reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Hello President Trump, I'm Dr. Vladimir Zelenko from Orange County, NY. I've been treating a large number of COVID-19 patients in my community with hydroxychloroquine and zinc to keep them out of hospitals. I recommend starting treatment early for high-risk patients at home, not just in hospitals. This approach has shown positive results with no hospitalizations among the 100 patients I've treated. Thank you for your efforts in saving the nation. God bless you and your family.

Zev Zelenko, the creator of the Zelenko protocol and advocate for Hydroxychloroquine, has made a video exposing a conspiracy between Janet Woodcock and Rick Bright. Rick Bright, former head of BARDA, and Janet Woodcock, former head of Operation Warp Speed for Drugs and the FDA, allegedly conspired to restrict the use of Hydroxychloroquine to hospitals only. This strategy, implemented through emergency use authorization, hindered the timely administration of the drug. The motive behind their actions remains unclear. Rick Bright himself admitted to this conspiracy on video, claiming there was no evidence of Hydroxychloroquine's effectiveness against the virus, which is false.

In March, I researched and wrote a protocol with hydroxychloroquine, which was quickly approved by the FDA. However, political pressure led to its rejection in favor of more expensive options. Bill Gates even inquired about my protocol, hinting at potential investment. Despite setbacks, I eventually proposed a study comparing vitamins to hydroxychloroquine, revealing political interference in drug approval processes.

Treat COVID-19 at home with zinc and zinc-enhancing remedies like hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, which reduce viral spread. Current protocol delays treatment until hospitalization, using ventilators and remdesivir, known to cause harm. Fauci's promotion of remdesivir, despite its lethal side effects, led to unnecessary deaths from kidney and heart failure. The true cause of death during the pandemic was not the virus but remdesivir.

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.

I hope they use hydroxychloroquine and Z Pak with doctor's approval. It's been around for a long time, so why not try it? I want to avoid ventilators because the outcomes are not good. Hydroxychloroquine could be a game-changer if it works. It's their choice to take it, but I recommend trying it. Avoid Z Pak if you have a heart condition. Let's keep people off ventilators and find a better solution.

In this video, John, a storyteller, shares his experiences and observations regarding the COVID-19 pandemic. He discusses his early preparations for the virus and his efforts to create public service announcements promoting safety measures. John also delves into the controversy surrounding the use of hydroxychloroquine as a potential treatment for COVID-19, highlighting the censorship and suppression of information surrounding the drug. He questions the integrity of scientific institutions and emphasizes the need for unbiased research and transparency. John discusses conflicts of interest in the medical field and the importance of evidence-based medicine. The video also touches on the involvement of Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos in funding a biopharmaceutical company, the influence of trigger words and media on behavior modification, and the controversial history of CIA-funded human experiments. The controversy surrounding hydroxychloroquine and remdesivir as COVID-19 treatments is explored, along with allegations of medical gaslighting and manipulation by medical authorities. The role of Anthony Fauci and Janet Woodcock in suppressing early treatment options is questioned, and the origins of COVID-19 and potential motives for discrediting certain treatments are discussed. The panel discussion on a universal flu vaccine featuring Anthony Fauci and Rick Bright is also mentioned, highlighting the need for innovation and the influence of various organizations. The video concludes by emphasizing the need for early treatment, the censorship faced by healthcare workers, and the importance of trust and ethics in medicine.

The speaker discusses the availability of early therapeutic treatments for COVID-19 that can prevent hospitalization and death. They mention the use of Ivermectin, highlighting the numerous trials and studies that have shown its effectiveness in treating and preventing COVID-19. The speaker expresses concern about the lack of support from medical boards and the interference of federal bureaucracy in the doctor-patient relationship. They also mention the demonization of Ivermectin by the media and emphasize its safety and successful use in other countries. The speaker urges the Senate committee to consider the perspectives of doctors who have successfully treated patients with early therapeutic treatments for COVID-19.

In this video, the speakers delve into the controversy surrounding the use of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin as treatments for COVID-19. They express frustration with the restrictions placed on these medications and emphasize the importance of doctors' involvement in patient care. The speakers highlight their own positive experiences with these treatments and criticize the politicization of medical decisions. They also discuss conflicting scientific studies and the influence of pharmaceutical companies. Additionally, the conversation touches on the use of fluvoxamine and the challenges faced by the speakers within their institution, leading to their departure. Overall, the video emphasizes the need for a balanced and evidence-based approach to medical treatments.

