reSee.it - Related Video Feed

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.

This is a particularly interesting one; 'X rays are known to cause look at that. Not solve it.' They also claim, 'Also, they weaken the patient, and the patient often dies from the X-ray damage rather than from the statistics show that the patient who no longer receives the treatments live just as long or longer than those who subject themselves to all of this.' The approach proposed is to 'Treat the symptom of the tumor rather than the actual addressing the root cause.' The speaker concludes: 'This is a very powerful book that I highly recommend everybody look into.'

Speaker 0 begins by stating that cancer is not their favorite topic and asserts, “Eighty percent of folks who are told they have cancer don't have cancer. They're perfectly healthy.” They acknowledge that people with a cancer diagnosis don’t want to hear this, and express a reluctance to talk about cancer due to their attitude. Speaker 1 asks for a definition of cancer. Speaker 0 replies, “No, that’s actually very clear. So many people who are diagnosed with cancer do not have an uncontrolled growth of anything. So that definition is actually a good enough definition to exclude eighty percent of folks who are diagnosed with cancer. They may have a lump, they may have a growth, but it is controlled. Maybe it hasn't changed in size for three months or six months, but it's still labeled as cancer and they're rushed off to surgery.” Speaker 1 then asks for anecdotal stories of miraculous success stories using turpentine therapeutically. Speaker 0 answers with a story from two weeks prior on a radio show. They say, “My daughter's got cerebral palsy. She's 15 years old, half her body has been paralyzed. She's not able to move around or do anything.” They claim, “you need to check out trepentine because cerebral palsy is caused by a parasite your wife picked up in her second trimester.” They state that after starting turpentine, “after just ten days she's able to move that part of her body and now she can walk and do a lot of things she couldn't do before.” Speaker 1 responds, “Well thank you so much a tremendous story.”

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.

Speaker 0 shares a story about three friends who previously had stage four cancer but are not cancer-free now. He notes that what they took included ivermectin and fenbendazole, repeating fenbendazole for emphasis. He mentions they also drank something described as hydrochloride something or other, and points to studies that indicate people have proven they’ve been drinking methylene blue and similar substances. He explains methylene blue is a fabric dye, originally a text-style dye, and adds that it has profound effects on mitochondria. He asserts, “This stuff works, man.” He then observes that there are a lot of substances that do work, which he finds strange. He attributes this strangeness to profit, suggesting that when people hear about things that are demonized and then turn out to be effective, it raises questions about why those treatments are not promoted. He asks how medical institutions have failed, implying that cures exist but are not promoted because they are not profitable. The overall narrative contrasts hopeful anecdotal outcomes with a critique of consensus and financial incentives in the medical establishment, highlighting the tension between what works and what is promoted within mainstream medicine.

Partner and mother cried as doctors delivered a stage 4 cancer diagnosis. Given 8 weeks to live, the speaker chose alternative treatments after seeing improvement off chemotherapy. Despite medical skepticism, biopsies showed no cancer cells, surprising doctors. Two years later, scans revealed no active disease. Doctors praised the speaker's miraculous recovery, attributing it to alternative treatments like mesima mushrooms and IP 6 Gold supplements.

Daniel Stringfellow, 74, lives next to his neighbor Rebecca Cunningham and has stage three COPD. His symptoms include laboring to breathe during even small tasks, such as walking 40 feet to his truck, getting dressed, or carrying groceries. He explains that he must stop halfway to catch his breath, which drains his motivation and leads to depression because he can’t do things he used to do. He previously used a nebulizer prescribed by his pulmonologist as a first-line treatment and was given inhalers like Trilogy and albuterol, but he says the nebulizer “doesn’t work for me” and there’s no noticeable difference after more than a year of use. He still uses Trilogy but is unsure it provided significant improvement. Rebecca, his neighbor, has been researching DMSO and provided Daniel with a solution to put in his nebulizer. He notes that Rebecca asked for the paperwork to understand the amounts used in the nebulizer. He was ready to try anything and began using the DMSO solution about two and a half weeks ago. Within three days to two weeks, he reports a “big difference” and describes it as “unbelievable.” He says people who know him say his color was bad before, but now he can breathe better, talk without losing his breath, and perform tasks he hadn’t been able to do in a long time. He mentions carrying groceries from his Jeep to his house and RV, which he hasn’t done in a long time, and that he used to labor to get dressed in the morning. Daniel expects a future CT scan and plans to see his pulmonologist afterward. He notes that before starting the DMSO, all CT scans had shown no improvement and that he had been stopped at stage three. With DMSO, he anticipates improvement reflected in the CT results. He emphasizes that he has nothing to gain by this and that COPD is not pretty, describing nights when he wondered why he would wake up the next morning. He urges others to “just do it” and asserts that if it doesn’t help, they have nothing to lose. Speaker 1 (off-camera) adds that Daniel’s ability to sit and talk for length of time is miraculous compared to before, and recalls how difficult it was for Daniel to answer questions, needing rest between responses. She notes the emotional toll of the disease, the times of feeling ready to die, and her commitment to support him. She references reading Midwestern Doctor articles on DMSO and related research, and she confirms that the DMSO is working and wants viewers to witness the transformation. She says Daniel now has color in his face and credits the neighbor’s efforts and the DMSO for the improvement. The conversation ends with expressions of gratitude and a hope for continued progress.

