reSee.it - Related Video Feed

In the United States, medical doctors control cancer research, leading to poor outcomes. Funds raised for breast cancer research through events like 5k runs are not used for nutritional, homeopathic, acupuncture, or naturopathic research. Instead, all the money goes towards drugs and surgery, which the speaker claims are ineffective. The speaker suggests that if every girl in the country took 200 micrograms of selenium, breast cancer could be reduced by 82%. However, this is not happening because the US medical industry prioritizes profit and people are unaware of this.

The speaker discusses the relationship between profits and cancer treatment in the United States. They mention a study that found chemotherapy to be ineffective 97% of the time, but it is still used because doctors profit from it. The speaker explains how doctors receive financial incentives for prescribing chemotherapy drugs. They argue that the pharmaceutical industry has control over cancer treatment and that the medical system prioritizes drugs and surgery over alternative approaches. The speaker suggests that funding for cancer research should also go towards nutritional, homeopathic, acupuncture, and naturopathic research. They criticize the for-profit nature of the medical industry and its impact on patient outcomes.

A politician introduces a video clip of a surgeon who identifies as the "queer surgeon" and performs gender affirming surgeries. The politician expresses concern over experimental and irreversible procedures being performed on children. In the clip, the surgeon states that 80% of their practice is gender affirming surgery, with a focus on genital surgeries like vaginoplasty and phalloplasty. They acknowledge an increase in adolescents seeking surgical intervention, which presents unique challenges, especially for those who have undergone puberty suppression. The surgeon admits that there is a lack of published research on genital surgeries for pubertally suppressed adolescents and that they are "just kind of learning and figuring out what works." They explain that puberty suppression affects the amount of tissue available for vaginoplasty, requiring alternative techniques like using peritoneum to line the vaginal canal. The surgeon notes that they will know more about the outcomes in 5-10 years and that it will be fascinating to see how these kids turn out. The politician then condemns these procedures as "barbarism" and "mutilation of children" that should be illegal. They claim that children lack the capacity to make such life-altering decisions and that sex is an immutable characteristic.

Speaker 1 argues that a biopsy can cause cancer to spread because the fibin sheath around a tumor, when breached, acts like a seal that, once broken, allows cancer to disseminate. They recount a personal anecdote of a New York ballerina who experienced tumor biopsies and observed spreading afterward. They explain that histological diagnosis, meaning a pathologist examining slides to determine the tissue origin and type (e.g., breast ductal carcinoma), is used to justify specific drugs. The assertion is made that this diagnostic step is part of a “sales team” and a sales technique because it supports treatment choices that align with FDA approval and insurance coverage. Speaker 1 then claims that research shows that taking certain drugs after a biopsy leads to “almost guaranteeing metastasis.” They further state that performing a biopsy, surgery, high-dose chemotherapy, or radiation will result in metastasis. The overall point is that these interventions produce a short-term reduction of the primary tumor and a perceived remission, but the cancer returns nine months later.

A speaker asserts that colonoscopy has never been proven to reduce the mortality and morbidity of colorectal cancer in the population. They claim that society is spending many, many billions of dollars on a test that has never been proven to reduce the disease for which it is intended. They further state that, in reality, far greater numbers of people are suffering detrimental effects and adverse reactions to the colonoscopy procedure than the number of people who are actually diagnosed with colorectal cancer. The speaker emphasizes that, if about fifty five thousand are diagnosed every year as suffering from the condition, over seventy thousand are suffering from the horrific effects, adverse effects of the actual procedure called colonoscopy. In their view, society is paying a substantial amount for this situation. The speaker then presents a conclusion that there is an alternative to colonoscopy. They identify this alternative as being a test called M2PK. This assertion introduces an option they believe should be considered as an alternative to the conventional screening method discussed. The overall message conveyed is that the widely used screening method of colonoscopy has not demonstrated population-level mortality or morbidity benefits for colorectal cancer, accompanied by a large burden of adverse effects, and that the M2PK test represents another approach to address the issue.

When a child experiences gender dysphoria, there is a disconnect between their feelings and the gender assigned at birth. This issue is serious, as transgender adolescents have a significantly higher suicide rate—almost eight times that of their cisgender peers. The AAFP's focus on drugs, hormones, and surgical interventions, rather than a more conservative approach like psychotherapy, is concerning. This approach is seen as unethical and inappropriate, highlighting the need for a broader perspective on treatment options.

