reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Dr. Peter McCullough, an internist, cardiologist, and epidemiologist, discusses the adverse effects of both the SARS-CoV-2 infection and the COVID-19 vaccines. He criticizes the World Health Organization (WHO) for its role in the cover-up of the virus's origins and its lack of support for early treatment protocols. Dr. McCullough highlights the dangers of the mRNA vaccines, including cardiovascular disease, neurologic issues, blood clots, and immunologic abnormalities. He urges people to reconsider taking any more shots and calls for the removal of the vaccines from the market. Dr. McCullough also suggests that major stakeholders should withdraw from the WHO.

The speaker claims that COVID vaccines had more risks than benefits. They argue that the risk of infection increased, while the risk of hospitalization and death from COVID remained unchanged. They also suggest that all-cause mortality increased due to the vaccines. The speaker criticizes the vaccines as one of the worst interventions in medical history. They mention global censorship, where those trying to speak the truth are censored. Additionally, they highlight immunity for drug companies and intimidation tactics, such as job loss or loss of credentials, against doctors who speak the truth.

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 has 32 years of experience in the pharmaceutical and biotech industries, with senior positions at Pfizer, including vice president and worldwide head of research in allergic and respiratory diseases. Since 2020, the speaker claims to have been speaking out against the fraudulent pandemic and the intentionally dangerous injections. The speaker states that they have been censored and smeared as a result. The speaker suggests that censorship and smearing is the experience of people who try to convey truths that authorities want suppressed.

I was fired after 31 years as an emergency room physician without any patient complaints. My dismissal was due to my belief that individuals with natural immunity did not need vaccination. While I lost over 50% of my income and can no longer work in the emergency room, I still maintain my private practice. I discovered that Pfizer's biodistribution studies revealed the vaccines spread throughout the body, not just remaining in the arm. The messenger RNA from the vaccines affects various organs, including the brain, lungs, heart, liver, reproductive organs, and bone marrow. This widespread distribution is why the COVID vaccines have resulted in a broader range of side effects than any other medical treatment in history.

The speakers discuss an interview with Robert Malone that received significant pushback. One speaker expresses disappointment in individuals like Joni Mitchell and Neil Young, wishing they would review studies and Robert Kennedy's book to become better informed. The speakers claim mainstream media's objectives prevent them from discussing certain topics. They suggest those criticizing the Malone interview likely hadn't listened to it, instead relying on mainstream media's portrayal of it as dangerous misinformation. One speaker asserts that everything Malone said has proven true, including claims about the lab leak, vaccine side effects, distorted studies, and information suppression. They mention a Yale study indicating spike protein production over 700 days post-injection, contrary to initial beliefs. They allege cover-ups, obfuscation, and doctors downplaying issues to avoid repercussions from mandating the injections.

- The speaker notes dated 07/25/2022, reporting on developments related to baby deaths and baby funerals. They reference the UK government website, and specifically Northampton NHS in detail mentioning children's funerals, noting that contracts for this area have appeared that were previously unseen. They point to contractfinderservice.gov.uk and advise looking for “children's and babies' funerals.” They identify several awarded contracts, including one for Hertfordshire, another for Hertfordshire specifically for baby funerals, and contracts awarded for Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS, and Leicester Hospitals NHS. - The speaker mentions that the WNHS is another organization involved for those who do not want to have Mexican arranged funerals, stating that they will do that for you now. - A doctor in Australia, Dr. Luke McClinton, is described as leading the fertility services at the Mater Hospital and as a principal investigator for a series of randomized controlled trials. He is also described as the president of the Australian Institute for Restorative Reproductive Medicine and is labeled as “the top doctor in Australia in this field.” - The speaker asserts that Dr. Luke McClinton was sacked on Friday for not getting the jab and for attempting to release his data on miscarriages post-vaccination. They state that he has until the following Friday to exit his private practice rooms, as he is no longer allowed to practice in public or private settings. - The speaker claims that Dr. McClinton has been investigating miscarriages in couples post-vaccination and states that the “normal miscarriage rate” is between five and perhaps as high as sixteen percent. They then claim that since the introduction of the vaccine, he has found that seventy-four percent of women who are vaccinated are now having miscarriages. - The speaker reiterates the statistic: “Seventy four percent of women are having miscarriages who are vaccinated.” They suggest that this statistic would explain why hospitals allegedly want to deal directly with crematoria, with vans taking multiple babies directly to the crematorium, bypassing funeral directors. The speaker emphasizes that they had previously mentioned these points.

I fell for the propaganda and got double vaccinated, only to realize I was misled about ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, masks, and social distancing. I faced censorship, slander, and conspiracy accusations for speaking out. Wikipedia is controlled by intelligence agencies, labeling controversial topics as conspiracy theories.

"Your government doesn't censor those people as a way to do the best that it can." The speaker recalls being interviewed by a major newspaper and "I bring up doctor Peter McCullough every time" when asked "what evidence? What proof?" They argue that "the world's leading heart doctor" and "the most published heart doctor in the world was censored during COVID." They question whether "the government was just doing the best that it could under the circumstances," answering "Like, no." The speaker asserts that "The best a government that considers itself to be in a free nation does not go out of its way to censor world renowned scientists, doctors, the number one heart doctor in the world in doctor Peter McCullough, the most published ICU doctor the world in doctor Paul Merrick, the inventor of the technology itself, doctor Robert Malone." "Your government doesn't censor those people as a way to do the best that it can."

Some people love the vaccines, while others hate them. The speaker acknowledges that vaccines have saved lives, but also mentions concerns about their safety. Reports vary on the effectiveness and problems with the vaccines, but the speaker claims to have saved 100 million lives. They argue that those who get very sick and go to the hospital are usually the ones who haven't taken the vaccine. The mainstream media is accused of stifling information about adverse reactions. The speaker believes the vaccines have saved millions of lives but criticizes the media for pausing the Johnson and Johnson vaccine over a small number of cases.

Speaker 0 argues that ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine were suppressed because they are well-established drugs with safety records and billions of doses used; ivermectin is a human drug that also works on horses and won the Nobel Prize for its effectiveness in humans. He states there is a federal law that says an emergency use authorization (EUA) for a vaccine cannot be granted if there is any approved medication shown effective against the target disease, so admitting effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin would have made EUA for vaccines illegal and would have collapsed a “200,000,000,000 enterprise.” Speaker 1 notes this is the first time hearing that assertion, acknowledging it’s in the book. He suggests that if the medical community had been saying ivermectin is an effective COVID treatment, EUA for vaccines could not have been granted. Speaker 0 explains that many in the medical community supported effectiveness, citing a petition signed by 17,000 doctors and numerous peer-reviewed publications, but Fauci aggressively crusaded against it, labeling it a horse medication and alleging danger and overdosing to drown out those reports. Speaker 1 asks why Fauci continued to push the claim after EUA was granted. Speaker 0 answers that, even with EUA, the law may require withdrawal if a functioning medication exists, implying a motive to undermine ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine. He mentions a strong incentive for Fauci to kill these medications and cites several doctors who treated tens of thousands of COVID patients and supported the claim that the science shows many lives could have been saved. He names Harvey Reich at Yale, Peter McCulloch as the most published doctor in history and prominent in biostatistics/epidemiology, and Peter Quarry in connection with the doctors who treated many patients. They allegedly state that half a million Americans did not need to die.

The speaker claims colored vaccines are dangerous, with no clinical benefit and over 10,000,000 deaths worldwide. They suggest avoiding vaccination altogether, citing studies showing unvaccinated kids are healthier. They criticize censorship by the government and medical boards, leading to job loss and license revocation for speaking out against the narrative. The medical journals are also deemed corrupt. Speaker 1 mentions not every batch causes harm, as they themselves took a few shots without issue.

