Joe Rogan and Bret Weinstein Revisit a Pandemic Flashpoint: Ivermectin vs COVID-19, and the Debate Over Suppressed Data

What Joe Rogan and Bret Weinstein Argue — and What the Science Actually Shows
 

In a recent episode of The Joe Rogan Experience, host Joe Rogan speaks with evolutionary biologist Bret Weinstein about one of the most contentious medical debates of the COVID-19 era: the potential use of ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19.

Their discussion does not simply claim that ivermectin “works.” Instead, it advances a broader and more serious accusation: that evidence suggesting benefit was systematically minimized, buried, or misrepresented, while the drug itself was publicly discredited through media framing and selective interpretation of trials.
 

What Rogan and Weinstein Argue in the Episode
 

1. The central claim: ivermectin was prematurely dismissed

Rogan and Weinstein argue that ivermectin was framed early on as ineffective — or even absurd — before the full body of evidence had been seriously examined. They point to media narratives portraying ivermectin primarily as a “horse dewormer,” which, in their view, served to delegitimize discussion rather than engage with the data.

They emphasize that ivermectin is a Nobel Prize–winning human medicine, widely used for decades, and that repurposed drugs often face institutional resistance because they lack strong commercial incentives.

2. Allegations of biased or flawed trials

A major portion of the discussion focuses on the claim that many negative ivermectin trials suffer from serious methodological problems, including:

• underdosing (especially in overweight patients),

• late administration (after viral replication peaks),

• endpoint changes mid-trial,

• shared placebo arms across multiple drugs,

• and selective reporting of outcomes.

Weinstein argues that even within trials officially interpreted as “negative,” signals of benefit remain visible when subgroup analyses are examined — but those signals were ignored in headlines and abstracts.

3. The PRINCIPLE trial controversy

A concrete example discussed is the UK PRINCIPLE trial, a large adaptive platform trial testing multiple repurposed drugs. Weinstein notes that ivermectin showed faster recovery times compared with usual care across nearly all subgroups, yet this result appeared deep in the appendix and was not emphasized in the paper’s conclusions.

The hosts argue that the trial’s interpretation contradicted its own data, framing ivermectin as clinically meaningless despite statistically favorable outcomes.

4. The “natural experiment” from court-ordered ivermectin cases

One of the most provocative claims discussed comes from Pierre Kory’s reporting of roughly 80 U.S. court cases in which families sued hospitals to allow ivermectin treatment for critically ill patients.

According to the figures cited in the podcast:

~38 of 40 patients survived when ivermectin was administered,

~38 of 40 patients died when it was refused.

Rogan and Weinstein describe this as a natural experiment with extreme statistical significance, arguing that such a survival difference is extraordinarily unlikely to arise by chance. They acknowledge that the data are not from a randomized trial but argue that the simplicity of the outcome (survival vs death) makes it difficult to dismiss.

5. A broader critique of medical orthodoxy

Beyond ivermectin itself, the episode critiques:

• blind reliance on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) as the only acceptable evidence,

• the vulnerability of complex trial designs to bias,

• and the suppression of physician discretion during the pandemic.

Their conclusion is that repurposed drugs like ivermectin could have reduced morbidity and mortality, but institutional inertia and profit incentives prevented their normal clinical exploration.
 

Why Ivermectin Was Considered for COVID-19 in the First Place
 

1. Antiviral and host-directed mechanisms

Ivermectin was not chosen at random. Laboratory studies show that it can inhibit the importin α/β nuclear transport pathway, which some viruses use to suppress host antiviral responses (Caly et al., 2020).

In vitro work demonstrated inhibition of SARS-CoV-2 replication at high concentrations, prompting investigation into whether host-directed effects — not direct antiviral action — could be clinically relevant.

2. Anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory effects

COVID-19 severity is driven not only by viral replication but by dysregulated inflammation. Ivermectin has been shown to:

• reduce NF-κB signaling,

• downregulate pro-inflammatory cytokines,

• modulate immune cell activation.

These properties provide a plausible rationale for benefit even when administered later in disease, consistent with claims discussed in the Rogan episode (Zhang et al., 2008).

3. Antithrombotic and endothelial effects

COVID-19 is associated with endothelial injury and microthrombosis. Preclinical data suggest ivermectin may reduce platelet aggregation and vascular inflammation, offering another plausible mechanism for reducing severe outcomes (González-Canga et al., 2008).
 

Conclusion: Why the Ivermectin Debate Still Matters
 

The Rogan–Weinstein conversation is not a claim of scientific certainty — it is a challenge to scientific process. Their argument is that ivermectin deserved open, good-faith clinical exploration, not premature dismissal.

The scientific literature shows:

• plausible biological mechanisms,

• mixed and highly context-dependent clinical results,

• and real flaws on both sides of the debate.

The ivermectin episode of the COVID-19 era may ultimately be remembered less for whether the drug “worked,” and more for what it revealed about trust, transparency, and power in modern medicine.
 

References

1. Bryant, A. et al. (2021). Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of COVID-19 Infection: A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis. American Journal of Therapeutics, 28(4), e434–e460.

2. Caly, L. et al. (2020). The FDA-approved drug ivermectin inhibits the replication of SARS-CoV-2 in vitro. Antiviral Research, 178, 104787.

3. González-Canga, A. et al. (2008). Ivermectin: its pharmacological properties and uses in humans and animals. Pharmacological Reviews, 60(2), 128–152.

4. Hill, A. et al. (2021). Meta-analysis of randomized trials of ivermectin to treat SARS-CoV-2 infection. Research Square (preprint).

5. Reis, G. et al. (2022). Effect of Early Treatment with Ivermectin among Patients with Covid-19. New England Journal of Medicine, 386, 1721–1731.

6. Zhang, X. et al. (2008). Ivermectin inhibits LPS-induced production of inflammatory cytokines. International Immunopharmacology, 8(6), 873–878.