reSee.it - Related Video Feed

I worked as a pediatrician and realized vaccines brought in significant income. Admin fees for vaccines were a major source of revenue, with bonuses for high vaccination rates. Quality measures focused on vaccination rates, not overall health. Pediatric practices heavily rely on vaccine income to stay afloat, leading to pressure to vaccinate despite potential harm.

A doctor claims there were "perverse incentives" during the pandemic to administer COVID vaccines. As an outpatient physician, she states she could have made $1,500,000 if she had vaccinated the 6,000 COVID patients she treated. She suggests that both outpatient and inpatient settings had "financial incentives" to adhere to government protocols.

I'm going to ask you a question about the vaccine. If you pushed the vaccine for your patients, say you had 6,000 patients at that time, what would your income have been? Blue Cross Blue Shield had an incentive program for doctors to administer these shots. If I had vaccinated the 6,000 patients that I treated for COVID, I would have made $1,500,000. The "follow the money" aspect of this is staggering.

The speaker discusses the potential serious adverse effects of vaccines, attributing them to the spike protein causing inflammation in various organs. Bill Gates' involvement in vaccines is questioned, with emphasis on his financial gains. The speaker suggests that pharmaceutical companies prioritized profits over public health, leading to vaccine mandates. The conversation delves into the ethical implications of prioritizing money over people's well-being.

A network president revealed that allowing certain voices on air could lead to the host's firing due to advertiser pressures, particularly from pharmaceutical companies. During non-election years, up to 70% of news revenue can come from pharma ads, which serve as a public relations tactic rather than simply promoting drugs. This funding influences the media, making it reluctant to investigate pharmaceutical practices, even when there are serious concerns about vaccine safety and corporate misconduct. The media often dismisses legitimate questions as anti-science, silencing discussions about vaccine injuries. There's a growing need to reconsider trust in the pharmaceutical industry, especially with the increasing government funding for drugs like Ozempic.

People glaze over when the possibility that "these things" caused problems is raised. Some confidently state the COVID vaccine saved millions of lives, but it's unclear how they know this. Many people know others who were negatively affected by the vaccine but don't want to admit it, claiming correlation isn't causation. The news scared people with death tolls, and there's a lot of money involved, including huge bonuses for fully vaccinated kids. Instead of attacking those who say this, it should be investigated as a potential conflict of interest.

A published article claims that 50% of most pediatricians' revenue comes from vaccines. Insurance companies like Blue Cross allegedly pay pediatricians bonuses if 95% of their clients are fully vaccinated, potentially worth tens of thousands of dollars. This bonus structure is claimed to incentivize pediatricians to prioritize vaccination rates over individual patient needs. As a result, pediatricians may dismiss patients who want to alter the standard vaccine schedule because they risk losing the bonus. These incentives are described as preventing doctors from practicing medicine and caring for clients due to a focus on the bottom line.

Speaker 0 asks about the truth of vaccination incentives and whether pediatricians are financially motivated by vaccination rates. Speaker 1 responds that HMOs directly incentivize vaccines, noting that HMOs buy and sell vaccines and that vaccines are big business for them. The incentive amounts cited are typically $200 to $600 per fully vaccinated patient, provided a certain percentage of a practice is fully vaccinated. Some pediatricians can make upwards of $1,000,000 or more a year from these incentives. The speaker also mentions stories of pediatricians firing patients who won’t get vaccinated, indicating that such firing occurs. Speaker 1 adds that they hear the same stories repeatedly, including claims about misinformation given at birth and regarding vaccines: that not giving vitamin K at birth will cause the baby to bleed out before reaching the car, and that not receiving the HPV vaccine will lead to dying of cancer. They state that these are stories told to parents and question how such misinformation can persist.

Pediatricians may be incentivized to administer vaccines due to revenue structures. One article claims that 50% of pediatricians' revenue comes from vaccines. Insurance companies like Blue Cross allegedly pay bonuses to pediatricians who maintain a 95% vaccination rate among their clients. This bonus structure may disincentivize pediatricians from accommodating alternative vaccination schedules, potentially leading them to dismiss patients who request them. These incentives may prevent doctors from prioritizing patient care due to financial considerations. The speaker claims that twenty years ago, 20% of doctors worked for corporations, but now 80% do, and these corporations prioritize revenue over patient well-being.

