reSee.it - Related Video Feed

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 speaker criticizes the suppression of published treatment options and suggests that it may be a tactic to justify emergency medical countermeasures. They find it ironic that Johns Hopkins University, named after the person who popularized Hydroxychloroquine for malaria treatment, now claims it is dangerous. The speaker also mentions the CDC's previous advocacy for Hydroxychloroquine distribution. They emphasize the audacity of the alleged crime and express surprise at the public's blindness to the information presented.

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.

It is nearly impossible to publish data that goes against the national public health narrative, preventing doctors from finding solutions. The speaker has conducted clinical trials for pharmaceutical companies, including vaccine studies, and has brought vaccines and other drugs to market. Some drugs never made it to market because they killed people. Clinical trial guidelines ensure safe drugs, but these guidelines were not followed during the pandemic, affecting everyone. COVID should have been a time for doctors to unite, but interference with research occurred. Science evolves through experiments, skepticism, and an open mind. Challenging current knowledge must be allowed to move science forward, but what the speaker witnessed during the pandemic was not science.

The speakers discuss the dangers of pharmaceutical companies and the suppression of alternative treatments like ivermectin. They mention the spike protein's impact on DNA, the Tuskegee Experiment, and the public's blind trust in government and corporations. The conversation highlights the manipulation and deception prevalent in the healthcare industry throughout history.

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.

Speaker 0: They think I'm dangerous for speaking the truth. Speaker 1: Dr. Stella Emmanuel was part of a video claiming, without evidence, that hydroxychloroquine is a cure for COVID-19. The video was taken down by social media platforms for spreading misinformation. Despite the backlash, Dr. Emmanuel insists that hydroxychloroquine could be part of a cure. Dr. Anthony Fauci disagrees, stating that scientific data consistently shows hydroxychloroquine is not effective in treating COVID-19.

In this video, John, a storyteller, shares his experiences and observations regarding the COVID-19 pandemic. He discusses his early preparations for the virus and his efforts to create public service announcements promoting safety measures. John also delves into the controversy surrounding the use of hydroxychloroquine as a potential treatment for COVID-19, highlighting the censorship and suppression of information surrounding the drug. He questions the integrity of scientific institutions and emphasizes the need for unbiased research and transparency. John discusses conflicts of interest in the medical field and the importance of evidence-based medicine. The video also touches on the involvement of Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos in funding a biopharmaceutical company, the influence of trigger words and media on behavior modification, and the controversial history of CIA-funded human experiments. The controversy surrounding hydroxychloroquine and remdesivir as COVID-19 treatments is explored, along with allegations of medical gaslighting and manipulation by medical authorities. The role of Anthony Fauci and Janet Woodcock in suppressing early treatment options is questioned, and the origins of COVID-19 and potential motives for discrediting certain treatments are discussed. The panel discussion on a universal flu vaccine featuring Anthony Fauci and Rick Bright is also mentioned, highlighting the need for innovation and the influence of various organizations. The video concludes by emphasizing the need for early treatment, the censorship faced by healthcare workers, and the importance of trust and ethics in medicine.

Speaker 0: They use them for to amplify fear, to boost compliance, and, of course, push those vaccines. Well, joining me now is primary care physician and author of unavoidably unsafe childhood Reconsidered. Doctor Jeff Barky is with us. Doc, it's great to have you back on. Speaker 1: Hey, Grant. Thanks for having me. Great to be with you. Speaker 0: Alright. I know this comes as no surprise, this number, that only fourteen percent of the PCR positive turned out to be COVID in Germany. I would imagine it translates to The United States. But your reaction and now seeing this done by real scientists, real doctors in a real journal of medicine. Speaker 1: Well, there's no surprise by this study. We knew it all along. The PCR test was never designed to detect infection. What it detects is miniscule particles of the RNA virus, and then they would crank up the cycle threshold. They would amplify the test to create positivity. And so the problem is that you could test the side of a table and get a positive result, let alone that we were actually going to treat based on a test result. I was always taught in medical school, we don't treat test results, we treat patients. And that's what I tried to do. And then the government went out of its way to suppress effective repurposed medication, like hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin. This was a money game. This was a scam. This was all based on fear. No surprise out of Germany. Speaker 0: You know, I I believe it. And let's not forget because we always talk about the money and the vaccines and big pharma and their ties to government, and I know that was a lot. But let's not forget too. This was weaponized to keep people home so they wouldn't vote for president Trump during during that twenty twenty election. It was all part of the big steal. Speaker 1: These positives, they wanted lots of positives. They didn't want negatives. They wanted positives. Didn't they, doc? Speaker 0: They absolutely did for a variety of reasons. The more you can keep people in fear, the more likely it is they're gonna follow your directive. We've never seen anything like this before. The government imposing its will upon free citizens. They closed churches. They closed mom and pop stores. They forced healthy people to stay indoors, and they closed down hospitals and told sick people to stay away. I've never seen anything like that happen before. The sad part here, Grant, is I'm not clear that the American people learned their lesson. And when the government comes around and does this again, I just hope enough of us will stand up this time and say, hell no. Well