Dr. Malone, who resigned as vice chair of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices under the Trump administration, is introduced as an early mRNA vaccine researcher who warned about the COVID vaccine, was deplatformed, censored, and later sued the Biden administration for censorship. The hosts note that his joining the Trump administration gave some in the MAHA community hope that the government would listen to evidence-based doctors and experts, but his resignation raises questions about why the MAHA movement seems stalled. Malone is asked to grade the MAHA movement’s progress inside the Trump administration. He responds: the grade would have to be a C. It’s not failing and is succeeding in many things, particularly relating to nutrition—nutrition agenda, food safety, food integrity, improving SNAP benefits, children's food in schools, and food for military personnel. However, there was a major setback on glyphosate policies, and there is frustration about the administration’s willingness to shut down any discussions about vaccine policy in advance of the midterms, based on polling and opinions within the West Wing. The conversation shifts to naming individuals who allegedly torpedo MAHA inside the White House. The hosts name Susie Wiles, and Malone hedges about naming others, but indicates Overton—Marty Makary’s former postdoc, a Hopkins MD—has been a major factor in influencing policy to shut down vaccine discussions and to realign vaccine policy with Western peers, while cutting back on mandated vaccines. The hosts discuss polling suggesting MAHA represents only about two to five percent of the electorate and that this group is expendable if it risks broader vaccine controversy. The discussion emphasizes that the media misrepresents vaccine policy changes. Malone and a host insist that vaccines were not taken away, access was not removed, subsidies were not removed, and indemnification programs were not withdrawn. They describe a realignment toward “shared decision making,” which requires active informed consent with a pediatrician about whether to accept a vaccine product. They cite the American Academy of Pediatrics lawsuit against Bobby Kennedy, arguing that the cost to pediatricians to engage in informed consent is a core issue for those opposing this approach, with corporate pediatrics and time-pressure in clinics also involved. They discuss the possibility of withdrawing PrEP Act coverage for mRNA products, a policy supported by the secretary but not allowed to proceed. Malone notes internal discussions around visible data on pediatric deaths related to COVID vaccines, and mentions VAERS cases identified by Tracey Beth Hogue (now acting director of the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research) that were later downplayed; he claims there was a cover-up through the crisis and references data on DNA adulteration as another example. The dialogue touches on internal White House dynamics, including Heidi Overton’s role and the anti-vaccine-mandate stance, and suggests that the administration’s moderation of vaccine controversy before the midterms reflects strategic polling rather than a shift in belief about vaccines. Malone asserts the secretary supports withdrawing PrEP Act coverage, though he can’t confirm for certain. They discuss media sensationalism around measles vaccines and vaccines in general, noting that headlines claim RFK Jr. is removing vaccines, but the speakers argue vaccines remain accessible and subsidized. Malone emphasizes the broader problem of public health policy being weaponized and politicized, rather than rationally examined to help the public make informed decisions, and contrasts U.S. policy with Scandinavian approaches where vaccine uptake remains high without mandates. The host asks about chemtrails and weather manipulation; Malone traces it to historical interests, governance, and current political priorities, concluding that the administration does not prioritize this issue and that MAHA must mobilize voters to press it if they want action. The interview ends with encouragement to subscribe to Malone’s Substack, Malone News, and a reflection on fragmentation and the influence of AI on public discourse, with Malone recommending a simpler, steadier life and a homestead.

My friends, including doctors, who initially supported vaccines are now skeptical due to the COVID vaccine propaganda, adverse effects like strokes and heart attacks, athletes collapsing, and increased all-cause mortality post-vaccination. Some even got pacemakers. People are hesitant to admit they were wrong and may have harmed others.

Countries with high vaccine uptake had major COVID outbreaks. Doctor Robert Malone said the vaccine is leaky, so it won't end the pandemic. Sharing this info led to hate and slander. People close to me turned on me publicly. Now we know who the cowards are, who would side with Nazis. Those who stayed silent are cowards too. Top comics shame anyone questioning big pharma and corrupt government.

- 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.

Speaker 0: I was fired after thirty one years as an emergency room physician with not one single patient complaint against me in those thirty one years. I was fired for saying that somebody who had natural immunity didn't need to be vaccinated against the disease to which they were already immune. Fortunately, I still had my medical license even though I lost a significant part, at least 50% of my income and I couldn't work as an emergency room doctor anymore, I still had my private practice. So when I discovered from the the biodistribution studies that Pfizer had hidden, that we knew that these vaccines go around your entire body, they do not just stay in your arm. Pfizer's biodistribution studies on the lipid nanoparticles show that they literally take those messenger RNA strands into every part of your body that go into your brain and your lungs and your heart and your liver and your reproductive organs and your bone marrow and everywhere, which is, by the way, why these COVID shots have caused a a greater array of side effects than any other medical treatment in history because this toxic spike protein ends up in literally every every

Most doctors can't tolerate being called quacks or having their reputation destroyed. "can we stop giving vaccines to my sick patients, to people who are having, chemotherapy while they're having chemotherapy to my patient before I've even seen them on the ward? Can we just can we just hold this up and give it to them on the day of discharge?" That was my request in the beginning. "do you know that they're giving COVID vaccines to six month old children now?" "We know how bad it is. We know that it ruins stem cells in pregnant women. They don't give stem cells to their babies. The industry is upset because the placentas no longer have stem cells." "There were two snake genes in there." "Nope. We gotta put it on the vaccine, the baby vaccine schedule, because any doubts whether or not well funded about the vaccination must not be allowed to exist." "Well, that that's been the case since, you know, basically, the the medical profession was infiltrated in the early nineteen hundreds by, you know, high level interests that that didn't want us thinking for ourselves and carrying along with the natural cures that actually work."

