TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

The speaker, a physician and psychiatrist, states that medicine faces the difficulty that most disease is preventable, but the medical field profits from curing or ameliorating disease with medications and procedures. The speaker claims that the medical field does not profit from preventing disease by encouraging people to socialize or exercise.

Dr. Scott Jensen asserts that financial incentives in healthcare motivate providers to make patients sicker. He explains that Medicare and insurers profit when patients are categorized as more ill, and cites programs that reward clinics for reaching vaccine uptake thresholds. For example, an influenza vaccine incentive could pay per patient if a clinic hits 60% or 80% vaccination among eligible patients, potentially yielding tens of thousands annually. He also claims we can be labeled diabetic through a simple A1C reading even without treatment. Once labeled diabetic, a clinician is typically rewarded for keeping the A1C below targets (often 7.5 or even under 7–8). He ends by noting: But if you can call someone a diabetic with an A1C...

Speaker 0 shares a story about three friends who previously had stage four cancer but are not cancer-free now. He notes that what they took included ivermectin and fenbendazole, repeating fenbendazole for emphasis. He mentions they also drank something described as hydrochloride something or other, and points to studies that indicate people have proven they’ve been drinking methylene blue and similar substances. He explains methylene blue is a fabric dye, originally a text-style dye, and adds that it has profound effects on mitochondria. He asserts, “This stuff works, man.” He then observes that there are a lot of substances that do work, which he finds strange. He attributes this strangeness to profit, suggesting that when people hear about things that are demonized and then turn out to be effective, it raises questions about why those treatments are not promoted. He asks how medical institutions have failed, implying that cures exist but are not promoted because they are not profitable. The overall narrative contrasts hopeful anecdotal outcomes with a critique of consensus and financial incentives in the medical establishment, highlighting the tension between what works and what is promoted within mainstream medicine.

Medical schools allegedly don't teach nutrition because they are incentivized to prescribe drugs. The drug lobby ensures this by subsidizing medical school professors. Professors, therefore, promote drugs instead of alternatives like vitamin C. Over a century ago, foundations like Carnegie and Rockefeller allegedly engineered the curriculum through grants and donations.

There are 250,000 drugs in the PDR, but none are designed to cure anything except maybe antibiotics for strep throat. Pharmaceutical companies focus on making money from insurance policies rather than creating cures. Laws do not require them to produce drugs that cure, despite their ability to do so.

The Flexner report, backed by the Carnegies and the Rockefellers, led to the takeover of the medical system and the outlawing of natural healing methods. People have become dependent on chemicals, surgeries, and radiation, forgetting how to heal naturally. The Rockefellers and the Carnegies defunded natural schools and midwives, causing the loss of knowledge over generations. Each generation became more indoctrinated into the broken system, resulting in side effects and health problems. However, by embracing natural remedies like chamomile tea, we can heal and regenerate without the risk of poisoning or unknown side effects.

Anything from nature cannot be patented, so drug companies won't spend millions testing natural substances for FDA approval. The FDA requires efficacy and safety testing, but since natural substances can't be patented, no company will invest in the testing. Therefore, according to the speaker, the FDA will always condemn anything from nature as unproven, regardless of its potential effectiveness.

Curing patients of diseases is seen as detrimental to the business model, according to a major investment firm. The potential for one-shot cures through gene therapy is attractive, but it poses a challenge to recurring revenue compared to chronic therapies. While curing people would benefit society and patients, it would negatively impact cash flow. This blatant admission highlights the flaws in our market economy. In the case of infectious diseases like hepatitis C, curing patients reduces the number of carriers, which affects investors. This partnership between Goldman Sachs and infectious diseases exposes the exploitation for financial gain in our society. It is clear that a revolution of the mind is needed to prioritize the well-being of individuals over profit.

Pediatricians may be incentivized to administer vaccines due to revenue structures. One article claims that 50% of pediatricians' revenue comes from vaccines. Insurance companies like Blue Cross allegedly pay bonuses to pediatricians who maintain a 95% vaccination rate among their clients. This bonus structure may disincentivize pediatricians from accommodating alternative vaccination schedules, potentially leading them to dismiss patients who request them. These incentives may prevent doctors from prioritizing patient care due to financial considerations. The speaker claims that twenty years ago, 20% of doctors worked for corporations, but now 80% do, and these corporations prioritize revenue over patient well-being.

