reSee.it - Related Video Feed

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.

Dr. Paul Oosterhuis, the first doctor to be suspended by APRA, shares his story of fighting against suspension due to his criticism of COVID policies. He expressed concerns about the harm caused by lockdowns and mandates and advocated for early treatments. Dr. Oosterhuis was suspended after tweeting about the low risk of COVID-related deaths in children receiving the experimental gene jab. Despite representing himself in court, he sued the Medical Council of New South Wales and eventually had his suspension lifted. Dr. Oosterhuis emphasizes the need for a precedent to protect other doctors and discusses his passion for anesthesia and making a difference in people's lives. A more in-depth discussion is planned for the future.

"there wasn't a pandemic, there wasn't a public health emergency, there was nothing unusual happening." "In order for an emergency to be declared, which I think he did in 2020, March, whatever it was, He has to have some evidence of that." "There is nowhere in the world you can find increased frequency of respiratory illness and respiratory deaths anywhere until after the WHO called a pandemic." "They called a pandemic with no evidence of a pandemic." "They were lying to you." "Then they created the we, all our governments, created the impression of a pandemic by using misusing a test that doesn't measure what it says, PCR." "It's not a mistake. They they knew it was rubbish." "It's as simple as that." "If you go and look for it, you'll not find the evidence."

It's frustrating that effective treatments used globally aren't considered here. A doctor mentioned that many treatments don't work, and with a high mortality rate, there's little to lose by trying new options. Patients often present with severe breathing difficulties and thick mucus in their lungs, visible on X-rays. Proven treatments exist, like high-dose IV vitamin C, which has shown success in trials, but these are often dismissed. Instead, patients are frequently sedated and placed on ventilators. Despite the historical skepticism surrounding vitamin C, it has potential benefits that are overlooked, leaving many to question the current medical approach.

Speaker 0 asserts that there is a new leading cause of death and disease in almost every country worldwide, with the exception of regions that have not taken the shot as aggressively—specifically mentioning Africa and a few Eastern European countries like Bulgaria and Latvia as the only places where death is less than expected. He states that since COVID and the vaccines, there has been an excess mortality of six percent, describing it as dramatic. He argues that if governments were legitimate, and they perceived a six percent excess mortality, they would come together to address it, rather than collaborate in a “scam on the population with the coronavirus operation,” which he claims was funded under the previous administration. He mentions Anthony Fauci in connection with this sentiment, describing Fauci in a way that aligns with the view that the response to the pandemic included a push for vaccination and other measures. The speaker then references Paul Alexander, described as an epidemiologist from Canada who was hired by Trump as an adviser. He asserts that Alexander “gave Trump very different advice” from what he characterizes as the prevailing or leg-based approach, which included opposition to lockdowns and other interventions. The speaker paraphrases Alexander’s alleged guidance as: don’t lock down the population, don’t put diapers on people’s faces, don’t try to vaccinate Rio of the pandemic, calling these positions insane. He also says, “Oh, and by the way, it’s not really a pandemic.” Regarding personal connections, he notes: “I haven’t met Donald Trump myself personally. I cannot give you any personal feedback on my friend Paul Hess and he said, he’s a good man and he was due by Fauci,” adding a brief, non-specific personal comment about Paul Hess, and promising a bit of feedback on that matter.

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

Dr. Richard Urso, an ophthalmologist and part of America's Frontline Doctors, became involved early in the pandemic because he realized there was treatment available for the virus. With a background in drug development, including repurposing drugs and developing a patented FDA-approved drug, he found it unbelievable that patients were left to die without treatment. According to Dr. Urso, the virus causes infection, inflammation, blood clots, and breathing problems. He asserts that doctors know how to treat each of these issues. Therefore, the idea that there was no treatment from the beginning was "science fiction." Any physician claiming otherwise is being hypocritical and violating the Hippocratic Oath. He then transitions to discussing testing and PCR.

"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."

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.

