TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary

Former employees acknowledge the significant influence of the pharmaceutical industry on media. They argue that shaping the message allows them to shape the world. They highlight the use of Ivermectin in various countries, including India and Argentina, where it has shown success in treating COVID-19. However, others dismiss its effectiveness and label it as a horse dewormer. The speakers criticize the pharmaceutical industry for manipulating clinical studies and influencing research grants. They also express concerns about censorship and the withholding of information, which they believe misleads the public.

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary

The speaker claims that ivermectin, not the vaccine, saved people from COVID. They criticize the use of ventilators for COVID patients, citing pulmonary edema risks. A nurse's story about a stroke post-vaccination highlights a lack of documentation and discouragement of questions by senior staff. The nurse was reassigned after questioning. Translation: The speaker believes ivermectin, not vaccines, saved people from COVID. They criticize using ventilators for COVID patients due to risks of pulmonary edema. A nurse's experience with a stroke post-vaccination reveals a lack of documentation and discouragement of questions by senior staff. The nurse was reassigned after asking questions.

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary

The speaker discusses how CNN portrayed them as taking horse medication, specifically Ivermectin, which is actually a medication used more commonly in humans. They mention that Ivermectin has been prescribed to billions of people and even won a Nobel Prize for its efficacy in humans. The speaker believes that Ivermectin had to be discredited because of a federal law that states emergency use authorization for vaccines cannot be issued if there is an existing medication proven effective against the target illness. They argue that acknowledging the effectiveness of Ivermectin would have jeopardized the multi-billion dollar vaccine industry.

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary

Speaker argues that the majority of doctors lack the private-sector tools to "go outside the box"—no FDA portal to write INDs, no funds, no genetic sequencing labs, and no in-house scientists. They say doctors are "limited to what the guidelines are telling them to do" because stepping outside risks lawsuits; achieving this requires "'a regulatory board... FDA oversight... lawyers' costs." This isn't a field for all doctors. Cites examples like Peter McCullough and others (Pierre Corre, Paul Merrick, Jackie Stone, Mary Bowden). Peter McCullough is praised as "'published thousands of papers'"; most doctors merely receive data from sources and may miss data. During the pandemic, they faced rushed conditions and propaganda—"hydroxychloroquine was a bad drug, Ivermectin was a horse paste"—"they didn't get to see the data." The speaker notes three FDA-tracked trials and asserts FDA jurisdiction in off-label work, and that "'I had an FDA approval to run these trials.'"

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary

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.

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary

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?

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary

In this video, the speakers delve into the controversy surrounding the use of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin as treatments for COVID-19. They express frustration with the restrictions placed on these medications and emphasize the importance of doctors' involvement in patient care. The speakers highlight their own positive experiences with these treatments and criticize the politicization of medical decisions. They also discuss conflicting scientific studies and the influence of pharmaceutical companies. Additionally, the conversation touches on the use of fluvoxamine and the challenges faced by the speakers within their institution, leading to their departure. Overall, the video emphasizes the need for a balanced and evidence-based approach to medical treatments.

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary

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.

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary

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.

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary

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.

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary

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.

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary

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.

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary

Monoclonal antibodies worked very well and quickly, and were initially readily available. The speaker believes the government intentionally made them harder to get to encourage people to take the COVID shot. The speaker didn't use ivermectin until the government took over distribution of monoclonal antibodies. In March, the government put out information on why people should not take ivermectin for COVID on the FDA's website. At the same time, they launched COVID-nineteen Community Core on 04/01/2021, an $11,500,000,000 slush fund to feed out propaganda.

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary

Ivermectin is a widely used and safe drug that has been effective against SARS CoV 2. It could have saved many lives if it had been used more widely. Doctors who tried to use it faced prosecution, despite its safety and effectiveness. One doctor worked 715 continuous days without a day off because no one else wanted to care for indigent patients. The doctor's hospital had a low mortality rate compared to the rest of the country, thanks to protocols that included Ivermectin. However, the media ignored their success and the use of repurposed drugs. The doctor faced censorship on social media platforms for mentioning Ivermectin. The FDA claims there are no adequate alternatives to the vaccines, but many believe unnecessary deaths occurred due to censorship and lack of access to Ivermectin.

