reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Speaker 0 states: He took 69 vaccines, probably more doses than anyone in the room, and cannot be labeled an anti-vaxxer. If given what he knows today and had the choice, he would not take those 69 vaccines. He would rely on the McCullough Foundation report, which now summarizes 12 studies, showing a healthy child born today remains healthier if they take no vaccines whatsoever. He notes that he and his kids were healthy.

Speaker 0 states they are going to Washington D.C. to meet with senators and representatives, after which they will sell Avery's books. Avery (Speaker 1) expresses reluctance about the book, stating it has ruined their life and its publication will worsen it. Speaker 0 reminds Avery that they previously wanted people to know about the book. Avery acknowledges this, but now considers it a "stupid, silly mistake" and no longer wants the book published.

Speaker 0 argues that the science is very incorrect and very bad science, aside from all the other material Jill Demenov and US Right to Know uncovered. They claim those sources went overboard to disprove something without good data, and that the manipulation and intent to tell a story that is not substantiated are the reasons why they should be retracted. They also state that these people do not have the courage or the decency to retract.

The speaker asserts that publications like The Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine, and JAMA are corrupt and will no longer be used by NIH scientists. They claim these journals have become vessels for pharmaceutical propaganda, alleging that pharmaceutical companies control the journals and that publishing requires a $10,000 payment. The speaker references past heads of these journals, who they claim have admitted the journals prioritize promoting pharmaceutical products over scientific integrity. As a result, the speaker states they will stop NIH scientists from publishing in these journals. Instead, they plan to create new journals within each institute that will become preeminent.

Speaker 0 argues medicine is becoming like magazines, with journals turning into gossip columns. He calls a group of journals "predatory journals" that are smart because they do have an impact factor, they're brand new journals, they send you emails constantly. He says, "they can manipulate or retract the data to make you look bad." He describes his Frontiers experience: he submitted "a hypothesis on ivermectin increasing the bifidobacteria," and it was accepted by the peer review. "Nine months later, the paper was the number one read at Frontiers with 59,000 views." He says this is an interesting hypothesis "right? Because we're seeing ivermectin has a role potentially in cancer. So maybe increasing the benefit of bacteria is how we're doing it, right?" He notes that because it got so much attention, "it lit up ivermectin, which they don't want to do, you understand?"

Speaker 0 describes a controversial 2000 study and its alleged connections to Monsanto. The speaker asserts that Monsanto staff helped write the article, and that the authors were likely receiving large sums of money from Monsanto. They claim much of the data in the study was unpublished, describing it as secret data from Monsanto, and label the paper “basically a complete fraud.” The study supposedly claimed that glyphosate was safe and not linked to cancer. The speaker then references subsequent studies released recently, which purportedly found that glyphosate increased or caused ten distinct types of cancer in rats when the rats were exposed at so-called safe levels. Despite these findings, the speaker notes that the original paper was used by agencies around the world to claim glyphosate was safe and to support approval processes. The speaker concludes that the entire foundation of those safety assurances was built on “a complete fraud and lie,” and states that the retraction of the 2000 paper is, in this context, something they are happy about, remarking that it is probably the only time they will be happy about a retraction.

Speaker 0 frames the issue as 'the corruption of science' and the 'capture of the agencies' by pharmaceutical industries, stating the goal is to restore integrity and credibility to science. Speaker 1 cites a CDC internal study: 'black boys who got the vaccine on time had a two hundred and sixty percent greater chance of getting an autism diagnosis than children who waited.' He adds that 'The chief chief scientist on that, Doctor. William Thompson, the senior said vaccine safety science at CDC, was ordered to destroy that data. And then they published it without that fact.' Finally, he asserts, 'So, you know that story. And you know of hundreds of stories like that. It happens all the time. We are being lied to by these agencies, and we're gonna change that right now.'

Speaker 0: Asked about the system of retractions and whether retracting a paper discredits a hypothesis, and on what basis retractions occur. Speaker 1: Responded that quoting papers that are later retracted does not negate a hypothesis; there is no rule requiring a hypothesis to be retracted if a cited paper is retracted after publication. They note that the practice involves harassing journals rather than logically disproving a hypothesis. For example, they may present a dozen questions to the journal, answer all of them, and then continue harassing the journal to the point that the journal ignores the answers and retracts the paper to avoid further harassment.

