reSee.it - Related Video Feed

We have a prevention protocol and an early treatment protocol. In the early treatment protocol, we use Ivermectin, which is not a horse dewormer. The claim that it's toxic is a complete lie. Over 3.7 billion doses of Ivermectin have been given to humans, making it one of the most influential drugs after penicillin. It is completely safe, even safer than Tylenol. While its efficacy can be debated, if you have limited options and a sick patient, why not try a safe and affordable drug like Ivermectin? There's nothing to lose.

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

Ivermectin is considered one of the safest medicines in history. It has a wide dosing range, making it difficult to overdose on. A comprehensive review by a French toxicologist found no documented deaths associated with Ivermectin, even with reports of massive overdoses. The World Health Organization (WHO) also acknowledges its safety, stating that most side effects are minor and temporary. In my experience, I have used Ivermectin for various diseases related to COVID, and the only potential side effects I have observed are occasional nausea, diarrhea, and blurry vision, which disappear once the medication is stopped. Overall, I cannot emphasize enough how safe and reliable Ivermectin is to use.

Ivermectin is a safe and effective drug for treating COVID-19, with studies showing it is safer than Tylenol and can help patients recover quickly, even those with low oxygen levels. A study in 2020 found a 50% reduction in hospitalizations when Ivermectin was used. Despite its proven benefits, hospital staff often resisted giving it to patients, leading to legal battles. However, when administered, even late in the illness, many patients improved and survived. The use of Ivermectin in hospitals is crucial for saving lives. Translation: Ivermectin es un medicamento seguro y efectivo para tratar el COVID-19, con estudios que muestran que es más seguro que el Tylenol y puede ayudar a los pacientes a recuperarse rápidamente, incluso aquellos con bajos niveles de oxígeno. Un estudio en 2020 encontró una reducción del 50% en hospitalizaciones cuando se usaba Ivermectin. A pesar de sus beneficios comprobados, el personal hospitalario a menudo se resistía a administrarlo a los pacientes, lo que llevaba a batallas legales. Sin embargo, cuando se administraba, incluso tarde en la enfermedad, muchos pacientes mejoraban y sobrevivían. El uso de Ivermectin en hospitales es crucial para salvar vidas.

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

Ivermectin is extremely safe, arguably safer than a sugar pill. In a randomized trial, those taking Ivermectin daily would likely experience fewer health issues than those on sugar pills. The narrative labeling Ivermectin as a toxic horse dewormer is misleading; over 3.7 billion doses have been administered to humans. It has significantly impacted global health by nearly eradicating several parasitic diseases. In fact, the risk of death from Tylenol is higher than from Ivermectin. While there are debates about its efficacy, in situations with limited options, using a safe and inexpensive drug like Ivermectin for sick patients seems reasonable.

Ivermectin has shown effectiveness in preventing COVID-19 infection, as evidenced by a trial in Argentina where 800 healthcare workers were prophylaxed and none got sick, compared to 58% of those who were not given Ivermectin. It has also demonstrated antiviral activity and has been proven effective as a prophylaxis agent in four large randomized controlled trials. In early outpatient treatment, it reduces the need for hospitalization and death, as shown in three randomized controlled trials and multiple case series. In hospitalized patients, Ivermectin has consistently shown lower mortality rates in four randomized controlled trials. It has already won the Nobel Prize in Medicine in 2015 for its impact on global health.

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.

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.

Multiple studies, including one by the WHO, show that Remdesivir actually increases the risk of death. It's concerning that the federal government incentivizes hospitals to prescribe this toxic drug by offering a 20% bonus on the entire hospital bill for Medicare patients. Remdesivir costs around $3,000 per course. On the other hand, Ivermectin, as mentioned by Dr. Kory, reduces the risk of death by about 50%. Unfortunately, clinicians still use the wrong drug, Dexamethasone, in the wrong dose and for the wrong duration of time, simply because the NIH recommends it. The NIH and other agencies have disregarded multiple FDA-approved drugs that are both cost-effective and safe.

Ivermectin is safer than a sugar pill and has been given to billions of people with minimal harm. It is not a toxic horse dewormer, as claimed by the FDA. The drug is considered safe and has had a significant impact on global health by eradicating parasitic diseases. Despite debates on its effectiveness, it is a low-risk, affordable option for treating sick patients.

