reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The video discusses the alleged financial incentives given to hospitals for COVID patients and treatments. It claims that hospitals receive money for each COVID patient admitted, for positive COVID test results, and for using the drug remdesivir. The video suggests that these incentives led to false positives and inappropriate treatments, such as putting patients on ventilators. It also shares personal stories of individuals who experienced mistreatment in hospitals. The video concludes by urging viewers to be cautious and avoid hospitals if possible.

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.

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.

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 reflects on the death of their father and expresses conflicting emotions. They believe that their father was murdered by the medical system. The video discusses the use of Remdesivir as the standard treatment for COVID-19 in hospitals, despite its limited effectiveness and potential side effects. The speaker's father requested alternative treatments such as Ivermectin and high doses of vitamins, but these requests were denied. The speaker questions why hospitals adhere strictly to protocols and why patients are not given the right to try different treatments. The video ends with the speaker expressing their grief and longing for justice.

I contracted COVID from my gardener, who sadly passed away after we both went to the same hospital. We both received remdesivir, which I later learned can cause serious harm, including kidney failure. I struggled to walk for three months afterward. It raises questions about the decisions made by health authorities, especially regarding the restriction of monoclonal antibodies. This seems driven by a desire to promote vaccines for profit, which is deeply troubling. The prioritization of money over human lives is a real and concerning issue.

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.

In this video, the speaker presents a chart showing the reported adverse events of different drugs over 28 years. They mention that Ivermectin, Hydroxychloroquine, and Dexamethasone are relatively safe drugs. However, they express concern about remdesivir and the COVID vaccines, stating that the response to COVID has been a failure. They highlight that the VAERS system has recorded 1,600,000 adverse events related to the COVID vaccines alone. The speaker also mentions social media censorship and the Biden administration's involvement in it. Overall, they believe that the true numbers regarding adverse events are being suppressed.

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

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.

Speaker 0: There were four drugs that were being tested for Ebola. Remdesivir killed more people than placebo, and the data safety monitoring board had actually stopped the study where literally fifty three percent of Speaker 1: the patients died in the failed Ebola trial and was repurposed. It was a failed Ebola drug because it caused more harm than good in Ebola trials. It was still unpatent. It was Tony Fauci's drug of choice. The majority of hospital deaths were actually caused by Anthony Fauci because his NIH put out protocols that if the hospital systems adhered to, they got bonuses, big bonuses, lots of money, $3,000 per for putting an IV in of remdesivir. Boom. $3,000. But guess what? On top of the entire hospital stay, a 20% bonus, that could be hundreds of thousands of dollars. Speaker 0: The data was so overwhelming that remdesivir killed patients more so than placebo. The drug had to be stopped, and this was published in the New England Journal in the 2019. Speaker 2: What happened during COVID could not have happened without propaganda and censorship. And how do we overcome that propaganda and censorship? It's primarily through people not being willing to shut up.

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.

We ended our previous episode with our COVID pyramid, build layer upon layer of lies, deceit, fraud, scandals. Now, by now you’re wondering how so many hospitals, doctors, and health care workers went along with all of the above. We have reached the capstone of our nauseating COVID pyramid. Pyramid. We shall name the capstone M and M, money and murder in hospitals. Shocking as it may sound, we’ve seen it before. Remember the unjust administering the killer drug midazolam in The UK as shown in part 19? Well, The US and many other countries had their own version called remdesivir. Here’s what happened. Hospitals were given incentives, as in money, for each and every COVID casualty. According to whistleblowers, investigative journalists, lawyers, and specialists, Hospitals in The US have been receiving $13,000 for every admitted COVID patient. There have been financial extras for every COVID test, for every positive outcome. If patients were treated with the only prescribed drug, remdesivir, the hospital received yet another bonus: 20% of the entire hospital bill of the patient. Then for every patient put on a ventilator, the hospital received $39,000. And if that patient officially died of COVID nineteen, they got yet another $13,000. That’s a lot of money. According to attorney Thomas Renz and CMS whistleblowers, the hospitals receive approximately $100,000 per COVID casualty if the above protocol was followed. Now the thing is, the American hospitals received this money in advance based on the COVID predictions, based on the flawed models of people like Brooks. If the hospitals didn’t actually meet those models, they had to pay that money back at a later stage. And we’re talking millions of dollars here. So what happened? Everybody who was admitted to a hospital, for instance because of a car accident or because of cancer or diabetes or kidney failure, everybody got a PCR test to start with. Due to the ridiculous amount of cycles, there was an abundance of false positives. False positives equals positives equals COVID patients equals money. Hence, the sunrise in COVID patients. Then remdesivir left its detrimental mark just like midazolam had done in The UK. You see, remdesivir is not a new drug. It was used in 2018 during the West African Ebola outbreak. It was known to have severe adverse effects such as kidney damage, liver damage, and even death. Yet in 2020, Anthony Fauci directed that remdesivir was to be the drug hospitals used to treat COVID nineteen, hence the incentives. So what happened next? Those poor patients only got worse, after which they were put on a ventilator. After all, that was yet another bonus of many thousands of dollars pouring straight into the pockets of the hospitals. Now the problem with ventilators is that the patient is put into an induced coma. His or her breathing is taken over by a machine that puts extra pressure on the lungs called barrow pressure. In the case of damaged lungs due to for instance pneumonia, those lungs will only get worse. The chances of that patient recovering, of being able to be taken off the ventilator and to start breathing by himself are very, very small. Combined with organ failure as a result of remdesivir, the chances of that patient ever leaving the hospital alive are next to nothing.