"In all the autopsy I've done of cancer patients, not one of them died of cancer. They died of liver failure, they died of cardiac failure, renal failure, all due to chemotherapy." "We got a patient that had been through chemo they had cooked her liver and cooked her kidneys." "We looked at the blood work and realized she had no organ function to speak of left." "And I said we can make her more comfortable but the radiation treatment that they used on her has actually destroyed her organs." "She'd been given three weeks, we gave her six months and she got time to say goodbye to her family." "I'm doing the death certificate and I don't know what to write for cause of death." "You might try writing the truth for a change." "And she wrote radiation poisoning, cause of death."

Speaker 0 describes being twenty-one months into the protocol and nearing completion. They’ve finished all frequent IV chemo and now only go in once a month for treatment, with oral daily chemo at home, resulting in much less treatment than a few months earlier. Speaker 1 asks if the alternative treatments, in addition to traditional treatment, are helping the child handle side effects. Speaker 0 confirms: “So much better. Okay. So much better.” They note a test result when doctors questioned why the child didn’t seem sicker or look worse; they backed off on some treatments to observe, and within less than a week the child experienced nausea, headaches, bone pain, and other common symptoms. They showed doctors this pattern, demonstrating that when they are not using supplements and daily support, the child becomes sick quickly. They say doctors were skeptical of their approach. Tensions rose around February after they presented a meta-analysis suggesting that some chemo is no longer shown to be helpful and may be more harmful due to toxicity. That, they say, was the last straw. They recount that doctors began to push harder and claimed they would refer to Child Protective Services (CPS) if the child did not look sicker soon. Doctors started testing at every visit for the presence of the oral chemo in the child’s blood, and it’s consistently present because it is given daily. They hired a nurse privately to come to their home at bedtime to administer the meds, and they record the process with video of the child eating the meds; the nurse signs an electronic log verifying administration. When conflicts intensified about a month ago, they had an attorney, who sent a certified letter to the clinic with evidence: the nurse’s documentation, lab results showing the drug in the blood, and observed side effects that were minimal and manageable. They point out there are other variables affecting the child’s ANC; they have twenty-one months of records showing the child’s ANC was sometimes higher even when there were no home meds. They claim the medication is metabolized faster when the child drinks milk. They mention living on an organic farm with their own cows, and that the child drinks milk. They note that taking vitamin D can affect ANC. Speaker 1 remarks on the extraordinary situation: instead of learning what is enabling the child to have fewer side effects, the state is threatening to remove the child. They ask if someone reported them and how they protected the child. Speaker 0 explains that they were told during a September visit that if the child’s ANC wasn’t below 1,500 by the October 17 visit, they would refer to CPS for suspected medication noncompliance, which would be considered neglect. Speaker 1 reiterates the surprise at labeling medication noncompliance and the state deciding what the child should receive, calling it utterly ridiculous.

Speaker 1 was deemed inoperable, incurable, palliative, and terminally ill, with a couple of months to live without treatment. Speaker 0 was also terminal after cancer spread to the liver and lungs and did not want to undergo chemo again. Metabolic therapy can manage the disorder and correct other problems like diabetes, high blood pressure, and hypertension, so you get healthier as you degrade your tumor. Speaker 0's cancer levels went down to 0.05, which is almost nothing, and was cancer-free by December 2020. Speaker 1 is doing really well fifteen to eighteen months later. Speaker 3's wife had stage four cancer and was cancer-free a year later using metabolic therapies. Fasting and metabolic therapy combined with chemo can lower chemo dosages while maintaining therapeutic efficacy. If you want to live and get healthy, you do metabolic therapy, but "they" will not allow the entire system to change.

- Chemotherapy prolongs life about two to three months. Two to three months. That's the sum benefit. - For some cancers such as gastric cancer, it actually reduces life expectancy. - Chemotherapy is a hoax. - It's a hoax perpetuated by big pharma to make money at the expense of, people who suffer. - There are a few cancers, maybe five to eight percent in which chemotherapy actually cures the cancer. - But the vast majority of cancers, know, the common cancers, breast cancer, prostate cancer, pancreatic cancer, lung cancer. - The performance of chemotherapy is appalling, but it generates billions of dollars.

