TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

I am literally telling you that they're murdering these people, and nobody will listen to me. These people aren't dying from COVID. They don't care what is happening to these people. They don't. I'm literally coming here every day and watching them kill them. It's like going in the fucking twilight zone. Like, everyone here is okay with this. The only way I can kind of put this into context for everybody is an extreme example: He's like, if we were in Nazi Germany and they were taking the Jews to go put them in a gas chamber, I'm the one like, they're saying, hey. This is not good. This is bad. We should not be doing this. And then everyone tells me, hang in there. You're doing a great job. You can't save everybody. But these people aren't dying from COVID. Let me give you several examples here. An anesthesiologist intubated the patient’s right bronchus and of a patient, and they couldn't get the stats up. For about five hours, we were waiting on a chest x-ray to confirm that the placement was wrong. In the meantime, while we're waiting for that, and we've told the anesthesiologist that it was placed wrong because, like, literally only one side of his fucking chest is inflating, he dies. A patient had a heart rate of 40, and the resident starts doing chest compressions on him, which is not what you do. You just externally pace them or you give him some atropine. Then I run in there to stop him from doing chest compressions on somebody with the fucking pulse. And then he decides to push epi. He throws some pads on him to defibrillate the guy in bradycardia. Okay? He has a heart rate of 40 and a stable, you know, bradycardic rhythm. We just need to give him, like, somatropine and pace him. He fucking defibrillates him and kills him. I ran out of the patient’s room to get the director of nursing who was standing out there. And I’m like, can you stop him? He’s going to kill that patient. He’s going to kill that patient if he defibrillates him with bradycardia and a heart rate of 40. The director of nursing just shook his head, and I turned around, and he killed the dude. There was a nurse who placed an NG tube into some guy’s lungs and filled his lungs with tube feeding. There was a nurse who confused a long-acting insulin with a short-acting insulin and gave thirty units of a fast-acting insulin and killed the guy. It’s just here they’re just gonna let them rot on the vent. They’re medically mismanaging these patients. And, like, I’m not a doctor, but there’s basic standards of care. When somebody’s low on blood, literally on the brink of a critical low blood level, we should replace the blood. I asked the residents, and they’re like, does he have internal bleeding? And I said, no. Then they’re like, well, we’re not replacing the blood. In these COVID patients, they all eventually need a blood transfusion. Their blood—if you don’t have enough blood to oxygenate your body, the vent settings don’t fucking matter because you have no oxygen carrying capacity of your blood. We have a nurse who fell asleep at the nurses’ station while we were all in rooms, and her norepinephrine ran out. And the guy had no fucking blood pressure and didn’t perfuse his brain, and I’m pretty sure his brain dead. That same nurse is now running a CRRT machine, a dialysis-like machine, that she has never done before. She said she’ll figure it out. I’m pretty fucking smart, and I figure a lot of shit out, but I would never attempt to try and figure out a CRRT machine on the fly. We are adequately staffed. There’s a shit ton of staff in there, like, and we have a nurse who does CRRT in there. She has a different patient load. We told them, swap these nurses so the one that knows how to work this machine can work this machine, but they didn’t wanna do that. So I’m pretty sure that patient will be dead here in a couple hours. Nobody is listening. They don’t care what is happening to these people. They don’t. I’m literally coming here every day and watching them kill them. I mean, we’re not gonna save everybody. That’s fine. Like, come on, guys. We’re not God. Some of these people are just on sedation to keep them on the vents. Nothing else. I have a lady on a tracheostomy on a vent, and she’s not even fucking cognizant. She’s not even on sedation. You know what we give her every day? I give her breathing treatments, albuterol, and she gets insulin. And that’s it. We’re not treating the COVID, guys. For real, we’re not treating the COVID. You know, every day, we try and get these guys off the vents. Right? Because there’s criteria for weaning. Every day, the day shift nurse will wean them down to minimum sedation. Every night, we come in and we get the same two residents and they fucking max out all the sedation again and undo all the work from the day shift. Then the day shift attending will come in, and they’ll all do rounds. And they’ll be like, he wasn’t synchronizing with the vent. So we had to turn all the sedation on. And I’m like, he wasn’t synchronizing with the vent because it’s in the wrong vent mode. I even tried getting a hold of Black advocacy groups here. They just put me on hold or hang up on me. Tried talking to management. Now I got new units. And someone come up with some type of a solution for me because I’m kind of out of ideas. You know, I try and talk with some of the other nurses here, and they’re like, well, you can’t save everybody. And they all know what’s happening. They all agree with me and they all just shake their heads and I’m like, am I the only one who is not a sociopath to think that this is okay? I mean, guys, they literally don’t even know when they’re dead. Like, how many times have I told you they’ve assigned me a dead person? Like, how long have they been dead? Nobody knows. Like, how is anybody assessing anything without a stethoscope? Normally, we have disposable stethoscopes, but I brought my old chunky one. Nobody has listened to anybody’s lungs as long as I’ve been here. Even with disposable stethoscopes. I keep telling them that, you know, the guys are like, my patient’s going acidosis. We need to do something about this before his kidneys shut down. Then they run five liters of bicarb into a person who’s gained 20 pounds of water weight and completely throw him into heart failure, and he dies several hours later. That was one of my patients. So I let them know. They had me start the bicarb before I left one night. And by the time I came back the next shift, he was dead. And they assigned him to me, and he was already in a body bag. Like, guys, they’re not dying of COVID. I am literally telling you that they’re murdering these people, and nobody will listen to me. My lead at the other hospital warned me I’d have a problem and advocate for the patients too. They moved him to a completely different hospital. I tried reaching out, but he hasn’t texted me. I’m going to the unit. Let’s see how they kill him there. Okay? Stay safe. Stay out of NYC for your health care.

