reSee.it - Related Video Feed

One breast cancer drug costs over $16,000 per bottle in America. The same drug, from the same factory and company, costs one sixth the price in Australia. In Sweden, the identical product costs one tenth the American price.

Taxpayers fund the NIH to support scientists in finding cures and solutions for drug-related health issues.

The speaker claims the United States spends $1,126 per capita on drugs, while Britain spends about $240, approximately one-fifth of the U.S. figure, a trend seen across Europe. The speaker says drug companies claim America must pay for pharmaceutical innovation. President Trump is quoted as saying European partners need to increase their drug payments to cover their share of innovation, asserting the U.S. should no longer subsidize it. The speaker concludes that if Europeans raised drug prices by 20%, the resulting $10 trillion could be spent on innovation, improving global health.

Over 100 members of Congress support a bill to fund Ozempic through Medicare at $1,500 a month, despite many having received funding from its manufacturer, Novo Nordisk. This drug, aimed at treating obesity—a largely preventable condition—could cost the U.S. $3 trillion annually if prescribed widely, as 74% of Americans are obese. While Novo Nordisk thrives, the Danish government promotes diet and exercise instead. For half the cost of Ozempic, we could provide organic food and gym memberships for every obese American. The influence of Novo Nordisk extends to medical research funding, leading to complicity from media, politicians, and medical schools.

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.

NIH did fund research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology through ECHO Health, depending on how you define gain of function research. If you refer to the broader term, then yes, it was funded. This type of research occurs in many labs across the country and is not regulated because it does not pose any threat or harm.

Pharmaceutical companies generate over two-thirds of their profits in the United States, despite the U.S. accounting for only 4% of the world's population. The speaker expresses respect for pharmaceutical companies and their leadership. They believe these companies successfully convinced people for many years that the current system was fair, even though the reasons why were not widely understood.

Pharmaceutical companies claimed research and development costs had to be borne by America alone, which effectively meant American patients were subsidizing socialist healthcare systems in places like Germany and the European Union. The speaker believes the European Union is nastier than China and has treated the U.S. unfairly. However, the speaker asserts that the U.S. now holds all the cards and expects the European Union to concede.

The U.S. spends $1,126 per capita on drugs, while Britain spends about $240, roughly one-fifth of the U.S. amount, a trend seen across Europe. Drug companies claim America must pay for innovation. President Trump argues that European partners need to increase their drug payments to cover their share of innovation, asserting the U.S. will no longer subsidize them. If Europeans raise drug prices by 20%, $10 trillion could be spent on innovation, improving global health through better products.

Pharmaceutical companies generate over two-thirds of their profits in the United States, despite the U.S. accounting for only 4% of the world's population. The speaker expresses respect for pharmaceutical companies and their leadership. They believe these companies successfully convinced people for many years that the existing system was fair, even though the reasons why were not well understood. The speaker claims to have figured out the reasons behind this.

Universities, health organizations, and other institutions are in need of funding, while big multinational corporations have the money to provide it. These corporations use their financial influence to gain control. They give grants for research, collaborate on projects, and pay individual professors, doctors, and researchers. They may also fund educational programs that align with their interests. Although these arrangements are supposed to be independent, it is clear that corporations prioritize supporting their own products. If organizations do not comply, they risk losing funding. This financial influence is how the medical establishment is swayed.

Pharmaceutical companies claimed high R&D costs had to be borne solely by America, effectively subsidizing socialist healthcare systems in countries like Germany and the European Union. The speaker believes the European Union is "nastier than China" and has treated the U.S. unfairly, but predicts they will concede because the U.S. "has all the cards."

Politicians have long promised to eliminate the discrepancy between drug prices in the U.S. and Europe. This was a key issue for Bernie Sanders, but previous leaders haven't acted on it. Politicians make these promises knowing they likely won't have to fulfill them. The reason is that Congress is heavily influenced by the pharmaceutical industry. There is at least one pharmaceutical lobbyist for every congressman, senator, and Supreme Court member.

The Doge report reveals that US healthcare corporations spent 95% of their income on shareholder payouts, totaling $2,600,000,000,000 over the last 20 years. US taxpayers reportedly pay about 70% of these fees. Additionally, $2,700,000,000,000 in taxpayer money has allegedly been improperly paid out in Medicare and Medicaid to people outside of the United States.

