reSee.it - Related Video Feed

I worked as a pediatrician and realized vaccines brought in significant income. Admin fees for vaccines were a major source of revenue, with bonuses for high vaccination rates. Quality measures focused on vaccination rates, not overall health. Pediatric practices heavily rely on vaccine income to stay afloat, leading to pressure to vaccinate despite potential harm.

A doctor claims there were "perverse incentives" during the pandemic to administer COVID vaccines. As an outpatient physician, she states she could have made $1,500,000 if she had vaccinated the 6,000 COVID patients she treated. She suggests that both outpatient and inpatient settings had "financial incentives" to adhere to government protocols.

Pediatricians are often incentivized by HMOs based on vaccination rates, with incentives ranging from $200 to $600 per fully vaccinated patient, provided a certain percentage of their practice is fully vaccinated. Some pediatricians can earn up to a million dollars or more annually through these incentives. HMOs buy and sell vaccines, making vaccines a significant business for them.

Pediatricians are allegedly incentivized by HMOs to vaccinate patients. These HMOs buy and sell vaccines, making them a big business. The incentive is reportedly between $200 to $600 per fully vaccinated patient, provided a certain percentage of the practice is fully vaccinated. Some pediatricians purportedly make over a million dollars a year from these incentives. There are stories of pediatricians firing patients who refuse vaccination. Additionally, pediatricians allegedly lie to parents, claiming babies will die without vitamin K at birth or that individuals will die of cancer without the HPV vaccine.

The transcript discusses the book Vaccinations Do Not Protect by Eleanor McBean, claiming that vaccination goes against the constitution to take this “garbage.” It asserts that most people don’t know that doctors do not take the shots themselves or give them to their own children, yet they administer them to other people’s children because they receive a commission. It notes that certain physicians have observed patterns such as paralysis within twenty-four hours after the injection, up to six months after, cancer near the injection area, and diseases such as TB within twenty years. The speaker claims that Edward Jenner, the father of vaccination, noticed a similar pattern in 1796, describing it as poisoning the people. The question is posed: why do they do this? The answer given is that vaccination is a big business, and that it is protected by the government. The speaker asserts that vaccination was protected by the government in 1986 so that people cannot sue. It is stated as part of the argument that vaccination is the leading cause of why children die under the age of 15.

The speaker claims that unvaccinated individuals entering hospitals were deliberately killed. According to the speaker, every unvaccinated person they interviewed who went to the hospital reported not receiving the same treatments as vaccinated patients. Instead, they were allegedly given remdesivir, ventilation, and fentanyl, leading to their deaths. Another speaker adds that hospitals had financial incentives to produce COVID-related deaths, allegedly receiving up to $500,000 per death in California. The first speaker agrees, stating that hospital coders and whistleblowers revealed that patients were repeatedly tested for COVID until a positive result was obtained, triggering payments. They claim hospitals received additional payments for each drug and piece of equipment used, totaling over $500,000 per person. One person allegedly said their daughter was worth more dead than alive.

In 1985, millennials received a few vaccines. Today, children may receive up to 70 shots by age 18, including 27 before age 2, and up to 6 shots in one visit. The speaker asks if these shots are producing healthier kids, and claims the data says no. The speaker suggests that asking questions about the vaccine schedule is discouraged. Some parents who question the schedule may be reported to Child Protection Services or dismissed from their pediatrician's office. The speaker asserts that parents are being held hostage and did not sign up to co-parent with the government.

Speaker claims that the American Academy of Pediatrics' top funders are "Moderna, Pfizer, Sanofi" and "Merck" as another top funder; "So if you don't think they're captured, you're you're really not being honest." They allege that "your average pediatrician makes a lot of money by having, you know, meeting milestones about having, you know, x percentage of their, population, their patient population fully vaccinated according to the schedule." They argue "so they are pushing these things despite the fact that the science is that these children don't need it." The speaker says they found on the AAP website "they are still pushing the abject falsehood that children, healthy children, are at a they say from newborn stage five are at, quote, the highest risk for COVID." "What? Are you kidding?"

