TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

The discussion revolves around Gilead's involvement with remdesivir and the alleged corruption in the pharmaceutical industry regarding COVID treatments. One participant claims that Gilead knew remdesivir was toxic early on but chose to promote it over alternatives like hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, which were pulled from the market due to the need for emergency use authorization (EUA). The conversation shifts to the origins of COVID, with one person asserting it came from specific biotech companies. The dialogue becomes contentious, with accusations about political affiliations and the motivations behind pharmaceutical practices, including claims of profiteering and biological terrorism. The participants express strong opinions on these topics, leading to a heated exchange.

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.

A speaker claims remdesivir, an experimental drug, caused COVID-19 patient deaths in hospitals between days one and nine of a ten-day treatment. The speaker states that Dr. Anthony Fauci claimed in May 2020 that remdesivir was found safe and effective in an African drug trial in February 2019, and he hyperlinked the study in a memo to hospitals. The speaker says that the African trial actually showed a 53% death rate, leading the safety board to suspend remdesivir use and notify funders of its toxicity. The speaker alleges that Dr. Fauci and his NIH department funded the Ebola trial in Africa. The speaker accuses Fauci of lying to Congress and the American people by claiming the drug was safe and effective when the safety board deemed it too deadly and toxic.

Before the pandemic, Dr. Fauci tested Remdesivir in an Ebola trial in Africa alongside four other drugs. However, the institutional review board (IRB), responsible for ensuring safety in clinical trials, intervened and removed Remdesivir from the trial due to its high fatality rate. Ebola typically kills 53% of those infected, but Remdesivir was causing even more deaths. It seems illogical to then administer this drug to individuals with a disease that has a much lower infection fatality rate of 1%. This decision appears questionable, but unfortunately, there is a history of similar actions being taken.

A person at a book signing told the speaker a story about Remdesivir. According to the story, a woman's sister was in the hospital when a doctor ordered a second round of Remdesivir. The nurse cautioned the doctor that the patient had four young children. The doctor then rescinded the order. The speaker claims this shows the doctor and nurse knew the drug was killing people, but spared the patient because she had children. The speaker believes that without children, the doctor would have administered the drug and killed her anyway. The speaker concludes this reflects the personalities, behaviors, and ethos of hospital staff.

Ralph Barrick, the inventor of coronavirus and developer of Remdesivir, a drug used to treat COVID, had a hand in both. However, Remdesivir had a high kill ratio of 53% and was pulled by the World Health Organization for Ebola treatment. Despite this, in 2020, Anthony Fauci and others decided to use Remdesivir on COVID patients, knowing it would cause deaths. This was premeditated murder, with the criminals sitting next to President Donald Trump. There are other individuals involved as well. Efforts are being made by courageous sheriffs and DAs to compile evidence of the deaths caused by Remdesivir and take legal action to end these felonies.

In 2018, remdesivir had a high kill rate in Ebola trials, making it unethical for use in Africa. Despite this, it was chosen in 2020 to treat COVID. The financial interests behind promoting certain drugs during the pandemic raise concerns about justice. The same group linked to eugenics influences these decisions, which is troubling.

In 2011, 2012, and 2014, publications revealed that pseudouridine in mRNA shots could cause rapid cancers. Remdesivir, with a 53% mortality rate, was chosen by the FDA for COVID treatment despite being deemed unethical by the World Health Organization due to high death rates in Africa. This lethal drug was administered regardless of viral load, resulting in unnecessary deaths.

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.

The World Health Organization (WHO) is claimed to be a criminal racketeering organization violating the Sherman and Clayton Acts due to interlocking directorates, racketeering, market domination, and market controls. Since 1953, the WHO has allegedly been a vaccine-promoting enterprise benefiting those with commercial interests in vaccines. The Rockefeller Foundation and the Welcome Trust funded the WHO's establishment, allegedly not for information sharing, but to force drugs onto countries, including the dumping of drugs from Germany, the UK, and the US. While monitoring health conditions globally is important, the speaker argues that a financially disinterested party should make these determinations. The claim is that those with a financial incentive to declare a pandemic will collect data to justify their existence. The speaker asserts that the same group of people from the Eugenics office at Carnegie Mellon in 1913 established the World Health Organization in 1953 and are making these decisions.

Speaker 0: There were four drugs that were being tested for Ebola. Remdesivir killed more people than placebo, and the data safety monitoring board had actually stopped the study where literally fifty three percent of Speaker 1: the patients died in the failed Ebola trial and was repurposed. It was a failed Ebola drug because it caused more harm than good in Ebola trials. It was still unpatent. It was Tony Fauci's drug of choice. The majority of hospital deaths were actually caused by Anthony Fauci because his NIH put out protocols that if the hospital systems adhered to, they got bonuses, big bonuses, lots of money, $3,000 per for putting an IV in of remdesivir. Boom. $3,000. But guess what? On top of the entire hospital stay, a 20% bonus, that could be hundreds of thousands of dollars. Speaker 0: The data was so overwhelming that remdesivir killed patients more so than placebo. The drug had to be stopped, and this was published in the New England Journal in the 2019. Speaker 2: What happened during COVID could not have happened without propaganda and censorship. And how do we overcome that propaganda and censorship? It's primarily through people not being willing to shut up.