A series of testimonials claim that pearl powder can improve various vision issues. A friend in the UK reportedly saw their eyesight improve from plus four to plus 3.5, and their eye professional was amazed. Another account describes an 88-year-old with cataracts and floaters, where the condition decreased by 30% and the person no longer has floaters. A 50-year-old using pearl powder says their astigmatism is almost gone and their vision has improved. For macular degeneration, pearl powder allegedly helped reduce inflammation and fluid; the person is on month two and will be going back to see how they feel. There is a question about color blindness: “Can you reverse color blindness? Of course, there’s no treatments. They don’t have any solutions. We can’t check this.” The testimony continues: “Pro powder. My husband is starting to see colors normally that he couldn’t see at all.” It is also claimed that pearl powder works for animals as well. There is a broader note that people are self-regenerating divine beings and that there’s no profit in that, followed by the assertion that there are ways to heal the eyesight. The speaker concludes by stating that now you know your eyesight can regenerate. A reference is made to a book, “Take Off Your Glasses and Seeing” by Jacob Liberman, described as an eye professional who noticed that people’s glasses were actually making their eyes weaker over time. The transcript ends with the remark, “What a business model.”

The healthcare industry profits from our sickness, depression, and infertility, making chronic disease a lucrative business. Pharma and food industries are interconnected in fueling this cycle. We are encouraged to rely on pills, fear the system, and keep consuming.

Universities, health organizations, and other institutions are in need of funding, while big multinational corporations have the money to provide it. These corporations use their financial influence to gain control. They give grants for research, collaborate on projects, and pay individual professors, doctors, and researchers. They may also fund educational programs that align with their interests. Although these arrangements are supposed to be independent, it is clear that corporations prioritize supporting their own products. If organizations do not comply, they risk losing funding. This financial influence is how the medical establishment is swayed.

The stimulus bill intended to help hospitals overrun with COVID patients created an incentive to record something as COVID. Hospitals are in a bind because if a hospital is half full, it's hard to make ends meet. Checking a box can yield $8,000, and putting a patient on a ventilator for five minutes can bring $39,000. The alternative could be firing doctors. This situation presents a tough moral quandary.

A doctor explains why some physicians are no longer accepting insurance, citing the practice of "clawbacks." The doctor performed an operation in February and billed the patient's insurance. The insurance company paid about a third of the billed amount. Four months later, the insurance company sent a letter stating they overpaid and demanded a refund. This "clawback" means the insurance company believes it overpaid for a service rendered months prior and demands repayment, threatening to withhold future payments if the doctor doesn't comply. The doctor states that such practices create stress and make small practices unsustainable, making it difficult to budget and project future finances. The doctor poses the question of whether one would continue working for an employer who demands repayment months later. The doctor claims that these underpayments and clawbacks contribute to insurance companies' large profits and that doctors drop insurance to avoid these issues and sustain their practices while providing good patient care.

Our initial response to COVID incentivized hospitals to prioritize profit over patient care, leading to questionable treatment decisions. Medical boards, influenced by financial gain, hindered effective protocols like those of Doctor Bartlett. This highlights the need to hold medical boards accountable for prioritizing money over patient well-being.

Medical intervention is a leading cause of death in the United States, claiming around a million lives annually. Many people trust their doctors without realizing that a significant portion of medical education is based on unscientific principles. The current medical system is outdated and needs a complete overhaul. The idea of treating illness with harmful substances is flawed, yet it persists because it generates substantial profits for pharmaceutical companies, which wield significant influence.

There are laws that prevent doctors from trying alternative treatments for cancer, limiting them to only proven unsuccessful methods. The speaker suggests that if this restriction could be lifted, significant progress could be made. They also imply that the pharmaceutical industry profits from this situation, as there is a lot of money to be made from drugs.

Speaker 0: I have three friends. All three of them had stage four cancer. All three of them don't have cancer right now at all. And they had some serious stuff going on. And what did they take? Yep. Jesus. They took some what you've heard they've taken. Speaker 1: Ivermectin. Fenbendazole. Fenbendazole. Yeah. Speaker 0: That's it. Speaker 1: Yeah. I'm hearing that a lot. Speaker 0: They drank hydrochloride something or other? There's studies on Speaker 1: that now where people have proven that they've Speaker 0: drinking methylene blue and stuff Speaker 1: like that. Yeah. Methylene blue, which was a fabric dye. Speaker 0: Yeah. Yeah. It was a textile dye, and now they find it has profound effects on your mitochondria. Yep. Yeah. Speaker 0: This stuff works, man. There's a lot of stuff that does work, which is very strange Speaker 1: Mhmm. Because, again, it's profit. When you when you hear about things that are demonized and that that turn out to be effective, you always wonder, well, what is going on here? Mhmm. How is how is our medical institutions how have they failed us so that things that do cure you are not promoted because they're not profitable?

