TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

I have a PhD in virology and immunology. After testing 1500 samples, we found no COVID, only influenza A and B. Other labs confirmed our findings. CDC couldn't provide viable COVID samples. We believe COVID is fictitious, and the 225,000 deaths were due to comorbidities. We are suing the CDC for COVID fraud. The genomic extracts of COVID were not successfully isolated. COVID is just another flu strain, not a real virus.

The speaker criticizes the suppression of published treatment options and suggests that it may be a tactic to justify emergency medical countermeasures. They find it ironic that Johns Hopkins University, named after the person who popularized Hydroxychloroquine for malaria treatment, now claims it is dangerous. The speaker also mentions the CDC's previous advocacy for Hydroxychloroquine distribution. They emphasize the audacity of the alleged crime and express surprise at the public's blindness to the information presented.

It is nearly impossible to publish data that goes against the national public health narrative, preventing doctors from finding solutions. The speaker has conducted clinical trials for pharmaceutical companies, including vaccine studies, and has brought vaccines and other drugs to market. Some drugs never made it to market because they killed people. Clinical trial guidelines ensure safe drugs, but these guidelines were not followed during the pandemic, affecting everyone. COVID should have been a time for doctors to unite, but interference with research occurred. Science evolves through experiments, skepticism, and an open mind. Challenging current knowledge must be allowed to move science forward, but what the speaker witnessed during the pandemic was not science.

In the past, medical advice on eggs, aspirin, and other issues has been corrected without retracting articles. However, during the COVID pandemic, poorly researched articles were used to attack individuals like us. Now, as COVID cases decrease, these articles are being withdrawn from public view. If evidence is being buried, shouldn't that raise a red flag for you?

Speaker 0 argues that the test cannot distinguish live from dead matter, only analyzes fragments and is set up to guarantee false positives, which the speaker claims was used to create case numbers for declaring a public health emergency of international concern and to enable untested drugs or vaccines to be used on people. Speaker 1 adds that the biggest lie may be that true viral isolates are unavailable, noting that the claimed genome of SARS-CoV-2 exists only in silico as a computer-programmed genome. The speaker says fear is created to control people, describing “fake mythical flying unicorns” that make us sick and asserting that disease is constructed rather than evidenced by visible agents. They claim that there is no evidence of transmission or isolations supporting the idea of a pathogen causing disease in the usual sense. The speaker references Andrew Kaufman, Doctor Cowan, Stephen Lunk, and others to support the claim that, after a year of pandemic conditions, there is no virus proven through traditional means, including in the 1918 influenza pandemic. They state that volunteers were exposed to sputum from infected individuals, or to the sputum directly, without becoming ill; some experiments involved injecting processed material, which also did not cause illness. They note that horses did not consistently transmit illness when exposed to similar materials, and conclude that influenza does not originate from a Latin term for a virus but means “influence,” suggesting historical transmission evidence is weak. The speakers discuss that we do not have approved evidence of transmission, a virus, a test, or autopsies; what exists is a syndrome of symptoms—flu-like symptoms without pathognomonic signs. They propose several alternative causes for COVID-19–like illness, including transmissibility that appears real but isn’t, radiation effects, and other non-disease explanations. Speaker 1 references Dr. Cowan’s book Contagion to illustrate how radiation exposure in mines could mimic disease transmission, where illness is not truly infectious. They argue that non-ionizing electromagnetic fields (EMF) and exposure to graphene oxide toxicity (claimed to be present in vaccines and referred to as viral-based genetic therapies by the FDA) could produce COVID-like symptoms. They also acknowledge an artificially created spike protein in a lab as a known factor. However, they reiterate that there is no evidence for the mythical SARS-CoV-2 virus as a causative agent. In summary, the dialogue challenges the existence of proven SARS-CoV-2 isolates, questions the validity of tests and transmission evidence, and proposes alternative explanations for the illness, including EMF toxicity, graphene oxide toxicity, and lab-made spike proteins, while highlighting a lack of definitive proof for traditional viral causation.

The speaker questions the presence of SB40 sequences in vaccines, suggesting they could lead to cancer through insertional mutagenesis. They advocate for alternative treatments like hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, claiming they are safe and effective. The speaker criticizes the FDA for redacting data on vaccine contamination, questioning their transparency.

In the 1970s, Sloan Kettering Memorial Cancer Center conducted a study on Laetrile (vitamin B17) to determine its effectiveness against cancer. Despite evidence showing its effectiveness, they wanted to prove it was not effective, similar to the current situation with Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine. The study was led by Dr. Kinamitsu Segura, who found that Laetrile improved the health of mice, relieved pain, inhibited tumor growth, stopped tumor spread, and acted as a cancer prevention. However, the board of directors at Sloan Kettering was not interested in publishing the report because Laetrile couldn't be patented. Dr. Segura was removed from the project and discredited. The official statement from Sloan Kettering denied any anticancer properties of Laetrile. The California report, which opposed Laetrile, was later found to have falsified information.