During the pandemic, fear and politics took over, leading to social distancing and mask mandates. The predictions of physicist Niall Ferguson and Imperial College London were highly exaggerated and flawed. Elderly individuals were hit the hardest, with many dying in care homes due to the use of the sedative midazolam. The government implemented policies to protect the NHS, but it was actually a cover for a euthanasia program. Face masks were ineffective against the virus, as admitted by experts like Dr. Fauci. The pandemic was a behavioral experiment to manipulate and control people's behavior.

"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."

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.

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.

When treatment was being suppressed, it should have been recognized as a "racket." Johns Hopkins University, named for Johns Hopkins who popularized hydroxychloroquine for malaria, ironically turned on its namesake by saying hydroxychloroquine is dangerous. The CDC used to be the US Malaria Suppression Program, which advocated for the distribution of hydroxychloroquine. The speaker finds the audacity of the "criminals" shocking, as well as the public's blindness to information. Society has been conditioned to accept a fear-based narrative without question, like hiding under school desks during nuclear attacks. This instilled fear, allowing people to respond to authoritative impulses. People have been habituated to believe that if authorities architect the fear and tell you what to do, you do it. If society stopped living in fear, the signal couldn't transmit.

Manufacturers of nasal products were allegedly warned against promoting or researching their products for COVID-19. One company was allegedly denied FDA permission to study its product's effect on COVID-19. Another company, COFIX Rx, allegedly received warnings to stop promoting its product for COVID-19. The speaker claims anything that worked for COVID-19 faced strict government opposition, including hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, and virucidal nasal sprays. Higher dose corticosteroids, zinc, vitamin D, vitamin C, quercetin, over-the-counter famotidine, and colchicine were also allegedly effective treatments. A high-quality trial allegedly showed colchicine reduced hospitalization and death, but the federal government never mentioned it. Aspirin and blood thinners were allegedly not mentioned for blood clot prevention. The speaker asserts the only advice given was to fear the virus, lockdown, social distance, wear masks, use hand sanitizer (none of which allegedly work), and repeatedly get vaccinated. The speaker concludes the COVID-19 response was allegedly about mandating vaccines.

The speaker claims that the public had limited access to data when the vaccines received emergency use authorization. They believe regulators, who they consider corrupt, were determined to push forward with the mass vaccination program. The speaker argues that effective therapeutic medicines like Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin were intentionally suppressed to pave the way for vaccine authorization. They explain that a federal law prohibits emergency use authorization for a vaccine if there is an existing licensed drug that proves effective against the same disease. The speaker suggests that this decision was driven by financial interests, with the NIH owning half the patent for the Moderna vaccine and individuals associated with Anthony Fauci potentially receiving significant royalties.

Monoclonal antibodies worked very well and quickly, and were initially readily available. The speaker believes the government intentionally made them harder to get to encourage people to take the COVID shot. The speaker didn't use ivermectin until the government took over distribution of monoclonal antibodies. In March, the government put out information on why people should not take ivermectin for COVID on the FDA's website. At the same time, they launched COVID-nineteen Community Core on 04/01/2021, an $11,500,000,000 slush fund to feed out propaganda.

Vaccines were oversold, leading to mandates that caused people to lose their jobs. The intent behind vaccine liability laws was well-meaning, but companies must be held accountable for vaccine injuries. Early treatments like hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin were undermined, preventing effective therapies from being available and allowing emergency use authorization for vaccines. This approach resulted in unnecessary loss of life. The suppression of alternative treatments benefited pharmaceutical companies financially. Despite evidence supporting treatments like corticosteroids and ivermectin, these options were dismissed, paving the way for vaccine mandates. The public response to vaccine injuries has been inadequate and unacceptable.

