Confusing, delayed, and unclear TOGETHER trial (from Livestream #122)

Clip taken from DarkHorse Podcast Livestream #122 (originally streamed live on April 09, 2022):


Reis et al 2022. Effect of Early Treatment with Ivermectin among Patients with Covid-19. Published 3-30-22 in NEJM (the “Together trial”): DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2115869

What is this a clip from?
In this 122nd in a series of live discussions with Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying (both PhDs in Biology), discuss the state of the world though an evolutionary lens. Find more from us on Bret’s website ( or Heather’s website (

Heather’s newsletter, Natural Selections (subscribe to get free weekly essays in your inbox):

A Hunter-Gatherer’s Guide to the 21st Century is now available:

DarkHorse merchandise now available at:

Become a member of the DarkHorse Livestreams, and get access to an additional Q&A livestream every month. Join at Heather’s Patreon.

Like this content? Subscribe to the channel, like this video, follow us on twitter (@BretWeinstein, @HeatherEHeying), and consider helping us out by contributing to either of our Patreons or Bret’s Paypal.

Theme Music: Thank you to Martin Molin of Wintergatan for providing us the rights to use their excellent music.


Leave a Reply
  1. It must make you feel sick to your stomach that Scientific Method is being abused to the point where its findings will have as much credibility associated to it as knuckle bones and reading goat intestines. I think a 'dark age' isn't just a collapse of structure, it's a collapse of confidence in things required to stay enlightened. Buckle up!

  2. Interesting discussion of an OBVIOUSLY faked study to discredit Ivermectin for its use and treatment of Covid related illness.
    As I said before, bring the authors to trial as they should be convicted.
    I am a scientist myself and feel embarassed and stained by this shit.

  3. Thanks for showing what integrity looks like by simply addressing and correcting errors you've made. I wish this concept would catch on (I'm talking to YOU, Dr Fauci, CDC, WHO)

  4. I am so appreciative of your discerning minds. Wondering if you have heard about the watch the water information? The premise that snake venom is in the water and the shots and that snake venom poisoning is what people are suffering from. I would love your take on this.

  5. How vague and filled with appeals to authority. The one specific claim made (ppl mysteriously disappearing from placebo group) was wrong.

    How about listing the issues you have and invite one of the authors to discuss? Would be your first guest to have a significantly different viewpoint than your own.

  6. I’m going out on a limb to say the timing of starting the Ukraine War (always under control of the White House!) is keyed to the public’s growing awareness of the shaky “science” of the CDC, NIH, and allies including Big Pharma and University studies. US needed a quick, big distraction! So, kill off a few hundred thousand human beings, but this time in a war.

  7. I suspected this study was a fix when it said they would give Ivermectin 2 weeks after getting ill. When Frontline doctors using it had stressed early intervention using it in combination. Why not follow that model?

  8. A YT channel (more than 1.35 million subs) run by a Californian medical professor used this study to warn against the application of Ivermectin in clear terms (The tragic Brazilian Ivermectin frenzy…) cited in the footnotes! A strong discrepancy to your carefully chosen words!

  9. We simply cannot believe these clinical trials anymore, ever. We have to make our own judgements from other information sources – length of drug on market, history, cost, patent expired ?, and many doctors reporting on their own practices using it, historical before the controversy is best, though during also show info that should be taken into consideration, and then singular personal accounts, and the banned testimonies denied and denounced by the powers that be the gatekeepers. The truth we all know – the science (peer review)is CORRUPT TO THE CORE.

  10. In his commencement address, Richard Feynman stated his belief that the antidote to both cargo cult science and pseudoscience is scientific integrity, which he describes as, "a kind of leaning over backwards" to make sure scientists do not fool themselves or others. According to Feynman an ethical scientist must make the extra effort to ensure that their methods and results are transparent, allowing other people to accurately appraise and understand the scientist's research.
    Cargo cult science is a pseudoscientific method of research that favors evidence that confirms an assumed hypothesis. In contrast with the scientific method, there is no vigorous effort to disprove or delimit the hypothesis.

  11. India 'cases' have dropped to zero in a smooth gradient unlike all other countries. Considering that India can't afford the tests, and was hoping to become the world's supplier of Covid vaccine, as they are with many pharmaceuticals, then is the smooth decline from wide-spread use of ivermectin therapeutics, or from under-testing 800,000,000 landless itinerant day laborers with no address/identity, or from deliberate under-reporting (to suggest they have their own 'successful vaccine')?

  12. The fact that 10 very smart, qualified specialists can't figure out how this study was done, or conclude whether the results are legitimate or not, isn't by accident. It's intentional. As someone else here has already pointed out; "cheating is done when one feels the need to cheat".

  13. Not the large one conducted in Brazil that was very successful it's all in one of John Campbells videos. The pharmaceutical industry dont want Ivermectin to be successful no massive profits to be made

  14. Medcram reviewed this paper. The Ivermectin studies were broken into 4 separate studies. The 3 (out of 4) groups they displayed all had improved outcomes (10% 11% 6%). And because they split the study into 3 groups, each group was too small to have a 95% statistical certainty. The result is 3 underpowered studies that all show if they had not split the number of participants into 3 groups of 1/3rd each, then they would very likely have shown a 95% probability that Ivermectin helps keep people out of hospitalization. If they combined all 3 groups into Ivermectin versus placebo, then the study would not be underpowered and would show Ivermectin helps. The fact that they did not do this obvious calculation shows an intent to conceal positive results.

    And just because the individual underpowered studies show less than 95% statistical significance, in reality it is still a strong enough result to be significant (a 10% drop in hospitalizations is much better than Remdesivier … and Ivermectin is safe unlike Remdesivier which has 30% serious side effects like kidney failure). And sadly, they did not split out the group that took Ivermectin within 3 days of symptoms. (They had that data). Probably because that group shows a much higher efficacy and the whole point of this study is to discredit Ivermectin.
    A 95% certainty the efficacy was not due to chance is the same as saying there is a 95% chance if the study was big enough, then it would show 100% efficacy

  15. We all know what's going on, like they came out recently with the BS about finally tracing the Covid case zero to a specific stall at a wet market in Wuhan. They must think we are stupid, oh I forgot most are. It's all about rewriting the pure unadulterated corruption that took place.

  16. The study found a different really cheap drug was very effective. Zero evidence ivermectin had any value against covid. There will be other big well designed studies on ivermectin and covid. I wouldn’t bet on ivermectin having any value.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *