‘They’re Making S*** Up’: Joe Rogan Floats Suing CNN For Claiming He Took Horse Dewormer

[Teh One Who Knocks]

By Tim Pearce - The Daily Wire


https://i.imgur.com/ojbeXtIl.jpg

Popular podcast host Joe Rogan floated taking CNN to court after a high-profile reporter for the network falsely claimed on air that Rogan took horse dewormer to treat COVID-19.

“Do I have to sue CNN? They’re making s*** up. They keep saying I took horse dewormer. I literally got it from a doctor. It’s an American company. They won the Nobel Prize in 2015 for use in human beings, and CNN is saying I’m taking horse dewormer,” Rogan said on his podcast Tuesday. “They must know that’s a lie.”

Rogan aired his grievance with the network after CNN chief domestic correspondent and anchor Jim Acosta falsely claimed that Rogan was taking a livestock dewormer and other unproven treatments to deal with COVID-19.

“The podcast host Joe Rogan, he came down with COVID. He says he’s been taking the livestock dewormer ivermectin as well as other treatments that people talk about on the internet and so on. Doesn’t have any effect on COVID, obviously,” Acosta said during a Sunday interview with Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.
1434621133534421001
Rogan, host of “The Joe Rogan Experience,” announced over his Instagram page last week that he had tested positive for COVID-19 and was undergoing a variety of different treatments, including the malaria drug ivermectin and monoclonal antibodies. Rogan’s video announcement set off a wave of misinformation among journalists and others about ivermectin, an anti-parasitic drug that is used to treat both humans and livestock.

Rogan said that “multiple doctors” recommended he take ivermectin to treat COVID-19. “They try to make it seem like I’m doing some wacky s*** that’s completely ineffective and CNN was saying that I’m a distributor of misinformation,” Rogan said.

The news of Rogan’s COVID treatment appeared to trigger a string of false stories about ivermectin. As The Daily Wire reported:


The Associated Press had to issue a correction to an article published in late August that claimed 70% of calls made to the Mississippi Department of Health were from people who had ingested the livestock version of Ivermectin.

The story followed media hyping the idea that people were taking a common horse dewormer to treat COVID-19. Someone, somewhere may have done this, but the media has treated it as if it is a common phenomenon — and have been proven wrong.

In another instance of misinformation, a false news story of an Oklahoma hospital being overrun by patients overdosing on ivermectin was pushed by numerous journalists, commentators, and others. The hospital later released a statement correcting the record, knocking down the claims of a former doctor who left the hospital months ago. The statement said:


Although Dr. Jason McElyea is not an employee of NHS Sequoyah, he is affiliated with a medical staffing group that provides coverage for our emergency room.

With that said, Dr. McElyea has not worked at our Sallisaw location in over 2 months.

NHS Sequoyah has not treated any patients due to complications related to taking ivermectin. This includes not treating any patients for ivermectin overdose.

All patients who have visited our emergency room have received medical attention as appropriate. Our hospital has not had to turn away any patients seeking emergency care.

We want to reassure our community that our staff is working hard to provide quality healthcare to all patients. We appreciate the opportunity to clarify this issue and as always, we value our community’s support.

[lost in melb.]

A primer on Ivermectin and Covid-19.

Two recent meta-analyses (which means, a study that studies a set of other studies), one looking at 10 randomized controlled trials (that means, those that give the drug to a group of people, and a placebo to a similar group of people then compare the outcomes), and another one looking at 29 decent studies and some 40 that were deemed too weak in methodology and too flawed or biased, have both concluded that ivermectin is not efficacious to treat or prevent Covid-19.


One of the main studies in support of ivermectin was retracted, when it was shown that some statistical results they reported were impossible to achieve from the presented data, therefore must have been made-up.

There are still some 18 ongoing studies. While I had been saying that the jury was still out, by now I'm really doubting that these 18 will move the needle. I'm still keeping an open mind but it's looking more and more like ivermectin does not have a credible role in the treatment or prevention of Covid-19. At this time I wouldn't prescribe it for this indication. The FDA, the CDC, and even ivermectin maker Merck have published recommendations against the use of ivermectin for Covid-19, horse, dog, cat, and goat de-wormer. But it is also indicated for humans (and tablets and creams intended for human use do exist, under prescription, in US pharmacies, under the brand name Stromectol, made by Merck, and generics) for two relatively rare human parasites (strongyloidiasis and onchocerciasis - rare in first world countries but prevalent in tropical third world countries), plus topical (which means something you apply to your skin or scalp as opposed to taking by mouth or by infection) preparations for rosacea, scabies, and lice.

While using ivermectin for the human diseases it is approved for is safe and effective, using it for Covid-19 seems to be a waste of time and money, although still rather safe in regular doses, which are established according to body weight. But using the livestock preparations in humans is not safe, because veterinarian preparations have different doses (those for large animals are very large doses) and have inactive ingredients that have never been tested for safety for humans. While ivermectin in regular human doses for its approved indications doesn't usually lead to toxicity, mega-doses can be very toxic especially for the liver and the brain, with a potential for causing seizures, coma, and death.

Even in regular doses, ivermectin has a number of potential side effects. These include: constipation, diarrhea, headache, joint pain, muscle pain, stomach pain, low appetite, nausea or vomiting, tremors, trouble breathing, vision changes, chest pain, irregular heartbeat, confusion, eye pain, dizziness, fainting, fever, urinary or fecal incontinence, tiredness, weakness, and seizures. This is why ivermectin is a prescription medication rather than over-the-counter. Nobody should self-medicate with ivermectin.

The issue of using a medication for parasites against a virus is not in itself a reason not to test the efficacy of ivermectin for Covid-19, given that many medications intended for different purposes, can and do have at least in-vitro (in lab trials using cell cultures) anti-viral activity. This in-vitro activity against Covid-19 was suggested for ivermectin, which then triggered the human studies. So there's nothing wrong with studying repurposed drugs. The issue with ivermectin is not that, but rather, the issue is that ivermectin has been failing to show benefit for Covid-19, when it is studied with appropriate methodology.

Now, you'll find plenty of anecdotal reports of people who took ivermectin for Covid-19 and recovered. Do consider that between 98% and 99.7% of people who get Covid-19 recover anyway regardless of what treatments they are given, so anecdotal "cures" from ivermectin do not prove that it's the ivermectin that did the job. The question of whether or not a drug works for a disease or condition can only be ascertained by randomized controlled trials.

You will also find many doctors who believe that it is a viable option to treat Covid-19. However, a really good doctor who follows the scientific side of medicine, at this point has no basis for this belief, given that as of now, the meta-analyses have failed to show a benefit. Not all doctors are appropriately in tune with the scientific side of Medicine and do not necessarily read the latest analyses. They may have seen one of the flawed, biased, and methodologically unsound studies, and may have felt impressed; but they should rather look at the large meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials to form a sounder opinion.

And when in doubt,...

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTvc4Hlav-DnhSSrIkY_yxWjBuNhK3mUSleOA&usqp=CAU