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary

The FDA's website advises against using ivermectin for COVID-19, yet links to clinical trials, half of which indicate it may be effective. For three years, the FDA has warned against ivermectin while referencing studies that support its use. Additionally, there is increasing research suggesting ivermectin could be a vital treatment for COVID-19. The strong opposition from the federal government appears to be linked to the desire to maintain emergency use authorization for COVID vaccines. For more insights, consider subscribing for additional videos.

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary

Ivermectin was initially demonized during COVID, but now it's being recognized as safe and effective by the clinical community. Many clinicians were using it successfully, despite the initial fear surrounding it. The speaker's doctor used it on her family and patients with positive results. The speaker believes it's important to report on this now, even though they were initially hesitant due to conflicting information. It's crucial to question and reevaluate beliefs, even if they were previously in favor of vaccines.

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary

Some people are refusing the COVID vaccine and instead taking horse dewormer, which has no evidence of effectiveness and can be dangerous. The speaker got COVID and tried various medications, including Ivermectin, which is commonly used for deworming horses. The mention of Ivermectin as a horse dewormer is not flattering. The speaker believes there is clear evidence that Ivermectin can be effective and that people should be informed about it.

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary

Speaker claims ivermectin is part of a diabolical Rockefeller plan devised in 2010, predicting people would reject vaccines after 2020 and turn to another pharmaceutical. They question ivermectin’s safety by listing side effects such as blindness, liver failure, and infertility. They argue the Rockefellers own the entire medical system worldwide, so buying from a different country is ineffective. The discussion notes ads for pharmaceuticals on alternative-health platforms, suggesting a marketing push. They say parasites are really heavy metals in the body, and that ivermectin contains heavy metals. The claim is that ivermectin, like antibiotics, suppresses symptoms. They describe a $32,000,000,000 industry fueled by this narrative, and when they researched producers, they found Merck, Johnson and Johnson, Pfizer, and Bayer. The same companies making vaccines in 2020 allegedly also make ivermectin, framing it as a bait-and-switch.

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary

Monoclonal antibodies worked very well and quickly, and were initially readily available. The speaker believes the government intentionally made them harder to get to encourage people to take the COVID shot. The speaker started using ivermectin when monoclonal antibodies became difficult to obtain. In March, the government put out information on the FDA's website about why people should not take ivermectin for COVID. Simultaneously, the government launched COVID-nineteen Community Core on 04/01/2021, an $11,500,000,000 slush fund for propaganda.

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary

Speaker 1 notes that ivermectin has broken through to the public sphere beyond COVID and is now discussed for many diseases. Speaker 0 asks where ivermectin stands in the scientific and medical community today and what other use cases exist for the medicine. Speaker 1 responds that thousands of doctors follow their data; 18,000 GI doctors see their data when they publish or present at the American College of Gastroenterology. Word-of-mouth in the medical community is a major form of marketing, with one doctor speaking to another. Referencing the COVID era, Speaker 1 mentions corruption and retractions, then describes ivermectin as having created a healthcare revolution where doctors have lined up to work to see other benefits of ivermectin without needing to ask permission to treat patients. A whole branch of healthcare is moving away from the same institute that Speaker 1 helped create drugs to market with his sisters. He says a group of doctors who had sponsored or helped pharma are turning away from pharma and exploring other methods to treat patients. He states his job is to unite doctors to see the truth, while bringing pharma back to being righteous and stopping data manipulation and scientist censorship. Speaker 1 references his book, Let’s Talk SH.T, acknowledging he could be wrong and challenging others to prove him wrong and reproduce the data to retract the hypothesis or paper. He emphasizes that the scientific process should be followed, especially when everything was done by the book and as well as he could. He adds that the research was not funded by others; it was funded by his savings. He created the microbiome research foundation with the goal of raising money to study kids with autism and to push an IND to the FDA, which cost about $600,000 to obtain FDA approval. He clarifies that no external party paid for this work, and he continues to struggle to raise funds to treat poor autistic kids who cannot afford expensive stool testing, drugs, and vitamins; they need help and everyone should step in to assist these kids. Speaker 1 concludes that their focus is fixing autism, with the aim of later addressing Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, and cancer.

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary

The speakers discuss the exposure of mainstream media and how it tries to dismiss and discredit them. They mention the framing of Ivermectin as horse medicine and find it amusing. They clarify that they took Ivermectin based on the judgment of a medical professional and list other medications they used for COVID treatment. They mention that 200 congresspeople have also been treated with Ivermectin. They speculate that the demonization of Ivermectin may be motivated by financial interests since it is a generic drug. The video ends with the information that Ivermectin costs around 30¢ per dose.

