reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Zev Zelenko, the creator of the Zelenko protocol and advocate for Hydroxychloroquine, has made a video exposing a conspiracy between Janet Woodcock and Rick Bright. Rick Bright, former head of BARDA, and Janet Woodcock, former head of Operation Warp Speed for Drugs and the FDA, allegedly conspired to restrict the use of Hydroxychloroquine to hospitals only. This strategy, implemented through emergency use authorization, hindered the timely administration of the drug. The motive behind their actions remains unclear. Rick Bright himself admitted to this conspiracy on video, claiming there was no evidence of Hydroxychloroquine's effectiveness against the virus, which is false.

In March, I researched and wrote a protocol with hydroxychloroquine, which was quickly approved by the FDA. However, political pressure led to its rejection in favor of more expensive options. Bill Gates even inquired about my protocol, hinting at potential investment. Despite setbacks, I eventually proposed a study comparing vitamins to hydroxychloroquine, revealing political interference in drug approval processes.

Tony Fauci's problem is that a federal law prohibits emergency use authorization for a vaccine if there is an approved medication that is effective against the target disease. If Fauci had acknowledged the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine or Ivermectin against COVID, it would have been illegal to approve the vaccines. The medical community, including 17,000 doctors, supported the use of these medications, but Fauci dismissed them as dangerous. It is speculated that Fauci had a strong incentive to discredit these medications. Many doctors, such as Harvey Reach, Peter McCulloch, and Pierre Corey, who have successfully treated COVID patients, believe that hundreds of thousands of American lives could have been saved if these medications were not suppressed.

At home, it is recommended to treat viral replication by giving remedies like zinc and hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, which reduce the spread of the disease. However, the protocol followed was different. No treatment was given until hospitalization, where ventilators and Remdesivir were used. It is known that Remdesivir can be harmful, as it caused side effects in Ebola patients. The drug was manipulated and made standard of care, leading to kidney failure, heart failure, and organ collapse in COVID-19 patients. The deaths during the pandemic were often attributed to kidney failure, which was caused by Remdesivir, not the virus itself.

The 2018 FDA guidance recommended using drugs off-label for unmet medical needs. Hydroxychloroquine, Ivermectin, colchicine, doxycycline, Azithromycin, budesonide, prednisone, and enoxaparin were used to treat COVID-19. However, certain drugs like hydroxychloroquine faced strong opposition. Clive Palmer in Australia procured hydroxychloroquine for the entire population, but it was seized and destroyed by authorities. The motive behind targeting these drugs is unclear. If they were proven useful, there would be no need for vaccine mandates. It's questioned why people couldn't use hydroxychloroquine or Ivermectin if they were willing to try and pay for them, even if they didn't work.

The Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) regulation from the Clinton administration included safeguards. You can distribute a medication without approval, clinical trials, or safety testing, but only if no existing approved drug is effective against the target illness. To use the EUA for vaccines, any effective drugs against COVID needed to be discredited. Early on, it was known that hydroxychloroquine was effective against coronavirus. NIH studies demonstrated its effectiveness both as a preventative and as a cure. Ivermectin was also very effective. Acknowledging that these drugs worked would have eliminated the use of the emergency use authorization. So, they had to suppress them.

I'm Karen DeVore, a dermatologist in South Carolina. I've been prescribing hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin for over 30 years, off-label. In 2020, the FDA called Ivermectin horse medicine and doctors couldn't prescribe it. I knew these drugs were safe and effective, and I saw great results in my patients. None of the patients I treated with these drugs were hospitalized or died from COVID. They had no side effects and felt better within hours. It's frustrating that insurance companies and pharmacies denied access to these drugs. Even terminally ill patients on ventilators couldn't try them. How many lives could have been saved?

In 2020, there was a disinformation campaign against Hydroxychloroquine, a generic drug. The pharmaceutical industry opposes generic drugs as they reduce profits. They conducted trials with toxic doses of Hydroxychloroquine, causing increased deaths. On the other hand, Ivermectin is beneficial when given in higher doses. The spike protein in COVID-19 causes clotting issues and suppresses interferon, a chemical that helps fight infections and cancer. Medicines like Ivermectin and others can boost interferon levels and prevent clotting by binding to receptors. Some patients given high doses of Ivermectin have shown remarkable recovery, as it competes with the spike protein for binding sites and prevents clot formation.

Doctors were aware that hydroxychloroquine was safe until the media suggested otherwise. They claimed it was both safe and effective, but when the narrative shifted to it being unsafe, despite its 70-year history and a government database showing it to be safer than Tylenol, it raised concerns. The assertion of its lack of safety felt like a significant deception.

