reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Speaker 1 claims that no vaccines, including the COVID vaccine, have been properly tested. They assert that no childhood vaccine has undergone a placebo-controlled clinical trial of sufficient duration and power to assess its safety before being injected into millions of children in America. Speaker 1 states this is not just their opinion, but can be verified by anyone who examines the FDA website, specifically the package inserts and underlying clinical trial documents.

The speaker expresses shock upon learning that GLP-1 drugs like Wegovy and Ozempic are derived from lizard venom. They question whether people believe their weight and diabetes are due to a Gila monster venom deficiency, requiring them to inject venom weekly. The speaker is skeptical of the drugs' safety and effectiveness despite FDA approval, citing concerns about stomach paralysis and thyroid cancer risks. They claim to have educated the world about this venom-based drug after learning about it and being invited on shows to discuss it.

A speaker claims remdesivir, an experimental drug, caused COVID-19 patient deaths in hospitals between days one and nine of a ten-day treatment. The speaker states that Dr. Anthony Fauci claimed in May 2020 that remdesivir was found safe and effective in an African drug trial in February 2019, and he hyperlinked the study in a memo to hospitals. The speaker says that the African trial actually showed a 53% death rate, leading the safety board to suspend remdesivir use and notify funders of its toxicity. The speaker alleges that Dr. Fauci and his NIH department funded the Ebola trial in Africa. The speaker accuses Fauci of lying to Congress and the American people by claiming the drug was safe and effective when the safety board deemed it too deadly and toxic.

Speaker 0: They think I'm dangerous for speaking the truth. Speaker 1: Dr. Stella Emmanuel was part of a video claiming, without evidence, that hydroxychloroquine is a cure for COVID-19. The video was taken down by social media platforms for spreading misinformation. Despite the backlash, Dr. Emmanuel insists that hydroxychloroquine could be part of a cure. Dr. Anthony Fauci disagrees, stating that scientific data consistently shows hydroxychloroquine is not effective in treating COVID-19.

Speaker 1 claims that no vaccines, including the COVID vaccine, have been properly tested. They assert that no childhood vaccine has undergone a placebo-controlled clinical trial of sufficient duration and power to assess its safety before being injected into millions of children in America. Speaker 1 states this is not just their opinion, but can be verified by anyone who examines the FDA website, specifically the package inserts and underlying clinical trial documents.

The discussion centers on the credibility of vaccine safety claims made by various health organizations and the FDA. One speaker argues that vaccines undergo rigorous testing, while the other contends that no vaccine has ever completed a long-term placebo-controlled trial before being licensed. They express distrust in the FDA, citing past issues with drugs like Vioxx and opioids, suggesting that the FDA misled doctors and the public about their safety. The speaker believes that pharmaceutical companies influence these agencies, leading to misinformation about vaccine safety. The goal is to address and rectify this perceived corruption.

Speaker 0 argues that history will view this presidency as probably the most reckless and corrupt in the history of the United States, and expresses fear that without change the country and the world risk major harm, including the possibility of World War III. They say, regardless of views on global leadership, that being on top “what good is it … if you've created an absolute hellscape?” They emphasize the need for the course to change and suggest the future of the United States as a cohesive country and the world is currently in question because of the administration’s behavior. Speaker 1 agrees that America used to hold the moral high ground—defending human rights, free speech, and free trade—but asserts that none of those things are true any longer. They claim America is “the terror regime of the world,” describing it as pillaging, stealing, bombing, assassinating, running color revolutions, lying, and doing everything possible to destroy others to keep America as the last nation standing on its pile of soon to be worthless debt. They state this is not a moral position from which to lead any civilization. Speaker 0 contends that America has the tools to be all those values, citing a great constitutional republican system, the federation of states, resources, and human capital. They note a problem, however: a “giant pile of worthless fiat paper,” with the bill coming due and the tantrums of an empire, referencing warnings by people like Gerald Celente and Alex Jones about a fiat bubble rupture. They say the question is where the country wants to be in the world, criticizing a lack of imagination among the “great and the good in America” about a compelling future. Speaker 1 adds a new issue: 31 million Americans are injecting themselves with GLP-1 drugs, which they say cause a 100% increase in risk of psychiatric disorders and suicidal ideation, especially among women, with the most use among 50–65-year-olds. They claim Trump is working to make these drugs more affordable so that more people can take them, potentially leading to half of US adults using a drug based on venom peptides of the Gila monster, a paralyzing agent, risking madness. They compare this to lead poisoning and reference Ozempic as one of these drugs. Speaker 0 asks, “What’s it called? Ozempic? Is that a GOP one?” Speaker 1 confirms “Ozempic,” and notes that the drugs are used for vanity to look healthy, not because people are actually healthy. They reiterate the core issue: what goes into bodies and the environment in which people live, stressing that there is an opportunity today to correct and improve the situation, and that many are taking that opportunity.

