reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Pharmaceutical companies paid $1.06 billion to reviewers at leading medical journals, including the New England Journal of Medicine, JAMA, Lancet, and BMJ, allegedly corrupting the peer review process. Studies from the CDC, FDA, and Pfizer purportedly revealed major breaches in safety signals for COVID-19 vaccines in pregnancy, but these findings were ignored. Independent researchers who published findings contradicting pharmaceutical industry narratives faced persecution, censorship, and threats to their medical licenses and board certifications. The speaker claims this happened to them personally.

The speaker, a gastroenterologist, discusses research on the microbiome's role in COVID-19 and challenges faced publishing findings that went against the public health narrative. Early research documented the virus in stools for up to 45 days and showed hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin killed COVID-19 in stools, but also harmed the microbiome, necessitating vitamin C, D, and zinc. The FDA initially granted an exemption for clinical trials using this combination, then revoked it. Media-fueled fear around hydroxychloroquine hindered recruitment. Research revealed that severe COVID-19 patients lacked bifidobacteria, a key microbe for immunity, which is abundant in newborns but declines with age. Vitamin C and ivermectin were found to increase bifidobacteria. A hypothesis that ivermectin increased bifidobacteria was retracted after being widely read. Research on mRNA vaccines showed they killed bifidobacteria, presented at a gastroenterology conference, linking bifidobacteria loss to Crohn's disease, Lyme disease, and invasive cancer. The speaker concludes that research interference during the pandemic hindered scientific progress and that clinical trial guidelines were not followed.

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.

A study claimed chloroquine does not inhibit SARS CoV 2 in tissue culture. The speaker examined the study, noting it used CaLU3 lung cells. The speaker contacted the author, stating the study showed chloroquine allows the virus to attack a cancer cell, while protecting a normal cell. The speaker believes the study authors misinterpreted the data and hid the fact that they used KLU3 lung cells, which was found in the appendix. The speaker accuses them of a disinformation campaign, claiming they misrepresented the study's findings to suggest chloroquine is unlikely to work against SARS CoV 2. The speaker believes the study actually proved chloroquine is effective because it allows viruses to attack cancer cells, but not normal cells.

