reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Since May 2020, Remdesivir has been linked to a 30% death rate among patients receiving the drug for 5 to 10 days in hospitals. In New York, 26.9% of Medicare-aged patients who received Remdesivir died. The Cardiovascular Toxicology Journal found in October 2020 that Remdesivir is cardiotoxic and can cause death of heart cells. Despite this, the FDA and NIH continue to approve and recommend Remdesivir as the only drug for hospitalized COVID-19 patients. The World Health Organization published in April of last year that Remdesivir leads to increased acute kidney failure compared to other drugs. Shockingly, the FDA recently authorized the use of Remdesivir for newborns and children up to 18 years old.

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.

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.

The 2018 FDA guidance recommended using drugs off-label for unmet medical needs. Hydroxychloroquine, Ivermectin, colchicine, doxycycline, Azithromycin, budesonide, prednisone, and enoxaparin were used to treat COVID-19. However, certain drugs like hydroxychloroquine faced strong opposition. Clive Palmer in Australia procured hydroxychloroquine for the entire population, but it was seized and destroyed by authorities. The motive behind targeting these drugs is unclear. If they were proven useful, there would be no need for vaccine mandates. It's questioned why people couldn't use hydroxychloroquine or Ivermectin if they were willing to try and pay for them, even if they didn't work.

Since May 2020, remdesivir may result in at least 30% death in hospitalized patients who receive it for five to ten days. CMS data for Medicare patients in New York showed 26.9% of those who received remdesivir died. In October 2020, the cardiovascular toxicology journal found remdesivir causes death of heart cells, is cardiotoxic, and can lead to cardiac arrest. Despite this, in December 2020, the NIH, with Anthony Fauci, updated guidelines listing remdesivir as the only FDA-approved drug for hospitalized Americans, even though the WHO published data in April of last year that it increases acute kidney failure compared to other drugs used to treat COVID-19. As of January 21st of this year, the FDA extended emergency use authorization, making remdesivir the only authorized medication that can be administered intravenously to newborns to 18-year-olds for COVID-19.

It's frustrating that effective treatments used globally aren't considered here. A doctor mentioned that many treatments don't work, and with a high mortality rate, there's little to lose by trying new options. Patients often present with severe breathing difficulties and thick mucus in their lungs, visible on X-rays. Proven treatments exist, like high-dose IV vitamin C, which has shown success in trials, but these are often dismissed. Instead, patients are frequently sedated and placed on ventilators. Despite the historical skepticism surrounding vitamin C, it has potential benefits that are overlooked, leaving many to question the current medical approach.

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.

I contracted COVID from my gardener, who sadly passed away after we both went to the same hospital. We both received remdesivir, which I later learned can cause serious harm, including kidney failure. I struggled to walk for three months afterward. It raises questions about the decisions made by health authorities, especially regarding the restriction of monoclonal antibodies. This seems driven by a desire to promote vaccines for profit, which is deeply troubling. The prioritization of money over human lives is a real and concerning issue.

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.

Treating viral replication at home can be done with zinc and zinc-enhancing remedies like hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin. However, the protocol followed during the pandemic did not include these treatments. Instead, patients were only treated when they reached the hospital, where they were given ventilators and Remdesivir. It is known that Remdesivir can be lethal, as it caused kidney failure, heart failure, and organ collapse in many cases. The deaths during the pandemic were often attributed to kidney failure, which was actually caused by Remdesivir, not the virus itself.

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.

It's frustrating that effective treatments aren't being utilized. A conversation with a doctor revealed that many current treatments aren't working, and there's skepticism about trying new methods. Despite the high mortality rate, some believe it's worth exploring alternatives. Patients often present with severe breathing issues and thick mucus in their lungs, which complicates oxygen transfer. Proven treatments, like high-dose IV vitamin C, have shown success in trials but are dismissed here. Instead, patients are often sedated and placed on ventilators. There's a reluctance to accept these treatments, despite their potential benefits.