Speaker 0 argues that billions of people were injected with an experimental vaccine, stating “it wasn't a bloody just no. It wasn't.” He rejects the notion of it being definitive or perfect, emphasizing that “it wasn’t” in terms of being a flawless solution. Speaker 1 counters, asserting “It was no one isn’t,” suggesting confusion or contradiction in the prior claim and challenging the certainty of the statement. He adds that there is a lack of a 100% success rate and questions the ultimate aim, asking what the core purpose is when it comes to giving your body a training of the immune system and technology. Speaker 0 reinforces the complexity, noting that there were “different types” to contend with and that the fact that they weren’t the same technology matters. He agrees there are various types of vaccines or approaches, indicating there is diversity in the technology or formulations used. Speaker 1 concedes the existence of different types and technologies, acknowledging that “there are different types of” vaccines, and that “There are different technologies.” He identifies mRNA as a type of vaccine but Speaker 0 interrupts, insisting “No. It was” and continuing his line of reasoning about the distinctions between the technologies and their evolution. Speaker 1 acknowledges change, saying “like this, and now it's like this,” recognizing a progression or shift in the approach. Speaker 0 rejects the suggestion that the transition is simple or uniform, insisting “No. No. No. It was like this, and now it's like this.” He asserts that the mRNA technology represented a radical, qualitative leap forward in technology, a claim about the significance of the development. Speaker 0 contends that naming the technology as mRNA can be acceptable only in a limited sense; he says “You can call it if if you want to, but it bears very little resemblance to anything that went before that.” The rationale for the term mRNA is tied to branding: “The reason it was called a scene was because was a brand name that had a track record of safety, and shoehorning it in that was one of the ways to make sure that people weren't terrified of the technology.”

The speaker lays out a series of provocative claims about nicotine and associated public health narratives. They begin by posing a rhetorical critique: “Can you hear about nicotine? I’ve talked about nicotine so many times.” They argue that doctors promote nicotine and even tell people to use nicotine, recalling a historical assertion that doctors used to tell people to smoke cigarettes while they were pregnant. This leads to a broader contention about the origins and motivations behind nicotine products. The speaker then asserts that all nicotine products currently on the market are controlled by big pharma. They specify examples such as nicotine gums and nicotine patches and assert that “all the nicotine products, they’re all synthetic.” This is presented as a blanket characterization of the entire nicotine product market, tying it to pharmaceutical interests. A visual claim follows: “the picture of the nicotine receptors was on an electric eel.” The speaker asks, “Are we electric eels?” as a way to question the basis for some scientific imagery or representations used in the discussion of nicotine receptors. This line is used to provoke skepticism about the sources or imagery used in nicotine-related science. The argument then shifts toward a broader environmental and technological frame. The speaker references “snake venom in the water” as part of a cascade of concerns, and they remark, “once again, aren’t looking at the cell phone towers which were installed in front of their house.” They claim people are worried about snake venom in the water while neglecting other pervasive concerns. They note that “there’s a billion chemicals in the water,” emphasizing the long-standing presence of numerous substances in aquatic environments and suggesting a focus on these dangers. In a final, pointed claim, the speaker asserts that vaccines “have been culling the population since 1626.” This claim is used to argue that vaccines are part of a long-standing pattern of population reduction. The closing sentiment ties the earlier points together: “That’s nicotine. … You have been sold. You have been sold by the same systems which were poisoning the people in 2020 who were making the same products to poison the people in 2020.” Overall, the passage presents a chain of criticisms regarding nicotine’s promotion, the pharmaceutical control of nicotine products, questions about scientific imagery, environmental health concerns, and a historical accusation about vaccines and population management, concluding with the assertion that the audience has been sold by the same systems referenced.