A speaker claims remdesivir, an experimental drug, caused COVID-19 patient deaths in hospitals between days one and nine of a ten-day treatment. The speaker states that Dr. Anthony Fauci claimed in May 2020 that remdesivir was found safe and effective in an African drug trial in February 2019, and he hyperlinked the study in a memo to hospitals. The speaker says that the African trial actually showed a 53% death rate, leading the safety board to suspend remdesivir use and notify funders of its toxicity. The speaker alleges that Dr. Fauci and his NIH department funded the Ebola trial in Africa. The speaker accuses Fauci of lying to Congress and the American people by claiming the drug was safe and effective when the safety board deemed it too deadly and toxic.

The speaker, a gastroenterologist, discusses their research on the microbiome and COVID-19. They found that the virus lingers in stools, hydroxychloroquine kills the virus but harms the microbiome, and bifidobacteria is crucial for immunity. Their studies on vitamin C, ivermectin, and mRNA vaccines' effects on bifidobacteria faced challenges in publication due to going against the mainstream narrative. They highlight the importance of unbiased research and collaboration in finding solutions. The speaker also raises concerns about pharmaceutical companies prioritizing profits over patient safety during the pandemic.

Speaker 0: They think I'm dangerous for speaking the truth. Speaker 1: Dr. Stella Emmanuel was part of a video claiming, without evidence, that hydroxychloroquine is a cure for COVID-19. The video was taken down by social media platforms for spreading misinformation. Despite the backlash, Dr. Emmanuel insists that hydroxychloroquine could be part of a cure. Dr. Anthony Fauci disagrees, stating that scientific data consistently shows hydroxychloroquine is not effective in treating COVID-19.

Speaker 1 states they haven't been encouraged to speak about a BioShield, as they are not a political person, but believe it holds a solution for both COVID and cancer. The speaker believes the two are completely connected. They claim the political deep state is powerful, vicious, and egotistical, to the point of stopping good science. The speaker is now speaking out because the drug is approved, but only for bladder cancer. They claim it has the same treatment effect for pancreatic cancer, lung cancer, and triple negative breast cancer. They state it is the only molecule for fifty years that upregulates killer cells.

A recent study claimed that the malaria drug Chloroquine does not inhibit SARS CoV 2. However, upon closer examination, it was found that the drug does work in kidney cells but not in lung cells. The study used a lung cancer cell line called KLU three, which led to the misunderstanding that Chloroquine allows the virus to attack cancer cells but not normal cells. This misinterpretation was deliberately hidden in the appendix of the study, contributing to a disinformation campaign. In reality, Chloroquine is a highly effective drug that can protect normal cells from the virus.

A recent study claimed that the malaria drug chloroquine doesn't inhibit SARS-CoV-2, but the study used KLU-3 lung cells. After looking at the study, I realized KLU-3 cells are lung cancer cells. I contacted the author, pointing out that the study inadvertently demonstrated that chloroquine allows viruses to attack cancer cells while protecting normal cells because cancer cells are de-differentiated with different receptors. The author misinterpreted the data. The fact that they used KLU-3 lung cells was hidden in the appendix. This is disinformation. They're saying chloroquine is unlikely to work against SARS-CoV-2. On the contrary, this proves that chloroquine is incredibly smart because it lets viruses attack cancer cells, not normal cells.

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.

Doctors were aware that hydroxychloroquine was safe until the media suggested otherwise. They claimed it was both safe and effective, but when the narrative shifted to it being unsafe, despite its 70-year history and a government database showing it to be safer than Tylenol, it raised concerns. The assertion of its lack of safety felt like a significant deception.

Manufacturers of nasal products were allegedly warned against promoting or researching their products for COVID-19. One company was allegedly denied FDA permission to study its product's effect on COVID-19. Another company, COFIX Rx, allegedly received warnings to stop promoting its product for COVID-19. The speaker claims anything that worked for COVID-19 faced strict government opposition, including hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, and virucidal nasal sprays. Higher dose corticosteroids, zinc, vitamin D, vitamin C, quercetin, over-the-counter famotidine, and colchicine were also allegedly effective treatments. A high-quality trial allegedly showed colchicine reduced hospitalization and death, but the federal government never mentioned it. Aspirin and blood thinners were allegedly not mentioned for blood clot prevention. The speaker asserts the only advice given was to fear the virus, lockdown, social distance, wear masks, use hand sanitizer (none of which allegedly work), and repeatedly get vaccinated. The speaker concludes the COVID-19 response was allegedly about mandating vaccines.

