reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Speaker 0: The speaker describes using Dragon's Blood with coconut oil on the gums to address recessed gums, claiming that the gums will regenerate. They mention a first order of Dragon's Blood and say, “Recessive gums, dragon Dragon's Blood and coconut oil. Put it on the gums, and the gums will regenerate.” They also claim that Dragon's Blood, when used with coconut oil, can heal bites and stings, stating, “if you have any bites, you know, a tick, a wasp, a bee sting, a scorpion sting, you can put a little bit of Dragon's Blood and coconut oil on there and that will also heal that too.” The speaker asserts the broader point that “nature will give us to bring into our body and put on our body to heal without side effects,” describing it as “remarkable.” The speaker contends that if dentists were talking about regenerating gums, they wouldn’t be able to sell procedures, implying that such regeneration would undercut procedures. They assert a broader claim about professional healthcare: “every time you go to a professional, they never give you an actual solution. They always give you a treatment or they give you a pill or they give you a surgery. They never actually give you something to actually fix the issue that you're having.” The speaker contrasts this with their view of natural remedies as a genuine fix rather than a temporary treatment.

People who believe in Western medicine often think that those in natural health haven't seen the data. However, the data they refer to comes from institutions that took over the medical model and removed natural health from the curriculum. I don't base my beliefs solely on their data. Instead, I consider the 5000 years of natural health modalities used worldwide. The US represents less than 5% of these modalities but consumes 41% of the world's pharmaceutical drugs. So, we don't look at the same data. I have trust issues with the sources of their information.

Drug companies won't test natural substances because they can't be patented. FDA requires testing for safety and efficacy, but natural products won't be tested due to lack of patentability. This creates a cycle where natural remedies are deemed unproven by the FDA.

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.

Drug companies are not interested in natural substances that cannot be patented. The FDA requires substances to be tested for safety and effectiveness before they can be used legally. However, since natural substances cannot be patented, drug companies are unlikely to spend the money to test them. As a result, the FDA will always consider natural substances unproven and condemn them.

Speaker 0: Under the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, a drug is defined as anything that is intended for use in the cure, treatment, prevention, or mitigation of disease. The example given is prune juice: if you drink prune juice for chronic constipation, the FDA regards prune juice as a drug. The assertion is that the FDA defines it as a drug to protect drug companies from competition. Speaker 1: The implication is that if a natural remedy, plant, herb, or even a food improves an abnormal state of the body, it is now classified as a drug. For instance, if someone claims that garlic can actually help your cholesterol and reduce the risk of a heart attack, and they are selling garlic, they would be subject to regulations. By using a disease claim, garlic is no longer just something used to season food; it is considered a drug.

The FDA only approves emergency use authorization if there are no other alternatives. Ivermectin's effectiveness could have impacted vaccine approval. Powerful interests oppose Ivermectin due to financial reasons. Drug companies profit greatly from vaccines. Ivermectin is cheap and widely available. Merck's stance on Ivermectin changed after its patent expired. Paid articles may not always provide accurate information.

There are 250,000 drugs in the PDR, but none are designed to cure anything except maybe antibiotics for strep throat. Pharmaceutical companies focus on making money from insurance policies rather than creating cures. Laws do not require them to produce drugs that cure, despite their ability to do so.

Speaker 0 argues that ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine were suppressed because they are well-established drugs with safety records and billions of doses used; ivermectin is a human drug that also works on horses and won the Nobel Prize for its effectiveness in humans. He states there is a federal law that says an emergency use authorization (EUA) for a vaccine cannot be granted if there is any approved medication shown effective against the target disease, so admitting effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin would have made EUA for vaccines illegal and would have collapsed a “200,000,000,000 enterprise.” Speaker 1 notes this is the first time hearing that assertion, acknowledging it’s in the book. He suggests that if the medical community had been saying ivermectin is an effective COVID treatment, EUA for vaccines could not have been granted. Speaker 0 explains that many in the medical community supported effectiveness, citing a petition signed by 17,000 doctors and numerous peer-reviewed publications, but Fauci aggressively crusaded against it, labeling it a horse medication and alleging danger and overdosing to drown out those reports. Speaker 1 asks why Fauci continued to push the claim after EUA was granted. Speaker 0 answers that, even with EUA, the law may require withdrawal if a functioning medication exists, implying a motive to undermine ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine. He mentions a strong incentive for Fauci to kill these medications and cites several doctors who treated tens of thousands of COVID patients and supported the claim that the science shows many lives could have been saved. He names Harvey Reich at Yale, Peter McCulloch as the most published doctor in history and prominent in biostatistics/epidemiology, and Peter Quarry in connection with the doctors who treated many patients. They allegedly state that half a million Americans did not need to die.

