reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speaker discusses a sequence of beliefs and reactions about moles on the skin. They claim they were fact-checked after previously stating that moles are an accumulation of toxins in the skin region, and that claim was deemed not true. They recount telling people they could apply a mixture of organic coconut oil or castor oil with a little pearl directly on the mole, which would cause the mole to break apart and disintegrate. The speaker argues that fact-checkers opposed the idea of toxins in the skin and suggested it is a tactic to sell petroleum-based chemicals to keep people returning to professionals, implying that moles are simply a buildup of toxins and can be completely removed, including in areas not exposed to the sun. The speaker asserts that moles appear in areas not exposed to the sun due to toxins accumulating in the skin, and maintains that toxins are responsible for spots on the skin, which remain there. They claim that applying pearl with coconut oil or castor oil directly to the mole will cause it to break apart. If moles were not an accumulation of toxins, the speaker argues, they wouldn’t break apart with this treatment, and there wouldn’t be a fact-check criticizing the toxins claim. Additionally, the speaker mentions having been fact-checked many times and notes one particular fact-checker who allegedly won an Emmy Award for fact-checking, describing him as “the guy who fact checked my page” and noting that their page has been repeatedly targeted by fact-checks, which the speaker characterizes as comical nonsense. The overall tone presents a confrontation with fact-checking and a defense of the toxin-based explanation and at-home remedy narrative.

Speaker 0 argues that YouTube removed his videos by labeling the topic as medical misinformation. He states that the body produces parasites just as it produces fever, chills, nausea, vomiting, and other responses to try to rid the body of threats. When the body is overloaded with heavy metals, plastics, and toxins, he claims the body will produce worms to keep you alive, a phenomenon he says applies to animals as well (dogs, cats, chickens, cows, horses). He asserts that when animals are fed toxins or injected with heavy metals, the body becomes loaded with metals and will attempt to heal itself by creating parasites to remove the toxins and heavy metals. He contends that most people turn to ivermectin or fenbendazole and other pharmaceutical products, but these do not resolve the issue because heavy metals are never removed. He emphasizes the need to focus on pulling heavy metals out of the body and detoxing. He mentions several methods or substances people can use for this detoxification, including dragon’s blood, turpentine, raw milk, raw meat, cilantro, and wormwood. He notes that wormwood has been used for the last five hundred years to pull heavy metals out of the body. According to him, once heavy metals are pulled out, the worms begin to go away. He observes that on social media there is fear about worms jumping and infecting people, but he says that fear is unfounded and describes a broader critique of being programmed to destroy one’s own body, which he finds illogical given the goal of taking care of one’s body. Finally, he advocates cleaning up one’s diet, spending time in the sun, and generally taking care of oneself as part of the healing process. He frames these steps as essential to healing, arguing that through these practices, people can heal from the issues driven by heavy metals and toxins, and that the detoxification is what makes the worms disappear rather than relying on conventional anti-parasitic drugs alone.

The speaker discusses the misconception that sunlight causes skin cancer, emphasizing that lack of sun exposure can actually increase the risk. They explain that UVB is not the main culprit, but rather UVA. Sunscreens that only block UVB can lead to vitamin D deficiency, increasing cancer risk. Excessive use of sunscreen with harmful chemicals can harm the skin and potentially cause skin cancer. The speaker advises against washing off vitamin D-producing oils on the skin immediately after sun exposure. They also highlight the importance of maintaining healthy skin bacteria by avoiding excessive use of soap.

The speaker announces a happy eclipse and a giveaway for pearl powder, noting they were fact-checked and shown that Cultivate Elevate makes unverified claims about moles being rubbed off with pearl powder. Viewers are instructed to comment the word “pearl” and share the video with five friends for a chance to win a big bag of Pearl. The speaker references a video about them that discusses the lack of evidence that natural substances can remove moles, which are described as a buildup of toxins. They read testimonials from individuals claiming success with pearl powder. One person named Andrea says a raised mole on her chest was bothersome; doctors confirmed it was not a concern, but after applying pearl powder with a little castor oil, it dried up at the base and came off. The speaker highlights this as a positive solution. Another claim cited is that pearl powder is loved for many uses around the house, and that someone used castor oil to get rid of a mole. The speaker notes being six days into the combination and seeing it almost completely gone, and mentions using pearl powder orally and as toothpaste. The speaker questions professionals, suggesting they lie and that dermatologists don’t tell you these remedies because they charge insurance. They present another testimonial about removing moles with dragon's blood and castor oil, implying a similar outcome. A third testimonial mentions dragon’s blood and castor oil achieving mole removal. The speaker repeats the giveaway call to action: comment “Pearl” and share with five friends for a chance to win the big bag of Pearl. Towards the end, the speaker comments on the video’s framing, noting it ends by calling Pearl a trendy product. They claim Pearl dates back about four thousand years. They add a provocative assertion that professionals work for the Rockefellers and speculate on motives to “sell you poisons.” The overall message centers on promoting pearl powder as a remedy for moles, supported by personal testimonials, while contrasting this with alleged professional concealment and industry motives.

