reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Peter Navarro entered the situation room uninvited, claiming hydroxychloroquine works and accusing others of having blood on their hands. Vice President Pence asked him to leave, surprising everyone. It was a disruptive interruption in a serious conversation.

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.

Zev Zelenko, the creator of the Zelenko protocol and advocate for Hydroxychloroquine, has made a video exposing a conspiracy between Janet Woodcock and Rick Bright. Rick Bright, former head of BARDA, and Janet Woodcock, former head of Operation Warp Speed for Drugs and the FDA, allegedly conspired to restrict the use of Hydroxychloroquine to hospitals only. This strategy, implemented through emergency use authorization, hindered the timely administration of the drug. The motive behind their actions remains unclear. Rick Bright himself admitted to this conspiracy on video, claiming there was no evidence of Hydroxychloroquine's effectiveness against the virus, which is false.

The speaker discusses a CNN segment where they portrayed him as taking horse medication. He criticizes the repeated claims and believes it shows a conspiracy. He clarifies that the medication, Ivermectin, is commonly used in humans and has even won a Nobel Prize for its efficacy. The speaker suggests that Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine were discredited to protect the vaccine industry, as federal law prohibits emergency use authorization if there is an existing effective medication. Acknowledging the effectiveness of these medications would have jeopardized the multi-billion dollar vaccine enterprise.

The speaker criticizes the suppression of published treatment options and suggests that it may be a tactic to justify emergency medical countermeasures. They find it ironic that Johns Hopkins University, named after the person who popularized Hydroxychloroquine for malaria treatment, now claims it is dangerous. The speaker also mentions the CDC's previous advocacy for Hydroxychloroquine distribution. They emphasize the audacity of the alleged crime and express surprise at the public's blindness to the information presented.

The speaker discusses a CNN segment where they portrayed him as taking horse medication. He believes this is evidence of a conspiracy, as the medication in question, Ivermectin, is commonly used in humans and has even won a Nobel Prize for its efficacy. He suggests that Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine were discredited to protect the vaccine industry, as federal law prohibits emergency use authorization for vaccines if there are existing effective medications. Acknowledging the effectiveness of these medications would have undermined the multi-billion dollar vaccine industry.

A speaker claims remdesivir, an experimental drug, caused COVID-19 patient deaths in hospitals between days one and nine of a ten-day treatment. The speaker states that Dr. Anthony Fauci claimed in May 2020 that remdesivir was found safe and effective in an African drug trial in February 2019, and he hyperlinked the study in a memo to hospitals. The speaker says that the African trial actually showed a 53% death rate, leading the safety board to suspend remdesivir use and notify funders of its toxicity. The speaker alleges that Dr. Fauci and his NIH department funded the Ebola trial in Africa. The speaker accuses Fauci of lying to Congress and the American people by claiming the drug was safe and effective when the safety board deemed it too deadly and toxic.

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.

I hope they use hydroxychloroquine and Z Pak with doctor's approval. It's been around for a long time, so why not try it? I want to avoid ventilators because the outcomes are not good. Hydroxychloroquine could be a game-changer if it works. It's their choice to take it, but I recommend trying it. Avoid Z Pak if you have a heart condition. Let's keep people off ventilators and find a better solution.

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.

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.”

The speaker discusses a CNN segment where they portrayed him as taking horse medication. He believes this is evidence of a conspiracy, as the medication in question, Ivermectin, is commonly used in humans and has even won a Nobel Prize for its efficacy. The speaker suggests that Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine were discredited to protect the vaccine industry, as federal law prohibits emergency use authorization for vaccines if there are existing effective medications. Acknowledging the effectiveness of these medications would have undermined the multi-billion dollar vaccine industry.

Doctors were aware that hydroxychloroquine was safe until the media suggested otherwise. They claimed it was both safe and effective, but when the narrative shifted to it being unsafe, despite its 70-year history and a government database showing it to be safer than Tylenol, it raised concerns. The assertion of its lack of safety felt like a significant deception.

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.

