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.

There is a drug called Ivermectin that has proven to be highly effective in combating the current crisis. This is not an exaggeration, but a scientific recommendation based on extensive data gathered over the past three months. The NIH's recommendation against using Ivermectin outside of controlled trials was made in August, but since then, numerous studies from various countries have shown its miraculous impact. It has been found to completely prevent the transmission of the virus and ensure that individuals who take it do not get sick.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Tony Fauci's problem is that a federal law prohibits emergency use authorization for a vaccine if there is an approved medication that effectively treats the target disease. If Fauci or anyone had acknowledged that Ivermectin works as a treatment for COVID, the vaccine would not have received authorization. Despite many doctors and publications supporting Ivermectin, Fauci actively dismissed it as a dangerous medication to drown out its effectiveness. It is unclear why he continued to do so after receiving authorization, but there is a strong incentive for him to discredit Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine. Notable doctors like Harvey Reich and Pierre Cory have successfully treated thousands of COVID patients.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

A study on Ivermectin's effectiveness in reducing COVID-19 deaths has been peer-reviewed and published. The study analyzed excess deaths in Peru in 2020 and found that states with intensive Ivermectin use had a 74% reduction in excess deaths. When Ivermectin use was restricted, there was a 13-fold increase in deaths. The study concluded that Ivermectin showed strong evidence of effectiveness, considering potential confounding factors. The study was published on August 8th, 2022.

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.

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.

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.

Dr. Peterson Pierre from America's Frontline Doctors discusses the positive impact of Ivermectin on COVID-19 deaths in Peru and Uttar Pradesh, India. In Peru, the widespread use of Ivermectin resulted in a 74% reduction in excess deaths across 10 states. Similarly, in Uttar Pradesh, the distribution of Ivermectin led to a 97% decrease in COVID-19 deaths. The study suggests that Ivermectin can both prevent and treat the virus when distributed to at-risk populations. Dr. Pierre questions why more governments, including the US, did not adopt this strategy, emphasizing that Ivermectin is safe, effective, accessible, and affordable compared to experimental drugs. He suggests that fear mongering and financial interests may have influenced the decision-making process. Stay tuned for more updates.