reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Former employees acknowledge the significant influence of the pharmaceutical industry on media. They argue that shaping the message allows them to shape the world. They highlight the use of Ivermectin in various countries, including India and Argentina, where it has shown success in treating COVID-19. However, others dismiss its effectiveness and label it as a horse dewormer. The speakers criticize the pharmaceutical industry for manipulating clinical studies and influencing research grants. They also express concerns about censorship and the withholding of information, which they believe misleads the public.

The speaker claims that ivermectin, not the vaccine, saved people from COVID. They criticize the use of ventilators for COVID patients, citing pulmonary edema risks. A nurse's story about a stroke post-vaccination highlights a lack of documentation and discouragement of questions by senior staff. The nurse was reassigned after questioning. Translation: The speaker believes ivermectin, not vaccines, saved people from COVID. They criticize using ventilators for COVID patients due to risks of pulmonary edema. A nurse's experience with a stroke post-vaccination reveals a lack of documentation and discouragement of questions by senior staff. The nurse was reassigned after asking questions.

In my hospital, my patients had a mortality rate of 4.4% while the rest of the country ranged from 25 to 40%. Unfortunately, I faced censorship whenever I mentioned the potential benefits of ivermectin on social media. This censorship, which I refer to as "Facebook jail," prevented me from sharing important information. I strongly believe that many lives were lost unnecessarily due to this censorship. Don't forget to subscribe to our alerts newsletter to stay updated.

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 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.

It is nearly impossible to publish data that goes against the national public health narrative, preventing doctors from finding solutions. The speaker has conducted clinical trials for pharmaceutical companies, including vaccine studies, and has brought vaccines and other drugs to market. Some drugs never made it to market because they killed people. Clinical trial guidelines ensure safe drugs, but these guidelines were not followed during the pandemic, affecting everyone. COVID should have been a time for doctors to unite, but interference with research occurred. Science evolves through experiments, skepticism, and an open mind. Challenging current knowledge must be allowed to move science forward, but what the speaker witnessed during the pandemic was not science.

Speaker 0: They think I'm dangerous for speaking the truth. Speaker 1: Dr. Stella Emmanuel was part of a video claiming, without evidence, that hydroxychloroquine is a cure for COVID-19. The video was taken down by social media platforms for spreading misinformation. Despite the backlash, Dr. Emmanuel insists that hydroxychloroquine could be part of a cure. Dr. Anthony Fauci disagrees, stating that scientific data consistently shows hydroxychloroquine is not effective in treating COVID-19.

Speaker 0: They use them for to amplify fear, to boost compliance, and, of course, push those vaccines. Well, joining me now is primary care physician and author of unavoidably unsafe childhood Reconsidered. Doctor Jeff Barky is with us. Doc, it's great to have you back on. Speaker 1: Hey, Grant. Thanks for having me. Great to be with you. Speaker 0: Alright. I know this comes as no surprise, this number, that only fourteen percent of the PCR positive turned out to be COVID in Germany. I would imagine it translates to The United States. But your reaction and now seeing this done by real scientists, real doctors in a real journal of medicine. Speaker 1: Well, there's no surprise by this study. We knew it all along. The PCR test was never designed to detect infection. What it detects is miniscule particles of the RNA virus, and then they would crank up the cycle threshold. They would amplify the test to create positivity. And so the problem is that you could test the side of a table and get a positive result, let alone that we were actually going to treat based on a test result. I was always taught in medical school, we don't treat test results, we treat patients. And that's what I tried to do. And then the government went out of its way to suppress effective repurposed medication, like hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin. This was a money game. This was a scam. This was all based on fear. No surprise out of Germany. Speaker 0: You know, I I believe it. And let's not forget because we always talk about the money and the vaccines and big pharma and their ties to government, and I know that was a lot. But let's not forget too. This was weaponized to keep people home so they wouldn't vote for president Trump during during that twenty twenty election. It was all part of the big steal. Speaker 1: These positives, they wanted lots of positives. They didn't want negatives. They wanted positives. Didn't they, doc? Speaker 0: They absolutely did for a variety of reasons. The more you can keep people in fear, the more likely it is they're gonna follow your directive. We've never seen anything like this before. The government imposing its will upon free citizens. They closed churches. They closed mom and pop stores. They forced healthy people to stay indoors, and they closed down hospitals and told sick people to stay away. I've never seen anything like that happen before. The sad part here, Grant, is I'm not clear that the American people learned their lesson. And when the government comes around and does this again, I just hope enough of us will stand up this time and say, hell no. Well

