TruthArchive.ai - 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.

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.

It is nearly impossible to publish data that goes against the national public health narrative, preventing doctors from finding solutions. The speaker has conducted clinical trials for pharmaceutical companies, including vaccine studies, and has brought vaccines and other drugs to market. Some drugs never made it to market because they killed people. Clinical trial guidelines ensure safe drugs, but these guidelines were not followed during the pandemic, affecting everyone. COVID should have been a time for doctors to unite, but interference with research occurred. Science evolves through experiments, skepticism, and an open mind. Challenging current knowledge must be allowed to move science forward, but what the speaker witnessed during the pandemic was not science.

In Pierre Corre's book The War on Ivermectin, an accidental natural experiment is described. A natural experiment is explained as a situation where nature creates varying conditions that allow analysis without controlled experimentation. The book reports 80 court cases in which families sued hospitals to force ivermectin treatment for desperately ill relatives. In 40 cases, courts granted the request and ivermectin was administered; in the other 40, courts refused and no ivermectin was given. Among the cases where ivermectin was given, 38 patients survived and 2 died. Among the cases where ivermectin was not given, 2 patients survived and 38 died. The presenter notes that he cannot vouch for the data itself since it is not published in a scientific paper and the court cases cannot be independently checked, but presumes the data is accurate and states he knows Pierre well and believes he didn’t fabricate it. A chi-squared calculation, validated by two different AIs, yields a p-value of 5.03 × 10^-15, indicating an extraordinarily high level of statistical significance. The presenter emphasizes that “the chances of a result that strong if ivermectin does not work are something like the chances of you guessing a random 15 digit number on the first try,” calling the result “through the roof.” It is noted that CNN framed the topic as a veterinary medicine issue, which the presenter finds ironic. The broader point is that the ivermectin story, and repurposed drug use more generally, is an important puzzle piece: if repurposed drugs had been allowed to be used through the normal medical process—where doctors evaluate patients, consider symptoms, and pool information with other doctors—COVID could have been an entirely manageable disease for all but the most compromised individuals. The presenter concludes that there was no important pandemic.

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 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.

Dr. Richard Erso, an ophthalmologist and member of America's frontline doctors, joined the fight against the pandemic because he believed there were effective treatments available. He emphasized that it didn't make sense to let patients suffer without treatment when doctors know how to treat inflammation, infections, vascular diseases, and breathing problems. He criticized the idea of lockdowns and stated that anyone who claims otherwise is spreading science fiction and hypocrisy. Dr. Erso then mentioned that he wanted to discuss the current state of testing and PCR.

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?

It's frustrating that effective treatments used globally aren't considered here. A doctor mentioned that many treatments don't work, and with a high mortality rate, there's little to lose by trying new options. Patients often present with severe breathing difficulties and thick mucus in their lungs, visible on X-rays. Proven treatments exist, like high-dose IV vitamin C, which has shown success in trials, but these are often dismissed. Instead, patients are frequently sedated and placed on ventilators. Despite the historical skepticism surrounding vitamin C, it has potential benefits that are overlooked, leaving many to question the current medical approach.

The speaker discusses the availability of early therapeutic treatments for COVID-19 that can prevent hospitalization and death. They mention the use of Ivermectin, highlighting the numerous trials and studies that have shown its effectiveness in treating and preventing COVID-19. The speaker expresses concern about the lack of support from medical boards and the interference of federal bureaucracy in the doctor-patient relationship. They also mention the demonization of Ivermectin by the media and emphasize its safety and successful use in other countries. The speaker urges the Senate committee to consider the perspectives of doctors who have successfully treated patients with early therapeutic treatments for COVID-19.

It's frustrating that effective treatments aren't being utilized. A conversation with a doctor revealed that many current treatments aren't working, and there's skepticism about trying new methods. Despite the high mortality rate, some believe it's worth exploring alternatives. Patients often present with severe breathing issues and thick mucus in their lungs, which complicates oxygen transfer. Proven treatments, like high-dose IV vitamin C, have shown success in trials but are dismissed here. Instead, patients are often sedated and placed on ventilators. There's a reluctance to accept these treatments, despite their potential benefits.

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.

At home, it is recommended to treat viral replication by giving zinc and other zinc-enhancing remedies like hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin. However, the protocol followed by hospitals was to provide no treatment until admission, and then use ventilators and Remdesivir, which were known to be harmful. Tony Fauci was aware of the dangers of Remdesivir, as it caused lethal side effects in Ebola patients. Despite this, he manipulated a study to make Remdesivir the standard of care, resulting in kidney failure, heart failure, and organ collapse in COVID-19 patients. The deaths attributed to the virus were actually caused by Remdesivir.

