reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Former employees acknowledge the significant influence of the pharmaceutical industry on media. They argue that shaping the message allows them to shape the world. They highlight the use of Ivermectin in various countries, including India and Argentina, where it has shown success in treating COVID-19. However, others dismiss its effectiveness and label it as a horse dewormer. The speakers criticize the pharmaceutical industry for manipulating clinical studies and influencing research grants. They also express concerns about censorship and the withholding of information, which they believe misleads the public.

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 a CNN segment where they portrayed him as taking horse medication. He criticizes the repeated claims and believes it shows a conspiracy. He clarifies that the medication, Ivermectin, is commonly used in humans and has even won a Nobel Prize for its efficacy. The speaker suggests that Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine were discredited to protect the vaccine industry, as federal law prohibits emergency use authorization if there is an existing effective medication. Acknowledging the effectiveness of these medications would have jeopardized the multi-billion dollar vaccine enterprise.

The speaker discusses a CNN segment where they portrayed him as taking horse medication. He believes this is evidence of a conspiracy, as the medication in question, Ivermectin, is commonly used in humans and has even won a Nobel Prize for its efficacy. He suggests that Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine were discredited to protect the vaccine industry, as federal law prohibits emergency use authorization for vaccines if there are existing effective medications. Acknowledging the effectiveness of these medications would have undermined the multi-billion dollar vaccine industry.

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 video discusses the FDA's Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) process and the controversy surrounding the use of Ivermectin as a potential treatment for COVID-19. It highlights the financial interests of pharmaceutical companies and the geopolitical implications of widespread access to a cheap and widely available medicine like Ivermectin. The video also questions the safety claims made by Merck, the company that holds the expired patent for Ivermectin. It emphasizes the need for critical evaluation of articles and information that may be influenced by financial motives.

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.

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

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.

The speakers discuss the politicization of Ivermectin, an antiparasitic drug that also shows potential in stopping viral replication. They mention its success in treating yellow fever and winning the Nobel Prize. They express confusion over why a drug would be demonized and politicized. The conversation touches on the motivations behind this, including the desire to create a monopoly for vaccines and the Emergency Use Authorization Act. They highlight the affordability and accessibility of Ivermectin, which can be manufactured by anyone and costs only 7¢ per dose. The speakers also mention the discouragement and suppression of alternative treatments like monoclonal antibodies.

The speaker discusses a CNN segment where they portrayed him as taking horse medication. He believes this is evidence of a conspiracy, as the medication in question, Ivermectin, is commonly used in humans and has even won a Nobel Prize for its efficacy. The speaker suggests that Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine were discredited to protect the vaccine industry, as federal law prohibits emergency use authorization for vaccines if there are existing effective medications. Acknowledging the effectiveness of these medications would have undermined the multi-billion dollar vaccine industry.

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.

Two hundred congresspeople have been treated with ivermectin for COVID. I did not know that. You could probably find it on doctor Pierre Corey’s Twitter page. Before there were vaccines, this was a common treatment, an off-label treatment for COVID. I do not know what the motivation for demonizing this particular medication is. Again, I’m not a doctor, and I’m not a scientist. But I would imagine some of it has to do with money. The reason being is that it is a generic drug now. They’ve the patent has run out. So anybody can make it, and it’s worth, like, 30¢ a dose.

The speaker claims that the public had limited access to data when the vaccines received emergency use authorization. They believe regulators, who they consider corrupt, were determined to push forward with the mass vaccination program. The speaker argues that effective therapeutic medicines like Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin were intentionally suppressed to pave the way for vaccine authorization. They explain that a federal law prohibits emergency use authorization for a vaccine if there is an existing licensed drug that proves effective against the same disease. The speaker suggests that this decision was driven by financial interests, with the NIH owning half the patent for the Moderna vaccine and individuals associated with Anthony Fauci potentially receiving significant royalties.

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.

The discussion centers on ivermectin and various claims about its origins, promotion, and effects. One speaker asserts that ivermectin is made by big pharma, specifically naming Merck and vaccine companies, and that people are using it because influencers told the public to take pharmaceutical pills after the pandemic, while not disclosing that cell phone towers are in front of their houses. The speaker claims that people took ivermectin instead, and states that ivermectin is linked to liver toxicity, jaundice, brain damage, and infertility, suggesting these risks are part of a broader strategy to reduce fertility in the population. The other speaker counters by describing ivermectin as having productive toxicity, noting this is observed in animal studies, including rabbits and other mammals, and rejecting the idea that its toxicity is limited to arthropods like crabs or cockroaches. This speaker claims it is a well-proven reproductive toxic substance for many mammals. They reference another video discussing the neurotoxic effect of ivermectin and mention that veterinarians discuss routine use and continued use of ivermectin, associating it with various adverse outcomes.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

The speaker discusses a CNN segment where they portrayed him as taking horse medication. He argues that this portrayal is a clear indication of a conspiracy, as the medication in question, Ivermectin, is commonly used in humans and has even won a Nobel Prize for its efficacy in humans. The speaker believes that Ivermectin had to be discredited in order to promote the COVID-19 vaccines, as federal law prohibits emergency use authorization for vaccines if there is an existing effective medication. Acknowledging Ivermectin's effectiveness would have jeopardized the multi-billion dollar vaccine industry.