reSee.it - Related Video Feed

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.

The speaker refused a ventilator and remdesivir, citing concerns about their effects. Despite feeling fine, a doctor told them they would die. The speaker demanded a new doctor and criticized the lack of water and nutrition provided. They questioned the logic of being denied water but given water with MiraLAX. The speaker felt pressured to increase oxygen levels, which they believed was harmful. They were mistakenly labeled as "do not resuscitate" and had to clarify their code status to medical staff. Translation: The speaker rejected certain treatments, expressed dissatisfaction with medical care, and clarified their resuscitation status to healthcare providers.

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.

The speaker shares their experience working in the COVID ICU at Elmhurst Hospital in Queens, New York. They emphasize that the situation was not limited to New York, but was happening nationwide, including in Florida. They describe witnessing a disturbing assembly line-like process where patients were treated poorly and family members were banned. The speaker criticizes politicians and government interference in the doctor-patient relationship. They mention financial incentives for admitting patients and the neglectful protocols followed. They recount seeing patients with severe bed sores and feces dried on their backs. The speaker reveals that full code patients were not being resuscitated and were ultimately placed in body bags.

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.

The speaker states they will never consult a doctor about general health again, believing doctors are ignorant and only prescribe medication. They claim doctors don't understand human biology and only focus on prescribing medicine for every ailment, leading to multiple medications with numerous side effects. The speaker reports being previously prescribed medication for thyroid issues, high cholesterol, and high blood pressure. They are now on no medication, and their blood work is better than ever. The speaker feels significantly improved and believes they saved their own life.

The speaker reflects on the death of their father and expresses conflicting emotions. They believe that their father was murdered by the medical system. The video discusses the use of Remdesivir as the standard treatment for COVID-19 in hospitals, despite its limited effectiveness and potential side effects. The speaker's father requested alternative treatments such as Ivermectin and high doses of vitamins, but these requests were denied. The speaker questions why hospitals adhere strictly to protocols and why patients are not given the right to try different treatments. The video ends with the speaker expressing their grief and longing for justice.

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.

During COVID-19, the speaker believes the government was authoritarian and imposed a vaccine passport. As an unvaccinated person, the speaker was unable to travel across the country. When asked if they regretted not getting vaccinated, the speaker stated it was the best decision of their life.

The speaker discusses their experience as a nurse in New York during the COVID-19 pandemic. They express their belief that there was a mass plan to promote fear and suffering, and to deny early treatment. They witnessed negligence in the treatment of patients and felt that the focus was on using ventilators instead of exploring alternative treatments. The speaker also raises concerns about the safety and efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccines, citing reports of adverse effects and questioning the rush to vaccinate. They criticize the censorship of medical professionals who express differing opinions and emphasize the need for people to wake up to the larger agenda at play.

Hello, I'm Dr. Vladimir Zelenko, a family practitioner in New York. I propose early outpatient treatment for moderate to high-risk COVID-19 patients, having successfully treated over 100 without hospitalizations. Hydroxychloroquine, approved for decades and considered safe, was suddenly restricted, leading to patient deaths. I sought alternatives and discovered quercetin, an over-the-counter supplement that helps deliver zinc into cells, similar to hydroxychloroquine. Facing my own terminal illness, I realized the importance of family, compassion, and freedom. This is a battle for our rights and consciousness against tyranny. Civil disobedience is essential; we must resist and protect our freedoms. The Second Amendment safeguards us from oppressive government. We need faith and courage to confront these challenges, relying on a higher power to guide us in this struggle.

