TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

There is a drug called Ivermectin that has proven to be highly effective in combating the current crisis. This is not an exaggeration, but a scientific recommendation based on extensive data gathered over the past three months. The NIH's recommendation against using Ivermectin outside of controlled trials was made in August, but since then, numerous studies from various countries have shown its miraculous impact. It has been found to completely prevent the transmission of the virus and ensure that individuals who take it do not get sick.

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.

Dr. Oz expresses concern over the politicization of medicine, particularly regarding hydroxychloroquine. He wishes the drug had never been mentioned by politicians. While clinical trials are still underway, a Chinese study showed statistically significant improvement in clinical symptoms and blood markers for inflammation when the drug was administered, though it did not clear the virus. Dr. Oz questions why these findings are being ignored, while other studies with different results are highlighted. He emphasizes the need for honest data presentation, rather than biased headlines. Dr. Oz highlights Georgia's technology-driven approach to managing the virus among first responders, involving easy access to testing and information. He is encouraged by Abbott's plan to produce antibody kits, which could reveal the extent of asymptomatic cases and inform future decisions. He suspects there is a broader asymptomatic population.

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.

Basically, regardless of the disease stage, many people in Maranhão are already receiving chloroquine. The state healthcare system primarily focuses on severe cases, so most of our patients who are hospitalized fall into that category. However, I cannot confirm if all of them are severe cases since I am not a medical professional.

There are numerous studies showing the significant benefits of Ivermectin, with a 70 to 85% reduction in hospitalizations and deaths. It has been effective worldwide, including in countries like Nigeria, which has the highest burden of river blindness but the lowest COVID death rate. They use both Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine. Similarly, states in India like Kerala and Uttar Pradesh had comparable death rates by following a protocol that included Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine. There are over 400 studies supporting the benefits of hydroxychloroquine and nearly 100 studies showing the devastating benefits of Ivermectin. However, a few government-produced studies financed by Bill Gates and the WHO claim no benefit, but these studies have been criticized.

I hope they use hydroxychloroquine and Z Pak with doctor's approval. It's been around for a long time, so why not try it? I want to avoid ventilators because the outcomes are not good. Hydroxychloroquine could be a game-changer if it works. It's their choice to take it, but I recommend trying it. Avoid Z Pak if you have a heart condition. Let's keep people off ventilators and find a better solution.

Doctors in Australia have found a potential cure for the coronavirus using a drug called Ivermectin. This medicine, which is already FDA approved and on the World Health Organization's list of essential medicines, has been shown to kill the virus in less than 48 hours. It is safe, widely available, and inexpensive, costing just 12 cents for a course of treatment. When combined with two other drugs, doxycycline and zinc, Ivermectin has been found to be highly effective in treating the virus. Doctors in Broward County, Florida have reported a near 100% success rate in curing coronavirus patients using Ivermectin. However, it remains to be seen how other medical experts will respond to this discovery.

The speaker discusses the phenomenon of using drugs like ivermectin to treat COVID-19 without sufficient data to support its effectiveness. They emphasize the importance of safe and effective vaccines in preventing hospitalization and death from COVID-19. When patients request ivermectin, the speaker advises physicians to encourage vaccination for prevention and to provide monoclonal antibody treatment for those who qualify. For patients who are infected and at low risk for disease progression, the speaker suggests participating in clinical trials to determine the drug's efficacy. They provide the website clinicaltrials.gov for information on available trials.

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.

We discovered that Ivermectin can kill COVID-19 in primate cells. A single dose of the drug stopped the virus from replicating within 48 hours. Human trials are on the horizon, as the drug has been safely used for decades. Repurposing existing drugs like Ivermectin can speed up development by utilizing known safety profiles and administration methods. We are working on determining if these benefits can translate to treating COVID-19 in humans.

The government of São Paulo clarifies its position on chloroquine. Dr. David Uip, an infectious disease specialist and coordinator of the COVID-19 contingency group, recommended to Health Minister Luiz Henrique Mandetta that the medication be distributed in public healthcare facilities. Dr. Uip will provide further details on this matter.

This is a report on a nursing home in Texas City that experienced a major COVID-19 outbreak. The nursing home used a treatment approach that included Hydroxychloroquine, a Z Pak, and Zinc for residents showing symptoms. Despite controversy surrounding the use of Hydroxychloroquine, the treatment seemed promising and only one patient has died since. The goal was to treat residents on-site and prevent further spread of the virus. The nursing home staff closely monitored patients and conducted EKG tests to ensure their safety. The decision to pursue this treatment path was made to avoid potential loss of life among residents.

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 this video, the speaker discusses the use of hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for COVID-19. They explain that hydroxychloroquine has been used for centuries to treat various conditions, including malaria. The speaker mentions that hydroxychloroquine inhibits the virus from entering and replicating in cells, and it also helps transport zinc into cells, which can further inhibit viral replication. The speaker then discusses a study that found a lower mortality rate among COVID-19 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine. They highlight that despite the controversy surrounding the drug, there is evidence to suggest its effectiveness in reducing deaths. The speaker concludes by emphasizing that hydroxychloroquine may be beneficial even in advanced stages of the disease.