It's frustrating that effective treatments aren't being utilized. A conversation with a doctor revealed that many current treatments aren't working, and there's skepticism about trying new methods. Despite the high mortality rate, some believe it's worth exploring alternatives. Patients often present with severe breathing issues and thick mucus in their lungs, which complicates oxygen transfer. Proven treatments, like high-dose IV vitamin C, have shown success in trials but are dismissed here. Instead, patients are often sedated and placed on ventilators. There's a reluctance to accept these treatments, despite their potential benefits.

The transcript describes Italy under “total lockdown” during the coronavirus outbreak, with emergency rooms at or past breaking point and authorities warning of hospital bed shortages and morgue overflow, including reports of army trucks removing bodies and new infections and deaths reported daily. It asserts Italy had the highest death toll anywhere in the world at that time, attributing the situation to a significant elderly population and an overstressed health system. It then shifts to claims about how COVID deaths were reported. The transcript says ninety-nine percent of those who died from the virus had other illness, and that only twelve percent of death certificates showed direct causality from coronavirus while eighty-eight percent involved at least one pre-morbidity, often multiple. It also frames “excess death” as deaths above or below an average baseline. The transcript further claims Italy’s high death toll was influenced by age structure, the health system’s strain, and reporting practices. A series of interviews follows. The host interviews Alberto Contrini, described as a professor of communications and a former institutional media figure involved in discussions about propaganda during COVID. Contrini says Italy launched a “massive fear campaign,” referencing Bergamo and military trucks reportedly conveying coffins, but Contrini says each truck held one coffin. He also claims elderly patients entering hospitals with other pathologies were immediately declared COVID, attributing this to financial incentives: the transcript says hospitals received refunds five times higher for COVID patients than normal patients, encouraging diagnoses to be coded as COVID even when multiple conditions existed. Contrini also links the transcript’s claims to similar patterns described for the United States and says virologists on TV were paid by pharmaceutical companies to promote “massive propaganda.” He claims many doctors were financially incentivized (citing government payments per injection) and says dissenters were marginalized, including suspended doctors and ongoing legal actions. The transcript highlights a moment where Contrini describes asking Dr. Bassetti about contracts with pharmaceutical companies and says Bassetti removed his earphones and left. The transcript then interviews Dr. Mariano Amici, described as a COVID treating doctor. Amici claims that in a study of over ten thousand patients, his group “cured” over ten thousand people with “not even once” a single death, treating not only COVID patients but also patients of other concerns. He says the “explosion” of deaths was “made up,” describing alleged use of non-COVID images on national TV, claims about inaccurate nose swab tests, and assertions that people were misclassified as dying of COVID when they died from other causes such as car accidents. Amici claims he was “traumatized” by the situation and says protocols prevented doctors from treating patients, calling the protocol a “death protocol.” The transcript presents him as saying some doctors had successful early treatment approaches using steroids and antibiotics and later had those tools taken away. Next, the transcript interviews Rosanna Chiaverini Negri, a neurologist who describes herself as working to write protocols and detoxify side effects from a COVID “Name it vaccine” that she characterizes as an experimental genetic drug. She claims that early use of antibodies from healed people and heat is curative within “three days,” and says they treated “seventy thousand” patients with only “ten” hospitalized, bringing documentation to Italy’s Parliament and Senate. She says press coverage attacked the work and that some practitioners were suspended and had licenses removed. Raffaele Ragoli, described as an investigative journalist, says he went into a hospital on March 17 and saw what he characterizes as “hell,” including a policy to “stay home, wait, and just take paracetamol,” and guidance that he says discouraged standard treatments. The transcript says Ragoli attributes the perceived need for a declared pandemic to the WHO, including a claim that the WHO needed thousands of deaths to declare a pandemic and that there was a lack of cure. Ragoli says Italy was chosen as a front runner for a mandatory vaccination program, and he claims WHO strategy is influenced by organizations “on top” of governments and by entities including “Bill Gates” and major financial institutions. He also claims Tedros Ghebreyesus stated that the next pandemic would come, not if. Giovanni Trambusti, described as an electrical engineer specializing in data processing and statistical analysis, says he downloaded raw mortality data from ISTAT and compared it month by month to what was announced in media and government. He claims deaths were highly concentrated in northern areas (especially Bergamo and Brescia) and “almost nothing” in other parts of Italy. He attributes the lack of spread south to an alleged migration from north to south ahead of lockdowns, and says he sees “the numbers aren’t adding up.” The transcript then includes Dr. Pietro Gasparoni, described as treating vaccine injury. Gasparoni claims a mechanism involving immune suppression after “mass vaccination of meningitis combined with the flu vaccine” following meningitis cases in November 2019, leading to an immune-system low period and then a “COVID explosion” during January–February 2020. He references reported meningitis cases and quotes emergency responses described in the transcript around Sarnico and surrounding municipalities. The transcript also describes myocarditis and pericarditis claims through a cardiology interview with Dr. Giuseppe Barbuto, saying myocarditis first appeared in early 2021 and that 12–36-year-olds (especially males) were higher risk. The transcript states a claim that myocarditis was exclusively found in vaccinated people and cites other studies as supporting that vaccines, rather than natural infection, caused the increase. It says “mild myocarditis” is false and that myocarditis can last for years. Finally, it features multiple “vaccine injured” testimonials, including Amelia Padovano and others, describing severe post-vaccination symptoms and disability, including facial paralysis, paralysis and inability to walk, myocarditis/pericarditis, thrombosis, neurological problems, and related losses. The transcript ends with additional claims about pressured suppression of debate and the desire for scientific replication and closed-door discussions, including calls to remove vaccine mandates and conduct a randomized pragmatist study.