Speaker 0 argues that ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine were suppressed because they are well-established drugs with safety records and billions of doses used; ivermectin is a human drug that also works on horses and won the Nobel Prize for its effectiveness in humans. He states there is a federal law that says an emergency use authorization (EUA) for a vaccine cannot be granted if there is any approved medication shown effective against the target disease, so admitting effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin would have made EUA for vaccines illegal and would have collapsed a “200,000,000,000 enterprise.” Speaker 1 notes this is the first time hearing that assertion, acknowledging it’s in the book. He suggests that if the medical community had been saying ivermectin is an effective COVID treatment, EUA for vaccines could not have been granted. Speaker 0 explains that many in the medical community supported effectiveness, citing a petition signed by 17,000 doctors and numerous peer-reviewed publications, but Fauci aggressively crusaded against it, labeling it a horse medication and alleging danger and overdosing to drown out those reports. Speaker 1 asks why Fauci continued to push the claim after EUA was granted. Speaker 0 answers that, even with EUA, the law may require withdrawal if a functioning medication exists, implying a motive to undermine ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine. He mentions a strong incentive for Fauci to kill these medications and cites several doctors who treated tens of thousands of COVID patients and supported the claim that the science shows many lives could have been saved. He names Harvey Reich at Yale, Peter McCulloch as the most published doctor in history and prominent in biostatistics/epidemiology, and Peter Quarry in connection with the doctors who treated many patients. They allegedly state that half a million Americans did not need to die.

The forest plot shows COVID medicines, with only expensive ones approved in the US. Cheaper options were ignored. Study endpoints were changed when results weren't as expected. Despite positive outcomes in trials, hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin face negative perceptions in the US. Over 420 trials on hydroxychloroquine and 100 on Ivermectin show significant benefits, but they are still viewed negatively.

Tony Fauci's problem is that a federal law prohibits emergency use authorization for a vaccine if there is an approved medication that effectively treats the target disease. If Fauci or anyone had acknowledged that Ivermectin works as a treatment for COVID, the vaccine would not have received authorization. Despite many doctors and publications supporting Ivermectin, Fauci actively dismissed it as a dangerous medication to drown out its effectiveness. It is unclear why he continued to do so after receiving authorization, but there is a strong incentive for him to discredit Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine. Notable doctors like Harvey Reich and Pierre Cory have successfully treated thousands of COVID patients.

There are studies that suggest increased mortality with hydroxychloroquine, but there are also French studies that show a 50% decrease in deaths with its use. However, there is no significant difference in mortality rates. Some studies, including one from the CHU de Lyon, have shown serious side effects from hydroxychloroquine. Giving hydroxychloroquine to someone with a cardiac condition related to Covid increases the risk of cardiac complications. It not only lacks benefits but also increases the chances of intubation, ventilation, or death by 13%. Thankfully, the prescription of hydroxychloroquine in the community has been banned, which is considered a crucial public health measure that prevented potentially hundreds or even thousands of deaths.

