reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speaker states that the NIH has a division devoted to studying long COVID and figuring out cures. They are also incorporating an agency within the CDC that will specialize in vaccine injuries. These issues, along with Lyme disease, are priorities because more and more people are suffering from these injuries. The speaker claims they are committed to having gold standard science to figure out what the treatments are and deliver the best treatments possible.

Nine studies have found false positive HIV tests after COVID-19 infection and vaccination. Although it is not AIDS, there may be a form of immunodeficiency present. Dr. Ryan Cole presented data showing that the more COVID vaccines were taken, the higher the risk of recurrent COVID and other severe syndromes. Additionally, there have been cases of reactivation of varicella zoster, Epstein Barr, cytomegalovirus, and false positive HIV tests. An Australian investigation led by Melissa McCann on vaccine-acquired immune deficiency syndrome (VAIDS) is expected to provide valuable insights. It is believed that both COVID-19 infection and the vaccine can worsen immunity, leading to immunodeficiency.

Some research suggests the coronavirus can infect brain cells, impacting memory and cognitive functions. Understanding this could help treat long COVID symptoms like brain fog and fatigue. Early treatment may prevent brain damage.

Having COVID may lead to a slight decline in cognitive function, with a 3-point IQ loss for those who recovered within 12 weeks and a 9-point loss for ICU patients. Long COVID patients experience more significant deficits. The study suggests these effects may improve over time. Doctor Adam Hampshire finds the findings promising, especially for those with persistent symptoms. Joanna, who has long COVID, highlights the need for better support and access to clinics for those affected. More research and funding are essential for effective care and management.

The speaker discusses a long-running claim from the pandemic era: that they could smell when someone had COVID or had been recently vaccinated, and that many others reported a distinctive odor associated with COVID. They acknowledge that some people can barely smell it while others experience headaches, nausea, or sickness, and note that many people's sense of smell has been altered during and after illness. The video focuses on the scent profile and the chemistry behind spike protein exposure, rather than virology, arguing that spike protein alone can drive COVID-related injury and long COVID, with no need for viral components. The speaker references research from 2024–2025 examining sweat and breath to identify chemicals that change in COVID and post-COVID vaccine states, noting that the research looks at both long-haul and long COVID profiles as well as post-vaccine chemistry in terms of odor. According to the presented science, spike protein flips the body’s chemistry, turning sweat into a distinct odor described as a strange, sour, greasy signal with a metallic twist. The speaker recalls smelling a mixture of metal and formaldehyde and explains that compounds such as fatty acids and ketones surge, along with pheromones that could subtly influence behavior. The description asserts that during spike protein exposure, cells are in chaos, and the protein binds to receptors like ACE2, triggering a biochemical storm that alters volatile organic compounds (VOCs), which are the gaseous clues the body releases. VOCs are said to create an odor that is subtle yet disturbing, detectable within about one to two feet indoors, with outdoors and humidity affecting detectability. Key chemical changes cited include: oxidative stress leading to reactive oxygen species and the production of nonanol (a greasy, rancid compound) that quadruples in sweat in long COVID; methyl oleate rising to at least twice the usual amount, adding a soapy, earthy layer; a shift to ketone production (two-butanone) giving a faint acetone-like sweetness; iron release from ferritin forming an iron pentacarbonyl, contributing a metallic, rusty penny smell; malondialdehyde (MDA), a burnt fat aldehyde, increasing two to three times in long-haul cases and sharpening the scent with a rancid sting; benzaldehyde increasing due to tryptophan breakdown, giving a sharp formaldehyde-like bite; two ethyl hexanol from skin ester hydrolysis adding a plasticky soapiness (some respondents reported soapiness). Ethyl octanoate is mentioned as mimicking an alarm pheromone in bees, contributing a pear-like scent and signaling danger. The speaker links VOCs to behavioral and social effects, noting heightened pheromonal signals: cortisol spike with a 40% rise in androstanone (giving a musky scent and potentially calming or influencing competitive behavior), drostanone rising by about 50% adding an animalic, sweaty edge that can trigger avoidance or aggression, and ethyl octanoate resembling an alarm pheromone. They describe hive-like social effects, cognitive rigidity, conformity, and a perceived protective or suppressive social response, including references to depopulation theories and population sterilization, interpreted as social control mechanisms embedded in the bioweapon narrative. The speaker, a former clinical psychologist with a background in mass-killing prevention and biowarfare response, signals intent to delve deeper in future videos and invites comments on topics to cover next.