The speaker claims that when the rotavirus vaccine was approved, four out of five board members had direct financial interests in it, working for the companies that made the vaccine or receiving grants to do clinical trials on it. One board member, Paul Offit, allegedly voted to add the rotavirus vaccine to the schedule while he had a rotavirus vaccine in development. The speaker says that because it's now on the schedule, his developing vaccine is virtually guaranteed to get on the schedule. The rotavirus vaccine that Offit voted on was withdrawn within a year because it was causing intussusception in kids. Offit's vaccine then replaced it. The speaker states that Offit and his business partners sold that vaccine to Merck for $186,000,000. The speaker says that Offit told Newsweek that he won the lottery and that it's been said of him that he voted himself rich.

People who got the vaccine may feel ashamed and hesitant to talk about it. Some are realizing they were misled but are afraid to admit it. Those who called for the death of unvaccinated individuals are harder to understand. The push for high vaccination rates in the NFL and other areas is driven by money from big pharma. Following the money reveals what's truly happening in big pharma and government. Hollywood and the NFL are influenced by big pharma's advertising spending.

The speakers discuss the perceived truth about pediatric vaccination incentives and the behavior of pediatricians. The conversation opens with a question about whether there is an incentive for pediatricians to promote vaccination, and the back-and-forth suggests uncertainty about this issue. One participant mentions that Dr. Paul Thomas has produced a substantial video on the topic and notes that many other pediatricians have followed his lead, adding that perhaps Dr. Hooker could provide a sharper answer. A subsequent speaker clarifies the proposed mechanism of incentives, stating that pediatricians are typically incentivized directly by HMOs. The claim is that HMOs buy and sell vaccines, making vaccines a big business for HMOs. The incentive, according to this account, is usually between $200 and $600 per fully vaccinated patient, as long as their vaccines meet a required percentage threshold for the practice. The speaker contends that some pediatricians can make upwards of a million dollars a year solely from these incentives, underscoring the potential scale of earnings. The discussion then turns to empirical observations or anecdotes, with the claim that pediatricians often fire patients who refuse to get vaccinated. This is presented as a recurrent story that the speakers have heard repeatedly. In addition to the firing of patients, the speakers recount alarming claims attributed to some physicians. They mention the “lies that the pediatrician tell” about dire consequences of not vaccinating, such as “our baby will die” if vitamin K is not given at birth, or that the baby will bleed out before it gets to the car. They also reference the belief expressed by some that “if you don’t get the HPV vaccine, then you will die of cancer.” These stories are described as being told repeatedly by parents who have encountered such warnings. The segment closes with a rhetorical and emotional question about accountability: how can doctors get away with lying like that to parents? The speakers convey a sense of concern and frustration about the repetition of these claims and the impact they have on parents who are trying to make informed decisions for their children.

This book is for people who want to convince others that Wall Street is betting against the mainstream narrative. The speaker, a former Wall Street professional, shares their experience of making money by going against the herd mentality. They claim to be a stock picking conspiracy theorist and now a vaccine conspiracy theorist. They emphasize that smart money knows something is going on and that they are starting a hedge fund based on their thesis. The speaker's goal is to save lives, so they provide data on their website for people to use as evidence. They acknowledge the censorship and blackout surrounding this information and suggest using Wall Street's interest in betting against the mainstream as social proof to persuade skeptics.

Speaker 0 questions the truth and asks if pediatricians are incentivized by the percentage of vaccinated patients. Speaker 1 notes that Dr. Paul Thomas has made a good video on the topic, and that many other pediatricians have followed, suggesting a possible need for a better answer from Dr. Hooker. Speaker 0 states that pediatricians are typically incentivized directly by HMOs, which buy and sell vaccines, making vaccines a big business for HMOs. The incentivization is described as typically anywhere from $200 to $600 per fully vaccinated patient, as long as a certain percentage of the practice is fully vaccinated. Some pediatricians can reportedly make upwards of $1,000,000 or more a year just from these incentives. Speaker 0 also reports hearing stories of pediatricians firing patients who refuse vaccination, asserting that such firing occurs. Speaker 1 confirms that the story of firing patients for vaccine refusal is heard repeatedly, and adds that there are also lies told to parents. Examples given include claims that vitamin K at birth is necessary to prevent the baby from bleeding out before leaving the car, and that not receiving the HPV vaccine will result in death from cancer. The speaker says that these stories have been told over and over again by parents. Speaker 1 then asks how such lying can be allowed to go on, expressing frustration with what they perceive as misinformation being spread to parents.