Speaker 0 questions the idea that Doctor Fauci is involved in a plot to kill millions, seeking clarity on the claim. Speaker 1 says they are reasonable and that Fauci is not an innocent bystander; he is aware of what he’s doing, but the extent of involvement is not known to them. Speaker 2 cites the Center for Countering Digital Hate, stating Dirashad Bhattar is one of the top spreaders of COVID disinformation, once with more than a million followers. Bhattar allegedly claimed “More people are dying from the COVID vaccine than from COVID,” and that “the Red Cross won’t accept blood from people who have had the COVID nineteen vaccine.” He posted that “most who took COVID vaccines will be dead by 2025,” and promoted the overarching conspiracy that COVID was a planned operation as part of a secret global plot to depopulate the earth. Speaker 0 asks if Speaker 2 believes the pandemic was planned; Speaker 2 confirms there is a suspicion of a plan to reduce the population, though Speaker 1 says they have no idea. Speaker 2 criticizes Bhattar, saying it would be laughable if it weren’t so dangerous and that Qatar (Qatar’s commentary) compares COVID and the vaccine to World War II and Doctor Anthony Fauci to Adolf Hitler. Speaker 1 pushes back by asking to what extent Fauci would be equated with Hitler. Speaker 3 asserts that lies cost lives in a pandemic, and that encouraging people not to vaccinate will cause people to lose their lives. Speaker 2 describes Qatar as encouraging distrust of life-saving vaccines and using false, twisted information and unproven conspiracies to do so. Speaker 0 asks if the COVID vaccine works. Speaker 1 states the vaccine is very effective at what it was designed for, but “it’s not preventing death. Certainly not.” Speaker 2 contradicts, claiming that Bhattar believes life-saving vaccines are more dangerous than the virus itself, and Speaker 1 asks why the vaccine would cause more deaths than the problem itself, noting 6,340,000,000 doses administered. Speaker 0 requests the completion of a sentence about what each vaccine is geared up for, but Speaker 1 says he’s not a vaccine developer and mentions “Scientific corruption.” Speaker 2 notes Qatar has been removed from Facebook and Instagram due to disinformation but remains on Twitter, Telegram, and his own site, filled with falsehoods. Speaker 0 recalls a September 5 retweet of a doctored AstraZeneca packaging photo suggesting the vaccine was made in 2018; Speaker 1 says the photo was perhaps fake, and questions why Speaker 0 would challenge the agencies that have caused deaths. Speaker 0 argues it’s reasonable to question agencies, noting Speaker 1 had 1,200,000 followers who received false information; Speaker 1 admits if a tweet with a doctor’s photo was sent in error, it was a mistake, and he cannot make mistakes on the numbers. Speaker 2 notes vaccine studies showing vaccines remain ninety percent effective in preventing hospitalization and death, while Qatar claims the vaccine is the danger. Speaker 1 counters that thousands are dying and the delta variant is “vaccine injured,” citing CDC data, which Speaker 0 disputes as not true. Speaker 1 asserts he does not want to be part of a mass genocide and suggests this era will be remembered as a worst time in history, even worse than World War II. Speaker 0 concludes by calling Speaker 1 crazy. Speaker 2 ends with a reference to North Carolina’s Board of Medicine reprimanding someone prior to COVID.