The discussion covers apricots and the “counter” to claims about the seeds. It notes that people are told not to eat the inside of the seed, referencing a “cyanide scare” in which “there’s cyanide in the seeds,” attributing the warning to the FDA. The speaker contrasts this with the claim that the same source is promoting vaccination, saying this juxtaposition is “delusional.” They also assert that the Hunza tribe has been eating “thousands of apricot seeds” with “there has never been a case” of harm, including “look at that in the Hunza.” The speaker then gives practical instructions: obtain apricots, use a mallet to crack the seed, and remove the inner part, which they describe as “a little seed” that is “bitter.” The bitterness is said to be “really good for this right here.” The speaker claims that “professionals aren’t gonna tell you about that” because they “get a 6% commission from doing chemo on you.” They add that apricots can be found for “$10,” and conclude by stating they would “rather trust the apricot seed than the government.”

Speaker 1 states they are not telling people to avoid chemotherapy. Research indicates that when patients are in nutritional ketosis with a glucose ketone index of 2.0 or below, lower doses of chemotherapy can be more therapeutically powerful. Speaker 1 suggests that radiation may be beneficial for some cancers, like brain cancer, to shrink tumors. After shrinking tumors and making them vulnerable, surgical procedures, radiation, low-dose chemo, or even immunotherapy could be more effective. Immunotherapy may target what the remaining cells have in common, potentially eliminating them.

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.

Thirty years, forty years. They'll look back at chemotherapy as a barbaric and kind of caveman like thinking of destroying the entire body to treat a cancer. Know, we gotta get away from this. We gotta move towards targeted approaches and even towards natural compounds, like medicinal mushrooms—cordyceps, turkey tail mushroom—these have shown lots of promise. But also ivermectin and fenbendazole are now gaining national attention as possible cancer treatments, with positive anecdotal reports of remission after taking these products. A recent study—a systematic review of ivermectin in cancer—found not only is it completely safe if people are undergoing conventional treatment, but it does show potent anti-tumor effects in the test tube via 10 mechanisms. And so, we gotta go to natural compounds. Forty years from now, I hope we’re not still administering chemotherapy as the main form of treatment.

Chemotherapy can kill any cell, not just cancer cells. If those handling chemotherapy must wear hazmat suits because it's toxic, why give it to someone already sick? It's like using napalm for an ant problem; you might kill the ants, but you'll destroy everything else, including the healthy cells. Radiation, like chemotherapy, is dangerous. X-rays have warning signs because radiation damages DNA, which can potentially cause cancer. The speaker questions why a therapy known to create cancer is used to treat cancer.

The dialogue centers on treatments and outcomes for COVID-19, with concerns about what is being used and what might work. One participant remarks on the reluctance to use certain treatments that are successful worldwide, recounting a conversation with a doctor. Another asks what kinds of treatments are being tried, noting that some approaches “are coming out with different things that are in the testing phase.” A third person criticizes a platform they believe “kills more people than actually save,” and another agrees that “they don’t work anyway,” questioning the harm in trying alternatives when current efforts aren’t effective. A key exchange discusses expectations for patient survival. One person says, “I don’t expect any of these people to survive. Ninety percent of them would die,” while another adds that if patients are “already dying anyway,” it may be reasonable to try additional measures rather than do nothing. There is debate about whether trying unproven treatments is appropriate; one participant notes that without a scientific basis, extra attempts can make patients worse, while another concedes that they would try anything to save their life. The conversation then shifts to clinical presentations and treatment strategies. With COVID patients who cannot breathe, X-rays show “the lungs are white,” indicating affected lungs with very thick, white secretions. The question arises of what “white lung” means—whether it is mucus and coating that fill the lungs and impede oxygen transfer. In response, the discussion distinguishes between early-stage treatments (like hydroxychloroquine and zinc) and later-stage interventions. It is stated that once lungs are severely affected, certain proven treatments exist that have passed trials in Asia through Dr. Chang, described as a US-board-certified physician. Specifically, extremely high-dose IV vitamin C is claimed to be successful in treating patients, providing the lungs with antioxidant support to help expel the infection, alongside IV antibiotics to treat the infection while avoiding reliance on ventilation and sedation. There is a contrast drawn between approaches in different regions. The dialogue notes that high-dose IV vitamin C has passed three trials in Asia and is reported as effective, while in the speaker’s locale, there is hesitation or reluctance to adopt this method. The discussion ends with a remark about how some people might attribute success to “good genes,” implying a belief that genetics may influence susceptibility or outcomes, though this is stated rather than argued as a scientific conclusion. Overall, the conversation emphasizes that several participants are wary of conventional treatments, advocate for exploring high-dose IV vitamin C as a therapeutic option, and describe the characteristic radiographic and clinical features of severe COVID-19 lung involvement.