At home, it is recommended to treat viral replication by giving remedies like zinc and hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, which reduce the spread of the disease. However, the protocol followed was different. No treatment was given until hospitalization, where ventilators and Remdesivir were used. It is known that Remdesivir can be harmful, as it caused side effects in Ebola patients. The drug was manipulated and made standard of care, leading to kidney failure, heart failure, and organ collapse in COVID-19 patients. The deaths during the pandemic were often attributed to kidney failure, which was caused by Remdesivir, not the virus itself.

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.

It's frustrating that effective treatments used globally aren't considered here. A doctor mentioned that many treatments don't work, and with a high mortality rate, there's little to lose by trying new options. Patients often present with severe breathing difficulties and thick mucus in their lungs, visible on X-rays. Proven treatments exist, like high-dose IV vitamin C, which has shown success in trials, but these are often dismissed. Instead, patients are frequently sedated and placed on ventilators. Despite the historical skepticism surrounding vitamin C, it has potential benefits that are overlooked, leaving many to question the current medical approach.

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.

Dr. Richard Urso, an ophthalmologist and part of America's Frontline Doctors, became involved early in the pandemic because he realized there was treatment available for the virus. With a background in drug development, including repurposing drugs and developing a patented FDA-approved drug, he found it unbelievable that patients were left to die without treatment. According to Dr. Urso, the virus causes infection, inflammation, blood clots, and breathing problems. He asserts that doctors know how to treat each of these issues. Therefore, the idea that there was no treatment from the beginning was "science fiction." Any physician claiming otherwise is being hypocritical and violating the Hippocratic Oath. He then transitions to discussing testing and PCR.

Patients are dying not from COVID, but from treatments like remdesivir causing organ failure. One person's mother died after being given remdesivir against their wishes, leading to organ shutdown. There was a financial incentive for hospitals to admit patients and put them on ventilators, resulting in unnecessary treatments and deaths.

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.

Noninvasive ventilation like CPAP or BiPAP is not being used in some New York City hospitals due to COVID. Patients are quickly put on ventilators, neglecting other treatments. Nurses report patients being left to die without proper care or family support. Ventilators cause lung trauma, with high pressure and sedation protocols. Traditional treatments like hydroxychloroquine, zinc, and vitamins are not being used, despite patient consent being obtained without full understanding.

Treating viral replication at home can be done with zinc and zinc-enhancing remedies like hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin. However, the protocol followed during the pandemic did not include these treatments. Instead, patients were only treated when they reached the hospital, where they were given ventilators and Remdesivir. It is known that Remdesivir can be lethal, as it caused kidney failure, heart failure, and organ collapse in many cases. The deaths during the pandemic were often attributed to kidney failure, which was actually caused by Remdesivir, not the virus itself.

It's frustrating that effective treatments aren't being utilized. A conversation with a doctor revealed that many current treatments aren't working, and there's skepticism about trying new methods. Despite the high mortality rate, some believe it's worth exploring alternatives. Patients often present with severe breathing issues and thick mucus in their lungs, which complicates oxygen transfer. Proven treatments, like high-dose IV vitamin C, have shown success in trials but are dismissed here. Instead, patients are often sedated and placed on ventilators. There's a reluctance to accept these treatments, despite their potential benefits.

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.

- 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.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss criticisms of the COVID-19 response, focusing on diagnostic testing, treatment, and government actions. Speaker 0 notes that only fourteen percent of PCR-positive cases turned out to be COVID in Germany, and suggests this is a global pattern, including the United States. Speaker 1 responds that there is no surprise, stating that the PCR test was never designed to detect infection. He explains that it detects miniscule particles of the RNA virus and that cycle threshold was cranked up to create positivity. He emphasizes that tests should not dictate treatment and that, in his view, doctors treat patients, not test results. He accuses the government of suppressing effective repurposed medications such as hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, calling the approach a money-driven scam based on fear, and asserts this was no surprise from Germany. Speaker 0 adds that, beyond money and vaccines, the response was weaponized to keep people at home to influence political outcomes, suggesting it was part of efforts related to the 2020 election. He claims the positives were valued over negatives and asserts that the goal was to keep people in fear to ensure compliance with directives. Speaker 1 agrees, arguing that fear increases compliance with directives. He says he has never seen anything like the government imposing its will on free citizens, including closing churches and mom-and-pop stores, forcing healthy people to stay indoors, closing hospitals, and telling sick people to stay away. He expresses concern about whether the American people learned their lesson and hopes that, if the government acts similarly again, enough people will stand up and say, “hell no.”

