reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The transcript discusses several intertwined points about the FDA's funding, information sources, and a personal health journey. It states that the FDA gets 47% of its funding from the pharmaceutical industry, and that this information was released only after a rumor claimed 50% of their funding came from big pharma. The speaker notes, “the people that you’re supposed to be making rules and regulations for are the same people that are paying you money,” describing this as a conflict of interest and urging readers to consider the implication of funding influencing regulatory decisions. The speaker then shifts to their personal experience with health issues and the challenge of finding valid information that isn’t paid for by big pharma. They share a statistic attributed to women with similar issues: “85 to ninety percent of the women who experience the same issues that I experience notice changes in their symptoms or alleviation completely from their symptoms simply by changing their diet, namely going gluten free.” Although the speaker says they personally are not inclined to adopt gluten-free changes, they are cutting out refined carbs and sugars from their diet and report progress: “I've been on this diet for two days now, and I already feel a ton different.” This personal anecdote is presented in the context of comparing diet-driven symptom changes to pharmaceutical influence. The speaker mentions ongoing changes to their living space and routines as part of their broader stance. They say, “we're putting up our squat rack again in our home gym,” signaling a strengthening or lifestyle shift. They also report, “we did get some egg laying birds,” suggesting new household activities. Throughout, there is a reiterated sentiment directed at big pharma: “basically saying a big to big pharma,” underscoring their stance against pharmaceutical influence. Finally, the speaker emphasizes the surprising nature of the 47% funding figure and reiterates, “I still can't believe it's 47% of their funding, and they think that's okay.” They invite audience engagement, closing with, “as always, I look forward to hearing your thoughts about all of this down below.”

There are 1,800 big pharma lobbyists in Washington, influencing policies significantly. This raises concerns about their impact on public health and safety. To combat this, one solution is to prohibit government officials from becoming lobbyists after their term. Currently, there are regulations that limit this, but they often allow for loopholes, enabling former officials to work for companies they once regulated. This creates conflicts of interest, as seen with the Sackler family and the FDA. While addressing these issues is crucial, it often gets sidelined by other pressing matters.

Dr. David Graham, FDA associate director, discusses Vioxx's heart attack risks. Despite studies showing increased risks, FDA did not act promptly. He highlights FDA's flawed drug safety system, emphasizing the need for a more patient-centered approach. Regulatory obstacles and conflicts of interest hinder effective drug safety measures, leaving Americans vulnerable to harm. Graham calls for a reevaluation of FDA's structure and priorities to prevent future drug safety catastrophes.

Dr. David Graham discusses the Vioxx scandal, highlighting FDA failures in addressing heart attack risks associated with the drug. Despite evidence of increased heart attack risks, FDA did not take appropriate action, resulting in an estimated 100,000 excess cases. Graham criticizes FDA's focus on drug approval over safety, citing conflicts of interest and a culture that prioritizes industry interests. He argues for a more proactive and patient-centered approach to drug safety regulation.

Dr. Anthony Fauci has been in a position of power for 50 years, promoting the pharmaceutical industry's growth and influence. He has nurtured financial ties between pharmaceutical companies and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), making NIAID essentially a subsidiary of the industry. Fauci has control over various agencies and organizations, including the CDC, FDA, and WHO, and has the power to manipulate scientific research outcomes. He rewards loyalty and punishes dissent among scientists. Fauci's management style allows NIAID employees to profit from pharmaceutical companies, and he himself benefits from royalties and patents. His focus on profitable drugs and vaccines has overshadowed NIAID's mission to research chronic diseases. Critics argue that Fauci prioritizes industry profits over public health.

A network president revealed that allowing certain voices on air could lead to the host's firing due to advertiser pressures, particularly from pharmaceutical companies. During non-election years, up to 70% of news revenue can come from pharma ads, which serve as a public relations tactic rather than simply promoting drugs. This funding influences the media, making it reluctant to investigate pharmaceutical practices, even when there are serious concerns about vaccine safety and corporate misconduct. The media often dismisses legitimate questions as anti-science, silencing discussions about vaccine injuries. There's a growing need to reconsider trust in the pharmaceutical industry, especially with the increasing government funding for drugs like Ozempic.