On October 28, 2024, I listened in disbelief as some doctors explained why vaccinated individuals seem to get sick more often, claiming it's expected and that they recover fully. In reality, this reflects a deliberate weakening of their immune systems. I've seen this with cancer patients who, after treatment, would be in remission but then succumb to minor illnesses. This pattern mirrors the past with HIV, where people were told they could be asymptomatic yet seriously ill, leading to treatments that further compromised their health. It's shocking that people can't recognize this trend. Why would a medicine that’s supposed to help make you sicker? It's time to wake up and see the truth.

The blood brain barrier is a protective filter that allows essential substances into the brain while keeping out harmful ones. COVID-19 can disrupt this barrier, leading to brain damage and cognitive issues even in mild cases. Studies show brain shrinkage, cognitive impairment, and potential long-term effects on memory and thinking abilities. Research on dogs suggests that even asymptomatic cases of COVID-19 can cause brain damage similar to early signs of Alzheimer's. Preventing the spread of the virus through measures like wearing masks is crucial to avoid repeated infections and potential long-term brain damage.

The blood brain barrier is a protective membrane that controls what enters the brain. COVID-19 can disrupt this barrier, leading to brain damage and cognitive impairment even in mild cases. Studies on infected individuals show brain shrinkage, cognitive decline, and potential long-term consequences like dementia. Animal studies suggest that even asymptomatic cases may have brain damage that could lead to severe neurological disorders. To prevent further harm, it's crucial to reduce infections by wearing masks and improving air quality. The current trajectory of repeated infections with a brain-damaging virus is unsustainable, and we must prioritize stopping the spread of COVID-19.

The hardest part of being COVID aware is watching people unknowingly get infected and risk long COVID. The virus weakens the immune system, making people susceptible to other illnesses. Many are unaware of the risks and continue as if it's 2019. The lack of measures and education contributes to the spread. Long COVID can cause brain damage and heart issues. It's concerning to see so many unaware of the dangers they face.

Researchers at Macquarie University discovered that the COVID-19 virus causes brain cells to malfunction, leading to symptoms like loss of smell and brain fog. They used mini brains made from human stem cells to mimic brain activity. The mini brains were infected with the virus at the Queensland Brain Institute, showing fused cells where the virus hides. In some cases, neuronal activity stopped completely.

The speaker envisions a future in which everything will be linked to microbes, including cancer. They point to current examples such as HPV cervical cancer, Epstein-Barr virus with Burkitt’s lymphoma, and Helicobacter pylori with gastric cancer to illustrate how specific microbes are associated with particular cancers. They suggest it is only a matter of time before doctors begin saying that certain cancers, like colon cancer, are associated with specific bacteria, referring to a hypothetical “colon cancer with X bacteria.” This framing implies that cancer development could be driven or influenced by the presence of particular microbial communities. From there, the speaker raises the question of how to neutralize a particular microbe in order to prevent it from contributing to cancer alongside another microbe. They emphasize that microbes are constantly present and interacting, describing a ongoing “war in our guts” where microbes compete and influence disease outcomes. The idea is that some microbes are beneficial, or “good ones,” and that understanding these relationships is key to prevention and treatment strategies. A central claim the speaker highlights is what has been learned from the COVID experience: it reveals the ability of a microbe to survive inside a virus, but also the ability of a virus to cause death in a person. This observation reinforces the notion of a complex battle between microbes themselves and between microbes and viruses, where outcomes depend on how different organisms interact with one another. The speaker stresses that the crucial insight lies in identifying which microbe neutralizes which other microbe, suggesting that these inter-microbial dynamics could determine disease progression and outcomes. Ultimately, the speaker defines this understanding as “the key to the whole research that I’m doing.” The emphasis is on mapping out the interactions between microbes and viruses, recognizing the dual role of microbes as potential drivers of disease and as possible targets for interception, and using that knowledge to guide the research trajectory aimed at preventing cancer and other illnesses by modulating the microbiome.