The speaker describes two competing, ongoing pressures around a موضوع they’re discussing. They say: “It’s been independently discovered for other times. He said, it has been said, it has been suppressed every single fucking time. And he said, I don’t think they’re gonna suppress it this time. He said you’re in the clear.” They claim “they obviously know about you” because they’ve had “multiple protective and threatening interactions with various agency affiliations.” The speaker explains that if the person hasn’t had a US government agent come to them to say, “stop. Shut the fuck up. Stop. Shut the fuck up,” then “they’re gonna let you do it.” They assert that “they’re waiting,” with “SSP motherfuckers” twiddling their thumbs, wondering, “Is Amy not gonna publish soon? God. We’ve been influencing this bitch forever.” The speaker notes that “on the other side of the fence, there’s multiple parties looking at each other like, didn’t we tell this bitch three years ago that we kill people for this? Is she not listening?” They emphasize the persistence of warnings: “What is she doing? She’s still doing it? We told her we were gonna kill her three years ago.” The speaker describes two persistent scenarios in their life: one where people say, “do it. Do it. You’re the one. Do it.” and another where “multiple people” tell them, “they’re gonna kill you. Don’t do it. They’re gonna kill you.”

The speakers claim that well-funded entities suppressed the truth about autism. They state that parents of autistic children who have tried to investigate the causes of autism have encountered intense resistance. They allege that studies used to support the claim that vaccines don't cause autism are easily disproven, but the media's ownership allows the lie to spread faster than the truth. One speaker believes that many find it too difficult to accept that vaccines could cause autism. They mention someone who suspects a vaccine caused their child's autism but still shamed others for not taking the COVID vaccine, illustrating the power of propaganda. People are afraid of social ostracization and are hesitant to speak their minds, often only whispering their true feelings to close friends. The speakers reference montages showing the horrible things people said about unvaccinated individuals.

"I did a case where I did fecal transplant on a patient with Alzheimer's, and he could remember his daughter's date of birth six months after the procedure. So when I changed his microbiome, his poop in his colon, and gave him his wife's microbiome, who was super with it, started remembering things. So, when we start looking, and we're actually publishing stuff at ACG, because the deadline's today actually to publish for ACG American So, College of we have six abstracts coming up, and so we're showing the data on Alzheimer's, autism, long haulers. So, can't say vaccine injured because then it's not gonna be, you know, it's too controversial. So we have to stay within the but here's the problem. It should not be controversial. In order to advance science, in order to advance medicine, we need to be, better. We need to be better at listening"

A birth cohort study on the impact of childhood vaccination on short- and long-term chronic health outcomes reports results from a large sample (18,468 subjects). The discussion surrounding the study emphasizes that, if results showed vaccines were associated with chronic diseases, the findings would be highly compelling and valuable. The reported outcomes from the vaccinated group include: - Asthma diagnosis: vaccinated subjects were over four times more likely to have an asthma diagnosis. - Acute and chronic ear infections: six hundred percent more. - Speech disorders: four point four seven times the amount in the vaccinated compared to the unvaccinated. - Learning issues and related developmental concerns: a six hundred and sixteen percent increase in learning issues, developmental delays, speech delays, and language delays. In contrast, the unvaccinated group is described as having zero occurrences in several categories, including dysfunction, diabetes, behavioral problems, learning disabilities, intellectual disabilities, tics, and other psychological disabilities. The discussion highlights the magnitude of the differences as a major point of emphasis, with statements such as “It’s a big difference” and “This is devastating.” There is strong advocacy for the study’s publication, including claims that “This paper should have been rushed to publication on an emergency basis.” The speakers assert, “We are systematically making kids sick and not just a little bit sick, very sick.” They describe the study as potentially “the most important study that has ever been done,” insisting that it needs to be published, and noting that if a particular researcher “puts his name on this, his career is over.” Emotional reactions are evident, with admissions like “I mean, obviously, like, really emotional.” There is a specific mention that “Zervos probably gonna lose his job over this.”

Yeah. It's it's less than one percent of the public. The Amish are a perfect example of a large group of people who are largely unvaccinated. 'And there's no ought to we can't find an autistic kid who was unvaccinated. It's very, very rare in the Amish community. Very, very rare. You won't find kids with ADD, with autoimmune disease, with PANDA PANS, with epilepsy. You just don't find any of these chronic diseases in the Amish.' 'And, you know, the US government has been studying the Amish for decades, but there's never been a report out to the public.' 'The reason, of course, is it would it would show that, oh, if you don't follow our guidelines, you're gonna end up healthier.' 'That's why there's no report after decades of studying the Amish. There's no report because the report would be devastating to the narrative.'

