reSee.it - Related Video Feed

I found something interesting for Elon and the Doge team regarding Medicare. In 2022, Medicare filled 85,000 prescriptions for Perfinidone at $8,000 each, totaling $680 million. At my cost-plus pharmacy, the same prescription is only $200. Filling all 85,000 prescriptions with me would only cost $17 million. Medicare is overpaying by $663 million annually because Pharmacy Benefits Managers (PBMs) get a percentage of the cost, incentivizing them to inflate prices. The easy solution is to cancel the PBM contracts and use actual costs. If you want to check if PBMs have been raising the cost of your medications, go to forestparkpharmacy.com and check our price to see how much you could save.

One breast cancer drug costs over $16,000 per bottle in America. The same drug, from the same factory and company, costs one sixth the price in Australia. In Sweden, the identical product costs one tenth the American price.

A speaker points out a peanut and says people become allergic because, in the 1960s, peanut oil was allegedly put into vaccines “by Pfizer,” so injecting peanut oil would supposedly cause peanut allergies. The speaker claims Pfizer owns the EpiPen used for peanut allergies, citing a book that explains Pfizer’s ownership of the EpiPen, and argues that Pfizer would then both have “made” people allergic and also own the solution carried by schools. The speaker then discusses other possible reasons people report allergic reactions when they eat peanuts. They suggest that peanuts may be processed with pesticides or chemicals, or sprayed with pesticides while growing, and that individuals might be allergic to pesticides rather than peanuts themselves. They further say that if someone is not allergic to pesticides and has not had a “peanut injection or vaccine,” the remaining factor is peanut processing: most peanut butters, they claim, are boiled and roasted, meaning peanuts are cooked twice before eating and are not in raw form. To obtain raw peanuts, the speaker says one should look to Virginia, which “grows all the raw peanuts” in the shell. They describe the peanut as “good for the prostate, ovaries, for the brain,” and for “testosterone” and “estrogen,” and say it helps push food through the stomach when there is buildup inside. The speaker also claims it can help with “the big C,” listing support for prostate cancer, breast cancer, and intestinal cancers, concluding that “that was the peanut.”

A businessman told the speaker that the same fat shot drug cost him $88 in London, but $1,300 in New York. He was stunned that the identical pill, made in the same plant by the same company, had such different prices. The speaker discussed this with drug company representatives. They argued for about half an hour, but ultimately the representative admitted there was no justification for the price difference.

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.

The speaker discusses a CNN segment where they portrayed him as taking horse medication. He criticizes the repeated claims and believes it shows a conspiracy. He clarifies that the medication, Ivermectin, is commonly used in humans and has even won a Nobel Prize for its efficacy. The speaker suggests that Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine were discredited to protect the vaccine industry, as federal law prohibits emergency use authorization if there is an existing effective medication. Acknowledging the effectiveness of these medications would have jeopardized the multi-billion dollar vaccine enterprise.

The discussion centers on the idea that the body creates parasites as a detox signal. Wendy Meyer, a microbiologist, is cited as explaining that parasites and candida are formed to eat heavy metals in the body, alongside other detox responses such as fever, chills, and nausea, which signal that something is wrong. The speaker notes that searching online will reveal thousands of studies and the claim that “parasites are the accumulation indicators of heavy metal pollution.” On detox methods, the speaker asserts that detoxification is easy and lists substances that purportedly pull out heavy metals, including wormwood; dragon's blood; borax; turpentine; chiller jot; raw meat; cilantro; cayenne; pumpkin seeds; moldy berries; and baking soda. The discussion then pivots to ivermectin, suggesting a critique of pharmaceutical companies as the creators of ivermectin and implying a broader conspiracy about who controls medicine. A conspiratorial thread is developed: the same entities who make vaccines are claimed to be behind ivermectin, with a provocative claim that “the Rockefellers own the pharmaceutical companies.” The speakers argue that there is a war on worms, a war on bacteria, and a war on “you,” framed as profit-driven attacks. It is asserted that the Rockefellers also own Planned Parenthood, the medical system, and the educational system, and that this constitutes brainwashing both domestically and internationally. The implication is that pills are promoted, leading to ongoing poisoning of people and animals, ensuring customers for life. The transcript concludes by recommending the book Murder by Injection by Eustace Mullins as a resource to understand that the medical system has been owned by the Rockefeller family since 1910, describing it as driven by profits. The overall narrative ties body detox, parasite and heavy metal discussion, detox remedies, and the ivermectin debate to a larger conspiracy about control of medicine and health systems by powerful interests.