In 1970, a Japanese biochemist named Satoshi Omorra discovered a bacterium with intriguing effects against roundworm and shared it with American colleague William Campbell of Merck. Campbell used the bacterium to create ivermectin, released by Merck in 1980. Ivermectin proved extremely effective against river blindness (onchocerciasis), a disease caused by a parasitic worm that affected Central and South America and much of Africa. With ivermectin, river blindness has been largely eliminated in the Americas and greatly reduced in Africa. Billions of doses have been administered; it is listed among the World Health Organization’s essential medicines. Merck’s patent expired in 1996; the drug is cheap to produce, globally available in various formulations, and, at normal dosages, has no important side effects. In 2015, Omurra received the Nobel Prize for Medicine, shared with Campbell. Fast forward to early 2020, when the COVID-19 pandemic spread. Scientists searched for drugs with antiviral activity, and Monash University in Australia conducted a literature search that found ivermectin had shown activity against Zika, West Nile, and influenza. They performed experiments and found that ivermectin displays remarkable activity against SARS-CoV-2 in vitro, reporting a 5,000-fold reduction in viral levels after a single treatment without cytotoxicity, and proposed a mechanism for this effect. Around the same time, two American scientists noted that ivermectin was used as prophylaxis against river blindness in Africa and examined whether widespread ivermectin prophylaxis correlated with COVID-19 rates. They found that countries with extensive ivermectin prophylaxis had significantly lower COVID-19 rates. In Miami, Dr. Jean Jacques Reiter, a critical care and pulmonary specialist, treated COVID-19 patients with ivermectin after being urged by a patient’s son. He reported rapid improvement: the patient’s FiO2 requirements declined within 48 hours, and she was discharged within about a week. Reiter treated many patients with ivermectin and published a June 2020 preprint; he later testified before a Senate committee about his experiences. He stated that among hundreds of outpatients treated by his team, only two were admitted to the hospital; neither died or required intubation. Uncontrolled studies on ivermectin as prophylaxis and treatment circulated globally. A daughter described a care-home incident in Ontario, where residents on a floor receiving high-dose ivermectin for scabies reportedly had no COVID-19 infections among residents, even as staff on that floor became infected. In New York, Pierre Corry teamed with Reiter and Paul Merrick to form the Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC). In October 2020, the FLCCC released the Eye Mask Plus protocol, centering on ivermectin for prevention and treatment, and published a meta-analysis reviewing nine studies on prophylaxis and 12 studies on treatment, including seven randomized trials, all showing ivermectin’s superiority to controls. They presented figures showing reduced mortality and case rates associated with ivermectin use in various regions, including Peru, Mexico (Chiapas), and Argentina (healthcare workers). On December 8, 2020, FLCCC members appeared before a Senate subcommittee, with testimony claiming mountains of data showing ivermectin’s miraculous effectiveness and requesting the NIH to review their data. The transcript asserts widespread suppression of ivermectin information by mainstream media (New York Times, AP), big tech (YouTube, Twitter, Facebook), and the NIH. It alleges the NIH COVID-19 treatment guidelines panel, established in April 2020, largely recommended against early treatment and promoted remdesivir instead, even though remdesivir’s mortality impact was unproven and the World Health Organization advised against its use for improving survival. The panel’s treatment recommendations (as of 01/03/2021) are cited, highlighting monoclonal antibodies for early patients and no other treatments, except for remdesivir for deteriorating patients. Fauci publicly touted remdesivir’s endpoint as time to recovery, with the primary endpoint reportedly changed mid-trial from mortality to time to recovery, raising concerns about impartiality. The transcript traces remdesivir's production by Gilead Sciences and notes financial ties: seven panel members disclosed funding from Gilead; two of the three panel chairs received Gilead support, and Clifford Lane (one co-author on a remdesivir study) was closely connected to the study, with undisclosed ties among other authors. It argues these ties could impact decision-making and bias toward remdesivir over cheaper, repurposed drugs like ivermectin. The narrative then contrasts the U.S. approach with Uttar Pradesh, India, which authorized ivermectin as prophylaxis and treatment in August 2020. In January 2021, Uttar Pradesh reported near-zero COVID-19 deaths, while the United States faced ongoing high mortality, suggesting potential differential outcomes if ivermectin had been broadly authorized. The closing remarks emphasize the suffering caused by COVID-19 and its broad impacts on families and society.

Speaker 0 explains that people wonder why ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine were suppressed, noting these are well established drugs with safety profiles and billions of doses given. He says ivermectin is a human drug and also works on horses, but it would win the Nobel Prize because it works so well on human beings. Speaker 1 responds “Mhmm.” Speaker 0 states there is a little known federal law that says you cannot give an emergency use authorization (EUA) to a vaccine if there is any medication approved for any purpose that is shown effective against the target disease. So if Tony Fauci or anybody had admitted that hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin are effective against COVID, it would have been illegal to give the EUAs to the vaccines, and they could never have gotten them approved. He suggests this would have collapsed a “200,000,000,000 enterprise.” Speaker 1 says, “That is fascinating,” noting they had been covering this for two years and that this is the first time hearing that; if the medical community had been saying ivermectin works, it would have affected EUA. Speaker 0 responds that the medical community did say that—17,000 doctors signed a petition, and there are many peer reviewed publications consistently saying so. Yet Fauci aggressively crusaded against it, insisting it’s a horse medication, that people are overdosing, and so on. He asks why Fauci kept saying it. Speaker 1 asks why Fauci continued to say it after he got the authorization. Speaker 0 offers possible explanations: one, even if you have an EUA, the law appears to say you can't have it anymore if there is a functioning medication. He acknowledges, though, that he cannot read Fauci’s mind but speculates there is a strong incentive for Fauci to kill ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine. He cites several doctors who treated tens of thousands of COVID patients successfully and who argue that half a million Americans did not need to die, naming Harvey Reich at Yale, Peter McCulloch, and Peter Quarry.