An experimental drug called remdesivir will be responsible for people's deaths. People diagnosed with COVID-19 in the hospital died between day one and day nine, specifically on day nine of a ten-day remdesivir treatment. Dr. Anthony Fauci claimed in May 2020 that remdesivir was found safe and effective in a drug trial in Africa a year earlier (02/2019), and hyperlinked the study in a memo to hospitals. However, in that trial, remdesivir killed 53% of people, and the safety board suspended its use at month six, deeming it too deadly and toxic for Ebola patients. Dr. Anthony Fauci and his department at the NIH funded the Ebola trial in Africa in 02/2019. Therefore, Fauci lied to Congress and the American people by claiming the drug was safe and effective against Ebola, when the safety board had deemed it too deadly and pulled it from the trial.

- The discussion opens with a critique of how public health authorities in the United States and much of the media discouraged experimentation with COVID-19 treatments, instead pushing vaccination and portraying other approaches as dangerous. The hosts ask why treatments were sidelined and treated as heretical to question. - Speaker 1 explains that the core idea was to stamp out “vaccine hesitation,” which he frames not as a purely scientific issue but as a form of heresy. He notes a broad literature on vaccine hesitancy and contrasts it with the perception of the vaccine as a liberating savior. He points to a Vatican €20 silver coin (2022) commemorating the COVID-19 vaccine, described by Vatican catalogs as “a boy prepares to receive the Eucharist,” which the speakers interpret as an overlay of religious iconography with vaccination imagery. They also reference Diego Rivera’s mural in Detroit, interpreted as depicting the vaccine as a Eucharist, and a South African church banner reading “even the blood of Christ cannot protect you, get vaccinated,” highlighting what they see as provocative uses of religious symbolism to promote vaccination. - They claim that the Biden administration’s COVID Vaccine Corps distributed billions of dollars to major sports leagues (NFL, MLB) and that many mainline churches reportedly received money to push vaccination, with many clergy not opposing the push. The implication is that monetary incentives influenced public figures and organizations to advocate for vaccines, contributing to a climate in which questioning orthodoxy was difficult. - The speakers discuss the social dynamics around vaccine “heresy,” using Aaron Rodgers’ experience with isolation and shaming in the NFL and Novak Djokovic’s experiences in Australia to illustrate how prominent individuals who questioned or fell outside the orthodoxy faced punitive pressure. They compare this to a Reformation-era conflict over doctrinal correctness and describe a psychology of stigmatizing dissent as a tool to enforce conformity. - They argue the imperative driving institutions was the belief that the vaccine was the central, non-negotiable public-health objective, seemingly above other medical considerations. The central question they raise is why vaccines became the sole priority, seemingly overriding a broader, more nuanced evaluation of medical options and individual risk. - The conversation shifts to epistemology and the nature of science. Speaker 1 suggests medicine often relies on orthodoxies and presuppositions, rather than purely empirical processes. He recounts a Kantian view that interpretation depends on preexisting categories, and he uses this to argue that medical decision-making can be constrained by established doctrines, which may obscure questions about optimization and safety. - They recount the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act and discuss Sara Sotomayor’s dissent, which argued that liability exposure is a key incentive for safety and improvement in vaccine development. They argue that the current system creates minimal liability for manufacturers, reducing the incentive to optimize safety, and they use this to question how the system encourages continuous safety improvements. - The hosts recount the early-treatment movement led by Peter McCullough and others, including a Senate hearing organized by Ron Johnson in November 2020 to discuss early-treatment options with FDA-approved drugs like hydroxychloroquine. They criticize what they describe as aggressive pushback against such approaches, noting that McCullough faced professional sanctions and lawsuits despite presenting peer-reviewed literature. - They return to the concept of orthodoxy and dogma, arguing that the medical establishment often suppresses dissent, citing YouTube removing a McCullough interview and the broader pattern of silencing challenge to the vaccine narrative. They stress that the social and institutional systems prize conformity and punish those who deviate, creating a climate of distrust toward official health bodies. - The discussion broadens into metaphysical and philosophical territory, with references to the Grand Inquisitor from Dostoevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov. They propose that elites—whether religious, political, or scientific—tend to prefer “taking care” of people through control rather than preserving individual responsibility and free will. The Grand Inquisitor tale is used to illustrate a recurring human temptation: to replace personal liberty with a protected, paternalistic order. - They discuss messenger RNA (mRNA) technology as a central manifestation of Promethean or Luciferian intellect—humans attempting to “read and write in the language of God.” They describe the scientific arc from transcription and translation to mRNA vaccines, noting Francis Collins’s The Language of God and the idea of humans “coding life.” They caution that mRNA vaccines involve injecting genetic material and point to the symbolic and ritual power of vaccination as a form of modern sacrament. - The speakers emphasize that the mRNA approach represents both a profound scientific achievement and a source of deep concern. They discuss fertility signals and potential adverse effects, including myocarditis in young people, and cite the July 2021 NEJM case study as highlighting safety concerns for myocarditis in adolescent males. They reference the FDA deliberative-committee discussions, noting that some influential voices publicly questioned the risk-benefit calculus for young people, yet faced pressure or dismissal within the orthodox framework. - They describe post-hoc investigations and testimonies suggesting that adverse events (like myocarditis) might have been downplayed or obscured, and they assert that public trust in health institutions has eroded as a result. They mention ongoing debates about whether vaccine-induced changes might affect future generations, referencing studies about transcripts of mRNA in cancer cells and liver cells, and they stress the need for independent scrutiny by scientists not “entranced” by the vaccine program. - The dialogue returns to the broader human condition: a tension between curiosity and restraint, knowledge and humility. They return to Dostoevsky’s moral questions about free will, responsibility, and the limits of human knowledge, concluding that scientific hubris can lead to dangerous consequences when it overrides open inquiry and accountability. - In closing, while the guests reflect on past missteps and the need for integrity in medicine, they underscore the ongoing questions about how evidence is interpreted, how dissent is treated, and how society balances scientific progress with humility, transparency, and respect for individual judgment.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss criticisms of the COVID-19 response, focusing on diagnostic testing, treatment, and government actions. Speaker 0 notes that only fourteen percent of PCR-positive cases turned out to be COVID in Germany, and suggests this is a global pattern, including the United States. Speaker 1 responds that there is no surprise, stating that the PCR test was never designed to detect infection. He explains that it detects miniscule particles of the RNA virus and that cycle threshold was cranked up to create positivity. He emphasizes that tests should not dictate treatment and that, in his view, doctors treat patients, not test results. He accuses the government of suppressing effective repurposed medications such as hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, calling the approach a money-driven scam based on fear, and asserts this was no surprise from Germany. Speaker 0 adds that, beyond money and vaccines, the response was weaponized to keep people at home to influence political outcomes, suggesting it was part of efforts related to the 2020 election. He claims the positives were valued over negatives and asserts that the goal was to keep people in fear to ensure compliance with directives. Speaker 1 agrees, arguing that fear increases compliance with directives. He says he has never seen anything like the government imposing its will on free citizens, including closing churches and mom-and-pop stores, forcing healthy people to stay indoors, closing hospitals, and telling sick people to stay away. He expresses concern about whether the American people learned their lesson and hopes that, if the government acts similarly again, enough people will stand up and say, “hell no.”