Anthony Fauci is seen as a symbol of institutional corruption within organizations like the NIH and FDA. Other scientists, such as Frankie Kelsey and Bernice Eddie, who raised concerns about harmful substances in vaccines, were punished instead of being recognized. It seems that in order to succeed in these regulatory agencies, one must support the pharmaceutical industry. Fauci's longevity in his position is attributed to his ability to protect industry profits rather than public health.

Four companies, Pfizer, Merck, Blackstone, and Sanofi, are responsible for producing all 72 vaccines. However, these companies have a history of criminal activity, collectively paying $35 billion in fines for falsifying science, defrauding regulators, lying to doctors, and causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. For instance, Merck's product, Vioxx, was sold as a headache pill but caused heart attacks and killed around 120,500 Americans. Despite this, they only paid fines and faced no jail time. It is hard to believe that these companies, known for lying and cheating, are honest when it comes to vaccines. The vaccine industry is immune to lawsuits, making it the perfect place for these companies to avoid consequences.

Government regulators are influenced by big pharma, with FDA employees receiving royalties from approved vaccines and drugs. FDA's budget heavily relies on pharmaceutical industries, leading to agency capture. For instance, NIH owns half of the Moderna vaccine, with high-level deputies under Fauci receiving $150,000 annually from it indefinitely. This conflict of interest is not widely discussed in mainstream media, as speaking out can lead to censorship.

Speaker 0 describes a study on the hepatitis B vaccine, stating it is loaded with mercury during the first thirty days of life and comparing infants who received it in that period to those who did not or who received it later. He claims that the relative risk of smoking a pack a day for twenty years leading to lung cancer is ten, with a figure of 11.35, and attributes this to Thimerosal. Speaker 1 asks if the claim is about Thimerosal, and Speaker 0 confirms, then recounts a story that motivated his involvement: a “secret meeting” held to avoid on-campus exposure to freedom of information requests. The meeting occurred at Simpson Wood, a remote Methodist retreat center on the Chattahoochee River in Norcross, Georgia. Over two days, 52 attendees included major vaccine companies, regulatory agencies (WHO, CDC, FDA, NIH, HHS), and leaders in academic vaccinology. Megan recorded the first day, and Speaker 0 says he obtained the transcripts in 2005, calling them horrific. He invites listeners to read them on the Children’s Health Events site to judge for themselves, arguing the transcripts reveal “panjarums of the American healthcare system” and that regulators claimed the science was bulletproof while suggesting vaccines cause autism. Speaker 1 notes that Speaker 0 has previously claimed the conference revealed that vaccines cause autism and that data should be buried, referencing a January 2011 Rolling Stone article and a Salon piece that later withdrew the article. He mentions an eighteen-month US Senate committee investigation that found allegations of CDC misconduct unsubstantiated and concluded there was no cover-up. Speaker 0 clarifies it was a two-year committee hearing led by Senator Burton at the Governmental Oversight Committee, and asserts that vaccines do cause autism, while encouraging listeners to research the science themselves rather than trust him or the organizations cited. Speaker 0 then attacks the credibility and funding of CDC, NIH, and the American Academy of Pediatrics, claiming they are “bought and paid for,” with statistics he cites: FDA is funded 45% by the pharmaceutical industry; the AAP allegedly gets 80% of its money from industry; and the CDC spends 4,900,000,000 of its 12,000,000,000 annual budget. Speaker 1 pushes back by noting that parents within these organizations vaccinate their own children against vaccines that include thimerosal, asking rhetorically whether they are willingly harming their children, and suggesting a broader government conspiracy. Speaker 0 then directs Speaker 1 to the movie Dopesick for further context, contrasting it with opioid prescriptions, and asserts that doctors treated patients and their own children with opioids because they believed FDA guidance. Overall, the dialogue centers on thimerosal in early vaccines, alleged hidden meetings and data suppression, controversial media coverage of vaccines-autism links, and critical claims about regulatory agency funding and conduct, culminating in comparisons to pharmaceutical and medical industry dynamics.

