reSee.it - Related Video Feed

80% of doctors are believed to have lost their minds. An anecdote was shared about a doctor who died shortly after receiving an mRNA gene therapy shot. Another similar incident was mentioned. The speaker emphasized the importance of listening to real stories to understand what is happening.

In my hospital, my patients had a mortality rate of 4.4% while the rest of the country ranged from 25 to 40%. Unfortunately, I faced censorship whenever I mentioned the potential benefits of ivermectin on social media. This censorship, which I refer to as "Facebook jail," prevented me from sharing important information. I strongly believe that many lives were lost unnecessarily due to this censorship. Don't forget to subscribe to our alerts newsletter to stay updated.

In the video, the speaker asks about grade 4 events and deaths reported in the trials. The doctor explains that there were a total of 14 fatal events, with 10 occurring in nasefimab recipients and 4 in placebo recipients. However, the deaths were balanced between the groups due to the randomization. None of the deaths were related to the product, and the causes were in line with the general population's mortality rates. The speaker then asks about grade 4 adverse events, but the doctor is unable to respond immediately without reviewing the data. They request follow-up via written response or at another time. The speaker emphasizes the importance of safety.

A doctor studied every patient born into their practice over ten and a half years, comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated children. The study, published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, included over 500 unvaccinated children and over 3,700 partially vaccinated children. The doctor claims the data showed that the more vaccines a child received, the worse their health outcomes were regarding infections, ADD/ADHD, neurodevelopmental issues, eczema, allergies, and anemia. The doctor states that within five days of the study's online publication, the Oregon Medical Board suspended their license, deeming them a threat to public health. The doctor says they have allowed parents to decide about vaccines, emphasizing informed consent.

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.

We analyzed all patients in my practice, no cherry-picking. Stratified by vaccines, 500 had 0, 3,700+ had some. Results showed more vaccines correlated with worse outcomes: infections, ADD, ADHD, neurodevelopmental issues, eczema, allergies, anemia. Data is powerful. Access to this info would have changed my choices for my daughter. Every parent deserves all information for informed decisions. Translation: We examined all patients in the practice without bias. Results showed a correlation between more vaccines and negative outcomes. Access to this data would have influenced my decisions for my daughter. All parents should have access to complete information for informed choices.

Speaker 0 recalls a case: “patient, he was sick. He looked like he was dying, but they just, like, pushed morphine. He had no pain. You know, they do a pain score, so zero to 10. This guy had zero pain.” Then, “they pushed insulin to drop his sugar, and his glucose was fine. And then he died three minutes later.” He says he “turned him into medical board. I reviewed this chart and turned him into medical board. Nothing.” “But, yeah, they definitely that definitely went on during COVID.” Speaker 1: “Jesus. That is such a terrifying thought that someone would just decide so many people are dying. This guy's definitely gonna die. Yep. This is 100% real?” Speaker 0: “Yeah. Definite. Definite.” Speaker 1: “It's It seems like something” Speaker 0: “they would call it tell euthanasia. They don't call it euthanasia.” Speaker 1: “It seems like something I would tell me, and then I would have to ask you. Like, this is something someone told me. I'm sure this” Speaker 0: “is send you the record that I read to you.” Speaker 1: “It seems like something I would be bringing up to you as a ridiculous thing, and you'd shoot it down.”

The speaker described observing a growing trend of patients choosing not to vaccinate over the next decade and sought to determine if he could prove differences. He collected data from his practice, examining every baby born there, and published the findings in an international journal of public health. The study, described as peer reviewed and robust, reported massive increases in several health outcomes among the vaccinated compared to the unvaccinated, including four to five hundred percent more allergies, autoimmune conditions, and neurodevelopmental issues, as well as infections of all kinds. Following the online publication of the study, he received a call from his attorney instructing him not to see any patients, not to write any prescriptions, and not to enter the office. He was told, “Your license has been emergently suspended. You are a threat to public health.” He stated, “Today is the last time I will be doing clinical medicine in Oregon.” He added, “Knowing that you guys are keeping it going, the heart of this place lives on.”

A person asks a pharmacy employee for the Moderna vaccine safety studies and placebo safety studies. The employee provides the manufacturer's package insert, stating the patient version is truncated, but the full information is inside. The person questions how informed consent is possible if all safety studies aren't listed. The employee agrees, stating they should not be giving the vaccines at all, but are told to. The employee claims everything they have seen, including patients they have given it to, indicates it is safe. When asked about the studies supporting the claim of safety and effectiveness, the employee says they cannot answer.