A recent study claimed that 17,000 people died from Hydroxychloroquine, but Robert Kennedy Jr. pointed out flaws in the study. The drug was given to COVID patients already in the hospital instead of within the first 10 to 14 days when it is effective. The dosage administered was also much higher than recommended. While these mistakes may have contributed to deaths, it is important to consider how many lives could have been saved if the drug was used correctly. Hydroxychloroquine has been widely used for malaria and sometimes drugs are discovered to have additional benefits. The politicization of these drugs is unfortunate, especially considering their affordability.

Hydroxychloroquine was initially praised for its potential in reducing COVID-19 symptoms and hospitalizations. However, it soon faced widespread criticism worldwide. In Australia, billionaire Clive Palmer purchased a large supply of hydroxychloroquine for the entire continent, intending to distribute it for free. Unfortunately, the Australian authorities seized and destroyed the medication.

Sabine Hazen and her panel critique a hydroxychloroquine paper, calling it a fake paper with fake data: "This is a fake paper. This is a fake data." They cite claims of "seventeen thousand people died" and "96,000 patients" in the Lancet as fraudulent, arguing no way "70,000 medical records" could be used. Xavier Ezolber analyzes data miscalculation, "data inconsistency" and "fabricated" results, criticizing the peer-review process and predatory journals that "launder scientific papers." He says, "There is a corruption in medicine," "money talks for sure," and "lobbyists control both sides of the politics." They recount frontline experiences with hydroxychloroquine–Z Pak–vitamins and ivermectin–doxycycline protocols, reporting "zero mortality, zero hospitalizations" in some cohorts and highlighting the microbiome’s role. They urge transparency, critique drug trial processes, and question vaccine strategies, stressing early outpatient treatment research.

The forest plot shows COVID medicines, with only expensive ones approved in the US. Cheaper drugs were ignored. Studies manipulated endpoints and faced negative PR. Over 420 trials on hydroxychloroquine and 100 on Ivermectin show significant benefits, but they are dismissed in the US.

Honestly, I'll tell you something. All my fellow doctors who were affected by Covid-19 have all taken chloroquine. So, it's hypocritical to say that we need to wait for studies to know what to do. I believe we should give every possible chance to the patients.

Honestly, I'll tell you something. All my fellow doctors who were affected by Covid-19 have all taken chloroquine. So, it's hypocritical to say that we need to wait for studies to know what to do. I believe we should give every possible chance to the patients.

panel discusses hydroxychloroquine and early treatments. Hazen states: "I did the clinical trial. I wrote those protocols on hydroxychloroquine, Z Pak, vitamin C, D and zinc, passed them through the FDA within twenty four hours." She adds, "No one died on my shift, even though I did a placebo controlled trial on hydroxychloroquine, Z Pak, vitamin C, D and zinc," and "And we had hundreds of patients on that." They argue the Lancet paper is invalid: "This paper is to me is not just, you know, I'm not going to criticize it and say, oh, well they overdosed. I'm going to say, no, this is a fake paper. This is a fake data." They insist: "There is no way that four or five authors took 17,000 records." They discuss predatory journals: "predatory journals" and "they can manipulate or retract the data to make you look bad." They claim: "Hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin are out of patents." They report outcomes: "zero mortality" and "zero hospitalizations," and critique media: "they control the media and they push all this narrative out there." They urge: "stop publishing papers that are so fraudulently, so obviously fraudulent." They reference the microbiome: "the microbiome is all shit," and advocate: "everybody needs a fecal transplant right now."

Like hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin are no are out of patents. So because they're out of patents, you cannot make any money on these drugs. The most you could sell them for is, $300 Pharmaceutical companies are no longer interested in $300 drugs. They're interested in orphan drugs where they can get name your price for a drug. We're going to put it under an orphan and now we can bill whatever we want. From like $300 to $10,000 a month. Then all these companies started copying and doing biologic at $10,000 a month. But there is a movement that is controlling the research and stopping innovations, that is stopping out of patent drugs, drugs that are basically like hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin. So I think that's the number one thing and the attacks on that.

I've stated since May 2020 that remdesivir will result in at least 30% death in those who receive it in the hospital. I had data pulled for Medicare patients in New York, and found that 26.9% of those who received remdesivir died. As of October 2020, the cardiovascular toxicology journal found that remdesivir causes death of heart cells and can lead to cardiac arrest. Yet, in December, the NIH decided to update all guidelines for treatment drugs allowed for COVID-19, and remdesivir was the only FDA-approved drug for hospitalized Americans, despite the WHO publishing that it causes increased acute kidney failure. As of January of this year, the FDA extended an emergency use authorization, making remdesivir the only authorized medication that can be administered to newborns to 18-year-olds.