The people involved in drug companies, insurance companies, and the food industry work together, often holding stock in each other’s companies and serving on each other’s boards. The transcript describes this as a “criminal enterprise” and outlines one way it allegedly works. In the food industry’s meetings, food companies discuss adding ingredients and claim their chemists understand that each additive, in minute amounts, does not cause problems and has no long-term negative effects when consumed. The account then says that when three additives are combined, a new compound forms that leads to leg twitching or shaking. It may take three to five to seven years to develop because the effects impact nerves. The transcript describes the conversation as follows: the food companies would knowingly begin adding these ingredients because, years later, they expect hundreds of thousands or millions of people to develop symptoms and need treatment. They would propose labeling the condition—restless leg syndrome—when it emerges. The drug companies would then be prompted to have an approved drug ready by that time to generate major profits. It also claims that drug companies work toward these future “epidemics” by developing drugs in advance, contributing to the emergence of illnesses presented as widespread—such as psoriasis, diabetes, hypertension, restless leg syndrome, irritable bowel syndrome, and other conditions said to not have existed fifty years earlier. The transcript links these conditions to advertising campaigns where, if someone experiences twitching, they are told to take another drug. It describes the response as “take another drug.” Finally, insurance companies are said to become involved by figuring out how to profit. The transcript claims that through lobbyists, they work out deals so insurance and government-funded programs effectively pay for the drugs, citing Medicare and Medicaid in the United States. It says similar arrangements exist in other countries and concludes that these groups “make their money” through coordinated actions.

One breast cancer drug costs Americans over $16,000 per bottle. The same drug, from the same factory, manufactured by the same company, costs one-sixth the price in Australia. In Sweden, the identical product costs one-tenth the price.

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.

The people involved in drug companies, insurance companies, and the food industry work together, with many holding stock in each other’s companies and serving on boards across companies. The transcript describes this as a “criminal enterprise” and explains one example of how it works. The food industry proposes adding multiple ingredients or additives to food. According to the description, each additive by itself, in minute amounts, does not cause any problem, and does not have long-term negative effects when consumed separately. The meeting conversation then turns to how, when all three additives are combined, they form a new compound that leads to leg twitching or shaking. The onset is described as sometimes taking three to five to seven years because it affects nerves. The food companies allegedly discuss the strategy: they plan to start putting the additives in food, anticipating that years later hundreds of thousands or millions of people will develop the leg-shaking issue and will seek treatment. The issue is described as being named “restless leg syndrome.” The drug companies are said to work on a medication in advance so that once the condition becomes widespread, they will have an approved drug ready to sell. The transcript also claims this pattern appears in other conditions, stating that when “an epidemic” occurs—such as psoriasis, diabetes, hypertension, restless leg syndrome, irritable bowel syndrome, and other newly described diseases—drug companies create or market treatments for symptoms and prescribe additional drugs, including when a person taking a drug experiences twitching. Insurance companies are described as then seeking ways to make money and allegedly involve the government through lobbyists. The transcript says they arrange for taxpayer-funded payment for the drugs through insurance coverage, citing Medicare and Medicaid in America, and says similar arrangements occur in other countries. In the transcript’s account, the combined actions of the food industry, drug companies, and insurance companies—backed by government payment—are presented as a recurring method of making money.

Politicians have long promised to address the discrepancy between drug prices in the U.S. and Europe. This issue was central to Bernie Sanders' presidential campaigns. However, these promises were never fulfilled because Congress is heavily influenced by the pharmaceutical industry. There is at least one pharmaceutical lobbyist for every member of Congress, the Senate, and the Supreme Court.

NIH funded research at Wuhan Institute of Virology through ECHO Health, including gain of function research. This type of research is common in labs nationwide and is not regulated because it is deemed harmless.

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.

The Doge report reveals that US healthcare corporations spent 95% of their income on shareholder payouts, totaling $2,600,000,000,000 over the last 20 years. US taxpayers reportedly pay about 70% of these fees. Additionally, $2,700,000,000,000 in taxpayer money has been improperly paid out in Medicare and Medicaid to people outside of the United States.

Taxpayers fund the NIH to support scientists in finding cures and solutions for drug-related health issues.

Healthcare companies will likely make the same amount of money because it's a redistribution of wealth across the world, not just the European Union. Europe and the rest of the world will pay a little more, while America will pay a lot less. This is due to America having a smaller population compared to the entire world. The top line for healthcare companies could remain the same, but it will be distributed differently.

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.