The speaker discusses peanut butter and genetics of public guidance around it. They claim peanut butter and peanuts are loaded with copper, and that this is why people are told to stay away from them. They also state that peanuts are high in zinc and label peanuts as a complete “superfood.” The speaker asserts that there is a broader narrative about mold and toxicity that leads to avoidance, but argues that whenever something is repeatedly advised to be “stay away,” one should consider using it. Further, the speaker mentions uranium glass and copper cups as items people are told to avoid, suggesting the need to “check it out” and experimentar with them to see how one feels. They advise trying organic peanut butter from Azure and report personally eating about a half a jar per day. The speaker uses this personal consumption as a counterexample to the claim that peanut butter is toxic. They imply there were toxins used to make people allergic to peanuts, though they state this as a part of what “they forgot to say about that whole thing.” The speaker reinforces the idea that peanuts are high in copper and zinc and insists that peanut butter is a “complete superfood.” The closing example stresses that if the alleged toxicity were true, the speaker would have been affected or “gone a long time ago,” given their consumption of organic peanuts. Overall, the speaker presents a contrarian view that peanut butter’s copper and zinc content, along with a supposed history of toxins and allergies, should prompt skepticism toward avoidance messages and encourage personal experimentation with organic peanut products, specifically citing Azure as a brand and advocating substantial daily intake. The argument centers on re-evaluating conventional guidance and endorsing personal dietary experimentation with peanuts and peanut butter.

The speaker discusses the Gardasil vaccine for HPV, asserting that after the age of 26, if Gardasil is administered, it causes death. They claim that studies were conducted to determine if a person had HPV, which they describe as fake, and that giving them the Gardasil vaccine after age 26 results in death. They state that this was done to scare young people into believing that the virus is widely spreading and that they need to get the vaccine before 26. The speaker recalls growing up with the belief that “everybody’s got HPV,” calling it all nonsense. They extend the claim to broadly dismiss viruses, saying that all viruses are nonsense and that the real aim is to promote poisons and sell poison, with nothing “jumping all over and gonna get you.” They attribute sickness to personal actions and describe it as detoxification, asserting that what you do to your own body causes illness and that the body’s process is a purge of toxins.

The speaker, referred to as Snake venom guy, argues that the notion of snake venom being present in water is nonsense. They claim that there is no snake venom in the water. They recount a separate anecdote about a man who has been bitten by rattlesnakes 200 times and is now immune to snake venom. The speaker emphasizes that they are not advising others to go out and test this, but they present this as a factual point about immunity. Regarding exposure to venom, the speaker explains a sequence: if someone were exposed to venom in water (the alleged scenario), that exposure would result in immunity. They further claim that drinking snake venom has no effect, and that venom only becomes dangerous when it enters the bloodstream. The speaker likens the entry of venom into the blood to the way a vaccine operates, implying that venom only poses a danger once it reaches the blood. The speaker reiterates that there is no snake venom in the water. They also make a broader assertion about the snake venom topic by asserting that the person who discusses this venom story “works for the nicotine companies.” They describe these nicotine companies as “big tobacco in the pharmaceuticals.” In their framing, nicotine products are repeatedly mentioned, with the speaker underscoring “Every time, nicotine, nicotine, nicotine, all the nicotine products, pharmaceutical companies, and big tobacco.” In summary, the speaker disputes the presence of snake venom in water, asserts that a person bitten by rattlesnakes 200 times has become immune, and claims that exposure or consumption of venom would not be dangerous unless it enters the bloodstream, where it would act similarly to a vaccine. They conclude by connecting the individual involved in the venom discussion to nicotine companies, describing those entities as a fusion of big tobacco and pharmaceutical interests, repeatedly highlighting nicotine products in association with pharmaceutical companies and big tobacco.

