reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speaker expresses concerns about MAID, highlighting issues with the drug sodium thiopental used in the procedure. They discuss the potential drowning effect of the drug and criticize the lack of transparency in the process. The speaker questions the ethics of MAID, pointing out the financial motivations behind it and the impact on vulnerable individuals. They emphasize the need for honesty and moral integrity in these practices.

The speaker discusses concerns about late-term abortions and the alleged practice of keeping babies alive after birth to harvest their organs. They mention the governor of Virginia's comments, but the speaker claims they didn't see it. They suggest that these babies are kept alive for a short period, and their organs are registered and sold for profit. The speaker also mentions that California has passed a law related to this issue, and Virginia, New York, and three other states are trying to pass similar laws.

The speaker suggests that the COVID-19 vaccine may be causing more harm than good. They claim to have conducted a study of over 300 autopsies, finding that 73.9% of deaths after vaccination were caused by the vaccine. They also state that 100% of cardiac arrest and sudden deaths had no other explanation but the vaccine. The speaker emphasizes the importance of these findings, as death is usually attributed to known causes.

The speaker claims that unvaccinated individuals entering hospitals were deliberately killed. According to the speaker, every unvaccinated person they interviewed who went to the hospital reported not receiving the same treatments as vaccinated patients. Instead, they were allegedly given remdesivir, ventilation, and fentanyl, leading to their deaths. Another speaker adds that hospitals had financial incentives to produce COVID-related deaths, allegedly receiving up to $500,000 per death in California. The first speaker agrees, stating that hospital coders and whistleblowers revealed that patients were repeatedly tested for COVID until a positive result was obtained, triggering payments. They claim hospitals received additional payments for each drug and piece of equipment used, totaling over $500,000 per person. One person allegedly said their daughter was worth more dead than alive.

The speaker questions the necessity of the tetanus vaccine, stating that the reason given for taking it is a lie. They claim that no one has ever died from tetanus and question why the vaccine is still being administered. The speaker shares their observation that people on welfare did not receive the vaccine, while those who paid privately did, and notes a significant difference in fertility between the two groups. They mention that the tetanus vaccine has been developed as an abortion or sterilization vaccine by the World Health Organization and NIH, with the pregnancy hormone being added to the vaccine. The speaker believes this has been used in various countries, including the US, despite denials. They conclude by stating that these organizations are also supporting the COVID shot.

