reSee.it - Related Video Feed

This is a systemic issue that needs addressing. I've expressed concern about a future where the FDA is remembered for allowing society to gain weight annually, only to respond with an expensive drug costing $20,000 a year. That would leave a troubling legacy. I hope we can find a better solution.

I asked SHAT GBT about pharmaceutical profits from children transitioning. Estimates range from $195 million to $885 million annually. This suggests a financial motive for big pharma to promote early transitions in children.

Novo Nordisk has faced accusations of shady sales tactics, including spending heavily on doctors, and has encountered regulatory issues in multiple countries. The company, along with other drug makers, has been criticized for high insulin prices. While insulin profits have decreased, weight loss drugs offer astronomical profit potential, which Novo Nordisk is already capitalizing on. The company's valuation once exceeded Denmark's entire GDP. Some individuals, distrustful of big pharma or lacking access to these drugs, are seeking alternatives.

Over 100 members of Congress are backing a bill to fund Ozempic through Medicare at $1,500 monthly, many having received funds from Novo Nordisk, its European manufacturer. Once Medicare approves it, Medicaid follows. There's a push to prescribe Ozempic to kids as young as six for obesity, a largely preventable condition. With 74% of Americans obese, covering everyone's Ozempic would cost $3 trillion annually. Ozempic has made Novo Nordisk Europe's largest company, yet Denmark recommends diet and exercise instead. The company's value relies heavily on projected Ozempic sales in the US. For half the cost, we could provide organic food and gym memberships for every obese American. Why are politicians siding with a Danish company over American farmers and kids? Because Novo Nordisk heavily funds medical research, influencing media, politicians, and medical schools.

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.

COVID-19 is expected to continue being a lucrative opportunity for us. The research on virus mutations seems to hold the most potential for profit.

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. Once approved for Medicare, the drug will likely extend to Medicaid, with recommendations for use in children as young as 6 for obesity, a largely preventable condition. With 74% of Americans classified as obese, the potential annual cost for Ozempic prescriptions could reach $3 trillion. While Novo Nordisk thrives on these projections, the Danish government advocates for dietary changes and exercise instead. For the cost of Ozempic, we could provide organic food and gym memberships for every obese American. The influence of Novo Nordisk in medical research funding raises concerns about Congress prioritizing corporate interests over American health and agriculture.

Various vaccines are being linked to different industries. The companies behind these vaccines are making a staggering $60 billion annually from vaccine sales. However, they are also making a whopping $500 billion from selling remedies for vaccine-related injuries. This includes medications for diabetes, ADHD (such as Adderall and Ritalin), inhalers like Advair and albuterol, and anti-seizure medications. It seems like a profitable business plan: make people sick and then sell them a lifetime of treatments.

The key focus is on well-being, which has shifted over the past 20 to 30 years towards expensive remediation rather than wellness and prevention. The FDA plays a crucial role in this discussion. It raises the question of whether it's worthwhile to continue promoting costly drugs while neglecting preventive measures and overall wellness.

Over 100 members of Congress support a bill to fund Ozempic with Medicare at $1500 a month, and most have taken money from Novo Nordisk, the drug's manufacturer. Once approved for Medicare, it goes to Medicaid, and there's a push to recommend Ozempic for Americans as young as 6 for obesity, a condition claimed to be preventable and recently rare. With 74% of Americans obese, the cost of Ozempic prescriptions for all of them would be $3 trillion a year. Novo Nordisk's value is based on projected Ozempic sales to Americans, yet the Danish government recommends diet and exercise instead. For half the price of Ozempic, every American could receive regeneratively raised organic food and gym memberships. Congress is allegedly doing the bidding of Novo Nordisk instead of supporting American farmers and children because Novo Nordisk heavily funds medical research, the media, politicians, and medical schools.

We're paying too much for drugs compared to other countries, and existing laws make it hard to lower costs. The middlemen in the drug industry are profiting significantly without adding value. We're going to eliminate these middlemen to reduce drug prices to unprecedented levels. This topic dominated our discussions with executives and others involved.

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.

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.

Various vaccines are being linked to multiple industries. The motive behind this is believed to be financial gain. The companies selling vaccines are making $60 billion annually, while the ones selling remedies for vaccine-related injuries are making a staggering $500 billion. This business model involves selling medications for diabetes, ADHD, asthma, seizures, and more. The strategy seems to be making people sick and then providing them with lifelong treatments.