The speaker discusses a CNN segment where they portrayed him as taking horse medication. He believes this is evidence of a conspiracy, as the medication in question, Ivermectin, is commonly used in humans and has even won a Nobel Prize for its efficacy. He suggests that Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine were discredited to protect the vaccine industry, as federal law prohibits emergency use authorization for vaccines if there are existing effective medications. Acknowledging the effectiveness of these medications would have undermined the multi-billion dollar vaccine industry.

Brenzavvy, a drug similar to Jardiance or Farxiga, is not covered by insurance, prescribed by doctors, or carried by wholesalers because it is too cheap. Brenzavvy costs $60 at the speaker's pharmacy. Pharmacy benefits managers (PBMs) deny coverage because Brenzavvy's low price prevents rebates. Farxiga and Jardiance cost insurance payers $1,000 upfront with a 40% rebate. An HHS report stated PBMs get 23% on average for brand meds. After rebates, Farxiga and Jardiance still cost $600, with PBMs earning $138. With 8,000,000 prescriptions a year, PBMs make $1,100,000,000 off those two drugs. The speaker claims PBMs keep Brenzavvy off their lists to avoid losing a billion dollars annually. The speaker believes affordable healthcare is impossible with PBMs involved. The speaker encourages listeners to use forestpark.pharmacy to save money and to inform their bosses about potential savings.

Speaker 0 argues that sunscreen is a product pushed by Big Pharma, which sells sunscreen while not promoting healthy choices like eating well or building a base tan. The speaker claims that pharmaceutical companies “took those chemicals and bake[d] it into their skin” and use fear of the sun to create a recurring customer base, including selling products for children and eventually pills later in life. The transcript contends that the real issue is diet and toxins: “What you're what you're eating,” and that consuming toxins leads to more burning, as the skin tries to expel these toxins with the sun. This creates a recurring cycle of exposure and illness driven by the supposed toxins in food and products. The speaker questions the ubiquity of sunscreen by contrasting humans with animals, noting that birds and other animals don’t wear sunscreen, even though humans are told to use it and follow doctor recommendations allegedly paid by Big Pharma. The implication is that consumer fear is manipulated and that medical professionals may be influenced by industry interests. The overall claim is that the sunscreen narrative is fear-based, designed to keep people buying sunscreen annually and to push products onto children, with a broader scheme to keep people sick and generate ongoing pharmaceutical sales. The speaker frames the sunscreen recommendation as a contrived protection tactic that benefits industry rather than solely protecting health.

The speaker discusses a CNN segment where they portrayed him as taking horse medication. He believes this is evidence of a conspiracy, as the medication in question, Ivermectin, is commonly used in humans and has even won a Nobel Prize for its efficacy. The speaker suggests that Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine were discredited to protect the vaccine industry, as federal law prohibits emergency use authorization for vaccines if there are existing effective medications. Acknowledging the effectiveness of these medications would have undermined the multi-billion dollar vaccine industry.

The speaker questions why the American version of Froot Loops contains artificial dyes and BHT, while the Canadian version does not. The Canadian version is made in the US with a different formulation, lacking red 40, yellow five, yellow six, and blue one. The speaker suggests two reasons for this discrepancy. First, natural food colorings are more expensive than artificial dyes derived from petroleum. Second, manufacturers acknowledge that natural food colorings are less bright and therefore less appealing to children.

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.

A businessman told the speaker that the same fat shot drug cost him $88 in London but $1,300 in New York. The drugs were identical, made in the same plant by the same company. The speaker discussed this with a representative from the drug companies, who admitted there was no justification for the price difference.

Only two countries worldwide allow pharmaceutical TV ads, including the U.S., where over a billion dollars monthly is spent. These ads convey that Americans frequently experience bowel and bladder issues, active seniors enjoy tennis and sex, and pills can solve any problem, even pill overuse. The speaker questions the need to suggest medications to doctors and highlights the growth of ketamine clinics in America. Western medicine, it's argued, treats respectable drugs differently from street drugs, despite similarities. Oxycodone is heroin, Adderall is meth, and Ritalin is cocaine for kids. Ketamine, once an illegal club drug, was FDA-approved as an anesthetic. The speaker suggests the first drug one uses is the gateway drug, be it beer, pot, or pharmaceuticals prescribed to children. Resisting profitable but harmful substances requires individual effort.

