reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speaker claims that ivermectin, not the vaccine, saved people from COVID. They criticize the use of ventilators for COVID patients, citing pulmonary edema risks. A nurse's story about a stroke post-vaccination highlights a lack of documentation and discouragement of questions by senior staff. The nurse was reassigned after questioning. Translation: The speaker believes ivermectin, not vaccines, saved people from COVID. They criticize using ventilators for COVID patients due to risks of pulmonary edema. A nurse's experience with a stroke post-vaccination reveals a lack of documentation and discouragement of questions by senior staff. The nurse was reassigned after asking questions.

The speaker discusses how CNN portrayed them as taking horse medication, specifically Ivermectin, which is actually a medication used more commonly in humans. They mention that Ivermectin has been prescribed to billions of people and even won a Nobel Prize for its efficacy in humans. The speaker believes that Ivermectin had to be discredited because of a federal law that states emergency use authorization for vaccines cannot be issued if there is an existing medication proven effective against the target illness. They argue that acknowledging the effectiveness of Ivermectin would have jeopardized the multi-billion dollar vaccine industry.

In Pierre Corre's book The War on Ivermectin, an accidental natural experiment is described. A natural experiment is explained as a situation where nature creates varying conditions that allow analysis without controlled experimentation. The book reports 80 court cases in which families sued hospitals to force ivermectin treatment for desperately ill relatives. In 40 cases, courts granted the request and ivermectin was administered; in the other 40, courts refused and no ivermectin was given. Among the cases where ivermectin was given, 38 patients survived and 2 died. Among the cases where ivermectin was not given, 2 patients survived and 38 died. The presenter notes that he cannot vouch for the data itself since it is not published in a scientific paper and the court cases cannot be independently checked, but presumes the data is accurate and states he knows Pierre well and believes he didn’t fabricate it. A chi-squared calculation, validated by two different AIs, yields a p-value of 5.03 × 10^-15, indicating an extraordinarily high level of statistical significance. The presenter emphasizes that “the chances of a result that strong if ivermectin does not work are something like the chances of you guessing a random 15 digit number on the first try,” calling the result “through the roof.” It is noted that CNN framed the topic as a veterinary medicine issue, which the presenter finds ironic. The broader point is that the ivermectin story, and repurposed drug use more generally, is an important puzzle piece: if repurposed drugs had been allowed to be used through the normal medical process—where doctors evaluate patients, consider symptoms, and pool information with other doctors—COVID could have been an entirely manageable disease for all but the most compromised individuals. The presenter concludes that there was no important pandemic.

The speaker shares their experience working in the COVID ICU at Elmhurst Hospital in Queens, New York. They emphasize that the situation was not limited to New York, but was happening nationwide, including in Florida. They describe witnessing a disturbing assembly line-like process where patients were treated poorly and family members were banned. The speaker criticizes politicians and government interference in the doctor-patient relationship. They mention financial incentives for admitting patients and the neglectful protocols followed. They recount seeing patients with severe bed sores and feces dried on their backs. The speaker reveals that full code patients were not being resuscitated and were ultimately placed in body bags.

Many nurses witnessed patients dying not from COVID, but from medical mismanagement like using remdesivir and ventilators. One nurse highlighted the lack of feeding tubes for ventilator patients. Placing patients on ventilators without feeding tubes led to starvation and death. The focus on ventilators instead of proper care caused harm, with many patients not surviving the treatment. Early intubation was pushed to contain the virus, resulting in high mortality rates for ventilated patients. The situation in hospitals was distressing and poorly managed.

In this video, the speaker discusses the impact of reduced antibiotic prescriptions during the COVID-19 pandemic. They explain that poor states in the southern United States, where it is hot, experienced a higher death rate due to bacterial pneumonia. The speaker believes that bacterial pneumonia was a co-cause of death in many COVID-19 cases. They also mention that excess mortality rates varied across age groups before and after vaccination. Before vaccination, the rates ranged from 5% to 40% in the ten most populous states. However, during the vaccination period, the pattern changed, with 25 to 44-year-olds experiencing up to 60% excess mortality.

Patients are dying not from COVID, but from treatments like remdesivir causing organ failure. One person's mother died after being given remdesivir against their wishes, leading to organ shutdown. There was a financial incentive for hospitals to admit patients and put them on ventilators, resulting in unnecessary treatments and deaths.

