reSee.it - Related Video Feed

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.

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.

Doctor Scott Jensen discusses the issue of physician moral injury and the erasure of COVID-era history in medical publications. He highlights how physicians feel betrayed by authority figures, leading to compromises in patient care. Jensen expresses concern over the disappearance of over 300 scientific articles, suggesting potential substandard research used to push certain narratives. He warns of the implications of journals retracting articles and calls for attention to the situation.

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.

Every day, just the 1% of the cells of your DNA that gets replicated stretches from here to the sun four times. If you're to line it up end by end, that's very hard to conceptualize. But it should give you a little bit of humility before you go and start monkeying with it with these vaccines that can actually alter your DNA. And that's what I'm gonna show you. Is that the vaccines had a DNA contamination in them that didn't tell you about that could in fact alter your genome. Alright? These people are vibe coding your genome. And this is a major attack surface to the human gene pool because if this thing starts to alter the lifespan of people, it's going to part you with your Bitcoin. You're gonna end up spending money in a fiat system that has no controls, has no liability, and ends up oftentimes inducing mandates to get what it wants done. Many people had have peer have gone and replicated this work. It happened on Twitter. It did not happen very quickly in the peer review system. The peer review system kinda kicked it out. Some of these papers have now been peer reviewed, but it took years for them to come to this conclusion. Now, the FDA, the EMA and the TGA have all admitted that this mistake has happened. How did it happen? There's a big bait and switch. Pfizer actually ran the trial of 22,000 people on the process on the left and after they got to the trial, they then switched to the process on the right and didn't retrial the drug. And in doing so, they left a tremendous amount of excess DNA behind in the product. So all of the vaccine efficiency numbers you've heard in the news are flawed. They're not real because that's not what actually went into the trial. What went to the public was actually something that came out of this process too. It's published now in the BMJ that this fraud happened and no one has yet been prosecuted for it. So what did they leave in there? What they left in there was something we know from the polio scandal. If you're not familiar with the polio scandal, that polio vaccines were also contaminated with something known as SV40 and it created a massive cancer wave. Now the whole virus isn't in these vaccines, but there is a very curious part of this called the SV40 region that Pfizer intentionally removed from the disclosure that they gave to the FDA. So the FDA has admitted that this SV40 material is in there. They did not spell this out to the regulators. The regulators did not find them and they're actually running cover for them saying this DNA is too little consequence to matter, it's too small, and it's not functional. But we know it's functional because Dean et al has published that this piece of DNA drives DNA straight to the nucleus. It gets used in gene therapy vectors.

I've lost faith in the journals. When we first identified the virus with six insertions, we thought it was crucial information for vaccine development. We submitted our findings, but they were ignored by various journals, including Nature and The Lancet, which claimed it wasn't in the public interest to publish our paper. Despite the scientific validity, they didn't engage with us for evidence. Molecular biologists suggested it could be random mutation, but that wasn't the case. Eventually, a biophysics journal published our work, recognizing that the alterations in charge and infectivity wouldn't occur through normal evolution. We presented our findings, but there was no willingness for further discussion.

It is nearly impossible to publish data that goes against the national public health narrative, preventing doctors from finding solutions. The speaker has conducted clinical trials for pharmaceutical companies, including vaccine studies, and has brought vaccines and other drugs to market. Some drugs never made it to market because they killed people. Clinical trial guidelines ensure safe drugs, but these guidelines were not followed during the pandemic, affecting everyone. COVID should have been a time for doctors to unite, but interference with research occurred. Science evolves through experiments, skepticism, and an open mind. Challenging current knowledge must be allowed to move science forward, but what the speaker witnessed during the pandemic was not science.

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?"

In the past, medical advice on eggs, aspirin, and other issues has been corrected without retracting articles. However, during the COVID pandemic, poorly researched articles were used to attack individuals like us. Now, as COVID cases decrease, these articles are being withdrawn from public view. If evidence is being buried, shouldn't that raise a red flag for you?

The speaker, a gastroenterologist, discusses their research on the microbiome and COVID-19. They found that the virus lingers in stools, hydroxychloroquine kills the virus but harms the microbiome, and bifidobacteria is crucial for immunity. Their studies on vitamin C, ivermectin, and mRNA vaccines' effects on bifidobacteria faced challenges in publication due to going against the mainstream narrative. They highlight the importance of unbiased research and collaboration in finding solutions. The speaker also raises concerns about pharmaceutical companies prioritizing profits over patient safety during the pandemic.

Speaker 0: Asked about the system of retractions and whether retracting a paper discredits a hypothesis, and on what basis retractions occur. Speaker 1: Responded that quoting papers that are later retracted does not negate a hypothesis; there is no rule requiring a hypothesis to be retracted if a cited paper is retracted after publication. They note that the practice involves harassing journals rather than logically disproving a hypothesis. For example, they may present a dozen questions to the journal, answer all of them, and then continue harassing the journal to the point that the journal ignores the answers and retracts the paper to avoid further harassment.

Speaker 0 expresses a firm stance against publishing. They reference an “amazing case of twins who have … are verbalizing,” followed by, “I’m not publishing what I did to those kids. They were autistic? They were autistic. And I’m not publishing.” They continue, “I’m not publishing what I discovered on the microbiome,” presenting this as an ultimatum: retracting papers is not a concern for them because “it’s cheaper for me not to publish my data.” They claim it’s better to “keep my data in my brain because then it keeps me alive,” explaining that those who create the narrative would end up needing a doctor to fix their microbiome. The speaker asserts, “So bring it on. Nothing’s coming out of my brain. I don’t need to publish.” They conclude that this approach “saves me tons of money,” and express enjoyment at others talking negatively about them, stating, “they’re talking shit about me because then I sell more books. Let’s talk shit.”