A published article claims that 50% of most pediatricians' revenue comes from vaccines. Insurance companies like Blue Cross allegedly pay pediatricians bonuses if 95% of their clients are fully vaccinated, potentially worth tens of thousands of dollars. This bonus structure is claimed to incentivize pediatricians to prioritize vaccination rates over individual patient needs. As a result, pediatricians may dismiss patients who want to alter the standard vaccine schedule because they risk losing the bonus. These incentives are described as preventing doctors from practicing medicine and caring for clients due to a focus on the bottom line.

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.

Doctor Paul Thomas discusses how pediatricians are financially incentivized to fully vaccinate patients, with penalties for non-compliance. He explains the economic impact of refusing vaccines in his practice and the pressure to adhere to the CDC schedule. Thomas highlights the financial benefits tied to vaccination rates and the concerning correlation between vaccines and infant mortality. This information challenges the conventional narrative on vaccine safety and efficacy.

The speaker claims that when the rotavirus vaccine was approved, four out of five board members had direct financial interests in it, working for the companies that made the vaccine or receiving grants to do clinical trials on it. One board member, Paul Offit, allegedly voted to add the rotavirus vaccine to the schedule while he had a rotavirus vaccine in development. The speaker says that because it's now on the schedule, his developing vaccine is virtually guaranteed to get on the schedule. The rotavirus vaccine that Offit voted on was withdrawn within a year because it was causing intussusception in kids. Offit's vaccine then replaced it. The speaker states that Offit and his business partners sold that vaccine to Merck for $186,000,000. The speaker says that Offit told Newsweek that he won the lottery and that it's been said of him that he voted himself rich.

The speakers discuss the perceived truth about pediatric vaccination incentives and the behavior of pediatricians. The conversation opens with a question about whether there is an incentive for pediatricians to promote vaccination, and the back-and-forth suggests uncertainty about this issue. One participant mentions that Dr. Paul Thomas has produced a substantial video on the topic and notes that many other pediatricians have followed his lead, adding that perhaps Dr. Hooker could provide a sharper answer. A subsequent speaker clarifies the proposed mechanism of incentives, stating that pediatricians are typically incentivized directly by HMOs. The claim is that HMOs buy and sell vaccines, making vaccines a big business for HMOs. The incentive, according to this account, is usually between $200 and $600 per fully vaccinated patient, as long as their vaccines meet a required percentage threshold for the practice. The speaker contends that some pediatricians can make upwards of a million dollars a year solely from these incentives, underscoring the potential scale of earnings. The discussion then turns to empirical observations or anecdotes, with the claim that pediatricians often fire patients who refuse to get vaccinated. This is presented as a recurrent story that the speakers have heard repeatedly. In addition to the firing of patients, the speakers recount alarming claims attributed to some physicians. They mention the “lies that the pediatrician tell” about dire consequences of not vaccinating, such as “our baby will die” if vitamin K is not given at birth, or that the baby will bleed out before it gets to the car. They also reference the belief expressed by some that “if you don’t get the HPV vaccine, then you will die of cancer.” These stories are described as being told repeatedly by parents who have encountered such warnings. The segment closes with a rhetorical and emotional question about accountability: how can doctors get away with lying like that to parents? The speakers convey a sense of concern and frustration about the repetition of these claims and the impact they have on parents who are trying to make informed decisions for their children.

The speakers discuss the increased number of vaccines since 1990 and question if all are necessary. One speaker claims the US vaccine schedule includes twice as many shots as other Western countries. They suggest parents should educate themselves, space out or delay vaccines, and clean out toxins. One speaker believes public health officials may not always have people's best interests at heart. They claim the AAP and medical schools are financed by drug companies and that vaccines are the pharmaceutical industry's largest growing division, worth $13 billion. They suggest asking pharmaceutical companies to take a loss for the good of children is a tough sell.

