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."

The 552-page records reveal that the United States government, particularly the Fauci Agency and the National Institutes for Health, funded gain of function research on mutants. This information is significant as it serves as evidence of their knowledge and involvement in such research.

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.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss the COVID-19 vaccine episode, challenging why the vaccine was pursued as a public health solution and exploring deeper incentives behind the program. - A knowledgeable figure at the stand answered a burning question: did they know the vaccine wouldn’t be effective from the start and could be dangerous? The answer given was that it was “a test of a technology.” The exchange suggests the broader aim was testing an entire program of control previewed in Event 2019. - They ask whether inoculation was necessary on billions, noting it could have been tested on a much smaller population. If shots had been basically empty or inert, the data could have been spun to claim success and end the pandemic, preventing injuries from appearing. The absence of that approach remains a mystery. - The speakers point to high pre-vaccine seroprevalence in 2020, including studies from South Dakota showing 50-60% seroprevalence before vaccine release, implying that a saline shot or no shot could have achieved “indomicity” (immunity) without a vaccine. - They discuss why people might fear vaccines and interpret the broader impact: the public is waking up to something terrible having occurred, as it revealed readiness to lie, potential data quality concerns, and risk to pregnant women and healthy children who might get little justification for risk. - The disease’s lethality is framed as greatest among the very old or very sick; for others, it was less deadly, with natural evolution potentially reducing vulnerability over time. - The mRNA platform was touted as a means to outrun mutations, but the timeline to release was still insufficient to stay ahead of natural change. They note accelerated development was the fastest vaccine in history, from detection to inoculation, reducing the timeline by about a year or two, yet not fast enough. - Political and logistical factors delayed release; there is mention that it would not have appeared under Trump and that Eric Topol argued to delay the rollout. Fauci reportedly sent Moderna back to trials due to insufficient racial diversity in participants. - The discussion questions whether the vaccine qualifies as a normal consumer product, given ongoing subsidies, mandates, indemnifications, wartime-like supports, and propaganda. They wonder if there has been an ongoing two-century revolt by industry against public scrutiny, with public interest repeatedly leading to pushback and rebranding. - A central theme is the sophistication of pharma: the “game of pharma” involves owning an IP-based health claim, crafting supportive research, convincing it is safe and effective, achieving standard-of-care status, securing mandates and government funding, and leveraging ongoing propaganda. They describe pharma as a long-running arms race with deep institutional knowledge, implying that it is far more capable of shaping reality than the public realizes.

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.

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.