TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

We have a prevention protocol and an early treatment protocol. In the early treatment protocol, we use Ivermectin, which is not a horse dewormer. The claim that it's toxic is a complete lie. Over 3.7 billion doses of Ivermectin have been given to humans, making it one of the most influential drugs after penicillin. It is completely safe, even safer than Tylenol. While its efficacy can be debated, if you have limited options and a sick patient, why not try a safe and affordable drug like Ivermectin? There's nothing to lose.

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 Ivermectin, a Merck product, and its ingredients, including benzo alcohol, glycols, and polysorbate 80, which is also used in vaccines to help heavy metals cross the blood-brain barrier. Propylene glycol, also found in antifreeze, is another ingredient. The speaker claims parasites accumulate due to heavy metal pollution, and while Ivermectin may kill the worms, it doesn't address the underlying heavy metal issue. The speaker alleges the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has rights to Ivermectin pills. The speaker suggests using natural foods like pumpkin seeds, papaya seeds, beets, carrots, and dragon's blood to remove heavy metals from the body instead of funding big pharma.

Ivermectin is extremely safe, arguably safer than a sugar pill. In a randomized trial, those taking Ivermectin daily would likely experience fewer health issues than those on sugar pills. The narrative labeling Ivermectin as a toxic horse dewormer is misleading; over 3.7 billion doses have been administered to humans. It has significantly impacted global health by nearly eradicating several parasitic diseases. In fact, the risk of death from Tylenol is higher than from Ivermectin. While there are debates about its efficacy, in situations with limited options, using a safe and inexpensive drug like Ivermectin for sick patients seems reasonable.

Speaker 0: Ivermectin is owned by Merck. Merck created the first vaccine. Anything ivermectin, I wouldn't be touching any of that stuff. Here's the thing. If they didn't get you with the vaccine, they're getting you with ivermectin. You're still funding big pharma either way. Like, you're still giving money to big pharma. You might not be taking the vaccine, but you're giving money to pharma on the other side, which would be ivermectin. So they're getting you either way. They're putting in graphene oxide in both of those. Think about it. Like they know exactly what they're doing. It's a $30,000,000,000 business. Parasites is a $30,000,000,000 business. $30,000,000,000. They're not gonna tell you to eat some papaya seeds. They're not gonna tell you to cleanse the heavy metals. They're not gonna tell you to do a little dragon's blood or some turpentine. They're going to sell you the solution which comes with x y z side effects. Keeps big

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.

Ivermectin is safer than a sugar pill and has been given to billions of people with minimal harm. It is not a toxic horse dewormer, as claimed by the FDA. The drug is considered safe and has had a significant impact on global health by eradicating parasitic diseases. Despite debates on its effectiveness, it is a low-risk, affordable option for treating sick patients.

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 is safer than a sugar pill, with minimal toxicity. It has been falsely labeled as a horse dewormer by the FDA, despite its extensive safe use in humans. Over 3.7 billion doses have been given, showing its safety. While its efficacy is debated, it is a low-risk, cost-effective option for treating sick patients.

Some people are refusing the COVID vaccine and instead taking horse dewormer, which has no evidence of effectiveness and can be dangerous. The speaker got COVID and tried various medications, including Ivermectin, which is commonly used for deworming horses. The mention of Ivermectin as a horse dewormer is not flattering. The speaker believes there is clear evidence that Ivermectin can be effective and that people should be informed about it.

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.

The video discusses the controversy surrounding the use of Ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19. While some claim it is a safe and effective medicine, others argue that it is a horse dewormer with no clinical evidence of its efficacy. The video highlights the smear campaign against Ivermectin and suggests that powerful forces, including pharmaceutical companies, may be suppressing its use. It also mentions the positive results seen in countries like India and Peru where Ivermectin was used as part of a multi-drug approach. The video raises concerns about the influence of pharmaceutical companies on the media and the manipulation of clinical studies. Overall, it presents Ivermectin as a potentially effective treatment that has been unfairly maligned.

Speaker claims ivermectin is part of a diabolical Rockefeller plan devised in 2010, predicting people would reject vaccines after 2020 and turn to another pharmaceutical. They question ivermectin’s safety by listing side effects such as blindness, liver failure, and infertility. They argue the Rockefellers own the entire medical system worldwide, so buying from a different country is ineffective. The discussion notes ads for pharmaceuticals on alternative-health platforms, suggesting a marketing push. They say parasites are really heavy metals in the body, and that ivermectin contains heavy metals. The claim is that ivermectin, like antibiotics, suppresses symptoms. They describe a $32,000,000,000 industry fueled by this narrative, and when they researched producers, they found Merck, Johnson and Johnson, Pfizer, and Bayer. The same companies making vaccines in 2020 allegedly also make ivermectin, framing it as a bait-and-switch.

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.

The speaker claims both vaccines and ivermectin fund big pharma, starting with a "graphene oxide rabbit hole" from 2015. Manufacturers of both include Bayer, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Merck, Pfizer, and Johnson and Johnson. The speaker alleges ivermectin and injections share ingredients that break down the blood-brain barrier. The Rockefeller Foundation, funded by the Rothschilds, owns the entire medical system, according to a document removed from Google and research by Eustace Mullins. For "parasites," which are supposedly heavy metal overloads, the speaker suggests alternatives like dragon's blood, pumpkin seeds, papaya seeds, fasting, borax, baking soda, turpentine, chili shots, cilantro, wormwood, or black walnut to remove heavy metals instead of funding big pharma. The speaker believes that funding big pharma perpetuates a harmful cycle.