Politicians have long promised to eliminate the discrepancy between drug prices in the U.S. and Europe. This was a key issue for Bernie Sanders, but previous leaders haven't acted on it. Politicians make these promises knowing they likely won't have to fulfill them. The reason is that Congress is heavily influenced by the pharmaceutical industry. There is at least one pharmaceutical lobbyist for every congressman, senator, and Supreme Court member.

Conflicts of interest in regulatory agencies, particularly the FDA, are a major concern for public health. Nearly half of the FDA's budget comes from the pharmaceutical industry, which raises questions about its impartiality. This issue is exemplified by the accelerated approval of an expensive and minimally effective Alzheimer's drug, despite expert disapproval. The revolving door between the FDA and pharmaceutical companies further complicates matters, with many former FDA officials taking lucrative positions in the industry. Similar conflicts exist in the USDA, where a significant majority of dietary guideline panelists have ties to the food industry. It's crucial to eliminate these conflicts to ensure fair and effective health regulations. The food pyramid has historically served economic interests rather than public health, highlighting the need for reform in how dietary guidelines are established.

The discussion traces the alleged dark origins and long-running influence behind modern medicine and vaccines, framing today’s pharmaceutical system as the culmination of a century-long strategy led by powerful interests. - Rockefeller’s role is presented as foundational. Speaker 0 describes John D. Rockefeller becoming America’s first billionaire in 1913 and using strategic philanthropy through the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research (1901) and the Rockefeller Foundation (1913) to shape Western medicine toward laboratory-based, drug-centered approaches. The narrative claims this shift marginalized herbalism, naturopathy, homeopathy, and holistic remedies, promoting a model in which a pill is developed for every illness and patients remain chronically ill to sustain repeat business. - The early to mid-20th century is characterized as a period of regulatory capture and a pivot to synthetic, patentable drugs. From the 1920s to the 1940s, oil and chemical companies supposedly moved into synthetic drugs with Rockefeller guidance, removing incentives to patent natural remedies while patenting synthetic ones. This, the speaker argues, created a profit motive to treat illness as a recurring revenue stream. - Regulatory capture and the FDA’s evolution are discussed. The claim is that the FDA became more of a gatekeeper dependent on the industry it regulates, with former pharma executives and consultants filling key roles and rubber-stamping drugs. The only notable counterpoint highlighted is Doctor Francis Kelsey, who reportedly blocked the thalidomide approval in the 1960s, preventing birth defects in the United States and illustrating a brief period when public safety was prioritized. - The subsequent decades are summarized as intensifying industry influence. The 1970s are described as a time when pharmaceutical funding of clinical trials and lobbying expanded, and the 1980 Bayh-Dole Act is cited as enabling private patenting of publicly funded research, increasing collaboration between universities and industry and training medical professionals to favor pharmaceuticals. The 1990s are marked by direct-to-consumer advertising on U.S. television, which allegedly shifted patient behavior and doctor prescribing patterns toward medications advertised directly to the public. - Whistleblower testimony is invoked to illustrate ongoing concerns about drug safety and industry practices. A whistleblower recounts bribes and perks tied to drug promotion, including lavish gifts and trips to doctors, and asserts that patients are often treated as a means to profit for corporations. - The conversation shifts to vaccine safety and regulatory issues. The discussion includes claims about the COVID-19 vaccines, with assertions that the FDA acknowledges a number of child deaths, and a reference to an autopsy-based analysis by Dr. Peter McCullough suggesting a high proportion of vaccine-related deaths in examined cases. There is mention that Dr. McCullough faced professional pushback. - The importance of gut health and the microbiome is emphasized as a counterpoint to pharmaceutical-centric medicine. Speaker 3 argues that gut microbiome diversity is linked to many chronic conditions and aging, and cites the benefits of fermentation and kimchi. A specific emphasis is placed on kimchi as having a broad spectrum of beneficial bacteria and on the purported anti-aging effects observed in cell studies. - Kim Bright of Brightcore Nutrition advocates kimchi-based products (Kimchi One) as a practical approach to support gut health and overall well-being, describing customer testimonials about improved digestion, immune function, skin and hair health, and weight management. She argues for the daily use of gut-supporting probiotics, especially after antibiotic use, and asserts that antibiotics can disrupt gut flora, necessitating restoration of beneficial bacteria. - The speakers discuss consumer engagement and the role of direct customer contact, contrasting it with impersonal pharmaceutical industry practices. They express optimism about changes in medicine and a desire to reduce reliance on processed foods and large pharmaceutical advertising, hoping for reforms and greater transparency. Throughout, the tone asserts a pervasive influence of Rockefeller-era strategies on today’s medical and vaccine landscape, while promoting kimchi-based approaches as a healthier counterbalance and offering products as a practical embodiment of that stance.