The speaker claims colored vaccines are dangerous, with no clinical benefit and over 10,000,000 deaths worldwide. They suggest avoiding vaccination altogether, citing studies showing unvaccinated kids are healthier. They criticize censorship by the government and medical boards, leading to job loss and license revocation for speaking out against the narrative. The medical journals are also deemed corrupt. Speaker 1 mentions not every batch causes harm, as they themselves took a few shots without issue.

Pediatricians and general practitioners receive financial incentives to vaccinate early and often, which has distorted pediatric care. Pediatricians get incentives for having a high percentage of children in their practice up-to-date on federally recommended vaccines. The American Academy of Pediatrics advises pediatricians to drop families who don't adhere to the CDC schedule. A pediatrician with a large practice can earn hundreds of thousands of dollars by having a 90% or 95% vaccine uptake rate, in addition to other bonuses. This is legal, but it shouldn't be, because it's premised on the idea that vaccines are harmless and only good, which is false.

Speaker 0 notes a doubling or tripling of baby deaths in the last year, which sparked curiosity. Speaker 1 says their own government told them a medical treatment was safe, and it killed babies. Speaker 2 states they have lost all faith that Health Canada is looking out genuine for the best interests of Canadians. Speaker 1 says doctors made extra money to push vaccines and were given a billing code to do it, and she has pulled all the billing codes. Speaker 3 asserts they’ve purchased the vaccine that hasn’t been approved and distributed it to the provinces, so the second it’s approved they can start jabbing themselves and pregnant mothers with it. Speaker 4 asks why vaccinations were necessary, noting that when going to the hospital for birth, you expect to go home, and then you don’t. Speaker 0 suspects criminal negligence by the government and public health officials. Speaker 2 agrees, saying “Possible.” Speaker 0 contends they pushed a narrative to everybody, including pregnant and breastfeeding women, that the mRNA shots were safe and effective. Speaker 2 recalls wiretapping, harassment, and charges, and that they didn’t allow any expert witnesses to testify. Speaker 1 says Canadian babies died, and police are trying to cover it up by stopping detective Helen Graves from testifying about it. Speaker 3 comments that dominant individuals maintain subordinates’ place through constant aggression. Speaker 5 argues that choosing not to vaccinate is one thing, but being unable to fly or ride trains with vaccinated people and thus putting them at risk is another issue. Speaker 2 says CBC started with a story to implicate her and paint her in an uncomplimentary light to the public. Speaker 6 claims Canada must shift its understanding of CBC, describing it as a state broadcaster pushing the agenda of the Liberal government of Canada. Speaker 3 declares this is the most significant health matter affecting children today, and they are still not investigating. Speaker 2 asserts that everything emanates outward from this case involving law enforcement, the judicial system, the pharmaceutical industry, and health agencies, and how they work together and censored information; all of it ties to this one case, making it dangerous.