The evidence shows that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation profited significantly from vaccines. After selling his stock, Bill Gates shifted his narrative, claiming vaccines were ineffective and the virus wasn't as serious as initially thought. This is surprising, given that throughout the pandemic, he promoted vaccines as highly effective in stopping the virus and transmission. These assertions turned out to be false, and he profited from them. Many view him as a philanthropist, but his actions suggest a motivation driven by financial gain throughout his career.

The speaker discusses how someone made a significant profit from selling their stock in the COVID vaccine. They mention that while people were under lockdown and unable to work, this individual made a large sum of money by investing in the vaccine. The speaker then mentions that this person is now promoting a new nasal COVID treatment, criticizing the current vaccines for not being infection-blocking, broad, or long-lasting. They question whether this person is invested in the new treatment and refer to an article about the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation funding two Indian companies, Serum Institute of India and Bharat Biotech, for vaccine research.

Billions of dollars have been invested in vaccines, saving millions of lives. However, there is a conspiracy theory that suggests the intention is to profit from vaccines rather than saving lives. The speaker reveals that the return on investment for these vaccinations over the past two decades is an impressive 20 to 1, making it a highly profitable venture. This contradicts the conspiracy theory and highlights the economic benefits of vaccines.

My friends, including doctors, who initially supported vaccines are now skeptical due to the COVID vaccine propaganda, adverse effects like strokes and heart attacks, athletes collapsing, and increased all-cause mortality post-vaccination. Some even got pacemakers. People are hesitant to admit they were wrong and may have harmed others.

