reSee.it - Related Video Feed

"dreadful use of vaccines and the mandates that have caused so much problem." "From the very beginning, these vaccines were not vaccines, particularly the ones that ended up after AstraZeneca with all the clots and they were shut down." "The messenger RNA vaccines of Pfizer and Moderna, of course, unbelievable problems and damage to people." "They were pushed into this by Pfizer and all the people that Pfizer and Moderna wanted to get this into everybody." "These were not vaccines. These were horrible gene therapies that could actually integrate into your genome." "turbo cancers." "They are incompetence, medical negligence, everything, and nobody is accepting responsibility for this." "This is Nuremberg trial stuff." "They were never ever effective." "There was no evidence that they were effective whatsoever. It was basically hope, and they were never ever safe."

Tony Fauci's problem is that a federal law prohibits emergency use authorization for a vaccine if there is an approved medication that is effective against the target disease. If Fauci had acknowledged the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine or Ivermectin against COVID, it would have been illegal to approve the vaccines. The medical community, including 17,000 doctors, supported the use of these medications, but Fauci dismissed them as dangerous. It is speculated that Fauci had a strong incentive to discredit these medications. Many doctors, such as Harvey Reach, Peter McCulloch, and Pierre Corey, who have successfully treated COVID patients, believe that hundreds of thousands of American lives could have been saved if these medications were not suppressed.

The Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) regulation from the Clinton administration included safeguards. You can distribute a medication without approval, clinical trials, or safety testing, but only if no existing approved drug is effective against the target illness. To use the EUA for vaccines, any effective drugs against COVID needed to be discredited. Early on, it was known that hydroxychloroquine was effective against coronavirus. NIH studies demonstrated its effectiveness both as a preventative and as a cure. Ivermectin was also very effective. Acknowledging that these drugs worked would have eliminated the use of the emergency use authorization. So, they had to suppress them.

The FDA and FTC prohibited manufacturers of nasal products from promoting or researching their effectiveness against COVID-19. Companies like Xlear and Cofix RX faced strong warnings for attempting to investigate their products. Various treatments, including hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, and virosidal nasal sprays, were effective but met with government resistance. Higher doses of corticosteroids, zinc, vitamin D, vitamin C, quercetin, and famotidine showed promise, yet were largely ignored. Colchicine, proven to reduce hospitalization and death risk, received no acknowledgment from the federal government. Instead, the public was urged to fear the virus, adhere to lockdowns, and rely solely on vaccines, which were mandated every six months without exceptions. The focus was primarily on vaccination rather than effective treatments.

Actions were taken to promote the vaccine by inflating COVID numbers through protocols in 2020. Hospitals were incentivized to label patients as COVID, put them on ventilators, administer Remdesivir, and profit from deaths. The goal was to instill fear and push vaccinations. Hospital administrators, driven by financial incentives, unknowingly contributed to unnecessary deaths. This greed-driven system continues to harm people.

Patients are dying not from COVID, but from treatments like remdesivir causing organ failure. One person's mother died after being given remdesivir against their wishes, leading to organ shutdown. There was a financial incentive for hospitals to admit patients and put them on ventilators, resulting in unnecessary treatments and deaths.

Speaker 0 argues that ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine were suppressed because they are well-established drugs with safety records and billions of doses used; ivermectin is a human drug that also works on horses and won the Nobel Prize for its effectiveness in humans. He states there is a federal law that says an emergency use authorization (EUA) for a vaccine cannot be granted if there is any approved medication shown effective against the target disease, so admitting effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin would have made EUA for vaccines illegal and would have collapsed a “200,000,000,000 enterprise.” Speaker 1 notes this is the first time hearing that assertion, acknowledging it’s in the book. He suggests that if the medical community had been saying ivermectin is an effective COVID treatment, EUA for vaccines could not have been granted. Speaker 0 explains that many in the medical community supported effectiveness, citing a petition signed by 17,000 doctors and numerous peer-reviewed publications, but Fauci aggressively crusaded against it, labeling it a horse medication and alleging danger and overdosing to drown out those reports. Speaker 1 asks why Fauci continued to push the claim after EUA was granted. Speaker 0 answers that, even with EUA, the law may require withdrawal if a functioning medication exists, implying a motive to undermine ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine. He mentions a strong incentive for Fauci to kill these medications and cites several doctors who treated tens of thousands of COVID patients and supported the claim that the science shows many lives could have been saved. He names Harvey Reich at Yale, Peter McCulloch as the most published doctor in history and prominent in biostatistics/epidemiology, and Peter Quarry in connection with the doctors who treated many patients. They allegedly state that half a million Americans did not need to die.