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 discussion opens with a critique of how public health authorities in the United States and much of the media discouraged experimentation with COVID-19 treatments, instead pushing vaccination and portraying other approaches as dangerous. The hosts ask why treatments were sidelined and treated as heretical to question. - Speaker 1 explains that the core idea was to stamp out “vaccine hesitation,” which he frames not as a purely scientific issue but as a form of heresy. He notes a broad literature on vaccine hesitancy and contrasts it with the perception of the vaccine as a liberating savior. He points to a Vatican €20 silver coin (2022) commemorating the COVID-19 vaccine, described by Vatican catalogs as “a boy prepares to receive the Eucharist,” which the speakers interpret as an overlay of religious iconography with vaccination imagery. They also reference Diego Rivera’s mural in Detroit, interpreted as depicting the vaccine as a Eucharist, and a South African church banner reading “even the blood of Christ cannot protect you, get vaccinated,” highlighting what they see as provocative uses of religious symbolism to promote vaccination. - They claim that the Biden administration’s COVID Vaccine Corps distributed billions of dollars to major sports leagues (NFL, MLB) and that many mainline churches reportedly received money to push vaccination, with many clergy not opposing the push. The implication is that monetary incentives influenced public figures and organizations to advocate for vaccines, contributing to a climate in which questioning orthodoxy was difficult. - The speakers discuss the social dynamics around vaccine “heresy,” using Aaron Rodgers’ experience with isolation and shaming in the NFL and Novak Djokovic’s experiences in Australia to illustrate how prominent individuals who questioned or fell outside the orthodoxy faced punitive pressure. They compare this to a Reformation-era conflict over doctrinal correctness and describe a psychology of stigmatizing dissent as a tool to enforce conformity. - They argue the imperative driving institutions was the belief that the vaccine was the central, non-negotiable public-health objective, seemingly above other medical considerations. The central question they raise is why vaccines became the sole priority, seemingly overriding a broader, more nuanced evaluation of medical options and individual risk. - The conversation shifts to epistemology and the nature of science. Speaker 1 suggests medicine often relies on orthodoxies and presuppositions, rather than purely empirical processes. He recounts a Kantian view that interpretation depends on preexisting categories, and he uses this to argue that medical decision-making can be constrained by established doctrines, which may obscure questions about optimization and safety. - They recount the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act and discuss Sara Sotomayor’s dissent, which argued that liability exposure is a key incentive for safety and improvement in vaccine development. They argue that the current system creates minimal liability for manufacturers, reducing the incentive to optimize safety, and they use this to question how the system encourages continuous safety improvements. - The hosts recount the early-treatment movement led by Peter McCullough and others, including a Senate hearing organized by Ron Johnson in November 2020 to discuss early-treatment options with FDA-approved drugs like hydroxychloroquine. They criticize what they describe as aggressive pushback against such approaches, noting that McCullough faced professional sanctions and lawsuits despite presenting peer-reviewed literature. - They return to the concept of orthodoxy and dogma, arguing that the medical establishment often suppresses dissent, citing YouTube removing a McCullough interview and the broader pattern of silencing challenge to the vaccine narrative. They stress that the social and institutional systems prize conformity and punish those who deviate, creating a climate of distrust toward official health bodies. - The discussion broadens into metaphysical and philosophical territory, with references to the Grand Inquisitor from Dostoevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov. They propose that elites—whether religious, political, or scientific—tend to prefer “taking care” of people through control rather than preserving individual responsibility and free will. The Grand Inquisitor tale is used to illustrate a recurring human temptation: to replace personal liberty with a protected, paternalistic order. - They discuss messenger RNA (mRNA) technology as a central manifestation of Promethean or Luciferian intellect—humans attempting to “read and write in the language of God.” They describe the scientific arc from transcription and translation to mRNA vaccines, noting Francis Collins’s The Language of God and the idea of humans “coding life.” They caution that mRNA vaccines involve injecting genetic material and point to the symbolic and ritual power of vaccination as a form of modern sacrament. - The speakers emphasize that the mRNA approach represents both a profound scientific achievement and a source of deep concern. They discuss fertility signals and potential adverse effects, including myocarditis in young people, and cite the July 2021 NEJM case study as highlighting safety concerns for myocarditis in adolescent males. They reference the FDA deliberative-committee discussions, noting that some influential voices publicly questioned the risk-benefit calculus for young people, yet faced pressure or dismissal within the orthodox framework. - They describe post-hoc investigations and testimonies suggesting that adverse events (like myocarditis) might have been downplayed or obscured, and they assert that public trust in health institutions has eroded as a result. They mention ongoing debates about whether vaccine-induced changes might affect future generations, referencing studies about transcripts of mRNA in cancer cells and liver cells, and they stress the need for independent scrutiny by scientists not “entranced” by the vaccine program. - The dialogue returns to the broader human condition: a tension between curiosity and restraint, knowledge and humility. They return to Dostoevsky’s moral questions about free will, responsibility, and the limits of human knowledge, concluding that scientific hubris can lead to dangerous consequences when it overrides open inquiry and accountability. - In closing, while the guests reflect on past missteps and the need for integrity in medicine, they underscore the ongoing questions about how evidence is interpreted, how dissent is treated, and how society balances scientific progress with humility, transparency, and respect for individual judgment.

Hydroxychloroquine was initially praised for its potential in reducing COVID-19 symptoms and hospitalizations. However, it soon faced widespread criticism worldwide. In Australia, billionaire Clive Palmer purchased a large supply of hydroxychloroquine for the entire continent, intending to distribute it for free. Unfortunately, the Australian authorities seized and destroyed the medication.

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.

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.

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.

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.