TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

80% of doctors are believed to have lost their minds. An anecdote was shared about a doctor who died shortly after receiving an mRNA gene therapy shot. Another similar incident was mentioned. The speaker emphasized the importance of listening to real stories to understand what is happening.

Medical researcher Kevin Bass wrote a Newsweek piece admitting the scientific community was wrong about COVID, which cost lives. He felt compelled to write it because the healthcare industry has lost the trust of ordinary people, who are angry. Bass wanted to do his part to make things better by apologizing for supporting policies, hoping change starts one person at a time. Bass is worried about the effect of the piece on his career, as his view is unpopular with older individuals, but he is trying to speak the truth with a pure heart. He believes senior people in the medical business and those who ran medical agencies haven't apologized because they are in echo chambers, surrounded by like-minded people, and alternative views are demonized due to political polarization. Bass thinks a reckoning is necessary to restore trust in the country.

It is nearly impossible to publish data that goes against the national public health narrative, preventing doctors from finding solutions. The speaker has conducted clinical trials for pharmaceutical companies, including vaccine studies, and has brought vaccines and other drugs to market. Some drugs never made it to market because they killed people. Clinical trial guidelines ensure safe drugs, but these guidelines were not followed during the pandemic, affecting everyone. COVID should have been a time for doctors to unite, but interference with research occurred. Science evolves through experiments, skepticism, and an open mind. Challenging current knowledge must be allowed to move science forward, but what the speaker witnessed during the pandemic was not science.

In my practice, we have administered around three to four thousand vaccinations. Initially, we didn't see many side effects, but they gradually increased throughout the year. More and more people started experiencing post-vaccination symptoms such as heart rhythm disorders, extreme fatigue, persistent muscle pain, and nerve inflammation. We formed groups of doctors who also administer vaccines, and they observed the same issues in their patients. However, discussing these concerns was difficult, as it was dismissed as a psychological overreaction. It was shocking to find that scientific discourse on the matter was not allowed. The increasing number of patients created an internal conflict for me and many other doctors who genuinely want the best for their patients. One case that stood out was a sixteen-year-old boy who developed nausea and chest pain forty-eight hours after the second dose. His EKG showed significant abnormalities, and he was diagnosed with severe myocarditis and heart swelling. Thankfully, he recovered, but this made me pause and reflect, especially when other people, including parents, expressed uncertainty and entrusted their lives to us. This trust carries a tremendous responsibility to be honest. Whether we have seen a particular case once or ten times, the connection to the vaccine remains uncertain. Until proven otherwise, we must inform people about what we observe and the experiences we have. This right belongs to individuals when they decide to undergo any form of physical intervention, no matter how small. It became an internal conflict for me because there was immense societal pressure to vaccinate as many people as possible across all age groups, while my personal experience as a doctor showed that it is not without side effects. That was the moment when I realized I couldn't continue vaccinating because I had to stay true to the truth and honor that trust. We have had around three to four hundred people come to us with post-vaccination symptoms. I have seen approximately sixty to eighty EKGs that showed clear abnormalities or rhythm disorders in previously young and healthy individuals. I have also seen a similar number of imaging results.

I'm a paramedic who worked in New York City during the height of the COVID pandemic. While working at a hospital, I shared my experience of performing CPR in a Pfizer line. A nurse friend of mine, who had been involved in the vaccine trials, warned me to be cautious. She had seen enough during the trials to decide not to take the vaccine herself. This conversation confirmed what I had witnessed and saddened me because many of my friends are afraid to speak up. As paramedics and nurses, we don't take oaths like doctors, but we enter this profession to help people no matter what. It's important for all of us to speak up. Stay strong, and God bless.

A person at a book signing told the speaker a story about Remdesivir. According to the story, a woman's sister was in the hospital when a doctor ordered a second round of Remdesivir. The nurse cautioned the doctor that the patient had four young children. The doctor then rescinded the order. The speaker claims this shows the doctor and nurse knew the drug was killing people, but spared the patient because she had children. The speaker believes that without children, the doctor would have administered the drug and killed her anyway. The speaker concludes this reflects the personalities, behaviors, and ethos of hospital staff.

Dr. Richard Urso, an ophthalmologist and part of America's Frontline Doctors, became involved early in the pandemic because he realized there was treatment available for the virus. With a background in drug development, including repurposing drugs and developing a patented FDA-approved drug, he found it unbelievable that patients were left to die without treatment. According to Dr. Urso, the virus causes infection, inflammation, blood clots, and breathing problems. He asserts that doctors know how to treat each of these issues. Therefore, the idea that there was no treatment from the beginning was "science fiction." Any physician claiming otherwise is being hypocritical and violating the Hippocratic Oath. He then transitions to discussing testing and PCR.

