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.

In March, I researched and wrote a protocol with hydroxychloroquine, which was quickly approved by the FDA. However, political pressure led to its rejection in favor of more expensive options. Bill Gates even inquired about my protocol, hinting at potential investment. Despite setbacks, I eventually proposed a study comparing vitamins to hydroxychloroquine, revealing political interference in drug approval processes.

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 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.

Hydroxychloroquine is a derivative of Chloroquine, which was originally derived from the bark of a cinchona tree and used to treat malaria. The Spanish crown restricted access to quinine, leading to the American Revolution's George Washington stockpiling cinchona bark. During the American Civil War, Abraham Lincoln blocked quinine shipments to the South, causing doctors to search for alternative treatments. Quinine played a role in European colonization of Africa and influenced World War I. In World War II, the United States sought quinine from South America while the Nazis weaponized mosquitoes with malaria. Hydroxychloroquine has been used by American troops overseas, but its derivatives have been linked to post-traumatic stress disorder. Access to hydroxychloroquine has been restricted throughout history, raising questions about scientific institutions.

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.

Hydroxychloroquine is a derivative of Chloroquine, which was originally derived from the bark of a cinchona tree and used to treat malaria. The Spanish crown restricted access to quinine, leading to the American Revolution's George Washington stockpiling cinchona bark. During the American Civil War, Abraham Lincoln blocked quinine shipments to the South, causing doctors to search for alternative treatments. Quinine played a role in European colonization of Africa and World War I rivalries. In World War II, the United States built a supply chain for quinine in South America, while the Nazis weaponized mosquitoes with malaria. Hydroxychloroquine has been used by American troops overseas, but its derivatives have been linked to post-traumatic stress disorder. Access to hydroxychloroquine has been restricted throughout history as a tactic of warfare.

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.

Doctors were aware that hydroxychloroquine was safe until the media suggested otherwise. They claimed it was both safe and effective, but when the narrative shifted to it being unsafe, despite its 70-year history and a government database showing it to be safer than Tylenol, it raised concerns. The assertion of its lack of safety felt like a significant deception.

The forest plot shows COVID medicines, with only expensive ones approved in the US. Cheaper options were ignored. Study endpoints were changed when results weren't as expected. Despite positive outcomes in trials, hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin face negative perceptions in the US. Over 420 trials on hydroxychloroquine and 100 on Ivermectin show significant benefits, but they are still viewed negatively.

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.

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.

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, once considered a conspiracy theory, is now reportedly curing diseases like cancer, diabetes, MS, and Parkinson's by addressing parasites. The speaker prefers the dura mectin version, a white paste, over the ivermectin yellow gel. According to the speaker, no one has ever died from ivermectin overdose, unlike aspirin and acetaminophen. Ivermectin won a Nobel Prize in 2015 for its effectiveness against diseases like malaria. Positive effects were seen for COVID, but its use was discouraged to maintain the emergency declaration. The speaker takes a full capsule of ivermectin daily for two weeks, followed by a week off, as a prophylactic. They wash it down with a sweat tonic containing quinine, which is hydrochloroquine. Hydrochloroquine and ivermectin were allegedly dismissed by organizations like the WHO, despite being effective. Links to more information are provided in the comments.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine can inhibit the growth of RNA viruses, including airborne ones like the flu and coronaviruses. These drugs create attenuated viral particles that can still enter cells, but the viruses are unable to replicate effectively. Taking hydroxychloroquine regularly can provide a vaccine-like effect, with individuals producing some particles, experiencing mild or no symptoms, and potentially developing immunity. This could eliminate the need for flu and COVID vaccines, as well as other medications like Tamiflu. Ultimately, this drug's impact on the pharmaceutical industry is significant, as it poses a greater threat to it than to the viruses themselves.

Today, we're discussing methylene blue, a synthetic drug available over the counter with a long history. Discovered in 1876, it was the first fully synthetic drug used in medicine, serving as one of the earliest antibiotics and antipsychotics. By 1891, it was employed to treat malaria. Today, emergency room doctors keep it on hand for cases of cyanide or carbon monoxide poisoning. Methylene blue exhibits fascinating properties, including antioxidant effects at lower doses.