The discussion covers apricots and the “counter” to claims about the seeds. It notes that people are told not to eat the inside of the seed, referencing a “cyanide scare” in which “there’s cyanide in the seeds,” attributing the warning to the FDA. The speaker contrasts this with the claim that the same source is promoting vaccination, saying this juxtaposition is “delusional.” They also assert that the Hunza tribe has been eating “thousands of apricot seeds” with “there has never been a case” of harm, including “look at that in the Hunza.” The speaker then gives practical instructions: obtain apricots, use a mallet to crack the seed, and remove the inner part, which they describe as “a little seed” that is “bitter.” The bitterness is said to be “really good for this right here.” The speaker claims that “professionals aren’t gonna tell you about that” because they “get a 6% commission from doing chemo on you.” They add that apricots can be found for “$10,” and conclude by stating they would “rather trust the apricot seed than the government.”

The key focus is on well-being, which has shifted over the past 20 to 30 years towards expensive remediation rather than wellness and prevention. The FDA plays a crucial role in this discussion. It raises the question of whether it's worthwhile to continue promoting costly drugs while neglecting preventive measures and overall wellness.

There are laws that prevent doctors from trying alternative treatments for cancer, limiting them to only proven unsuccessful methods. The speaker suggests that if this restriction could be lifted, significant progress could be made. They also imply that the pharmaceutical industry profits from this situation, as there is a lot of money to be made from drugs.

Animal testing is purportedly needed to see how humans interact with drugs, find cures for diseases, and identify pharmaceutical side effects. However, some argue that animal and human bodies are too different to justify these experiments. It is claimed that the idea that we need to "poison puppies" to get cures for humans is fear mongering. Data from the NIH, Defense Department, and FDA allegedly shows that 90-99% of drugs fail in humans after being safe and effective in animal tests because animal tests don't accurately predict human reactions. Pharmaceutical companies supposedly lament being forced by the FDA and EPA to experiment on animals, as it doesn't provide useful data. RFK Jr. stated that the FDA is working to reduce animal testing because AI and other modern technologies are more accurate at predicting human reactions. The speaker asserts that animal testing continues due to bureaucracy, institutional inertia, and because it's a profitable business.

The speaker discusses the book The MD Emperor Has No Clothes by Peter Glidden, describing it as a phenomenal resource. They assert that when patients receive a cancer diagnosis and undergo a PCR test, they are then told they must undergo chemotherapy or radiation. According to the speaker, in the book Peter Glidden explains that the professional receives a 6% commission for recommending chemotherapy. They claim this leads to about $100,000 being charged to the patient’s insurance, which the speaker views as a significant incentive for doctors to push chemo and radiation. The speaker contends that professionals tell patients to pursue chemo and radiation largely because of the commission from Big Pharma, rather than offering alternatives or focusing on overall health. They allege that doctors do not inform patients about natural or alternative options, listing items such as soursop, sun exposure, reishi, apricot seeds, and dietary corrections as potential aids that could address the body’s signals for help. The implication is that the medical system prioritizes medication and procedures over nutritional or lifestyle approaches. A central claim echoed in the talk is that the medical system in the United States is financially driven: 20% of the country’s GDP is spent on healthcare. The speaker emphasizes “20% of the GDP of America” to illustrate how the system operates financially, suggesting that this economic framework contributes to the continued use of vaccines, chemotherapy, radiation, “poisonous pills,” and misdiagnoses. They argue that these financial incentives are why certain treatments persist, and why systemic changes are unlikely within the current framework. Overall, the speaker asserts that the U.S. medical system is a money-driven enterprise, with substantial financial incentives tied to specific treatments like chemotherapy, which are presented as standard responses to cancer diagnoses. The discussion centers on challenging the mainstream approach by highlighting alleged commissions, insurance costs, and the availability of alternative health information and practices that they claim are typically overlooked.

