TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

The speaker claims that ivermectin, not the vaccine, saved people from COVID. They criticize the use of ventilators for COVID patients, citing pulmonary edema risks. A nurse's story about a stroke post-vaccination highlights a lack of documentation and discouragement of questions by senior staff. The nurse was reassigned after questioning. Translation: The speaker believes ivermectin, not vaccines, saved people from COVID. They criticize using ventilators for COVID patients due to risks of pulmonary edema. A nurse's experience with a stroke post-vaccination reveals a lack of documentation and discouragement of questions by senior staff. The nurse was reassigned after asking questions.

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.

Ivermectin is a safe and effective drug for treating COVID-19, with studies showing it is safer than Tylenol and can help patients recover quickly, even those with low oxygen levels. A study in 2020 found a 50% reduction in hospitalizations when Ivermectin was used. Despite its proven benefits, hospital staff often resisted giving it to patients, leading to legal battles. However, when administered, even late in the illness, many patients improved and survived. The use of Ivermectin in hospitals is crucial for saving lives. Translation: Ivermectin es un medicamento seguro y efectivo para tratar el COVID-19, con estudios que muestran que es más seguro que el Tylenol y puede ayudar a los pacientes a recuperarse rápidamente, incluso aquellos con bajos niveles de oxígeno. Un estudio en 2020 encontró una reducción del 50% en hospitalizaciones cuando se usaba Ivermectin. A pesar de sus beneficios comprobados, el personal hospitalario a menudo se resistía a administrarlo a los pacientes, lo que llevaba a batallas legales. Sin embargo, cuando se administraba, incluso tarde en la enfermedad, muchos pacientes mejoraban y sobrevivían. El uso de Ivermectin en hospitales es crucial para salvar vidas.

I'm Karen DeVore, a dermatologist in South Carolina. I've been prescribing hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin for over 30 years, off-label. In 2020, the FDA called Ivermectin horse medicine and doctors couldn't prescribe it. I knew these drugs were safe and effective, and I saw great results in my patients. None of the patients I treated with these drugs were hospitalized or died from COVID. They had no side effects and felt better within hours. It's frustrating that insurance companies and pharmacies denied access to these drugs. Even terminally ill patients on ventilators couldn't try them. How many lives could have been saved?

In this video, the speakers delve into the controversy surrounding the use of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin as treatments for COVID-19. They express frustration with the restrictions placed on these medications and emphasize the importance of doctors' involvement in patient care. The speakers highlight their own positive experiences with these treatments and criticize the politicization of medical decisions. They also discuss conflicting scientific studies and the influence of pharmaceutical companies. Additionally, the conversation touches on the use of fluvoxamine and the challenges faced by the speakers within their institution, leading to their departure. Overall, the video emphasizes the need for a balanced and evidence-based approach to medical treatments.

The speakers discuss the politicization of Ivermectin, an antiparasitic drug that also shows potential in stopping viral replication. They mention its success in treating yellow fever and winning the Nobel Prize. They express confusion over why a drug would be demonized and politicized. The conversation touches on the motivations behind this, including the desire to create a monopoly for vaccines and the Emergency Use Authorization Act. They highlight the affordability and accessibility of Ivermectin, which can be manufactured by anyone and costs only 7¢ per dose. The speakers also mention the discouragement and suppression of alternative treatments like monoclonal antibodies.

The speaker discusses the phenomenon of using drugs like ivermectin to treat COVID-19 without sufficient data to support its effectiveness. They emphasize the importance of safe and effective vaccines in preventing hospitalization and death from COVID-19. When patients request ivermectin, the speaker advises physicians to encourage vaccination for prevention and to provide monoclonal antibody treatment for those who qualify. For patients who are infected and at low risk for disease progression, the speaker suggests participating in clinical trials to determine the drug's efficacy. They provide the website clinicaltrials.gov for information on available trials.

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 FDA's website advises against using ivermectin for COVID-19, yet links to clinical trials, half of which indicate it may be effective. For three years, the FDA has warned against ivermectin while referencing studies that support its use. Additionally, there is increasing research suggesting ivermectin could be a vital treatment for COVID-19. The strong opposition from the federal government appears to be linked to the desire to maintain emergency use authorization for COVID vaccines. For more insights, consider subscribing for additional videos.

Ivermectin was initially demonized during COVID, but now it's being recognized as safe and effective by the clinical community. Many clinicians were using it successfully, despite the initial fear surrounding it. The speaker's doctor used it on her family and patients with positive results. The speaker believes it's important to report on this now, even though they were initially hesitant due to conflicting information. It's crucial to question and reevaluate beliefs, even if they were previously in favor of vaccines.

I'm in my office in Canberra with Dr. Zelenko, who is in the U.S. He has treated around 7,000 COVID patients and educated many physicians globally. His results show no patient deaths in the last eight months and minimal hospitalizations. He attributes success to early treatment and criticizes government policies that delay care. Zelenko advocates for hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, emphasizing their safety and effectiveness, while expressing concerns about vaccine side effects. He believes the current approach is driven by a desire for control rather than public health. He urges people to take preventative measures, including vitamins and zinc, and to question government narratives. Zelenko warns against vaccinating children, citing a higher risk from the vaccine than from COVID itself. He calls for a grassroots awakening against tyranny, emphasizing the importance of truth and community action.

