TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

I believe the hospital is responsible for my husband's death. I sought Ivermectin for him and took legal action after he had been intubated for a week. The judge ruled that I could have a certified nurse administer it, but the hospital resisted. There was a 12-hour standoff in the ICU, and they even called the police on me. I signed a waiver to assume any risks, yet they still blocked the treatment. I don't understand their refusal to provide a drug that might have helped him. Additionally, I want to know how much financial support the hospital received after his death, as it was listed as a COVID-19 death. It seems there must have been some financial incentive for their refusal to treat him properly.

Unvaccinated patients entering the hospital reported being treated differently based on their vaccination status. Those who had not received the COVID-19 shot were quickly given treatments like remdesivir and placed on ventilators, leading to a high mortality rate. There are claims that hospitals had financial incentives to classify deaths as COVID-related, with some receiving substantial payments for each case. Whistleblowers from within the healthcare system indicated that staff were pressured to ensure positive COVID tests to secure funding. The financial motives behind these practices raised serious ethical concerns, with one individual stating that their loved one was valued more dead than alive due to these incentives.

Speaker expresses frustration with monoclonal antibodies: "They worked very well" and "They were not controversial." Initially, they were readily available: "I could get as many doses as I wanted. I mean, show up at my doorstep the next day. And it was great." After the government took over distribution, access declined, leading me to use ivermectin: "I turned to ivermectin." "But, you know, in my opinion, they did that on purpose." They claim the government did that "to encourage people to take the the COVID shot." They assert timing: "If you look at the timing, in March, the government put out the big information on ivermectin and why you should not take it for COVID. They put that on the FDA's website." They reference "COVID-nineteen Community Core," launched "04/01/2021," described as "an $11,500,000,000 slush fund to propaganda, to feed out propaganda."

I was ostracized for questioning mainstream narratives on masks, lockdowns, and vaccines. My friend got the Pfizer vaccine and died the next day. I wish I had spoken out louder against the pressure to conform. His family and I believe the vaccine caused his death. The lack of autopsy adds to the injustice and anger over forcing vaccines on people, injecting doubt into their minds.

Patients are dying not from COVID, but from treatments like remdesivir causing organ failure. One person's mother died after being given remdesivir against their wishes, leading to organ shutdown. There was a financial incentive for hospitals to admit patients and put them on ventilators, resulting in unnecessary treatments and deaths.

Speaker 0 describes contracting COVID from his gardener, noting that the gardener had it first and died, while he survived. He says, “I got COVID from my gardener, and he had it first, and then I got it. I was like, ah, did I grab the hose or what, you know, what was I don't know. But it was it was I knew the guy for twenty years, and we both went to the same hospital. And he died, and I didn't. Jesus.” He claims they both received remdesivir, saying, “I think we both got remdesivir, which is not good. Not good. Not good. Causes kidney failure. I know.” He adds that he couldn’t walk for three months after receiving that treatment and that, “I couldn't walk for three months after I had that stuff. Really? Because it kills you.” He says he learned afterward that remdesivir “kills you,” and he ties this to a question about Fauci: “and that's why I wonder about Fauci, you know.” Speaker 1 responds, suggesting that the audience should indeed “wonder about that guy,” and contrasts this with actions he describes as preventing people from obtaining monoclonal antibodies: “Oh, you should wonder about that guy. When meanwhile, they were trying to stop people from getting monoclonal antibodies.” He criticizes the restriction of monoclonal antibodies as “fucking insane” because it followed a push to promote vaccines for profit, stating, “They've restricted monoclonal antibodies, which is fucking insane because they wanted to promote that vaccine because they wanted a profit off of it, which brings us back again to evil.” He asserts, “Evil's real. It's real. Putting money over human lives is evil. I agree.” He adds that there is a temptation to pursue such income, calling it “a real thing,” and reaffirms, “and there's a there's a temptation to do it too, which is even more crazy. Yeah.”

I don't speculate on the motives of individuals like Anthony Fauci or Bill Gates; I focus on their actions. The narrative reveals serious immoral behavior linked to government positions. Recently, the FDA's chief attorney acknowledged there was no justification for discouraging the use of Ivermectin, which was an effective treatment for COVID. By withholding it and other existing remedies, millions died unnecessarily. The push for vaccines was prioritized, despite a federal rule preventing emergency use authorization if effective treatments were available. This led to a lack of proper testing for vaccines, resulting in alarming health issues, particularly myocarditis in young athletes. The rising number of athlete deaths on the field is unprecedented, and there remains a need for accountability as the science continues to emerge.