I angered big pharmaceutical companies with my claims on sunscreen dangers, leading to being deplatformed and accused of spreading misinformation. Scientific evidence shows 73% of sunscreen ingredients are linked to hormone disruption, pregnancy risks, and cancers. Despite providing evidence to the Wall Street Journal, they didn't share it, possibly to maintain their narrative. I believe in sharing truth and facts objectively without censorship.

Speaker 0 outlines a series of claims about mold, heavy metals, and vaccines. They begin by stating that people are eating a moldy organic beet because mold was injected to make someone allergic to it, arguing that the mold pulls out heavy metals. They claim that mold and parasites eat heavy metals, noting worms growing in the body to eat metals and mold growing in the body to eat metals, and that once the metals are eliminated, the body begins to heal. They assert that vaccinations contain heavy metals. The mold situation is described as connected to a spore, and they mention that the Cancer Institute discusses spores healing cancer, though they imply that this information is not widely told to people. The speaker adds that most vaccines also contain yeast, a form of mold, which is injected into the body to make people allergic to it so they cannot eat it to detox the metals. The conversation shifts to citric acid, labeled as something to avoid, described as a Monsanto product grown on soy and canola and aluminum, contributing heavy metals entering the body. The speaker acknowledges the possibility that someone might not want to eat organic moldy berries or similar items and then presents a list of additional detox approaches for heavy metals: dragon’s blood, organic papaya seeds, fasting, baking soda, borax, spirits of turpentine, cilantro, wormwood, and black walnut. They conclude with “And let's just leave it at this.” A historical claim is then made: in 1986, a rule was put in place to protect the vaccines, suggesting this is due to lawsuits that could bankrupt the vaccine manufacturers once the truth is known. The segment ends with a casual farewell: “Have a great day.”

Speaker 0 asserts that parasites are a result of heavy metals in the body. According to them, if someone has parasites in the gut or elsewhere, it is because they have too many heavy metals. All the substances a person puts into their body are polluting the body with heavy metals, and that is the core issue. Once heavy metals are cleaned up, the parasites that the body supposedly created will disappear. The worms are described as the body’s last line of defense against heavy metals, functioning to protect the body by consuming the metals so that a person can survive longer. Speaker 0 continues by explaining that if metals begin to enter the organs, the person will die, and this is the underlying logic behind the presence of parasites. When people notice worms and fear them, the speaker emphasizes that the body is producing these worms to eat the metals and keep the person alive long enough to enable another day. The implication is that the body will continue to generate more and more worms until the metals in the body are cleaned up, at which point the “timer” would be turned off, i.e., the threat ends. The speaker notes that on social media there are parasite cleanses and related content, but frames these as irrelevant to the real issue. The core claim is that parasites are simply a manifestation of heavy metals. The remedy, in their view, is to remove or purify heavy metals from the body; after doing so, there will be no problems. In their broader point, they argue that the metals being ingested come from every source, including what is cooked into food. They assert that metal exposure occurs during cooking and through food preparation, implying that dietary and environmental sources continually introduce metals into the body. In summary, the key points are: heavy metals cause parasites; parasites arise as a defense against heavy metals; removing heavy metals will cause parasites to disappear; metals entering organs are fatal; the presence of worms is an adaptive response to metals; ongoing metal exposure maintains parasite production; social media parasite cleans are not addressing the root cause; and food preparation and cooking contribute metals to the diet. The overall solution, according to Speaker 0, is to pull heavy metals out of the body to resolve the issue.

The speaker discusses how various products like acne products, hand sanitizers, and sunscreens have been found to cause cancer. They emphasize the importance of being cautious about what is put on the skin since it gets absorbed into the body. The speaker advises against using products with harmful ingredients and suggests opting for natural alternatives. They highlight the contradiction of products being labeled as toxic if consumed orally but deemed safe for skin application. The speaker asserts their past claims about the dangers of these products and urges people to be mindful of what they expose their bodies to.

