reSee.it - Related Video Feed

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

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 Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) regulation from the Clinton administration included safeguards. You can distribute a medication without approval, clinical trials, or safety testing, but only if no existing approved drug is effective against the target illness. To use the EUA for vaccines, any effective drugs against COVID needed to be discredited. Early on, it was known that hydroxychloroquine was effective against coronavirus. NIH studies demonstrated its effectiveness both as a preventative and as a cure. Ivermectin was also very effective. Acknowledging that these drugs worked would have eliminated the use of the emergency use authorization. So, they had to suppress them.

Speaker 0: They think I'm dangerous for speaking the truth. Speaker 1: Dr. Stella Emmanuel was part of a video claiming, without evidence, that hydroxychloroquine is a cure for COVID-19. The video was taken down by social media platforms for spreading misinformation. Despite the backlash, Dr. Emmanuel insists that hydroxychloroquine could be part of a cure. Dr. Anthony Fauci disagrees, stating that scientific data consistently shows hydroxychloroquine is not effective in treating COVID-19.

I'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?

A recent study claimed that the malaria drug Chloroquine does not inhibit SARS CoV 2. However, upon closer examination, it was found that the drug does work in kidney cells but not in lung cells. The study used a lung cancer cell line called KLU three, which led to the misunderstanding that Chloroquine allows the virus to attack cancer cells but not normal cells. This misinterpretation was deliberately hidden in the appendix of the study, contributing to a disinformation campaign. In reality, Chloroquine is a highly effective drug that can protect normal cells from the virus.

In March, I started researching my protocol and started writing the protocols; there were like contraindications to hydroxychloroquine. There were three pages of medications. The protocol was approved by the FDA within twenty four hours and “move to market... start giving it to patients, proceed.” Twenty four hours later, “the politics” and lobbyists allegedly said, “we can't have a cheap drug… kill the market.” A Bill Gates letter asked, “when do you think you're going to, you're anticipating finishing your protocol?” Twitter destroyed it for being open label, and the effort was described as “a political move to destroy a drug.” The Lancet paper is claimed fake: “There is no way that four or five authors took 17,000 records” and “sixty… 96,000 patients”; “Australia doesn't even have COVID yet” and “Ninety six thousand… fraudulent.” NIH notes “chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine toxicity” with “excellent oral absorption and bioavailability” and retinal toxicity is the concern, but in ICU patients the death overshadows it: “He's dead. It doesn't matter that he's got retinal toxicity.”

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.

Speaker 0 argues that ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine were suppressed because they are well-established drugs with safety records and billions of doses used; ivermectin is a human drug that also works on horses and won the Nobel Prize for its effectiveness in humans. He states there is a federal law that says an emergency use authorization (EUA) for a vaccine cannot be granted if there is any approved medication shown effective against the target disease, so admitting effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin would have made EUA for vaccines illegal and would have collapsed a “200,000,000,000 enterprise.” Speaker 1 notes this is the first time hearing that assertion, acknowledging it’s in the book. He suggests that if the medical community had been saying ivermectin is an effective COVID treatment, EUA for vaccines could not have been granted. Speaker 0 explains that many in the medical community supported effectiveness, citing a petition signed by 17,000 doctors and numerous peer-reviewed publications, but Fauci aggressively crusaded against it, labeling it a horse medication and alleging danger and overdosing to drown out those reports. Speaker 1 asks why Fauci continued to push the claim after EUA was granted. Speaker 0 answers that, even with EUA, the law may require withdrawal if a functioning medication exists, implying a motive to undermine ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine. He mentions a strong incentive for Fauci to kill these medications and cites several doctors who treated tens of thousands of COVID patients and supported the claim that the science shows many lives could have been saved. He names Harvey Reich at Yale, Peter McCulloch as the most published doctor in history and prominent in biostatistics/epidemiology, and Peter Quarry in connection with the doctors who treated many patients. They allegedly state that half a million Americans did not need to die.

I shared a nurse's story about REM medication causing patients to deteriorate rapidly. Patients with high oxygen levels would suddenly crash after receiving REM, leading to organ failure and death. The nurse suspected the combination of multiple medications being administered simultaneously was causing organ failure, not just the virus itself. The nurse raised concerns about the medication's impact on patients' health and the need for further investigation.