The conversation centers on serious concerns about medical assistance in dying (MAID) in Canada, with Dr. York Sang offering observations from his experience as a retired vascular surgeon and professor. The discussion covers how MAID is carried out, what drugs are used, how death is defined and monitored, and broader systemic issues in Canadian healthcare and autopsy practices. Key points raised - Realities of MAID versus expectations: The hosts note that MAID is not quick or necessarily painless, and that its dignity is attributed to one drug that causes paralysis, making death appear orderly to onlookers rather than to the patient. Dr. Sang agrees that, based on a large Canadian cohort, the process is not always quick or painless, and its perceived dignity largely stems from the paralytic drug used. - Drug regimens and their administration: The described MAID protocol commonly uses a sequence mirroring execution methods: a sedative (a large dose of a benzodiazepine, such as midazolam), followed by an anesthetic (propofol), then a paralytic, and finally a cardiotoxic agent to cause death. The typical MAID drug kit is presented as a standard set, with most patients receiving the sedative, anesthetic, and paralytic, but only about a quarter receiving a cardiotoxic “kill shot” (e.g., potassium chloride or a high-dose local anesthetic to cause fatal rhythm disruption). Approximately 90% of patients receive the sedative, anesthetic, and paralytic; about 25% receive the cardiotoxic agent. The time to death varies widely, with an average around nine minutes but ranges from one minute to over two hours; about a quarter die after more than an hour, according to the cited data. - Training and oversight concerns: Dr. Sang and Odessa discuss that most MAID providers are not anesthesiologists, and that a small minority of doctors—predominantly family physicians, rural GP-anesthetists—provide MAID without specialized training in anesthesia or MAID pharmacology. They argue that 79% of MAID providers had little to no formal training in the drugs used. This raises questions about monitoring, recognition of pain or distress, and ensuring consistency in death certification. - Monitoring and definitions of death: A major thread is the lack of continuous monitoring during MAID and the reliance on clinical death (no heart sounds, no breathing). Dr. Sang notes that the brain is likely still functioning for several minutes after clinical death, suggesting that the patient may still experience distress or wakefulness prior to the official death declaration. There is debate over whether brain activity should guide the determination of death, with some arguing for brain-wave monitoring to avoid premature cessation of artificial support. - Autopsy and post-mortem questions: The discussion references historical concerns from Dr. Joel Zivitt (a Canadian-turned-U.S.-based anesthesiologist) about deaths in the U.S. execution context and why autopsies were performed there. He reported that many blood samples showed anesthetic levels below surgical anesthesia at the time of death, and autopsies revealed pulmonary edema in a large majority of examined cases, raising questions about whether the anesthesia dosing and drug combinations may contribute to distressing end-of-life phenomena. - The pool of providers and ethics: The conversation touches on the notion that MAID is driven by a small, possibly specialized group of physicians, with concerns about whether some providers “hold back” from giving a full, lethal cocktail or whether systemic issues (time pressures, workload) influence practice. Dr. Sang emphasizes that the problem is not that MAID is necessarily too available, but that its execution lacks standardized training, monitoring, and ethical safeguards. - The broader policy and culture context: BC and Quebec are highlighted as leading provinces in MAID uptake, with BC representing nearly seven percent of all deaths due to MAID—almost double the national average. The participants discuss how expanding indications, including discussions about younger individuals or even pediatric cases, are part of ongoing debates in Canada, contrasted with other Western jurisdictions that push back against broader MAID access. - Alternatives: Dr. Sang advocates for palliative care as the preferable approach for terminal illness, noting that opioids (e.g., morphine) and comfort-focused care can offer relief without MAID. A striking point raised is that in the discussed MAID data, zero-point-six percent of patients received any narcotics during MAID. In summary, the dialogue presents a critical view of MAID implementation in Canada, focusing on drug cocktails and their administration, the adequacy of training and monitoring, the meaning and verification of death, and calls for greater emphasis on palliative care and autopsy-based scrutiny to ensure end-of-life practices align with patients’ comfort and dignity. The conversation also situates these concerns within broader provincial trends and policy debates around MAID’s expansion.

The speaker discusses the topic of abortion and argues that it should be considered murder. They emphasize that if there is no life in the fetus, then there is no need for an abortion. However, they believe that the fetus is alive and developing, even if it doesn't have consciousness. They conclude that abortion is objectively the killing of a human being.

Brain death is a fabricated concept primarily created to facilitate organ donation. It allows for the procurement of healthy organs from living individuals, as organs cannot be harvested from cadavers. The idea is controversial and often hidden from public knowledge, as it raises ethical concerns. Those labeled as brain dead still have functioning hearts and circulation, which contradicts the notion of being truly dead. The focus is often on younger individuals, particularly those aged 16 to 30, who may be in critical condition and on life support. The implications of this practice are troubling and warrant deeper scrutiny.

Brain death is a lie invented to harvest organs and avoid the expense of treating non-productive individuals. Organs for transplant must come from living persons, not cadavers. This information is suppressed because it would upset people. Those aged 16 to 30, especially if unconscious and on a ventilator, are at risk of organ harvesting. Individuals declared brain dead have a beating heart, circulation, and respiration; otherwise, they would simply be considered dead.

Plants have designated requesters, usually friendly and well-dressed, who befriend the relatives and offer support. This is part of the indoctrination process to procure organs. Organs for transplant can only come from living individuals, not cadavers. The target donors are children and young adults between 15 and 30 years old. The speaker reveals a disturbing practice where overdose victims are given Narcan to bring them to the emergency room, but their lives are not saved. Instead, their organs are harvested. Brain death is determined by lack of consciousness, absence of brain stem reflexes, and a procedure called the apnea test. The speaker warns against doing this test and shares a personal story of a girl who was declared dead but is still alive. Dissecting organs from living individuals is the only way to obtain them; cadavers cannot be used.

The speaker discusses concerns about Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID) in Canada, highlighting issues with the drug sodium thiopental and its potential for causing drowning during the procedure. Autopsies reveal troubling details about the process, contradicting claims of a painless death. The speaker also mentions cases of families being denied access to autopsy reports. These revelations raise questions about the ethics and transparency of MAID practices in Canada.