Speaking about the President’s health assertions, the speaker notes that when issues stray from health, they avoid hostility toward the President, but when scientifically untrue public-health claims are made, they must respond. He recalls not wanting to disrespect the office, adding, "I do have, even to this day, a very strong respect for the office of presidency of the United States." He was uncomfortable with statements like "it would disappear like magic" and with invoking "magical elixirs like hydroxychloroquine because somebody told him that hydroxychloroquine works." When asked by the press, he had to say, "no, that's not true. Hydroxychloroquine doesn't work and in fact it can harm you. And no, it's not going to disappear like magic." He concludes, "So you've got to be careful and wear a mask."

In this video, the speaker discusses the use of hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for COVID-19. They explain that hydroxychloroquine has been used for centuries to treat various conditions, including malaria. The speaker mentions that hydroxychloroquine inhibits the virus from entering and replicating in cells, and it also helps transport zinc into cells, which can further inhibit viral replication. The speaker then discusses a study that found a lower mortality rate among COVID-19 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine. They highlight that despite the controversy surrounding the drug, there is evidence to suggest its effectiveness in reducing deaths. The speaker concludes by emphasizing that hydroxychloroquine may be beneficial even in advanced stages of the disease.

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.

Honestly, I'll tell you something. All my fellow doctors who were affected by Covid-19 have all taken chloroquine. So, it's hypocritical to say that we need to wait for studies to know what to do. I believe we should give every possible chance to the patients.

Honestly, I'll tell you something. All my fellow doctors who were affected by Covid-19 have all taken chloroquine. So, it's hypocritical to say that we need to wait for studies to know what to do. I believe we should give every possible chance to the patients.

The speaker expresses frustration with CNN for portraying them as taking horse medication and conspiring against them. They argue that the medication, ivermectin, is commonly used by humans and has even won a Nobel Prize for its efficacy in humans. They believe that there is a deliberate effort to discredit ivermectin and other medications like hydroxychloroquine to ensure the success of the vaccine industry, which is worth billions of dollars.

The dialogue centers on treatments and outcomes for COVID-19, with concerns about what is being used and what might work. One participant remarks on the reluctance to use certain treatments that are successful worldwide, recounting a conversation with a doctor. Another asks what kinds of treatments are being tried, noting that some approaches “are coming out with different things that are in the testing phase.” A third person criticizes a platform they believe “kills more people than actually save,” and another agrees that “they don’t work anyway,” questioning the harm in trying alternatives when current efforts aren’t effective. A key exchange discusses expectations for patient survival. One person says, “I don’t expect any of these people to survive. Ninety percent of them would die,” while another adds that if patients are “already dying anyway,” it may be reasonable to try additional measures rather than do nothing. There is debate about whether trying unproven treatments is appropriate; one participant notes that without a scientific basis, extra attempts can make patients worse, while another concedes that they would try anything to save their life. The conversation then shifts to clinical presentations and treatment strategies. With COVID patients who cannot breathe, X-rays show “the lungs are white,” indicating affected lungs with very thick, white secretions. The question arises of what “white lung” means—whether it is mucus and coating that fill the lungs and impede oxygen transfer. In response, the discussion distinguishes between early-stage treatments (like hydroxychloroquine and zinc) and later-stage interventions. It is stated that once lungs are severely affected, certain proven treatments exist that have passed trials in Asia through Dr. Chang, described as a US-board-certified physician. Specifically, extremely high-dose IV vitamin C is claimed to be successful in treating patients, providing the lungs with antioxidant support to help expel the infection, alongside IV antibiotics to treat the infection while avoiding reliance on ventilation and sedation. There is a contrast drawn between approaches in different regions. The dialogue notes that high-dose IV vitamin C has passed three trials in Asia and is reported as effective, while in the speaker’s locale, there is hesitation or reluctance to adopt this method. The discussion ends with a remark about how some people might attribute success to “good genes,” implying a belief that genetics may influence susceptibility or outcomes, though this is stated rather than argued as a scientific conclusion. Overall, the conversation emphasizes that several participants are wary of conventional treatments, advocate for exploring high-dose IV vitamin C as a therapeutic option, and describe the characteristic radiographic and clinical features of severe COVID-19 lung involvement.

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.

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 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.