reSee.it - Related Video Feed

200 congresspeople have been treated with Ivermectin for COVID, which was a common off-label treatment before vaccines were available. The motivation behind the negative perception of this medication is unclear, but it may relate to financial interests since Ivermectin is a generic drug with a low cost of about 30 cents per dose.

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.

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.

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.

There are numerous studies showing the significant benefits of Ivermectin, with a 70 to 85% reduction in hospitalizations and deaths. It has been effective worldwide, including in countries like Nigeria, which has the highest burden of river blindness but the lowest COVID death rate. They use both Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine. Similarly, states in India like Kerala and Uttar Pradesh had comparable death rates by following a protocol that included Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine. There are over 400 studies supporting the benefits of hydroxychloroquine and nearly 100 studies showing the devastating benefits of Ivermectin. However, a few government-produced studies financed by Bill Gates and the WHO claim no benefit, but these studies have been criticized.

The United States had the worst COVID management record globally, with 4.2% of the population but 16% of the deaths. Countries using Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine, like Nigeria and Japan, had significantly lower death rates compared to the US. Studies consistently show that 85% of the people who died could have been saved with early treatment. Around 650,000 Americans may have died unnecessarily. The origins of the virus, specifically the Wuhan lab and the subsequent cover-up, should be addressed. However, the most important issue is the censorship surrounding COVID.

Over 100 studies have shown that Ivermectin has had significant benefits, reducing hospitalizations and deaths by 70 to 85%. It was effective worldwide, including in Nigeria, where they used it for river blindness and had the lowest COVID death rate. Similarly, states in India like Kerala and Uttar Pradesh used our protocol with Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, ending the pandemic overnight. There are around 400 studies supporting the benefits of hydroxychloroquine and nearly 100 studies showing the devastating benefits of Ivermectin. However, a few government-produced studies financed by Bill Gates and the WHO claim no benefit, but these studies have been criticized.

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.

Manufacturers of nasal products were allegedly warned against promoting or researching their products for COVID-19. One company was allegedly denied FDA permission to study its product's effect on COVID-19. Another company, COFIX Rx, allegedly received warnings to stop promoting its product for COVID-19. The speaker claims anything that worked for COVID-19 faced strict government opposition, including hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, and virucidal nasal sprays. Higher dose corticosteroids, zinc, vitamin D, vitamin C, quercetin, over-the-counter famotidine, and colchicine were also allegedly effective treatments. A high-quality trial allegedly showed colchicine reduced hospitalization and death, but the federal government never mentioned it. Aspirin and blood thinners were allegedly not mentioned for blood clot prevention. The speaker asserts the only advice given was to fear the virus, lockdown, social distance, wear masks, use hand sanitizer (none of which allegedly work), and repeatedly get vaccinated. The speaker concludes the COVID-19 response was allegedly about mandating vaccines.

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.

Multiple studies, including one by the WHO, show that Remdesivir actually increases the risk of death. It's concerning that the federal government incentivizes hospitals to prescribe this toxic drug by offering a 20% bonus on the entire hospital bill for Medicare patients. Remdesivir costs around $3,000 per course. On the other hand, Ivermectin, as mentioned by Dr. Kory, reduces the risk of death by about 50%. Unfortunately, clinicians still use the wrong drug, Dexamethasone, in the wrong dose and for the wrong duration of time, simply because the NIH recommends it. The NIH and other agencies have disregarded multiple FDA-approved drugs that are both cost-effective and safe.

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.

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.

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.