Universities, health organizations, and others seek money from big corporations to influence research and opinions. By funding research, paying individual professionals, and supporting programs, corporations ensure loyalty and favorable outcomes. This financial influence shapes the medical establishment, even if it appears independent on the surface.

The speaker claims that those who oppose the pharmaceutical industry are punished, while those who support it, like Anthony Fauci, rise to the top. Fauci, who has been in his position for 50 years, is highly paid and serves the agency's ambition. The speaker accuses the National Institutes of Health (NIH) of abandoning its mission to understand why Americans are sick and instead focusing on developing drugs for profit. The NIH earns billions of dollars from the Moderna vaccine, with Fauci's employees benefiting from patents and royalties. The speaker suggests that the agency's commercial interests have overshadowed its regulatory responsibilities.

Pharmaceutical companies like Merck, Sanofi, Pfizer, and Glaxo have paid billions in penalties for dishonest practices, resulting in harm and deaths. The opioid crisis and Vioxx are examples of collusion between pharma and regulators, leading to thousands of deaths. Regulatory agencies have become puppets for the industry, depriving the public of informed consent.

Most physicians and clinicians avoid getting involved in the issue of profit-driven healthcare. The real problem lies in the collusion between academic institutions, doctors, medical journals, and industry for financial gain. These corporations, as legal entities, often exhibit psychopathic traits, prioritizing profit over the well-being of patients. Many top drug companies have been fined billions for illegal marketing, hiding harm data, and manipulating results. However, these fines are often outweighed by the profits they make from selling the drugs. While the pharmaceutical industry has contributed life-saving treatments, the net effect of their practices is negative, with a significant amount of wasted resources and harmful drugs approved.

Politicians have long promised to address the discrepancy between drug prices in the U.S. and Europe. This issue was central to Bernie Sanders' presidential campaigns. However, these promises were never fulfilled because Congress is heavily influenced by the pharmaceutical industry. There is at least one pharmaceutical lobbyist for every member of Congress, the Senate, and the Supreme Court.

Manufacturers must supply the FDA with evidence that their chemicals are safe before being added to foods. The speaker claims the burden of proof falls on the manufacturer seeking profit, not the FDA. The FDA relies on user fees and budget appropriations for funding. Manufacturers pay fees based on the weight of each batch, which supports the FDA's color certification program. The speaker suggests this system is essentially bribery, using a hypothetical example of a cartel making cocaine baby food and paying for a study to prove its safety. In fiscal year 2022, user fees accounted for $2.9 billion of the FDA's $6.2 billion budget. The speaker concludes that nearly half of the FDA's budget comes from big food and big pharma, which they believe is a conflict of interest.

Americans are programmed to trust only FDA-approved drugs, but Big Pharma buys the FDA's approval. The FDA stopped independently reviewing all drugs about 30 years ago. Drugmakers can pay a lump sum upfront, such as $10,000,000, to get immediate approval to sell their products. The approval is granted if the drugmaker believes and can prove through their own research studies that the drug is safe and effective.

Many drugs once deemed safe and effective have been removed from the market due to serious health risks. For example, Accutane was linked to liver damage after 27 years, and DES, initially used to prevent miscarriages, was found to cause them instead. Thalidomide, which caused severe birth defects, also raised concerns. The funding sources for studies are crucial, as industry grants often influence research outcomes. Universities and nonprofits may receive funding from these industries, leading to potential conflicts of interest. Additionally, medical journals rely on industry advertising, which can compromise their integrity. A significant issue is that companies can selectively publish data, omitting studies that do not support their claims. Ultimately, the field of science is lacking in ethics.