The comparison to HIV is important because, like early HIV infections, mild or moderate COVID can cause unseen destruction. With HIV, people were infected for years before symptoms appeared, while the virus quietly destroyed the immune system. However, the HIV epidemic spurred brilliant science that changed how HIV is treated. We are now learning about mitochondria, viral impact, brain fog, changes in neurons, and cells that nourish neurons because of Long COVID. The goal is to reach a point where, through research, people with Long COVID can not only survive but thrive, just as HIV patients can live normal lifespans today.

The speaker reflects on the pandemic, describing it as a time of “miracles,” including not losing anyone and continuing to speak today, despite controversy surrounding her research. She emphasizes that the controversy has hindered the advancement of research and science, urging instead to ask questions as science is about questioning and pushing narratives. She asserts a specific finding: the spike protein reduces bifidobacteria. She explains that the vaccine caused bifidobacteria to die within a month, but the effect persisted, with data indicating zero bifidobacteria in long-COVID or vaccine-injured cases. She notes she has been dealing with this for five years and asserts that people with zero bifidobacteria experience ongoing loss of microbiome diversity and immunity, resulting in poor immunity. She highlights bifidobacteria’s role in absorbing sugar, and adds that another microbe responsible for calcium absorption is also destroyed, leading to impaired calcium uptake. From these observations, she links cellular-level consequences to mitochondrial function, describing how a lack of sugar and calcium results in energy shortfalls and a disrupted Krebs cycle, implying mitochondrial dysfunction. She concludes that long COVID is a spike protein injury and that in many cases these individuals have zero bifidobacteria whether due to the treatment, the virus, or the spike protein itself. She also notes that some patients still have residual COVID in their stools, underscoring the need to pay attention to this finding. Key points emphasized: - The pandemic featured perceived miracles and ongoing controversy around research and vaccines, which the speaker argues stifles scientific progress. - A claim that the spike protein reduces bifidobacteria; the vaccine allegedly kills bifidobacteria within a month, with long-COVID or vaccine-injured individuals showing zero bifidobacteria across the line. - Zero bifidobacteria is linked to loss of microbial diversity, compromised immunity, and poor immune function. - Bifidobacteria’s role in absorbing sugar and a related microbe’s role in calcium absorption are highlighted as critical, with their destruction affecting cellular energy and mitochondrial function. - Long COVID is described as a spike protein injury, with some cases having residual COVID in stools, suggesting the need for attention to these microbial findings.

The speaker discusses the inflammatory and amyloidogenic effects of small sequences called epitopes, which can cause memory dysfunction in mice. They also mention a study that found the introduction of gene transfection technologies containing the spike protein can induce amyloidogenic cascades. The speaker highlights a 200% increase in the diagnosis of CJD in France after the rollout of vaccination programs, suggesting a potential link. They discuss the loss of cognitive function associated with exposure to the spike protein and propose that amyloidogenic disease processes may underlie long-haul COVID-19 symptoms. The speaker mentions the role of viral infections in facilitating intercellular aggregate dissemination and shares examples of misfolding prion amyloidogenic diseases.

Inflammation in the brain from COVID can lead to long-term cognitive issues. The high levels of inflammation seen in even mild cases of COVID worried me about a potential neurological crisis. The rates of lasting cognitive symptoms in COVID survivors are concerning. Effective therapy is crucial to help the millions who may suffer from these symptoms.