The speaker claims there is active suppression of positive vitamin D news and research because it competes with top-selling drugs. The speaker presented data to top vitamin D researchers and faced vicious attacks, with researchers claiming vitamin D doesn't do what the data suggested. The speaker stated they were only presenting assembled data. The speaker was told they were jeopardizing careers of researchers who had spent their lives studying vitamin D, because they never conceived the presented data could be true.

Speaker 0 describes that it has been independently discovered four other times, and that it “has been said, it has been suppressed every single fucking time.” He says he doesn’t think they’ll suppress it this time and that “I think you're in the clear.” He asserts they obviously know about you because he has had multiple both protective and threatening interactions with various agency affiliations. He states, “If you haven't had a US government agent come to you and say, stop. Shut the fuck up. Stop. Shut the fuck up,” then they’re going to let you do it. He claims there are people waiting, saying, “there are SSP motherfuckers that are fucking twiddling their thumbs. Like, is Amy not gonna publish soon? God. We've been influencing this bitch forever.” He adds that on the other side, multiple parties are looking at each other wondering, “Didn't we tell this bitch three years ago that we kill people for this? Is she not listening? What is she doing? She's still doing it? What? We told her we were gonna kill her three years ago.” He describes two constant scenarios in his life: one where people are urging, “do it. Do it. You're the one. Do it.” and another where people are warning, “they're gonna kill you. Don't do it. They're gonna kill you.”

The conversation opens with Speaker 0 making a provocative claim that everything people experience, including rape and addiction, is attracted into their life, and that the people involved in rape or pedophilia are attracted to those acts. Speaker 1 pushes back, asking for clarification about cases of pedophilia and how these dynamics should be understood. Speaker 0 continues by saying that the children are attracted to the pedophile, and Speaker 1 challenges them to pursue the line of thought by asking to go there. They discuss how labels of good and bad are often tied to who one chooses to side with. Speaker 0 expresses discomfort with the implication of the discussion and provides a hypothetical: if someone assaulted his wife at home, he would “forcibly stop” them and would value stopping the act “100% certainly.” He argues that morality at the moment would drive one’s reaction to harm, and asserts that when one sees something as evil, one would act to stop it, emphasizing that it is evil in one’s perception. Speaker 0 then asserts a universal standard: it is not acceptable to beat a child to a pulp or to sexually assault a child. He argues that there is something fundamental inside humans—a driving force toward life, love, freedom, and the experience of living in the world—and when someone intentionally interferes with that, there is an obligation to try to prevent or stop them. He adds that one can override impulses, acknowledging personal temptation to harm that has been resisted. Speaker 1 accuses Speaker 0 of repressing desires and then attacking his customers publicly. He suggests Speaker 0 is taking information that contradicts his stated beliefs and refuses to broadcast it because it conflicts with his system, describing it as a fight that Speaker 0 is ready to engage in. The tension is evident as Speaker 0’s and Speaker 1’s reactions become increasingly heated; Speaker 0 notes that Speaker 1’s hands are shaking. Speaker 1 criticizes the stance of not exposing certain information on the show, arguing that it challenges his beliefs and that he is unwilling to “pacify” his research for anyone. He asserts that there are upsides to events, even to the murder of children, stating that there are upsides to it. Speaker 0 concludes with an abrupt decision to stop the discussion: “I think we’re gonna have to stop here, John.”

Speaker 0 states that there are certain groups of people that don't take vaccines and don't take any pills that have no autism, that have no autism. 'Does that tell you something? That's currently is that a correct statement, by the way?' He adds, 'There are some studies that suggest that, yeah, with the Amish, for example.' 'The Amish.' 'Yeah. Virtually I hear no I I heard none.' He concludes, 'See, Bobby wants to be very careful with what he says, and he should, but I'm not so careful with what I say.'

The speaker believes there hasn't been an open-minded investigation into the etiology of autism because it's dangerous for scientists to ask the question. They risk being incorrectly labeled as "anti-vaxxers," which could end their careers. This suppression of scientific curiosity prevents finding answers. The speaker has organized an initiative within the NIH to address the question of autism's etiology in a wide-ranging manner, not limited to vaccines.

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.