Speaker 0 outlines a surge of severe health problems following what they call “the stabby jabby,” noting that after that point there were increases in heart issues, kidney issues, and diabetes problems. They observe that even patients without diabetes saw a 75 percent increase in diabetes in 2022, and that among patients with diabetes who contracted Shmovid, their diabetes “is no longer under control anymore. They're on two and three different medications.” They describe this as just the beginning. The speaker emphasizes that heart issues are “out of control,” with a high volume of heart consults and a shift to placing community veterans into the community due to a shortage of cardiologists. They claim there aren’t enough heart monitors available to meet demand. They reference “TurboCancers” and add that kidney issues were occurring “up the wazoo” after 2022. They report a rise in pneumonia cases in the last four months, including a veteran who had been on nine medications for pneumonia with no resolution. They state the flu cases are persistent and that skin issues are “mind blowing,” including bleeding in the eye and at the back of the retina, as well as a surge in strokes “through the roof,” including strokes in the eyes and in the brain, plus embolisms and pulmonary embolisms. The speaker describes hospital conditions in the Portland Metro Area as astonishing, noting personal fear that leads to avoiding restrooms due to concerns about exposure, and mentions being among “three people who didn’t get it” out of a hospital of many staff. They characterize the situation as terrifying. They describe skin wounds and sores that resist debridement, packing, or wrapping, remaining visibly the same after weeks. They conclude that people are dying at an extraordinary rate and reflect on sixteen years in their position, saying they have “never seen people die like this ever.” Finally, the speaker anticipates the long-term implications: all the people who have gotten it will require care, housing, and coordination for care, and questions who will manage this given many medical staff having contracted the illness themselves. They wrap up with a personal warning and a closing remark: “Hope that helps.”

When COVID hit, the initial lockdown was meant to slow the spread, but it led to unforeseen consequences like educational gaps and mental health issues. There was a lack of planning for reopening schools and addressing the collateral damage. The speaker emphasizes the need for a better readiness plan for future pandemics and questions the role of government intervention. They advocate for less government involvement and more reliance on science.

Monoclonal antibodies worked very well and quickly, and were initially readily available. The speaker believes the government intentionally made them harder to get to encourage people to take the COVID shot. The speaker didn't use ivermectin until the government took over distribution of monoclonal antibodies. In March, the government put out information on why people should not take ivermectin for COVID on the FDA's website. At the same time, they launched COVID-nineteen Community Core on 04/01/2021, an $11,500,000,000 slush fund to feed out propaganda.

Speaker: Noted claims about the Amish and COVID. - The speaker traveled to Lancaster County, Amish country, visiting the house of a relative of Gideon King, described as the one person, the only known person in the Amish community who supposedly died from COVID. They say there may be up to five people, but the names of five people were not provided. A $2,500 reward on Twitter was offered for names of more than five people in Lancaster County who died from COVID; no one could name more than one person, and they all named Gideon King. - The speaker visited the house of Sam King, a relative of Gideon King. Sam said he doesn’t know if Gideon actually died from COVID. They think Gideon died in the hospital. - If there were five Amish people who died, this would mean the Amish death rate was 90 times lower than the infection fatality rate of the United States. - The explanation offered: this is possible because the Amish aren’t vaccinated and didn’t follow a single guideline of the CDC. They did not lockdown, did not mask, did not social distance, did not vaccinate, and there were no mandates to get vaccinated in the Amish community. - The speaker asserts there are no autistic kids in the Amish community, claiming it is very rare to find kids with ADD, autoimmune disease, PANDA, PANS, epilepsy, or other chronic diseases. - The speaker states the US government has studied the Amish for decades, but there has never been a report released to the public. The stated reason is that such a report would show that not following guidelines leads to better health. - The speaker concludes there is no public report after decades of study because it would be devastating to the narrative and would show that the CDC has been harming the public for decades.

Some people are refusing the COVID vaccine and instead taking horse dewormer, which has no evidence of effectiveness and can be dangerous. The speaker got COVID and tried various medications, including Ivermectin, which is commonly used for deworming horses. The mention of Ivermectin as a horse dewormer is not flattering. The speaker believes there is clear evidence that Ivermectin can be effective and that people should be informed about it.