We submitted a paper on COVID vaccine injuries to The Lancet, which was taken down due to pressure from the pharmaceutical industry. The paper has now passed peer review and will be published, showing that 74% of sudden deaths after vaccination were caused by the vaccine. More evidence is emerging daily on the harm of COVID vaccines, urging politicians to act preemptively.

"Your government doesn't censor those people as a way to do the best that it can." The speaker recalls being interviewed by a major newspaper and "I bring up doctor Peter McCullough every time" when asked "what evidence? What proof?" They argue that "the world's leading heart doctor" and "the most published heart doctor in the world was censored during COVID." They question whether "the government was just doing the best that it could under the circumstances," answering "Like, no." The speaker asserts that "The best a government that considers itself to be in a free nation does not go out of its way to censor world renowned scientists, doctors, the number one heart doctor in the world in doctor Peter McCullough, the most published ICU doctor the world in doctor Paul Merrick, the inventor of the technology itself, doctor Robert Malone." "Your government doesn't censor those people as a way to do the best that it can."

In 2020, the speaker was asked to stop going on the press by the dean of the university and the dean of the medical school. The speaker's academic freedom was threatened due to a study on measuring antibodies in the population, which has now been replicated globally. The speaker was ordered to redo the study, and the medical school administration interfered even before the paper was submitted for publication. The speaker wrote about how Stanford failed the academic freedom test.

Disheartening, disgusting, and lots of other words, but then it gets better. It just keep wait. There's more. It just keeps happening. The CDC redacts every single word of a 148 page study on a myocarditis after COVID vaccination. So I asked research to print the study for me. 148 pages. The entire thing is redacted. What good does a study do if there's nothing there? Then I wanna know, wait, what might have been there that they needed to redact?

When the virus emerged, scientists were alarmed and held secret calls questioning its origin. Despite privately suspecting a lab origin, they published a paper claiming it was natural. This cover-up at Nature Medicine has not been retracted. The government has not been transparent, with information coming from whistleblowers and Freedom of Information Act requests.

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.

There's a hero we don't talk about enough, Jay Bart Classen, an MD and PhD who worked at NIAID alongside Dr. Anthony Fauci in the 1980s and is still at NIH. Classen wrote a peer-reviewed paper, published in Cy Vision, a biomedicine publication, alleging that the Mossad, using US assets, created COVID-19 as a bioweapon for genocide. He names specific Mossad agents and mentions Bill Gates, detailing his observations. I even spoke with Classen, who confirmed his findings, stating he has provided the best information he could. He urged us to spread the word. So, we're letting people know about this peer-reviewed research.

Stanford professor Jay Bhattacharya, a respected epidemiologist, was visibility filtered and placed on a secret blacklist. This blacklist was used to deplatform and reduce visibility for doctors and scientists who shared information contradicting the CDC's narrative. Despite the fact that their information was scientifically valid, they were targeted. Professor Bhattacharya was unaware of being on this blacklist, which is reminiscent of the behavior of the East Germany Stasi.

Big Pharma, they own everything. There's a number of past chief editors of journals, and we're not talking just, you know, like some throwaway journals. We're talking New England Journal of Medicine, Lancet, British Medical Journal. Okay. Some of the biggest journals in the world. Those are top three out of the top four that I just named. Journal of American Medical Association is the other one. But chief editors in the last twenty years, at least six of them have come out and said that at least 50% of the science that's published is fake. Come on. Read their quotes. Marcia Angel is one of them that I can remember her name. There's a guy by the name of Richard something or other from the British Medical Journal who said the same thing. I just read an article about it the other day. I'll I'll send it to you because it's I'm not surprised. I mean, depth of corruption is is stunning and and the fact that pretty much nothing's been done about it makes you wonder how long this can all last.

Doctor Scott Jensen discusses the issue of physician moral injury and the erasure of COVID-era history in medical publications. He highlights how physicians feel betrayed by those in authority, leading to compromised patient care. Jensen raises concerns about the disappearance of over 300 scientific articles, suggesting substandard research was used to push certain narratives. This trend of articles being retracted or revised raises suspicions of a hidden agenda within the medical field. Jensen urges vigilance in recognizing and addressing these issues.

The convergence of interest in COVID was, holy crap, we funded this. "Let's outsource this to China. What's your first thought? We've got to cover this up." And that's exactly what he was doing. "The minute by minute of him going till three in the morning that first night, emails going back and forth and back and forth." "I didn't know what a burner phone was. I had to buy a burner phone." "It was no big deal. It turns out it just came from animals." "These people were very concerned. Maybe not that they were gonna be killed by foreign agents, but that the public was going to find out that they had been funding this very dangerous research and that millions of people die because of lack of oversight." "There's never been a more extraordinary cover up in the sense that these people were saying in public the opposite of what they were saying in private." "Freedom of information became the tool that uncovered a lot of this." "In private, Fauci is saying, I'm fifty fifty, whether this came from the lab or animals." "In public, you're a conspiracy theorist ... we should bring you down." "Him and Francis Collins are talking back and forth about bringing down Jay Bhattacharya." "This is just extraordinary. We have the proof."

I was accused of being part of a propaganda effort to censor those questioning the origin of the virus. I stand by my assertion that the virus is not a lab construct, which aligns with the intelligence community's conclusion. I cannot control how my work is used. It is wrong to censor and lie to the public, and I should have done better.

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.