I mean, it's become a joke. These papers that are winning awards at the American College of Gastro, and they're not getting published. So and what I do is I do what I do best, which is basically stir up shit, and I call all my friends. And I go, by the way, my paper has been retracted. That paper of the finding COVID in the stools Yeah. Was considered to be retracted. So, I called Trial Site News, and I said, by the way, you may wanna investigate. That's how they found out about the publishing house, private publishing house that is retracting these papers. So somebody must be paying them. And then I called all my colleagues, Mayo Clinic, Harvard, Yale, and I go, by the way, remember that paper that I found COVID? Well, it got retracted. And they're like, what? But it it passed peer review. Well, your peer review means nothing. And here's the thing. So guess what? You're not getting paid to do these peer reviews. Maybe you should start charging the journals now because clearly, they're going about wasting your time reviewing a paper, and they're going behind your back to retract the paper because it doesn't fit the narrative. So, that's what I do. So, and then the other thing that I did is I called the National Institute of Standards, Scott Jackson. And I basically said, remember my paper that we found COVID in the stools, and you also found COVID in the septic tanks? Well, my paper was retracted. And, you know, they couldn't believe it. They could this is at the government level. People are waking up to see we have a problem. Yeah. This is like the burning of the books.

Speaker 1 states that less than one percent of the public is totally unvaccinated. The Amish are given as an example of a largely unvaccinated group. Speaker 1 claims it is very rare to find an autistic child in the Amish community, and that ADD, autoimmune disease, PANDA PANS, and epilepsy are also rare. Speaker 1 asserts the U.S. government has studied the Amish for decades, but has not released a report. Speaker 1 believes the reason for this is that the report would show that not following government guidelines leads to better health outcomes. Speaker 1 concludes that the report would be devastating to the narrative and would show that the CDC has been harming the public for decades by burying data.

Speaker 0 argues that adverse events from regular vaccines are far more common than people imagine, including allergies. They state their personal allergy to wheat is likely the result of an adjuvant that caused their immune system to react to something normal in their gut in a way from which they will never be free. They also point to their children: one son has significant seasonal allergies that interfere with daily life, and another son has an allergy to dairy which they believe goes back to an allergy to mother's milk, noting that he spit up regularly after breastfeeding and that this perplexed them at the time. They describe this as a huge waste of a precious resource and remark that it seems like evolution messed up, especially given that ancestors faced scarcity and would not want to surrender nutrients when food was plentiful. They now think that the dairy allergy developed very early, probably from an adjuvant in a childhood vaccine. In tying these observations together, Speaker 0 uses their education and what they describe as painful education to make a concluding point. If they could start over, they would not give any vaccines to their newborn children. They clarify that they are not claiming it is impossible that some vaccines could be more beneficial than they are harmful, but they now know that they cannot trust safety testing. Therefore, even if there were indications that something might be net beneficial, they would have to wonder what is hidden or not known. Overall, the speaker presents a personal narrative linking vaccines to the development of allergies in themselves and their children, uses this to argue a broader distrust of vaccine safety testing, and concludes that, given their current understanding, they would choose not to vaccinate newborns despite acknowledging that some vaccines might be beneficial in certain scenarios. The emphasis is on perceived higher-than-expected adverse events, potential connections to adjuvants, the impact on allergies, and a strong reevaluation of newborn vaccination decisions based on safety testing concerns.

Speaker 1 explains their decision not to take the vaccine, citing concerns about its rushed development and safety. They express a desire to set an example for their children and stand by their convictions, even at the cost of losing money. Speaker 0 acknowledges that standing by one's convictions is typically seen as heroic, but Speaker 1 faced criticism instead. Speaker 1 clarifies that they never publicly discouraged vaccination and preferred to keep their decision private. They mention knowing someone who was injured by the vaccine and emphasize the importance of speaking up about such experiences. Speaker 0 agrees that telling the truth often leads to trouble, highlighting a perceived lack of consequences for lying.

First speaker: The question is about how many people are totally unvaccinated, and whether this is mainly among parents who stepped up. The claim is that it’s a very small percentage because many people blindly followed the vaccination recommendations for children. Second speaker: It’s less than one percent of the public who are unvaccinated. The Amish are given as a perfect example of a large group that is largely unvaccinated. The speaker asserts that you won’t find an autistic child who was unvaccinated, and that such chronic diseases as ADD, autoimmune diseases, PANDA/PANS, and epilepsy are very rare in the Amish community. The speaker claims that the US government has studied the Amish for decades, but there has never been a public report. The reason given is that such a report would show that not following the guidelines leads to healthier outcomes, and therefore there would be a disclosure that would be devastating to the narrative. According to the speaker, there is no public report because it would reveal that the CDC has been harming the public for decades and is bearing all the data privately.

The speaker believes COVID vaccine programs should be stopped. They are astounded by the number of papers critical of the vaccine or showing negative effects. The speaker claims a group of researchers funded by Pfizer and the NIH bullies editors to retract papers with negative findings about the vaccine. They assert the number of retractions is appalling. According to the speaker, in one instance where an editor resisted, Nature Springer bought the journal and retracted the paper. The speaker states that this is what they have been dealing with.