- The discussion opens with a critique of how public health authorities in the United States and much of the media discouraged experimentation with COVID-19 treatments, instead pushing vaccination and portraying other approaches as dangerous. The hosts ask why treatments were sidelined and treated as heretical to question. - Speaker 1 explains that the core idea was to stamp out “vaccine hesitation,” which he frames not as a purely scientific issue but as a form of heresy. He notes a broad literature on vaccine hesitancy and contrasts it with the perception of the vaccine as a liberating savior. He points to a Vatican €20 silver coin (2022) commemorating the COVID-19 vaccine, described by Vatican catalogs as “a boy prepares to receive the Eucharist,” which the speakers interpret as an overlay of religious iconography with vaccination imagery. They also reference Diego Rivera’s mural in Detroit, interpreted as depicting the vaccine as a Eucharist, and a South African church banner reading “even the blood of Christ cannot protect you, get vaccinated,” highlighting what they see as provocative uses of religious symbolism to promote vaccination. - They claim that the Biden administration’s COVID Vaccine Corps distributed billions of dollars to major sports leagues (NFL, MLB) and that many mainline churches reportedly received money to push vaccination, with many clergy not opposing the push. The implication is that monetary incentives influenced public figures and organizations to advocate for vaccines, contributing to a climate in which questioning orthodoxy was difficult. - The speakers discuss the social dynamics around vaccine “heresy,” using Aaron Rodgers’ experience with isolation and shaming in the NFL and Novak Djokovic’s experiences in Australia to illustrate how prominent individuals who questioned or fell outside the orthodoxy faced punitive pressure. They compare this to a Reformation-era conflict over doctrinal correctness and describe a psychology of stigmatizing dissent as a tool to enforce conformity. - They argue the imperative driving institutions was the belief that the vaccine was the central, non-negotiable public-health objective, seemingly above other medical considerations. The central question they raise is why vaccines became the sole priority, seemingly overriding a broader, more nuanced evaluation of medical options and individual risk. - The conversation shifts to epistemology and the nature of science. Speaker 1 suggests medicine often relies on orthodoxies and presuppositions, rather than purely empirical processes. He recounts a Kantian view that interpretation depends on preexisting categories, and he uses this to argue that medical decision-making can be constrained by established doctrines, which may obscure questions about optimization and safety. - They recount the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act and discuss Sara Sotomayor’s dissent, which argued that liability exposure is a key incentive for safety and improvement in vaccine development. They argue that the current system creates minimal liability for manufacturers, reducing the incentive to optimize safety, and they use this to question how the system encourages continuous safety improvements. - The hosts recount the early-treatment movement led by Peter McCullough and others, including a Senate hearing organized by Ron Johnson in November 2020 to discuss early-treatment options with FDA-approved drugs like hydroxychloroquine. They criticize what they describe as aggressive pushback against such approaches, noting that McCullough faced professional sanctions and lawsuits despite presenting peer-reviewed literature. - They return to the concept of orthodoxy and dogma, arguing that the medical establishment often suppresses dissent, citing YouTube removing a McCullough interview and the broader pattern of silencing challenge to the vaccine narrative. They stress that the social and institutional systems prize conformity and punish those who deviate, creating a climate of distrust toward official health bodies. - The discussion broadens into metaphysical and philosophical territory, with references to the Grand Inquisitor from Dostoevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov. They propose that elites—whether religious, political, or scientific—tend to prefer “taking care” of people through control rather than preserving individual responsibility and free will. The Grand Inquisitor tale is used to illustrate a recurring human temptation: to replace personal liberty with a protected, paternalistic order. - They discuss messenger RNA (mRNA) technology as a central manifestation of Promethean or Luciferian intellect—humans attempting to “read and write in the language of God.” They describe the scientific arc from transcription and translation to mRNA vaccines, noting Francis Collins’s The Language of God and the idea of humans “coding life.” They caution that mRNA vaccines involve injecting genetic material and point to the symbolic and ritual power of vaccination as a form of modern sacrament. - The speakers emphasize that the mRNA approach represents both a profound scientific achievement and a source of deep concern. They discuss fertility signals and potential adverse effects, including myocarditis in young people, and cite the July 2021 NEJM case study as highlighting safety concerns for myocarditis in adolescent males. They reference the FDA deliberative-committee discussions, noting that some influential voices publicly questioned the risk-benefit calculus for young people, yet faced pressure or dismissal within the orthodox framework. - They describe post-hoc investigations and testimonies suggesting that adverse events (like myocarditis) might have been downplayed or obscured, and they assert that public trust in health institutions has eroded as a result. They mention ongoing debates about whether vaccine-induced changes might affect future generations, referencing studies about transcripts of mRNA in cancer cells and liver cells, and they stress the need for independent scrutiny by scientists not “entranced” by the vaccine program. - The dialogue returns to the broader human condition: a tension between curiosity and restraint, knowledge and humility. They return to Dostoevsky’s moral questions about free will, responsibility, and the limits of human knowledge, concluding that scientific hubris can lead to dangerous consequences when it overrides open inquiry and accountability. - In closing, while the guests reflect on past missteps and the need for integrity in medicine, they underscore the ongoing questions about how evidence is interpreted, how dissent is treated, and how society balances scientific progress with humility, transparency, and respect for individual judgment.

