reSee.it - Related Video Feed

In the United States, medical doctors control cancer research, leading to poor outcomes. Funds raised for breast cancer research through events like 5k runs are not used for nutritional, homeopathic, acupuncture, or naturopathic research. Instead, all the money goes towards drugs and surgery, which the speaker claims are ineffective. The speaker suggests that if every girl in the country took 200 micrograms of selenium, breast cancer could be reduced by 82%. However, this is not happening because the US medical industry prioritizes profit and people are unaware of this.

Speaker 0: Vaccines date back to 1626 poisoning the people. Okay? Poisoning the people since 1626. This is not new. They're not like, oh, we got some new stuff, and it's not the snake venom or anything else. It's just poison is what it is. They've been poisoning the people since 1626 with vaccines. So no child, no adult, no grandma, no grandpa, no mother, no nothing needs any shots, whether it be tetanus, whether it be rabies, whether it be anything. You do not need to put any shots into your animal, your grandma, your father, your mother, your children. That's it. It's straight poison. And there's a great picture from 1885, and it says, vaccinate, vaccinate, vaccinate. There is money in the side effects. That's it. That is all vaccines. Money in the side effects for the pharmaceutical companies to poison the people and just keep making money off of them. You go back into the nineteen hundreds and doctors used to claim there were no cases of cancer in an unvaccinated person. How about the Amish? The Amish don't put a single vaccine into their body, And you notice that the Amish look pretty darn healthy. Well, altogether. Why? They're not injecting themselves with poison. It makes no sense. So there's all these cultures who didn't use this garbage. And then as they now become like modernized and they start putting this garbage into them their body, then all of a sudden, people start coming down with all the same illnesses. I got autoimmune, lupus. I got allergies. I got this. I got that. Right? Right? All those things. Where do you think they're all stemming from? They get you as you're young because you don't have the ability to consent. Right? Tell that tell the doctor to take the needle and stick it in themselves. Give themselves their own boosters and vaccines. You don't need to do that. And I think people need to stand the ground with that because there has never been a single vaccine that has ever helped helped anybody.

"Just laid out the facts and that, hey, we don't the the fact is that this vaccine does not apply to eighty percent of the people." "But if you know the status, then you don't need to get that vaccine." "But that's, like, eighty percent of the people, so that's a lot less revenue." "Merck was like, we're not really making a lot of money." "We will put this or not Congress, but the FDA was like, oh, we're gonna put this on the childhood schedule so then it more could" "get the World Health Organization," "so it went global." "Would you rather create a drug that's only used when you get sick and you need it?" "Or one for everybody to quote unquote prevent that sickness?" "Therapy is gonna apply to what? One percent, half a percent of people." "Now you have 90% of the people."

The speaker discusses the relationship between profits and cancer treatment in the United States. They mention a study that found chemotherapy to be ineffective 97% of the time, but it is still used because doctors profit from it. The speaker explains how doctors receive financial incentives for prescribing chemotherapy drugs. They argue that the pharmaceutical industry has control over cancer treatment and that the medical system prioritizes drugs and surgery over alternative approaches. The speaker suggests that funding for cancer research should also go towards nutritional, homeopathic, acupuncture, and naturopathic research. They criticize the for-profit nature of the medical industry and its impact on patient outcomes.

My name is Gwen Olsen, a former pharmaceutical industry veteran. The industry focuses on maintaining diseases, not curing them. Psychiatric drugs keep patients reliant on medications for life. Many drugs are no more effective than placebos, with exercise often proving more beneficial. The pharmaceutical industry prioritizes profit over patient well-being, pushing unnecessary medications. It's crucial to educate yourself on alternative health options to avoid becoming a lifelong pharmaceutical customer. Take charge of your health, share knowledge, and prevent loved ones from falling victim to unnecessary medications. Thank you. Translation: The speaker, Gwen Olsen, discusses the pharmaceutical industry's focus on maintaining diseases rather than curing them, highlighting the ineffectiveness of many drugs and the importance of educating oneself on alternative health options.

Speaker 0 describes a controversial 2000 study and its alleged connections to Monsanto. The speaker asserts that Monsanto staff helped write the article, and that the authors were likely receiving large sums of money from Monsanto. They claim much of the data in the study was unpublished, describing it as secret data from Monsanto, and label the paper “basically a complete fraud.” The study supposedly claimed that glyphosate was safe and not linked to cancer. The speaker then references subsequent studies released recently, which purportedly found that glyphosate increased or caused ten distinct types of cancer in rats when the rats were exposed at so-called safe levels. Despite these findings, the speaker notes that the original paper was used by agencies around the world to claim glyphosate was safe and to support approval processes. The speaker concludes that the entire foundation of those safety assurances was built on “a complete fraud and lie,” and states that the retraction of the 2000 paper is, in this context, something they are happy about, remarking that it is probably the only time they will be happy about a retraction.