Laura Logan hosts a discussion with Dr. Sherri Tenpenny on vaccines, public health policy, and what they see as failures and harms within the system. The conversation weaves together personal history, policy details, scientific debates, and broader social concerns, intercut with promotional content for GiveSendGo. Key points and claims raised by Dr. Tenpenny - Vaccine ingredients and aluminum exposure: Tenpenny asserts that if someone receives every vaccine on the schedule, they would be injected with a total of about twelve thousand micrograms of aluminum, which she says is inflammatory to every organ system and can be stored in bones (60% of aluminum exposure). She notes aluminum is present in vaccines in order to replace mercury, which she describes as also a poison. - Early vaccine industry liability and the 1986 Act: The discussion explains that prior to 1986 there were liability concerns for vaccine makers due to injury lawsuits. Tenpenny recounts that in 1986 Congress passed a law giving the pharmaceutical industry liability immunity for vaccines, creating what she describes as a ramp in the vaccine schedule. She cites that by 1991 additional vaccines were introduced (Hep B at birth, Hib, chickenpox, Prevnar, Gardasil, Hep A, and more) and alleges this resulted in a rising autism incidence aligned with new vaccines. - The vaccine injury system: Tenpenny explains the Injury Compensation Act and the existence of VAERS as a tracking system, along with a separate pathway created under the PREP Act (the Preparedness and Readiness Act). She states that during the COVID era a separate program, the Covered Countermeasure Program (CICP), existed under the PREP Act, but it had no funding and a one-year statute of limitations, leading to under-compensation and very few adjudicated cases; she contrasts this with the earlier 1986 act, which funded vaccine injury compensation through the Federal Court of Claims and VAERS. - Perceived safety and effectiveness concerns: The speakers discuss studies suggesting that the flu shot might not prevent flu and that some studies indicate vaccines including pneumonia vaccines may be associated with higher risk of the conditions they aim to prevent. Tenpenny frames this as evidence of cracks in the vaccine program and argues that vaccines are linked to a broad spectrum of health issues, including autoimmune diseases, infertility, and cancers, which she says have been increasing. - Pediatric vaccination schedule and “pediatric poisoning program”: Tenpenny asserts that infants receive multiple injections early in life, with claims that by age two they will have thousands of micrograms of aluminum and other compounds that remain in the body, including in the brain. She characterizes the pediatric schedule as a systematic poisoning program for children and a parallel “adult assault program” for adults receiving vaccines. - COVID-19 vaccine controversy and health impacts: The conversation covers the COVID vaccines, including assertions about adverse effects such as myocarditis, strokes, kidney injury, autoimmune diseases, neurological issues, and cancers. Tenpenny describes long-term concerns (long COVID, autoimmune diseases) and claims of widespread injury and death, contending that the pandemic revealed how the health-care and pharmaceutical systems operate, including alleged corruption and profit motives. She discusses the difficult experiences of families during the pandemic, including restrictions on care and the use of alternate treatments like ivermectin in some cases. - The claim that COVID vaccines were not properly evaluated and that mandated vaccination reflected coercion: The speakers discuss mandates and the experiences of individuals in workplaces and educational institutions who faced pressure to receive vaccines, including religious exemptions and disputes about mandates. Tenpenny suggests a broader pattern of overreach in public health policy and questions about the balance between individual rights and mandates. - History and philosophy of public health programs: They discuss the Healthy People initiatives, arguing that the program’s goals have expanded in scope (from 15 goals to 1,200 for Healthy People 2030) and that the expansion is associated with greater surveillance and control over personal lives. Tenpenny claims that this is part of a broader trend toward data collection and governance of individual health and behavior. - The economics and incentives around vaccines: The conversation notes how physicians are compensated in part through vaccine administration, implying financial incentives influence clinical decisions. Tenpenny emphasizes the profit motive behind vaccines and the pharmaceutical industry’s financial interests, citing extreme examples like the one boy in a photo who allegedly became heavily medicated due to vaccines. - The role of media and information control: They discuss the influence of advertising in media since the 1990s and the difficulty of reporting critically on vaccines when major advertisers are pharmaceutical companies. They also mention AI and misinformation concerns, including examples of AI fabricating sources and the need to verify information. - Personal stakes, accountability, and political possibilities: Tenpenny discusses personal cost for challenging the vaccine paradigm, including an earlier period of potential licensing scrutiny and professional pushback. She names figures such as Fauci and Birx, argues that accountability has not yet occurred, and expresses hope that public interest in accountability could shift through advocacy and political leadership, citing RFK Jr. as a potential ally though acknowledging political and institutional obstacles. - Treatment and detoxification approaches: For those who have already received vaccines, Tenpenny outlines two separate tracks: detoxification for childhood vaccines and detox for COVID vaccines. For detox, she mentions products such as PureBody Extra (PBX), a zeolite-based supplement she says helps remove metals like aluminum and mercury from the body. She notes it is usable across age groups and even for pets, and she personally uses it. She also discusses non-specific detox approaches such as vitamin D optimization, lymphatic stimulation, exercise, and a diet focusing on avoiding white foods and reducing inflammation. She cautions that there is no proven blood or urine test to quantify spike protein after a COVID vaccine, and that detox strategies aim to support overall health rather than remove embedded spike protein from tissues. - The role of faith and resilience: The interview includes discussions of faith as a guiding force for Tenpenny, including her personal journey toward Christian faith in 2020. They reflect on fear, hope, forgiveness, and the idea that one can act with integrity and do the right thing even when faced with controversy or personal cost. They discuss existential questions about meaning, purpose, and moral responsibility, including the belief that life has a spiritual dimension that informs how to respond to public-health challenges. - Community and parenting: The conversation emphasizes the importance of community networks for new parents, including seeking mentorship from experienced parents and trusted health advocates, and maintaining parental agency in decisions about vaccines, medical interventions, and child-rearing. They discuss the value of critical thinking, asking questions, and avoiding blind trust in professionals or institutions. - Closing notes and resources: Tenpenny provides her websites and a Substack for ongoing information, including dr10penny.com, dr10penny.substack.com, and 10pennywalkwithgod.substack.com, as well as her X profile busy doctor t. The episode closes with a call to viewers to stay informed and to seek second opinions, while thanking the audience for supporting independent journalism. Overall, the dialogue centers on a critical, conspiratorial framing of vaccines, public-health policy, and the medical establishment; it weaves together testimonies about personal experience, policy history (notably the 1986 Act and the PREP Act), alleged systemic failures in compensation for vaccine injuries, criticisms of COVID-19 responses and vaccine mandates, and practical detoxification and faith-based guidance. The promotional content for GiveSendGo lightly interrupts the core discussion, but the majority of the exchange remains an extended argument about vaccine safety, accountability, and the perceived influence of big pharma on health care and public policy.