This year, it was revealed that $2.3 billion was allocated by the government, specifically the CDC and FDA, to pharmacies like Walgreens and CVS to discourage the prescription of ivermectin and other treatments recommended by doctors. The federal government has now acknowledged that these treatments were effective and expressed regret for suppressing them, admitting that this has led to unnecessary deaths. The influence of big pharma, particularly figures like Bill Gates, has resulted in restrictions on what healthcare professionals can prescribe, leading to consequences such as decertification and job loss for those who defy these guidelines. This situation highlights the dangers of a powerful cartel controlling medical practices.

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.

The speaker claims that the public had limited access to data when the vaccines received emergency use authorization. They believe regulators, who they consider corrupt, were determined to push forward with the mass vaccination program. The speaker argues that effective therapeutic medicines like Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin were intentionally suppressed to pave the way for vaccine authorization. They explain that a federal law prohibits emergency use authorization for a vaccine if there is an existing licensed drug that proves effective against the same disease. The speaker suggests that this decision was driven by financial interests, with the NIH owning half the patent for the Moderna vaccine and individuals associated with Anthony Fauci potentially receiving significant royalties.

I don't speculate on the motives of individuals like Anthony Fauci or Bill Gates; I focus on their actions. The narrative reveals serious immoral behavior linked to government positions. Recently, the FDA's chief attorney acknowledged there was no justification for discouraging the use of Ivermectin, which was an effective treatment for COVID. By withholding it and other existing remedies, millions died unnecessarily. The push for vaccines was prioritized, despite a federal rule preventing emergency use authorization if effective treatments were available. This led to a lack of proper testing for vaccines, resulting in alarming health issues, particularly myocarditis in young athletes. The rising number of athlete deaths on the field is unprecedented, and there remains a need for accountability as the science continues to emerge.

The United States government has been the main source of misinformation during the pandemic, spreading false claims about COVID transmission, vaccine immunity, and mask effectiveness. The Cochrane review, the most authoritative evidence body in medicine, disproves these claims. The government ignored the review, as well as the fact that myocarditis is more common after vaccination than after infection. Pushing boosters for young healthy people without sufficient data led to the resignation of top vaccine experts at the FDA. Vaccine mandates did not increase vaccination rates, but instead created a group of never vaxxers. The CDC also manipulated research, selectively reporting data to support their desired outcomes. This dishonesty and weaponization of medical research is unforgivable.

Three papers by Nathaniel Mead, containing nearly a thousand references, concluded that COVID-19 vaccination risks outweigh any theoretical benefits. According to the speaker, wishful thinking suggests vaccines saved lives and reduced severity, but early multi-drug treatment, not vaccines, reduced the risk of death. The speaker claims a marathon runner died because he didn't receive effective early treatment, and his vaccination status was irrelevant. The CDC allegedly knew that thousands of fully vaccinated patients were dying of acute COVID-19 early in 2021, making it obvious the vaccines did not reduce the risk of death. The speaker does not want America to be fooled into thinking that the vaccines save lives because they didn't.

The FDA was sued over tweets telling people "you're not a horse" regarding Ivermectin. The lawsuit argued the FDA doesn't have the authority to tell people not to take a certain drug, as that constitutes practicing medicine. Some believe the FDA's actions were a coordinated PR attack to promote COVID vaccines. One doctor claims the government's agenda was to force vaccines, which are now known to be "poison jabs." The case against the FDA was settled largely on the plaintiffs' terms, with the FDA taking down the "offensive tweets." One doctor claims to have treated over 6,000 COVID patients with Ivermectin, with none hospitalized as a result, and considers it safer than common medications. The lawsuit set a precedent, potentially tarnishing the FDA's reputation and limiting future overreach in advising patients on medical treatments. Some believe the suppression of early COVID treatments has caused hundreds of thousands of deaths and that the COVID vaccines have caused excess deaths and increased disability.

