TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Doctors reportedly risked losing their licenses for prescribing ivermectin. The Federation of State Medical Boards, a private entity in Texas that oversees state medical boards, allegedly sent a directive to state medical boards concerning ivermectin and misinformation, encouraging them to target doctors. Some doctors are reportedly still dealing with medical boards to clear their names. This reportedly occurred in the fall of 2021, when Biden mandated the shots.

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."

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.

The FDA denies commanding against the use of Ivermectin for COVID as an off-label prescription, but acknowledges warning about potential risks. They sent a letter to medical boards and pharmacies stating that available data does not show Ivermectin's safety and effectiveness, mentioning side effects and potential dangers. The FDA's counsel mentioned that they also issue warnings for opioid drugs. Blue Cross, an insurance company, sent letters stating that Ivermectin should not be prescribed for COVID. The CDC, FDA, American Medical Association, and American Pharmacists Association have strongly warned against Ivermectin use. They mentioned insufficient data and potential fraud, waste, and abuse patterns. Doctors were warned that their prescribing behavior would be monitored, and inappropriate prescribing could lead to consequences and termination of participation.

There was a panic within the FDA to silence discussion of chlorine dioxide, similar to their stance on ivermectin. We now know ivermectin saves lives and reduces symptoms. The pandemic elements were faked, and there was an attempt to block discussion of both substances. In 2020, they tried to stop us, but we refused. After you were kicked off of YouTube, they took down 3,000,000 views of our content. I moved everything to what became Brighteon. We were broadcasting worldwide how to make it yourself. They told us to shut up, but we asserted our First Amendment rights. I even wrote a 35-page letter to the FDA, explaining our rights as a church to practice our beliefs. This wasn't a scam; we've been doing this for twenty years before COVID.

Tony Fauci's problem is that a federal law prohibits emergency use authorization for a vaccine if there is an approved medication that is effective against the target disease. If Fauci had acknowledged the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine or Ivermectin against COVID, it would have been illegal to approve the vaccines. The medical community, including 17,000 doctors, supported the use of these medications, but Fauci dismissed them as dangerous. It is speculated that Fauci had a strong incentive to discredit these medications. Many doctors, such as Harvey Reach, Peter McCulloch, and Pierre Corey, who have successfully treated COVID patients, believe that hundreds of thousands of American lives could have been saved if these medications were not suppressed.

Speaker expresses frustration with monoclonal antibodies: "They worked very well" and "They were not controversial." Initially, they were readily available: "I could get as many doses as I wanted. I mean, show up at my doorstep the next day. And it was great." After the government took over distribution, access declined, leading me to use ivermectin: "I turned to ivermectin." "But, you know, in my opinion, they did that on purpose." They claim the government did that "to encourage people to take the the COVID shot." They assert timing: "If you look at the timing, 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." They reference "COVID-nineteen Community Core," launched "04/01/2021," described as "an $11,500,000,000 slush fund to propaganda, to feed out propaganda."

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

I fell for the propaganda and got double vaccinated, only to realize I was misled about ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, masks, and social distancing. I faced censorship, slander, and conspiracy accusations for speaking out. Wikipedia is controlled by intelligence agencies, labeling controversial topics as conspiracy theories.

This year, it was revealed that $2.3 billion was allocated by the government, specifically the CDC and FDA, to pharmacies like Walgreens and CVS to discourage the prescription of ivermectin and other treatments recommended by doctors. The federal government has now acknowledged that these treatments were effective and expressed regret for suppressing them, admitting that this has led to unnecessary deaths. The influence of big pharma, particularly figures like Bill Gates, has resulted in restrictions on what healthcare professionals can prescribe, leading to consequences such as decertification and job loss for those who defy these guidelines. This situation highlights the dangers of a powerful cartel controlling medical practices.

The FDA was sued over tweets telling people "you're not a horse" regarding Ivermectin. The lawsuit argued the FDA doesn't have the authority to tell people not to take a certain drug, as that constitutes practicing medicine. Some believe the FDA's actions were a coordinated PR attack to promote COVID vaccines. One doctor claims the government's agenda was to force vaccines, which are now known to be "poison jabs." The case against the FDA was settled largely on the plaintiffs' terms, with the FDA taking down the "offensive tweets." One doctor claims to have treated over 6,000 COVID patients with Ivermectin, with none hospitalized as a result, and considers it safer than common medications. The lawsuit set a precedent, potentially tarnishing the FDA's reputation and limiting future overreach in advising patients on medical treatments. Some believe the suppression of early COVID treatments has caused hundreds of thousands of deaths and that the COVID vaccines have caused excess deaths and increased disability.

Tony Fauci's problem is that a federal law prohibits emergency use authorization for a vaccine if there is an approved medication that effectively treats the target disease. If Fauci or anyone had acknowledged that Ivermectin works as a treatment for COVID, the vaccine would not have received authorization. Despite many doctors and publications supporting Ivermectin, Fauci actively dismissed it as a dangerous medication to drown out its effectiveness. It is unclear why he continued to do so after receiving authorization, but there is a strong incentive for him to discredit Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine. Notable doctors like Harvey Reich and Pierre Cory have successfully treated thousands of COVID patients.