The speaker discusses the phenomenon of using drugs like ivermectin to treat COVID-19 without sufficient data to support its effectiveness. They emphasize the importance of safe and effective vaccines in preventing hospitalization and death from COVID-19. When patients request ivermectin, the speaker advises physicians to encourage vaccination for prevention and to provide monoclonal antibody treatment for those who qualify. For patients who are infected and at low risk for disease progression, the speaker suggests participating in clinical trials to determine the drug's efficacy. They provide the website clinicaltrials.gov for information on available trials.

At home, it is recommended to treat viral replication by giving zinc and other zinc-enhancing remedies like hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin. However, the protocol followed by hospitals was to provide no treatment until admission, and then use ventilators and Remdesivir, which were known to be harmful. Tony Fauci was aware of the dangers of Remdesivir, as it caused lethal side effects in Ebola patients. Despite this, he manipulated a study to make Remdesivir the standard of care, resulting in kidney failure, heart failure, and organ collapse in COVID-19 patients. The deaths attributed to the virus were actually caused by Remdesivir.

Hello, I'm Dr. Vladimir Zelenko, a family practitioner in New York. I propose early outpatient treatment for moderate to high-risk COVID-19 patients, having successfully treated over 100 without hospitalizations. Hydroxychloroquine, approved for decades and considered safe, was suddenly restricted, leading to patient deaths. I sought alternatives and discovered quercetin, an over-the-counter supplement that helps deliver zinc into cells, similar to hydroxychloroquine. Facing my own terminal illness, I realized the importance of family, compassion, and freedom. This is a battle for our rights and consciousness against tyranny. Civil disobedience is essential; we must resist and protect our freedoms. The Second Amendment safeguards us from oppressive government. We need faith and courage to confront these challenges, relying on a higher power to guide us in this struggle.

In this video, the speaker discusses the use of hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for COVID-19. They explain that hydroxychloroquine has been used for centuries to treat various conditions, including malaria. The speaker mentions that hydroxychloroquine inhibits the virus from entering and replicating in cells, and it also helps transport zinc into cells, which can further inhibit viral replication. The speaker then discusses a study that found a lower mortality rate among COVID-19 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine. They highlight that despite the controversy surrounding the drug, there is evidence to suggest its effectiveness in reducing deaths. The speaker concludes by emphasizing that hydroxychloroquine may be beneficial even in advanced stages of the disease.

I'm in my office in Canberra with Dr. Zelenko, who is in the U.S. He has treated around 7,000 COVID patients and educated many physicians globally. His results show no patient deaths in the last eight months and minimal hospitalizations. He attributes success to early treatment and criticizes government policies that delay care. Zelenko advocates for hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, emphasizing their safety and effectiveness, while expressing concerns about vaccine side effects. He believes the current approach is driven by a desire for control rather than public health. He urges people to take preventative measures, including vitamins and zinc, and to question government narratives. Zelenko warns against vaccinating children, citing a higher risk from the vaccine than from COVID itself. He calls for a grassroots awakening against tyranny, emphasizing the importance of truth and community action.

Dr. Ryan Cole, a pathologist and expert in immunology and virology, discusses the use of Ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19. He highlights that if Ivermectin is added to the treatment, it can decrease the death rate by 75% if administered early. However, he criticizes the NIH for recommending against its use based on flawed data. Dr. Cole mentions that doctors in Texas, Florida, and Wisconsin have successfully used Ivermectin, reducing death rates by 70% to 90% in their hospitals. He also raises concerns about a conflict of interest between the federal government and vaccine companies, suggesting that they may not want an effective therapy to overshadow the vaccines.