- 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 and Speaker 1 discuss criticisms of the COVID-19 response, focusing on diagnostic testing, treatment, and government actions. Speaker 0 notes that only fourteen percent of PCR-positive cases turned out to be COVID in Germany, and suggests this is a global pattern, including the United States. Speaker 1 responds that there is no surprise, stating that the PCR test was never designed to detect infection. He explains that it detects miniscule particles of the RNA virus and that cycle threshold was cranked up to create positivity. He emphasizes that tests should not dictate treatment and that, in his view, doctors treat patients, not test results. He accuses the government of suppressing effective repurposed medications such as hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, calling the approach a money-driven scam based on fear, and asserts this was no surprise from Germany. Speaker 0 adds that, beyond money and vaccines, the response was weaponized to keep people at home to influence political outcomes, suggesting it was part of efforts related to the 2020 election. He claims the positives were valued over negatives and asserts that the goal was to keep people in fear to ensure compliance with directives. Speaker 1 agrees, arguing that fear increases compliance with directives. He says he has never seen anything like the government imposing its will on free citizens, including closing churches and mom-and-pop stores, forcing healthy people to stay indoors, closing hospitals, and telling sick people to stay away. He expresses concern about whether the American people learned their lesson and hopes that, if the government acts similarly again, enough people will stand up and say, “hell no.”

In the exchange, Speaker 1 advocates that a solution to vaccination uptake may require some form of mandatory vaccination, noting that federal officials resist that term. Speaker 2 adds that once people feel legally empowered, educational institutions will require vaccination, with colleges, universities, and employers like Amazon and Facebook signaling that anyone wanting to study or work there must be vaccinated. He asserts that making life difficult for people will cause them to drop ideological objections and get vaccinated. Speaker 0 challenges whether all objections to COVID vaccinations are “ideological bullshit,” insisting that is not what was being referred to and arguing that the claim about making it hard for people to live was made in a broader context about education, travel, work, and overall life, and that she takes offense at the interpretation. Speaker 0 then references Miss Allison Williams, who testified before the committee about losing her job after seeking an exemption from ESPN’s vaccine mandate. Williams’ case involved recommendations from bureaucrats and a fertility expert, highlighting that she and her husband, who were pursuing pregnancy with medical guidance, should not have been forced to vaccinate. Speaker 0 contends she was fired because “you made it hard” as described in the statement, preventing her from working, living, and making health decisions with her healthcare professional, thereby impacting American society’s ability to flourish and self-determine certain rights—stating that America should take offense at this. The dialogue shifts to Doctor Fauci. The speaker addresses him directly, calling him “doctor of fear” and stating that Americans do not hate science but hate having their freedoms taken. The speaker accuses Fauci of inspiring and creating fear through mass mandates, school closures, and vaccine mandates, claiming these policies have destroyed the American people’s trust in public health institutions and will have ripple effects for generations. It is asserted that fear has manifested in areas such as education and the economy, and the speaker concludes by separating their stance from science, saying, “I disagree with you because I disagree with fear.” The exchange ends with Speaker 0 yielding.

A recent study found that the malaria drug Chloroquine does not inhibit SARS CoV 2 in lung cells, although it may work in kidney cells. The speaker, who has experience in ocular oncology, contacted the author of the study and pointed out that the lung cells used in the study were actually cancer cells. This means that Chloroquine allows the virus to attack cancer cells but not normal cells. The speaker believes that this is a misinterpretation of the data and accuses the study of being part of a disinformation campaign. They argue that Chloroquine is actually a very effective drug.

Monoclonal antibodies worked very well and quickly, and were initially readily available. The speaker believes the government intentionally made them harder to get to encourage people to take the COVID shot. The speaker started using ivermectin when monoclonal antibodies became difficult to obtain. In March, the government put out information on the FDA's website about why people should not take ivermectin for COVID. Simultaneously, the government launched COVID-nineteen Community Core on 04/01/2021, an $11,500,000,000 slush fund for propaganda.

The speaker discusses the use of various drugs, including hydroxychloroquine, Ivermectin, colchicine, doxycycline, Azithromycin, budesonide, prednisone, and enoxaparin, for treating COVID-19. They mention that these drugs were considered lightning rods, particularly hydroxychloroquine, which faced strong opposition. The speaker questions why authorities would prevent the use of these drugs if they were not believed to be effective, and highlights the safety profile of Ivermectin. They suggest that people should be allowed to try these drugs if they are willing to pay for them. The motive behind targeting these drugs is unclear.