Italy is described as being under total lockdown as coronavirus deaths continue to spike, with emergency rooms at or past breaking point. Authorities warn that Lombardy is running out of hospital beds and that morgue space has been exhausted, while army trucks transport bodies and new infections and deaths are reported daily. The president of the region asks for more military presence on the streets, with roadblocks and controls to limit movement without valid reasons. The transcript frames Italy as a new “ground zero,” noting almost twelve thousand five hundred cases at the time. A communications professor and former media and institutional figure, Alberto Contrini, is interviewed about why he believes Italy’s death toll rose. He says that fear propaganda included the use of large military trucks shown on TV carrying coffins, which he claims corresponded to one coffin per truck. He also claims that elderly people entering hospitals with other conditions were immediately declared COVID cases. Contrini attributes this to hospital reimbursement being reported as five times higher for COVID patients than for normal patients. He also alleges that incentives and payments led doctors to classify and treat patients in ways that increased COVID counts, including government payments per injection and “virologists” on television who he says were paid by pharmaceutical companies to promote a “massive propaganda.” He claims many doctors were suspended or marginalized for refusing these practices, and he describes legal actions by suspended doctors as ongoing. Contrini compares the Italian situation to the United States and says similar incentives and staging were used elsewhere, including treatment and reporting dynamics that he says manufactured death counts. He further suggests that, from his perspective as a media figure, the pattern of events implied opportunism evolving into something scripted before the outbreak reached Italy. He says other outbreaks were ignored by authorities despite doctors and scientists who believed they had effective approaches early. The transcript then shifts through multiple medical and investigative testimonies. Dr. Mariano Amici is described as having coordinated a study of over ten thousand patients who, he says, were all cured without a single death, treating COVID and other conditions successfully before protocols were imposed. He claims high death numbers were “made up,” images shown were not from COVID, and that the number of infected people was inflated by incorrect nose swab tests. He also claims incorrect treatments were used and that even patients who died from other causes were diagnosed as COVID to increase payment and change death rates. He says he found it “traumatizing” and that peers were pressured to comply with protocols and avoid losing their jobs. Rosanna Chiaverini Negri, described as a neurologist and holistic doctor, states she worked to write protocols to heal COVID patients and detoxify patients from “side effect” of what she calls an experimental genetic drug rather than a vaccine. She says she and others treated seventy thousand patients, with only ten hospitalized, and submitted medical records to Italian parliamentary bodies. She claims the media called the treatments witchcraft and that some doctors were suspended and had licenses removed. Raffaele Ragoli, an investigative journalist, says he went into a hospital on March 17 and saw conditions he describes as “hell.” He claims government policy required patients to stay home and take paracetamol, and that certain doctors used antibiotics against Ministry of Health guidance. He connects the narrative to mandatory vaccination policies and alleges that COVID was used to create fear and large-scale emergency measures that reduced rights. He also cites statements from WHO leadership about future pandemics and suggests biolabs and biological research are ongoing. He later asks whether the virus itself was actually responsible for the concentrated “explosion” seen in Bergamo and whether death patterns continued across Italy. Giovanni Trambusti, an electrical engineer focused on data processing and statistical analysis, describes downloading raw mortality data from ISTAT month by month to compare announced COVID numbers with real mortality. He claims mortality was highly concentrated in northern areas such as Bergamo and Brescia and “almost nothing” occurred elsewhere, and that the contagion did not move south even when people migrated south to avoid lockdown. He says he cannot explain the specific mechanism behind the northern concentration but insists that the numbers show an “explosion” in Bergamo. Dr. Pietro Gasparoni provides a hypothesis about the Bergamo surge. He describes alleged multiple meningitis cases in late 2019 and mass meningitis vaccination around January–February 2020, claiming that immune systems were low in the first two weeks after vaccination and made COVID infection spread more easily in that period. The transcript then emphasizes what it says are vaccine-related effects using mortality patterns. Trambusti is described as asserting that excess mortality in 2022 rose in regions where COVID deaths supposedly declined and suggests this indicates deaths were not from COVID. He claims a “fourteen-day trick” in death classification after vaccination, where deaths within fourteen days were categorized as if people were “unvaccinated,” producing a “pandemic of the unvaccinated” narrative while the vaccinated were allegedly misclassified. He also claims spikes in mortality by age group aligned with vaccine rollout. A cardiologist, Dr. Giuseppe Barbrow, is quoted about myocarditis and pericarditis beginning in early 2021 and affecting males particularly in ages twelve to thirty-six. He claims myocarditis is not “mild” and that myocarditis can persist and generate potentially fatal arrhythmias. The transcript claims a view that the increase was driven more by vaccination than natural infection. Finally, multiple vaccine injury accounts are included, describing paralysis, loss of mobility, myocarditis within hours or after doses, thrombosis, pericarditis, neurological symptoms, and inability to walk. The narrative repeatedly frames these injuries as resulting from the COVID vaccines and contrasts them with being told to comply with protocols and vaccination. The closing portion returns to calls for scientific debate and study replication in Italy, including a request for replication of the “Henry Ford study,” a randomized pragmatic study, and removal of mandatory obligations “vis a vis such evidence.” The transcript ends with the host thanking a team and those who enabled the trip and work producing the film and study.

Speaker 0 argues medicine is becoming like magazines, with journals turning into gossip columns. He calls a group of journals "predatory journals" that are smart because they do have an impact factor, they're brand new journals, they send you emails constantly. He says, "they can manipulate or retract the data to make you look bad." He describes his Frontiers experience: he submitted "a hypothesis on ivermectin increasing the bifidobacteria," and it was accepted by the peer review. "Nine months later, the paper was the number one read at Frontiers with 59,000 views." He says this is an interesting hypothesis "right? Because we're seeing ivermectin has a role potentially in cancer. So maybe increasing the benefit of bacteria is how we're doing it, right?" He notes that because it got so much attention, "it lit up ivermectin, which they don't want to do, you understand?"