Medical schools allegedly don't teach nutrition because they are incentivized to prescribe drugs. The drug lobby ensures this by subsidizing medical school professors. Professors, therefore, promote drugs instead of alternatives like vitamin C. Over a century ago, foundations like Carnegie and Rockefeller allegedly engineered the curriculum through grants and donations.

In the 1970s, Sloan Kettering Memorial Cancer Center conducted a study on Laetrile (vitamin B17) to determine its effectiveness against cancer. Despite evidence showing its effectiveness, they wanted to prove it was not effective, similar to the current situation with Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine. The study was led by Dr. Kinamitsu Segura, who found that Laetrile improved the health of mice, relieved pain, inhibited tumor growth, stopped tumor spread, and acted as a cancer prevention. However, the board of directors at Sloan Kettering was not interested in publishing the report because Laetrile couldn't be patented. Dr. Segura was removed from the project and discredited. The official statement from Sloan Kettering denied any anticancer properties of Laetrile. The California report, which opposed Laetrile, was later found to have falsified information.

Fenbezodizole, a potential miracle drug for cancer, has at least 12 proven anti-cancer mechanisms of action. It is speculated that big pharma fears it due to its low cost. The speaker hopes that Flint is aware of this and examines it. There has been some reaction to this discovery, and it is revealed that a similar drug in the same family, menbendazole, has already been approved by the FDA and is in clinical trials for brain and colon cancers. The lack of clinical trials for Fenbezodizole is attributed to its low cost, safety, and effectiveness. Big pharma's lack of interest in it is seen as an obstacle to people accessing potentially life-saving treatments. The speaker suggests that society is designed to make people sick, allowing big pharma to profit from their remedies.

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.

Vitamin D alone could prevent about 30,000 cancer deaths in a single country in a single year. The study looked in Germany and examined what would happen if they administered wide-scale vitamin D to the 50 and older population. Based on the most recent meta-analyses of vitamin D and cancer, there is about a 13% reduction in cancer mortality, and that is extrapolated to an entire country, resulting in saving about 30,000 lives per year. A recent paper on vitamin D and cancer and its biological effects is highlighted: there are over 900 peer-reviewed recent papers finding that vitamin D, when raised to adequate levels, exhibits anticancer activity against literally basically every single cancer known, through vitamin D receptor signaling as well as tumor microenvironment control and immune modulation. This is described as very, very important as winter months approach, so ensuring adequate vitamin D intake is advised. The speaker notes that some of the most powerful cancer prevention tools are neither profitable nor novel, and vitamin D is very inexpensive, biologically active, and, according to randomized clinical trial evidence, saves lives at scale. The main question posed is why public health agencies are ignoring this.

I invested $10,000,000 in a supplement to help during the pandemic, facing backlash from big pharma and media. Plans to distribute to Israel, the Philippines, and Brazil were thwarted. Despite warnings, I continued to fight for saving lives.

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.

The speaker suggests that pharmaceutical companies want people to continuously take vaccines, even as they become sicker. They claim that these companies also acquire drugs to treat the injuries caused by the vaccines. For example, before rolling out COVID-19 vaccines for children, one of the companies acquired drugs to treat blood clots in children, which they believe the vaccines may cause. The speaker also mentions a large acquisition by Pfizer for novel cancer treatments, implying that they will cause the cancers they treat. The speaker concludes that pharmaceutical companies want people to be sick and dependent on their medications.

Friendship is based on shared values, and the group shares a lifelong vision to make the country healthy with evidence-based, replicable science. This will challenge the current system, which is destroying our health due to misaligned economic incentives and public health. The speaker met with heads of pharmaceutical companies, stating the desire to live in a place where companies profit by making people healthy, rather than the current alignment against each other. The healthcare system has perverse incentives that force people to do the wrong thing. The country has become a sick care system instead of a health care system, and the people in the group will change that.

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?

We're going down rabbit holes on this podcast. Bayer is a pharmaceutical company. Monsanto is a pesticide company. Bayer bought Monsanto. Bayer makes drugs for non Hodgkin's lymphoma. Monsanto makes a toxic herbicide called glyphosate that they spray on food. Glyphosate, wait for it, causes non Hodgkin's lymphoma. Now we've come full circle. Big pharma is in bed with big food, and both of them are in bed with our western health system. None of which is concerned with making cures, all of which is concerned with making customers. Welcome to the circus.

