TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Speaker recalls monoclonal antibodies: "They worked very well" and "They were not controversial." After the government took over distribution, access "became harder and harder to get them," and the speaker turned to ivermectin. They claim, "they did that on purpose" and, "They they did that to encourage people to take the the COVID shot." The speaker suggests the timing was orchestration, noting "in March, the government put out the big information on ivermectin and why you should not take it for COVID. They put that on the FDA's website." At the same time, they launched "COVID-nineteen Community Core, and this was 04/01/2021." They describe this as "an $11,500,000,000 slush fund to propaganda, to feed out propaganda."

The speaker discusses how CNN portrayed them as taking horse medication, specifically Ivermectin, which is actually a medication used more commonly in humans. They mention that Ivermectin has been prescribed to billions of people and even won a Nobel Prize for its efficacy in humans. The speaker believes that Ivermectin had to be discredited because of a federal law that states emergency use authorization for vaccines cannot be issued if there is an existing medication proven effective against the target illness. They argue that acknowledging the effectiveness of Ivermectin would have jeopardized the multi-billion dollar vaccine industry.

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 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.

The FDA now approves the use of Ivermectin for COVID treatment, which surprises the speaker. They discuss their previous conversations about finding alternative treatments for COVID and express frustration with the FDA's actions. They believe that many lives could have been saved if Ivermectin had been widely available. They mention the importance of truth and courageous reporting to counter the mainstream media's narrative. The speaker warns about the dangerous path the country is heading towards, with an elite group seeking control over people's lives. They highlight government expansion, WHO amendments, and the need for people to wake up to the current dangers.

200 congresspeople have been treated with Ivermectin for COVID, which was a common off-label treatment before vaccines were available. The motivation behind the negative perception of this medication is unclear, but it may relate to financial interests since Ivermectin is a generic drug with a low cost of about 30 cents per dose.

The FDA only approves emergency use authorization if there are no other alternatives. Ivermectin's effectiveness could have impacted vaccine approval. Powerful interests oppose Ivermectin due to financial reasons. Drug companies profit greatly from vaccines. Ivermectin is cheap and widely available. Merck's stance on Ivermectin changed after its patent expired. Paid articles may not always provide accurate information.

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?

Speaker 0: They use them for to amplify fear, to boost compliance, and, of course, push those vaccines. Well, joining me now is primary care physician and author of unavoidably unsafe childhood Reconsidered. Doctor Jeff Barky is with us. Doc, it's great to have you back on. Speaker 1: Hey, Grant. Thanks for having me. Great to be with you. Speaker 0: Alright. I know this comes as no surprise, this number, that only fourteen percent of the PCR positive turned out to be COVID in Germany. I would imagine it translates to The United States. But your reaction and now seeing this done by real scientists, real doctors in a real journal of medicine. Speaker 1: Well, there's no surprise by this study. We knew it all along. The PCR test was never designed to detect infection. What it detects is miniscule particles of the RNA virus, and then they would crank up the cycle threshold. They would amplify the test to create positivity. And so the problem is that you could test the side of a table and get a positive result, let alone that we were actually going to treat based on a test result. I was always taught in medical school, we don't treat test results, we treat patients. And that's what I tried to do. And then the government went out of its way to suppress effective repurposed medication, like hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin. This was a money game. This was a scam. This was all based on fear. No surprise out of Germany. Speaker 0: You know, I I believe it. And let's not forget because we always talk about the money and the vaccines and big pharma and their ties to government, and I know that was a lot. But let's not forget too. This was weaponized to keep people home so they wouldn't vote for president Trump during during that twenty twenty election. It was all part of the big steal. Speaker 1: These positives, they wanted lots of positives. They didn't want negatives. They wanted positives. Didn't they, doc? Speaker 0: They absolutely did for a variety of reasons. The more you can keep people in fear, the more likely it is they're gonna follow your directive. We've never seen anything like this before. The government imposing its will upon free citizens. They closed churches. They closed mom and pop stores. They forced healthy people to stay indoors, and they closed down hospitals and told sick people to stay away. I've never seen anything like that happen before. The sad part here, Grant, is I'm not clear that the American people learned their lesson. And when the government comes around and does this again, I just hope enough of us will stand up this time and say, hell no. Well

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 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.

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

Speaker 0 describes contracting COVID from his gardener, noting that the gardener had it first and died, while he survived. He says, “I got COVID from my gardener, and he had it first, and then I got it. I was like, ah, did I grab the hose or what, you know, what was I don't know. But it was it was I knew the guy for twenty years, and we both went to the same hospital. And he died, and I didn't. Jesus.” He claims they both received remdesivir, saying, “I think we both got remdesivir, which is not good. Not good. Not good. Causes kidney failure. I know.” He adds that he couldn’t walk for three months after receiving that treatment and that, “I couldn't walk for three months after I had that stuff. Really? Because it kills you.” He says he learned afterward that remdesivir “kills you,” and he ties this to a question about Fauci: “and that's why I wonder about Fauci, you know.” Speaker 1 responds, suggesting that the audience should indeed “wonder about that guy,” and contrasts this with actions he describes as preventing people from obtaining monoclonal antibodies: “Oh, you should wonder about that guy. When meanwhile, they were trying to stop people from getting monoclonal antibodies.” He criticizes the restriction of monoclonal antibodies as “fucking insane” because it followed a push to promote vaccines for profit, stating, “They've restricted monoclonal antibodies, which is fucking insane because they wanted to promote that vaccine because they wanted a profit off of it, which brings us back again to evil.” He asserts, “Evil's real. It's real. Putting money over human lives is evil. I agree.” He adds that there is a temptation to pursue such income, calling it “a real thing,” and reaffirms, “and there's a there's a temptation to do it too, which is even more crazy. Yeah.”