Laura Logan hosts a discussion with Dr. Sherri Tenpenny on vaccines, public health policy, and what they see as failures and harms within the system. The conversation weaves together personal history, policy details, scientific debates, and broader social concerns, intercut with promotional content for GiveSendGo. Key points and claims raised by Dr. Tenpenny - Vaccine ingredients and aluminum exposure: Tenpenny asserts that if someone receives every vaccine on the schedule, they would be injected with a total of about twelve thousand micrograms of aluminum, which she says is inflammatory to every organ system and can be stored in bones (60% of aluminum exposure). She notes aluminum is present in vaccines in order to replace mercury, which she describes as also a poison. - Early vaccine industry liability and the 1986 Act: The discussion explains that prior to 1986 there were liability concerns for vaccine makers due to injury lawsuits. Tenpenny recounts that in 1986 Congress passed a law giving the pharmaceutical industry liability immunity for vaccines, creating what she describes as a ramp in the vaccine schedule. She cites that by 1991 additional vaccines were introduced (Hep B at birth, Hib, chickenpox, Prevnar, Gardasil, Hep A, and more) and alleges this resulted in a rising autism incidence aligned with new vaccines. - The vaccine injury system: Tenpenny explains the Injury Compensation Act and the existence of VAERS as a tracking system, along with a separate pathway created under the PREP Act (the Preparedness and Readiness Act). She states that during the COVID era a separate program, the Covered Countermeasure Program (CICP), existed under the PREP Act, but it had no funding and a one-year statute of limitations, leading to under-compensation and very few adjudicated cases; she contrasts this with the earlier 1986 act, which funded vaccine injury compensation through the Federal Court of Claims and VAERS. - Perceived safety and effectiveness concerns: The speakers discuss studies suggesting that the flu shot might not prevent flu and that some studies indicate vaccines including pneumonia vaccines may be associated with higher risk of the conditions they aim to prevent. Tenpenny frames this as evidence of cracks in the vaccine program and argues that vaccines are linked to a broad spectrum of health issues, including autoimmune diseases, infertility, and cancers, which she says have been increasing. - Pediatric vaccination schedule and “pediatric poisoning program”: Tenpenny asserts that infants receive multiple injections early in life, with claims that by age two they will have thousands of micrograms of aluminum and other compounds that remain in the body, including in the brain. She characterizes the pediatric schedule as a systematic poisoning program for children and a parallel “adult assault program” for adults receiving vaccines. - COVID-19 vaccine controversy and health impacts: The conversation covers the COVID vaccines, including assertions about adverse effects such as myocarditis, strokes, kidney injury, autoimmune diseases, neurological issues, and cancers. Tenpenny describes long-term concerns (long COVID, autoimmune diseases) and claims of widespread injury and death, contending that the pandemic revealed how the health-care and pharmaceutical systems operate, including alleged corruption and profit motives. She discusses the difficult experiences of families during the pandemic, including restrictions on care and the use of alternate treatments like ivermectin in some cases. - The claim that COVID vaccines were not properly evaluated and that mandated vaccination reflected coercion: The speakers discuss mandates and the experiences of individuals in workplaces and educational institutions who faced pressure to receive vaccines, including religious exemptions and disputes about mandates. Tenpenny suggests a broader pattern of overreach in public health policy and questions about the balance between individual rights and mandates. - History and philosophy of public health programs: They discuss the Healthy People initiatives, arguing that the program’s goals have expanded in scope (from 15 goals to 1,200 for Healthy People 2030) and that the expansion is associated with greater surveillance and control over personal lives. Tenpenny claims that this is part of a broader trend toward data collection and governance of individual health and behavior. - The economics and incentives around vaccines: The conversation notes how physicians are compensated in part through vaccine administration, implying financial incentives influence clinical decisions. Tenpenny emphasizes the profit motive behind vaccines and the pharmaceutical industry’s financial interests, citing extreme examples like the one boy in a photo who allegedly became heavily medicated due to vaccines. - The role of media and information control: They discuss the influence of advertising in media since the 1990s and the difficulty of reporting critically on vaccines when major advertisers are pharmaceutical companies. They also mention AI and misinformation concerns, including examples of AI fabricating sources and the need to verify information. - Personal stakes, accountability, and political possibilities: Tenpenny discusses personal cost for challenging the vaccine paradigm, including an earlier period of potential licensing scrutiny and professional pushback. She names figures such as Fauci and Birx, argues that accountability has not yet occurred, and expresses hope that public interest in accountability could shift through advocacy and political leadership, citing RFK Jr. as a potential ally though acknowledging political and institutional obstacles. - Treatment and detoxification approaches: For those who have already received vaccines, Tenpenny outlines two separate tracks: detoxification for childhood vaccines and detox for COVID vaccines. For detox, she mentions products such as PureBody Extra (PBX), a zeolite-based supplement she says helps remove metals like aluminum and mercury from the body. She notes it is usable across age groups and even for pets, and she personally uses it. She also discusses non-specific detox approaches such as vitamin D optimization, lymphatic stimulation, exercise, and a diet focusing on avoiding white foods and reducing inflammation. She cautions that there is no proven blood or urine test to quantify spike protein after a COVID vaccine, and that detox strategies aim to support overall health rather than remove embedded spike protein from tissues. - The role of faith and resilience: The interview includes discussions of faith as a guiding force for Tenpenny, including her personal journey toward Christian faith in 2020. They reflect on fear, hope, forgiveness, and the idea that one can act with integrity and do the right thing even when faced with controversy or personal cost. They discuss existential questions about meaning, purpose, and moral responsibility, including the belief that life has a spiritual dimension that informs how to respond to public-health challenges. - Community and parenting: The conversation emphasizes the importance of community networks for new parents, including seeking mentorship from experienced parents and trusted health advocates, and maintaining parental agency in decisions about vaccines, medical interventions, and child-rearing. They discuss the value of critical thinking, asking questions, and avoiding blind trust in professionals or institutions. - Closing notes and resources: Tenpenny provides her websites and a Substack for ongoing information, including dr10penny.com, dr10penny.substack.com, and 10pennywalkwithgod.substack.com, as well as her X profile busy doctor t. The episode closes with a call to viewers to stay informed and to seek second opinions, while thanking the audience for supporting independent journalism. Overall, the dialogue centers on a critical, conspiratorial framing of vaccines, public-health policy, and the medical establishment; it weaves together testimonies about personal experience, policy history (notably the 1986 Act and the PREP Act), alleged systemic failures in compensation for vaccine injuries, criticisms of COVID-19 responses and vaccine mandates, and practical detoxification and faith-based guidance. The promotional content for GiveSendGo lightly interrupts the core discussion, but the majority of the exchange remains an extended argument about vaccine safety, accountability, and the perceived influence of big pharma on health care and public policy.

