TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

In the early days of COVID, I learned about Ivermectin's potential in cancer treatment. I met Paul, a healthy marathoner diagnosed with stage 4 prostate cancer shortly after his second Pfizer vaccine. After exhausting traditional treatments, he was given no options and referred to hospice. A friend suggested I speak with him for support. I recommended Ivermectin, which he obtained in Tennessee without telling his oncologist. Over time, he reported slight improvements, and during a follow-up, his PSA levels dropped significantly, indicating a biochemical remission. Despite some health issues, including TIAs, he eventually saw a cardiologist and improved further. Nine months later, he was dancing and had no new cancer growth, with some bone metastases gone. He felt so well that he said if he didn't know he had cancer, he wouldn't suspect it.

In my hospital, my patients had a mortality rate of 4.4% while the rest of the country ranged from 25 to 40%. Unfortunately, I faced censorship whenever I mentioned the potential benefits of ivermectin on social media. This censorship, which I refer to as "Facebook jail," prevented me from sharing important information. I strongly believe that many lives were lost unnecessarily due to this censorship. Don't forget to subscribe to our alerts newsletter to stay updated.

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.

At home, it is recommended to treat viral replication by giving zinc and other remedies like hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin. However, the protocol followed was to provide no treatment until hospitalization. Once in the hospital, the treatment included ventilators and Remdesivir. It is claimed that Tony Fauci knew Remdesivir could be lethal, as it had caused harmful side effects in Ebola patients. The drug was then used in the pandemic, leading to kidney failure, heart failure, and organ collapse in those who died. The deaths were attributed to Remdesivir rather than the virus itself.

Ivermectin is considered one of the safest medicines in history. It has a wide dosing range, making it difficult to overdose on. A comprehensive review by a French toxicologist found no documented deaths associated with Ivermectin, even with reports of massive overdoses. The World Health Organization (WHO) also acknowledges its safety, stating that most side effects are minor and temporary. In my experience, I have used Ivermectin for various diseases related to COVID, and the only potential side effects I have observed are occasional nausea, diarrhea, and blurry vision, which disappear once the medication is stopped. Overall, I cannot emphasize enough how safe and reliable Ivermectin is to use.

The speaker contracted COVID and immediately began taking multiple medications, including monoclonal antibodies, ivermectin, Z Pak, and prednisone.

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.

At home, it is recommended to treat viral replication by giving remedies like zinc and hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, which reduce the spread of the disease. However, the protocol followed was different. No treatment was given until hospitalization, where ventilators and Remdesivir were used. It is known that Remdesivir can be harmful, as it caused side effects in Ebola patients. The drug was manipulated and made standard of care, leading to kidney failure, heart failure, and organ collapse in COVID-19 patients. The deaths during the pandemic were often attributed to kidney failure, which was caused by Remdesivir, not the virus itself.

I worked in a community hospital that cared for marginalized communities during COVID. I convinced the Chairman of the Board to turn the entire hospital into an ICU to handle the expected surge. Meanwhile, I co-founded the FLCCC with Dr. Paul Maric and Dr. Pierre Kory to develop guidelines and protocols. We had great success using the MAF plus protocol, cortisone-like agents, vitamin C, and repurposed drugs like Ivermectin. My hospital's mortality rate was only 4.4%, much lower than average.

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?

Ivermectin is extremely safe, arguably safer than a sugar pill. In a randomized trial, those taking Ivermectin daily would likely experience fewer health issues than those on sugar pills. The narrative labeling Ivermectin as a toxic horse dewormer is misleading; over 3.7 billion doses have been administered to humans. It has significantly impacted global health by nearly eradicating several parasitic diseases. In fact, the risk of death from Tylenol is higher than from Ivermectin. While there are debates about its efficacy, in situations with limited options, using a safe and inexpensive drug like Ivermectin for sick patients seems reasonable.

The speaker discusses the availability of early therapeutic treatments for COVID-19 that can prevent hospitalization and death. They mention the use of Ivermectin, highlighting the numerous trials and studies that have shown its effectiveness in treating and preventing COVID-19. The speaker expresses concern about the lack of support from medical boards and the interference of federal bureaucracy in the doctor-patient relationship. They also mention the demonization of Ivermectin by the media and emphasize its safety and successful use in other countries. The speaker urges the Senate committee to consider the perspectives of doctors who have successfully treated patients with early therapeutic treatments for COVID-19.

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.

At home, it is recommended to treat viral replication by giving zinc and other zinc-enhancing remedies like hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin. However, the protocol followed by hospitals was to provide no treatment until admission, and then use ventilators and Remdesivir, which were known to be harmful. Tony Fauci was aware of the dangers of Remdesivir, as it caused lethal side effects in Ebola patients. Despite this, he manipulated a study to make Remdesivir the standard of care, resulting in kidney failure, heart failure, and organ collapse in COVID-19 patients. The deaths attributed to the virus were actually caused by Remdesivir.

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.

