reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speaker discusses how CNN portrayed them as taking horse medication, specifically Ivermectin, which is actually a medication used more commonly in humans. They mention that Ivermectin has been prescribed to billions of people and even won a Nobel Prize for its efficacy in humans. The speaker believes that Ivermectin had to be discredited because of a federal law that states emergency use authorization for vaccines cannot be issued if there is an existing medication proven effective against the target illness. They argue that acknowledging the effectiveness of Ivermectin would have jeopardized the multi-billion dollar vaccine industry.

The speaker discusses Ivermectin, a Merck product, and its ingredients, including benzo alcohol, glycols, and polysorbate 80, which is also used in vaccines to help heavy metals cross the blood-brain barrier. Propylene glycol, also found in antifreeze, is another ingredient. The speaker claims parasites accumulate due to heavy metal pollution, and while Ivermectin may kill the worms, it doesn't address the underlying heavy metal issue. The speaker alleges the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has rights to Ivermectin pills. The speaker suggests using natural foods like pumpkin seeds, papaya seeds, beets, carrots, and dragon's blood to remove heavy metals from the body instead of funding big pharma.

The speaker discusses a CNN segment where they portrayed him as taking horse medication. He criticizes the repeated claims and believes it shows a conspiracy. He clarifies that the medication, Ivermectin, is commonly used in humans and has even won a Nobel Prize for its efficacy. The speaker suggests that Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine were discredited to protect the vaccine industry, as federal law prohibits emergency use authorization if there is an existing effective medication. Acknowledging the effectiveness of these medications would have jeopardized the multi-billion dollar vaccine enterprise.

The discussion centers on the idea that the body creates parasites as a detox signal. Wendy Meyer, a microbiologist, is cited as explaining that parasites and candida are formed to eat heavy metals in the body, alongside other detox responses such as fever, chills, and nausea, which signal that something is wrong. The speaker notes that searching online will reveal thousands of studies and the claim that “parasites are the accumulation indicators of heavy metal pollution.” On detox methods, the speaker asserts that detoxification is easy and lists substances that purportedly pull out heavy metals, including wormwood; dragon's blood; borax; turpentine; chiller jot; raw meat; cilantro; cayenne; pumpkin seeds; moldy berries; and baking soda. The discussion then pivots to ivermectin, suggesting a critique of pharmaceutical companies as the creators of ivermectin and implying a broader conspiracy about who controls medicine. A conspiratorial thread is developed: the same entities who make vaccines are claimed to be behind ivermectin, with a provocative claim that “the Rockefellers own the pharmaceutical companies.” The speakers argue that there is a war on worms, a war on bacteria, and a war on “you,” framed as profit-driven attacks. It is asserted that the Rockefellers also own Planned Parenthood, the medical system, and the educational system, and that this constitutes brainwashing both domestically and internationally. The implication is that pills are promoted, leading to ongoing poisoning of people and animals, ensuring customers for life. The transcript concludes by recommending the book Murder by Injection by Eustace Mullins as a resource to understand that the medical system has been owned by the Rockefeller family since 1910, describing it as driven by profits. The overall narrative ties body detox, parasite and heavy metal discussion, detox remedies, and the ivermectin debate to a larger conspiracy about control of medicine and health systems by powerful interests.

Speaker 0: Ivermectin is owned by Merck. Merck created the first vaccine. Anything ivermectin, I wouldn't be touching any of that stuff. Here's the thing. If they didn't get you with the vaccine, they're getting you with ivermectin. You're still funding big pharma either way. Like, you're still giving money to big pharma. You might not be taking the vaccine, but you're giving money to pharma on the other side, which would be ivermectin. So they're getting you either way. They're putting in graphene oxide in both of those. Think about it. Like they know exactly what they're doing. It's a $30,000,000,000 business. Parasites is a $30,000,000,000 business. $30,000,000,000. They're not gonna tell you to eat some papaya seeds. They're not gonna tell you to cleanse the heavy metals. They're not gonna tell you to do a little dragon's blood or some turpentine. They're going to sell you the solution which comes with x y z side effects. Keeps big

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.

- Speaker 0 highlights “the most popular trends on social media sponsored by Big Pharma” and claims “it's all made by Big Pharma.” - It cites “Ivermectin drug induced liver injury causing liver failure, blindness, and infertility.” - It mentions “the nicotine push,” allegedly “backed by big pharma,” and references “peptides, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, same ones who make vaccines.” - It references “Bill Gates” and “Rockefeller,” including “Muppets turning their tongues blue, methylene blue, John D. Rockefeller, product of chemotherapy and synthetic dyes.” - It asserts “Rockefeller's and the vitamins the pharmaceutical industry and the government pushing the pharmaceutical vitamins.” - It mentions “global vaccination programs,” by “the same people who make all the products I just mentioned” who “also wanna globally vaccinate and depopulate the world.” - It ends urging reading “Murder by Injection, keyword murder, by Eustace Mullins” as “the most important book you're ever gonna read so you can understand what we're living in of the monopoly of the medical system and how it controls all these other systems and then sells it back to the people without them knowing.”

