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.

There was a panic within the FDA to silence discussion of chlorine dioxide, similar to their stance on ivermectin. We now know ivermectin saves lives and reduces symptoms. The pandemic elements were faked, and there was an attempt to block discussion of both substances. In 2020, they tried to stop us, but we refused. After you were kicked off of YouTube, they took down 3,000,000 views of our content. I moved everything to what became Brighteon. We were broadcasting worldwide how to make it yourself. They told us to shut up, but we asserted our First Amendment rights. I even wrote a 35-page letter to the FDA, explaining our rights as a church to practice our beliefs. This wasn't a scam; we've been doing this for twenty years before COVID.

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.

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.

Speaker 0 argues that ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine were suppressed because they are well-established drugs with safety records and billions of doses used; ivermectin is a human drug that also works on horses and won the Nobel Prize for its effectiveness in humans. He states there is a federal law that says an emergency use authorization (EUA) for a vaccine cannot be granted if there is any approved medication shown effective against the target disease, so admitting effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin would have made EUA for vaccines illegal and would have collapsed a “200,000,000,000 enterprise.” Speaker 1 notes this is the first time hearing that assertion, acknowledging it’s in the book. He suggests that if the medical community had been saying ivermectin is an effective COVID treatment, EUA for vaccines could not have been granted. Speaker 0 explains that many in the medical community supported effectiveness, citing a petition signed by 17,000 doctors and numerous peer-reviewed publications, but Fauci aggressively crusaded against it, labeling it a horse medication and alleging danger and overdosing to drown out those reports. Speaker 1 asks why Fauci continued to push the claim after EUA was granted. Speaker 0 answers that, even with EUA, the law may require withdrawal if a functioning medication exists, implying a motive to undermine ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine. He mentions a strong incentive for Fauci to kill these medications and cites several doctors who treated tens of thousands of COVID patients and supported the claim that the science shows many lives could have been saved. He names Harvey Reich at Yale, Peter McCulloch as the most published doctor in history and prominent in biostatistics/epidemiology, and Peter Quarry in connection with the doctors who treated many patients. They allegedly state that half a million Americans did not need to die.

Two hundred congresspeople have been treated with ivermectin for COVID. I did not know that. You could probably find it on doctor Pierre Corey’s Twitter page. Before there were vaccines, this was a common treatment, an off-label treatment for COVID. I do not know what the motivation for demonizing this particular medication is. Again, I’m not a doctor, and I’m not a scientist. But I would imagine some of it has to do with money. The reason being is that it is a generic drug now. They’ve the patent has run out. So anybody can make it, and it’s worth, like, 30¢ a dose.

MMS, or Miracle Mineral Solution, is primarily chlorine dioxide, created by mixing sodium chloride with acid. It's a widely used chemical, with over 100,000 patents, more than any other chemical. MMS is known for its remarkable properties, including its ability to address a vast majority of diseases. While it may not cure every disease, it is effective against approximately 98% of them.

Manufacturers of nasal products were allegedly warned against promoting or researching their products for COVID-19. One company was allegedly denied FDA permission to study its product's effect on COVID-19. Another company, COFIX Rx, allegedly received warnings to stop promoting its product for COVID-19. The speaker claims anything that worked for COVID-19 faced strict government opposition, including hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, and virucidal nasal sprays. Higher dose corticosteroids, zinc, vitamin D, vitamin C, quercetin, over-the-counter famotidine, and colchicine were also allegedly effective treatments. A high-quality trial allegedly showed colchicine reduced hospitalization and death, but the federal government never mentioned it. Aspirin and blood thinners were allegedly not mentioned for blood clot prevention. The speaker asserts the only advice given was to fear the virus, lockdown, social distance, wear masks, use hand sanitizer (none of which allegedly work), and repeatedly get vaccinated. The speaker concludes the COVID-19 response was allegedly about mandating vaccines.

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.

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.

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.

I found a book by Jim Humble touting a "miracle mineral supplement" as a natural MRSA cure. Initially skeptical, I revisited it when my son's condition worsened. Humble claimed it cured malaria in Africa, a disease that kills millions annually. NASA supposedly called it the "universal antidote" but suppressed it due to overpopulation concerns. I tried it myself first, and an MRSA boil I had cleared up in two weeks. Then I gave it to my kids. Back then, chlorine dioxide was unknown, and Humble was considered radical. Now, I personally consume very dilute chlorine dioxide when I experience flu-like symptoms after being in public.

I'm excited about the recent bill in Arkansas aiming to make ivermectin an over-the-counter medication; all states should follow suit. Ivermectin, despite being an antiviral, antimicrobial, and anti-parasitic medicine, was villainized during COVID. When I contracted COVID in 2020, I decided against the under-researched options and tried ivermectin. My symptoms vanished within 24 hours. Ivermectin's benefits extend beyond COVID. I know three people who had stage four cancer that were cured after taking ivermectin. It is strange that effective treatments are often suppressed due to profit motives. The medical industry wants to keep you sick. Get ivermectin now from a reliable US-based source like All Family Pharma before it becomes more expensive and harder to find. You never know when you might need it.

I have three friends who had stage 4 cancer, and now they are cancer-free. They used treatments like ivermectin, fenbendazole, and methylene blue, which was originally a textile dye but is now found to have significant effects on mitochondria. It's surprising how many effective treatments are overlooked or demonized, often due to profit motives. Many beneficial substances, such as vitamin D, K2, magnesium, zinc, and quercetin, are not promoted because they lack patent protection and cannot be controlled by pharmaceutical companies.

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.

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.

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.

The speaker discusses the use of various drugs, including hydroxychloroquine, Ivermectin, colchicine, doxycycline, Azithromycin, budesonide, prednisone, and enoxaparin, for treating COVID-19. They mention that these drugs were considered lightning rods, particularly hydroxychloroquine, which faced strong opposition. The speaker questions why authorities would prevent the use of these drugs if they were not believed to be effective, and highlights the safety profile of Ivermectin. They suggest that people should be allowed to try these drugs if they are willing to pay for them. The motive behind targeting these drugs is unclear.