reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary

Pharmaceutical companies paid $1.06 billion to reviewers at leading medical journals, including the New England Journal of Medicine, JAMA, Lancet, and BMJ, allegedly corrupting the peer review process. Studies from the CDC, FDA, and Pfizer purportedly revealed major breaches in safety signals for COVID-19 vaccines in pregnancy, but these findings were ignored. Independent researchers who published findings contradicting pharmaceutical industry narratives faced persecution, censorship, and threats to their medical licenses and board certifications. The speaker claims this happened to them personally.

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary

A Stanford scientist, John Iannidis, wrote a convincing paper in 2005 titled, Why Most Published Biomedical Papers Are False. The reasoning is not due to scientific fraud, but because science is difficult. When a statistically significant result is published, such as P equals 0.05, it means that some percentage of the time, the result will be false, even after peer review. Peer review involves colleagues reading the paper and looking for logical flaws, but not rerunning experiments or reanalyzing data. Peer review is not a guarantee of truth. Given the inherent difficulty of science, any published result has a high likelihood of being a false positive.

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary

Speaker 0 proposes that the Justice Department should immediately begin an investigation into medical boards and the alleged collusion between the pharmaceutical industry and medical boards that delicenses physicians who strive to heal and treat patients. The plan also calls for the Justice Department to examine medical journals corrupted by the pharmaceutical industry and to explain that they will be subject to criminal and civil RICO actions if they do not provide a pathway to stop revoking studies and refusing to publish research that challenges the mercantile interests of pharmaceutical companies. The overall aim is to change the way business is conducted at NIH.

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary

The speaker asserts that publications like The Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine, and JAMA are corrupt and will no longer be used by NIH scientists. They claim these journals have become vessels for pharmaceutical propaganda, alleging that pharmaceutical companies control the journals and that publishing requires a $10,000 payment. The speaker references past heads of these journals, who they claim have admitted the journals prioritize promoting pharmaceutical products over scientific integrity. As a result, the speaker states they will stop NIH scientists from publishing in these journals. Instead, they plan to create new journals within each institute that will become preeminent.

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary

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.

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary

Speaker 0 argues medicine is becoming like magazines, with journals turning into gossip columns. He calls a group of journals "predatory journals" that are smart because they do have an impact factor, they're brand new journals, they send you emails constantly. He says, "they can manipulate or retract the data to make you look bad." He describes his Frontiers experience: he submitted "a hypothesis on ivermectin increasing the bifidobacteria," and it was accepted by the peer review. "Nine months later, the paper was the number one read at Frontiers with 59,000 views." He says this is an interesting hypothesis "right? Because we're seeing ivermectin has a role potentially in cancer. So maybe increasing the benefit of bacteria is how we're doing it, right?" He notes that because it got so much attention, "it lit up ivermectin, which they don't want to do, you understand?"

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary

It used to be that pharmaceutical companies were working with the doctors. Now unfortunately, companies are captured by the price of the stock. Know, venture capitalist owned pharmaceutical companies. They owned the CR or the clinical research organizations. They owned the site. They owned the institutional review board. They owned the advertising, the marketing. They influenced through the media. And so unfortunately, there's a big it's a it's a loaded question, but it's a big market. And what we saw this pandemic was the price of the stock mattered more than the price of a life.

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary

Not few doctors. What you're talking about is there's a big difference, senator, between established science and the the scientific establishment, which has been co opted by the pharmacy Hold on. So you're telling me you're telling the American people that the American Medical Association representing hundreds of thousands of people have been co opted and that they should not trust their doctors Are they all corrupt as well? And I'm telling you, the American Heart Association has been co opted by the flu You were brought in for president. You got a billionaire behind it. You received $300,000 from people, not from the industry, people in it as I did, from individuals. You corrupt, president Trump got $3,000,000 Every republican got corporate PAC money for the pharmaceutical industry, democrats as well Everybody is corrupt, but you? Is that what we're looking at? I don't think so. And I think the issue I don't even know