- The discussion opens with a critique of how public health authorities in the United States and much of the media discouraged experimentation with COVID-19 treatments, instead pushing vaccination and portraying other approaches as dangerous. The hosts ask why treatments were sidelined and treated as heretical to question. - Speaker 1 explains that the core idea was to stamp out “vaccine hesitation,” which he frames not as a purely scientific issue but as a form of heresy. He notes a broad literature on vaccine hesitancy and contrasts it with the perception of the vaccine as a liberating savior. He points to a Vatican €20 silver coin (2022) commemorating the COVID-19 vaccine, described by Vatican catalogs as “a boy prepares to receive the Eucharist,” which the speakers interpret as an overlay of religious iconography with vaccination imagery. They also reference Diego Rivera’s mural in Detroit, interpreted as depicting the vaccine as a Eucharist, and a South African church banner reading “even the blood of Christ cannot protect you, get vaccinated,” highlighting what they see as provocative uses of religious symbolism to promote vaccination. - They claim that the Biden administration’s COVID Vaccine Corps distributed billions of dollars to major sports leagues (NFL, MLB) and that many mainline churches reportedly received money to push vaccination, with many clergy not opposing the push. The implication is that monetary incentives influenced public figures and organizations to advocate for vaccines, contributing to a climate in which questioning orthodoxy was difficult. - The speakers discuss the social dynamics around vaccine “heresy,” using Aaron Rodgers’ experience with isolation and shaming in the NFL and Novak Djokovic’s experiences in Australia to illustrate how prominent individuals who questioned or fell outside the orthodoxy faced punitive pressure. They compare this to a Reformation-era conflict over doctrinal correctness and describe a psychology of stigmatizing dissent as a tool to enforce conformity. - They argue the imperative driving institutions was the belief that the vaccine was the central, non-negotiable public-health objective, seemingly above other medical considerations. The central question they raise is why vaccines became the sole priority, seemingly overriding a broader, more nuanced evaluation of medical options and individual risk. - The conversation shifts to epistemology and the nature of science. Speaker 1 suggests medicine often relies on orthodoxies and presuppositions, rather than purely empirical processes. He recounts a Kantian view that interpretation depends on preexisting categories, and he uses this to argue that medical decision-making can be constrained by established doctrines, which may obscure questions about optimization and safety. - They recount the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act and discuss Sara Sotomayor’s dissent, which argued that liability exposure is a key incentive for safety and improvement in vaccine development. They argue that the current system creates minimal liability for manufacturers, reducing the incentive to optimize safety, and they use this to question how the system encourages continuous safety improvements. - The hosts recount the early-treatment movement led by Peter McCullough and others, including a Senate hearing organized by Ron Johnson in November 2020 to discuss early-treatment options with FDA-approved drugs like hydroxychloroquine. They criticize what they describe as aggressive pushback against such approaches, noting that McCullough faced professional sanctions and lawsuits despite presenting peer-reviewed literature. - They return to the concept of orthodoxy and dogma, arguing that the medical establishment often suppresses dissent, citing YouTube removing a McCullough interview and the broader pattern of silencing challenge to the vaccine narrative. They stress that the social and institutional systems prize conformity and punish those who deviate, creating a climate of distrust toward official health bodies. - The discussion broadens into metaphysical and philosophical territory, with references to the Grand Inquisitor from Dostoevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov. They propose that elites—whether religious, political, or scientific—tend to prefer “taking care” of people through control rather than preserving individual responsibility and free will. The Grand Inquisitor tale is used to illustrate a recurring human temptation: to replace personal liberty with a protected, paternalistic order. - They discuss messenger RNA (mRNA) technology as a central manifestation of Promethean or Luciferian intellect—humans attempting to “read and write in the language of God.” They describe the scientific arc from transcription and translation to mRNA vaccines, noting Francis Collins’s The Language of God and the idea of humans “coding life.” They caution that mRNA vaccines involve injecting genetic material and point to the symbolic and ritual power of vaccination as a form of modern sacrament. - The speakers emphasize that the mRNA approach represents both a profound scientific achievement and a source of deep concern. They discuss fertility signals and potential adverse effects, including myocarditis in young people, and cite the July 2021 NEJM case study as highlighting safety concerns for myocarditis in adolescent males. They reference the FDA deliberative-committee discussions, noting that some influential voices publicly questioned the risk-benefit calculus for young people, yet faced pressure or dismissal within the orthodox framework. - They describe post-hoc investigations and testimonies suggesting that adverse events (like myocarditis) might have been downplayed or obscured, and they assert that public trust in health institutions has eroded as a result. They mention ongoing debates about whether vaccine-induced changes might affect future generations, referencing studies about transcripts of mRNA in cancer cells and liver cells, and they stress the need for independent scrutiny by scientists not “entranced” by the vaccine program. - The dialogue returns to the broader human condition: a tension between curiosity and restraint, knowledge and humility. They return to Dostoevsky’s moral questions about free will, responsibility, and the limits of human knowledge, concluding that scientific hubris can lead to dangerous consequences when it overrides open inquiry and accountability. - In closing, while the guests reflect on past missteps and the need for integrity in medicine, they underscore the ongoing questions about how evidence is interpreted, how dissent is treated, and how society balances scientific progress with humility, transparency, and respect for individual judgment.

The speaker shares their experience with using hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, and zinc as a treatment for COVID-19. They mention informing the President of the United States about their protocol and how it was effective in saving lives. However, they criticize Governor Cuomo for blocking access to hydroxychloroquine, leading to their patients dying again. They then discuss finding a substitute called Quercetin, along with vitamin C, that delivers zinc into cells. They explain how they made this treatment more accessible by combining all the necessary ingredients into one pill. They emphasize the importance of early intervention and mention the potential benefits of the treatment for other viruses like influenza and Ebola. The speaker concludes by discussing the creation of ZStack as a solution to help people.