The speaker discusses the desperate need for a kidney transplant and the risks associated with finding a suitable donor. They express concern about putting organ donor information on a driver's license, as it may make individuals targets for organ harvesting. The speaker mentions cases where organs have been stolen from deceased individuals, including instances involving celebrities and African Americans. They highlight the potential misuse of DNA records by law enforcement and express frustration over the lack of accountability in cases of organ harvesting. The speaker concludes by emphasizing that organ harvesting is a global issue that needs more attention.

The speaker discusses their background in neonatology and their involvement in inventing various medical procedures for premature babies. They then share a personal story about their own child who was diagnosed as brain dead but eventually recovered and lived a normal life. They argue that brain death is a lie and explain how it was invented to make organ transplantation legal. They emphasize that organs can only be obtained from living individuals and discuss the unethical practices surrounding organ donation. The speaker advises against being an organ donor and suggests revoking any previous consent. They also mention the importance of understanding the truth about brain death and its implications.

This video discusses the promotion of euthanasia as a way to save money and harvest organs for the rich. The speaker claims that euthanasia is being used to kill disabled children, mentally ill individuals, and reduce spending on caring for the poor and disabled. They argue that euthanasia is not painless and that there are no standardized methods, leading to distressing deaths. The speaker also mentions cases of euthanasia being offered to those who are not terminally ill, including children as young as 12. They suggest that the push for euthanasia is driven by a desire to reduce the global population and save money on pensions. The video concludes by urging viewers to share the information and fight against the lies.

Organs cannot be taken from cadavers because brain cells die within minutes of oxygen deprivation. A person is not dead if their heart is beating, they are metabolizing fluids, or having bowel movements. Brain death is a lie manufactured for eugenics, to facilitate organ harvesting. The best organ donors are 30 years old, with a beating heart, circulation, and on a ventilator. The decision to take organs is made early, as treatment to preserve organs differs from life-saving treatment. In the UK, everyone is an organ donor unless they opt out. When a 999 call is made, the system assesses the caller's medical history, tax contributions, and worth to determine if they receive life-saving treatment or are considered an organ donor. This system is eugenics.

It is claimed that autopsies should be performed on everyone who dies after receiving a vaccine. It is alleged that there is a refusal to perform autopsies. It is argued that without autopsies, it is impossible to determine the specific cause of death. It is claimed that autopsies used to be commonly performed on most people who died.

The speaker describes a system of organ harvesting that they claim now runs through China, Israel, Ukraine, and the United States, noting that it wasn’t as prominent in the past. They assert that organs are harvested and the rest is disposed of, comparing it to a form of Soylent Green. They reference videos from Ukraine about a group called the Chorny Transplantologia, described as the black transplantologist. The speaker claims Putin is aware of this, and that the Russian army has underground harvesting areas. They describe a scenario where a young Ukrainian soldier who is not likely to survive is essentially cut for organ procurement—two kidneys, two lungs, a heart, a liver, and the rest allegedly goes into the food supply. The speaker says they cannot prove the food-supply part but can prove the kidney and other organ harvesting claims. The speaker asserts that the subject’s value is nearly a million dollars once sold, and that the price increases significantly. They claim that if someone sells their own kidney on the black market, they receive only a small amount while the mark-up is about tenfold by the time it reaches large hospitals in China, which allegedly exist for this purpose. Finally, the speaker claims that live harvesting occurs in China targeting Uighurs, Christians, and Falun Gong.

The speaker discusses concerns about late-term abortions and the alleged practice of keeping babies alive after birth to harvest their organs. They mention the governor of Virginia's comments, but the speaker claims they didn't see it. They suggest that these babies are kept alive for a short period, and their organs are registered for bidding, potentially making large sums of money. The speaker also mentions that California has passed a law related to this, and Virginia, New York, and three other states are trying to pass similar legislation.

The speaker discusses a surgeon who performs experimental and irreversible procedures on children to modify their genitals. The surgeon admits that there are no published studies on these procedures and they are still learning about the outcomes. The speaker expresses concern about the lack of knowledge and the potential harm being done to children. They argue that this kind of gender affirming care is actually mutilation and should be prohibited by law. The speaker believes that children should not be subjected to life-altering decisions made by adults.

