TruthArchive.ai - 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.

Ivermectin is a versatile drug with antiviral and anti-inflammatory properties that stimulate healing processes like autophagy and improve the microbiome. It is effective for early COVID treatment and vaccine injuries, and is affordable as a generic drug. Despite misconceptions, it is not a horse dewormer and has been available for as little as 2¢ per tablet through the WHO.

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.

At home, it is recommended to treat viral replication by giving remedies like zinc and hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, which reduce the spread of the disease. However, the protocol followed was different. No treatment was given until hospitalization, where ventilators and Remdesivir were used. It is known that Remdesivir can be harmful, as it caused side effects in Ebola patients. The drug was manipulated and made standard of care, leading to kidney failure, heart failure, and organ collapse in COVID-19 patients. The deaths during the pandemic were often attributed to kidney failure, which was caused by Remdesivir, not the virus itself.

In 2002-2003, North American science conducted experiments and research on the original SARS CoV-one. By 2015-2016, it was known that Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine were effective against viruses and could modulate the immune response. DARPA, the American Research Arm of the U.S. Military, recommended Ivermectin to the CDC as the top product for a coronavirus pandemic. These medications have been used safely in humans for 35 to 40 years. So, when the next pandemic hit, Ivermectin was ready to be used.

The Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) regulation from the Clinton administration included safeguards. You can distribute a medication without approval, clinical trials, or safety testing, but only if no existing approved drug is effective against the target illness. To use the EUA for vaccines, any effective drugs against COVID needed to be discredited. Early on, it was known that hydroxychloroquine was effective against coronavirus. NIH studies demonstrated its effectiveness both as a preventative and as a cure. Ivermectin was also very effective. Acknowledging that these drugs worked would have eliminated the use of the emergency use authorization. So, they had to suppress them.

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.

Over 100 studies have shown that Ivermectin has had significant benefits, reducing hospitalizations and deaths by 70 to 85%. It was effective worldwide, including in Nigeria, where they used it for river blindness and had the lowest COVID death rate. Similarly, states in India like Kerala and Uttar Pradesh used our protocol with Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, ending the pandemic overnight. There are around 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.

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.

Tony Fauci's problem is that a federal law prohibits emergency use authorization for a vaccine if there is an approved medication that effectively treats the target disease. If Fauci or anyone had acknowledged that Ivermectin works as a treatment for COVID, the vaccine would not have received authorization. Despite many doctors and publications supporting Ivermectin, Fauci actively dismissed it as a dangerous medication to drown out its effectiveness. It is unclear why he continued to do so after receiving authorization, but there is a strong incentive for him to discredit Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine. Notable doctors like Harvey Reich and Pierre Cory have successfully treated thousands of COVID patients.

We discovered that Ivermectin can kill COVID-19 in primate cells. A single dose of the drug stopped the virus from replicating within 48 hours. Human trials are on the horizon, as the drug has been safely used for decades. Repurposing existing drugs like Ivermectin can speed up development by utilizing known safety profiles and administration methods. We are working on determining if these benefits can translate to treating COVID-19 in humans.

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.

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.

The North American scientific community spent 15 years planning for the next Covid epidemic. In 2000-2003, SARS-CoV-1 emerged, leading to various experiments to determine the best response for a similar event. By 2015-2016, research was completed, and the US military's research branch, DARPA, specifically recommended and informed the CDC that ivermectin was the top product to use in a coronavirus pandemic. It was known that ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine were highly antiviral and immunomodulatory. These elements were proven effective in stimulating the immune response and fighting viruses in both lab and animal studies. These drugs have been used safely in humans for 35-40 years, making them ready for the next pandemic.

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.

North American science spent 15 years researching how to respond to a future coronavirus pandemic after the original SARS CoV-one outbreak in 2002-2003. By 2015-2016, research showed that Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine were effective antiviral and immune modulatory treatments. The US military's research arm, DARPA, recommended Ivermectin as the top choice for a coronavirus pandemic and shared this information with the CDC. These medications had been proven safe for humans and had been used for several decades. They were ready to be used in the event of a future 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.

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.

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.