Having COVID may lead to a small cognitive decline, with a 3 point IQ loss for those recovering within 12 weeks, and a 9 point loss for ICU patients. Long COVID can cause brain fog, fatigue, and heart issues. The study shows improvements over time for some. More support is needed for long COVID patients, including better access to clinics and research funding for treatments.

The documentary traces the global HIV/AIDS story through shifting science, politics, testing, treatment, and personal narratives, revealing a landscape of debate, fear, and influence that has shaped how the epidemic is understood and managed. From the outset, the film juxtaposes dramatic claims about the virus with questions about complacency, fear, and the human cost of AIDS. Early voices warn that HIV remains a deadly virus despite reduced fear, while others emphasize a persistent problem for individuals and the vast number of people living with the virus. The central tension is set: can a cure be found, and what would it take? A through-line is the distinction between HIV and AIDS. The narrator and interviewees seek clarity on what causes AIDS, how HIV relates to it, and why the distinction matters for diagnosis and treatment. Experts emphasize core definitions: HIV is a virus; AIDS is a syndrome caused by infection with the virus; you don’t get infected with AIDS, you get infected with HIV which can lead to AIDS. Yet the dialogue also documents persistent public confusion about the difference, and shows that international definitions and country-specific criteria have evolved and sometimes diverged, complicating diagnosis and statistics. The film surveys the history of HIV/AIDS terminology and surveillance. It highlights the GRID term, the early CDC framework, and the 1985, 1987, and 1993 definition changes that broadened AIDS criteria, sometimes to include people with varying CD4 counts or opportunistic infections. A retroactive redefinition in 1993 reportedly increased estimates, and a Bangui criteria conference in Africa sought a simple clinical way to diagnose AIDS in settings with limited lab access. World Health Organization definitions multiply across countries, leading to several AIDS definitions worldwide and debates about how to interpret the numbers. The program documents how testing has driven both diagnosis and fear, including debates over screening versus confirmatory testing. It shows rapid antibody tests, ELISAs, Western blots, and viral-load tests, noting limitations and discrepancies: rapid tests may yield false positives or negatives, confirmatory tests can yield inconsistent results across manufacturers, and in some settings, developing nations rely on screening tests without adequate confirmatory verification. The story includes personal accounts of misdiagnosis, false positives, and the emotional toll of testing, as well as examples where people faced life-altering decisions based on uncertain results. The film also questions the reliability of testing narratives in light of varied international criteria and the economics of testing. The narrative shifts to Africa, particularly South Africa, where the epidemic intersects with poverty, infrastructure, and policy debates. It documents the perception that Africa bears the highest incidence of AIDS, the Bangui criteria’s adoption in Africa, the social and economic context, and the role of poverty as a deadly factor that can mimic or exacerbate immune deficiency. It also notes skepticism about how data are compiled and presented, including claims that numbers are influenced by advocacy, funding incentives, and political considerations. The film chronicles the evolution of treatment from AZT monotherapy to highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) and the cocktail era, detailing dramatic shifts in prognosis and the emergence of drug toxicity and side effects. Personal testimonies recount adverse reactions, weight changes, lipodystrophy, heart risks, and the existential dilemma of lifelong treatment versus quality of life. The dramatic arc notes that, while HAART transformed AIDS from a fatal disease to a manageable chronic condition for many, the treatment introduced new side effects and ethical concerns about prescribing practices, access, and the long-term effects of therapy. A recurring theme is the tension between scientific consensus and dissenting voices. The film presents prominent figures associated with HIV research and advocacy, including discussions of the role of Robert Gallo, Françoise Barré-Sinoussi, and Montagnier, and the geopolitical dynamics around the virus’s identification and acceptance as the cause of AIDS. It includes accounts of cofactor theories proposing that other factors—cofactors beyond HIV—may influence progression and that poverty, malnutrition, and coexisting infections can affect immune function. Some interviewees critique the dominance of a single narrative and suggest that alternative explanations have been marginalized or labeled as unscientific. Personal stories punctuate the analysis: families learning of HIV status, the experience of testing in settings from a South African train station to clinics in Romania, and the emotional and practical consequences of a positive diagnosis. The film documents the journey from diagnosis to treatment, including the trials and revelations of those who have acquired, faced, or combated the disease, and those who question or reconsider the standard medical narrative. Towards the end, the documentary reflects on the broader social and ethical implications: the cost and allocation of billions in AIDS funding, the disproportionate burden on poorer nations, the role of activism and politics in shaping policy, and the ongoing uncertainty about optimal testing, diagnosis, and cure. It closes by acknowledging the resilience of people living with HIV and those who work to understand and treat the virus, while underscoring that many fundamental questions about HIV, AIDS, and their interconnections remain debated in scientific and public spheres. The conclusion suggests that the epidemic’s true battles may extend beyond biology to include poverty, access, governance, and the politics of data.