The speaker, a gastroenterologist, discusses their research on the microbiome and COVID-19. They found that the virus lingers in stools, hydroxychloroquine kills the virus but harms the microbiome, and bifidobacteria is crucial for immunity. Their studies on vitamin C, ivermectin, and mRNA vaccines' effects on bifidobacteria faced challenges in publication due to going against the mainstream narrative. They highlight the importance of unbiased research and collaboration in finding solutions. The speaker also raises concerns about pharmaceutical companies prioritizing profits over patient safety during the pandemic.

Speaker 0: They think I'm dangerous for speaking the truth. Speaker 1: Dr. Stella Emmanuel was part of a video claiming, without evidence, that hydroxychloroquine is a cure for COVID-19. The video was taken down by social media platforms for spreading misinformation. Despite the backlash, Dr. Emmanuel insists that hydroxychloroquine could be part of a cure. Dr. Anthony Fauci disagrees, stating that scientific data consistently shows hydroxychloroquine is not effective in treating COVID-19.

In March, I started researching my protocol and started writing the protocols; there were like contraindications to hydroxychloroquine. There were three pages of medications. The protocol was approved by the FDA within twenty four hours and “move to market... start giving it to patients, proceed.” Twenty four hours later, “the politics” and lobbyists allegedly said, “we can't have a cheap drug… kill the market.” A Bill Gates letter asked, “when do you think you're going to, you're anticipating finishing your protocol?” Twitter destroyed it for being open label, and the effort was described as “a political move to destroy a drug.” The Lancet paper is claimed fake: “There is no way that four or five authors took 17,000 records” and “sixty… 96,000 patients”; “Australia doesn't even have COVID yet” and “Ninety six thousand… fraudulent.” NIH notes “chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine toxicity” with “excellent oral absorption and bioavailability” and retinal toxicity is the concern, but in ICU patients the death overshadows it: “He's dead. It doesn't matter that he's got retinal toxicity.”

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.