Ozempic carries a black box warning for increasing the risk of all forms of medullary thyroid cancer within twelve months of use. Oncologists are seeing new cancer patients on Ozempic and Wegovy developing breast cancer in under a year. Thousands of Americans are reporting eye-rotting diseases from using Ozempic and Wegovy. Ozempic and Wegovy are made from protein from the Gila monster lizard. According to the Smithsonian Institute, Gila monster venom is more deadly and toxic than a western diamondback rattlesnake. The speaker asks if people taking Ozempic and Wegovy believe they are overweight, diabetic, or have heart disease due to a Gila monster venom deficiency.

The speaker claims that no childhood vaccine has ever undergone a safety trial using a double-blind, placebo-based study. They assert that this type of study, involving a saline injection as a placebo, is the only way to determine the safety of a pharmaceutical product. Furthermore, the speaker states that there has never been a study comparing the health outcomes of children who receive the full schedule of 72 (or potentially up to 90) vaccines to those who receive none. Because of the lack of safety studies and comparative data, the speaker chooses not to inject themselves or their children with vaccines. They want evidence that vaccines are safe and make people healthier.

Billions of people have taken the medication worldwide. The speaker questions why the news network lied about him taking horse dewormer, stating they shouldn't have. The interviewer did not ask about this, and the speaker regrets not clarifying before the interview.

The speaker addresses concerns about the long-term negative impact of the vaccine. They explain that the RNA in the vaccine is identical to the RNA in our cells, which does not cause long-term adverse events. The RNA is quickly degraded and eliminated from the body. The lipid nanoparticles in the vaccine also disappear within 24 to 48 hours. The speaker emphasizes that none of the vaccine components remain in the body after a week. They debunk the myth that the mRNA integrates or mutates DNA, stating that it has no effect on DNA. They mention that 90% of adverse events to vaccines occur within the first 6 weeks, and so far, no unusual adverse events have been observed among the 15 million people who have received the vaccine. The only serious adverse reaction is anaphylaxis, which occurs in about 1 in 100,000 people. The speaker concludes by highlighting the extremely low odds of experiencing an adverse event from the vaccine.

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.

The speaker states they searched for years for a pre-licensing safety trial of the 72 vaccine doses effectively mandated for American children. They claim that every other medication requires a safety trial comparing health outcomes in a placebo group versus a vaccine group before FDA licensing. The speaker assumed this was also done for vaccines. They state they found out that vaccines were exempt from this requirement.

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 to explain why the vaccine causes myocarditis and pericarditis. Speaker 1 mentions rare reports of myocarditis and pericarditis associated with vaccination but does not provide a clear explanation. Speaker 0 insists on understanding the mechanism and questions why the vaccine is considered safe without addressing the risks. Speaker 2 intervenes, suggesting that Speaker 1 will address the question later. Speaker 1 talks about the benefit-risk ratio and the global recommendation of health authorities. Speaker 0 reiterates the question, to which Speaker 1 agrees to provide a response later. Speaker 2 confirms this agreement.

Speaker 1 states that no vaccines, including the COVID vaccine, have been properly tested. They claim that no childhood vaccine has undergone a placebo-controlled clinical trial of sufficient duration and power to assess its safety before being injected into millions of children in America. Speaker 1 asserts this is not an opinion, but can be verified by anyone reviewing package inserts and clinical trial documents on the FDA website.

The speaker urges listeners to ask themselves whether their symptoms or diagnosed conditions, and the prescription drugs they take, are truly caused by drug deficiency. They question the idea that conditions like high blood pressure, migraines, diabetes, or heart disease are due to a lack of the drugs themselves. The speaker makes several pointed claims about specific medications: - Lisinopril: described as snake venom in a tablet from a viper in Brazil (Jarocas Viper) since 1981, and asserts that the listener may be swallowing dried snake venom to lower blood pressure, even though the doctor may not have explained it this way. - Xarelto: said to be prescribed for atrial fibrillation by a cardiologist. - Imitrex: noted as something people inject for migraines. They challenge the notion that symptoms are caused by deficiencies in these drugs or by the body lacking them. They ask whether the body is deficient in acetaminophen (and by extension Advil) or Tylenol to cause fever, arguing that none of these claims are true. They assert that these are man-made chemicals and drugs and that none of us are deficient in them. The speaker then presents a contrasting view: every single disease and every single symptom is a clear sign that you are specifically nutrient deficient. They contend that when the nutrients are put back into the body—“the nutrients back in that God gave you and put in the earth”—the earth’s supply to the human body aligns with how God designed it, providing everything that’s for the benefit of man. The overall message emphasizes a shift from relying on drugs to restoring nutrients from natural sources as the body’s path to health.