- Speaker 0 announces a fact check giveaway for a big bag of pearl and invites viewers to comment “pearl” for a chance to win. - The fact checkers told me that you can't rub off moles and they're not the build up of toxins. - Cheryl says, “I've been using your pearl powder and coconut oil and they are slowly popping off.” - A claim about peanut oil not being in the vaccines is raised, with a prompt: “Do you read that headline from 1964?” - The speaker asks, “Do you know what caused the peanut allergies?” - Two days ago, the speaker received medical misinformation on YouTube about prostate solutions, noting, “Look at how dangerous these solutions are.” - Other items mentioned include apricots, bee pollen, shibbolshot, reishi, and not microwaving your kahonas and keeping your phone out of your pocket. - The speaker references a video about not removing wisdom teeth because they affect your heart, calling it “unsupported information,” then instructs to Google meridian lines for wisdom teeth and to see “Heart.” - They state that viruses are not real: “There are no viruses.” - The statement “What you do to your body determines how you will get ill” is made, followed by the claim that “Those masks and those boosters weren't doing much of anything other than poisoning people,” and, “If it was real, we would be gone a long time ago.” - The message ends with good luck on the fact check giveaway, noting that it “takes a simple Google search to find the truth.” - Books suggested to look into include: The Contagion Myth, The Invisible Rainbow, Can You Catch a Cold? No, you can’t, and Murder by Injection; followed by “Keyword murder, farewell to virology, light as medicine,” and then The Peanut Allergy Epidemic by Heather Frazer as another recommended read.

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.

The speaker discusses provocative ideas from the book We Want To Live regarding mold and detoxification. They claim that mold can eat heavy metals, and that moldy substances can play a detoxifying role in the body. The speaker notes that, in younger years, people were injected with penicillin, which allegedly makes you allergic to mold so that you won’t eat mold to detox heavy metals from those injections. They describe this as mind-blowing and reference the book to support the idea that mold can detoxify the body by consuming heavy metals. The speaker cites passages from We Want To Live about people consuming moldy berries to eliminate heavy metals inside the body, suggesting mold eats candida and cleanses metals and related toxins. They argue that moldy fruit such as a moldy strawberry or moldy blueberry, which many would discard, is actually detoxifying and connected to the amoxicillin, penicillin, and other penicillin-like injections used to induce allergies to mold. This, they say, is tied to the broader claim that those injections were used to make people allergic to substances that would otherwise pull metals from the body and thereby heal it. Throughout, the speaker emphasizes the emotional reaction to the book, describing it as the kind of read that makes you want to punch somebody in the face. They use the book's ideas to explain why someone might be wondering why they are allergic to something. The narrative suggests a causal chain: injections were administered to people to induce allergies to certain substances, which would otherwise facilitate detoxification by pulling metals out of the body and promoting healing. The speaker asserts that the system injected people with substances to make them allergic to others, implying a deliberate design behind such allergies that impacts detoxification processes. Overall, the speaker presents a controversial and conspiratorial interpretation of how mold, heavy metals, antibiotics, and allergic responses are linked, drawing on We Want To Live as the source for these claims. The central assertions are that mold can detox heavy metals, that moldy foods participate in this detox, and that medical injections (penicillin/amoxicillin) were used to generate mold allergies to prevent detoxification. The discussion centers on the provocative implications of these ideas and the emotional reaction they provoke.

Speaker 0 notes a contrast: people are afraid of parasites, yet caterpillars are worms too and nobody is afraid of them. They suggest this is something to think about. They state that the body makes parasites, and when there are too many heavy metals in the body, the body will make worms. Therefore, they argue, one should be afraid of the metals put into the body—like pesticides, vaccines, toxins, and related substances. They claim that people will take dewormers made by Rockefeller-founded pharmaceutical companies to destroy the worms, and question what these dewormers actually do, asserting that they destroy your own body. They remark that it’s wild to think about these things and that the dewormers’ origin isn’t commonly known, mentioning Rockefeller and “Great Public school.” The speaker contends that Rockefeller-created synthetic dewormers are sold as poison to destroy worms, while making the worm seem dangerous when, in reality, it’s one’s own habits being the issue. They then reference doctor Joel Weinstock, claiming he was healing diseases with parasites, adding this as something to think about.