The speaker argues that there has been manipulation of science and a dangerous phenomenon called overdiagnosis that has affected millions of women, particularly in breast cancer, over the last thirty years. Citing a recent study in the New England Journal of Medicine, the speaker claims that over the past three decades in the United States, one point three million women were diagnosed with early stage breast cancer that would never have caused harm. This condition is described as ductal carcinoma in situ, or stage zero cancer, which the speaker asserts was equated with actual cancer. According to the speaker, these diagnoses led to standard treatments such as mastectomy or lumpectomy with radiation, with chemotherapy, and then follow-up hormone-suppressive therapies like tamoxifen and an aromatase inhibitor (arimidex). The speaker contends that many women were subjected to these interventions for cancers that would not have caused harm, and therefore experienced the associated physical, psychological, and social burdens. The speaker characterizes the consequence as a form of medical holocaust, asserting that women were diagnosed with a cancer they did not have, underwent treatment, and endured stigma and psychospiritual stress as a result. Additionally, it is claimed that the healthcare industry told these women that they were saved or that their lives were extended, but the speaker asserts the opposite outcome occurred. A further claim is that these women identify with the aggressor in a manner likened to Stockholm syndrome. The speaker notes that millions participate in breast cancer awareness marches, seemingly unaware that the events are funded by corporations that profit from the drugs used to treat breast cancer. In summary, the speaker presents a narrative in which overdiagnosis led to widespread unnecessary cancer treatments, causing harm to a large population of women, while the industry purportedly benefited financially from the drugs and treatments administered. The remarks connect the phenomenon to broader concerns about the motives of the pharmaceutical and medical industries and the messaging surrounding breast cancer awareness campaigns.

The problem with a biopsy is this. Now it spreads all over the place. So you do spread it. But what they're not telling you is that the research is showing that if you take these drugs, you're almost guaranteeing metastasis. If you did a biopsy and or a surgery, you're gonna get metastasis. Now if you add high dose chemo, you're get metastasis. If you do radiation, you're gonna get metastasis. What they're looking at is giving you a short term reduction of the primary, and then you think, oh, I'm in remission. Nine months later, it would came back. The federal, the FDA will have approved it. Your insurance will pay for it. It's the right thing to do. And you're gonna do that. It's also part of the sales team. It's part of the sales technique.

The speaker highlights the negative outcomes and side effects of hormone medications used by transgender individuals. They mention that these medications can lead to disease states and adverse consequences. The transgender population has a shorter lifespan compared to the general population due to these medical problems. They also mention that transgender individuals become sterile and sexually incompetent, as their organs are affected by cross-sex hormones. Brain development in adolescence is adversely affected, and bone density is compromised, leading to frequent fractures in adulthood. The speaker argues that if these individuals had received counseling and followed the international standard of care, these diseases could have been avoided.

There are laws that prevent doctors from trying alternative treatments for cancer, limiting them to only proven unsuccessful methods. The speaker suggests that if this restriction could be lifted, significant progress could be made. They also imply that the pharmaceutical industry profits from this situation, as there is a lot of money to be made from drugs.

The speaker discusses the book The MD Emperor Has No Clothes by Peter Glidden, describing it as a phenomenal resource. They assert that when patients receive a cancer diagnosis and undergo a PCR test, they are then told they must undergo chemotherapy or radiation. According to the speaker, in the book Peter Glidden explains that the professional receives a 6% commission for recommending chemotherapy. They claim this leads to about $100,000 being charged to the patient’s insurance, which the speaker views as a significant incentive for doctors to push chemo and radiation. The speaker contends that professionals tell patients to pursue chemo and radiation largely because of the commission from Big Pharma, rather than offering alternatives or focusing on overall health. They allege that doctors do not inform patients about natural or alternative options, listing items such as soursop, sun exposure, reishi, apricot seeds, and dietary corrections as potential aids that could address the body’s signals for help. The implication is that the medical system prioritizes medication and procedures over nutritional or lifestyle approaches. A central claim echoed in the talk is that the medical system in the United States is financially driven: 20% of the country’s GDP is spent on healthcare. The speaker emphasizes “20% of the GDP of America” to illustrate how the system operates financially, suggesting that this economic framework contributes to the continued use of vaccines, chemotherapy, radiation, “poisonous pills,” and misdiagnoses. They argue that these financial incentives are why certain treatments persist, and why systemic changes are unlikely within the current framework. Overall, the speaker asserts that the U.S. medical system is a money-driven enterprise, with substantial financial incentives tied to specific treatments like chemotherapy, which are presented as standard responses to cancer diagnoses. The discussion centers on challenging the mainstream approach by highlighting alleged commissions, insurance costs, and the availability of alternative health information and practices that they claim are typically overlooked.