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary

I'm an investigative reporter who initially trusted the medical establishment, but I've uncovered conflicts of interest and financial incentives that corrupt health research. The pharmaceutical industry legally launders taxpayer money through universities to produce unchallenged, biased studies. For example, a researcher who found a chemical feminizing frogs faced immense pressure to suppress his findings. Scientific journals are also compromised; former editors admit they couldn't stop industry-tainted studies. Drug companies ghostwrite articles for doctors to promote their products. They also influence medical schools, doctor education, media, and federal agencies, prioritizing profit over public health. This has led to a rise in chronic diseases, especially among children, that the medical establishment largely ignores. There's pressure to normalize these outcomes rather than address the root causes, as that is more profitable. Informed consent is also threatened, with the FDA loosening requirements for disclosing study risks.

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary

Pharmaceutical companies paid $1.06 billion to reviewers at major medical journals, allegedly corrupting the peer review process. Studies from the CDC, FDA, and Pfizer purportedly revealed major breaches in COVID-19 vaccine safety signals during pregnancy, but these findings were allegedly ignored. Independent researchers who published findings contradicting pharmaceutical industry narratives faced persecution, censorship, and threats to their medical licenses and board certifications. The speaker claims this happened to them personally.

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary

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?

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary

Pharmaceutical companies are allegedly commissioning "ghost articles" from writing companies that mimic legitimate medical journal articles. These articles, complete with graphs, charts, numbers, and references, are written without named authors. Pharmaceutical companies then approach well-known oncologists, offering them authorship in exchange for having their names listed on the article, which will then be published in prestigious journals like the New England Journal of Medicine. These journals influence how doctors treat patients. Doctors, unaware of the article's ghostwritten nature, may prescribe the drug based on the article's claims of tremendous responses and minimal complications, relaying this information to patients. Thus, doctors and patients are allegedly being deceived because the article is not independent.

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary

The core of the problem is something called the replication crisis, where it turns out the majority of even top studies cannot, in fact, be replicated. In science, if you cannot replicate a result, it is not real. Out of the 67 top studies they tried to replicate, just 21% could be reproduced. Amgen found just 11% of studies could be replicated. Note, this is studies dealing with cells. We can only imagine studies dealing with people who are, of course, much more complex than cells. So what percent of psychology, sociology, gender swapping, even economics is false? Perhaps 90%, it could be 99. As Nobel economist James Buchanan famously put it, professors are, quote, camp following whores who will say whatever you pay them to say. So to fix this, the NIH is proposing to fund independent studies that simply retest key findings, what Bayer and Amgen did. It should be very fun when they run foundational left wing studies through the meat grinder from mutilating children to global warming to the minimum wage or inflation and central banking. Grab the popcorn. In the near term, the main takeaway from the replication crisis is any study that feels off probably is fake.

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary

Universities, health organizations, and others seek money from big corporations to influence research and opinions. By funding research, paying individual professionals, and supporting programs, corporations ensure loyalty and favorable outcomes. This financial influence shapes the medical establishment, even if it appears independent on the surface.

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary

Sabine Hazen and her panel critique a hydroxychloroquine paper, calling it a fake paper with fake data: "This is a fake paper. This is a fake data." They cite claims of "seventeen thousand people died" and "96,000 patients" in the Lancet as fraudulent, arguing no way "70,000 medical records" could be used. Xavier Ezolber analyzes data miscalculation, "data inconsistency" and "fabricated" results, criticizing the peer-review process and predatory journals that "launder scientific papers." He says, "There is a corruption in medicine," "money talks for sure," and "lobbyists control both sides of the politics." They recount frontline experiences with hydroxychloroquine–Z Pak–vitamins and ivermectin–doxycycline protocols, reporting "zero mortality, zero hospitalizations" in some cohorts and highlighting the microbiome’s role. They urge transparency, critique drug trial processes, and question vaccine strategies, stressing early outpatient treatment research.