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.

The radiologist presents a personal stance on cancer treatment and fasting. He states that if he personally developed cancer, he would not enter the hospital and would “unplug the motor of the cancer” by fasting. He notes that 50% of patients who die of cancer die from the effects of aggressive treatment, a fact he believes the public does not know. He emphasizes that fasting is difficult in medical professionals’ demanding roles, but claims he could fast for 30 days without problem. For an exceptional patient, he suggests advising fasting, and mentions there are weeks-long fasting programs developing in France and elsewhere, with existing centers in Switzerland. He acknowledges that significant financial resources are required to establish such centers and to support patients. If a patient is exceptional, he would recommend fasting, provide books for reading, and ensure the patient reads about it. The protocol he describes involves not eating for 30 days, while continuing to drink, with supplementation and close medical monitoring—at least weekly visits to check weight and blood pressure, noting potential hypotension and migraines as minor risks. He argues that there are two fuels in the body: sugar (the fuel used in typical alimentation) and ketone bodies. During fasting, the body uses ketone bodies as fuel, which he says provides a spiritual or intellectual stimulation. He claims cancer cells only know sugar, describing them as “conne” (stupid) in this context, and asserts there is no miracle cancer treatment. He believes that cancer is a test of humility placed by God, and reiterates that no single treatment is effective on its own; cancer treatment must be personalized for each patient, and prevention is central to preventing cancer or its progression. The radiologist concludes by reiterating that to a patient with cancer, one should first “débrancher le moteur du cancer,” proposing a 100% ketogenic diet as the approach. He frames prevention and personalized, comprehensive care as essential, while maintaining that the ketogenic strategy is a central component of his view on addressing cancer.

Rick describes chemotherapy as a lot of work, expensive, and painful. He visited the Mayo Clinic, went into rooms, introduced himself as Rick, and asked patients a quick question: “Would you do this again now that you've started your chemo?” He states that, to a person, the patients said, “I am so sorry I started this. This is crazy. You know, the collateral damage in your body is enormous. I have none of that collateral damage.”

Speaker 0 argues that chemotherapy is unique among cancer treatments because it is the only procedure in which an oncologist can receive a four to six percent commission. They claim that because chemo can cost $100,000 with insurance, the commission check would be $4,000 to $6,000, and that patients are effectively “walking in” to offices where the oncologist’s motivation is shaped by commission incentives. Speaker 0 contrasts this with why people “don’t learn about apricot seeds” or “soursop,” asserting that these alternative healing approaches are not emphasized within the system. They conclude that the system is about making as much money as possible from people.

The transcript presents a provocative framing of cancer treatment decisions and the influence of alternative medicine advocates. It opens with a claim that chemotherapy is widely recommended for cancer patients because oncologists receive a four to six percent commission for each treatment, implying a financial incentive behind standard cancer care. The speaker then contrasts this with the stance of a prominent monarch, referred to as the king of the United Kingdom, who is not going to undergo chemotherapy. This contrast is used to question why others would pursue chemotherapy when a high-profile leader would refuse it. Following this, the dialogue introduces a figure described as a “great fan” and loyal promoter of alternative medicine, who is depicted as consistently opposed to chemotherapy. This individual is characterized as someone who believes strongly in natural remedies, herbs, potions, and related approaches rather than conventional medical treatments. The speaker suggests that this person’s position aligns with a broader skepticism toward chemotherapy as a conventional option. The conversation then pivots to encourage readers or listeners to explore a specific book: A World Without Cancer, The Story of B 17 by G. Edward Griffin. The transcript explicitly mentions the book as a recommended source of information, signaling that it presents an alternative view on cancer and treatment. Within the discussion of alternatives, seeds containing “B 17” are highlighted as potential natural solutions. The seeds named include apricot seeds, cherry seeds, and plum seeds, with the claim that all contain B17, which is framed as a natural remedy in place of radiation and in opposition to what the speaker characterizes as an industry’s commission-based approach. Throughout, the speakers emphasize a preference for natural or non-traditional remedies over the conventional chemotherapy route. The language conveys skepticism about chemotherapy, suggesting a conflict of interest in the standard medical system, and promotes B17-containing seeds as a viable alternative, linking them to both the non-use of chemotherapy by the king and the endorsement of a book that supports these views. The overall message presented is that chemotherapy is driven by financial incentives, while there are natural, seed-based alternatives advocated by proponents of natural medicine, with a notable emphasis on the book by G. Edward Griffin as a source of justification.