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary

The FDA settled in court and admitted to intentionally deceiving Americans about Ivermectin. They discouraged its use despite over 100 studies supporting its effectiveness in treating COVID-19. This misinformation led to unnecessary deaths. The FDA's actions also affected other drugs used in treatment protocols. This revelation is significant. Translation: The FDA admitted to intentionally misleading Americans about Ivermectin, leading to unnecessary deaths. This misinformation also impacted other drugs used in treatment protocols. This admission is significant.

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary

Multiple trials have been conducted on Ivermectin, but none have proven its effectiveness, according to Speaker 0. However, Speaker 1 argues that there is a significant body of evidence, including randomized controlled trials and studies, supporting the use of Ivermectin for COVID. They mention countries like India, Mexico, and nations in Central Africa, as well as the Tokyo Medical Association endorsing its use. While some doctors and scientists have criticized certain trial methodologies, claiming that there is no science to support Ivermectin for COVID is false. Speaker 1 also highlights that experienced critical care doctors worldwide have prescribed Ivermectin based on available data and their own expertise, dismissing the characterization of the drug as a horse dewormer. Speaker 2 adds that research conducted by DARPA in the early 2000s recommended Ivermectin as a top product for a coronavirus pandemic due to its antiviral and immune modulatory properties, which had been proven in vitro and in vivo. These medications have been safely used in humans for several decades.

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary

The speaker believes that Ivermectin's effectiveness threatened the emergency use authorization for vaccines, which would impact the global market worth over $100 billion. The speaker suggests that Ivermectin's low cost and availability posed a threat to patented pharmaceuticals like PAXLOVID and Molnupiravir. They argue that Ivermectin could have ended the pandemic if widely used, but was suppressed due to its potential impact on the market. Translation: The speaker suggests that Ivermectin's effectiveness posed a threat to the emergency use authorization for vaccines and the global market, potentially impacting billions in revenue. They argue that Ivermectin's affordability and availability could have ended the pandemic if widely used, but was suppressed due to its potential impact on the market.

The Joe Rogan Experience

Joe Rogan Experience #1671 - Bret Weinstein & Dr. Pierre Kory

Guests: Bret Weinstein, Dr. Pierre Kory

reSee.it Podcast Summary

Bret Weinstein and Joe Rogan discuss the urgent need for an emergency podcast regarding COVID-19 treatments, particularly focusing on ivermectin. Dr. Pierre Kory, a lung and ICU specialist, introduces himself as part of a group that developed treatment protocols for COVID-19, emphasizing their expertise in ivermectin's use against the virus. Weinstein shares his background as an evolutionary biologist and how he and his wife, Heather, began analyzing COVID-19 data early in the pandemic. They encountered evidence suggesting ivermectin's effectiveness, which led to their discussions and research on the topic. Dr. Kory explains that their group, the Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance, was formed to create treatment protocols based on extensive research. He mentions initial studies showing ivermectin's efficacy in cell cultures, which prompted some regions to use it clinically despite the lack of human trials at that time. The conversation shifts to the censorship faced by Weinstein and Kory on platforms like YouTube, where their discussions about ivermectin have led to strikes and video removals. They highlight the inconsistency in guidelines from health organizations like the CDC and WHO regarding treatments and vaccinations, particularly around the use of remdesivir and the evolving understanding of airborne transmission of the virus. Dr. Kory points out the disparity between the WHO's recommendations and the evidence supporting ivermectin, noting that the drug is inexpensive and widely available, unlike newer, patented treatments. They express concern over the influence of pharmaceutical companies on treatment guidelines and the potential for profit-driven motives to overshadow public health. Weinstein emphasizes the importance of open discussion in science, arguing that censorship prevents the sharing of critical information that could save lives. They discuss the implications of ignoring effective treatments like ivermectin, particularly in the context of the ongoing pandemic and the need for early intervention. Dr. Kory shares success stories from countries like Mexico and India, where ivermectin has been used effectively to reduce hospitalization and death rates. They stress the need for a coordinated approach to treatment that includes ivermectin and other repurposed drugs. The discussion concludes with a call for transparency and the importance of allowing scientific discourse to flourish without censorship. They express hope that the evidence supporting ivermectin will eventually lead to its broader acceptance and use in treating COVID-19.