Speaker 0 argues that it was not until the 1960s, with the SPF push, that people were told not to go out in the sun. The claim is that Big Pharma created SPF and told people to avoid sun exposure, promoting petroleum-based sunscreens with many chemicals perceived as linked to illnesses the sunscreen is meant to prevent. The speaker asserts that, once you look at lawsuits, there are many cases claiming sunscreen causes skin cancer because of the chemicals baked into the skin for hours. The speaker describes observing people at pools and beaches who spray sunscreen all over their bodies and then questions why they experience acne, hormonal issues, low energy, fatigue, and infertility, suggesting that these problems stem from absorbing chemicals through the skin, noting that the skin is the largest organ. The claim is made that sunscreen makes no sense and that the sun heals, while pointing to the government’s ongoing efforts to block sunlight. The speaker asks why the government spends so much time blocking the sun and offers a rationale: if there were lots of sunshine, people would have revolutions. According to the speaker, cold weather keeps people indoors, watching Netflix and cuddling up, reducing the likelihood of revolt, whereas abundant sunshine would incite revolts, which is presented as the reason behind extensive sun-blocking efforts. Throughout, the speaker ties sunscreen use to broader social and political manipulation, presenting a narrative where the sun’s healing properties are real, sunscreen chemicals are harmful, and public policy is driven by a desire to suppress dissent. The overarching theme is that the sun is beneficial and that the promotion of sunscreen by Big Pharma in the 1960s represents a deliberate attempt to control people and prevent revolutions.

One speaker argues that mold should not be feared because mold consists of spores, and spores are everywhere; spores are equated to pollen, suggesting that fear of mold is unfounded since they are the same thing. The other speaker adds that there are studies indicating that “those ones all heal all the diseases,” highlighting a notion that fear campaigns around mold are misleading. They claim that if a person has mold, candida, or similar issues in their body, it signifies “too many toxins” and that the body is signaling this excess as a remedy to keep the person alive. The dialogue includes a specific recollection about Ajana, who purportedly said that certain things are in the body so that toxins, metals, or similar substances may not actually take you out; otherwise they would seep into the organs and end you quickly. This is presented as evidence of the body’s miraculous nature. A central theme repeatedly asserted is that “the human body is absolutely miraculous” and that “everything is reversible.” The speakers list various conditions—autism, autoimmune diseases, lupus, and even eyesight—claiming they have witnessed people reverse these conditions. It is stated that people can regenerate their eyes and no longer need an eye professional, and that reversing all conditions is possible if one takes initiative. The speakers critique the medical establishment, implying that “every single professional will tell you the opposite because they want you to be their patient for life.” This sentiment is tied to a broader call for personal action: if people do not make changes—such as removing WiFi or taking other unspecified steps—they will continue to complain rather than find solutions. Overall, the message emphasizes that fear about molds and toxins is misguided, that the body possesses remarkable self-healing capabilities, and that proactive efforts can reverse a wide range of health issues. The speakers express a strong desire to provide solutions and to move people forward, rather than remain mired in complaint.

The Wall Street Journal questioned why sunscreen is not used. The speaker promotes a tallow-based sun balm as a healthier alternative to chemical sunscreens. They were fact-checked by the Journal, revealing conflicts of interest with scientists funded by Johnson & Johnson. The speaker suspects financial motives behind sunscreen recommendations.

The speaker discusses mold, heavy metals, and detoxification in a way that connects several claims. Key points include: - A moldy organic beet is referenced as something consumed because mold supposedly makes someone allergic by pulling out heavy metals; the speaker asserts that mold and parasites eat heavy metals, and that once metals are eliminated, the body begins to heal. - The speaker claims that vaccines contain heavy metals and that mold is connected to a spore; they reference the idea that spores heal cancer, citing the Cancer Institute to suggest the information exists there, even if not publicly told. - It is stated that most vaccines also contain yeast, described as a form of mold, which is injected into the body to make people allergic to it so they cannot detox the metals. - There is a claim about citric acid: described as something to avoid, a Monsanto product grown on soy and canola and aluminum, with heavy metals going into the body. - The speaker questions what to do instead of eating organic moldy berries, then lists additional heavy metal detox methods: dragon's blood, organic papaya seeds, fasting, baking soda, borax, spirits of turpentine, cilantro, wormwood, and black walnut. - They mention a regulatory point from 1986: a rule was put in place to protect vaccines, allegedly to prevent lawsuits that could bankrupt the vaccine system when people discover “the truth.” - The closing line is a salutation: “Have a great day.” Note: The content presents a sequence of interconnected claims about mold, heavy metals, vaccines, and detox methods, presenting both the asserted mechanisms (mold and parasites eating metals; vaccines containing heavy metals and yeast to induce allergy) and suggested alternatives (listed detox methods) alongside the implication of a regulatory protection mechanism from 1986.