The speaker believes there is corruption at the FDA and HHS. They claim that social distancing was arbitrary and not based on science. Ivermectin, allegedly called "horse paste," has supposedly saved billions of lives, and budesonide also saved countless lives, but their use was prevented. The speaker asserts that the doctor-patient relationship is not protected legally, requiring doctors to get approval from insurance companies and regulators. House Bill 73 would allow doctors to innovate and make decisions to cure patients, while protecting hospital systems that don't adopt these protocols. The speaker criticizes mask mandates, claiming they were not based on science but on corruption. They state that people died because Fauci lied and bureaucrats were afraid to speak out due to lobbyists. House Bill 73 can eliminate interference between doctors and patients, protecting people at all levels and allowing doctors to decide what's best for their patients, as opposed to corrupt bureaucrats subject to lobby interests.

I fell for the propaganda and got double vaccinated, only to realize I was misled about ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, masks, and social distancing. I faced censorship, slander, and conspiracy accusations for speaking out. Wikipedia is controlled by intelligence agencies, labeling controversial topics as conspiracy theories.

"Your government doesn't censor those people as a way to do the best that it can." The speaker recalls being interviewed by a major newspaper and "I bring up doctor Peter McCullough every time" when asked "what evidence? What proof?" They argue that "the world's leading heart doctor" and "the most published heart doctor in the world was censored during COVID." They question whether "the government was just doing the best that it could under the circumstances," answering "Like, no." The speaker asserts that "The best a government that considers itself to be in a free nation does not go out of its way to censor world renowned scientists, doctors, the number one heart doctor in the world in doctor Peter McCullough, the most published ICU doctor the world in doctor Paul Merrick, the inventor of the technology itself, doctor Robert Malone." "Your government doesn't censor those people as a way to do the best that it can."

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

Manufacturers of nasal products were allegedly warned against promoting or researching their products for COVID-19. One company was allegedly denied FDA permission to study its product's effect on COVID-19. Another company, COFIX Rx, allegedly received warnings to stop promoting its product for COVID-19. The speaker claims anything that worked for COVID-19 faced strict government opposition, including hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, and virucidal nasal sprays. Higher dose corticosteroids, zinc, vitamin D, vitamin C, quercetin, over-the-counter famotidine, and colchicine were also allegedly effective treatments. A high-quality trial allegedly showed colchicine reduced hospitalization and death, but the federal government never mentioned it. Aspirin and blood thinners were allegedly not mentioned for blood clot prevention. The speaker asserts the only advice given was to fear the virus, lockdown, social distance, wear masks, use hand sanitizer (none of which allegedly work), and repeatedly get vaccinated. The speaker concludes the COVID-19 response was allegedly about mandating vaccines.

Monoclonal antibodies worked very well and quickly, and were initially readily available. The speaker believes the government intentionally made them harder to get to encourage people to take the COVID shot. The speaker didn't use ivermectin until the government took over distribution of monoclonal antibodies. In March, the government put out information on why people should not take ivermectin for COVID on the FDA's website. At the same time, they launched COVID-nineteen Community Core on 04/01/2021, an $11,500,000,000 slush fund to feed out propaganda.

Ivermectin is a widely used and safe drug that has been effective against SARS CoV 2. It could have saved many lives if it had been used more widely. Doctors who tried to use it faced prosecution, despite its safety and effectiveness. One doctor worked 715 continuous days without a day off because no one else wanted to care for indigent patients. The doctor's hospital had a low mortality rate compared to the rest of the country, thanks to protocols that included Ivermectin. However, the media ignored their success and the use of repurposed drugs. The doctor faced censorship on social media platforms for mentioning Ivermectin. The FDA claims there are no adequate alternatives to the vaccines, but many believe unnecessary deaths occurred due to censorship and lack of access to Ivermectin.

The speaker questions the presence of unacknowledged authors in a paper who manipulated the wording to undermine positive findings on Ivermectin. They inquire about the influence of UNITA, a charity, on the paper's conclusions. The speaker confirms that UNITA does have a say in the conclusions. They express hope for a short stalemate and anticipate it lasting around six weeks. The speaker estimates that 15,000 people are dying daily and asks how long this will be allowed to continue. They mention that the decision on when "enough's enough" lies with organizations like WHO, NIH, FDA, and EMEA. The conversation ends with a remark about the speaker's sleep.