After working in critical care and directly caring for COVID patients in the ICU throughout the pandemic, the speaker says that after eighteen months of “chaos” they left the bedside because they could not “watch one more of [their] patients needlessly die” due to “deadly hospital protocols” and “denial of life saving medications.” They state that people were being told COVID was killing all patients, but they contend it was instead “complete and total medical mismanagement of COVID” that was killing them. The speaker asks why, if patients were dying of the virus itself, bodies were not being pulled from homes and off the streets “en masse.” They claim that the reality is that patients “aren’t dying at home” or “on our streets,” and that they are “dying in our hospitals,” which they say raises the question of why that is happening. They describe walking away from the bedside but say what haunts them are the faces of patients they believed did not need to die. They say they were never comfortable with death, but learned in nursing—especially in the ICU—that “there are fates far worse than death.” The speaker says they considered it an honor to provide compassion in patients’ last moments, but that this situation was different. They say these patients did not die from “a disease” or “a virus,” and instead died in what they call a “hospital holocaust.” They describe the system as “shamelessly corrupt,” using what they characterize as well intentioned nurses to carry out a “sinister plan.” They compare ventilators to “new gas chambers.” Finally, they state they witnessed “numerous alarming signs” that “these novel vaccines were causing great harm” to their patients.

On the COVID front line, patients didn't wanna go to the hospital. Their oxygen was 63%. 'I wasn't gonna just watch them die. That's like watching a patient bleeding and you're not giving a blood transfusion. I mean, to me, that's criminal.' He notes that 'none of my patients died during the pandemic that followed my protocol' because 'there were different protocols for different people, different, you know, risk different patients with different risk factors.' He argues for encouraging personalized protocols rather than AI dictating care: 'An AI program tells me, doctor Eason, you need all this, or Sabine, you need all this. And then you're you have this, and you have about ten days to live.' He champions 'freedom of choice' and 'freedom of speech' and protecting ideas and innovations. He trusts God, 'I jump in the abyss' and chooses life with its uncertainties.

The speaker shares a disturbing experience where patients died and their bodies were stacked in freezer trucks, but not from COVID. Autopsies were banned and there were price hikes for ventilators and deaths. Feeling unable to speak up, the speaker decided to go undercover and recorded conversations for four weeks. They play a clip of a doctor who didn't properly care for a patient, wrote her death certificate before she died, and lied to her family. The speaker believes it's important for the public to know about these unethical practices. They question why the hospital staff didn't act differently if family or ethics committees were present. The speaker asks for opinions on what the right thing to do in that situation would be.

The speaker, a pharmacist's husband and father, regrets taking the COVID vaccine to attend his daughter's volleyball games. He claims his neurologists diagnosed him with Barth syndrome, vaccine-caused paralysis, and severe ataxia. He states he is not anti-vax, but believes dissenting opinions were censored and labeled misinformation during the COVID threat. He feels vulnerable people were fooled into believing false medical information and that vaccine policies lacked a medical basis. He believes forced vaccination led to his condition. He argues that individuals should have autonomy over their bodies, referencing the "my body, my choice" slogan used in abortion debates, and criticizes those who support both abortion rights and mandatory vaccinations.

The speaker, a neurologist, argues that wearing masks can cause oxygen deprivation to the brain and should be a personal choice. They claim that masks are ineffective in protecting against viruses and pose a health risk, especially for children and adolescents. The speaker emphasizes that our health is primarily in our own hands through good nutrition, water, exercise, socializing, joy, friends, love, and fresh air. They criticize the government for prohibiting these practices. The speaker concludes by stating that they refuse to comply and are not afraid, mentioning their survival of a past event in Romania.

A nurse and a doctor discuss the use of ventilators in hospitals during the pandemic. The nurse reveals that some floors were carrying out actions that other floors refused to do, essentially causing harm to patients. The doctor mentions that ventilators were used to protect healthcare workers, even though they had a high fatality rate for patients. The lack of transparency with patients and families is highlighted, as well as the reluctance to explore alternative treatments like Ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine. The speaker also mentions the incentivization of using certain drugs and protocols that led to unnecessary deaths.

Several radio personalities who were against getting vaccinated died, regretting their decision on their deathbeds. One of them, Marc Berniari, was particularly vocal about his refusal to get vaccinated. The speaker expresses a lack of compassion for those who choose not to get vaccinated and questions why the country tolerates such ignorance. They argue for mandatory vaccinations, prioritizing their own freedom to live and engage in activities like playing chess and taking pictures.