Speaker 0 argues that eye doctors are trying to debunk his videos now, claiming pearl powder cannot heal the eyes because it would reduce their clientele. Speaker 1 responds, saying, “I promise you it’s a lie and you sir, you should be ashamed of yourself.” Speaker 0 cites claims about pearl powder healing eyes. He references Doctor Wang, who used pearl powder with 28 patients and found that sixty-six percent recovered from cataracts after one month. He then presents other anecdotes: someone had a prescription for twenty-five years; after using pearl powder, their vision shifted from negative 5.5 to negative 4.75. Another person reports that after stopping prescribed pills, pearl powder began working. Regarding astigmatism, another person says they have been taking Pearl capsules for two months at age 50, and their astigmatism is almost gone with improved vision. He notes an 88-year-old using pearl powder who experienced cataracts going away and a thirty percent reduction in floaters. He asserts that professionals are trying to keep their patients for life, implying the anecdotal results are real while professionals deny them. Speaker 0 then says the proof is in the pudding, and he offers sources to look into for eye healing. He lists Light as Medicine of the Future by Jacob Liberman, noting Liberman is an eye doctor who wrote it. He mentions another Liberman work, Take Off Your Glasses and See, explaining that Liberman realized his patients were getting worse wearing glasses. He also cites Strengthening of the Eyes by Bernard McFadden, and references concepts like sungazing and “the things they haven’t told you.” He ends with, “Have a great day!”

The speaker presents a series of claims about mold, heavy metals, and vaccines, framing them as interconnected health dangers and detox strategies. They begin by describing eating a moldy organic beet and claim that mold was used to make someone allergic to it because “the mold pulls out the heavy metals.” They state, “Mold and parasites eat heavy metals,” and claim that “worms growing in your body to eat the metals” and “mold growing in your body to eat the metals” can be found, with healing occurring once heavy metals are eliminated. The speaker asserts that vaccinations contain heavy metals. They then say, “what’s also interesting on the mold situation is it’s connected to a spore,” and claim that “if you go to the Cancer Institute, they talk about how spores heal cancer, but I guess they don’t wanna tell people that.” The discussion deepens with the claim that most vaccines also contain yeast, “a form of mold,” which is being injected into the body to make people allergic to it so they can’t eat it to detox the metals. When addressing cautions about food, someone asks about citric acid, described as “the one to avoid.” The speaker asserts it is “a Monsanto product grown on soy and canola and aluminum,” implying heavy metals enter the body through this product. The speaker then offers detox alternatives for heavy metals, listing: dragon’s blood, organic papaya seeds, fasting, baking soda, borax, spirits of turpentine, cilantro, wormwood, and black walnut. They conclude with a brief historical note: “1986, they put a rule in place to protect the vaccines,” suggesting it was due to lawsuits that could bankrupt vaccine makers, and sign off with “Have a great day.” In summary, the transcript presents a chain of claims that mold and parasites target heavy metals in the body, vaccines contain heavy metals and possibly yeast, spores are linked to healing cancer, citric acid from Monsanto products is a heavy-metal source, and a set of natural and chemical detox methods is proposed. It also asserts a regulatory measure in 1986 intended to shield vaccine manufacturers from lawsuits.

The speaker challenges common beliefs about parasites and contagion. They assert that fear campaigns on social media about parasites jumping from person to person have not been proven; no studies have demonstrated transmission of parasites between individuals. Instead, they claim that when an animal is loaded with heavy metals, it will grow parasites in its body to eat the metals, and that parasites are an indicator of heavy metals. The speaker states that there are about 5,000 studies on PubMed supporting this point and invites listeners to search Google for these studies. They argue that science has “figured” this out, but claim that the consequence is that people are sold dewormers, which the speaker characterizes as poison.

The speaker says the reason for the checks is to get attention. When they do these things, the legacy media loses their minds and runs it on every news channel. The speaker says they couldn't pay for that kind of coverage, that it would cost 10 times more to get it.

I am being fact-checked for discussing sunscreen ingredients, but the fact check is misleading. It lacks scientific evidence and only includes opinions from dermatologists. Research shows harm from approved sunscreen ingredients, like avobenzone and octinoxate affecting pregnancy and reproductive systems. These toxic chemicals can enter bodily fluids like breast milk. I will launch my own fact-checking system to counter biased fact checks.

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.