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.

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.

Federal agencies are reportedly interfering in doctor-patient relationships, targeting physicians who offer alternative treatments like ivermectin or chronic pain management. Dr. Neil Anand highlights an upcoming trial in Philadelphia concerning the use of AI to analyze personal data (social media, phone records, banking) to build cases against doctors. He claims thousands of physicians have faced imprisonment or license revocation. Dr. Anand mentions Dr. Joseph Parker is currently imprisoned for treating pain patients. He notes the demonization of pain medication, despite the legitimate needs of patients, including those with cancer. Dr. Anand suggests civil asset forfeiture is a motivation behind targeting physicians, particularly older ones, labeling them as drug dealers to seize their assets. He thanks the platform for giving exposure to the issue, because many doctors are scared of speaking out.

Speaker 0: I was fired after thirty one years as an emergency room physician with not one single patient complaint against me in those thirty one years. I was fired for saying that somebody who had natural immunity didn't need to be vaccinated against the disease to which they were already immune. Fortunately, I still had my medical license even though I lost a significant part, at least 50% of my income and I couldn't work as an emergency room doctor anymore, I still had my private practice. So when I discovered from the the biodistribution studies that Pfizer had hidden, that we knew that these vaccines go around your entire body, they do not just stay in your arm. Pfizer's biodistribution studies on the lipid nanoparticles show that they literally take those messenger RNA strands into every part of your body that go into your brain and your lungs and your heart and your liver and your reproductive organs and your bone marrow and everywhere, which is, by the way, why these COVID shots have caused a a greater array of side effects than any other medical treatment in history because this toxic spike protein ends up in literally every every

I used to encourage parents to vaccinate and even considered not accepting patients who didn't vaccinate. I recently looked at the package insert of an mRNA vaccine and found it blank, which raised concerns. Safety signals from VAERS and other platforms showed an increase in adverse reactions, including myocarditis. It's difficult to give informed consent when the government threatens my license if I don't consider these vaccines safe and effective. I've trusted regulatory agencies throughout my career, but something seems very wrong now.

Most doctors can't tolerate being called quacks or having their reputation destroyed. "can we stop giving vaccines to my sick patients, to people who are having, chemotherapy while they're having chemotherapy to my patient before I've even seen them on the ward? Can we just can we just hold this up and give it to them on the day of discharge?" That was my request in the beginning. "do you know that they're giving COVID vaccines to six month old children now?" "We know how bad it is. We know that it ruins stem cells in pregnant women. They don't give stem cells to their babies. The industry is upset because the placentas no longer have stem cells." "There were two snake genes in there." "Nope. We gotta put it on the vaccine, the baby vaccine schedule, because any doubts whether or not well funded about the vaccination must not be allowed to exist." "Well, that that's been the case since, you know, basically, the the medical profession was infiltrated in the early nineteen hundreds by, you know, high level interests that that didn't want us thinking for ourselves and carrying along with the natural cures that actually work."

Speaker 0, an ER physician with twenty-five years of experience and a lawyer, recounts a pivotal moment in April 2020. California doctors received a letter stating that if they prescribed hydroxychloroquine, they could lose their medical licenses. He emphasizes that, as a physician and attorney, you cannot tell a doctor they cannot prescribe an FDA-approved medication, noting that this is not a permissible category of action. The letter horrified him, and he was stunned by the idea of government involvement in medical prescribing. To gauge the reaction, he asked his peers what they thought about the letter, but they largely shrugged. This lack of widespread concern among colleagues contrasted with his own reaction and intensified his alarm. He describes this experience as the moment it activated him to go public. Before that moment, he focused on individual patient care, but the letter prompted a broader sense of urgency. Ultimately, he states that this experience woke him up and made him very scared for America. The core points are the content of the letter and its implications for medical practice, his professional background informing his response, the skeptical reaction of peers, and the personal turning point that led him to go public.

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.

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.

A physician recounts being attacked for offering alternative COVID treatments and questioning vaccine efficacy. Despite treating thousands of patients and being proven more accurate than public health authorities, she is still fighting to keep her medical license. The physician describes treating a sheriff's deputy with COVID in February, following the vaccine rollout, when ivermectin was difficult to obtain. She notes primary care doctors often did not treat viruses, leading to catastrophic outcomes. After President Trump touted hydroxychloroquine, the Texas State Board of Pharmacy restricted its prescription. The government then launched a PR campaign against ivermectin, influencing hospitals to mandate vaccines. The physician observed more vaccinated individuals contracting COVID with similar or worse symptoms. Monoclonal antibodies, which worked effectively, were removed as an option, allegedly to promote vaccination. A urology department considered refusing unvaccinated patients. The physician faced obstacles in obtaining emergency privileges to administer ivermectin to the sheriff's deputy, who ultimately survived but suffered long-term health issues and later passed away. The Texas Medical Board is pursuing charges against the physician for recommending COVID therapy. The expert witness against her is a Planned Parenthood lab director. She highlights the politicization of medicine, the loss of power for doctors, and the influence of corporations and insurance companies. She expresses concern over COVID shot injuries, the shots being added to the childhood vaccine schedule, and the potential for long-term immune system damage.