Ivermectin was initially demonized during COVID, but now it's being recognized as safe and effective by the clinical community. Many clinicians were using it successfully, despite the initial fear surrounding it. The speaker's doctor used it on her family and patients with positive results. The speaker believes it's important to report on this now, even though they were initially hesitant due to conflicting information. It's crucial to question and reevaluate beliefs, even if they were previously in favor of vaccines.

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.

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.

Dr. Miley Trinh, a GP based in Sydney, Australia, joins Jim Ferguson for her first appearance on the show. She explains she has practiced as a GP for nearly thirty years and has been suspended since late 2021 amid a dispute with the health regulator over her license. She describes her suspension as part of a broader fight with regulators and regulators’ attempts to cancel her medical license. Trinh recounts how her concerns about the COVID-19 situation began in 2019, while following global events and studying debt-based economic systems. She states she became alarmed by reports of Wuhan’s lockdown timing, noting that authorities announced a lockdown five days earlier and allowed travel before it commenced, which she found alarming. She observed what she called unusual global coordination in reporting and policy responses to the pandemic, with early treatment being suppressed and a tightly controlled narrative across countries. Regarding ivermectin, she says she concluded after months of research that it was a key medication for treating COVID-19, particularly when given early. She describes participating in doctor groups and Zoom meetings to discuss how to treat patients and notes she treated a patient by telephone during lockdown who was deteriorating. She reports that the patient improved after her treatment but later faced complications requiring hospital care. She says two complaints were filed against her in September 2021—the first from a patient she had helped, and the second from an individual named John Smith who obtained a prescription that belonged to a family member for ivermectin. She asserts John Smith did not belong to her practice, and that the prescription was allegedly handed to an APRA (Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency) agent, a fact she says regulators overlooked when investigating her practice. Trinh emphasizes that she had never before faced a complaint in nearly thirty years of practice and that the suspension hearing concluded with her being deemed a danger to public health, despite her insistence that she saved a life. She has remained suspended for over four years. She describes the regulatory process as involving claims of prescribing ivermectin “below standard” and accusations of professional misconduct for not handing over 20 to 30 patient medical files, which she says she refused to provide because she did not know the patients’ names and because none of the patients had filed complaints against her. She notes that hearings occurred in December, March, and August, with subsequent issues over transcript integrity and requests for recusal of the presiding judge. She says a decision on the main case is imminent, but a cancellation of her license could entail a three to five-year suspension and substantial costs, complicating the possibility of reinstatement. Beyond her case, she argues the fight is about medical autonomy and the right for physicians to tailor treatments to individual patients, not be dictated by politicians or rigid guidelines. She criticizes what she views as a heavily censored environment for doctors who questioned the pandemic narrative or advocated for therapeutics like ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, vitamin D, and zinc. She asserts that the COVID-19 Task Force guidelines opposed ivermectin and other therapeutics, and she contends such guidelines restrict doctors’ ability to provide individualized care. Trinh links the censorship and regulatory pressure to broader concerns about global governance, citing media suppression, removal of dissent on platforms like Facebook and YouTube, and increased control over platforms such as X (formerly Twitter). She mentions public support, including her presence on X and Facebook, as important to her ongoing legal battle and the broader struggle over medical autonomy and truth during the pandemic. She concludes by inviting people to follow her on X and Facebook to learn more and to show support as she pursues potential appeals if the judgment does not go in her favor. She frames her case as about more than COVID-19 alone: it is about challenging what she views as a long-standing, disproportionate control of doctors and a fight for fundamental rights, including the right to a hearing before the tribunal and the right to medical decision-making free from political interference.

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.

Monoclonal antibodies worked very well and quickly, and were initially readily available. The speaker believes the government intentionally made them harder to get to encourage people to take the COVID shot. The speaker started using ivermectin when monoclonal antibodies became difficult to obtain. In March, the government put out information on the FDA's website about why people should not take ivermectin for COVID. Simultaneously, the government launched COVID-nineteen Community Core on 04/01/2021, an $11,500,000,000 slush fund for propaganda.

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 believes that Ivermectin's effectiveness threatened the emergency use authorization for vaccines, which would impact the global market worth over $100 billion. The speaker suggests that Ivermectin's low cost and availability posed a threat to patented pharmaceuticals like PAXLOVID and Molnupiravir. They argue that Ivermectin could have ended the pandemic if widely used, but was suppressed due to its potential impact on the market. Translation: The speaker suggests that Ivermectin's effectiveness posed a threat to the emergency use authorization for vaccines and the global market, potentially impacting billions in revenue. They argue that Ivermectin's affordability and availability could have ended the pandemic if widely used, but was suppressed due to its potential impact on the market.