The transcript describes Italy under “total lockdown” during the coronavirus outbreak, with emergency rooms at or past breaking point and authorities warning of hospital bed shortages and morgue overflow, including reports of army trucks removing bodies and new infections and deaths reported daily. It asserts Italy had the highest death toll anywhere in the world at that time, attributing the situation to a significant elderly population and an overstressed health system. It then shifts to claims about how COVID deaths were reported. The transcript says ninety-nine percent of those who died from the virus had other illness, and that only twelve percent of death certificates showed direct causality from coronavirus while eighty-eight percent involved at least one pre-morbidity, often multiple. It also frames “excess death” as deaths above or below an average baseline. The transcript further claims Italy’s high death toll was influenced by age structure, the health system’s strain, and reporting practices. A series of interviews follows. The host interviews Alberto Contrini, described as a professor of communications and a former institutional media figure involved in discussions about propaganda during COVID. Contrini says Italy launched a “massive fear campaign,” referencing Bergamo and military trucks reportedly conveying coffins, but Contrini says each truck held one coffin. He also claims elderly patients entering hospitals with other pathologies were immediately declared COVID, attributing this to financial incentives: the transcript says hospitals received refunds five times higher for COVID patients than normal patients, encouraging diagnoses to be coded as COVID even when multiple conditions existed. Contrini also links the transcript’s claims to similar patterns described for the United States and says virologists on TV were paid by pharmaceutical companies to promote “massive propaganda.” He claims many doctors were financially incentivized (citing government payments per injection) and says dissenters were marginalized, including suspended doctors and ongoing legal actions. The transcript highlights a moment where Contrini describes asking Dr. Bassetti about contracts with pharmaceutical companies and says Bassetti removed his earphones and left. The transcript then interviews Dr. Mariano Amici, described as a COVID treating doctor. Amici claims that in a study of over ten thousand patients, his group “cured” over ten thousand people with “not even once” a single death, treating not only COVID patients but also patients of other concerns. He says the “explosion” of deaths was “made up,” describing alleged use of non-COVID images on national TV, claims about inaccurate nose swab tests, and assertions that people were misclassified as dying of COVID when they died from other causes such as car accidents. Amici claims he was “traumatized” by the situation and says protocols prevented doctors from treating patients, calling the protocol a “death protocol.” The transcript presents him as saying some doctors had successful early treatment approaches using steroids and antibiotics and later had those tools taken away. Next, the transcript interviews Rosanna Chiaverini Negri, a neurologist who describes herself as working to write protocols and detoxify side effects from a COVID “Name it vaccine” that she characterizes as an experimental genetic drug. She claims that early use of antibodies from healed people and heat is curative within “three days,” and says they treated “seventy thousand” patients with only “ten” hospitalized, bringing documentation to Italy’s Parliament and Senate. She says press coverage attacked the work and that some practitioners were suspended and had licenses removed. Raffaele Ragoli, described as an investigative journalist, says he went into a hospital on March 17 and saw what he characterizes as “hell,” including a policy to “stay home, wait, and just take paracetamol,” and guidance that he says discouraged standard treatments. The transcript says Ragoli attributes the perceived need for a declared pandemic to the WHO, including a claim that the WHO needed thousands of deaths to declare a pandemic and that there was a lack of cure. Ragoli says Italy was chosen as a front runner for a mandatory vaccination program, and he claims WHO strategy is influenced by organizations “on top” of governments and by entities including “Bill Gates” and major financial institutions. He also claims Tedros Ghebreyesus stated that the next pandemic would come, not if. Giovanni Trambusti, described as an electrical engineer specializing in data processing and statistical analysis, says he downloaded raw mortality data from ISTAT and compared it month by month to what was announced in media and government. He claims deaths were highly concentrated in northern areas (especially Bergamo and Brescia) and “almost nothing” in other parts of Italy. He attributes the lack of spread south to an alleged migration from north to south ahead of lockdowns, and says he sees “the numbers aren’t adding up.” The transcript then includes Dr. Pietro Gasparoni, described as treating vaccine injury. Gasparoni claims a mechanism involving immune suppression after “mass vaccination of meningitis combined with the flu vaccine” following meningitis cases in November 2019, leading to an immune-system low period and then a “COVID explosion” during January–February 2020. He references reported meningitis cases and quotes emergency responses described in the transcript around Sarnico and surrounding municipalities. The transcript also describes myocarditis and pericarditis claims through a cardiology interview with Dr. Giuseppe Barbuto, saying myocarditis first appeared in early 2021 and that 12–36-year-olds (especially males) were higher risk. The transcript states a claim that myocarditis was exclusively found in vaccinated people and cites other studies as supporting that vaccines, rather than natural infection, caused the increase. It says “mild myocarditis” is false and that myocarditis can last for years. Finally, it features multiple “vaccine injured” testimonials, including Amelia Padovano and others, describing severe post-vaccination symptoms and disability, including facial paralysis, paralysis and inability to walk, myocarditis/pericarditis, thrombosis, neurological problems, and related losses. The transcript ends with additional claims about pressured suppression of debate and the desire for scientific replication and closed-door discussions, including calls to remove vaccine mandates and conduct a randomized pragmatist study.

Speaker 0: There were four drugs that were being tested for Ebola. Remdesivir killed more people than placebo, and the data safety monitoring board had actually stopped the study where literally fifty three percent of Speaker 1: the patients died in the failed Ebola trial and was repurposed. It was a failed Ebola drug because it caused more harm than good in Ebola trials. It was still unpatent. It was Tony Fauci's drug of choice. The majority of hospital deaths were actually caused by Anthony Fauci because his NIH put out protocols that if the hospital systems adhered to, they got bonuses, big bonuses, lots of money, $3,000 per for putting an IV in of remdesivir. Boom. $3,000. But guess what? On top of the entire hospital stay, a 20% bonus, that could be hundreds of thousands of dollars. Speaker 0: The data was so overwhelming that remdesivir killed patients more so than placebo. The drug had to be stopped, and this was published in the New England Journal in the 2019. Speaker 2: What happened during COVID could not have happened without propaganda and censorship. And how do we overcome that propaganda and censorship? It's primarily through people not being willing to shut up.

Pharmaceutical companies paid $1.06 billion to reviewers at major medical journals, allegedly corrupting the peer review process. Studies from the CDC, FDA, and Pfizer purportedly revealed major breaches in COVID-19 vaccine safety signals during pregnancy, but these findings were allegedly ignored. Independent researchers who published findings contradicting pharmaceutical industry narratives faced persecution, censorship, and threats to their medical licenses and board certifications. The speaker claims this happened to them personally.