The speaker claims to have gained two million subscribers in a month after being portrayed as a "maniac," because people found him reasonable. He cites interviewing Dr. Robert Malone, who has nine patents in mRNA vaccine technology and reported severe adverse effects, and Dr. Peter McCullough, described as the most published physician in his field, who took a moral stand and faced career destruction. The speaker states that McCullough was right all along. The speaker identifies people who are morally obligated to tell the truth and warns that people may be getting bamboozled.

Dr. Peter McCullough, an internist, cardiologist, and epidemiologist, discusses the adverse effects of both the SARS-CoV-2 infection and the COVID-19 vaccines. He criticizes the World Health Organization (WHO) for its role in covering up the origins of the virus and for not supporting early treatment protocols. Dr. McCullough highlights the dangers of the mRNA vaccines, including cardiovascular disease, neurologic issues, blood clots, and immunologic abnormalities. He presents data showing that a significant percentage of people experience severe side effects from the vaccines. Dr. McCullough calls for the removal of all COVID-19 vaccines from the market and suggests that major stakeholders should withdraw from the WHO.

The speaker finds it difficult to find someone who hasn't been damaged by the vaccine, and even senior consultant colleagues haven't connected their ailments to the vaccine. The speaker claims the vaccine causes autoimmune diseases, of which there are 131 types, all reportedly linked to the vaccine. Individually, these appear as coincidences, but collectively, a high percentage of vaccinated people suffer from one or more autoimmune conditions. The speaker is annoyed by their GP practice constantly pushing boosters, even knowing their views, suggesting they are incentivized by payment. The speaker believes that if the practice adhered to "first do no harm," they would refuse to administer the vaccines.

In this video, Dr. Peter McCullough, a cardiologist and internist, addresses the failures of the medical community and governments in responding to the COVID-19 pandemic. He emphasizes the significance of early treatment and the use of virucidal nasal washes and sprays to reduce virus transmission. Dr. McCullough criticizes the lack of collaboration and comparative data among hospitals for improving treatment strategies. He also raises concerns about the effectiveness and safety of the COVID-19 vaccines, pointing out the absence of long-term studies and potential risks associated with repeated booster shots. Additionally, he discusses cases of myocarditis and heart attacks in young, healthy individuals who have received the vaccine, and criticizes the lack of investigation into these cases. Dr. McCullough highlights the denial and defense of the vaccine by some individuals, even after experiencing adverse effects. He suggests using natural supplements to help remove the spike protein from the body and emphasizes the importance of seeing patients and publishing scientific research to maintain credibility and avoid bias. Overall, Dr. McCullough argues that honesty, transparency, and collaboration are lacking in the current discourse surrounding the pandemic and vaccines.

A physician recounts being attacked for offering alternative COVID treatments and questioning vaccine efficacy. Despite treating thousands of patients and being proven more accurate than public health authorities, she is still fighting to keep her medical license. The physician describes treating a sheriff's deputy with COVID in February, following the vaccine rollout, when ivermectin was difficult to obtain. She notes primary care doctors often did not treat viruses, leading to catastrophic outcomes. After President Trump touted hydroxychloroquine, the Texas State Board of Pharmacy restricted its prescription. The government then launched a PR campaign against ivermectin, influencing hospitals to mandate vaccines. The physician observed more vaccinated individuals contracting COVID with similar or worse symptoms. Monoclonal antibodies, which worked effectively, were removed as an option, allegedly to promote vaccination. A urology department considered refusing unvaccinated patients. The physician faced obstacles in obtaining emergency privileges to administer ivermectin to the sheriff's deputy, who ultimately survived but suffered long-term health issues and later passed away. The Texas Medical Board is pursuing charges against the physician for recommending COVID therapy. The expert witness against her is a Planned Parenthood lab director. She highlights the politicization of medicine, the loss of power for doctors, and the influence of corporations and insurance companies. She expresses concern over COVID shot injuries, the shots being added to the childhood vaccine schedule, and the potential for long-term immune system damage.

The speaker believes COVID vaccine programs should be stopped. They are astounded by the number of papers critical of the vaccine or showing negative effects. The speaker claims a group of researchers funded by Pfizer and the NIH bullies editors to retract papers with negative findings about the vaccine. They assert the number of retractions is appalling. According to the speaker, in one instance where an editor resisted, Nature Springer bought the journal and retracted the paper. The speaker states that this is what they have been dealing with.