I am Dr. Roger Hopkinson, a pathologist from Canada. I want to share some important messages regarding the current situation. Firstly, don't believe everything you're being told, as it's all propaganda. This is simply a bad seasonal flu with slightly higher risk for older individuals with underlying health conditions. Secondly, fear is the main problem here, fueled by the unreliable PCR test and the suppression of alternative viewpoints. The PCR test produces over 95% false positives, leading to misleading case numbers. Politicians, media, and physicians have failed to provide unbiased information, prioritizing their own interests over ethics. Fear has been used as an excuse for enforcing measures by politicians and bureaucrats.

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.

- 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.

"The man thinks you can take a blood sample and stick it in an electron microscope and if it's got a virus in there, you'll know it." "He doesn't understand electron microscopy and he doesn't understand medicine and he should not be in a position like he's in." "Most of those up there on the top are just total administrative people and they don't know anything about what's going on at the bottom." "They've got an agenda which is not what we would like them to have, being that we pay for them to take care of our health in some way." "They change them when they want to and they smugly like Tony Fauci does not mind going on television in front of the people to pay his salary and lie directly into the camera."

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.”

Everything that happens regarding illness is reframed as an infection. In the pediatric world, 'anytime someone gets sick, there's a bug going around,' and 'anytime someone is sick, you have an infection, you need a medication.' 'there's a huge controversy in the world right now, and it is volatile, and that issue is around viruses.' 'I remember learning in medical school that viruses are inert, that they're not real organisms.' 'There is no such thing as an isolated virus.' 'No one has ever seen a viral particle.' 'We have created a pictorial of a viral particle.' 'But we have never truly seen a virus or ever seen a virus in action.' 'I had a public discussion with doctor McCullough.'

On the COVID front line, patients didn't wanna go to the hospital. Their oxygen was 63%. 'I wasn't gonna just watch them die. That's like watching a patient bleeding and you're not giving a blood transfusion. I mean, to me, that's criminal.' He notes that 'none of my patients died during the pandemic that followed my protocol' because 'there were different protocols for different people, different, you know, risk different patients with different risk factors.' He argues for encouraging personalized protocols rather than AI dictating care: 'An AI program tells me, doctor Eason, you need all this, or Sabine, you need all this. And then you're you have this, and you have about ten days to live.' He champions 'freedom of choice' and 'freedom of speech' and protecting ideas and innovations. He trusts God, 'I jump in the abyss' and chooses life with its uncertainties.