An experimental drug called remdesivir will be responsible for people's deaths. People diagnosed with COVID-19 in the hospital died between day one and day nine, specifically on day nine of a ten-day remdesivir treatment. Dr. Anthony Fauci claimed in May 2020 that remdesivir was found safe and effective in a drug trial in Africa a year earlier (02/2019), and hyperlinked the study in a memo to hospitals. However, in that trial, remdesivir killed 53% of people, and the safety board suspended its use at month six, deeming it too deadly and toxic for Ebola patients. Dr. Anthony Fauci and his department at the NIH funded the Ebola trial in Africa in 02/2019. Therefore, Fauci lied to Congress and the American people by claiming the drug was safe and effective against Ebola, when the safety board had deemed it too deadly and pulled it from the trial.

Speaker 0 explains that people wonder why ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine were suppressed, noting these are well established drugs with safety profiles and billions of doses given. He says ivermectin is a human drug and also works on horses, but it would win the Nobel Prize because it works so well on human beings. Speaker 1 responds “Mhmm.” Speaker 0 states there is a little known federal law that says you cannot give an emergency use authorization (EUA) to a vaccine if there is any medication approved for any purpose that is shown effective against the target disease. So if Tony Fauci or anybody had admitted that hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin are effective against COVID, it would have been illegal to give the EUAs to the vaccines, and they could never have gotten them approved. He suggests this would have collapsed a “200,000,000,000 enterprise.” Speaker 1 says, “That is fascinating,” noting they had been covering this for two years and that this is the first time hearing that; if the medical community had been saying ivermectin works, it would have affected EUA. Speaker 0 responds that the medical community did say that—17,000 doctors signed a petition, and there are many peer reviewed publications consistently saying so. Yet Fauci aggressively crusaded against it, insisting it’s a horse medication, that people are overdosing, and so on. He asks why Fauci kept saying it. Speaker 1 asks why Fauci continued to say it after he got the authorization. Speaker 0 offers possible explanations: one, even if you have an EUA, the law appears to say you can't have it anymore if there is a functioning medication. He acknowledges, though, that he cannot read Fauci’s mind but speculates there is a strong incentive for Fauci to kill ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine. He cites several doctors who treated tens of thousands of COVID patients successfully and who argue that half a million Americans did not need to die, naming Harvey Reich at Yale, Peter McCulloch, and Peter Quarry.

A recent study claimed that 17,000 people died from Hydroxychloroquine, but Robert Kennedy Jr. pointed out flaws in the study. The drug was given to COVID patients already in the hospital instead of within the first 10 to 14 days when it is effective. The dosage administered was also much higher than recommended. While these mistakes may have contributed to deaths, it is important to consider how many lives could have been saved if the drug was used correctly. Hydroxychloroquine has been widely used for malaria and sometimes drugs are discovered to have additional benefits. The politicization of these drugs is unfortunate, especially considering their affordability.

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.

Big Pharma, they own everything. There's a number of past chief editors of journals, and we're not talking just, you know, like some throwaway journals. We're talking New England Journal of Medicine, Lancet, British Medical Journal. Okay. Some of the biggest journals in the world. Those are top three out of the top four that I just named. Journal of American Medical Association is the other one. But chief editors in the last twenty years, at least six of them have come out and said that at least 50% of the science that's published is fake. Come on. Read their quotes. Marcia Angel is one of them that I can remember her name. There's a guy by the name of Richard something or other from the British Medical Journal who said the same thing. I just read an article about it the other day. I'll I'll send it to you because it's I'm not surprised. I mean, depth of corruption is is stunning and and the fact that pretty much nothing's been done about it makes you wonder how long this can all last.