Many nurses witnessed patients dying not from COVID, but from medical mismanagement like using remdesivir and ventilators. One nurse highlighted the lack of feeding tubes alongside ventilators, emphasizing the importance of proper care. Patients were intubated early, leading to high mortality rates. The medical system's focus on COVID treatments caused harm, with nurses bearing the brunt of patient care.

New COVID-19 cases have increased by over 300% compared to last year. Hospitals may have to make tough decisions about ICU admissions due to overcrowding. The speaker finds it easy to prioritize treating vaccinated individuals over unvaccinated individuals who have taken horse dewormer instead of getting vaccinated. Many people are turning to Ivermectin as an alternative to the vaccine, despite it being made by a major pharmaceutical company, Merck, which advises against its use for COVID-19. The speaker highlights the lack of scientific evidence and safety data supporting Ivermectin's efficacy. They also mention a TikTok video by a disgraced veterinarian promoting the drug. The speaker comments on the unexpected anger displayed by someone drinking Topo Chico.

Monoclonal antibodies worked very well and quickly, and were initially readily available. The speaker believes the government intentionally made them harder to get to encourage people to take the COVID shot. The speaker started using ivermectin when monoclonal antibodies became difficult to obtain. In March, the government put out information on the FDA's website about why people should not take ivermectin for COVID. Simultaneously, the government launched COVID-nineteen Community Core on 04/01/2021, an $11,500,000,000 slush fund for propaganda.

The speaker discusses the use of ventilators in treating COVID-19 patients. They mention that the concept of using ventilators came from China as a way to protect healthcare workers. However, they point out that many patients put on ventilators in New York City were dying, with a 90% fatality rate in some Texas hospitals. The speaker questions why alternative treatments like ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine were not considered when the chances of survival were so low. They also mention the incentivization of using certain drugs and protocols that may have contributed to unnecessary deaths.

A college-educated black woman is more likely to die in childbirth than a white woman without a college education, partly because local hospitals in black communities closed due to corporate takeovers starting around 2008. Black Americans have a higher rate of chronic diseases, contributing to their second-highest COVID death rate, at three thousand per million. This rate contrasts with Haiti and Nigeria's fourteen per million, despite low vaccination rates. The speaker attributes this to food poisoning, noting that 70% of the $80 billion SNAP program goes to processed food, and 10% to sugary drinks. 70% of school lunch programs are also processed food. Black Americans live in food deserts; in Bedford Stuyvesant, the nearest grocery store was once 75 blocks away. The speaker advises against eating packaged food, calling it poison, and aims to change this system.

The speaker, a nurse, shares their experiences on the front lines of the COVID-19 pandemic. They express concerns about medical negligence and malfeasance, particularly regarding the use of the drug Remdesivir, which they claim is causing patient deaths. The nurse also mentions the lack of advocacy for marginalized populations and criticizes the isolation and lack of basic care in hospitals. They highlight the importance of nurses as the link between doctors and patients and express gratitude for the opportunity to speak out.

A doctor recounts moving breathing treatments from their office to patients' cars due to concerns about virus spread, despite hospitals also avoiding them for the same reason. They mention Dr. Richard Bartlett, a Texas doctor who faced criticism for advocating budesonide breathing treatments early in the pandemic. The speaker claims Dr. Bartlett was smeared and pursued by the Texas Medical Board for allegedly making false claims. However, the speaker maintains that these treatments were invaluable and recommended them to high-risk patients, noting a very low risk of issues.

During COVID, I traveled the country and saw many undiagnosed diseases that could have been treated early, but resulted in COVID deaths. I also witnessed the deterioration of our health system in rural areas, where access to healthcare is limited. The hub and spoke model, designed to get very sick people into regional medical centers, was overwhelmed. COVID highlighted issues with chronic disease management. Similar to early HIV treatment, we initially only treated symptomatic individuals, which was just the tip of the iceberg. When we started finding and treating asymptomatic individuals early, before they showed disease, they could thrive.

According to the speaker, hospital protocols differed for vaccinated and unvaccinated COVID-19 patients, with more aggressive protocols used on the unvaccinated. The unvaccinated patients interviewed were often given remdesivir, a repurposed drug from a failed Ebola trial where about half the patients died. The speaker claims the efficacy data for remdesivir was "sketchy at best," but hospitals received large reimbursements for its use. The speaker alleges that patients would then be put on oxygen, then mechanical ventilation, then ICU, and finally, if they resisted, a cocktail of sedatives and sometimes four-point restraints to prevent them from leaving. The speaker states that "a lot of the patients died." The speaker claims that at each step, the hospital received more reimbursement, and there was "lockstep adherence" to the protocol.