Tony Fauci's problem is that a federal law prohibits emergency use authorization for a vaccine if there is an approved medication that effectively treats the target disease. If Fauci or anyone had acknowledged that Ivermectin works as a treatment for COVID, the vaccine would not have received authorization. Despite many doctors and publications supporting Ivermectin, Fauci actively dismissed it as a dangerous medication to drown out its effectiveness. It is unclear why he continued to do so after receiving authorization, but there is a strong incentive for him to discredit Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine. Notable doctors like Harvey Reich and Pierre Cory have successfully treated thousands of COVID patients.

Over 100 million Americans were required to get vaccinated due to job mandates. The government claimed vaccines were safe and effective, but data showed vaccinated people could still carry the virus. Despite promises of freedom, there have been 1 million adverse events reported from COVID-19 vaccines, with only 11 compensated cases. Big Pharma has immunity from liability for vaccine injuries.

Over 100 million Americans were required to get vaccinated for their jobs under federal mandates, which covered two-thirds of American workers. Claims of vaccine effectiveness were exaggerated, leading to a bait-and-switch situation. Despite promises of safety and freedom, over 1 million adverse events from COVID-19 vaccines have been reported, with only 11 compensated cases, while Big Pharma remains immune to liability.

There has been a lack of transparency regarding the potential side effects of vaccines, with some downplaying these effects to encourage vaccination. Mandating vaccines was a significant mistake; vaccination should have been a personal choice. Vaccines do not prevent infection and can have severe side effects. The FDA's decision to withhold safety data until 2026 undermines public trust in health agencies and vaccination efforts. There is a call for cooperation in issuing subpoenas to obtain unredacted information, as the public deserves access to the data they fund. The cover-up of various issues, including the origin story, raises concerns about accountability and transparency in public health.

There have been repeated attempts to mandate coercion without accepting natural immunity, which is claimed to be equally effective at preventing infection and more effective at preventing severe disease and death. There was no real questioning of an emergency use authorized product, and informed consent was not prioritized. When doctors make mistakes, they should acknowledge the mistake and harm, apologize, and institute measures to prevent recurrence. This hasn't happened at a public health scale, and the medical establishment needs to acknowledge the problem. The speaker believes the product in question should never have been approved for a single human. At the very least, there should be acknowledgement of unintended harms, apologies, efforts to help the vaccine-injured, and structures for greater transparency in medicine. Regulators should not receive 86% of their funding from big pharma and then claim to be independent.