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.

No. There's a lot of doctors that I know that were in danger of losing their license because they had prescribed ivermectin. And that was another thing. You know, the the Federation of State Medical Boards, is this private entity, they're actually located in Texas, who oversees all the state medical boards. They sent out a directive to all the state medical boards concerning ivermectin, concerning misinformation, and basically encouraging the medical boards to go after doctors like myself. And, I mean, I'm still I'm still tangled up with the medical board trying to clear my name. But they did that. That was it all happened in that 2021. Right when Biden mandated the shots, They really came down hard on the doctors.

The speakers discuss the potential effects of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines. Speaker 1 explains that the idea of DNA fragments and reverse transcription in vaccines is a distinct possibility proven in vitro (in the laboratory) but not as solidly established in real-life humans. He says the machinery exists to reverse transcribe the synthetic mRNA in “these gene products” but notes skepticism about certain public figures and officials who allegedly ignored earlier communications. He cites Denis Rancourt’s data, claiming the vaccine has killed 17 million people and that the injury-to-kill ratio is 34.4. He translates this to global totals of 602 million injured or killed, with approximately 700,000 Americans killed and 2.5 million injured in the United States, describing this as an unprecedented injury-to-kill ratio in medicine and military contexts. He asserts that deadly gene products should have been removed from the market and from Florida two years ago. Speaker 0 asks whether Latipo was alerted two years ago and whether he ignored the warnings. Speaker 1 confirms that Latipo, Ashley Moody, and DeSantis did not respond to communications over the past two years, but notes that Latipo is now taking some action. The conversation shifts to how people can respond health-wise. Speaker 1 contends that health care systems and governments are corrupt, claiming the government has spent trillions of dollars to capture healthcare systems and push dangerous narratives. He urges listeners to leave the conventional healthcare system, describing it as corrupt and implying that healthcare professionals are silenced or fired for speaking out. He promotes an alternative health approach through a parallel system and mentions an emergency medical kit intended to address multiple dangerous diseases and scenarios, asserting that timely access to certain drugs is limited through ordinary medical channels. Throughout, Speaker 1 emphasizes drastic distrust of mainstream medical and governmental institutions, urging viewers to seek alternative health solutions and to prepare for potential health crises. He repeats that the traditional healthcare system is compromised and advocates a shift toward a different healthcare approach and emergency preparedness, including access to medications outside standard channels.

When treating COVID patients, some didn't want to go to the hospital even with low oxygen levels. The speaker felt it was criminal to not try to save them. None of the speaker's patients died during the pandemic while following their protocols, which varied based on individual risk factors. The speaker doesn't want to rely solely on AI for medical advice, preferring a physician's sympathy and experience. They want the freedom to choose their treatment, even if it means taking a risky route for a chance at a longer life. The speaker trusts God and is willing to "jump in the abyss," accepting the potential consequences. They believe it's crucial to protect freedom of choice, speech, ideas, and innovation.

He was fired for reporting COVID vaccine adverse events under the emergency use authorization to the VAIR system, the vaccine adverse event reporting system. He was required to do this by law and he whistle blew on his organization on the High Wire show with Dell Bigtree. He also did a little piece for the New York Times. This was when the man gays were coming down and they asked me why I wasn't getting the COVID vaccine and I talked about all the side effects and the suppression of the reporting that was going on. Two weeks after without warning. I was surrounded in the middle of my shift; I had been actively seeing patients on the floor. They surrounded me and then literally threw me out of the hospital. Patients were abandoned that day because I was supposed to go back and see them for discharge and they don't know what happened to me.

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.

I cannot understand how anyone can recommend the mRNA vaccination and sleep well at night. They seem afraid to admit they were wrong. I want to give you a chance to address your colleagues, fellow pathologists, and medical professionals. My advice is to always question what so-called experts say. You don't need top scientists, you need experienced doctors who think critically. In the past, people died from the flu without it being turned into a pandemic or locking people away.

I've lost all my friends during my medical training because they thought I was crazy. In the past year, I've witnessed alarming health issues among my colleagues. Out of 30 physicians at my clinic, two were diagnosed with aggressive cancer, and one died. It's become common to hear about physicians dying suddenly. Recently, a healthy family practice resident in his thirties died from advanced gastric cancer, leaving behind an unborn child. This situation highlights the risks healthcare providers face when they receive these experimental vaccines, which they promote to their patients while potentially suffering serious health consequences themselves.

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.

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.