Doctors receive year-end bonuses from insurance companies for fully vaccinated patients, sometimes $250-$400 per patient. For a pediatrician with a thousand patients, this could mean a bonus of $250,000 to $500,000. For an office with 10 pediatricians, bonuses could reach millions of dollars. It is wondered if insurance companies are incentivized by the pharmaceutical industry to promote vaccines and bonus doctors for administering them.

In January 2022, a colleague alerted Speaker 0 that there had been a doubling or tripling of baby deaths in the last year, which sparked curiosity. Speaker 1 states that “Their own government told us a medical treatment was safe, and it killed babies.” Speaker 2 says she has “lost all faith that Health Canada is looking out genuinely for the best interests of Canadians.” Speaker 3 alleges that doctors “made extra money to push vaccines” and were given a billing code to do it, and that she has “pulled all the billing codes.” Speaker 4 asserts that “They've purchased the vaccine that hasn't been approved,” distributed it to the provinces so that once it’s approved, they can “start jabbing ourselves with it” and “start jabbing pregnant mothers with it.” Speaker 3 questions the necessity of vaccinations: “Why did we have to get these vaccinations? Like, why was this something that we had to do? You go to the hospital, you expect to have a baby, and you expect to go home, and then you don't.” Speaker 0 speculates on criminal negligence, saying, “I would suspect that there was criminal negligence on part of the government and the public health officials.” Speaker 3 notes that it is “highly recommended that pregnant women get their vaccine as soon as possible.” Speaker 0 contends that a narrative was pushed to everybody, including pregnant and breastfeeding women, that the mRNA shots were safe and effective. Speaker 2 claims wiretapping, harassment, charging, and barring expert witnesses: “They had wiretapped her phone. They had harassed her. They had charged her. They didn't allow any expert witnesses to testify.” Speaker 1 accuses police of trying to cover up Canadian babies’ deaths “to the point of stopping detective Helen Greaves from testifying about it.” Speaker 4 observes that “The dominant individuals keep the subordinates in their place by constant aggression.” Speaker 5 discusses vaccination choice versus public risk, remarking, “If you don't wanna get vaccinated, that's your choice. But don't think you can get on a plane or a train besides vaccinated people and put them at risk,” and claims CBC initially “started off with CBC running a story to implicate her and to paint her with a brush that looks uncomplimentary to the public.” Speaker 6 claims Canada must shift its understanding of what the is, describing it as “a state broadcaster pushing the agenda of the Liberal government of Canada.” Speaker 4 calls this “the most significant matter affecting our children today from a health perspective,” noting that authorities are “not investigating.” Speaker 2 concludes that everything emanates outward from this case involving law enforcement, the judicial system, the pharmaceutical industry, and health agencies, “how they work together, how they censored information. It all ties together to this one case, and that's what makes it so dangerous.”