A committee at Harvard invented brain death without conducting any studies or collecting patient data. They concluded that brainwave testing is not necessary after studying only 9 patients, 2 of whom still had brainwave activity. The speaker argues that people declared brain dead are actually alive and can recover. They criticize the practice of harvesting organs from conscious individuals who cannot communicate. The speaker emphasizes that unconsciousness does not mean the absence of consciousness. They also highlight the issue of pain, explaining that even if patients cannot demonstrate pain due to paralysis, their physiological responses indicate they are experiencing it. The speaker claims that brain death is primarily a means to obtain organs and describes the tactics used to convince families to donate. They assert that only healthy organs from living individuals are used for transplantation. The speaker also mentions the increasing number of organs obtained from drug overdoses and criticizes the practice of administering Narcan to overdose victims to bring them to the emergency room for organ harvesting. They find these practices morally repugnant.

There is no such thing as brain death; if your heart is beating, you are not dead. This concept was manufactured to facilitate eugenics through organ harvesting. Organs cannot be taken from cadavers because brain cells are damaged within minutes of oxygen deprivation. The best organ donors are under 30, with a beating heart, circulation, and on a ventilator. The decision to take organs is made early, possibly before the patient is aware, because organ preservation treatment differs from life-saving treatment. In the UK, everyone is an organ donor unless they opt out. When a 999 call is made, the system accesses medical history, tax records, and other data to determine if the person receives life-saving treatment or is considered an organ donor based on age and other factors. This is eugenics.

The speaker expresses concern about the death of a patient and questions if the hospital staff may have caused it. They discuss the lack of proper care and negligence in the hospital, with patients not being coded and families being misled. The speaker decides to go undercover and record their experiences. They mention the inappropriate use of ventilators and the lack of qualified staff. The video also touches on the financial incentives for admitting patients and the suppression of alternative treatments. The speaker highlights the importance of early treatment and criticizes the focus on ventilators.

Brain death was invented without patient data or basic science studies, and brainwave testing is not required, despite some patients in initial studies having brainwave activity. Organ harvesting is performed on living individuals who may be conscious but unable to communicate. Paralyzing agents are used during organ removal, though patients may still exhibit pain responses like increased heart rate and blood pressure. Brain death was created to procure organs and reduce costs associated with long-term care. Designated requesters, often clergy or pastoral care, befriend relatives to facilitate organ donation. Organs for transplant must be healthy and can only be obtained from living persons, not cadavers. The speaker claims that the information is suppressed because it is upsetting. Organ procurement targets children and individuals aged 16-30. More organs are now obtained from drug overdoses than from accidents and gunshot wounds. Narcan is administered to overdose victims to get them to the emergency room for organ harvesting.

Speaker 0 argues against the concept of brain death, stating that if the heart is beating, a person is not dead and that the idea of brain death is a lie manufactured to enable organ eugenics. He contends that organ donation cannot occur from a dead body, explaining that within three minutes of no oxygen brain cells begin to die and within five minutes cellular death occurs, so organs can only be taken from someone who is alive. He then claims that the best organ donor under 30 is someone with a beating heart, circulation, and ideally on a ventilator. He questions when the decision to take organs is made, suggesting it happens very early, possibly before the patient is aware of what is happening because the treatment to preserve organs differs from life-saving treatment. He references the UK policy implemented on May 22, where everyone became an organ donor unless they opt out. He asserts that people do not know about this policy and that once a 999 call is made, information is displayed on a screen; they know who you are, which is why there is a push toward a digital system. He claims the entire medical history would be fed through AI, including tax information and what a person is worth to the system, to determine whether they are a donor (yay) or not (nay). The transcript further asserts that a person’s status—whether they are receiving life-saving treatment or are on end-of-life care—along with age, will influence organ-donor status. He emphasizes the importance of people understanding this, and concludes by reiterating his belief that this process amounts to eugenics, labeling it as eugenics.

A retired doctor recounted his breaking point, which mirrored the speaker's own experience leaving nursing. The doctor was present when a family friend's 13-year-old daughter was declared brain dead and became an organ donor. He witnessed the organ harvesting. The next day, the girl's mother asked for help at a car wash to raise money for the funeral. The doctor realized the hospital would profit over $20,000,000 from the organs, charging recipients millions per organ while the family struggled to pay for the funeral. He believes organ donation money should go to the donor's family to prevent trafficking and alleviate debt. He noted the hospital readily provides free surgery to harvest organs but not to save a life. He concluded that hospitals prioritize profit over patient care.