The dialogue centers on treatments and outcomes for COVID-19, with concerns about what is being used and what might work. One participant remarks on the reluctance to use certain treatments that are successful worldwide, recounting a conversation with a doctor. Another asks what kinds of treatments are being tried, noting that some approaches “are coming out with different things that are in the testing phase.” A third person criticizes a platform they believe “kills more people than actually save,” and another agrees that “they don’t work anyway,” questioning the harm in trying alternatives when current efforts aren’t effective. A key exchange discusses expectations for patient survival. One person says, “I don’t expect any of these people to survive. Ninety percent of them would die,” while another adds that if patients are “already dying anyway,” it may be reasonable to try additional measures rather than do nothing. There is debate about whether trying unproven treatments is appropriate; one participant notes that without a scientific basis, extra attempts can make patients worse, while another concedes that they would try anything to save their life. The conversation then shifts to clinical presentations and treatment strategies. With COVID patients who cannot breathe, X-rays show “the lungs are white,” indicating affected lungs with very thick, white secretions. The question arises of what “white lung” means—whether it is mucus and coating that fill the lungs and impede oxygen transfer. In response, the discussion distinguishes between early-stage treatments (like hydroxychloroquine and zinc) and later-stage interventions. It is stated that once lungs are severely affected, certain proven treatments exist that have passed trials in Asia through Dr. Chang, described as a US-board-certified physician. Specifically, extremely high-dose IV vitamin C is claimed to be successful in treating patients, providing the lungs with antioxidant support to help expel the infection, alongside IV antibiotics to treat the infection while avoiding reliance on ventilation and sedation. There is a contrast drawn between approaches in different regions. The dialogue notes that high-dose IV vitamin C has passed three trials in Asia and is reported as effective, while in the speaker’s locale, there is hesitation or reluctance to adopt this method. The discussion ends with a remark about how some people might attribute success to “good genes,” implying a belief that genetics may influence susceptibility or outcomes, though this is stated rather than argued as a scientific conclusion. Overall, the conversation emphasizes that several participants are wary of conventional treatments, advocate for exploring high-dose IV vitamin C as a therapeutic option, and describe the characteristic radiographic and clinical features of severe COVID-19 lung involvement.

The speaker discusses their experience as a nurse in New York during the COVID-19 pandemic. They express their shock at the lack of treatment and negligence towards patients, leading to unnecessary suffering and death. They also highlight the financial incentives for hospitals to admit COVID-19 patients and put them on ventilators. The speaker criticizes the lack of early treatment options and the focus on vaccines as the only solution. They raise concerns about the safety and efficacy of the vaccines, citing reports of adverse effects and deaths. The speaker emphasizes the importance of informed consent and the need for further investigation into the vaccine's impact. They criticize the censorship and suppression of alternative viewpoints by social media platforms. The speaker concludes by urging people to wake up to the agenda being pushed and the changes happening in society.

The speaker salutes unvaccinated individuals, calling them courageous for standing against a trillion-dollar propaganda machine and telling the government, bosses, jobs, and businesses to "off." The speaker believes everyone had a choice regarding vaccination, even if it meant facing tough decisions like losing a job, business, or family. They claim that vaccinated individuals "sold their soul" for a price, while the unvaccinated lost everything but kept their integrity. The speaker generally distrusts vaccinated people and trusts unvaccinated people. They believe that in a future pandemic, vaccinated individuals will throw others under the bus to protect themselves, their jobs, money, and titles.

During COVID-19, the speaker believes the government was authoritarian and imposed a vaccine passport. Because the speaker is unvaccinated, they were unable to travel across the country. When asked if they regret not being vaccinated, the speaker said no, stating it was the best decision of their life.

The speaker, a nurse, shares their experiences on the front lines of the COVID-19 pandemic. They express concerns about medical negligence and malfeasance, particularly regarding the use of the drug Remdesivir, which they claim is causing patient deaths. The nurse also mentions the lack of advocacy for marginalized populations and criticizes the isolation and lack of basic care in hospitals. They highlight the importance of nurses as the link between doctors and patients and express gratitude for the opportunity to speak out.

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

In 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.