A speaker played a recording of a conversation where another person recalled a discussion about removing aluminum from vaccines. According to the speaker, vaccine companies were once very close to removing aluminum. The speaker claims that all the big vaccine companies were at the same table because they had the same interest to defend. The speaker suggests that banning aluminum would deeply trouble vaccine companies, completely changing manufacturing, clinical studies, and everything else. The speaker recalls that the companies argued that removing aluminum would cause a tremendous deficiency in vaccine supply, leading to the deaths of children in Africa. The speaker states that the WHO was also very much involved.

Rockefellers own the medical system and produce ivermectin with all their companies, trickling it down to others and selling in other countries—it's the same thing. It's a monopoly; we literally live in the game monopoly. After posting ivermectin-toxicity, viewers asked who I'm paid by, but the speaker says it's a pharmaceutical product and they are not paid by anybody. They caution that if you're still using pharmaceuticals after 2020, you should check yourself, referencing mask-wearing and sticker policies as part of what happened. Vitamins are described as synthetic, fake, and made in a lab, and peptides as made in a lab. The speaker concludes: Eat from food. That's what we're supposed to do.

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.

I invested $10,000,000 in a supplement to fight COVID-19, facing backlash from big pharma and media. Plans to distribute to Israel, Philippines, and Brazil were thwarted. Eventually made a deal with Pfizer. Despite warnings, I believed in saving lives.

The speaker made chemotherapy breakthroughs in 2008 using a vitamin A compound and excitedly shared the discovery. The speaker's mentor predicted it would take 25 years to implement, but it never happened. A pharmaceutical company held a broad patent on vitamin A compounds as chemotherapeutic agents. The speaker contacted the company, but after answering questions about cancer types, treatment duration, and apoptosis, the call abruptly ended. The company became unresponsive. The speaker's mentor revealed the patent was a "blocking patent" designed to suppress the discovery rather than generate profit.

In 2008, I made a breakthrough in chemotherapy with a vitamin A compound. Excited, I shared with colleagues, but realized a pharmaceutical company had patented it broadly. When I called them, they dismissed me. My mentor explained it was a blocking patent for profit, not to benefit patients.

Speaker 1 notes that ivermectin has broken through to the public sphere beyond COVID and is now discussed for many diseases. Speaker 0 asks where ivermectin stands in the scientific and medical community today and what other use cases exist for the medicine. Speaker 1 responds that thousands of doctors follow their data; 18,000 GI doctors see their data when they publish or present at the American College of Gastroenterology. Word-of-mouth in the medical community is a major form of marketing, with one doctor speaking to another. Referencing the COVID era, Speaker 1 mentions corruption and retractions, then describes ivermectin as having created a healthcare revolution where doctors have lined up to work to see other benefits of ivermectin without needing to ask permission to treat patients. A whole branch of healthcare is moving away from the same institute that Speaker 1 helped create drugs to market with his sisters. He says a group of doctors who had sponsored or helped pharma are turning away from pharma and exploring other methods to treat patients. He states his job is to unite doctors to see the truth, while bringing pharma back to being righteous and stopping data manipulation and scientist censorship. Speaker 1 references his book, Let’s Talk SH.T, acknowledging he could be wrong and challenging others to prove him wrong and reproduce the data to retract the hypothesis or paper. He emphasizes that the scientific process should be followed, especially when everything was done by the book and as well as he could. He adds that the research was not funded by others; it was funded by his savings. He created the microbiome research foundation with the goal of raising money to study kids with autism and to push an IND to the FDA, which cost about $600,000 to obtain FDA approval. He clarifies that no external party paid for this work, and he continues to struggle to raise funds to treat poor autistic kids who cannot afford expensive stool testing, drugs, and vitamins; they need help and everyone should step in to assist these kids. Speaker 1 concludes that their focus is fixing autism, with the aim of later addressing Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, and cancer.

The speaker claims that the synthetic vitamin industry is a scam created by Big Pharma to sell more products. They argue that even organic vitamins are made from industrial waste such as coal tar ash, petroleum oil, black mold, and cyanide. The speaker explains that the push to sell vitamins began in the 1920s, with organizations lobbying for iodine to be added to table salt. This was followed by the fortification of milk with vitamin D and the identification of new vitamin deficiency diseases. The speaker suggests that this created a cycle of new vitamin discoveries and the need for chemical substitutes to keep people healthy.