reSee.it - 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.

The FDA is no longer allowed to refer to a horse paste due to social media messages. The FDA clarified that they do not give personalized medical advice, but oversee clinical trials and regulate pharmaceutical companies. While not recommended for COVID treatment, excessive doses can be dangerous. Remember to use it responsibly.

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.

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.

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.

This case involves the FDA's informational statements about the dangers of using certain drugs. The FDA made these statements in response to reports of consumers being hospitalized after using horse Ivermectin without a prescription. The FDA did not require or prohibit anything, despite using language like "stop it." The tweets were meant to advise consumers against using animal Ivermectin, stating it could be unsafe. The plaintiffs argue that the FDA's statements were commands, but the FDA argues they were just quick tweets sharing information. The FDA has the authority to provide information on drugs, such as warning about the dangers of opioids. The FDA did conduct scientific analysis on Ivermectin, but the specific process is not mentioned in the record. The FDA does not regulate off-label use of drugs and explicitly recognizes that doctors have the authority to prescribe Ivermectin for COVID treatment.

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?

Doctors in Australia have found a potential cure for the coronavirus using a drug called Ivermectin. This medicine, which is already FDA approved and on the World Health Organization's list of essential medicines, has been shown to kill the virus in less than 48 hours. It is safe, widely available, and inexpensive, costing just 12 cents for a course of treatment. When combined with two other drugs, doxycycline and zinc, Ivermectin has been found to be highly effective in treating the virus. Doctors in Broward County, Florida have reported a near 100% success rate in curing coronavirus patients using Ivermectin. However, it remains to be seen how other medical experts will respond to this discovery.

FDA attorney Ashley Chung Arnold acknowledges that doctors have the right to prescribe Ivermectin for COVID treatment. The FDA claims sovereign immunity and cannot be held responsible for misleading statements. The judges question whether the FDA's advice is based on scientific views or personal opinions. The FDA attorney argues that the agency is not required to go through a formal process and that they are accountable to the political process. The court is not responsible for fact-checking the FDA's scientific statements.

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.

Joe Rogan announced on social media that he has COVID and mentioned taking Ivermectin as part of his treatment. However, Ivermectin is primarily used as a dewormer for horses and is not proven to be effective against COVID. In fact, it can be dangerous and potentially deadly. The CDC and FDA have issued warnings against using Ivermectin for COVID. Some doctors claim that Ivermectin is effective and have faced backlash for advocating its use. There are allegations that pharmaceutical companies and the media have influenced the narrative against Ivermectin due to financial interests. Studies on Ivermectin have shown mixed results, but some countries have reported success in using it to treat COVID.

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.

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 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.

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.

A group of individuals met and reached a consensus on the use of Ivermectin as a solution to a public health emergency. They promptly shared this information with the FDA and Dr. Fauci.

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.

There is a growing problem of people using a drug meant for animals to treat COVID-19. This false information started with a viral video from a group called America's frontline doctors, claiming that hydroxychloroquine could cure COVID. They later started promoting another drug called Ivermectin as a cure for COVID, despite warnings from the CDC, FDA, and other health organizations that it is not effective and could be harmful. Ivermectin is actually meant to prevent parasites in animals like horses. It's important to rely on approved treatments and vaccines to prevent COVID-19.

I'm excited about the recent bill in Arkansas aiming to make ivermectin an over-the-counter medication; all states should follow suit. Ivermectin, despite being an antiviral, antimicrobial, and anti-parasitic medicine, was villainized during COVID. When I contracted COVID in 2020, I decided against the under-researched options and tried ivermectin. My symptoms vanished within 24 hours. Ivermectin's benefits extend beyond COVID. I know three people who had stage four cancer that were cured after taking ivermectin. It is strange that effective treatments are often suppressed due to profit motives. The medical industry wants to keep you sick. Get ivermectin now from a reliable US-based source like All Family Pharma before it becomes more expensive and harder to find. You never know when you might need it.

In this video, a group of doctors discuss the use of Ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19. Some doctors argue that Ivermectin is a safe and effective drug that has shown miraculous effectiveness in treating the virus. They cite studies and the endorsement of a senior immunologist to support their claims. However, other doctors disagree, stating that the studies are still undergoing peer review and that Ivermectin is not an approved treatment for COVID-19. They argue that the vaccines have emergency use authorization because there are no approved alternatives. The debate centers around the effectiveness and credibility of Ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment.

The FDA retracted statements calling Ivermectin a horse or cow drug ineffective against COVID. A medical emergency kit with Ivermectin and other medications is recommended for future supply chain issues. Use promo code "liz" for $30 off at twc.health/liz.

Speaker 1 notes that ivermectin has broken through to the public sphere beyond COVID and is now discussed for many diseases. Speaker 0 asks where ivermectin stands in the scientific and medical community today and what other use cases exist for the medicine. Speaker 1 responds that thousands of doctors follow their data; 18,000 GI doctors see their data when they publish or present at the American College of Gastroenterology. Word-of-mouth in the medical community is a major form of marketing, with one doctor speaking to another. Referencing the COVID era, Speaker 1 mentions corruption and retractions, then describes ivermectin as having created a healthcare revolution where doctors have lined up to work to see other benefits of ivermectin without needing to ask permission to treat patients. A whole branch of healthcare is moving away from the same institute that Speaker 1 helped create drugs to market with his sisters. He says a group of doctors who had sponsored or helped pharma are turning away from pharma and exploring other methods to treat patients. He states his job is to unite doctors to see the truth, while bringing pharma back to being righteous and stopping data manipulation and scientist censorship. Speaker 1 references his book, Let’s Talk SH.T, acknowledging he could be wrong and challenging others to prove him wrong and reproduce the data to retract the hypothesis or paper. He emphasizes that the scientific process should be followed, especially when everything was done by the book and as well as he could. He adds that the research was not funded by others; it was funded by his savings. He created the microbiome research foundation with the goal of raising money to study kids with autism and to push an IND to the FDA, which cost about $600,000 to obtain FDA approval. He clarifies that no external party paid for this work, and he continues to struggle to raise funds to treat poor autistic kids who cannot afford expensive stool testing, drugs, and vitamins; they need help and everyone should step in to assist these kids. Speaker 1 concludes that their focus is fixing autism, with the aim of later addressing Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, and cancer.

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.

The FDA settled in court and admitted to intentionally deceiving Americans about Ivermectin. They discouraged its use despite over 100 studies supporting its effectiveness in treating COVID-19. This misinformation led to unnecessary deaths. The FDA's actions also affected other drugs used in treatment protocols. This revelation is significant. Translation: The FDA admitted to intentionally misleading Americans about Ivermectin, leading to unnecessary deaths. This misinformation also impacted other drugs used in treatment protocols. This admission is significant.