By age 24, after the WPATH files came out, I realized that the doctors who write the guidelines didn’t know what they were doing, and that everything that had happened to me was wrong and had nothing to do with evidence-based medicine. I was experimented on. I was not told they were experimental; I was told it was medicine and that it would help, and it did none of that. It gave me complications the doctors ignored or treated as separate illnesses. It made my already preexisting mental health worse, and my physical health continued to deteriorate because I had a collapsed lung and a large intestine up in my chest that was still ignored by the same medical system fast-tracking me for a disorder I did not have. When I found out what was wrong, I started making appeals. I made claims to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario. They decided to reject my claim and chose not to take any further action because, according to their investigation, the doctors had done nothing wrong. I appealed that decision with the health committee, and we are still awaiting their decision on that. But those are how I'm getting the answers from the doctors of why they treated me the way they did, because they wouldn’t tell me to my face whenever I asked. So that’s how the regulatory system has approached it. That’s how the doctors have approached it. And even trying to apply the disability because I have recurring hernias from the reparative surgery that was done in 2023 for the physical defect I was born with that was missed, I still have complications from that. I am physically disabled, but disability has rejected me because they don’t deem it a recurring disability. So I’ve also had to appeal that decision. But this is what the medical system has left me with: a body that does not work, that is deteriorating, that was given drugs I was never supposed to have been given. I was approved for top surgery. Unfortunately, I did not go through with it, but there are several who do. There are several who go much, much further, and the complications are not explained. These people do not know what they’re signing up for because they are children. I was a child. I wanted help. That’s all I wanted. I did not need to be medicalized. I did not need to be cut up. I didn’t need to be drugged. I just wanted to be loved the way I was. That was all. Thank you. Excellent.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss access to treatment protocols and the scope of their metabolic approach to cancer. Speaker 1 notes they recently published a comprehensive, open-access protocol for glioblastoma in Biomedical Central, co-authored with Doctor Thomas Durai and over 20 scientists, physicians, nutritionists, and dietitians. The paper also marks the launch of the new Society for Metabolic Oncology. The protocol targets glioblastoma, a deadly brain cancer; Speaker 1 highlights that the same metabolic issues—cancers’ need for glucose and glutamine and their inability to burn ketones or fatty acids—apply across cancers such as lung, colon, breast, and bladder. He asserts that glioblastoma has seen no major advancement in management for a hundred years and attributes part of the problem to how brain irradiation can increase glucose and glutamine in the tumor microenvironment, potentially hastening decline. Speaker 1 emphasizes that the protocol for glioblastoma could be used for other cancers and centers on “pulling the plug on the fermentable fuels.” The regimen involves a phase of mild exercise, monitoring the glucose ketone index (GKI), and transitioning patients from dangerous metabolic states to more manageable ones to reassess treatment strategies and progressively reduce tumor activity. He stresses they are not claiming a cure; instead, they aim to “manage cancer effectively,” enabling patients to maintain a high quality of life whether or not the tumor regresses. Speaker 1 shares a clinical example: Pablo Kelly, who died last year, lived ten years with glioblastoma; he married and had three children. Although never cured, his tumor was put into an indolent state. Pablo died after a fourth surgical debulking; the tumor had been reduced and became operable after metabolic therapy, though it was never completely eradicated. The discussion notes that initial diagnosis described his tumor as inoperable, with a prognosis of death within twelve months if treated with large doses of chemo and radiation; he avoided radiation and chemotherapy and pursued metabolic therapy. The tumor then shrank enough to allow subsequent surgery over years, illustrating a shift from an aggressive to a more indolent disease course. Speaker 0 clarifies that “debulking” means removal of tissue. Speaker 1 reiterates their stance: cancer can be managed, changing its diagnosis from extremely aggressive to indolent, but they avoid using the word cure. They acknowledge uncertainty about long-term cures and note that standard care does not guarantee cure, while suggesting their approach can achieve substantially better outcomes.