There was a recent FDA rejection of an MDMA-based therapy for PTSD, a program that had achieved, on its own terms, two successful phase three studies. The speaker notes that the trials were designed exactly as the FDA told them to design, but the episode is tied to the rise of advisory committees—FDA panels of so-called experts who opine on data and recommendations. The FDA is not bound by their recommendations, but they often follow them, sometimes not. In the speaker’s view, the FDA uses these advisory committees as a cover for what they actually want to do, a dynamic the speaker has observed across years in biotech as an investor and company builder. He has sat in eight-hour advisory committee sessions in Maryland, taking detailed notes, and while he didn’t attend the most recent one, he believes it smelled like the briefing documents provided to the committee were used to guide the outcome. He suspects the advisory committee recommended against approval, and the FDA then moved to that outcome. The speaker argues this is a travesty for PTSD patients who have very few options. He focuses on the reasoning the FDA gave for denying approval: the trial was functionally unblinded. Typically, trials use placebo and active drug arms with participants unaware of which treatment they receive, to ensure that observed effects are not merely placebo. The FDA claimed that patients knew whether they were on the MDMA-based therapy because some experienced euphoria, a side effect of the treatment. Therefore, the therapy could appear to work due to unblinding and a placebo effect, rather than a true therapeutic benefit. The speaker emphasizes that the possibility of euphoria being part of the drug’s mechanism—and thus related to its therapeutic effect—was ignored in their assessment, and that this unblinding was, in his view, anticipated by the FDA before agreeing to the phase three protocol, which also added tens or hundreds of millions of dollars in development costs. The speaker criticizes the public record, including biotech press coverage, for focusing on “trial irregularities” or an unblinding issue rather than on the broader cost-benefit and mechanistic considerations. He asserts that the public is left with the notion that there were unblinding issues, not recognizing that the unblinding related to the drug’s therapeutic properties was anticipated and approved by the FDA. He concludes that the episode reveals how the bureaucratic machinery operates, with advisory committees and briefing documents shaping outcomes in a way that aligns with the FDA’s underlying aims.

The speaker's son was diagnosed with an infection, but the nurse practitioner refused to give medication. The speaker questioned this decision and began recording the interaction. The situation escalated, with security being called. The speaker expressed frustration and threatened to share the video with others.

A study at the University of Pittsburgh, which I cannot show images of, was reported on at centerformedicalprogress.org. The study is significant, but the details can be found in the video on the website.

An independent third party determined outcomes were 24% better than the peer group. There was a discussion about videotaping, with someone stating they couldn't videotape what was happening. Doctors were not blocked from prescribing Inventon or any medical treatment they found best for the patient.

The probiotic industry understands the loss of bifidobacterium in cancer and aging populations, but cannot claim probiotics improve longevity due to FDA regulations requiring clinical trials. Doctors also face scrutiny for promoting products without sufficient data. The speaker conducts clinical trials, involving the FDA when bringing products to market, such as ivermectin, doxycycline, and zinc for COVID. Data showed no deaths during treatment, suggesting its effectiveness. Despite a product's market approval with a 20% success rate, the speaker emphasizes the need to address the remaining 80% of patients. Innovation and discussion among doctors are crucial, but social media is now essential for educating doctors and the public due to the high cost of publishing data.

An independent third party determined outcomes were 24% better than the peer group. There was a discussion about whether or not one can videotape the public. Doctors were not blocked from prescribing Inventon or any medical treatment they found best for the patient.

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.

Dr. Miley Trinh, a GP based in Sydney, Australia, joins Jim Ferguson for her first appearance on the show. She explains she has practiced as a GP for nearly thirty years and has been suspended since late 2021 amid a dispute with the health regulator over her license. She describes her suspension as part of a broader fight with regulators and regulators’ attempts to cancel her medical license. Trinh recounts how her concerns about the COVID-19 situation began in 2019, while following global events and studying debt-based economic systems. She states she became alarmed by reports of Wuhan’s lockdown timing, noting that authorities announced a lockdown five days earlier and allowed travel before it commenced, which she found alarming. She observed what she called unusual global coordination in reporting and policy responses to the pandemic, with early treatment being suppressed and a tightly controlled narrative across countries. Regarding ivermectin, she says she concluded after months of research that it was a key medication for treating COVID-19, particularly when given early. She describes participating in doctor groups and Zoom meetings to discuss how to treat patients and notes she treated a patient by telephone during lockdown who was deteriorating. She reports that the patient improved after her treatment but later faced complications requiring hospital care. She says two complaints were filed against her in September 2021—the first from a patient she had helped, and the second from an individual named John Smith who obtained a prescription that belonged to a family member for ivermectin. She asserts John Smith did not belong to her practice, and that the prescription was allegedly handed to an APRA (Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency) agent, a fact she says regulators overlooked when investigating her practice. Trinh emphasizes that she had never before faced a complaint in nearly thirty years of practice and that the suspension hearing concluded with her being deemed a danger to public health, despite her insistence that she saved a life. She has remained suspended for over four years. She describes the regulatory process as involving claims of prescribing ivermectin “below standard” and accusations of professional misconduct for not handing over 20 to 30 patient medical files, which she says she refused to provide because she did not know the patients’ names and because none of the patients had filed complaints against her. She notes that hearings occurred in December, March, and August, with subsequent issues over transcript integrity and requests for recusal of the presiding judge. She says a decision on the main case is imminent, but a cancellation of her license could entail a three to five-year suspension and substantial costs, complicating the possibility of reinstatement. Beyond her case, she argues the fight is about medical autonomy and the right for physicians to tailor treatments to individual patients, not be dictated by politicians or rigid guidelines. She criticizes what she views as a heavily censored environment for doctors who questioned the pandemic narrative or advocated for therapeutics like ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, vitamin D, and zinc. She asserts that the COVID-19 Task Force guidelines opposed ivermectin and other therapeutics, and she contends such guidelines restrict doctors’ ability to provide individualized care. Trinh links the censorship and regulatory pressure to broader concerns about global governance, citing media suppression, removal of dissent on platforms like Facebook and YouTube, and increased control over platforms such as X (formerly Twitter). She mentions public support, including her presence on X and Facebook, as important to her ongoing legal battle and the broader struggle over medical autonomy and truth during the pandemic. She concludes by inviting people to follow her on X and Facebook to learn more and to show support as she pursues potential appeals if the judgment does not go in her favor. She frames her case as about more than COVID-19 alone: it is about challenging what she views as a long-standing, disproportionate control of doctors and a fight for fundamental rights, including the right to a hearing before the tribunal and the right to medical decision-making free from political interference.