I have three friends who had stage 4 cancer, and now they’re cancer-free. They took Ivermectin, Fenbendazole, and Methylene Blue, which has surprising benefits for mitochondria. It’s concerning how effective treatments are often ignored for profit. I got COVID and received remdesivir, which caused severe issues, while a friend died. There’s a troubling trend of prioritizing profit over lives in healthcare. Monoclonal antibodies were restricted to promote vaccines, which raises ethical questions. Mel Gibson and others are starting to speak out against these issues, highlighting the dangers of certain treatments and the need for awareness. We must recognize the importance of sharing knowledge and supporting those who fight against these injustices.

I shared a nurse's story about REM medication causing patients to deteriorate rapidly. Patients with high oxygen levels would suddenly crash after receiving REM, leading to organ failure and death. The nurse suspected the combination of multiple medications being administered simultaneously was causing organ failure, not just the virus itself. The nurse raised concerns about the medication's impact on patients' health and the need for further investigation.

I lost everything for not taking the vaccine. The lockdown made me question the situation, feeling it was all suspicious. I couldn't work due to vaccine mandates. My dying mom couldn't go to the hospital because they wanted to vaccinate her. I became her caregiver until she passed away. I urge people to push back against the World Health Organization treaty for global health.

Our initial response to COVID incentivized hospitals to prioritize profit over patient care, leading to questionable treatment decisions. Medical boards, influenced by financial gain, hindered effective protocols like those of Doctor Bartlett. This highlights the need to hold medical boards accountable for prioritizing money over patient well-being.

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.

We ended our previous episode with our COVID pyramid, build layer upon layer of lies, deceit, fraud, scandals. Now, by now you’re wondering how so many hospitals, doctors, and health care workers went along with all of the above. We have reached the capstone of our nauseating COVID pyramid. Pyramid. We shall name the capstone M and M, money and murder in hospitals. Shocking as it may sound, we’ve seen it before. Remember the unjust administering the killer drug midazolam in The UK as shown in part 19? Well, The US and many other countries had their own version called remdesivir. Here’s what happened. Hospitals were given incentives, as in money, for each and every COVID casualty. According to whistleblowers, investigative journalists, lawyers, and specialists, Hospitals in The US have been receiving $13,000 for every admitted COVID patient. There have been financial extras for every COVID test, for every positive outcome. If patients were treated with the only prescribed drug, remdesivir, the hospital received yet another bonus: 20% of the entire hospital bill of the patient. Then for every patient put on a ventilator, the hospital received $39,000. And if that patient officially died of COVID nineteen, they got yet another $13,000. That’s a lot of money. According to attorney Thomas Renz and CMS whistleblowers, the hospitals receive approximately $100,000 per COVID casualty if the above protocol was followed. Now the thing is, the American hospitals received this money in advance based on the COVID predictions, based on the flawed models of people like Brooks. If the hospitals didn’t actually meet those models, they had to pay that money back at a later stage. And we’re talking millions of dollars here. So what happened? Everybody who was admitted to a hospital, for instance because of a car accident or because of cancer or diabetes or kidney failure, everybody got a PCR test to start with. Due to the ridiculous amount of cycles, there was an abundance of false positives. False positives equals positives equals COVID patients equals money. Hence, the sunrise in COVID patients. Then remdesivir left its detrimental mark just like midazolam had done in The UK. You see, remdesivir is not a new drug. It was used in 2018 during the West African Ebola outbreak. It was known to have severe adverse effects such as kidney damage, liver damage, and even death. Yet in 2020, Anthony Fauci directed that remdesivir was to be the drug hospitals used to treat COVID nineteen, hence the incentives. So what happened next? Those poor patients only got worse, after which they were put on a ventilator. After all, that was yet another bonus of many thousands of dollars pouring straight into the pockets of the hospitals. Now the problem with ventilators is that the patient is put into an induced coma. His or her breathing is taken over by a machine that puts extra pressure on the lungs called barrow pressure. In the case of damaged lungs due to for instance pneumonia, those lungs will only get worse. The chances of that patient recovering, of being able to be taken off the ventilator and to start breathing by himself are very, very small. Combined with organ failure as a result of remdesivir, the chances of that patient ever leaving the hospital alive are next to nothing.

