Mel Gibson, Ivermectin and Mistrust of Science
Book Review, Endometrial Cancer Update and CPD event
Joe Rogan is a famous personality and is arguably one of the best podcast hosts ever. For me, it has to be the late Michael Parkinson but that discussion is for another time.
I watched a recent clip of where he hosts Mel Gibson, who I believe to be is an excellent director. He’s directed Braveheart, Apocalypto and the controversial Passion. The podcast is quite long but there was a moment where they discuss health and that’s where I would like to focus on.
Mel Gibson was asked about cancer treatment to which he responded that he had number of friends with cancer who were cured with “unconventional treatment.” A number of medication were mentioned including Ivermectin which if you’re in tune with social media, has been touted by some circles as a miracle cancer cure.
I put up a post about this on LinkedIn which led to a number of discussions with people online and F2F who shared their own anecdotal experiences especially from during the COVID19 pandemic to suggest that there was a distrust of mainstream science.
Whether it’s ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19, these medications have substantial evidence showing that they do not cure cancer. Despite this, a simple claim on social media by a popular figure can easily sway large groups of people into believing otherwise and taking these medications. This issue is further exacerbated by the current political climate. The rise of populist politics often relies on distorting facts to fit its narrative. As a result, government actions are increasingly viewed with suspicion, leading to public dissent and resistance to health policies.
So this weeks newsletter is based on an interesting book I read titled The Irrational Ape which helps to explain why trust in experts, science and evidence-based studies has fallen.
What Makes Us Distinct?
The book delves into why the human race has surpassed other species on the planet. The answer lies in our unique ability to reason and reflect. Over the centuries, we have developed various methods of thought and applied them across disciplines: logic to mathematics, rationalism to problem-solving, and empiricism to uncovering the mysteries of the physical world.
The author argues that relying solely on emotional or instinctual perspectives might have led to catastrophic outcomes, such as the Cold War powers annihilating each other with nuclear weapons. Instead, deeper, science-based considerations guided us toward more practical (albeit complex) solutions. For instance, we came to understand the long-term consequences of nuclear warfare on humanity and recognised that a more interconnected world—fostered through globalisation—offers greater benefits for everyone.
Ultimately, it is our capacity for reason that sets us apart, and societies that ground their decisions in sound reasoning tend to follow a more positive and sustainable trajectory.
So Where Does Science Stand?
At its core, people still hold science in high regard. Despite dissenting voices around the COVID-19 vaccine, the vast majority of the global population opted to receive it. Similarly, while there are concerns about water fluoridation, most people continue to drink tap water. Concerns about genetically modified foods haven't stopped people from purchasing supermarket produce, and even though some believe 5G technology is harmful or otherworldly, I rely on it daily.
That said, skepticism persists due to factors like the influence of Big Pharma, which is often perceived as prioritizing profits over transparency. Many believe that effective treatments for diseases are deliberately "hidden." Alternative media platforms have amplified the voices of individuals who, despite lacking expertise in health or medicine, have rapidly gained influence as self-proclaimed health experts. This unregulated media landscape has created a breeding ground for the promotion of unproven treatments as "cures" for various diseases.
Compounding this issue is poor government decision-making in the realm of health policy, which has led to public skepticism about the scientific basis behind certain actions. In some cases, causation and correlation have been misinterpreted or exaggerated—such as the debunked link between the MMR vaccine and autism—fueling further distrust.
How Can We Battle Misinformation?
The book argues a number of points, arguing from both a government and societal perspective. From a political perspective, debate should never be stifled. An open society in which people are able to debate ideas will lead to the elucidation of ideas and in this case, treatment.
In many ways, we should encourage patients to bring their ideas about their own health and if they are not satisfied with a particular treatment plan, they have the right to question it. This needs to be balanced by the fact that we are indeed the experts here. We can sometimes feel on the backfoot when patients are questioning certain investigations/treatments. Some of the queries I’ve faced include:
Do statins actually reduce cholesterol and subsequent heart attacks?
Why do I need to take this SLGT2 inhibitor? Does it actually help my heart failure
Does this Ramipril actually help my blood pressure?