In 2018, remdesivir was considered unethical for Ebola clinical trials in Africa due to a 53% kill rate, higher than Ebola's typical mortality. Despite this, it was chosen to treat COVID in April and May 2020, with Anthony Fauci and Deborah Burke advocating for its use despite the World Health Organization's ethical concerns. The speaker claims that a conflict of interest exists because the same entities that financially benefit from promoting certain products are declaring the pandemic. These entities are allegedly linked to the Eugenics office at Carnegie Mellon in 1913 and the establishment of the World Health Organization in 1953. The speaker expresses concern about the influence of eugenics on these decisions.

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 World Health Organization was a criminal racketeering organization as defined by the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act." - Since 1953, it has been "an exclusively vaccine promoting enterprise for the benefit of the people who have commercial interest in vaccines." - If you read their opening charter and the hearings that gave rise to it—from Bretton Woods in July 1944 to its founding charter in 1953—what's missing is "who is writing the checks." - The financial backers were "Rockefeller Foundation and the Welcome Trust" as the check writers. - "As long as the financial interest that dictates what product is going to be promoted is the one making the declaration of the pandemic, we have no possibility for accountability. We have no possibility for justice." - The same group of people who established the World Health Organization in 1953 are "the same group of people that were formed out of the Eugenics Office, Carnegie Mellon in 1913." - This same group is described as the ones "making this decision" about the WHO and pandemics. - The speaker adds: "I don't know how you feel about Eugenics, but I have a problem with it."

Speaker 0 argues that the AIDS virus, like COVID and monkeypox, was manufactured for a specific reason, and claims that all of these were produced by the United States government. They state that AZT, “the total numbers of [people] … killed by taking a drug that was known at the time that was going to actually have that kind of an effect,” contributed to mass deaths, and that buyers clubs emerged as a form of a black market to obtain treatments. They compare this to the situation with COVID, noting that obtaining ivermectin felt like buying on the black market, despite ivermectin having won a health Nobel prize years ago, and they describe the ongoing insanity of government actors who have not yet been held accountable. They reference history involving Ted Kennedy and his uncle, suggesting a broader pattern of government activity linked to disease manufacturing and drug development that purportedly does not help, paralleling the vaccines “that we have now learned.” The speaker shares a personal update about a friend who recently underwent surgery and is now facing extubation after three bypasses, describing him as a healthy man who should not be having these problems, and likening his situation to other cases they know of. The speaker claims to know “about six” people who were fully vaccinated due to job or other requirements and who have since died, using these experiences to illustrate perceived consequences of vaccination programs. They pivot to Anthony Fauci, asserting that Fauci’s involvement in government actions spans “twenty five, thirty five years,” and claims Fauci has been involved in nefarious acts that have resulted in the deaths of many people. They reference Bobby Kennedy describing the creation of a drug that allegedly caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of men through AIDS. The speaker concludes with a pointed remark about AIDS and gay people, insisting that “nobody deserves that kind of a fate,” emphasizing that the tragedies described apply to all affected groups, and reiterating the belief that the government and officials have engaged in harmful, deadly activities related to disease and treatment.

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.

The speaker discusses the unethical actions of the CDC in patenting the SARS coronavirus, the bioterrorism threat of the RT PCR test, and the gain of function research on coronaviruses. They highlight the financial motives behind the push for a universal vaccine template and call for an end to gain of function research and corporate influence in science. The speaker emphasizes the need for moral oversight and independent review boards in scientific research.

Remdesivir, one of four drugs tested for Ebola, allegedly killed more people than the placebo, leading the Data Safety Monitoring Board to halt the study. According to the transcript, 53% of patients died in the failed Ebola trial, but the drug was repurposed. It is claimed that Remdesivir was Anthony Fauci's drug of choice, and that the NIH protocols, which provided hospitals with bonuses for using remdesivir, caused the majority of hospital deaths. Reportedly, hospitals received $3,000 for each remdesivir IV and a potential 20% bonus. The data allegedly showed that remdesivir killed more patients than the placebo, resulting in the drug trial being stopped. One speaker stated that it is inexplicable that remdesivir became the standard of care, and that doctors seemingly shut off their brains and followed directions from above without questioning the use of remdesivir in every hospitalized patient.

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.

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.

Speaker 0: Remember that in 02/2018, remdesivir, one of my favorite targets, remdesivir was too unethical to put into Ebola clinical trials in Africa because it had a fifty three percent kill rate published in medical journals. Ebola doesn't have a fifty three percent kill rate, but it was chosen in April and May 2020 to be the drug of choice to treat COVID. This drug was too unethical to use in an African clinical trial because it was killing fifty three percent of the people that it was given to. And we had Anthony Fauci, Deborah Burke sitting next to the president going, we need to use remdesivir despite the fact that the World Health Organization said it was unethical to use it. Here's the problem. The problem is as long as the financial interest that dictates what product is going to be promoted is the one making the declaration of the pandemic, We have no possibility for accountability. We have no possibility for justice. And what we do is we allow people who were formed out of the Eugenics office, Carnegie Mellon in 1913, that same group of people that were the same group of people that established the World Health Organization in 1953, that same group of people are the ones who are making this decision. And I don't know how you feel about Eugenics, but I have a problem with it.

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.