- The discussion opens with a critique of how public health authorities in the United States and much of the media discouraged experimentation with COVID-19 treatments, instead pushing vaccination and portraying other approaches as dangerous. The hosts ask why treatments were sidelined and treated as heretical to question. - Speaker 1 explains that the core idea was to stamp out “vaccine hesitation,” which he frames not as a purely scientific issue but as a form of heresy. He notes a broad literature on vaccine hesitancy and contrasts it with the perception of the vaccine as a liberating savior. He points to a Vatican €20 silver coin (2022) commemorating the COVID-19 vaccine, described by Vatican catalogs as “a boy prepares to receive the Eucharist,” which the speakers interpret as an overlay of religious iconography with vaccination imagery. They also reference Diego Rivera’s mural in Detroit, interpreted as depicting the vaccine as a Eucharist, and a South African church banner reading “even the blood of Christ cannot protect you, get vaccinated,” highlighting what they see as provocative uses of religious symbolism to promote vaccination. - They claim that the Biden administration’s COVID Vaccine Corps distributed billions of dollars to major sports leagues (NFL, MLB) and that many mainline churches reportedly received money to push vaccination, with many clergy not opposing the push. The implication is that monetary incentives influenced public figures and organizations to advocate for vaccines, contributing to a climate in which questioning orthodoxy was difficult. - The speakers discuss the social dynamics around vaccine “heresy,” using Aaron Rodgers’ experience with isolation and shaming in the NFL and Novak Djokovic’s experiences in Australia to illustrate how prominent individuals who questioned or fell outside the orthodoxy faced punitive pressure. They compare this to a Reformation-era conflict over doctrinal correctness and describe a psychology of stigmatizing dissent as a tool to enforce conformity. - They argue the imperative driving institutions was the belief that the vaccine was the central, non-negotiable public-health objective, seemingly above other medical considerations. The central question they raise is why vaccines became the sole priority, seemingly overriding a broader, more nuanced evaluation of medical options and individual risk. - The conversation shifts to epistemology and the nature of science. Speaker 1 suggests medicine often relies on orthodoxies and presuppositions, rather than purely empirical processes. He recounts a Kantian view that interpretation depends on preexisting categories, and he uses this to argue that medical decision-making can be constrained by established doctrines, which may obscure questions about optimization and safety. - They recount the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act and discuss Sara Sotomayor’s dissent, which argued that liability exposure is a key incentive for safety and improvement in vaccine development. They argue that the current system creates minimal liability for manufacturers, reducing the incentive to optimize safety, and they use this to question how the system encourages continuous safety improvements. - The hosts recount the early-treatment movement led by Peter McCullough and others, including a Senate hearing organized by Ron Johnson in November 2020 to discuss early-treatment options with FDA-approved drugs like hydroxychloroquine. They criticize what they describe as aggressive pushback against such approaches, noting that McCullough faced professional sanctions and lawsuits despite presenting peer-reviewed literature. - They return to the concept of orthodoxy and dogma, arguing that the medical establishment often suppresses dissent, citing YouTube removing a McCullough interview and the broader pattern of silencing challenge to the vaccine narrative. They stress that the social and institutional systems prize conformity and punish those who deviate, creating a climate of distrust toward official health bodies. - The discussion broadens into metaphysical and philosophical territory, with references to the Grand Inquisitor from Dostoevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov. They propose that elites—whether religious, political, or scientific—tend to prefer “taking care” of people through control rather than preserving individual responsibility and free will. The Grand Inquisitor tale is used to illustrate a recurring human temptation: to replace personal liberty with a protected, paternalistic order. - They discuss messenger RNA (mRNA) technology as a central manifestation of Promethean or Luciferian intellect—humans attempting to “read and write in the language of God.” They describe the scientific arc from transcription and translation to mRNA vaccines, noting Francis Collins’s The Language of God and the idea of humans “coding life.” They caution that mRNA vaccines involve injecting genetic material and point to the symbolic and ritual power of vaccination as a form of modern sacrament. - The speakers emphasize that the mRNA approach represents both a profound scientific achievement and a source of deep concern. They discuss fertility signals and potential adverse effects, including myocarditis in young people, and cite the July 2021 NEJM case study as highlighting safety concerns for myocarditis in adolescent males. They reference the FDA deliberative-committee discussions, noting that some influential voices publicly questioned the risk-benefit calculus for young people, yet faced pressure or dismissal within the orthodox framework. - They describe post-hoc investigations and testimonies suggesting that adverse events (like myocarditis) might have been downplayed or obscured, and they assert that public trust in health institutions has eroded as a result. They mention ongoing debates about whether vaccine-induced changes might affect future generations, referencing studies about transcripts of mRNA in cancer cells and liver cells, and they stress the need for independent scrutiny by scientists not “entranced” by the vaccine program. - The dialogue returns to the broader human condition: a tension between curiosity and restraint, knowledge and humility. They return to Dostoevsky’s moral questions about free will, responsibility, and the limits of human knowledge, concluding that scientific hubris can lead to dangerous consequences when it overrides open inquiry and accountability. - In closing, while the guests reflect on past missteps and the need for integrity in medicine, they underscore the ongoing questions about how evidence is interpreted, how dissent is treated, and how society balances scientific progress with humility, transparency, and respect for individual judgment.

We were misled about mRNA vaccines staying in our arms, as they actually circulate in the body for months. Lipid nanoparticles in the vaccines distribute throughout the body, causing potential harm. The spike protein produced by the vaccines can be toxic, leading to inflammation. Transparency regarding vaccine side effects was lacking, and mandating vaccines was a mistake. Personal choice should have been prioritized over mandates.

Lockdowns were the worst decision made during the COVID pandemic, causing unnecessary harm. The rollout of vaccines, particularly mRNA vaccines, has led to significant health issues, including an alarming rise in cancers. The vaccines were not true vaccines but rather gene therapies that could integrate into human genomes, raising serious concerns about their safety and effectiveness. Children, who faced mandates to get vaccinated despite being at low risk from COVID, may suffer long-term consequences. The entire pandemic response appears to have been a controlled initiative, with many governments ignoring prior pandemic plans that did not call for lockdowns. The situation reflects a failure of accountability among health authorities and raises questions about the motivations behind these decisions.

