TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

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.

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.

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.

The 2018 FDA guidance recommended using drugs off-label for unmet medical needs. Hydroxychloroquine, Ivermectin, colchicine, doxycycline, Azithromycin, budesonide, prednisone, and enoxaparin were used to treat COVID-19. However, certain drugs like hydroxychloroquine faced strong opposition. Clive Palmer in Australia procured hydroxychloroquine for the entire population, but it was seized and destroyed by authorities. The motive behind targeting these drugs is unclear. If they were proven useful, there would be no need for vaccine mandates. It's questioned why people couldn't use hydroxychloroquine or Ivermectin if they were willing to try and pay for them, even if they didn't work.

In 2002-2003, North American science conducted experiments and research on the original SARS CoV-one. By 2015-2016, it was known that Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine were effective against viruses and could modulate the immune response. DARPA, the American Research Arm of the U.S. Military, recommended Ivermectin to the CDC as the top product for a coronavirus pandemic. These medications have been used safely in humans for 35 to 40 years. So, when the next pandemic hit, Ivermectin was ready to be used.

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

In 2020, there was a disinformation campaign against Hydroxychloroquine, a generic drug. The pharmaceutical industry opposes generic drugs as they reduce profits. They conducted trials with toxic doses of Hydroxychloroquine, causing increased deaths. On the other hand, Ivermectin is beneficial when given in higher doses. The spike protein in COVID-19 causes clotting issues and suppresses interferon, a chemical that helps fight infections and cancer. Medicines like Ivermectin and others can boost interferon levels and prevent clotting by binding to receptors. Some patients given high doses of Ivermectin have shown remarkable recovery, as it competes with the spike protein for binding sites and prevents clot formation.

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.

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.

The North American scientific community spent 15 years planning for the next Covid epidemic. In 2000-2003, SARS-CoV-1 emerged, leading to various experiments to determine the best response for a similar event. By 2015-2016, research was completed, and the US military's research branch, DARPA, specifically recommended and informed the CDC that ivermectin was the top product to use in a coronavirus pandemic. It was known that ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine were highly antiviral and immunomodulatory. These elements were proven effective in stimulating the immune response and fighting viruses in both lab and animal studies. These drugs have been used safely in humans for 35-40 years, making them ready for the next pandemic.

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.

Vaccines were oversold, leading to mandates that caused people to lose their jobs. The intent behind vaccine liability laws was well-meaning, but companies must be held accountable for vaccine injuries. Early treatments like hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin were undermined, preventing effective therapies from being available and allowing emergency use authorization for vaccines. This approach resulted in unnecessary loss of life. The suppression of alternative treatments benefited pharmaceutical companies financially. Despite evidence supporting treatments like corticosteroids and ivermectin, these options were dismissed, paving the way for vaccine mandates. The public response to vaccine injuries has been inadequate and unacceptable.

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.

North American science spent 15 years researching how to respond to a future coronavirus pandemic after the original SARS CoV-one outbreak in 2002-2003. By 2015-2016, research showed that Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine were effective antiviral and immune modulatory treatments. The US military's research arm, DARPA, recommended Ivermectin as the top choice for a coronavirus pandemic and shared this information with the CDC. These medications had been proven safe for humans and had been used for several decades. They were ready to be used in the event of a future pandemic.

North American science spent 15 years preparing for the next COVID after the original SARS CoV 1 outbreak in 2002-2003. By 2015-2016, research was complete. DARPA recommended to the CDC that ivermectin was the number one product to use in the event of a coronavirus pandemic. Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine were known to be highly antiviral and immune modulatory. These effects were proven in vitro and in vivo with animals. Both medications were known to be completely safe for humans, having been used for 35 to 40 years. This knowledge was readily available for use at the next pandemic.

The forest plot shows COVID medicines, with only expensive ones approved in the US. Cheaper drugs were ignored. Studies manipulated endpoints and faced negative PR. Over 420 trials on hydroxychloroquine and 100 on Ivermectin show significant benefits, but they are dismissed in the US.

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 FDA issues emergency use authorization for medical products when there are no approved alternatives. The effectiveness of Ivermectin as a treatment is questioned, as it would have affected the authorization of vaccines. Powerful forces with financial interests oppose Ivermectin, as it threatens global vaccination policies. Pharmaceutical companies like Pfizer, BioNTech, and Moderna have made significant profits from COVID-19 vaccines. Ivermectin is a cheap and widely available drug, but its safety is disputed by Merck, despite distributing it when it was under patent. It is important to be cautious of articles that may be biased or paid for.

North American science spent 15 years researching how to respond to a potential coronavirus pandemic after the original SARS CoV-one outbreak in 2002-2003. By 2015-2016, it was known that Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine were effective antiviral and immune modulatory treatments. DARPA, the American Research Arm of the U.S. Military, recommended Ivermectin to the CDC as the top product to use in a coronavirus pandemic. These medications had been proven safe for humans and had been used for several decades. So, when the next pandemic hit, North America had Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine ready for use.