VAX 3 focuses on the COVID-19 response, including reactions to the COVID-19 vaccine, described as potentially the most damaging vaccine ever introduced. It also covers hospital protocols where unvaccinated individuals were allegedly targeted. According to the speaker, different protocols and care standards were applied based on vaccination status. Unvaccinated patients were purportedly given repurposed Ebola drugs like Remdesivir, which allegedly killed half the patients in its Ebola clinical trials and was a moneymaker for Anthony Fauci and the National Institutes For Allergies and Infectious Diseases. The speaker claims unvaccinated patients were quickly put on mechanical ventilation, which dries out the lungs. If they resisted treatment or wanted to leave, they were allegedly given a cocktail of drugs, including Fentanyl, propofol, and morphine, and sometimes placed in 4-point restraints with their cell phones confiscated. The speaker alleges this protocol led to higher death rates among the unvaccinated to create the appearance that unvaccinated people are dying in hospitals more.

The speaker expresses concern about the death of a patient and questions if the hospital staff may have caused it. They discuss the lack of proper care and negligence in the hospital, with patients not being coded and families being misled. The speaker decides to go undercover and record their experiences. They mention the inappropriate use of ventilators and the lack of qualified staff. The video also touches on the financial incentives for admitting patients and the suppression of alternative treatments. The speaker highlights the importance of early treatment and criticizes the focus on ventilators.

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.

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 experiences of doctors who have faced backlash for advocating for Ivermectin and suggests that powerful forces, including pharmaceutical companies, may be suppressing its use. It also mentions studies and success stories from countries like Peru, India, and Japan where Ivermectin has been used effectively. The video raises concerns about the influence of pharmaceutical companies on media and academic research. Overall, it presents Ivermectin as a potentially valuable treatment option that has been unfairly maligned.

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

The US has purchased the majority of the world's supply of the COVID-19 drug remdesivir, causing concern among patients and healthcare professionals. Remdesivir has been shown to reduce hospitalization time for seriously ill patients, but its high cost and limited availability raise questions about global access to the treatment. Another effective drug, dexamethasone, is significantly cheaper and has been proven to reduce the risk of death in severely ill patients. While the NHS has enough remdesivir for current patients, the long-term supply is uncertain. A doctor shares his frustration with hospital interference in treatment protocols, highlighting the limitations and dangers of hospital care.

Patients were desperate for ivermectin as their loved ones died, but the focus shifted to remdesivir, a previously failed Ebola drug. By November 2020, the World Health Organization advised against its use, citing ineffectiveness and potential kidney and liver damage. The European Society of Critical Care supported this stance. Despite the warnings, the U.S. Health and Human Services incentivized hospitals with a 20% bonus for administering remdesivir, leading to widespread use. It failed to reduce mortality and caused serious injuries, with some patients dying as a result. In May 2022, the WHO reaffirmed its initial decision, stating that remdesivir should never have been used.

I've stated since May 2020 that remdesivir will result in at least 30% death in those who receive it in the hospital. I had data pulled for Medicare patients in New York, and found that 26.9% of those who received remdesivir died. As of October 2020, the cardiovascular toxicology journal found that remdesivir causes death of heart cells and can lead to cardiac arrest. Yet, in December, the NIH decided to update all guidelines for treatment drugs allowed for COVID-19, and remdesivir was the only FDA-approved drug for hospitalized Americans, despite the WHO publishing that it causes increased acute kidney failure. As of January of this year, the FDA extended an emergency use authorization, making remdesivir the only authorized medication that can be administered to newborns to 18-year-olds.