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.

In the past 9 days, I've been working in an intensive care unit for COVID-19 patients. However, I've noticed some unusual medical phenomena that don't align with the expected viral pneumonia. The common understanding is that patients start with mild symptoms and progress to acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). But based on what I've seen, I believe we may be treating the wrong disease. This could lead to significant harm for many people in a short period of time. I fear that our current medical paradigm is incorrect and that COVID-19 is not the disease we thought it was.

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.

Dr. Cameron Kyle Seidel, an ER and critical care doctor from New York City, shares his observations after treating COVID-19 patients for nine days. He questions the current medical paradigm of treating COVID-19 as a viral pneumonia, as he has witnessed medical phenomena that don't align with this assumption. He believes that COVID-19 lung disease is not a pneumonia but rather a viral-induced condition resembling high altitude sickness. Patients experience a gradual deprivation of oxygen, leading to anxiety and distress. Despite appearing critically ill, they do not exhibit typical pneumonia symptoms. Dr. Seidel expresses concern that treating COVID-19 as pneumonia may cause harm to many people.

A recent study found that the malaria drug Chloroquine does not inhibit SARS CoV 2 in lung cells, although it may work in kidney cells. The speaker, who has experience in ocular oncology, contacted the author of the study and pointed out that the lung cells used in the study were actually cancer cells. This means that Chloroquine allows the virus to attack cancer cells but not normal cells. The speaker believes that this is a misinterpretation of the data and accuses the study of being part of a disinformation campaign. They argue that Chloroquine is actually a very effective drug.