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.

Dr. Ryan Cole, a pathologist and expert in immunology and virology, discusses the use of Ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19. He highlights that if Ivermectin is added to the treatment, it can decrease the death rate by 75% if administered early. However, he criticizes the NIH for recommending against its use based on flawed data. Dr. Cole mentions that doctors in Texas, Florida, and Wisconsin have successfully used Ivermectin, reducing death rates by 70% to 90% in their hospitals. He also raises concerns about a conflict of interest between the federal government and vaccine companies, suggesting that they may not want an effective therapy to overshadow the vaccines.

The video discusses the controversy surrounding the use of Ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19. While some claim it is a safe and effective medicine, others argue that it is a horse dewormer with no clinical evidence of its efficacy. The video highlights the smear campaign against Ivermectin and suggests that powerful forces, including pharmaceutical companies, may be suppressing its use. It also mentions the positive results seen in countries like India and Peru where Ivermectin was used as part of a multi-drug approach. The video raises concerns about the influence of pharmaceutical companies on the media and the manipulation of clinical studies. Overall, it presents Ivermectin as a potentially effective treatment that has been unfairly maligned.

The speaker shares their experience with using hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, and zinc as a treatment for COVID-19. They mention informing the President of the United States about their protocol and how it was effective in saving lives. However, they criticize Governor Cuomo for blocking access to hydroxychloroquine, leading to their patients dying again. They then discuss finding a substitute called Quercetin, along with vitamin C, that delivers zinc into cells. They explain how they made this treatment more accessible by combining all the necessary ingredients into one pill. They emphasize the importance of early intervention and mention the potential benefits of the treatment for other viruses like influenza and Ebola. The speaker concludes by discussing the creation of ZStack as a solution to help people.

In this video, a group of doctors discuss the use of Ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19. Some doctors argue that Ivermectin is a safe and effective drug that has shown miraculous effectiveness in treating the virus. They cite studies and the endorsement of a senior immunologist to support their claims. However, other doctors disagree, stating that the studies are still undergoing peer review and that Ivermectin is not an approved treatment for COVID-19. They argue that the vaccines have emergency use authorization because there are no approved alternatives. The debate centers around the effectiveness and credibility of Ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment.

The speakers discuss the exposure of mainstream media and how it tries to dismiss and discredit them. They mention the framing of Ivermectin as horse medicine and find it amusing. They clarify that they took Ivermectin based on the judgment of a medical professional and list other medications they used for COVID treatment. They mention that 200 congresspeople have also been treated with Ivermectin. They speculate that the demonization of Ivermectin may be motivated by financial interests since it is a generic drug. The video ends with the information that Ivermectin costs around 30¢ per dose.

The video discusses the controversy surrounding the use of Ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19. While some claim it is a safe and effective medicine, others argue that it is a horse dewormer with no clinical evidence of its efficacy. The video highlights the experiences of doctors who have faced backlash for advocating for Ivermectin and suggests that powerful forces, including pharmaceutical companies, may be suppressing its use. It also mentions studies and success stories from countries like Peru, India, and Japan where Ivermectin has been used effectively. The video raises concerns about the influence of pharmaceutical companies on media and academic research. Overall, it presents Ivermectin as a potentially valuable treatment option that has been unfairly maligned.

The speaker discusses the use of ventilators in treating COVID-19 patients. They mention that the concept of using ventilators came from China as a way to protect healthcare workers. However, they point out that many patients put on ventilators in New York City were dying, with a 90% fatality rate in some Texas hospitals. The speaker questions why alternative treatments like ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine were not considered when the chances of survival were so low. They also mention the incentivization of using certain drugs and protocols that may have contributed to unnecessary deaths.

Once it was determined to be safe, the speaker began using a treatment and found that it worked. Over 6,000 patients were treated, and those who received early treatment avoided hospitalization. Some patients came in very sick in their second week, with oxygen saturation in the low 80s, refusing to go to the hospital. The speaker's office offered them the option to possibly die there. They treated these patients with IV steroids, IV antibiotics, home oxygen, and high doses of ivermectin, without using monoclonal antibodies, and the patients were saved.

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.

Dr. Peterson Pierre from America's Frontline Doctors discusses the positive impact of Ivermectin on COVID-19 deaths in Peru and Uttar Pradesh, India. In Peru, the widespread use of Ivermectin resulted in a 74% reduction in excess deaths across 10 states. Similarly, in Uttar Pradesh, the distribution of Ivermectin led to a 97% decrease in COVID-19 deaths. The study suggests that Ivermectin can both prevent and treat the virus when distributed to at-risk populations. Dr. Pierre questions why more governments, including the US, did not adopt this strategy, emphasizing that Ivermectin is safe, effective, accessible, and affordable compared to experimental drugs. He suggests that fear mongering and financial interests may have influenced the decision-making process. Stay tuned for more updates.