
Speaker
We have a constant sense of doubt.
00:57:14
Speaker
If I believe something works, I should be doubting.
00:57:17
Speaker
How could it not work?
00:57:18
Speaker
Or what would convince me not to work, that it doesn't work?
00:57:21
Speaker
If I believe something does not work, I should be doubting myself in terms of how could this actually work and what situation might it work?
00:57:29
Speaker
What are the things that would make me think it works?
00:57:31
Speaker
And that should lead to curiosity, which either leads to us investigating the literature ourselves or scientists designing clinical trials that ultimately leads to discovery, which is the way that we advance forward.
00:57:47
Speaker
So I would like to leave you
00:57:49
Speaker
with a quote from this book, Think Again by Adam Grant.
00:57:53
Speaker
And this is open quotations.
00:57:56
Speaker
When we're in scientist mode, we refuse to let our ideas become ideologies.
00:58:02
Speaker
We don't start with answers or solutions.
00:58:05
Speaker
We lead with questions and puzzles.
00:58:07
Speaker
We don't preach from intuition.
00:58:09
Speaker
We teach from evidence.
00:58:11
Speaker
We don't just have healthy skepticism about other people's arguments.
00:58:16
Speaker
We dare to disagree with our own arguments.
00:58:19
Speaker
Thinking like a scientist involves more than just reacting with an open mind.
00:58:24
Speaker
It means being actively open-minded.
00:58:28
Speaker
It requires searching for reasons why we might be wrong, not for reasons why we must be right, and revising our views based on what we learn.
00:58:37
Speaker
So my final ask is for all of you to be scientists and take care.
00:58:44
Speaker
We'll talk in the next episode of the podcast.
00:58:46
Speaker
Thank you very much.
00:58:49
Speaker
Thank you for listening to Critical Matters, a sound podcast.
00:58:53
Speaker
Make sure to subscribe to Critical Matters on Apple or Google Podcasts and share with your network.
00:58:59
Speaker
Sound's transforming the way critical care is provided in hospitals across the country.
00:59:03
Speaker
To learn more, visit www.soundphysicians.com.