reSee.it - Related Video Feed

There is a drug called GHB that was once used to treat insomnia and had many other beneficial effects. However, it was made illegal due to the threat it posed to various drug markets. The FDA and media launched a campaign against GHB, falsely portraying it as a dangerous date rape drug. The media unquestioningly repeated the government's talking points without evidence. The banning of GHB was based on deceptive inaccuracies and fear-mongering. Despite its potential benefits, it became difficult to conduct research on GHB. This is another example of how the government and media manipulate information to serve their own interests.

In 1964, GHB, a sleeping medication, was remarkably effective for insomnia and other conditions. By 1990, the FDA, allegedly in collusion with the media, launched a campaign to suppress it, similar to what happened with ivermectin. GHB put recipients into a deep sleep cycle, resulting in feeling refreshed and energized, and increased growth hormone levels, improving strength, stamina, and healing. It also aided in treating addictions, Parkinson's, and childbirth, and had aphrodisiac effects. Despite these benefits, GHB was banned due to fears of it being a date rape drug. The FDA issued a press release warning against its use, leading to its ban and raids on suppliers. The FDA argued there was no evidence of GHB's valid use or safety, while simultaneously blocking evidence to the contrary in court. The media amplified fears, labeling GHB as dangerous and lethal. However, data showed GHB was rarely involved in emergency room reports or sexual assaults. The law made GHB a schedule one drug, but with an exemption for a pharmaceutical preparation, making it schedule three. Some believe the stories of GHB rapes were a hoax, and that the FDA and media unjustly demonized the drug.

The Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) regulation from the Clinton administration included safeguards. You can distribute a medication without approval, clinical trials, or safety testing, but only if no existing approved drug is effective against the target illness. To use the EUA for vaccines, any effective drugs against COVID needed to be discredited. Early on, it was known that hydroxychloroquine was effective against coronavirus. NIH studies demonstrated its effectiveness both as a preventative and as a cure. Ivermectin was also very effective. Acknowledging that these drugs worked would have eliminated the use of the emergency use authorization. So, they had to suppress them.

In the 1970s, Sloan Kettering Memorial Cancer Center conducted a study on Laetrile (vitamin B17) to determine its effectiveness against cancer. Despite evidence showing its effectiveness, they wanted to prove it was not effective, similar to the current situation with Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine. The study was led by Dr. Kinamitsu Segura, who found that Laetrile improved the health of mice, relieved pain, inhibited tumor growth, stopped tumor spread, and acted as a cancer prevention. However, the board of directors at Sloan Kettering was not interested in publishing the report because Laetrile couldn't be patented. Dr. Segura was removed from the project and discredited. The official statement from Sloan Kettering denied any anticancer properties of Laetrile. The California report, which opposed Laetrile, was later found to have falsified information.

Speaker 0 states that in the media, ivermectin is labeled as bad and hydroxychloroquine is labeled as bad, noting that both are listed under the NIH. He asserts that adrenochrome is real, giving its chemical formula as C9H9NO3, and describes it as a chemical compound that has existed in modern science since the 1930s, with both a synthetic form and a natural form. He claims the natural form is caused by torturing little kids to get their adrenaline up and then extracting it from them. He recounts bringing this up a few years ago, after which he says he was attacked by every media outlet, and asserts that it is there and that “they absolutely went after me.” He says that the next day, he never heard from his agents or his agency for fourteen months, and that his lawyers let him go, after which his agency never called him again, leaving him feeling “done.” Regarding his work in films, he says that when you do movies you spend a great deal of time with agents, and adds that he didn’t realize the connection between this and his industry and to Epstein Island, but affirms, “there is” a connection.

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.

Ibogaine is an addiction interrupter that helps people get off drugs overnight. It regenerates dopamine neurons and is effective for treating opiates, psychostimulants, alcohol, and nicotine. However, it is being banned in the UK along with other substances like Ayahuasca due to side effects. This means that heroin treatments in the UK will be shut down and moved to Portugal. Ibogaine was also banned in the US in 1967, and other governments followed suit. It is crucial to raise awareness about the benefits of Ibogaine and prevent further bans, as it is a highly effective treatment with scientific studies supporting its use for various addictions.

A Substack called "The Forgotten Side of Medicine" discusses GHB, a drug claimed to be a cure for insomnia that was made illegal. GHB was remarkably effective for various conditions and profoundly improved health, but the FDA, in collusion with the media, launched a takedown of it in the 1990s, similar to what happened with ivermectin. GHB put recipients into a deep sleep cycle, resulting in feeling refreshed and energized, and frequently allowed people to feel fully refreshed after just a few hours of sleep. It was unlikely to be addictive and dramatically increased growth hormone levels, resulting in increased strength, stamina, muscle mass, and function. GHB produced remarkable results in treating addictions, counteracted Parkinson's disease, aided childbirth, and had aphrodisiac effects. The FDA banned GHB after a press release warning consumers to discontinue its use due to alleged illnesses. The FDA argued there was no evidence of valid use or safety, but refused to admit evidence arguing otherwise. The media then trumpeted that America was facing a wave of rapes from a silent, odorless, colorless drug, juxtaposing fears of Rufies onto GHB. Congress passed the Hillary J Farreus and Samantha Reed Date Rape Drug Prohibition Act, making GHB a schedule one drug, despite it being produced naturally in the body. The entire epidemic was made up, and GHB accounted for less than 0.1% of drugs mentioned in emergency department reports.