Ivermectin is safer than a sugar pill and has been given to billions of people with minimal harm. It is not a toxic horse dewormer, as claimed by the FDA. The drug is considered safe and has had a significant impact on global health by eradicating parasitic diseases. Despite debates on its effectiveness, it is a low-risk, affordable option for treating sick patients.

Some people are refusing the COVID vaccine and instead taking horse dewormer, which has no evidence of effectiveness and can be dangerous. The speaker got COVID and tried various medications, including Ivermectin, which is commonly used for deworming horses. The mention of Ivermectin as a horse dewormer is not flattering. The speaker believes there is clear evidence that Ivermectin can be effective and that people should be informed about it.

The discussion centers on ivermectin and various claims about its origins, promotion, and effects. One speaker asserts that ivermectin is made by big pharma, specifically naming Merck and vaccine companies, and that people are using it because influencers told the public to take pharmaceutical pills after the pandemic, while not disclosing that cell phone towers are in front of their houses. The speaker claims that people took ivermectin instead, and states that ivermectin is linked to liver toxicity, jaundice, brain damage, and infertility, suggesting these risks are part of a broader strategy to reduce fertility in the population. The other speaker counters by describing ivermectin as having productive toxicity, noting this is observed in animal studies, including rabbits and other mammals, and rejecting the idea that its toxicity is limited to arthropods like crabs or cockroaches. This speaker claims it is a well-proven reproductive toxic substance for many mammals. They reference another video discussing the neurotoxic effect of ivermectin and mention that veterinarians discuss routine use and continued use of ivermectin, associating it with various adverse outcomes.

Speaker claims ivermectin is part of a diabolical Rockefeller plan devised in 2010, predicting people would reject vaccines after 2020 and turn to another pharmaceutical. They question ivermectin’s safety by listing side effects such as blindness, liver failure, and infertility. They argue the Rockefellers own the entire medical system worldwide, so buying from a different country is ineffective. The discussion notes ads for pharmaceuticals on alternative-health platforms, suggesting a marketing push. They say parasites are really heavy metals in the body, and that ivermectin contains heavy metals. The claim is that ivermectin, like antibiotics, suppresses symptoms. They describe a $32,000,000,000 industry fueled by this narrative, and when they researched producers, they found Merck, Johnson and Johnson, Pfizer, and Bayer. The same companies making vaccines in 2020 allegedly also make ivermectin, framing it as a bait-and-switch.

There is a growing problem of people using a drug meant for animals to treat COVID-19. This false information started with a viral video from a group called America's frontline doctors, claiming that hydroxychloroquine could cure COVID. They later started promoting another drug called Ivermectin as a cure for COVID, despite warnings from the CDC, FDA, and other health organizations that it is not effective and could be harmful. Ivermectin is actually meant to prevent parasites in animals like horses. It's important to rely on approved treatments and vaccines to prevent COVID-19.

The speaker claims both vaccines and ivermectin fund big pharma, starting with a "graphene oxide rabbit hole" from 2015. Manufacturers of both include Bayer, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Merck, Pfizer, and Johnson and Johnson. The speaker alleges ivermectin and injections share ingredients that break down the blood-brain barrier. The Rockefeller Foundation, funded by the Rothschilds, owns the entire medical system, according to a document removed from Google and research by Eustace Mullins. For "parasites," which are supposedly heavy metal overloads, the speaker suggests alternatives like dragon's blood, pumpkin seeds, papaya seeds, fasting, borax, baking soda, turpentine, chili shots, cilantro, wormwood, or black walnut to remove heavy metals instead of funding big pharma. The speaker believes that funding big pharma perpetuates a harmful cycle.

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.

The speaker discusses Ivermectin, a Merck product, and its ingredients, including benzyl alcohol, glycols, and polysorbate 80, which is also used in vaccines to help heavy metals cross the blood-brain barrier. Propylene glycol, also found in antifreeze, is another ingredient. The speaker claims parasites accumulate due to heavy metal pollution, and while Ivermectin may kill the worms, it doesn't address the underlying heavy metal issue. The speaker states that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has rights to these pills. The speaker suggests using natural foods like pumpkin seeds, papaya seeds, beets, carrots, and dragon's blood to remove heavy metals from the body instead of funding Big Pharma.