What is it? What what is it about humanity that that that that wants to go to all the details and stuff and listen you know, these guys like Fauci get up there and start talking. You know, he didn't know anything really about anything, and I'd say that to his face. Nothing. The man thinks you can take a blood sample and stick it in an electron microscope, if it's got a virus in there, you'll know it. He doesn't understand electron microscopy, and he doesn't understand medicine and he should not be in a position like he's in. Most of those guys up there on the top are just total administrative people and they don't know anything about what's going on with the bottom. You know, those guys have got an agenda, which is not what we would like them to have, being that we pay for them to take care of our health in some way. They've got a personal kind of agenda. They make up their own rules as they go. They change them when they want to, and they smugly like Tony Fauci does not mind going on television in front of the people that pay his salary and lie directly into the camera. You can't expect the sheep to really respect the best and the brightest. They don't know the difference, really. I mean, I I like humans. Don't don't get me wrong. But, basically, there is a there is a there is a vast the vast majority of them do not possess the the ability to judge who is and who isn't a really good scientist. I mean, that's a problem. That's a main problem, actually, with science, I'd say, in this century because science is being judged by people. Funding is being done by people who don't understand it. K. Who do we trust? Fauci. Fauci doesn't know enough to, you know if Fauci wants to get on television with somebody who knows a little bit about this stuff and debate him, he could easily do it because he's been asked. I mean, I've had a lot of people, president of the University of South Carolina, ask Voucher if he'd come down there and debate me on the stage in front of the student body because I wanted somebody who was from the other side to come down there and balance my Oh. Because I felt like, well, these guys can listen to me, but I need to have somebody else down here that's gonna tell me the other side. But it was didn't wanna do it.

Honestly, I'll tell you something. All my fellow doctors who were affected by Covid-19 have all taken chloroquine. So, it's hypocritical to say that we need to wait for studies to know what to do. I believe we should give every possible chance to the patients.

Honestly, I'll tell you something. All my fellow doctors who were affected by Covid-19 have all taken chloroquine. So, it's hypocritical to say that we need to wait for studies to know what to do. I believe we should give every possible chance to the patients.

Dr. Cameron Kyle Seidel, an ER and critical care doctor from New York City, shares his observations after treating COVID-19 patients for nine days. He questions the current medical paradigm of treating COVID-19 as a viral pneumonia, as he has witnessed medical phenomena that don't align with this assumption. He believes that COVID-19 lung disease is not a pneumonia but rather a viral-induced condition resembling high altitude sickness. Patients experience a gradual deprivation of oxygen, leading to anxiety and distress. Despite appearing critically ill, they do not exhibit typical pneumonia symptoms. Dr. Seidel expresses concern that treating COVID-19 as pneumonia may cause harm to many people.

I am Dr. Tapper, a doctor in Omaha who sees many patients without wearing a mask. I question the need for masks, pointing out the high rates of chronic disease in America. I advocate for healthy living, exercise, and good food choices to promote wellness. I believe in the body's ability to heal itself and criticize the current medical system. Masks, to me, represent a false agenda that threatens our freedoms. If you can't see this, you lack true vision.

A doctor recounts moving breathing treatments from their office to patients' cars due to concerns about virus spread, despite hospitals also avoiding them for the same reason. They mention Dr. Richard Bartlett, a Texas doctor who faced criticism for advocating budesonide breathing treatments early in the pandemic. The speaker claims Dr. Bartlett was smeared and pursued by the Texas Medical Board for allegedly making false claims. However, the speaker maintains that these treatments were invaluable and recommended them to high-risk patients, noting a very low risk of issues.