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

The speaker claims that the public had limited access to data when the vaccines received emergency use authorization. They believe regulators, who they consider corrupt, were determined to push forward with the mass vaccination program. The speaker argues that effective therapeutic medicines like Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin were intentionally suppressed to pave the way for vaccine authorization. They explain that a federal law prohibits emergency use authorization for a vaccine if there is an existing licensed drug that proves effective against the same disease. The speaker suggests that this decision was driven by financial interests, with the NIH owning half the patent for the Moderna vaccine and individuals associated with Anthony Fauci potentially receiving significant royalties.

Monoclonal antibodies worked very well and quickly, and were initially readily available. The speaker believes the government intentionally made them harder to get to encourage people to take the COVID shot. The speaker didn't use ivermectin until the government took over distribution of monoclonal antibodies. In March, the government put out information on why people should not take ivermectin for COVID on the FDA's website. At the same time, they launched COVID-nineteen Community Core on 04/01/2021, an $11,500,000,000 slush fund to feed out propaganda.

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.

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.

Some people are refusing the COVID vaccine and instead taking horse dewormer, which has no evidence of effectiveness and can be dangerous. The speaker got COVID and tried various medications, including Ivermectin, which is commonly used for deworming horses. The mention of Ivermectin as a horse dewormer is not flattering. The speaker believes there is clear evidence that Ivermectin can be effective and that people should be informed about it.

Speaker claims ivermectin is part of a diabolical Rockefeller plan devised in 2010, predicting people would reject vaccines after 2020 and turn to another pharmaceutical. They question ivermectin’s safety by listing side effects such as blindness, liver failure, and infertility. They argue the Rockefellers own the entire medical system worldwide, so buying from a different country is ineffective. The discussion notes ads for pharmaceuticals on alternative-health platforms, suggesting a marketing push. They say parasites are really heavy metals in the body, and that ivermectin contains heavy metals. The claim is that ivermectin, like antibiotics, suppresses symptoms. They describe a $32,000,000,000 industry fueled by this narrative, and when they researched producers, they found Merck, Johnson and Johnson, Pfizer, and Bayer. The same companies making vaccines in 2020 allegedly also make ivermectin, framing it as a bait-and-switch.

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.

Monoclonal antibodies worked very well and quickly, and were initially readily available. The speaker believes the government intentionally made them harder to get to encourage people to take the COVID shot. The speaker started using ivermectin when monoclonal antibodies became difficult to obtain. In March, the government put out information on the FDA's website about why people should not take ivermectin for COVID. Simultaneously, the government launched COVID-nineteen Community Core on 04/01/2021, an $11,500,000,000 slush fund for propaganda.

The speaker discusses a CNN segment where they portrayed him as taking horse medication. He argues that this portrayal is a clear indication of a conspiracy, as the medication in question, Ivermectin, is commonly used in humans and has even won a Nobel Prize for its efficacy in humans. The speaker believes that Ivermectin had to be discredited in order to promote the COVID-19 vaccines, as federal law prohibits emergency use authorization for vaccines if there is an existing effective medication. Acknowledging Ivermectin's effectiveness would have jeopardized the multi-billion dollar vaccine industry.

The speaker believes that Ivermectin's effectiveness threatened the emergency use authorization for vaccines, which would impact the global market worth over $100 billion. The speaker suggests that Ivermectin's low cost and availability posed a threat to patented pharmaceuticals like PAXLOVID and Molnupiravir. They argue that Ivermectin could have ended the pandemic if widely used, but was suppressed due to its potential impact on the market. Translation: The speaker suggests that Ivermectin's effectiveness posed a threat to the emergency use authorization for vaccines and the global market, potentially impacting billions in revenue. They argue that Ivermectin's affordability and availability could have ended the pandemic if widely used, but was suppressed due to its potential impact on the market.

The speaker expresses frustration that COVID vaccines are still recommended for those most likely to be injured by them. They claim Vinay Prasad, now at the FDA, attacked them on ivermectin, stating it doesn't work and that "turbo cancer" is not a thing. The speaker believes there is denial regarding the mRNA technology and its potential link to aggressive cancers, as well as ivermectin's potential as a solution. They suggest that admitting the mRNA vaccines may be causing cancer and that ivermectin may be a solution could force the shutdown of the mRNA technology. The speaker claims there are numerous publications suggesting the vaccines may be causing aggressive "turbo cancers." They state the new Trump administration doesn't want to abandon the mRNA technology, complicating the use of ivermectin, fenbendazole, and benzoyl in cancer treatment due to a lack of support.