Ivermectin, a Nobel Prize-winning anti-parasitic drug, has been vilified. Merck, who held the patent until 1996, claims it doesn't work for COVID-19. However, Merck has a 50/50 partnership with Moderna on mRNA cancer vaccines. Because Merck will make billions on mRNA cancer vaccines, they have no interest in investigating ivermectin for cancer. There is evidence that high-dose ivermectin is effective in treating many types of cancers.

The speaker discusses Ivermectin, a Merck product, and its ingredients, including benzyl alcohol, glycols, and polysorbate 80, which is also used in vaccines to help heavy metals cross the blood-brain barrier. Propylene glycol, also found in antifreeze, is another ingredient. The speaker claims parasites accumulate due to heavy metal pollution, and while Ivermectin may kill the worms, it doesn't address the underlying heavy metal issue. The speaker states that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has rights to these pills. The speaker suggests using natural foods like pumpkin seeds, papaya seeds, beets, carrots, and dragon's blood to remove heavy metals from the body instead of funding Big Pharma.

Speaker 0 summarizes a narrative connecting vaccines and IV ivermectin to funding for big pharma, beginning with a supposed graphene oxide rabbit hole dating back to February 2015. The speaker lists manufacturers associated with these products: Bayer, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Merck, Pfizer, and Johnson & Johnson, noting familiarity with these brands from 2020. The speaker highlights a date associated with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and claims that the foundation is linked to the discussed issue. The argument continues by pointing to ingredients claimed to be common between injections and pills, described as the same substances used to break down the blood-brain barrier, and asserts that these ingredients poison people. The speaker poses the question of who planned all of this and asserts that the Rockefeller Foundation funds, and is funded by, the Rothschilds, owning the entire medical system. A referenced document is said to have been removed from Google, and the claim is reinforced by referencing Eustace Mullins as providing deeper detail on the topic. In addressing solutions, the speaker shifts to concerns about heavy metal overload and parasites, offering a list of remedies: dragon’s blood, pumpkin seeds, papaya seeds, fasting, borax, baking soda, turpentine from the pine tree, a chili shot, cilantro, wormwood, and black walnut. The recommended approach is to pull heavy metals out rather than continuing to fund big pharma, with the speaker suggesting that the cycle benefits all sides and may perpetuate itself if unaddressed.

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.

The speakers discuss the exposure of mainstream media and how it tries to dismiss and discredit them. They mention the framing of Ivermectin as horse medicine and find it amusing. They clarify that they took Ivermectin based on the judgment of a medical professional and list other medications they used for COVID treatment. They mention that 200 congresspeople have also been treated with Ivermectin. They speculate that the demonization of Ivermectin may be motivated by financial interests since it is a generic drug. The video ends with the information that Ivermectin costs around 30¢ per dose.

Speaker 0: Polysorbate eighty opens up the blood brain barrier so that mercury, formaldehyde, and all the other chemicals can pass into the blood brain barrier. You are 100% correct. Polysorbate eighty is the same ingredient they put in ivermectin. So when all these people are like, oh, I didn't get the vaccine, but I'm taking ivermectin. You're taking the same toxic chemical that allows chemicals to break down your blood brain barrier and mess up your body. It's in both ones. It's in the vaccines and it's in ivermectin. And if you go through the whole ingredient list of ivermectin, it's quite a rabbit hole because that's also a pharmaceutical product. You know, when you get into operation lockstep, which was done by the Rockefellers, they said that a solution would roll out that people would get poisoned with. Well, ivermectin is that. You look into the toxicity of ivermectin and it's quite a rabbit hole. That's for sure. All these people having kidney failure, liver failure, all because they're trying to take some solution when they could have just ate some organic papaya seeds. That's it.

Multiple trials have been conducted on Ivermectin, but none have proven its effectiveness, according to Speaker 0. However, Speaker 1 argues that there is a significant body of evidence, including randomized controlled trials and studies, supporting the use of Ivermectin for COVID. They mention countries like India, Mexico, and nations in Central Africa, as well as the Tokyo Medical Association endorsing its use. While some doctors and scientists have criticized certain trial methodologies, claiming that there is no science to support Ivermectin for COVID is false. Speaker 1 also highlights that experienced critical care doctors worldwide have prescribed Ivermectin based on available data and their own expertise, dismissing the characterization of the drug as a horse dewormer. Speaker 2 adds that research conducted by DARPA in the early 2000s recommended Ivermectin as a top product for a coronavirus pandemic due to its antiviral and immune modulatory properties, which had been proven in vitro and in vivo. These medications have been safely used in humans for several decades.

I've recently learned about the push for early COVID-19 treatments, particularly Ivermectin, which I initially thought was beneficial. However, I've discovered that it may be a harmful fertility toxin, affecting conception and fetal development. This raises questions about the motives behind its promotion. Additionally, many supplements marketed for health may actually hinder the body's ability to eliminate Ivermectin, creating dangerous drug interactions. This suggests a troubling connection between these products and the ongoing health crisis. It's essential to be cautious with pharmaceutical products and supplements, as the implications could be significant.

The speaker believes that Ivermectin's effectiveness threatened the emergency use authorization for vaccines, which would impact the global market worth over $100 billion. The speaker suggests that Ivermectin's low cost and availability posed a threat to patented pharmaceuticals like PAXLOVID and Molnupiravir. They argue that Ivermectin could have ended the pandemic if widely used, but was suppressed due to its potential impact on the market. Translation: The speaker suggests that Ivermectin's effectiveness posed a threat to the emergency use authorization for vaccines and the global market, potentially impacting billions in revenue. They argue that Ivermectin's affordability and availability could have ended the pandemic if widely used, but was suppressed due to its potential impact on the market.