I warned everyone not to take the COVID-19 vaccines, but some family members didn't listen. My uncle had a heart attack, my sister-in-law got pancreatic cancer and passed away, and my brother-in-law had kidney cancer. Those who promote these vaccines are cowards and murderers who deserve prison.

In 2018, remdesivir had a high kill rate in Africa, making it unsuitable for Ebola trials. Yet, in 2020, it became the top choice for treating COVID-19. Despite objections from the World Health Organization, Anthony Fauci and Deborah Birx endorsed its use. The issue lies in allowing those with financial interests to dictate pandemic responses, potentially influenced by eugenics ideologies.

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.

In this video, the speaker shares their frustration with their hospital's restrictions on using off-label drugs like methylprednisolone and vitamin C. They criticize the hospital for not allowing the use of vitamin C, which they consider a basic and safe drug. Instead, the hospital promotes the use of Remdesivir, despite its known risks. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), Remdesivir increases the risk of kidney failure by twentyfold and the risk of death by about 4%. The speaker believes that hospitals prioritize industry interests over patient well-being, as they receive a 20% bonus for prescribing this toxic medication.

The US has purchased the majority of the world's supply of remdesivir, a drug that helps COVID-19 patients recover. This has caused concern as it limits access to the drug for the rest of the world. Remdesivir has been shown to reduce hospitalization time by about 4 days but does not reduce the risk of death. Another effective drug is the steroid dexamethasone, which costs significantly less. The NHS has enough remdesivir for current patients, but the duration of supply is uncertain. A doctor shares his frustration with the hospital system, claiming that they interfered with his ability to treat COVID-19 patients with other safe and effective drugs. He believes hospitals have become dangerous places for patients.

The US has purchased the majority of the world's supply of the COVID-19 drug remdesivir, causing concern among patients and healthcare professionals. Remdesivir has been shown to reduce hospitalization time for seriously ill patients, but its high cost and limited availability raise questions about global access to the treatment. Another effective drug, dexamethasone, is significantly cheaper and has been proven to reduce the risk of death in severely ill patients. While the NHS has enough remdesivir for current patients, the long-term supply is uncertain. A doctor shares his frustration with hospital interference in treatment protocols, highlighting the limitations and dangers of hospital care.

Patients were desperate for ivermectin as their loved ones died, but the focus shifted to remdesivir, a previously failed Ebola drug. By November 2020, the World Health Organization advised against its use, citing ineffectiveness and potential kidney and liver damage. The European Society of Critical Care supported this stance. Despite the warnings, the U.S. Health and Human Services incentivized hospitals with a 20% bonus for administering remdesivir, leading to widespread use. It failed to reduce mortality and caused serious injuries, with some patients dying as a result. In May 2022, the WHO reaffirmed its initial decision, stating that remdesivir should never have been used.

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.

According to the speaker, hospital protocols differed for vaccinated and unvaccinated COVID-19 patients, with more aggressive protocols used on the unvaccinated. The unvaccinated patients interviewed were often given remdesivir, a repurposed drug from a failed Ebola trial where about half the patients died. The speaker claims the efficacy data for remdesivir was "sketchy at best," but hospitals received large reimbursements for its use. The speaker alleges that patients would then be put on oxygen, then mechanical ventilation, then ICU, and finally, if they resisted, a cocktail of sedatives and sometimes four-point restraints to prevent them from leaving. The speaker states that "a lot of the patients died." The speaker claims that at each step, the hospital received more reimbursement, and there was "lockstep adherence" to the protocol.

Conflicts and controversies surrounding remdesivir are significant. In November 2020, the World Health Organization conducted a comprehensive study and advised against using remdesivir in hospitals due to its association with death and kidney and liver injuries. Despite this, the U.S. incentivizes its use by offering hospitals a 20% bonus on the total bill if remdesivir is administered. As a doctor, I find it troubling that while other medications do not provide such financial incentives, the use of remdesivir can lead to substantial additional costs for hospitals, contradicting the WHO's recommendations. This situation highlights a serious disconnect in medical decision-making.

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.

In my 20 years of military and ER experience, I witnessed the challenges of dealing with a novel virus. As healthcare professionals, we made mistakes due to outdated knowledge and assumptions. We intubated patients unnecessarily and didn't consider alternative treatments. Families suffered as they were unable to be with their loved ones during their final moments. I held dying patients' hands, knowing there was little I could do. The government exacerbated the situation by interfering with healthcare decisions and keeping families apart. We shouldn't rely on the government to solve problems it created.