Although I am not a doctor, I’m a nurse. On the front lines we knew what was happening. When we asked for ibuprofen, they said no. When we asked why we weren’t giving steroids, the answer was “we’re just following orders.” Following orders has led to the sheer number of deaths in these hospitals. I didn’t see a single patient die of COVID. I’ve seen a substantial number die of negligence and medical malfeasance. When I was on the front lines of New York, I became globally known as the nurse in the break room sobbing, saying they were murdering my patients. Pharmaceutical companies had gone into those hospitals and decided to practice on the minorities, the disadvantaged, the marginalized populations with no advocates, because the very agencies that should protect them were closed while we were sheltering in place. While I was there, pharmaceutical companies rolled out remdesivir onto a substantial number of patients, which we all saw was killing the patients. And now, it’s the FDA-approved drug that is continuing to kill patients in the United States. As nurses, we’ve collected a descriptive amount of information that you may not get from the doctors. Doctors do quantitative data; we do qualitative data with a humanistic, phenomenological approach in nursing research. We’ve collected data from patients across the country for which we’ve helped patients through the American Front Line Nurses and the advocacy network so nurses could advocate for these patients. This data pool shows that as these patients get remdesivir, they have a less than twenty-five percent chance of survival if they get more than two doses. Now they’re rolling it out on children as well and into nursing homes or skilled nursing facilities as early intervention, even though doctors Pierre Corre and Merrick have demonstrated that there are cost-effective medications out there, and we are going to see the amplification of death across the country. We haven’t even touched on vaccines, which our expert panels have described; I won’t touch on that since many are far superior to me. Two days ago I flew out my first 10-year-old with a heart attack and had to fight the ER doctor because he said, “ten-year-olds don’t have heart attacks.” I argued for thirty minutes to force his hand to get an EKG and found a STEMI; the 12-lead EKG lit up. He said it wasn’t possible, and I said, “was just vaccinated yesterday. It is very much possible.” People contact me and the nurse advocates at American Front Line Nurses to help advocate, because there’s victim shaming—“it’s anxiety,” “it’s this.” But if they acknowledge it as a vaccine injury, the physician, the corporation, the hospital, the clinic may not get reimbursed, so it’s labeled as anxiety, neuropathy, or Guillain–Barré syndrome, when it’s very realistically a vaccine injury. I’ve traveled to South America, India, and South Africa, working in hot zones, stopping the spread of the virus and doing early intervention. Nowhere in developing nations do I see these issues that we see here in the United States. I’m a very proud American citizen from a family of immigrants. Our level of health care has deteriorated to substandard third-world-nation health care. You are better off in South America in a field hospital than in level-one trauma designer hospitals in the United States. As nurses, we are getting reports across the country from American frontline nurses about patients not getting food, water, or basic care. How come a patient hasn’t been fed in nine days? Why do I need a court order to force a hospital to feed a person who isn’t intubated and who would like food? If they’re on a ventilator, they’re not given water or basic care. We’re not allowed to take a BiPAP mask off to help someone eat. I’ve had patients who haven’t been bathed, haven’t been fed, and haven’t been given water, or been turned. This isn’t a hospital; this is a concentration camp. Nowhere in the United States do we isolate people for hundreds of hours with no human contact; it’s not allowed even in prisons. In hospitals, we isolate patients from their families for days, and you have to say goodbye over an iPhone, or you have to shuttle people in to see them. I was fired for sneaking a Hispanic family in to say the last rites to their family. Thank you, Senator Johnson, for giving nurses the opportunity to represent our patients, because we’re not often thought of as leading professionals, though we are the missing link between the doctors and the patients. Thank you for this time. Thank you for being a nurse.

The speaker discusses how quick action and isolation could have extinguished COVID-19, citing the success with SARS. They criticize political interference and the WHO for mishandling the pandemic, leading to a global crisis. Despite pointing out these failures, the speaker feels unappreciated for providing factual information.

In my 20 years of military and ER experience, I witnessed the challenges of dealing with a novel virus. As healthcare professionals, we made mistakes due to outdated knowledge and assumptions. We intubated patients unnecessarily and didn't consider alternative treatments. Families suffered as they were unable to be with their loved ones during their final moments. I held dying patients' hands, knowing there was little I could do. The government exacerbated the situation by interfering with healthcare decisions and keeping families apart. We shouldn't rely on the government to solve problems it created.