As healthcare professionals, our decision-making is scrutinized far more than that of most other professions. For example, few people question their mechanic about whether replacing a part will truly improve fuel efficiency, or challenge a solicitor on whether citing a particular case will influence the outcome. This heightened scrutiny stems from the issues I mentioned earlier.
The solution lies in appealing to patients' rationality while simultaneously restoring their confidence in us as subject matter experts. As clinicians, we are trained in research methodology, equipped to assess evidence on its merits, and capable of making informed decisions based on the strength of that evidence. Unfortunately, this expertise has become undervalued by many patients, likely due to the widespread availability of healthcare information. However, the problem isn’t the accessibility of information itself—it’s our failure to effectively explain evidence in terms that are easy for patients to understand.
When patients ask about a particular medication or treatment, we should be prepared to return to the evidence base. Utilizing resources like educational materials or tools such as Number Needed to Treat (NNT) diagrams can help convey the impact of interventions in a clear and relatable way.
Battling misinformation is a shared responsibility. As healthcare professionals, we often bear the brunt of its consequences, but it’s important to remember that we are trained in the empirical sciences. Patients come to us seeking answers—a responsibility and privilege we must not take lightly.
It is crucial that we take the time to thoroughly research their concerns and present evidence in a way that is both accurate and easy to understand. This not only respects the principle of patient autonomy but also helps to rebuild public confidence in the science that underpins our practice.
CPD Course Coming your Way…
Clinical Emergencies, whether in primary or secondary care occur all the time. Whilst we get the yearly BLS or three yearly ALS updates, we all know that each emergency has its own management criteria.
Whether you’re a qualified professional or a student, this CPD accredited course will give you a comprehensive refresh of medical and surgical emergencies in clinical practice.
We will be covering:
Clinical assessment: ABCDE
Airway Management
Algorithms of medical and surgical emergencies including key decision making
Who to call?
To scan or not Scan?
Interpretation of key investigations: ECG, ABG, VBG and CXR
We will cover all the major medical and surgical emergencies with case summaries to consolidate learning.
This course is held on Sunday 26th January 2025 and is also RECORDED (60 days access) if you wish to watch at a later date/again.
Also.. don’t forget to check out our webinar this THURSDAY (7-8pm) on Falls. You can also sign up to this here.
Clinical Refresher: Endometrial Cancer
I’m sure we all know that patients with post menopausal bleeding require a referral via the 2 week wait service. However, NICE also have “sub criteria” for referral which we can sometimes overlook. The following patients require an urgent ultrasound to investigate endometrial thickness:
Women aged 55 and over:
With unexplained vaginal discharge who are:
Presenting with these symptoms for the first time, or
Have thrombocytosis (elevated platelet count), or
Report haematuria (blood in urine).
Women aged 55 and over:
Presenting with visible haematuria and any of the following:
Low haemoglobin levels,
Thrombocytosis,
High blood glucose levels.
If the endometrial thickness is found to be >4mm then these patients require an urgent 2 week wait referral for hysteroscopy.
Until next time..
Website: www.paretoeducation.co.uk
Instagram: www.instagram.com/pareto_ed
Twitter: www.twitter.com/pareto_ed
Youtube: https://bit.ly/3DPm23c
Email: info@paretoeducation.co.uk
You know what we know for a fact. Chemo has a 98 percent death rate. It is horrid. We know that there are a monumental amount of different cancers, and, treatments that do not work. Have you ever done a side by side? Cancer deaths next to survivors? You are all failing.....dramatically. South America, Mexico, India and minimal parts of Europe and Asia DO HAVE results from studies regarding Ivermectin, and other unique medicines that have positive results either alone. Or, mixed with targeted therapy. The heavy hitters in the Cancer/Pharmaceutical industry run the show. Unfortunately, you are actors going against producers who won't let the film fail. In a lifetime, a researcher has not found a cure. Not even close. How many researches failed and died in the last century? Worldwide? 100s of thousands. People with an IQ of 160 and above bested and silenced by big pharma and Cancer hospital CEOS.
chalowfrank@yahoo.com