A nurse and a doctor discuss the use of ventilators in hospitals during the pandemic. The nurse reveals that some floors were carrying out actions that other floors refused to do, essentially causing harm to patients. The doctor mentions that ventilators were used to protect healthcare workers, even though they had a high fatality rate for patients. The lack of transparency with patients and families is highlighted, as well as the reluctance to explore alternative treatments like Ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine. The speaker also mentions the incentivization of using certain drugs and protocols that led to unnecessary deaths.

Four days after ordering a deadly injection, Dr. Picchu allegedly ordered the removal of the COVID-19 vaccination record from the patient's medical file. The speaker claims any doctor would know not to vaccinate an ill patient, especially one recently off a ventilator. The head of the ICU ordered an mRNA injection for COVID-19 for a patient less than a week removed from a mechanical ventilator. The patient died later that week. The speaker states that Dr. Picho, head of the ICU in British Columbia, still has his medical license.

In the discussion, Speaker 0 argues that word-of-mouth PR surrounding ivermectin “saved so many lives” and created widespread distrust in the industry, describing a shift where people questioned official stances: “My oxygen was low, and I did take ivermectin and it did work. Why are they telling me ivermectin doesn't work?” This view frames ivermectin as having proven effectiveness in practice, contrasting with public or institutional statements. Speaker 1 adds that it’s “really hard not to get angry” about the official trials, claiming that the WHO and, specifically, the Oxford trials demonstrated that ivermectin didn’t work, but that it “patently does.” They describe the fundamental problem as the way those trials were conducted, implying methodological issues. They discuss specifics of how the studies tested different drugs: Speaker 0 notes that hydroxychloroquine was given “with food” in the study, while ivermectin was given on an empty stomach, implying a potential misapplication of administration guidelines. They state that Merck’s initial labeling for ivermectin in other indications (scabies and lice) recommends administration with a fatty meal, and share a personal anecdote that their sister introduced ivermectin to the market for lice and conducted a clinical trial with many patients. Speaker 1 questions why leading clinicians would administer these drugs without knowing the correct guidelines, suggesting there should have been knowledge about administration with meals for hydroxychloroquine and with food for ivermectin. They remark, “Why the heck didn’t they know that?” Speaker 0 contends that physicians adhere to guidelines and hospital rules and fear lawsuits; they claim this fear leads to doctors “not even wanna know” certain information. They express the sentiment that the medical community was discouraged or constrained by fear of legal consequences and licensing actions, which contributed to doctors avoiding or stopping certain lines of inquiry or treatment. Overall, the dialogue centers on a perceived discrepancy between real-world outcomes of ivermectin use and official trial conclusions, the role of administration guidelines in trial results, and the influence of fear of legal ramifications on clinical practice.

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.

In this video, the speaker shares their frustration with their hospital's restrictions on using off-label drugs like methylprednisolone and vitamin C. They criticize the hospital for not allowing the use of vitamin C, which they consider a basic and safe drug. Instead, the hospital promotes the use of Remdesivir, despite its known risks. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), Remdesivir increases the risk of kidney failure by twentyfold and the risk of death by about 4%. The speaker believes that hospitals prioritize industry interests over patient well-being, as they receive a 20% bonus for prescribing this toxic medication.

No doctor can deny patients medications like Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine if there has been a fair discussion. These drugs have been supported by numerous clinical trials and are recommended as first-line therapy in many government guidelines worldwide. Every American, including Texans, has the right to receive these drugs in the hospital after discussing with their doctor. It is unethical, immoral, and illegal for doctors to refuse patients and deny them shared decision-making and personal autonomy. We must not allow this to happen.

We analyzed all patients in my practice, regardless of vaccines. Unvaccinated kids showed fewer health issues compared to vaccinated ones over 10 years. The data led to my license suspension, but I fight for informed consent and patient rights.