A doctor recounts moving breathing treatments from their office to patients' cars due to concerns about virus spread, despite hospitals also avoiding them for the same reason. They mention Dr. Richard Bartlett, a Texas doctor who faced criticism for advocating budesonide breathing treatments early in the pandemic. The speaker claims Dr. Bartlett was smeared and pursued by the Texas Medical Board for allegedly making false claims. However, the speaker maintains that these treatments were invaluable and recommended them to high-risk patients, noting a very low risk of issues.

Although I am not a doctor, I’m a nurse. On the front lines we knew what was happening. When we asked for ibuprofen, they said no. When we asked why we weren’t giving steroids, the answer was “we’re just following orders.” Following orders has led to the sheer number of deaths in these hospitals. I didn’t see a single patient die of COVID. I’ve seen a substantial number die of negligence and medical malfeasance. When I was on the front lines of New York, I became globally known as the nurse in the break room sobbing, saying they were murdering my patients. Pharmaceutical companies had gone into those hospitals and decided to practice on the minorities, the disadvantaged, the marginalized populations with no advocates, because the very agencies that should protect them were closed while we were sheltering in place. While I was there, pharmaceutical companies rolled out remdesivir onto a substantial number of patients, which we all saw was killing the patients. And now, it’s the FDA-approved drug that is continuing to kill patients in the United States. As nurses, we’ve collected a descriptive amount of information that you may not get from the doctors. Doctors do quantitative data; we do qualitative data with a humanistic, phenomenological approach in nursing research. We’ve collected data from patients across the country for which we’ve helped patients through the American Front Line Nurses and the advocacy network so nurses could advocate for these patients. This data pool shows that as these patients get remdesivir, they have a less than twenty-five percent chance of survival if they get more than two doses. Now they’re rolling it out on children as well and into nursing homes or skilled nursing facilities as early intervention, even though doctors Pierre Corre and Merrick have demonstrated that there are cost-effective medications out there, and we are going to see the amplification of death across the country. We haven’t even touched on vaccines, which our expert panels have described; I won’t touch on that since many are far superior to me. Two days ago I flew out my first 10-year-old with a heart attack and had to fight the ER doctor because he said, “ten-year-olds don’t have heart attacks.” I argued for thirty minutes to force his hand to get an EKG and found a STEMI; the 12-lead EKG lit up. He said it wasn’t possible, and I said, “was just vaccinated yesterday. It is very much possible.” People contact me and the nurse advocates at American Front Line Nurses to help advocate, because there’s victim shaming—“it’s anxiety,” “it’s this.” But if they acknowledge it as a vaccine injury, the physician, the corporation, the hospital, the clinic may not get reimbursed, so it’s labeled as anxiety, neuropathy, or Guillain–Barré syndrome, when it’s very realistically a vaccine injury. I’ve traveled to South America, India, and South Africa, working in hot zones, stopping the spread of the virus and doing early intervention. Nowhere in developing nations do I see these issues that we see here in the United States. I’m a very proud American citizen from a family of immigrants. Our level of health care has deteriorated to substandard third-world-nation health care. You are better off in South America in a field hospital than in level-one trauma designer hospitals in the United States. As nurses, we are getting reports across the country from American frontline nurses about patients not getting food, water, or basic care. How come a patient hasn’t been fed in nine days? Why do I need a court order to force a hospital to feed a person who isn’t intubated and who would like food? If they’re on a ventilator, they’re not given water or basic care. We’re not allowed to take a BiPAP mask off to help someone eat. I’ve had patients who haven’t been bathed, haven’t been fed, and haven’t been given water, or been turned. This isn’t a hospital; this is a concentration camp. Nowhere in the United States do we isolate people for hundreds of hours with no human contact; it’s not allowed even in prisons. In hospitals, we isolate patients from their families for days, and you have to say goodbye over an iPhone, or you have to shuttle people in to see them. I was fired for sneaking a Hispanic family in to say the last rites to their family. Thank you, Senator Johnson, for giving nurses the opportunity to represent our patients, because we’re not often thought of as leading professionals, though we are the missing link between the doctors and the patients. Thank you for this time. Thank you for being a nurse.

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.

In my 20 years of military and ER experience, I witnessed the challenges of dealing with a novel virus. As healthcare professionals, we made mistakes due to outdated knowledge and assumptions. We intubated patients unnecessarily and didn't consider alternative treatments. Families suffered as they were unable to be with their loved ones during their final moments. I held dying patients' hands, knowing there was little I could do. The government exacerbated the situation by interfering with healthcare decisions and keeping families apart. We shouldn't rely on the government to solve problems it created.

I exposed fake vaccine practices, refused to comply, and faced consequences. They wanted me to fake taking it to maintain appearances. The doctor was ordered to make me fake it, which angered me. This incident should have raised red flags. Despite threats, I stood by my decision, which has since been proven right.