Les médecins reçoivent de l'argent des laboratoires, mais le vrai problème est le lobbying politique et économique caché. Les décisions importantes sont prises lors de rencontres secrètes, influençant la mise sur le marché des médicaments. Il est crucial de surveiller les conflits d'intérêts partout, y compris au sein de l'exécutif. Le lobbying pour des entreprises devrait être interdit pour éviter les abus.

The discussion traces a long, shadowy arc in the development of modern vaccines and medicine, arguing that rapid COVID-19 vaccine progress rests on over a century of influence by powerful interests rather than sudden breakthroughs. - The narrative centers on John D. Rockefeller, who became America’s first billionaire in 1913, the same year the Federal Reserve was created. It frames Rockefeller as leveraging his oil wealth to monopolize medicine, promoting prescription drugs while vilifying natural and holistic remedies. The claim is that Rockefeller used strategic philanthropy (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, established 1901; Rockefeller Foundation, 1913) to push laboratory-based, drug-centered medicine, marginalize herbalism and naturopathy, and steer doctors toward pharmaceuticals. The effect, according to the speakers, was to keep people sick so they would return for ongoing treatments rather than cures. - The timeline continues with the rise of the pharmaceutical industry from the 1920s to 1940s, described as moving into synthetic drugs with Rockefeller guidance. Natural remedies were said to be non-patentable while synthetic drugs could be patented, creating a business incentive for ongoing, chronic treatment rather than cures. - The conversation shifts to regulatory dynamics, arguing that regulation became regulatory capture from the 1930s to 1960s, with the FDA functioning as a gatekeeper increasingly populated by former pharma professionals. The FDA’s integrity is debated through the example of Dr. Francis Kelsey, who resisted approving thalidomide; the drug was later linked to birth defects worldwide, and Kelsey’s stance is presented as a rare early stand for public safety. - In the 1970s and 1980s, the narrative asserts growing corporate influence: pharma lobbies expand, advertising budgets explode, and medicine becomes a growth industry. The Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 is cited as enabling private patents on publicly funded research, tying universities to pharma interests and shaping medical education toward pharmaceutical solutions. Direct-to-consumer advertising is highlighted as a turning point in the 1990s, pressuring doctors through patient demand spurred by TV ads. - The discussion includes a first-hand account from a former pharmaceutical sales representative, Lisa Prada, who describes bribes and perks (golf outings, concerts, strip clubs, etc.) to influence prescribing, and asserts that patients were often treated as means to corporate ends. - Kim Bright, founder of Brightcore Nutrition, joins to discuss current health issues, arguing that the pharmaceutical industry prioritizes profits over patient well-being. She notes that the Rockefeller Foundation funded COVID-19 vaccine efforts (she cites $55 million) and argues the foundation and industry continued to push medical interventions globally. She notes that the FDA’s public acknowledgment of COVID vaccine-related child deaths is incongruent with whistleblowers’ claims and autopsy data. - The program underscores the idea that prescription drugs are the third leading cause of death in the United States and Europe, citing studies on gut microbiome disruption from medications like antibiotics and acid-reducing drugs (dysbiosis) as a major contributor to chronic disease. - The gut microbiome is emphasized as central to health. Dr. David Perlmutter’s work on the gut-brain connection is referenced, including criticism faced for linking diet and fermented foods to health outcomes. Kimchi is highlighted as a powerful antimicrobial and a potential anti-aging agent in cellular studies. The hosts discuss kimchi’s health benefits, including improved digestion, immune function, and weight management. - Brightcore promotes Kimchi One capsules as a convenient alternative for Americans who dislike traditional kimchi, claiming benefits such as reduced bloating, better digestion, improved hair and skin, and weight loss. A discount offer is advertised: 25% off online, up to 50% off with a phone order, free shipping, and a free vitamin D3 with the first 100 callers, using the code provided. - The conversation closes with reflections on the do-not-mistake-the-system dynamic, optimism about changes in medicine, and calls for removing dependency on processed foods and advertising-driven medicine, with an acknowledgment of RFK Jr.’s activism against pharmaceutical ads on television.