panel discusses hydroxychloroquine and early treatments. Hazen states: "I did the clinical trial. I wrote those protocols on hydroxychloroquine, Z Pak, vitamin C, D and zinc, passed them through the FDA within twenty four hours." She adds, "No one died on my shift, even though I did a placebo controlled trial on hydroxychloroquine, Z Pak, vitamin C, D and zinc," and "And we had hundreds of patients on that." They argue the Lancet paper is invalid: "This paper is to me is not just, you know, I'm not going to criticize it and say, oh, well they overdosed. I'm going to say, no, this is a fake paper. This is a fake data." They insist: "There is no way that four or five authors took 17,000 records." They discuss predatory journals: "predatory journals" and "they can manipulate or retract the data to make you look bad." They claim: "Hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin are out of patents." They report outcomes: "zero mortality" and "zero hospitalizations," and critique media: "they control the media and they push all this narrative out there." They urge: "stop publishing papers that are so fraudulently, so obviously fraudulent." They reference the microbiome: "the microbiome is all shit," and advocate: "everybody needs a fecal transplant right now."

In the discussion, Speaker 0 argues that word-of-mouth PR surrounding ivermectin “saved so many lives” and created widespread distrust in the industry, describing a shift where people questioned official stances: “My oxygen was low, and I did take ivermectin and it did work. Why are they telling me ivermectin doesn't work?” This view frames ivermectin as having proven effectiveness in practice, contrasting with public or institutional statements. Speaker 1 adds that it’s “really hard not to get angry” about the official trials, claiming that the WHO and, specifically, the Oxford trials demonstrated that ivermectin didn’t work, but that it “patently does.” They describe the fundamental problem as the way those trials were conducted, implying methodological issues. They discuss specifics of how the studies tested different drugs: Speaker 0 notes that hydroxychloroquine was given “with food” in the study, while ivermectin was given on an empty stomach, implying a potential misapplication of administration guidelines. They state that Merck’s initial labeling for ivermectin in other indications (scabies and lice) recommends administration with a fatty meal, and share a personal anecdote that their sister introduced ivermectin to the market for lice and conducted a clinical trial with many patients. Speaker 1 questions why leading clinicians would administer these drugs without knowing the correct guidelines, suggesting there should have been knowledge about administration with meals for hydroxychloroquine and with food for ivermectin. They remark, “Why the heck didn’t they know that?” Speaker 0 contends that physicians adhere to guidelines and hospital rules and fear lawsuits; they claim this fear leads to doctors “not even wanna know” certain information. They express the sentiment that the medical community was discouraged or constrained by fear of legal consequences and licensing actions, which contributed to doctors avoiding or stopping certain lines of inquiry or treatment. Overall, the dialogue centers on a perceived discrepancy between real-world outcomes of ivermectin use and official trial conclusions, the role of administration guidelines in trial results, and the influence of fear of legal ramifications on clinical practice.

A recent study found that the malaria drug Chloroquine does not inhibit SARS CoV 2 in lung cells, although it may work in kidney cells. The speaker, who has experience in ocular oncology, contacted the author of the study and pointed out that the lung cells used in the study were actually cancer cells. This means that Chloroquine allows the virus to attack cancer cells but not normal cells. The speaker believes that this is a misinterpretation of the data and accuses the study of being part of a disinformation campaign. They argue that Chloroquine is actually a very effective drug.

The speaker, a gastroenterologist, discusses research on the microbiome's role in COVID-19 and challenges encountered publishing findings that contradicted the public health narrative. Early research identified the full viral sequence in stool samples, where it lingered for up to 45 days, and noted hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin killed the virus in stools but harmed the microbiome, leading to the addition of vitamins C, D, and zinc to treatment protocols. An initial FDA exemption for clinical trials using this combination was revoked, and media-fueled fear around hydroxychloroquine hindered recruitment. Research revealed that patients with severe COVID-19 lacked bifidobacteria, a key microbe for immunity, which is abundant in newborns but decreases with age. Vitamin C and ivermectin were found to increase bifidobacteria levels. A hypothesis that ivermectin increased bifidobacteria was retracted after being widely read. Research on mRNA vaccines showed they killed bifidobacteria, a finding presented at a gastroenterology conference and linked to conditions like Crohn's disease, Lyme disease, and invasive cancer. The speaker concludes that interference with research during the pandemic hindered scientific progress and that established clinical trial guidelines were not followed.