Dr. Stella Emmanuel, a primary care physician from Houston, Texas, claims to have treated over 350 COVID patients, including those with diabetes, high blood pressure, and asthma, with hydroxychloroquine, zinc, and Zetramax, and none have died. Her oldest patient was 92. Dr. Emmanuel also stated that she, her staff, and many doctors she knows take hydroxychloroquine for prevention. She claims they see 10 to 15 COVID patients daily, administer breathing treatments, wear only surgical masks, and none have gotten sick. She asserts that hydroxychloroquine works as a prophylaxis and when administered early.

panel discusses hydroxychloroquine and early treatments. Hazen states: "I did the clinical trial. I wrote those protocols on hydroxychloroquine, Z Pak, vitamin C, D and zinc, passed them through the FDA within twenty four hours." She adds, "No one died on my shift, even though I did a placebo controlled trial on hydroxychloroquine, Z Pak, vitamin C, D and zinc," and "And we had hundreds of patients on that." They argue the Lancet paper is invalid: "This paper is to me is not just, you know, I'm not going to criticize it and say, oh, well they overdosed. I'm going to say, no, this is a fake paper. This is a fake data." They insist: "There is no way that four or five authors took 17,000 records." They discuss predatory journals: "predatory journals" and "they can manipulate or retract the data to make you look bad." They claim: "Hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin are out of patents." They report outcomes: "zero mortality" and "zero hospitalizations," and critique media: "they control the media and they push all this narrative out there." They urge: "stop publishing papers that are so fraudulently, so obviously fraudulent." They reference the microbiome: "the microbiome is all shit," and advocate: "everybody needs a fecal transplant right now."

The dialogue centers on treatments and outcomes for COVID-19, with concerns about what is being used and what might work. One participant remarks on the reluctance to use certain treatments that are successful worldwide, recounting a conversation with a doctor. Another asks what kinds of treatments are being tried, noting that some approaches “are coming out with different things that are in the testing phase.” A third person criticizes a platform they believe “kills more people than actually save,” and another agrees that “they don’t work anyway,” questioning the harm in trying alternatives when current efforts aren’t effective. A key exchange discusses expectations for patient survival. One person says, “I don’t expect any of these people to survive. Ninety percent of them would die,” while another adds that if patients are “already dying anyway,” it may be reasonable to try additional measures rather than do nothing. There is debate about whether trying unproven treatments is appropriate; one participant notes that without a scientific basis, extra attempts can make patients worse, while another concedes that they would try anything to save their life. The conversation then shifts to clinical presentations and treatment strategies. With COVID patients who cannot breathe, X-rays show “the lungs are white,” indicating affected lungs with very thick, white secretions. The question arises of what “white lung” means—whether it is mucus and coating that fill the lungs and impede oxygen transfer. In response, the discussion distinguishes between early-stage treatments (like hydroxychloroquine and zinc) and later-stage interventions. It is stated that once lungs are severely affected, certain proven treatments exist that have passed trials in Asia through Dr. Chang, described as a US-board-certified physician. Specifically, extremely high-dose IV vitamin C is claimed to be successful in treating patients, providing the lungs with antioxidant support to help expel the infection, alongside IV antibiotics to treat the infection while avoiding reliance on ventilation and sedation. There is a contrast drawn between approaches in different regions. The dialogue notes that high-dose IV vitamin C has passed three trials in Asia and is reported as effective, while in the speaker’s locale, there is hesitation or reluctance to adopt this method. The discussion ends with a remark about how some people might attribute success to “good genes,” implying a belief that genetics may influence susceptibility or outcomes, though this is stated rather than argued as a scientific conclusion. Overall, the conversation emphasizes that several participants are wary of conventional treatments, advocate for exploring high-dose IV vitamin C as a therapeutic option, and describe the characteristic radiographic and clinical features of severe COVID-19 lung involvement.

Treat COVID at home with zinc, hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, and other remedies that reduce viral spread. Current protocol delays treatment until hospitalization, using harmful ventilators and remdesivir. Fauci knew remdesivir's dangers from Ebola trials. He manipulated data to make it standard care, causing kidney and heart failure. Many pandemic deaths were due to remdesivir, not the virus.

Dr. Stella Emmanuel, a primary care physician in Houston, Texas, claims to have treated over 350 COVID patients, including those with diabetes, high blood pressure, and asthma, with hydroxychloroquine, zinc, and Zetramax, and none have died. She says her oldest patient was 92. Dr. Emmanuel also states that she, her staff, and many doctors she knows take hydroxychloroquine for prevention. Despite seeing 10 to 15 COVID patients daily and only wearing surgical masks, she claims none of them have gotten sick. She asserts that hydroxychloroquine works both early in the illness and as a prophylaxis.

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.