Pfizer knew a month into the rollout, November 2020, that this vaccine did not work to stop COVID. Everything that followed—the mandates, the lost jobs, the closures, children not allowed back to school if they didn’t take the shot, the armed forces compelled to take it, pilots compelled—was built on a lie of vaccine efficacy. The most common side effect of getting vaccinated is COVID, and Pfizer understood that the vaccine’s efficacy and vaccine failure showed it did not stop COVID. They also knew the injection did not stay in the deltoid. Europeans through the EMA and public health entities described side effects as chills, fever, fatigue, needing to lie down, but Pfizer knew that was a lie. In Pfizer documents, charts show that the materials—the spike protein, the mRNA, the lipid nanoparticles, and polyethylene glycol—biodistribute within forty-eight hours and leave the injection site to biodistribute to major organs throughout the body, crossing the blood-brain barrier. This may have contributed to personality changes in some loved ones who took the injection. They also accumulate in the liver, the adrenals, the spleen, the lymphatic system, and in women, the ovaries. The first injection accumulates in ovaries; the second injection more so. Experts could not find any mechanism whereby this material left the body in either gender. By the first booster, surgeries on vaccinated women reported fully blocked ovaries, among other damage. Pfizer knew that. They also hired 2,400 full-time staff to process reports of serious adverse events, starting to receive them during the 2020-2021 period. In Pfizer documents, over forty-two thousand serious adverse events were tallied from November 2020 to February 2021, with many individuals experiencing multiple events. The top documented side effects included myalgia (muscle pain), followed by joint pain, then COVID itself, and then a catastrophic tally of serious side effects including heart damage (myocarditis, pericarditis), problems with the aorta, thrombotic events (blood clots in various locations), neurological events (tremors, Guillain-Barré, dementia, epilepsy-like seizures), autoimmune disorders, and eye damage including blindness. Reproductive damage was noted: miscarriages and other issues. Twelve hundred deaths in three months were recorded as not statistically random; they were old with prior conditions, yet doctors noted causality concerns and recorded them. Pfizer knew by April 2021 that minors were injured by the vaccine, specifically myocarditis and pericarditis. Minors sustained heart damage, with thirty-five minors affected. The Israeli Ministry of Health warned the CDC and the Biden administration about minor heart damage, but FOIA requests later showed active conversations up to the White House regarding myocarditis in minors. Instead of withdrawing or advising parents, a 17-page document was produced as a script to persuade parents to vaccinate their minors, supplemented by a TikTok influencer campaign encouraging young people to get injected. These communications indicated that kids would sustain deadly heart damage, and still proceeded. Senator Ron Johnson is using the work to unredact those documents and hold hearings about the cover-up. Pfizer knew all of these things.

A physician recounts being attacked for offering alternative COVID treatments and questioning vaccine efficacy. Despite treating thousands of patients and being proven more accurate than public health authorities, she is still fighting to keep her medical license. The physician describes treating a sheriff's deputy with COVID in February, following the vaccine rollout, when ivermectin was difficult to obtain. She notes primary care doctors often did not treat viruses, leading to catastrophic outcomes. After President Trump touted hydroxychloroquine, the Texas State Board of Pharmacy restricted its prescription. The government then launched a PR campaign against ivermectin, influencing hospitals to mandate vaccines. The physician observed more vaccinated individuals contracting COVID with similar or worse symptoms. Monoclonal antibodies, which worked effectively, were removed as an option, allegedly to promote vaccination. A urology department considered refusing unvaccinated patients. The physician faced obstacles in obtaining emergency privileges to administer ivermectin to the sheriff's deputy, who ultimately survived but suffered long-term health issues and later passed away. The Texas Medical Board is pursuing charges against the physician for recommending COVID therapy. The expert witness against her is a Planned Parenthood lab director. She highlights the politicization of medicine, the loss of power for doctors, and the influence of corporations and insurance companies. She expresses concern over COVID shot injuries, the shots being added to the childhood vaccine schedule, and the potential for long-term immune system damage.