Ozempic carries a black box warning that it increases the risk of all forms of medullary thyroid cancer within twelve months of use. Oncologists are seeing new cancer patients on Ozempic and Wegovy developing breast cancer in under a year. People magazine reported thousands of Americans are experiencing eye-rotting diseases while using Ozempic and Wegovy. Ozempic and Wegovy are made from protein from the Gila monster lizard. The Smithsonian Institute told CNN that Gila monster venom is more deadly and toxic than a western diamondback rattlesnake. The speaker asks if people taking Ozempic and Wegovy believe they are overweight, diabetic, or have heart disease because they are Gila monster venom deficient.

- The speaker discusses a potential connection between electromagnetic radiation (EMR) and diabetes, noting that there has been a slight increase in diabetes rates associated with the rapid expansion of cellular towers, such as after Bill Clinton’s policy changes. - They acknowledge that EMR is not claimed to be the sole cause of diabetes, but suggest that historical data and curves make it tempting to believe EMR could be a significant factor. - The speaker points out that the topic has been present in scientific literature since at least 1931, and asserts that conventional medicine would push back against this viewpoint, with medical education focused on sugar and other factors. - They emphasize that they are not naive and do not claim EMR is the only cause; rather, the implication is that EMR could contribute to diabetes risk. - The argument culminates in a warning: if power systems and telecommunications infrastructure are not designed more carefully, there will be health and national budget costs, implying broader consequences for public health and economic burden.

A recent study found that the malaria drug Chloroquine does not inhibit SARS CoV 2 in lung cells, although it may work in kidney cells. The speaker, who has experience in ocular oncology, contacted the author of the study and pointed out that the lung cells used in the study were actually cancer cells. This means that Chloroquine allows the virus to attack cancer cells but not normal cells. The speaker believes that this is a misinterpretation of the data and accuses the study of being part of a disinformation campaign. They argue that Chloroquine is actually a very effective drug.

A person the speaker knew took Ozempic. The speaker then saw an ad for a class action lawsuit against Ozempic with over a million people suing, claiming Ozempic caused blindness or significant vision loss. This reminded the speaker of an online comment on their Ozempic post, where someone said an acquaintance lost 80% of their vision in one eye the day after taking Ozempic, with no recovery. The speaker is surprised this isn't being discussed more widely.

Speaker 0 raises a concern about the vaccine, asking why every new paper or study seems to claim the vaccine is responsible for a new problem. The question posed is whether the vaccine is really responsible for every negative outcome discussed in the literature, noting rises in cancers and cognitive decline. The speaker questions the blanket attribution of all adverse effects to the vaccine. Speaker 1 responds by suggesting that the world’s population has been poisoned, stating that the protein was devised in the Chinese security lab in Wuhan, China. The speaker claims it is not a natural protein and is not supposed to be in the body. They assert that one can obtain spike protein from having the infection, which almost everyone has had, and from taking the vaccine. The speaker contends that “it’s almost as if we’ve all been poisoned.” They further claim that the spike protein stays in the body and causes disease, listing several specific adverse outcomes: heart disease, neurologic disease, autoimmunity, blood clots, and maybe even cancer.

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 to explain the process of how the vaccine causes myocarditis and pericarditis. Speaker 1 mentions rare reports of myocarditis and pericarditis associated with vaccination. Speaker 0 insists on an explanation of the mechanism, but Speaker 1 does not provide a direct answer. Speaker 1 emphasizes that all medicines have benefits and side effects and refers to the benefit-risk ratio. Speaker 0 continues to press for an explanation of the biochemical pathway, but Speaker 1 agrees to provide a response later. The transcript ends with Speaker 2 confirming Speaker 1's agreement to give a further response.