Billions of people have taken the medication worldwide. The speaker questions why the news network lied about him taking horse dewormer, stating they shouldn't have. The interviewer did not ask about this, and the speaker regrets not clarifying before the interview.

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

There are studies that suggest increased mortality with hydroxychloroquine, but there are also French studies that show a 50% decrease in deaths with its use. However, there is no significant difference in mortality rates. Some studies, including one from the CHU de Lyon, have shown serious side effects from hydroxychloroquine. Giving hydroxychloroquine to someone with a cardiac condition related to Covid increases the risk of cardiac complications. It not only lacks benefits but also increases the chances of intubation, ventilation, or death by 13%. Thankfully, the prescription of hydroxychloroquine in the community has been banned, which is considered a crucial public health measure that prevented potentially hundreds or even thousands of deaths.

Ivermectin, a drug discovered in the late seventies, has had a significant positive impact on billions of people worldwide. However, it has been wrongly portrayed as a horse poison. Despite being one of the safest drugs in history, Dr. Fauci claims it is dangerous. Similarly, hydroxychloroquine is dismissed as dangerous without proper evidence. Stephen Colbert, a propagandist, dismisses the effectiveness of these drugs without acknowledging their Nobel Prize-winning status and inclusion on the WHO list of essential medicines. This misinformation is fueled by their financial ties to Pfizer, leading them to deceive the public.

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.

Speaker 0 explains that people wonder why ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine were suppressed, noting these are well established drugs with safety profiles and billions of doses given. He says ivermectin is a human drug and also works on horses, but it would win the Nobel Prize because it works so well on human beings. Speaker 1 responds “Mhmm.” Speaker 0 states there is a little known federal law that says you cannot give an emergency use authorization (EUA) to a vaccine if there is any medication approved for any purpose that is shown effective against the target disease. So if Tony Fauci or anybody had admitted that hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin are effective against COVID, it would have been illegal to give the EUAs to the vaccines, and they could never have gotten them approved. He suggests this would have collapsed a “200,000,000,000 enterprise.” Speaker 1 says, “That is fascinating,” noting they had been covering this for two years and that this is the first time hearing that; if the medical community had been saying ivermectin works, it would have affected EUA. Speaker 0 responds that the medical community did say that—17,000 doctors signed a petition, and there are many peer reviewed publications consistently saying so. Yet Fauci aggressively crusaded against it, insisting it’s a horse medication, that people are overdosing, and so on. He asks why Fauci kept saying it. Speaker 1 asks why Fauci continued to say it after he got the authorization. Speaker 0 offers possible explanations: one, even if you have an EUA, the law appears to say you can't have it anymore if there is a functioning medication. He acknowledges, though, that he cannot read Fauci’s mind but speculates there is a strong incentive for Fauci to kill ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine. He cites several doctors who treated tens of thousands of COVID patients successfully and who argue that half a million Americans did not need to die, naming Harvey Reich at Yale, Peter McCulloch, and Peter Quarry.

A recent study claimed that 17,000 people died from Hydroxychloroquine, but Robert Kennedy Jr. pointed out flaws in the study. The drug was given to COVID patients already in the hospital instead of within the first 10 to 14 days when it is effective. The dosage administered was also much higher than recommended. While these mistakes may have contributed to deaths, it is important to consider how many lives could have been saved if the drug was used correctly. Hydroxychloroquine has been widely used for malaria and sometimes drugs are discovered to have additional benefits. The politicization of these drugs is unfortunate, especially considering their affordability.

Hydroxychloroquine was initially praised for its potential in reducing COVID-19 symptoms and hospitalizations. However, it soon faced widespread criticism worldwide. In Australia, billionaire Clive Palmer purchased a large supply of hydroxychloroquine for the entire continent, intending to distribute it for free. Unfortunately, the Australian authorities seized and destroyed the medication.

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

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

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.

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.

A recent study found that the malaria drug Chloroquine does not inhibit SARS CoV 2 in lung cells, although it may work in kidney cells. The speaker, who has experience in ocular oncology, contacted the author of the study and pointed out that the lung cells used in the study were actually cancer cells. This means that Chloroquine allows the virus to attack cancer cells but not normal cells. The speaker believes that this is a misinterpretation of the data and accuses the study of being part of a disinformation campaign. They argue that Chloroquine is actually a very effective drug.