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.

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.

Conflicts and controversies surrounding remdesivir are significant. In November 2020, the World Health Organization conducted a comprehensive study and advised against using remdesivir in hospitals due to its association with death and kidney and liver injuries. Despite this, the U.S. incentivizes its use by offering hospitals a 20% bonus on the total bill if remdesivir is administered. As a doctor, I find it troubling that while other medications do not provide such financial incentives, the use of remdesivir can lead to substantial additional costs for hospitals, contradicting the WHO's recommendations. This situation highlights a serious disconnect in medical decision-making.

Although I am not a doctor, I’m a nurse. On the front lines we knew what was happening. When we asked for ibuprofen, they said no. When we asked why we weren’t giving steroids, the answer was “we’re just following orders.” Following orders has led to the sheer number of deaths in these hospitals. I didn’t see a single patient die of COVID. I’ve seen a substantial number die of negligence and medical malfeasance. When I was on the front lines of New York, I became globally known as the nurse in the break room sobbing, saying they were murdering my patients. Pharmaceutical companies had gone into those hospitals and decided to practice on the minorities, the disadvantaged, the marginalized populations with no advocates, because the very agencies that should protect them were closed while we were sheltering in place. While I was there, pharmaceutical companies rolled out remdesivir onto a substantial number of patients, which we all saw was killing the patients. And now, it’s the FDA-approved drug that is continuing to kill patients in the United States. As nurses, we’ve collected a descriptive amount of information that you may not get from the doctors. Doctors do quantitative data; we do qualitative data with a humanistic, phenomenological approach in nursing research. We’ve collected data from patients across the country for which we’ve helped patients through the American Front Line Nurses and the advocacy network so nurses could advocate for these patients. This data pool shows that as these patients get remdesivir, they have a less than twenty-five percent chance of survival if they get more than two doses. Now they’re rolling it out on children as well and into nursing homes or skilled nursing facilities as early intervention, even though doctors Pierre Corre and Merrick have demonstrated that there are cost-effective medications out there, and we are going to see the amplification of death across the country. We haven’t even touched on vaccines, which our expert panels have described; I won’t touch on that since many are far superior to me. Two days ago I flew out my first 10-year-old with a heart attack and had to fight the ER doctor because he said, “ten-year-olds don’t have heart attacks.” I argued for thirty minutes to force his hand to get an EKG and found a STEMI; the 12-lead EKG lit up. He said it wasn’t possible, and I said, “was just vaccinated yesterday. It is very much possible.” People contact me and the nurse advocates at American Front Line Nurses to help advocate, because there’s victim shaming—“it’s anxiety,” “it’s this.” But if they acknowledge it as a vaccine injury, the physician, the corporation, the hospital, the clinic may not get reimbursed, so it’s labeled as anxiety, neuropathy, or Guillain–Barré syndrome, when it’s very realistically a vaccine injury. I’ve traveled to South America, India, and South Africa, working in hot zones, stopping the spread of the virus and doing early intervention. Nowhere in developing nations do I see these issues that we see here in the United States. I’m a very proud American citizen from a family of immigrants. Our level of health care has deteriorated to substandard third-world-nation health care. You are better off in South America in a field hospital than in level-one trauma designer hospitals in the United States. As nurses, we are getting reports across the country from American frontline nurses about patients not getting food, water, or basic care. How come a patient hasn’t been fed in nine days? Why do I need a court order to force a hospital to feed a person who isn’t intubated and who would like food? If they’re on a ventilator, they’re not given water or basic care. We’re not allowed to take a BiPAP mask off to help someone eat. I’ve had patients who haven’t been bathed, haven’t been fed, and haven’t been given water, or been turned. This isn’t a hospital; this is a concentration camp. Nowhere in the United States do we isolate people for hundreds of hours with no human contact; it’s not allowed even in prisons. In hospitals, we isolate patients from their families for days, and you have to say goodbye over an iPhone, or you have to shuttle people in to see them. I was fired for sneaking a Hispanic family in to say the last rites to their family. Thank you, Senator Johnson, for giving nurses the opportunity to represent our patients, because we’re not often thought of as leading professionals, though we are the missing link between the doctors and the patients. Thank you for this time. Thank you for being a nurse.