Curing patients of diseases is seen as detrimental to the business model, according to a major investment firm. The potential for one-shot cures through gene therapy is attractive, but it poses a challenge to recurring revenue compared to chronic therapies. While curing people would benefit society and patients, it would negatively impact cash flow. The firm openly admits that their concern lies in financial gain rather than the well-being of individuals. This example highlights the flaws in our market economy and the exploitation of others for profit. It calls for a revolution of the mind to prioritize the eradication of diseases over monetary interests.

The speaker believes the financial aspect of gender-affirming care is a "big problem" and "evil" due to its multibillion-dollar scale. They recall someone who supported the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) and its previous advocacy for gay marriage. The HRC now reportedly rates medical institutions on their gender-affirming care, impacting potential grant money. The speaker believes this information is available on the HRC website. They mention Pfizer as a funder and suggest Lupron is a near-billion-dollar-a-year drug, potentially used off-label.

Various vaccines are being linked to different industries. The companies behind these vaccines are making a staggering $60 billion annually from vaccine sales. However, they are making an even larger profit of $500 billion each year by selling remedies for the injuries caused by these vaccines. This includes medications for diabetes, ADHD (such as Adderall and Ritalin), inhalers for asthma (like Advair and albuterol), and anti-seizure medications. It's clear that these companies have devised a highly profitable business plan.

The average 65-year-old in the US takes about seven drugs. 95% of people on the USDA nutrition guidelines had conflicts of interest with food companies, influencing school lunches, where the USDA serves 3 billion meals yearly. Kraft Heinz is brokering deals to put Lunchables in schools, a top growth area. Novo Nordisk, the Ozempic manufacturer, is now Europe's most valuable company, with almost all revenue from the US due to a broken system. 30% of Americans with insurance coverage stop using Ozempic within three months, despite it being touted as a lifetime drug. Lawsuits are emerging regarding gastrointestinal issues and stomach paralysis, which may persist after discontinuing the drug. The EU is probing suicidal ideation linked to Ozempic. The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends Ozempic as a first-line defense for teens based on a 68-week study. Pharma is the largest TV news ad spender, and Novo Nordisk is a major funder of obesity research, medical groups, and civil rights groups, including paying the NAACP, who claims that not supporting Ozempic is racist. Analyst reports assume increased obesity rates, and loans for obesity treatment centers project growth in obesity. Weight Watchers, now an Ozempic prescriber, shifted from personal accountability due to Ozempic's superior business model.

Various vaccines are being linked to multiple industries. The motive behind this is money. The companies are earning $60 billion annually from vaccine sales, but a staggering $500 billion from selling remedies for vaccine-related injuries. This includes medications for diabetes, ADHD, asthma, seizures, and more. It's a profitable business strategy: make people sick and then provide them with lifelong treatments.

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.

Vaccine companies allegedly make $60 billion annually from vaccine sales but earn $500 billion annually by selling remedies for vaccine-related injuries. These remedies include diabetes medication, Adderall, Ritalin, Concerta, Advair inhalers, albuterol inhalers, and anti-seizure medications. The speaker suggests that making people sick and then selling them lifetime treatments is a profitable business model for these companies.

Various vaccines are being linked to multiple industries. The companies behind these vaccines are making $60 billion annually from vaccine sales, but they are also making $500 billion from selling remedies for vaccine-related injuries. These remedies include diabetes medication, Adderall, Ritalin, Advair inhalers, albuterol inhalers, and anti-seizure medications. It seems like a profitable business plan: make people sick and then sell them lifelong treatments.

The speaker believes that Ivermectin's effectiveness threatened the emergency use authorization for vaccines, which would impact the global market worth over $100 billion. The speaker suggests that Ivermectin's low cost and availability posed a threat to patented pharmaceuticals like PAXLOVID and Molnupiravir. They argue that Ivermectin could have ended the pandemic if widely used, but was suppressed due to its potential impact on the market. Translation: The speaker suggests that Ivermectin's effectiveness posed a threat to the emergency use authorization for vaccines and the global market, potentially impacting billions in revenue. They argue that Ivermectin's affordability and availability could have ended the pandemic if widely used, but was suppressed due to its potential impact on the market.

Pharmaceutical companies are profiting immensely from vaccines and the subsequent treatments for vaccine-related injuries. They make $60 billion annually from vaccine sales and a staggering $500 billion from remedies for vaccine-induced conditions. This includes medications for diabetes, ADHD, asthma, seizures, and more. It's a lucrative business model: create illness and then sell lifelong treatments.