Speaker 0: I have three friends. All three of them had stage four cancer. All three of them don't have cancer right now at all. And they had some serious stuff going on. And what did they take? Yep. Jesus. They took some what you've heard they've taken. Speaker 1: Ivermectin. Fenbendazole. Fenbendazole. Yeah. Speaker 0: That's it. Speaker 1: Yeah. I'm hearing that a lot. Speaker 0: They drank hydrochloride something or other? There's studies on Speaker 1: that now where people have proven that they've Speaker 0: drinking methylene blue and stuff Speaker 1: like that. Yeah. Methylene blue, which was a fabric dye. Speaker 0: Yeah. Yeah. It was a textile dye, and now they find it has profound effects on your mitochondria. Yep. Yeah. Speaker 0: This stuff works, man. There's a lot of stuff that does work, which is very strange Speaker 1: Mhmm. Because, again, it's profit. When you when you hear about things that are demonized and that that turn out to be effective, you always wonder, well, what is going on here? Mhmm. How is how is our medical institutions how have they failed us so that things that do cure you are not promoted because they're not profitable?

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

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.

The main issue with vitamin C is that it cannot be patented, which means there's no financial incentive for companies to invest in it. Without a patent, there’s no profit, and without profit, there’s little motivation to pursue its potential benefits. Ideally, saving lives should be the primary incentive, but unfortunately, that’s not how the healthcare system operates.

A few years ago, the New York Attorney General discovered that 79% of supplements from Target, GNC, Walmart, and Walgreens did not contain the ingredients they claimed to have. Some even contained sawdust instead. Only 4% of Walmart products tested had DNA from the listed plants. To ensure you're getting quality supplements, it's important to buy from companies that conduct third-party testing and have high-quality facilities. The speaker, who has experience in pharmaceutical sales, recommends trusting certain brands that do their own due diligence.

The speaker urges listeners to ask themselves whether their symptoms or diagnosed conditions, and the prescription drugs they take, are truly caused by drug deficiency. They question the idea that conditions like high blood pressure, migraines, diabetes, or heart disease are due to a lack of the drugs themselves. The speaker makes several pointed claims about specific medications: - Lisinopril: described as snake venom in a tablet from a viper in Brazil (Jarocas Viper) since 1981, and asserts that the listener may be swallowing dried snake venom to lower blood pressure, even though the doctor may not have explained it this way. - Xarelto: said to be prescribed for atrial fibrillation by a cardiologist. - Imitrex: noted as something people inject for migraines. They challenge the notion that symptoms are caused by deficiencies in these drugs or by the body lacking them. They ask whether the body is deficient in acetaminophen (and by extension Advil) or Tylenol to cause fever, arguing that none of these claims are true. They assert that these are man-made chemicals and drugs and that none of us are deficient in them. The speaker then presents a contrasting view: every single disease and every single symptom is a clear sign that you are specifically nutrient deficient. They contend that when the nutrients are put back into the body—“the nutrients back in that God gave you and put in the earth”—the earth’s supply to the human body aligns with how God designed it, providing everything that’s for the benefit of man. The overall message emphasizes a shift from relying on drugs to restoring nutrients from natural sources as the body’s path to health.

Natural substances cannot be patented, which means drug companies are not interested in testing them for FDA approval. The FDA requires substances to be tested for safety and efficacy before they can be used legally. However, since natural substances cannot be patented, no one is willing to spend the money to conduct these tests. As a result, the FDA will always consider natural substances unproven and condemn them.

Medical doctors are trained in allopathic reductionism, which focuses solely on drugs and surgery. While these interventions have their place, MDs receive training limited to this area. The pharmaceutical industry influences medical education and research in the United States, prioritizing pharmaceutical research over other areas like homeopathic or botanical medicines, acupuncture, or medical nutrition. The focus is on developing new drugs or gene splices. Just as one wouldn't seek advice from a Republican about social programs or a Democrat about military funding, medical doctors are not trained in medical science, but rather in allopathic reductionism, which exclusively values drugs and surgery.

Like hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin are no are out of patents. So because they're out of patents, you cannot make any money on these drugs. The most you could sell them for is, $300 Pharmaceutical companies are no longer interested in $300 drugs. They're interested in orphan drugs where they can get name your price for a drug. We're going to put it under an orphan and now we can bill whatever we want. From like $300 to $10,000 a month. Then all these companies started copying and doing biologic at $10,000 a month. But there is a movement that is controlling the research and stopping innovations, that is stopping out of patent drugs, drugs that are basically like hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin. So I think that's the number one thing and the attacks on that.

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

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.