Honestly, I'll tell you something. All my fellow doctors who were affected by Covid-19 have all taken chloroquine. So, it's hypocritical to say that we need to wait for studies to know what to do. I believe we should give every possible chance to the patients.

Treating viral infections at home can be done by providing remedies that inhibit viral replication, such as zinc and substances that enhance zinc like hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin. However, the protocol followed during the pandemic did not include these treatments. Instead, patients were only treated once they reached the hospital, where they were given ventilators and Remdesivir. It is known that Remdesivir can be lethal, as it caused kidney failure, heart failure, and organ collapse in many cases. The deaths attributed to the virus were often a result of Remdesivir rather than the virus itself.

In the past 9 days, I've been working in an intensive care unit for COVID-19 patients. However, I've noticed some unusual medical phenomena that don't align with the expected viral pneumonia. The common understanding is that patients start with mild symptoms and progress to acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). But based on what I've seen, I believe we may be treating the wrong disease. This could lead to significant harm for many people in a short period of time. I fear that our current medical paradigm is incorrect and that COVID-19 is not the disease we thought it was.

Honestly, I'll tell you something. All my fellow doctors who were affected by Covid-19 have all taken chloroquine. So, it's hypocritical to say that we need to wait for studies to know what to do. I believe we should give every possible chance to the patients.

A nurse and a doctor discuss the use of ventilators in hospitals during the pandemic. The nurse reveals that some floors were carrying out actions that other floors refused to do, essentially causing harm to patients. The doctor mentions that ventilators were used to protect healthcare workers, even though they had a high fatality rate for patients. The lack of transparency with patients and families is highlighted, as well as the reluctance to explore alternative treatments like Ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine. The speaker also mentions the incentivization of using certain drugs and protocols that led to unnecessary deaths.

In this video, the speaker shares their frustration with their hospital's restrictions on using off-label drugs like methylprednisolone and vitamin C. They criticize the hospital for not allowing the use of vitamin C, which they consider a basic and safe drug. Instead, the hospital promotes the use of Remdesivir, despite its known risks. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), Remdesivir increases the risk of kidney failure by twentyfold and the risk of death by about 4%. The speaker believes that hospitals prioritize industry interests over patient well-being, as they receive a 20% bonus for prescribing this toxic medication.

The speaker discusses the use of ventilators in treating COVID-19 patients. They mention that the concept of using ventilators came from China as a way to protect healthcare workers. However, they point out that many patients put on ventilators in New York City were dying, with a 90% fatality rate in some Texas hospitals. The speaker questions why alternative treatments like ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine were not considered when the chances of survival were so low. They also mention the incentivization of using certain drugs and protocols that may have contributed to unnecessary deaths.

Once it was determined to be safe, the speaker began using a treatment and found that it worked. Over 6,000 patients were treated, and those who received early treatment avoided hospitalization. Some patients came in very sick in their second week, with oxygen saturation in the low 80s, refusing to go to the hospital. The speaker's office offered them the option to possibly die there. They treated these patients with IV steroids, IV antibiotics, home oxygen, and high doses of ivermectin, without using monoclonal antibodies, and the patients were saved.

A doctor recounts moving breathing treatments from their office to patients' cars due to concerns about virus spread, despite hospitals also avoiding them for the same reason. They mention Dr. Richard Bartlett, a Texas doctor who faced criticism for advocating budesonide breathing treatments early in the pandemic. The speaker claims Dr. Bartlett was smeared and pursued by the Texas Medical Board for allegedly making false claims. However, the speaker maintains that these treatments were invaluable and recommended them to high-risk patients, noting a very low risk of issues.

According to the speaker, hospital protocols differed for vaccinated and unvaccinated COVID-19 patients, with more aggressive protocols used on the unvaccinated. The unvaccinated patients interviewed were often given remdesivir, a repurposed drug from a failed Ebola trial where about half the patients died. The speaker claims the efficacy data for remdesivir was "sketchy at best," but hospitals received large reimbursements for its use. The speaker alleges that patients would then be put on oxygen, then mechanical ventilation, then ICU, and finally, if they resisted, a cocktail of sedatives and sometimes four-point restraints to prevent them from leaving. The speaker states that "a lot of the patients died." The speaker claims that at each step, the hospital received more reimbursement, and there was "lockstep adherence" to the protocol.

In the past 9 days, I have worked in an intensive care unit for COVID-19 patients and witnessed medical phenomena that don't align with the expected symptoms of viral pneumonia. While hospitals are preparing to treat acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), I believe we may be treating the wrong disease. The patients I've seen and the condition of their lungs indicate that COVID-19 is not following the expected pattern. I'm concerned that our current approach may cause significant harm to many people in a short period of time.