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary

The speaker says that even for obstetrics and gynecology societies, vaccination during pregnancy has been pursued as a duty, but physicians do not know the actual facts. They reference the New England Journal of Medicine, a famous medical journal, where a study of a vaccine’s adverse outcomes claimed that the user rate was 12.6%. Based on that paper, the Sanpeshikawa (Sanbushikawa) Association reportedly promoted vaccination for pregnant women as well. In reality, the data were as follows: of 827 people, 700 were in late pregnancy, and 127 were in the early stages (first trimester). When restricting to the 127 people who were under 20 weeks, the usage rate was 82%. Therefore, the speaker argues that this data reveals how dangerous the vaccine is, and that the data were hidden and mixed with high-profile 700-person data to produce the 12.6% miscarriage rate that was published. This is presented as evidence of a situation where even in medical journals, information was handled to favor the other side due to money and other influences.

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary

Drug companies are the wealthiest businesses and buy influence, including ministers of health. They target professors and chiefs of departments to become key opinion leaders who indoctrinate other doctors to use expensive drugs over cheaper alternatives. Medical education is partly corrupted. Doctors should avoid educational events funded by the drug industry, as key opinion leaders are selected for their sales abilities. Denmark is considered one of the least corrupt countries, but its healthcare system is corrupt. In Denmark, thousands of doctors are on drug company advisory boards or consult, which is how influence and loyalty are bought. Many of these doctors don't do much but are being bought.

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary

Most physicians and clinicians avoid getting involved in the issue of profit-driven healthcare. The real problem lies in the collusion between academic institutions, doctors, medical journals, and industry for financial gain. These corporations, as legal entities, often exhibit psychopathic traits, prioritizing profit over the well-being of patients. Many top drug companies have been fined billions for illegal marketing, hiding harm data, and manipulating results. However, these fines are often outweighed by the profits they make from selling the drugs. While the pharmaceutical industry has contributed life-saving treatments, the net effect of their practices is negative, with a significant amount of wasted resources and harmful drugs approved.

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary

Science hinges on replication, yet NIH stopped enforcing it, creating incentives to publish even when hypotheses fail. Null results often go unpublished, and journals resist publishing critiques of vaccines due to pharmaceutical funding. Editors like Marcia Engel and Richard Horton have lamented that journals have become propaganda vessels for pharmaceutical companies. Pharma pays to publish, hires mercenary scientists to validate products, and preprints spread favorable findings. Pharma reps visit doctors to influence prescribing. It is claimed that 50% of revenues to most pediatricians come from vaccines, and insurers offer bonuses for high vaccination rates, pressuring doctors to follow schedules. Corporate ownership now surrounds practice, with many doctors employed by corporations and facing revenue pressure. The system is described as incentivized to keep people sick, and the conclusion is we’re the sickest nation in the world.

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary

Big food, big pharma, big chemicals get super wealthy. Right? What is the product of health care? It's a healthy body. If we take The US population and compare it to the world, we're at the very bottom when it comes to health, yet we spend the most for health care. Over $4,100,000,000,000 every single year.

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary

I mean, it's become a joke. These papers that are winning awards at the American College of Gastro, and they're not getting published. So and what I do is I do what I do best, which is basically stir up shit, and I call all my friends. And I go, by the way, my paper has been retracted. That paper of the finding COVID in the stools Yeah. Was considered to be retracted. So, I called Trial Site News, and I said, by the way, you may wanna investigate. That's how they found out about the publishing house, private publishing house that is retracting these papers. So somebody must be paying them. And then I called all my colleagues, Mayo Clinic, Harvard, Yale, and I go, by the way, remember that paper that I found COVID? Well, it got retracted. And they're like, what? But it it passed peer review. Well, your peer review means nothing. And here's the thing. So guess what? You're not getting paid to do these peer reviews. Maybe you should start charging the journals now because clearly, they're going about wasting your time reviewing a paper, and they're going behind your back to retract the paper because it doesn't fit the narrative. So, that's what I do. So, and then the other thing that I did is I called the National Institute of Standards, Scott Jackson. And I basically said, remember my paper that we found COVID in the stools, and you also found COVID in the septic tanks? Well, my paper was retracted. And, you know, they couldn't believe it. They could this is at the government level. People are waking up to see we have a problem. Yeah. This is like the burning of the books.