A viral video highlighted the difficulty of discussing fertility preservation with teenagers. Recent research challenges the idea that drugs and surgeries prevent suicide among those with gender dysphoria. Internal files from WPATH reveal discussions on treating gender distress without proper consent. The files suggest that gender affirming care can lead to lifelong complications and sterility, with patients often unaware of the risks. A report by Environmental Progress exposes pseudoscientific experiments on children and vulnerable adults in the field of gender medicine. The report, along with the WPATH files, is available for public access on environmentalprogress.org.

Transgender Inc., the market for sex reassignment surgeries and hormone replacement therapies, is a lucrative industry worth billions of dollars. The number of transgender individuals has doubled in the past decade, with over 1.6 million in the United States alone. However, there is a lack of long-term studies on the efficacy and consequences of these procedures and pharmaceutical products, especially for minors. The medical community, influenced by organizations like WPATH, has shifted the perception of transgenderism from a mental illness to a subjective reality that can be affirmed through surgeries and drugs. The profit-driven nature of this industry, coupled with the cultural and political push for transgender acceptance, has led to a lack of critical examination and oversight.

Transgender Inc., the market for sex reassignment surgeries and hormone replacement therapies, is a lucrative industry worth billions of dollars. The number of transgender individuals has doubled in the past decade, with over 1.6 million in the United States alone. However, there is a lack of long-term studies on the efficacy and consequences of these procedures and pharmaceutical products, especially for minors. The medical community, influenced by organizations like WPATH, has embraced transgenderism as a political and advocacy movement. The profit-driven nature of the industry, coupled with the cultural and ideological shift towards subjective reality, has led to the rapid growth of transgenderism. The involvement of pharmaceutical companies, health systems, and corporate America further perpetuates this trend.

The speaker discusses a surgeon who performs experimental and irreversible procedures on children to modify their genitals. The surgeon admits that there are no published studies on these procedures and they are still learning about the outcomes. The speaker expresses concern about the lack of knowledge and the potential harm being done to children. They argue that this kind of gender affirming care is actually mutilation and should be prohibited by law. The speaker believes that children should not be subjected to life-altering decisions made by adults.