One breast cancer drug costs Americans over $16,000 per bottle. The same drug, from the same factory, manufactured by the same company, costs one-sixth the price in Australia. In Sweden, the identical product costs one-tenth the price.

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.

Speaker 0 expresses frustration over a price discrepancy in a prescription transaction. The core facts cited are: a medication that costs $4 to dispense, when billed to the insurance, results in the patient being charged $97.06. Speaker 0 repeats the puzzling situation: “We have a claim for a prescription that costs less than $4. The insurance wants to charge the patient $97.” The concern is the patient’s likely reaction: they will be yelled at and blame CVS for the high price set by their insurance, even though the dispensing cost is described as less than $4. Speaker 0 highlights the misalignment between the pharmacy’s dispensing cost and the amount the patient is asked to pay after insurance processing, indicating a breakdown in the expected pricing flow from the pharmacy to insurance to patient. The dialogue underscores the emotional and reputational pressure on the pharmacy staff when patients perceive the price as excessive, regardless of where the markup originates. The closing sentiment, “Love you CVS,” signals a mixture of familiarity and exasperation with the CVS system or process involved in this pricing scenario, though the exact sentiment toward CVS is not elaborated beyond that line.

There is a growing problem of people using a drug meant for animals to treat COVID-19. This false information started with a viral video from a group called America's frontline doctors, claiming that hydroxychloroquine could cure COVID. They later started promoting another drug called Ivermectin as a cure for COVID, despite warnings from the CDC, FDA, and other health organizations that it is not effective and could be harmful. Ivermectin is actually meant to prevent parasites in animals like horses. It's important to rely on approved treatments and vaccines to prevent COVID-19.

A common asthma drug costs almost $500 in America, but less than $40 in The United Kingdom. The speaker highlights the significant price difference, noting one person paid a small amount for the same shot in the UK. The weight loss drug Ozempic costs 10 times more in The United States than in the rest of the developed world, according to the speaker, who questions the reason for this disparity.

I've identified wasteful spending in Medicare, specifically with generic Cialis, or Tadalafil. In 2022, Medicare spent $237 million on this drug, averaging $481 per prescription across 492,000 prescriptions. However, at my pharmacy, the same prescription costs only $14 without insurance. That means it would only cost $7 million to cover the entire country at my pharmacy's pricing. The overcharge of $230 million for just this one drug is due to pharmacy benefits managers (PBMs). PBMs manage all pharmacy-related aspects for Medicare, deciding coverage, copays, government costs, and pharmacy payments. They've essentially decided on a 3000% markup. It's time to fire the PBMs and bring prices back to reality. To check the markups on your prescriptions, visit forestparkpharmacy.com and use our price checker.

A common asthma drug costs almost $500 in America, but less than $40 in The United Kingdom. The speaker stated that an individual in the UK paid a small amount for their shot, contrasting sharply with the $500 cost in the US. The weight loss drug Ozempic costs 10 times more in The United States than in the rest of the developed world. The speaker questions the reason for this disparity.

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.

The speakers discuss the exposure of mainstream media and how it tries to dismiss and discredit them. They mention the framing of Ivermectin as horse medicine and find it amusing. They clarify that they took Ivermectin based on the judgment of a medical professional and list other medications they used for COVID treatment. They mention that 200 congresspeople have also been treated with Ivermectin. They speculate that the demonization of Ivermectin may be motivated by financial interests since it is a generic drug. The video ends with the information that Ivermectin costs around 30¢ per dose.

The speaker discusses a CNN segment where they portrayed him as taking horse medication. He argues that this portrayal is a clear indication of a conspiracy, as the medication in question, Ivermectin, is commonly used in humans and has even won a Nobel Prize for its efficacy in humans. The speaker believes that Ivermectin had to be discredited in order to promote the COVID-19 vaccines, as federal law prohibits emergency use authorization for vaccines if there is an existing effective medication. Acknowledging Ivermectin's effectiveness would have jeopardized the multi-billion dollar vaccine industry.