The speaker accuses the Ellen Melinda Gates Foundation of profiting millions of dollars from vaccines. They claim that once the foundation sold their stock, the narrative changed to downplay the effectiveness of vaccines and the severity of the virus. The speaker believes this is motivated by money and criticizes the foundation for promoting vaccines despite not being experts in the field. They also mention the foundation's history with monopolistic practices. The speaker finds it shocking how transparent the situation is, with the money trail easily traceable.

- The discussion opens with a critique of how public health authorities in the United States and much of the media discouraged experimentation with COVID-19 treatments, instead pushing vaccination and portraying other approaches as dangerous. The hosts ask why treatments were sidelined and treated as heretical to question. - Speaker 1 explains that the core idea was to stamp out “vaccine hesitation,” which he frames not as a purely scientific issue but as a form of heresy. He notes a broad literature on vaccine hesitancy and contrasts it with the perception of the vaccine as a liberating savior. He points to a Vatican €20 silver coin (2022) commemorating the COVID-19 vaccine, described by Vatican catalogs as “a boy prepares to receive the Eucharist,” which the speakers interpret as an overlay of religious iconography with vaccination imagery. They also reference Diego Rivera’s mural in Detroit, interpreted as depicting the vaccine as a Eucharist, and a South African church banner reading “even the blood of Christ cannot protect you, get vaccinated,” highlighting what they see as provocative uses of religious symbolism to promote vaccination. - They claim that the Biden administration’s COVID Vaccine Corps distributed billions of dollars to major sports leagues (NFL, MLB) and that many mainline churches reportedly received money to push vaccination, with many clergy not opposing the push. The implication is that monetary incentives influenced public figures and organizations to advocate for vaccines, contributing to a climate in which questioning orthodoxy was difficult. - The speakers discuss the social dynamics around vaccine “heresy,” using Aaron Rodgers’ experience with isolation and shaming in the NFL and Novak Djokovic’s experiences in Australia to illustrate how prominent individuals who questioned or fell outside the orthodoxy faced punitive pressure. They compare this to a Reformation-era conflict over doctrinal correctness and describe a psychology of stigmatizing dissent as a tool to enforce conformity. - They argue the imperative driving institutions was the belief that the vaccine was the central, non-negotiable public-health objective, seemingly above other medical considerations. The central question they raise is why vaccines became the sole priority, seemingly overriding a broader, more nuanced evaluation of medical options and individual risk. - The conversation shifts to epistemology and the nature of science. Speaker 1 suggests medicine often relies on orthodoxies and presuppositions, rather than purely empirical processes. He recounts a Kantian view that interpretation depends on preexisting categories, and he uses this to argue that medical decision-making can be constrained by established doctrines, which may obscure questions about optimization and safety. - They recount the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act and discuss Sara Sotomayor’s dissent, which argued that liability exposure is a key incentive for safety and improvement in vaccine development. They argue that the current system creates minimal liability for manufacturers, reducing the incentive to optimize safety, and they use this to question how the system encourages continuous safety improvements. - The hosts recount the early-treatment movement led by Peter McCullough and others, including a Senate hearing organized by Ron Johnson in November 2020 to discuss early-treatment options with FDA-approved drugs like hydroxychloroquine. They criticize what they describe as aggressive pushback against such approaches, noting that McCullough faced professional sanctions and lawsuits despite presenting peer-reviewed literature. - They return to the concept of orthodoxy and dogma, arguing that the medical establishment often suppresses dissent, citing YouTube removing a McCullough interview and the broader pattern of silencing challenge to the vaccine narrative. They stress that the social and institutional systems prize conformity and punish those who deviate, creating a climate of distrust toward official health bodies. - The discussion broadens into metaphysical and philosophical territory, with references to the Grand Inquisitor from Dostoevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov. They propose that elites—whether religious, political, or scientific—tend to prefer “taking care” of people through control rather than preserving individual responsibility and free will. The Grand Inquisitor tale is used to illustrate a recurring human temptation: to replace personal liberty with a protected, paternalistic order. - They discuss messenger RNA (mRNA) technology as a central manifestation of Promethean or Luciferian intellect—humans attempting to “read and write in the language of God.” They describe the scientific arc from transcription and translation to mRNA vaccines, noting Francis Collins’s The Language of God and the idea of humans “coding life.” They caution that mRNA vaccines involve injecting genetic material and point to the symbolic and ritual power of vaccination as a form of modern sacrament. - The speakers emphasize that the mRNA approach represents both a profound scientific achievement and a source of deep concern. They discuss fertility signals and potential adverse effects, including myocarditis in young people, and cite the July 2021 NEJM case study as highlighting safety concerns for myocarditis in adolescent males. They reference the FDA deliberative-committee discussions, noting that some influential voices publicly questioned the risk-benefit calculus for young people, yet faced pressure or dismissal within the orthodox framework. - They describe post-hoc investigations and testimonies suggesting that adverse events (like myocarditis) might have been downplayed or obscured, and they assert that public trust in health institutions has eroded as a result. They mention ongoing debates about whether vaccine-induced changes might affect future generations, referencing studies about transcripts of mRNA in cancer cells and liver cells, and they stress the need for independent scrutiny by scientists not “entranced” by the vaccine program. - The dialogue returns to the broader human condition: a tension between curiosity and restraint, knowledge and humility. They return to Dostoevsky’s moral questions about free will, responsibility, and the limits of human knowledge, concluding that scientific hubris can lead to dangerous consequences when it overrides open inquiry and accountability. - In closing, while the guests reflect on past missteps and the need for integrity in medicine, they underscore the ongoing questions about how evidence is interpreted, how dissent is treated, and how society balances scientific progress with humility, transparency, and respect for individual judgment.