The interview discusses red light therapy—its popularity, why it is being challenged by “the medical world,” and how investigative journalist Jonathan Otto says it works and why people are adopting it widely, including through consumer devices like masks. Otto frames the therapy as “photobiomodulation,” describing it as the body responding to designed-for light. He contrasts modern mainstream medicine with what he portrays as an alternative approach. Otto says public interest has surged, citing everyday adoption (including references to women using masks and his anecdote that his son’s acne breakout could have led to scarring and even temptation to take Accutane). He argues that red light therapy is threatening to pharmaceutical and clinical systems because, in his view, it has become an alternative in major cancer-related studies and photodynamic therapy research. He cites a randomized control trial referenced as published by *Lancet Oncology* involving 413 men, claiming the red light group did “almost four hundred percent better” than the non-red light group, with 6% requiring surgery in the red light group versus 30% in the non-red light group. He also claims that many outcomes matter because surgeries can lead to complications such as impotence, and he argues that people are seeking “less invasive, more selective therapies” targeting tumor cells. When asked what led him to take red light therapy seriously, Otto describes his earlier work producing a cancer-focused documentary series about 12 years ago, including interviews with medical practitioners and treatment centers. He says he encountered results under “photobiomodulation” and mentions combining therapies, including methylene blue, which he describes as requiring activation by red light for antimicrobial photodynamic therapy and antiparasitic effects. Otto gives historical context: he references a Nobel Prize awarded in 1903 to Niels Ryberg Finsen for light therapy reversing chronic disease, uses incandescent bulbs as the historical technology, and describes later developments. He attributes modern versions to work by Dr. Andrey Mester and says NASA-funded LED research enabled high-power delivery into the body, emphasizing that LEDs deliver power with less heat and do not flicker like older options. He claims a large body of studies supports red light therapy across conditions, listing eyesight problems, chronic back pain, autoimmune conditions (including arthritis, lupus), macular degeneration, post-stroke outcomes, and dementia. He also discusses cancer and chronic disease mechanisms through mitochondria: he says mitochondria contain “mitochondria chromophores” (light receptors) and that light induces reactive oxygen species and adenosine triphosphate, which he says target circulating tumor cells and senescent circulating tumor cells. He also connects red light to “shutting down unhealthy cells” and promoting creation and differentiation of healthier stem cells, including in bones and organs like kidneys. On which conditions respond best, Otto highlights pain (arthritis, inflammation), skin issues (eczema, acne, psoriasis), sleep/energy/recovery, autoimmune-spectrum conditions, and chronic eye conditions including myopia in children. He cites clinical trial information from University College London about prostate cancer and eye studies, asserting remission differences between red light and non-red light groups and claiming a morning-only benefit for myopia parameters. He says a study used 670 nm LED light delivered directly into the eyes for three minutes, and he describes reported improvements and the idea that exposure timing matters. He proposes mechanisms and timing for symptom relief: depression studies show changes within one hour, fibromyalgia studies average around four weeks with results maintained for months, and cancer studies can run for two years. He also includes a pilot study claim (three people with cutaneous B-cell lymphoma) describing complete remission after one or two photodynamic therapy sessions with methylene blue and red light, with no side effects reported. For hair loss, Otto says red light therapy for androgenic alopecia has studies supporting stimulation of hair follicles and stem cells in the scalp. He also claims effects on thyroid function and weight loss, linking red light to “photonic lipolysis” and describing organ-function improvements. On safety and frequency, Otto says people can “overdo it,” but describes minimal adverse effects reported across large clinical use. He emphasizes dark occlusion for sleep and suggests that short daily exposures can be sufficient, citing examples such as fifteen minutes per day for general use and thyroid studies involving limited weekly sessions. He states that more light does not necessarily mean better outcomes for eyes. Toward buying guidance, Otto recommends high-quality panels or devices delivering multiple wavelengths, claiming broad-spectrum coverage reaches shallow to deep targets within organs. He explains wavelength ranges he uses or discusses (including around 480 nm, 630–660 nm, and near-infrared up to around 1060 nm) and describes the role of irradiance and distance, suggesting benefits even at roughly a foot away depending on the device and condition. He also compares whole-body approaches (head-to-groin) with localized masks. Otto concludes by encouraging research on specific conditions, promoting the idea that light therapy can be preventative and substitute for other spending, and ends with an emphasis on devices being affordable compared with clinic sessions.

Many cancer survivors who undergo standard treatments like radiation and chemo suffer immensely, paying a high price for their survival. They may experience ailments and debilities resulting from toxic treatments, surgical mutilations, high-dose poisons, and radiation. Cancer survivors may face psychological and neuropsychiatric problems, hormonal imbalances, microbiome issues, and metabolic homeostasis problems that they didn't have before treatment. Some newer treatments can kill patients faster than the disease itself, with the hope of a positive response. Many people suffer chronic problems for the rest of their lives or don't live as long as they could have without the treatments. The speaker believes that managing cancer doesn't require such toxic treatments, viewing the situation as a massive tragedy.

Speaker 0 argues that medical procedures can cause death or spread disease: - A colonoscopy in elderly people (60–70, completely healthy and fit) can lead to death three days later because “they poke a hole in the colon, the bacteria goes in and they are dead.” - In mammography, when something is found, the medical profession proceeds with a needle biopsy, and “pokes into something that's there to save your life.” A tumor is described as there to save your life, yet the procedure is claimed to spread illness. - The body builds a bag to store toxins in its lymph nodes; “so now they come and poke into the lymph node and what will happen is they now spread the poison that the body is collecting for ten-twenty years in the entire body and twelve days later these women are dead.” - Mammography is described as applying “50 pounds of pressure on a woman's breast.” The analogy is made: if you have a lymph node or a pimple ready to burst, applying that pressure would “burst it to give the patient the cancer.”

A doctor states that roughly 50% of the baby girls he delivers require an operation to remove and reshape a penis and testicles, adding that five of his seven daughters had the procedure. He claims Louise, one of the first babies he delivered, has dating problems. Another doctor accuses him of mutilating over 2,000 little boys by performing this surgery. The doctor responds that they weren't boys, but little girls trapped in little boys' bodies, and that boys are bad.