Speaker 0 summarizes a narrative connecting vaccines and IV ivermectin to funding for big pharma, beginning with a supposed graphene oxide rabbit hole dating back to February 2015. The speaker lists manufacturers associated with these products: Bayer, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Merck, Pfizer, and Johnson & Johnson, noting familiarity with these brands from 2020. The speaker highlights a date associated with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and claims that the foundation is linked to the discussed issue. The argument continues by pointing to ingredients claimed to be common between injections and pills, described as the same substances used to break down the blood-brain barrier, and asserts that these ingredients poison people. The speaker poses the question of who planned all of this and asserts that the Rockefeller Foundation funds, and is funded by, the Rothschilds, owning the entire medical system. A referenced document is said to have been removed from Google, and the claim is reinforced by referencing Eustace Mullins as providing deeper detail on the topic. In addressing solutions, the speaker shifts to concerns about heavy metal overload and parasites, offering a list of remedies: dragon’s blood, pumpkin seeds, papaya seeds, fasting, borax, baking soda, turpentine from the pine tree, a chili shot, cilantro, wormwood, and black walnut. The recommended approach is to pull heavy metals out rather than continuing to fund big pharma, with the speaker suggesting that the cycle benefits all sides and may perpetuate itself if unaddressed.

In the discussion, Speaker 0 argues that word-of-mouth PR surrounding ivermectin “saved so many lives” and created widespread distrust in the industry, describing a shift where people questioned official stances: “My oxygen was low, and I did take ivermectin and it did work. Why are they telling me ivermectin doesn't work?” This view frames ivermectin as having proven effectiveness in practice, contrasting with public or institutional statements. Speaker 1 adds that it’s “really hard not to get angry” about the official trials, claiming that the WHO and, specifically, the Oxford trials demonstrated that ivermectin didn’t work, but that it “patently does.” They describe the fundamental problem as the way those trials were conducted, implying methodological issues. They discuss specifics of how the studies tested different drugs: Speaker 0 notes that hydroxychloroquine was given “with food” in the study, while ivermectin was given on an empty stomach, implying a potential misapplication of administration guidelines. They state that Merck’s initial labeling for ivermectin in other indications (scabies and lice) recommends administration with a fatty meal, and share a personal anecdote that their sister introduced ivermectin to the market for lice and conducted a clinical trial with many patients. Speaker 1 questions why leading clinicians would administer these drugs without knowing the correct guidelines, suggesting there should have been knowledge about administration with meals for hydroxychloroquine and with food for ivermectin. They remark, “Why the heck didn’t they know that?” Speaker 0 contends that physicians adhere to guidelines and hospital rules and fear lawsuits; they claim this fear leads to doctors “not even wanna know” certain information. They express the sentiment that the medical community was discouraged or constrained by fear of legal consequences and licensing actions, which contributed to doctors avoiding or stopping certain lines of inquiry or treatment. Overall, the dialogue centers on a perceived discrepancy between real-world outcomes of ivermectin use and official trial conclusions, the role of administration guidelines in trial results, and the influence of fear of legal ramifications on clinical practice.

Speaker 1 notes that ivermectin has broken through to the public sphere beyond COVID and is now discussed for many diseases. Speaker 0 asks where ivermectin stands in the scientific and medical community today and what other use cases exist for the medicine. Speaker 1 responds that thousands of doctors follow their data; 18,000 GI doctors see their data when they publish or present at the American College of Gastroenterology. Word-of-mouth in the medical community is a major form of marketing, with one doctor speaking to another. Referencing the COVID era, Speaker 1 mentions corruption and retractions, then describes ivermectin as having created a healthcare revolution where doctors have lined up to work to see other benefits of ivermectin without needing to ask permission to treat patients. A whole branch of healthcare is moving away from the same institute that Speaker 1 helped create drugs to market with his sisters. He says a group of doctors who had sponsored or helped pharma are turning away from pharma and exploring other methods to treat patients. He states his job is to unite doctors to see the truth, while bringing pharma back to being righteous and stopping data manipulation and scientist censorship. Speaker 1 references his book, Let’s Talk SH.T, acknowledging he could be wrong and challenging others to prove him wrong and reproduce the data to retract the hypothesis or paper. He emphasizes that the scientific process should be followed, especially when everything was done by the book and as well as he could. He adds that the research was not funded by others; it was funded by his savings. He created the microbiome research foundation with the goal of raising money to study kids with autism and to push an IND to the FDA, which cost about $600,000 to obtain FDA approval. He clarifies that no external party paid for this work, and he continues to struggle to raise funds to treat poor autistic kids who cannot afford expensive stool testing, drugs, and vitamins; they need help and everyone should step in to assist these kids. Speaker 1 concludes that their focus is fixing autism, with the aim of later addressing Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, and cancer.