Hello, I'm Dr. Vladimir Zelenko, a family practitioner in New York. I propose early outpatient treatment for moderate to high-risk COVID-19 patients, having successfully treated over 100 without hospitalizations. Hydroxychloroquine, approved for decades and considered safe, was suddenly restricted, leading to patient deaths. I sought alternatives and discovered quercetin, an over-the-counter supplement that helps deliver zinc into cells, similar to hydroxychloroquine. Facing my own terminal illness, I realized the importance of family, compassion, and freedom. This is a battle for our rights and consciousness against tyranny. Civil disobedience is essential; we must resist and protect our freedoms. The Second Amendment safeguards us from oppressive government. We need faith and courage to confront these challenges, relying on a higher power to guide us in this struggle.

Ivermectin is safer than a sugar pill, with minimal toxicity. It has been falsely labeled as a horse dewormer by the FDA, despite its extensive safe use in humans. Over 3.7 billion doses have been given, showing its safety. While its efficacy is debated, it is a low-risk, cost-effective option for treating sick patients.

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 contracted COVID-19 and tried various medications including monoclonal antibodies, Ivermectin, Z Pak, and prednisone.

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.

I worked in a small community hospital that cared for marginalized communities during COVID. I convinced the Chairman of the Board to turn the entire hospital into an ICU to handle the expected surge. I also founded the FLCCC with other doctors and developed the MathPlus protocol, which included cortisone agents, vitamin C, thiamine, heparin, and repurposed drugs like Ivermectin. Our success rate was remarkable, with a mortality rate of 4.4% compared to the national average of 25-40%. However, the media never focused on our achievements and I faced censorship on social media platforms. Many people died unnecessarily due to this censorship. The MathPlus protocol, along with good nursing and physician care, helped save lives, especially among indigent individuals who were critically ill when they arrived at the hospital.

Dr. Miley Trinh, a GP based in Sydney, Australia, joins Jim Ferguson for her first appearance on the show. She explains she has practiced as a GP for nearly thirty years and has been suspended since late 2021 amid a dispute with the health regulator over her license. She describes her suspension as part of a broader fight with regulators and regulators’ attempts to cancel her medical license. Trinh recounts how her concerns about the COVID-19 situation began in 2019, while following global events and studying debt-based economic systems. She states she became alarmed by reports of Wuhan’s lockdown timing, noting that authorities announced a lockdown five days earlier and allowed travel before it commenced, which she found alarming. She observed what she called unusual global coordination in reporting and policy responses to the pandemic, with early treatment being suppressed and a tightly controlled narrative across countries. Regarding ivermectin, she says she concluded after months of research that it was a key medication for treating COVID-19, particularly when given early. She describes participating in doctor groups and Zoom meetings to discuss how to treat patients and notes she treated a patient by telephone during lockdown who was deteriorating. She reports that the patient improved after her treatment but later faced complications requiring hospital care. She says two complaints were filed against her in September 2021—the first from a patient she had helped, and the second from an individual named John Smith who obtained a prescription that belonged to a family member for ivermectin. She asserts John Smith did not belong to her practice, and that the prescription was allegedly handed to an APRA (Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency) agent, a fact she says regulators overlooked when investigating her practice. Trinh emphasizes that she had never before faced a complaint in nearly thirty years of practice and that the suspension hearing concluded with her being deemed a danger to public health, despite her insistence that she saved a life. She has remained suspended for over four years. She describes the regulatory process as involving claims of prescribing ivermectin “below standard” and accusations of professional misconduct for not handing over 20 to 30 patient medical files, which she says she refused to provide because she did not know the patients’ names and because none of the patients had filed complaints against her. She notes that hearings occurred in December, March, and August, with subsequent issues over transcript integrity and requests for recusal of the presiding judge. She says a decision on the main case is imminent, but a cancellation of her license could entail a three to five-year suspension and substantial costs, complicating the possibility of reinstatement. Beyond her case, she argues the fight is about medical autonomy and the right for physicians to tailor treatments to individual patients, not be dictated by politicians or rigid guidelines. She criticizes what she views as a heavily censored environment for doctors who questioned the pandemic narrative or advocated for therapeutics like ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, vitamin D, and zinc. She asserts that the COVID-19 Task Force guidelines opposed ivermectin and other therapeutics, and she contends such guidelines restrict doctors’ ability to provide individualized care. Trinh links the censorship and regulatory pressure to broader concerns about global governance, citing media suppression, removal of dissent on platforms like Facebook and YouTube, and increased control over platforms such as X (formerly Twitter). She mentions public support, including her presence on X and Facebook, as important to her ongoing legal battle and the broader struggle over medical autonomy and truth during the pandemic. She concludes by inviting people to follow her on X and Facebook to learn more and to show support as she pursues potential appeals if the judgment does not go in her favor. She frames her case as about more than COVID-19 alone: it is about challenging what she views as a long-standing, disproportionate control of doctors and a fight for fundamental rights, including the right to a hearing before the tribunal and the right to medical decision-making free from political interference.

I used to do breathing treatments in my office, and then I moved them to people's cars because there was so much, oh you're spreading the virus if you do breathing treatments in your office. But they weren't doing them in the hospital because they thought it would spread the spread the virus, but super effective. I don't know if, you know, if you've heard of Richard Bartlett. He's a doctor in Texas. He kinda got completely smeared for advocating for breathing treatments early on. He got pursued by the med the Texas Medical Board pursued him because he was claiming they thought he was making false claims about budesonide breathing treatments, but they were invaluable. I mean, all my high risk patients, recommended they get those in very low risk of issues with it.

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.