There is a discussion about how public trust in vaccination has changed since the pandemic. The speaker notes that years ago there were “five people in the world who were prepared to talk about the thorny issue of vaccination.” Post COVID, however, “half the adult population of the world are now saying, hold on, we don't trust you. You lied to us. It's not what you told us, safe and effective.” This skepticism extends to vaccines given to children, with the question, “Does this apply to all the other vaccines you're putting into my kids?” The speaker then asserts that “safety studies haven't been done,” suggesting that important research behind vaccines is incomplete or lacking. This leads to the claim that “they've created this mess for themselves.” Despite the frustration, the speaker emphasizes the moral weight of deception, stating, “it's really tough to lie. I mean, lying gets you into real trouble.”

Doctors have incentives related to vaccines, with one article claiming that 50% of pediatricians' revenue comes from them. Insurance companies like Blue Cross allegedly pay bonuses to pediatricians who maintain high vaccination rates among their clients, potentially tens of thousands of dollars. This bonus structure is claimed to be the reason pediatricians might dismiss patients who want alternative vaccine schedules. These incentives are characterized as perverse, hindering doctors from prioritizing patient care over financial gain. It is claimed that twenty years ago, 20% of doctors worked for corporations, but now 80% do, with corporations prioritizing revenue over patient well-being.

A pediatrician’s office typically gets about 50% of its funding from vaccines, not from selling the vaccines themselves but from the traffic they generate. The speaker recalls a time when doctors were visited only for concrete needs like stitches; today, every kid goes to the doctor at least 10 times to get vaccines, and that foot traffic is a major part of the office’s business plan. Pediatricians are rewarded by Blue Cross Blue Shield with a reward schedule for vaccinating a high percentage of their patients—85% or more. The speaker mentions payments of about 40 to 400 dollars per kid, implying that hundreds of thousands of dollars can be earned by ensuring 85% vaccination rates. Because of these incentives, there is pressure to maintain high vaccination figures, and the speaker claims doctors will exclude patients who resist or “fight back,” not out of concern for the individual child but to protect the metrics and their bonuses. The speaker adds that these schedules have been published, and people can look up the Blue Cross Blue Shield schedule to see what their pediatrician earns. The implication is that the money earned from compliance creates perverse incentives that may prioritize meeting vaccination targets over treating the individual patient. The speaker emphasizes that in a democracy, people must do their own research to protect their child, suggesting that parental diligence is necessary to navigate these incentives.

The speakers discuss COVID vaccines, claiming they are now given to six-month-old children despite allegedly ruining stem cells in pregnant women, leading to a shortage of stem cells from placentas used in research and cosmetics. Speaker 0 claims that Kevin McKernan and others found SV40, a staphylococcal endotoxin gene, and two snake genes in the vaccines, indicating gain of function. The speaker alleges that vaccines are added to the baby vaccine schedule to suppress doubts, and that this is like a religion or cult. Speaker 0 asserts that ACIP, a group of doctors with vaccine interests, recommends the vaccine for six-month-olds. Doctors following ACIP are required to offer the vaccine, and may lose $250,000 a year if they don't. Hospitals allegedly receive incentives for administering vaccines, with one speaker recalling a hospital losing $40,000 for not administering a vaccine within 24 hours of admission. The speaker concludes that it's all a money game.

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.