In 1970, a Japanese biochemist named Satoshi Omorra discovered a bacterium with intriguing effects against roundworm and shared it with American colleague William Campbell of Merck. Campbell used the bacterium to create ivermectin, released by Merck in 1980. Ivermectin proved extremely effective against river blindness (onchocerciasis), a disease caused by a parasitic worm that affected Central and South America and much of Africa. With ivermectin, river blindness has been largely eliminated in the Americas and greatly reduced in Africa. Billions of doses have been administered; it is listed among the World Health Organization’s essential medicines. Merck’s patent expired in 1996; the drug is cheap to produce, globally available in various formulations, and, at normal dosages, has no important side effects. In 2015, Omurra received the Nobel Prize for Medicine, shared with Campbell. Fast forward to early 2020, when the COVID-19 pandemic spread. Scientists searched for drugs with antiviral activity, and Monash University in Australia conducted a literature search that found ivermectin had shown activity against Zika, West Nile, and influenza. They performed experiments and found that ivermectin displays remarkable activity against SARS-CoV-2 in vitro, reporting a 5,000-fold reduction in viral levels after a single treatment without cytotoxicity, and proposed a mechanism for this effect. Around the same time, two American scientists noted that ivermectin was used as prophylaxis against river blindness in Africa and examined whether widespread ivermectin prophylaxis correlated with COVID-19 rates. They found that countries with extensive ivermectin prophylaxis had significantly lower COVID-19 rates. In Miami, Dr. Jean Jacques Reiter, a critical care and pulmonary specialist, treated COVID-19 patients with ivermectin after being urged by a patient’s son. He reported rapid improvement: the patient’s FiO2 requirements declined within 48 hours, and she was discharged within about a week. Reiter treated many patients with ivermectin and published a June 2020 preprint; he later testified before a Senate committee about his experiences. He stated that among hundreds of outpatients treated by his team, only two were admitted to the hospital; neither died or required intubation. Uncontrolled studies on ivermectin as prophylaxis and treatment circulated globally. A daughter described a care-home incident in Ontario, where residents on a floor receiving high-dose ivermectin for scabies reportedly had no COVID-19 infections among residents, even as staff on that floor became infected. In New York, Pierre Corry teamed with Reiter and Paul Merrick to form the Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC). In October 2020, the FLCCC released the Eye Mask Plus protocol, centering on ivermectin for prevention and treatment, and published a meta-analysis reviewing nine studies on prophylaxis and 12 studies on treatment, including seven randomized trials, all showing ivermectin’s superiority to controls. They presented figures showing reduced mortality and case rates associated with ivermectin use in various regions, including Peru, Mexico (Chiapas), and Argentina (healthcare workers). On December 8, 2020, FLCCC members appeared before a Senate subcommittee, with testimony claiming mountains of data showing ivermectin’s miraculous effectiveness and requesting the NIH to review their data. The transcript asserts widespread suppression of ivermectin information by mainstream media (New York Times, AP), big tech (YouTube, Twitter, Facebook), and the NIH. It alleges the NIH COVID-19 treatment guidelines panel, established in April 2020, largely recommended against early treatment and promoted remdesivir instead, even though remdesivir’s mortality impact was unproven and the World Health Organization advised against its use for improving survival. The panel’s treatment recommendations (as of 01/03/2021) are cited, highlighting monoclonal antibodies for early patients and no other treatments, except for remdesivir for deteriorating patients. Fauci publicly touted remdesivir’s endpoint as time to recovery, with the primary endpoint reportedly changed mid-trial from mortality to time to recovery, raising concerns about impartiality. The transcript traces remdesivir's production by Gilead Sciences and notes financial ties: seven panel members disclosed funding from Gilead; two of the three panel chairs received Gilead support, and Clifford Lane (one co-author on a remdesivir study) was closely connected to the study, with undisclosed ties among other authors. It argues these ties could impact decision-making and bias toward remdesivir over cheaper, repurposed drugs like ivermectin. The narrative then contrasts the U.S. approach with Uttar Pradesh, India, which authorized ivermectin as prophylaxis and treatment in August 2020. In January 2021, Uttar Pradesh reported near-zero COVID-19 deaths, while the United States faced ongoing high mortality, suggesting potential differential outcomes if ivermectin had been broadly authorized. The closing remarks emphasize the suffering caused by COVID-19 and its broad impacts on families and society.

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.

Over 100 studies have shown that Ivermectin has had significant benefits, reducing hospitalizations and deaths by 70 to 85%. It has been widely used around the world, including in Nigeria, where it helped lower the COVID death rate. Kerala and Uttar Pradesh states in India also used Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, effectively ending the pandemic. Numerous studies, including 400 on hydroxychloroquine and nearly 100 on Ivermectin, demonstrate their benefits. However, a few government-funded studies, including those by the WHO and financed by Bill Gates, claim no benefits but have been criticized for their methodology. For more information, you can visit the websites of Dr. Meryl Masse or Yale epidemiologist Harvey Riesch.

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.

200 congresspeople have reportedly been treated with Ivermectin for COVID, which was a common off-label treatment before vaccines were available. The motivation behind the negative perception of this medication is unclear, but it may be linked to financial interests. Ivermectin is a generic drug with a low cost of around 30 cents per dose, as its patent has expired, allowing anyone to produce it.

Like hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin are no are out of patents. So because they're out of patents, you cannot make any money on these drugs. The most you could sell them for is, $300 Pharmaceutical companies are no longer interested in $300 drugs. They're interested in orphan drugs where they can get name your price for a drug. We're going to put it under an orphan and now we can bill whatever we want. From like $300 to $10,000 a month. Then all these companies started copying and doing biologic at $10,000 a month. But there is a movement that is controlling the research and stopping innovations, that is stopping out of patent drugs, drugs that are basically like hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin. So I think that's the number one thing and the attacks on that.

Monoclonal antibodies worked very well and quickly, and were initially readily available. The speaker believes the government intentionally made them harder to get to encourage people to take the COVID shot. The speaker started using ivermectin when monoclonal antibodies became difficult to obtain. In March, the government put out information on the FDA's website about why people should not take ivermectin for COVID. Simultaneously, the government launched COVID-nineteen Community Core on 04/01/2021, an $11,500,000,000 slush fund for propaganda.

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 US has purchased the majority of the world's supply of remdesivir, a drug that helps COVID-19 patients recover. This has caused concern as it limits access to the drug for the rest of the world. Remdesivir has been shown to reduce hospitalization time by about 4 days but does not reduce the risk of death. Another effective drug is the steroid dexamethasone, which costs significantly less. The NHS has enough remdesivir for current patients, but the duration of supply is uncertain. A doctor shares his frustration with the hospital system, claiming that they interfered with his ability to treat COVID-19 patients with other safe and effective drugs. He believes hospitals have become dangerous places for patients.

The speaker discusses the use of various drugs, including hydroxychloroquine, Ivermectin, colchicine, doxycycline, Azithromycin, budesonide, prednisone, and enoxaparin, for treating COVID-19. They mention that these drugs were considered lightning rods, particularly hydroxychloroquine, which faced strong opposition. The speaker questions why authorities would prevent the use of these drugs if they were not believed to be effective, and highlights the safety profile of Ivermectin. They suggest that people should be allowed to try these drugs if they are willing to pay for them. The motive behind targeting these drugs is unclear.