An experimental drug called remdesivir will be responsible for people's deaths. People diagnosed with COVID-19 in the hospital died between day one and day nine, specifically on day nine of a ten-day remdesivir treatment. Dr. Anthony Fauci claimed in May 2020 that remdesivir was found safe and effective in a drug trial in Africa a year earlier (02/2019), and hyperlinked the study in a memo to hospitals. However, in that trial, remdesivir killed 53% of people, and the safety board suspended its use at month six, deeming it too deadly and toxic for Ebola patients. Dr. Anthony Fauci and his department at the NIH funded the Ebola trial in Africa in 02/2019. Therefore, Fauci lied to Congress and the American people by claiming the drug was safe and effective against Ebola, when the safety board had deemed it too deadly and pulled it from the trial.

The speaker claims there is active suppression of positive vitamin D news and research because it competes with top-selling drugs. The speaker presented data to top vitamin D researchers and faced vicious attacks, with researchers claiming vitamin D doesn't do what the data suggested. The speaker stated they were only presenting assembled data. The speaker was told they were jeopardizing careers of researchers who had spent their lives studying vitamin D, because they never conceived the presented data could be true.

A recent study claimed that 17,000 people died from Hydroxychloroquine, but Robert Kennedy Jr. pointed out flaws in the study. The drug was given to COVID patients already in the hospital instead of within the first 10 to 14 days when it is effective. The dosage administered was also much higher than recommended. While these mistakes may have contributed to deaths, it is important to consider how many lives could have been saved if the drug was used correctly. Hydroxychloroquine has been widely used for malaria and sometimes drugs are discovered to have additional benefits. The politicization of these drugs is unfortunate, especially considering their affordability.

Sabine Hazen and her panel critique a hydroxychloroquine paper, calling it a fake paper with fake data: "This is a fake paper. This is a fake data." They cite claims of "seventeen thousand people died" and "96,000 patients" in the Lancet as fraudulent, arguing no way "70,000 medical records" could be used. Xavier Ezolber analyzes data miscalculation, "data inconsistency" and "fabricated" results, criticizing the peer-review process and predatory journals that "launder scientific papers." He says, "There is a corruption in medicine," "money talks for sure," and "lobbyists control both sides of the politics." They recount frontline experiences with hydroxychloroquine–Z Pak–vitamins and ivermectin–doxycycline protocols, reporting "zero mortality, zero hospitalizations" in some cohorts and highlighting the microbiome’s role. They urge transparency, critique drug trial processes, and question vaccine strategies, stressing early outpatient treatment research.

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 recent study found that the malaria drug Chloroquine does not inhibit SARS CoV 2 in lung cells, although it may work in kidney cells. The speaker, who has experience in ocular oncology, contacted the author of the study and pointed out that the lung cells used in the study were actually cancer cells. This means that Chloroquine allows the virus to attack cancer cells but not normal cells. The speaker believes that this is a misinterpretation of the data and accuses the study of being part of a disinformation campaign. They argue that Chloroquine is actually a very effective drug.

The speakers argue that scientific papers claiming the existence of SARS CoV-2 are flawed and lack scientific evidence. They believe these papers rely on faith rather than solid scientific methods. They point out that virologists have not been able to isolate the virus from bodily fluids or tissues. Stefan Lanka's experiment supports this claim, as he observed the same effects in a cell culture without adding any viral material. The speakers mention that virologists they spoke to refused to discuss isolation but focused on electron photographs and genomics as proof of the virus's existence.

Speaker 0 argues that, when re-examining the data from the original study, the raw numbers reveal a different pattern than what the study’s modeling suggested. Specifically, they state that, in the raw proportions, every single one of the 22 chronic disease categories was proportionally higher in the vaccinated group. This includes cancer, which the study reportedly treated as a control condition and claimed there was no difference for. According to Speaker 0, the study’s use of cancer as a control is at odds with the raw data they observed. They claim that there was a difference in cancer outcomes, contrary to the study’s implication of no difference. They emphasize that, with rare outcomes, the modeling employed in the original analysis is not very reliable, and as a result, the study did not perform any basic proportional analysis. Speaker 0 states that when they performed a basic proportional analysis themselves, cancer was fifty-four percent higher in the vaccinated group compared to the unvaccinated children. They mention that this result is “explained biologically” and assert that there is biological plausibility behind it. Key points: - Raw proportions show all 22 chronic disease categories higher in the vaccinated group, including cancer. - The original study used cancer as a control and claimed no difference, which Speaker 0 disputes based on the raw data. - Modeling for rare outcomes is described as not very reliable. - A basic proportional analysis by Speaker 0 indicates cancer is 54% higher in the vaccinated group versus the unvaccinated. - A biological explanation or plausibility is asserted for the observed cancer difference in the vaccinated group.

The speaker believes COVID vaccine programs should be stopped. They are astounded by the number of papers critical of the vaccine or showing negative effects. The speaker claims a group of researchers funded by Pfizer and the NIH bullies editors to retract papers with negative findings about the vaccine. They assert the number of retractions is appalling. According to the speaker, in one instance where an editor resisted, Nature Springer bought the journal and retracted the paper. The speaker states that this is what they have been dealing with.