Arrhythmias are common in COVID-19, and there are auto antibodies in this pathway that may be causing them. Additionally, there is a connection between t1r receptors and depression and dementia, which can lead to brain fog and fatigue. The challenge is to find something in COVID-19 that cannot be explained using these four substances.

The comparison to HIV is important because both viruses can be asymptomatic. HIV taught us a lot about immunology and changed cancer therapy. Similarly, we are now learning about the impact of the virus on mitochondria, brain fog, and our neurons through long COVID. Mild and moderate COVID can cause destruction, just like HIV did to our immune system. However, the brilliant science that came out of HIV research transformed how we treat the virus, allowing people to live normal lives. We need to do the same for long COVID, so that those affected can not only survive but also thrive.

COVID-19 causes the accumulation of senescent cells, also known as zombie cells, in the brain, which speeds up the aging process. However, there is a way to combat and reverse these effects. According to Dr. Julio Aguado from the University of Queensland, senescent cells contribute to neurodegeneration and decline during aging. The SARS-CoV-2 virus can induce these senescent cells, but there are drugs called senolytics that effectively eliminate them from the brain. This discovery could potentially revolutionize the treatment of Alzheimer's disease by reducing inflammation in the brain. These findings offer promising hope for combating the effects of COVID-19 on the brain.

The symptoms of long COVID, such as joint pain, difficulty concentrating, brain fog, and chronic fatigue, can significantly affect patients' lives. The severity and occurrence of these symptoms vary among individuals and are not necessarily related to age, gender, or the severity of the initial COVID infection. Factors like the type of vaccine, individual constitution, age, and gender may contribute to the development of long COVID. Vaccinated individuals may experience a greater impact from long COVID compared to those who are unvaccinated. It is important to distinguish long COVID from other conditions, and while the vaccine may play a role, it is not clear if it can trigger long COVID.

During COVID, I traveled the country and saw many undiagnosed diseases that could have been treated early, but resulted in COVID deaths. I also witnessed the deterioration of our health system in rural areas, where access to healthcare is limited. The hub and spoke model, designed to get very sick people into regional medical centers, was overwhelmed. COVID highlighted issues with chronic disease management. Similar to early HIV treatment, we initially only treated symptomatic individuals, which was just the tip of the iceberg. When we started finding and treating asymptomatic individuals early, before they showed disease, they could thrive.

The comparison to HIV is important because both HIV and long COVID can be asymptomatic for a long time before symptoms appear. HIV taught us a lot about immunology and revolutionized cancer therapy. Similarly, long COVID is teaching us about the impact of mitochondria and viruses on our brain function. Just like HIV destroyed our immune system, mild and moderate cases of COVID can cause unseen damage. However, the knowledge gained from studying HIV led to significant advancements in treatment, allowing people to live normal lives. We need to conduct research to ensure that people with long COVID can not only survive but also thrive.