Doctors receive year-end bonuses from insurance companies for fully vaccinated patients, sometimes $250-$400 per patient. For a pediatrician with a thousand patients, this could mean a bonus of $250,000 to $500,000. For an office with 10 pediatricians, bonuses could reach millions of dollars. It is wondered if insurance companies are incentivized by the pharmaceutical industry to promote vaccines and bonus doctors for administering them.

In 02/2015, Bill Gates stated the world population needs to be reduced by 10 to 15% due to global warming, and this would be achieved through vaccines. In 02/2020, Gates said 7 billion people must be vaccinated. The speaker then poses the question of why they should take a vaccine for their health that is financed and produced by someone who wants to decrease the world population.

Speaker 1 asks about the “truth” regarding whether pediatricians are incentivized by vaccination rates, referencing conflicting information they have heard. Speaker 0 says Dr. Paul Thomas has made a video on the topic and that many other pediatricians have followed, suggesting that Dr. Hooker could answer better. Speaker 2 explains that pediatricians are “typically incentivized directly by HMOs.” They state that HMOs “buy and sell vaccines,” making vaccines a “big business for HMOs,” and that incentives are usually “anywhere from $200 to $600 per fully vaccinated patient.” The incentives are described as being tied to meeting a requirement that a “certain percentage” of the pediatrician’s practice is “fully vaccinated.” Speaker 2 further claims that “some pediatricians can make upwards to a million or more a year” from these incentives. Speaker 1 says they have heard stories of pediatricians “basically firing patients” who won’t get vaccinated, because of the vaccination refusal. Speaker 0 adds that this story is “heard over and over again” and also mentions “lies” that pediatricians tell parents, including claims that a baby “will die if we don’t get vitamin K at birth,” that the baby “will bleed out before it gets to the car,” and that if parents don’t get the HPV vaccine, “then you will die of cancer.” Speaker 0 says parents have told them these stories and that they are “the same over and over again,” then asks how pediatricians can “get away with lying” to parents.

According to the speaker, 50% of pediatricians' revenue comes from vaccines, with insurance companies like Blue Cross offering bonuses for high vaccination rates, potentially influencing doctors' recommendations. The speaker claims that pediatricians may dismiss families who want alternative vaccine schedules to protect these bonuses. The speaker alleges that 80% of doctors now work for corporations focused on revenue over patient care, creating pressure to generate funds due to medical school debt. The speaker suggests the entire system is incentivized to keep people sick, not necessarily deliberately, but through financial incentives. Insurance companies allegedly profit more from a sick population because they collect money as friction, taking a cut of revenues. The speaker claims that doctors, hospitals, and pharmaceutical companies also benefit financially from people being sick, creating systemic pressure regardless of individual intentions.