In 2020, there was a disinformation campaign against Hydroxychloroquine, a generic drug. The pharmaceutical industry opposes generic drugs as they reduce profits. They conducted trials with toxic doses of Hydroxychloroquine, causing increased deaths. On the other hand, Ivermectin is beneficial when given in higher doses. The spike protein in COVID-19 causes clotting issues and suppresses interferon, a chemical that helps fight infections and cancer. Medicines like Ivermectin and others can boost interferon levels and prevent clotting by binding to receptors. Some patients given high doses of Ivermectin have shown remarkable recovery, as it competes with the spike protein for binding sites and prevents clot formation.

Doctors were aware that hydroxychloroquine was safe until the media suggested otherwise. They claimed it was both safe and effective, but when the narrative shifted to it being unsafe, despite its 70-year history and a government database showing it to be safer than Tylenol, it raised concerns. The assertion of its lack of safety felt like a significant deception.

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.

Ibogaine is an addiction interrupter that regenerates dopamine neurons, helping with opiates, psychostimulants, alcohol, and nicotine. It can get people off drugs overnight in a 6-day treatment. Ibogaine is facing bans in the UK and US, despite its effectiveness. There is a lack of discussion on its benefits, even though it could make a significant difference in addiction treatment. Ibogaine has shown success with cocaine, alcohol, and opiates, and is believed to work for crystal meth as well. Banning it makes no sense.

Joe Rogan announced on social media that he has COVID and mentioned taking Ivermectin as part of his treatment. However, Ivermectin is primarily used as a dewormer for horses and is not proven to be effective against COVID. In fact, it can be dangerous and potentially deadly. The CDC and FDA have issued warnings against using Ivermectin for COVID. Some doctors claim that Ivermectin is effective and have faced backlash for advocating its use. There are allegations that pharmaceutical companies and the media have influenced the narrative against Ivermectin due to financial interests. Studies on Ivermectin have shown mixed results, but some countries have reported success in using it to treat COVID.

The FDA was sued over tweets telling people "you're not a horse" regarding Ivermectin. The lawsuit argued the FDA doesn't have the authority to tell people not to take a certain drug, as that constitutes practicing medicine. Some believe the FDA's actions were a coordinated PR attack to promote COVID vaccines. One doctor claims the government's agenda was to force vaccines, which are now known to be "poison jabs." The case against the FDA was settled largely on the plaintiffs' terms, with the FDA taking down the "offensive tweets." One doctor claims to have treated over 6,000 COVID patients with Ivermectin, with none hospitalized as a result, and considers it safer than common medications. The lawsuit set a precedent, potentially tarnishing the FDA's reputation and limiting future overreach in advising patients on medical treatments. Some believe the suppression of early COVID treatments has caused hundreds of thousands of deaths and that the COVID vaccines have caused excess deaths and increased disability.

Ivermectin is safer than a sugar pill and has been given to billions of people with minimal harm. It is not a toxic horse dewormer, as claimed by the FDA. The drug is considered safe and has had a significant impact on global health by eradicating parasitic diseases. Despite debates on its effectiveness, it is a low-risk, affordable option for treating sick patients.

Ivermectin is a widely used and safe drug that has been effective against SARS CoV 2. It could have saved many lives if it had been used more widely. Doctors who tried to use it faced prosecution, despite its safety and effectiveness. One doctor worked 715 continuous days without a day off because no one else wanted to care for indigent patients. The doctor's hospital had a low mortality rate compared to the rest of the country, thanks to protocols that included Ivermectin. However, the media ignored their success and the use of repurposed drugs. The doctor faced censorship on social media platforms for mentioning Ivermectin. The FDA claims there are no adequate alternatives to the vaccines, but many believe unnecessary deaths occurred due to censorship and lack of access to Ivermectin.

Ivermectin, a drug discovered in the late seventies, has had a significant positive impact on billions of people worldwide. However, it has been wrongly portrayed as a horse poison. Despite being one of the safest drugs in history, Dr. Fauci claims it is dangerous. Similarly, hydroxychloroquine is dismissed as dangerous without proper evidence. Stephen Colbert, a propagandist, dismisses the effectiveness of these drugs without acknowledging their Nobel Prize-winning status and inclusion on the WHO list of essential medicines. This misinformation is fueled by their financial ties to Pfizer, leading them to deceive the public.

Ivermectin is safer than a sugar pill, with minimal toxicity. It has been falsely labeled as a horse dewormer by the FDA, despite its extensive safe use in humans. Over 3.7 billion doses have been given, showing its safety. While its efficacy is debated, it is a low-risk, cost-effective option for treating sick patients.