Curing patients of diseases is seen as detrimental to the business model, according to a major investment firm. The potential for one-shot cures through gene therapy is attractive, but it poses a challenge to recurring revenue compared to chronic therapies. While curing people would benefit society and patients, it would negatively impact cash flow. The firm openly admits that their concern lies in financial gain rather than the well-being of individuals. This example highlights the flaws in our market economy and the exploitation of others for profit. It calls for a revolution of the mind to prioritize the eradication of diseases over monetary interests.

You have the power to make yourself sick or cure yourself. Every ache and pain is a message from your subconscious. Back problems often stem from feeling burdened by work or relationships. Arthritis in the hands may indicate difficulty letting go. Doctors only treat symptoms, not the underlying cause. There is a greater force we can communicate with, and in the future, we won't need doctors because we can heal ourselves with our minds.

The speaker asserts that individuals must take responsibility for their health, but the current healthcare system incentivizes expenditures rather than outcomes. Doctors are compensated for ordering more tests, creating a misalignment. The speaker advocates realigning incentives to compensate physicians for making patients healthy instead of ordering numerous tests. Some changes require statutory action, but others can be implemented within HHS and CMS. The speaker believes these changes will reduce costs and improve health outcomes.

Reports from China indicate scientists may have found a diabetes cure, which is unwelcome news for the American pharmaceutical industry. Chinese patients receiving experimental stem cell therapy have stopped needing insulin after about eleven weeks. This poses a threat to companies like Eli Lilly, who profit greatly from the insulin market. The rising insulin prices have sparked controversy, especially considering insulin's inventor, Frederick Banting, sold the patent for $1, believing it should be accessible to everyone. A diabetes cure would reduce the demand for insulin, impacting pharmaceutical companies' profits. This reveals a contradiction within the American for-profit healthcare system, where cures are disincentivized if they eliminate the need for repeat customers, challenging the notion that capitalism always promotes innovation.

Speaker 0 argues that type 1 diabetes is linked to factors such as raw meat, raw milk, bee pollen, removing WiFi, barefoot grounding, and dragon's blood. They claim the pancreas is “pretty much just getting zapped by WiFi, electricity” and that these elements “mess with your blood sugar.” They assert that consuming raw meats, raw milk, and raw honey causes the pancreas to work harder due to “too much electricity, too many radio frequencies,” combined with too much processed foods, and that everything in the gut turns to sugar, leaving the pancreas overloaded. They propose that diabetes type 1 is reversible, and that type 2 diabetes requires only activity and dietary changes. They state that “all illnesses are reversible,” and expand on a broader view that illness exists because of systemic incentives: they claim the Rockefeller system benefits from people being sick and detoxing, implying that if people healed themselves through a raw diet, eliminating WiFi, and reconnecting with the sun, they would not be patients and hospitals would shut down. They suggest doctors, nurses, and hospitals rely on keeping people sick and dependent to earn money. The speaker reflects on a personal journey that led to these realizations, concluding that many people are lying and that others want you to remain a patient. They present a worldview in which sickness serves financial interests, and imply that true healing comes from lifestyle choices such as dietary changes, removing exposure to WiFi, and increasing sun exposure.

According to the speaker, 50% of pediatricians' revenue comes from vaccines, with insurance companies like Blue Cross offering bonuses for high vaccination rates, potentially influencing doctors' recommendations. The speaker claims that pediatricians may dismiss families who want alternative vaccine schedules to protect these bonuses. The speaker alleges that 80% of doctors now work for corporations focused on revenue over patient care, creating pressure to generate funds due to medical school debt. The speaker suggests the entire system is incentivized to keep people sick, not necessarily deliberately, but through financial incentives. Insurance companies allegedly profit more from a sick population because they collect money as friction, taking a cut of revenues. The speaker claims that doctors, hospitals, and pharmaceutical companies also benefit financially from people being sick, creating systemic pressure regardless of individual intentions.