A doctor recounts moving breathing treatments from their office to patients' cars due to concerns about virus spread, despite hospitals also avoiding them for the same reason. They mention Dr. Richard Bartlett, a Texas doctor who faced criticism for advocating budesonide breathing treatments early in the pandemic. The speaker claims Dr. Bartlett was smeared and pursued by the Texas Medical Board for allegedly making false claims. However, the speaker maintains that these treatments were invaluable and recommended them to high-risk patients, noting a very low risk of issues.

In the past 9 days, I have worked in an intensive care unit for COVID-19 patients and witnessed medical phenomena that don't align with the expected symptoms of viral pneumonia. While hospitals are preparing to treat acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), I believe we may be treating the wrong disease. The patients I've seen and the condition of their lungs indicate that COVID-19 is not following the expected pattern. I'm concerned that our current approach may cause significant harm to many people in a short period of time.

Although I am not a doctor, I’m a nurse. On the front lines we knew what was happening. When we asked for ibuprofen, they said no. When we asked why we weren’t giving steroids, the answer was “we’re just following orders.” Following orders has led to the sheer number of deaths in these hospitals. I didn’t see a single patient die of COVID. I’ve seen a substantial number die of negligence and medical malfeasance. When I was on the front lines of New York, I became globally known as the nurse in the break room sobbing, saying they were murdering my patients. Pharmaceutical companies had gone into those hospitals and decided to practice on the minorities, the disadvantaged, the marginalized populations with no advocates, because the very agencies that should protect them were closed while we were sheltering in place. While I was there, pharmaceutical companies rolled out remdesivir onto a substantial number of patients, which we all saw was killing the patients. And now, it’s the FDA-approved drug that is continuing to kill patients in the United States. As nurses, we’ve collected a descriptive amount of information that you may not get from the doctors. Doctors do quantitative data; we do qualitative data with a humanistic, phenomenological approach in nursing research. We’ve collected data from patients across the country for which we’ve helped patients through the American Front Line Nurses and the advocacy network so nurses could advocate for these patients. This data pool shows that as these patients get remdesivir, they have a less than twenty-five percent chance of survival if they get more than two doses. Now they’re rolling it out on children as well and into nursing homes or skilled nursing facilities as early intervention, even though doctors Pierre Corre and Merrick have demonstrated that there are cost-effective medications out there, and we are going to see the amplification of death across the country. We haven’t even touched on vaccines, which our expert panels have described; I won’t touch on that since many are far superior to me. Two days ago I flew out my first 10-year-old with a heart attack and had to fight the ER doctor because he said, “ten-year-olds don’t have heart attacks.” I argued for thirty minutes to force his hand to get an EKG and found a STEMI; the 12-lead EKG lit up. He said it wasn’t possible, and I said, “was just vaccinated yesterday. It is very much possible.” People contact me and the nurse advocates at American Front Line Nurses to help advocate, because there’s victim shaming—“it’s anxiety,” “it’s this.” But if they acknowledge it as a vaccine injury, the physician, the corporation, the hospital, the clinic may not get reimbursed, so it’s labeled as anxiety, neuropathy, or Guillain–Barré syndrome, when it’s very realistically a vaccine injury. I’ve traveled to South America, India, and South Africa, working in hot zones, stopping the spread of the virus and doing early intervention. Nowhere in developing nations do I see these issues that we see here in the United States. I’m a very proud American citizen from a family of immigrants. Our level of health care has deteriorated to substandard third-world-nation health care. You are better off in South America in a field hospital than in level-one trauma designer hospitals in the United States. As nurses, we are getting reports across the country from American frontline nurses about patients not getting food, water, or basic care. How come a patient hasn’t been fed in nine days? Why do I need a court order to force a hospital to feed a person who isn’t intubated and who would like food? If they’re on a ventilator, they’re not given water or basic care. We’re not allowed to take a BiPAP mask off to help someone eat. I’ve had patients who haven’t been bathed, haven’t been fed, and haven’t been given water, or been turned. This isn’t a hospital; this is a concentration camp. Nowhere in the United States do we isolate people for hundreds of hours with no human contact; it’s not allowed even in prisons. In hospitals, we isolate patients from their families for days, and you have to say goodbye over an iPhone, or you have to shuttle people in to see them. I was fired for sneaking a Hispanic family in to say the last rites to their family. Thank you, Senator Johnson, for giving nurses the opportunity to represent our patients, because we’re not often thought of as leading professionals, though we are the missing link between the doctors and the patients. Thank you for this time. Thank you for being a nurse.