The speaker discusses the vaccine and IV mectin, claiming both fund big pharma. They allege a connection to a "graphene oxide rabbit hole" dating back to 2015. Manufacturers like Bayer, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Merck, Pfizer, and Johnson & Johnson are mentioned. The speaker claims IV mectin and injections share the same ingredients, which allegedly break down the blood-brain barrier. They state the Rockefeller Foundation, funded by the Rothschilds, owns the entire medical system, referencing a document removed from Google and a book by Eustace Mullins. The speaker suggests that parasites are actually heavy metal overloads and recommends solutions like dragon's blood, pumpkin seeds, papaya seeds, fasting, borax, baking soda, turpentine, chili shots, cilantro, wormwood, or black walnut to remove heavy metals instead of funding big pharma.

The speakers discuss the exposure of mainstream media and how it tries to dismiss and discredit them. They mention the framing of Ivermectin as horse medicine and find it amusing. They clarify that they took Ivermectin based on the judgment of a medical professional and list other medications they used for COVID treatment. They mention that 200 congresspeople have also been treated with Ivermectin. They speculate that the demonization of Ivermectin may be motivated by financial interests since it is a generic drug. The video ends with the information that Ivermectin costs around 30¢ per dose.

The speaker discusses a CNN segment where they portrayed him as taking horse medication. He argues that this portrayal is a clear indication of a conspiracy, as the medication in question, Ivermectin, is commonly used in humans and has even won a Nobel Prize for its efficacy in humans. The speaker believes that Ivermectin had to be discredited in order to promote the COVID-19 vaccines, as federal law prohibits emergency use authorization for vaccines if there is an existing effective medication. Acknowledging Ivermectin's effectiveness would have jeopardized the multi-billion dollar vaccine industry.

Speaker 0: Polysorbate eighty opens up the blood brain barrier so that mercury, formaldehyde, and all the other chemicals can pass into the blood brain barrier. You are 100% correct. Polysorbate eighty is the same ingredient they put in ivermectin. So when all these people are like, oh, I didn't get the vaccine, but I'm taking ivermectin. You're taking the same toxic chemical that allows chemicals to break down your blood brain barrier and mess up your body. It's in both ones. It's in the vaccines and it's in ivermectin. And if you go through the whole ingredient list of ivermectin, it's quite a rabbit hole because that's also a pharmaceutical product. You know, when you get into operation lockstep, which was done by the Rockefellers, they said that a solution would roll out that people would get poisoned with. Well, ivermectin is that. You look into the toxicity of ivermectin and it's quite a rabbit hole. That's for sure. All these people having kidney failure, liver failure, all because they're trying to take some solution when they could have just ate some organic papaya seeds. That's it.

Multiple trials have been conducted on Ivermectin, but none have proven its effectiveness, according to Speaker 0. However, Speaker 1 argues that there is a significant body of evidence, including randomized controlled trials and studies, supporting the use of Ivermectin for COVID. They mention countries like India, Mexico, and nations in Central Africa, as well as the Tokyo Medical Association endorsing its use. While some doctors and scientists have criticized certain trial methodologies, claiming that there is no science to support Ivermectin for COVID is false. Speaker 1 also highlights that experienced critical care doctors worldwide have prescribed Ivermectin based on available data and their own expertise, dismissing the characterization of the drug as a horse dewormer. Speaker 2 adds that research conducted by DARPA in the early 2000s recommended Ivermectin as a top product for a coronavirus pandemic due to its antiviral and immune modulatory properties, which had been proven in vitro and in vivo. These medications have been safely used in humans for several decades.

I've recently learned about the push for early COVID-19 treatments, particularly Ivermectin, which I initially thought was beneficial. However, I've discovered that it may be a harmful fertility toxin, affecting conception and fetal development. This raises questions about the motives behind its promotion. Additionally, many supplements marketed for health may actually hinder the body's ability to eliminate Ivermectin, creating dangerous drug interactions. This suggests a troubling connection between these products and the ongoing health crisis. It's essential to be cautious with pharmaceutical products and supplements, as the implications could be significant.

The speaker expresses frustration that COVID vaccines are still recommended for those most likely to be injured by them. They claim Vinay Prasad, now at the FDA, attacked them on ivermectin, stating it doesn't work and that "turbo cancer" is not a thing. The speaker believes there is denial regarding the mRNA technology and its potential link to aggressive cancers, as well as ivermectin's potential as a solution. They suggest that admitting the mRNA vaccines may be causing cancer and that ivermectin may be a solution could force the shutdown of the mRNA technology. The speaker claims there are numerous publications suggesting the vaccines may be causing aggressive "turbo cancers." They state the new Trump administration doesn't want to abandon the mRNA technology, complicating the use of ivermectin, fenbendazole, and benzoyl in cancer treatment due to a lack of support.