The FDA's website advises against using ivermectin for COVID-19, yet links to clinical trials, half of which indicate it may be effective. For three years, the FDA has warned against ivermectin while referencing studies that support its use. Additionally, there is increasing research suggesting ivermectin could be a vital treatment for COVID-19. The strong opposition from the federal government appears to be linked to the desire to maintain emergency use authorization for COVID vaccines. For more insights, consider subscribing for additional videos.

Speaker 0 explains that people wonder why ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine were suppressed, noting these are well established drugs with safety profiles and billions of doses given. He says ivermectin is a human drug and also works on horses, but it would win the Nobel Prize because it works so well on human beings. Speaker 1 responds “Mhmm.” Speaker 0 states there is a little known federal law that says you cannot give an emergency use authorization (EUA) to a vaccine if there is any medication approved for any purpose that is shown effective against the target disease. So if Tony Fauci or anybody had admitted that hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin are effective against COVID, it would have been illegal to give the EUAs to the vaccines, and they could never have gotten them approved. He suggests this would have collapsed a “200,000,000,000 enterprise.” Speaker 1 says, “That is fascinating,” noting they had been covering this for two years and that this is the first time hearing that; if the medical community had been saying ivermectin works, it would have affected EUA. Speaker 0 responds that the medical community did say that—17,000 doctors signed a petition, and there are many peer reviewed publications consistently saying so. Yet Fauci aggressively crusaded against it, insisting it’s a horse medication, that people are overdosing, and so on. He asks why Fauci kept saying it. Speaker 1 asks why Fauci continued to say it after he got the authorization. Speaker 0 offers possible explanations: one, even if you have an EUA, the law appears to say you can't have it anymore if there is a functioning medication. He acknowledges, though, that he cannot read Fauci’s mind but speculates there is a strong incentive for Fauci to kill ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine. He cites several doctors who treated tens of thousands of COVID patients successfully and who argue that half a million Americans did not need to die, naming Harvey Reich at Yale, Peter McCulloch, and Peter Quarry.

Hydroxychloroquine was initially praised for its potential in reducing COVID-19 symptoms and hospitalizations. However, it soon faced widespread criticism worldwide. In Australia, billionaire Clive Palmer purchased a large supply of hydroxychloroquine for the entire continent, intending to distribute it for free. Unfortunately, the Australian authorities seized and destroyed the medication.

Depression drugs cannot cure people, but they can influence certain symptoms like emotional numbness and reduced self-care. However, these drugs can also cause sexual dysfunction even after discontinuation. Overall, these drugs are deemed terrible and should not be used. Psychiatry is unique in the healthcare field as its leaders consistently lie about the capabilities of their drugs. This situation is disheartening.

Patients were desperate for ivermectin as their loved ones died, but the focus shifted to remdesivir, a previously failed Ebola drug. By November 2020, the World Health Organization advised against its use, citing ineffectiveness and potential kidney and liver damage. The European Society of Critical Care supported this stance. Despite the warnings, the U.S. Health and Human Services incentivized hospitals with a 20% bonus for administering remdesivir, leading to widespread use. It failed to reduce mortality and caused serious injuries, with some patients dying as a result. In May 2022, the WHO reaffirmed its initial decision, stating that remdesivir should never have been used.

The FDA settled in court and admitted to intentionally deceiving Americans about Ivermectin. They discouraged its use despite over 100 studies supporting its effectiveness in treating COVID-19. This misinformation led to unnecessary deaths. The FDA's actions also affected other drugs used in treatment protocols. This revelation is significant. Translation: The FDA admitted to intentionally misleading Americans about Ivermectin, leading to unnecessary deaths. This misinformation also impacted other drugs used in treatment protocols. This admission is significant.

In 1964, GHB, a sleeping medication, was remarkably effective for insomnia and other conditions. By 1990, the FDA, allegedly in collusion with the media, launched a campaign to suppress it, similar to what happened with ivermectin. GHB put recipients into a deep sleep cycle, resulting in feeling refreshed and energized, and increased growth hormone levels, improving strength, stamina, muscle mass, and healing. It also aided in treating addictions, mitigated withdrawals, increased dopamine levels, aided childbirth, and had aphrodisiac effects. Despite these benefits, GHB was banned due to fears of it being a date rape drug. The FDA issued a press release warning against its use, leading to its ban and raids on suppliers. The FDA argued in court that GHB had no valid use while simultaneously blocking evidence to the contrary. The media amplified fears, labeling GHB as dangerous and lethal. Congress passed the "Hillary J. Farreus and Samantha Reid Date Rape Drug Prohibition Act," making GHB a schedule one drug, while a pharmaceutical preparation of GHB was made a schedule three drug. The actual data showed GHB was involved in a tiny fraction of emergency department reports and sexual assaults. The speaker suggests the GHB situation is similar to "Reefer Madness," where the government and media create false narratives.