North American science spent 15 years researching how to respond to a future coronavirus pandemic after the original SARS CoV-one outbreak in 2002-2003. By 2015-2016, research showed that Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine were effective antiviral and immune modulatory treatments. The US military's research arm, DARPA, recommended Ivermectin as the top choice for a coronavirus pandemic and shared this information with the CDC. These medications had been proven safe for humans and had been used for several decades. They were ready to be used in the event of a future pandemic.

North American science spent 15 years preparing for the next COVID after the original SARS CoV 1 outbreak in 2002-2003. By 2015-2016, research was complete. DARPA recommended to the CDC that ivermectin was the number one product to use in the event of a coronavirus pandemic. Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine were known to be highly antiviral and immune modulatory. These effects were proven in vitro and in vivo with animals. Both medications were known to be completely safe for humans, having been used for 35 to 40 years. This knowledge was readily available for use at the next pandemic.

Dix-sept-mille décès pourraient être attribués à l'hydroxychloroquine, un médicament utilisé pendant la pandémie de Covid-19. Autorisé à titre compassionnel, il a été retiré en raison de risques cardiaques et de l'absence de bénéfices prouvés. Une étude estime que 200 décès en France pourraient être liés à ce médicament, mais les données sont limitées. La prescription de l'hydroxychloroquine doit donc être faite avec prudence lors de futures épidémies. Translation: Seventeen thousand deaths could be attributed to hydroxychloroquine, a medication used during the Covid-19 pandemic. Authorized on a compassionate basis, it was withdrawn due to cardiac risks and lack of proven benefits. A study estimates that 200 deaths in France could be linked to this drug, but the data is limited. The prescription of hydroxychloroquine should therefore be done with caution during future epidemics.

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.

The dialogue centers on treatments and outcomes for COVID-19, with concerns about what is being used and what might work. One participant remarks on the reluctance to use certain treatments that are successful worldwide, recounting a conversation with a doctor. Another asks what kinds of treatments are being tried, noting that some approaches “are coming out with different things that are in the testing phase.” A third person criticizes a platform they believe “kills more people than actually save,” and another agrees that “they don’t work anyway,” questioning the harm in trying alternatives when current efforts aren’t effective. A key exchange discusses expectations for patient survival. One person says, “I don’t expect any of these people to survive. Ninety percent of them would die,” while another adds that if patients are “already dying anyway,” it may be reasonable to try additional measures rather than do nothing. There is debate about whether trying unproven treatments is appropriate; one participant notes that without a scientific basis, extra attempts can make patients worse, while another concedes that they would try anything to save their life. The conversation then shifts to clinical presentations and treatment strategies. With COVID patients who cannot breathe, X-rays show “the lungs are white,” indicating affected lungs with very thick, white secretions. The question arises of what “white lung” means—whether it is mucus and coating that fill the lungs and impede oxygen transfer. In response, the discussion distinguishes between early-stage treatments (like hydroxychloroquine and zinc) and later-stage interventions. It is stated that once lungs are severely affected, certain proven treatments exist that have passed trials in Asia through Dr. Chang, described as a US-board-certified physician. Specifically, extremely high-dose IV vitamin C is claimed to be successful in treating patients, providing the lungs with antioxidant support to help expel the infection, alongside IV antibiotics to treat the infection while avoiding reliance on ventilation and sedation. There is a contrast drawn between approaches in different regions. The dialogue notes that high-dose IV vitamin C has passed three trials in Asia and is reported as effective, while in the speaker’s locale, there is hesitation or reluctance to adopt this method. The discussion ends with a remark about how some people might attribute success to “good genes,” implying a belief that genetics may influence susceptibility or outcomes, though this is stated rather than argued as a scientific conclusion. Overall, the conversation emphasizes that several participants are wary of conventional treatments, advocate for exploring high-dose IV vitamin C as a therapeutic option, and describe the characteristic radiographic and clinical features of severe COVID-19 lung involvement.

The speaker discusses the use of various drugs, including hydroxychloroquine, Ivermectin, colchicine, doxycycline, Azithromycin, budesonide, prednisone, and enoxaparin, for treating COVID-19. They mention that these drugs were considered lightning rods, particularly hydroxychloroquine, which faced strong opposition. The speaker questions why authorities would prevent the use of these drugs if they were not believed to be effective, and highlights the safety profile of Ivermectin. They suggest that people should be allowed to try these drugs if they are willing to pay for them. The motive behind targeting these drugs is unclear.

Our engagement with the disease has changed, as we now deploy troops outside of hospitals and intensive care units. The hospitals in Bologna have set up outpatient clinics to examine potential COVID cases at the first signs of symptoms. Thousands of patients have visited these clinics, and they have been equipped with portable machines, such as an ultrasound device, to perform low-impact procedures like electrocardiograms. Additionally, as an approved experimental therapy, hydroxychloroquine has been administered to COVID patients for five days in the early stages of the disease, resulting in high rates of recovery. This approach of early intervention and treatment in outpatient clinics has proven successful in reducing the burden on emergency services and intensive care units.

Dr. Vladimir Zelenko suggests initiating early treatment for moderate to high-risk COVID-19 patients in the outpatient setting, reporting positive results. He mentions the FDA approval of Hydroxychloroquine for various conditions and questions why it was blocked. He then discusses his search for an alternative, finding Quercetin and vitamin C as a substitute for delivering zinc into cells. Dr. Zelenko emphasizes the importance of faith and freedom, advocating for civil disobedience and resistance against potential government overreach. He concludes by highlighting the need for a mature faith in God to overcome fear and uncertainty.