The speaker discusses chlorine dioxide as a medicine that, in his view, is highly controversial and suppressed. He recalls early in his practice hearing whispers that chlorine dioxide “can cure basically everything.” He searched PubMed and found nothing published about it, despite widespread claims. It wasn’t until about a year ago, after joining a Zoom conference with colleagues and meeting a Brazilian PhD/MD he had worked with, that he realized there were people using chlorine dioxide. Since then, he has spent a year researching for his book and asserts that chlorine dioxide is “the most suppressed medicine of modern times,” globally coordinated by public health agencies and media to prevent discussion. He claims there are trails of deaths by advocates and that research on chlorine dioxide “will never get published,” though a few papers appeared in COVID-era research. He compares chlorine dioxide to ivermectin in terms of suppression, citing the Uttar Pradesh example in India where a systematic deployment program of ivermectin was carried out: 160,000 workers, 95,000 villages, testing everyone; those who tested positive received ivermectin, and all household members of positives received it as well. He notes papers in India in September 2021–2022 reporting about 241 million people with very few active cases and no new cases, yet this success “never showed up in The New York Times” and was censored in India as well; the articles did not mention the widespread ivermectin administration. He then states that, concerning chlorine dioxide, Bolivia passed a law allowing manufacturing and distribution of chlorine dioxide, with military and universities involved; people lined up to drink it, and mortality and cases “plummeted.” He acknowledges that the evidence is not yet sufficient, but suggests a pattern similar to Uttar Pradesh. The speaker adds that if he contracted COVID today, this would probably be the number-one treatment for him, even over ivermectin, based on his knowledge of efficacy. He references the website c19early.org, which aggregates real-time data on COVID therapies. According to him, the site shows 72 therapies with statistically significant benefits in COVID, based on four or more trials, with ivermectin at the top; these are therapies that can be used in combination. He describes this as “real medicine and science” that is not allowed to exist. Finally, he discusses the cost of chlorine dioxide: on Amazon, two bottles cost about $28, and while making it at home isn’t straightforward, the products are available in bulk; he mentions that you could potentially treat a family for a year or two with two bottles.

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.

In India, the government has been promoting the use of Ivermectin and there are reports of its effectiveness in various states. Uttar Pradesh, a region with a population similar to that of the entire United States, has been declared COVID free by state leaders.

Ivermectin is safer than a sugar pill, with minimal toxicity. It has been falsely labeled as a horse dewormer by the FDA, despite its extensive safe use in humans. Over 3.7 billion doses have been given, showing its safety. While its efficacy is debated, it is a low-risk, cost-effective option for treating sick patients.

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.

Ivermectin, once considered a conspiracy theory, is now reportedly curing diseases like cancer, diabetes, MS, and Parkinson's by addressing parasites. The speaker prefers the dura mectin version, a white paste, over the ivermectin yellow gel. According to the speaker, no one has ever died from ivermectin overdose, unlike aspirin and acetaminophen. Ivermectin won a Nobel Prize in 2015 for its effectiveness against diseases like malaria. Positive effects were seen for COVID, but its use was discouraged to maintain the emergency declaration. The speaker takes a full capsule of ivermectin daily for two weeks, followed by a week off, as a prophylactic. They wash it down with a sweat tonic containing quinine, which is hydrochloroquine. Hydrochloroquine and ivermectin were allegedly dismissed by organizations like the WHO, despite being effective. Links to more information are provided in the comments.

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

Over 100 studies have shown that Ivermectin has had significant benefits, reducing hospitalizations and deaths by 70 to 85%. It has been widely used around the world, including in Nigeria, where it helped lower the COVID death rate. Kerala and Uttar Pradesh states in India also used Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, effectively ending the pandemic. Numerous studies, including 400 on hydroxychloroquine and nearly 100 on Ivermectin, demonstrate their benefits. However, a few government-funded studies, including those by the WHO and financed by Bill Gates, claim no benefits but have been criticized for their methodology. For more information, you can visit the websites of Dr. Meryl Masse or Yale epidemiologist Harvey Riesch.

The forest plot shows COVID medicines, with only expensive ones approved in the US. Cheaper drugs were ignored. Studies manipulated endpoints and faced negative PR. Over 420 trials on hydroxychloroquine and 100 on Ivermectin show significant benefits, but they are dismissed in the US.

A study on Ivermectin's effectiveness in reducing COVID-19 deaths has been peer-reviewed and published. The study analyzed excess deaths in Peru in 2020 and found that states with intensive Ivermectin use had a 74% reduction in excess deaths. When Ivermectin use was restricted, there was a 13-fold increase in deaths. The study concluded that Ivermectin showed strong evidence of effectiveness, considering potential confounding factors. The study was published on August 8th, 2022.

Ivermectin is considered one of the safest medicines in history, with a wide dosing range and minimal side effects. A comprehensive review found no documented deaths associated with Ivermectin, even in cases of massive overdoses. The World Health Organization acknowledges that most side effects are minor and temporary, such as nausea, diarrhea, and blurry vision. As a physician, I find it to be a great medicine to work with due to its safety.

North American science spent 15 years researching how to respond to a potential coronavirus pandemic after the original SARS CoV-one outbreak in 2002-2003. By 2015-2016, it was known that Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine were effective antiviral and immune modulatory treatments. DARPA, the American Research Arm of the U.S. Military, recommended Ivermectin to the CDC as the top product to use in a coronavirus pandemic. These medications had been proven safe for humans and had been used for several decades. So, when the next pandemic hit, North America had Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine ready for use.

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.

Dr. Peterson Pierre from America's Frontline Doctors discusses the positive impact of Ivermectin on COVID-19 deaths in Peru and Uttar Pradesh, India. In Peru, the widespread use of Ivermectin resulted in a 74% reduction in excess deaths across 10 states. Similarly, in Uttar Pradesh, the distribution of Ivermectin led to a 97% decrease in COVID-19 deaths. The study suggests that Ivermectin can both prevent and treat the virus when distributed to at-risk populations. Dr. Pierre questions why more governments, including the US, did not adopt this strategy, emphasizing that Ivermectin is safe, effective, accessible, and affordable compared to experimental drugs. He suggests that fear mongering and financial interests may have influenced the decision-making process. Stay tuned for more updates.