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary

176 drugs that were considered safe and effective, but now are off the market because they found they were quite dangerous. Accutane, they took it off the market because they found it creates liver damage after twenty seven years. Hey, these things were backed by science. But I think the worst of the worst is that industry is allowed to cherry pick their data and not have to publish the studies that don't align with what they want. So the main question is who is funding the study, which many times gives grants to universities. And then you have industry, which then also funds the universities. And then we allow industry to pay certain individuals who sit on boards and committees that regulate a lot of the guidelines in our health care. Unfortunately, what we're missing in science is this thing called ethics.

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary

During COVID, some people saw the actions of figures like Dr. Fauci, Bill Gates, the WHO, and Klaus Schwab, and wondered why more people didn't notice. This narrative has been ongoing since at least 1910, aiming to discredit chiropractors, naturopaths, nutritionists, and functional medicine doctors. Pharmaceutical companies pay doctors kickbacks and fund the schools that educate them. These doctors often sit on government boards, creating a system that protects its members and exploits vulnerable, sick individuals. Pharmaceutical companies, which educate doctors, prioritize profit over people's well-being, and are unconcerned about the millions of deaths they may have caused as long as they profit.

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary

The speaker believes COVID vaccine programs should be stopped. They are astounded by the number of papers critical of the vaccine or showing negative effects. The speaker claims a group of researchers funded by Pfizer and the NIH bullies editors to retract papers with negative findings about the vaccine. They assert the number of retractions is appalling. According to the speaker, in one instance where an editor resisted, Nature Springer bought the journal and retracted the paper. The speaker states that this is what they have been dealing with.

PBD Podcast

"Big Pharma Is Organized Crime" - Whistleblower Peter C. Gøtzsche REVEALS Pharma’s Dirty Secrets

Guests: Peter C. Gøtzsche

reSee.it Podcast Summary

Pharma’s business model, Peter C. Gøtzsche argues, is organized crime. The pattern shows drug companies repeatedly committing crimes, bribing politicians and top officials, and paying off doctors to influence research and marketing. He notes that some of the largest drug firms have been fined billions, yet profits from sales exceed those penalties, allowing corrupt practices to continue. He says corruption spans research, marketing, and regulation, citing bribery of FDA commissioners and health ministers and broad influence over physicians. He contrasts the United States with Europe, noting U.S. healthcare consumes about 18% of GDP and relies on middlemen and aggressive drug use, while Nordic public systems offer universal care. He contends prescription drugs are a leading cause of death, including opioids, Motrin, and psychiatric medications, and that reducing their use by up to 90% could yield a healthier population. Beyond drugs, the interview turns to psychiatry and diagnosis. The guest criticizes the DSM for expanding medical labeling of ordinary experiences into disorders, calling ADHD a non-existent natural category and joking about a parade of diagnoses that would cover the middle. He recounts a dinner where four people tested positive for ADHD on a casual test, showing how easily psychiatric labels proliferate. He recalls warnings from veteran psychiatrists about overreliance on drugs for mental health and advocates psychotherapy as an alternative. Later, the discussion shifts to antidepressants, where studies show minimal placebo benefit and frequent sexual side effects, with some reports suggesting increased suicidality. The conversation then dives into vaccines and public health, with the guest expressing skepticism about licensing and mandates. He discusses the measles vaccine as life-saving in some cases but argues that screening and vaccination programs can yield mixed results, including cases where vaccination protocols might not extend life expectancy and can drive overtreatment. He addresses the HPV vaccine controversy, presenting data from internal reports and his book on Merck and drug regulator practices. He also critiques mammography screening, arguing that it does not reduce total mortality and can lead to unnecessary procedures. He has written about deadly psychiatry and organized denial, and emphasizes open scientific debate.