reSee.it - Related Video Feed

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

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

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.

This video highlights the challenges and controversies surrounding cancer treatment. Despite the millions of people diagnosed with cancer each year, the medical industry continues to profit greatly from conventional treatments like chemotherapy and radiation, which have limited success rates and harmful side effects. Alternative therapies such as the Hoxsey and Gerson therapies have shown promising results, but they have been suppressed and labeled as quackery by the medical establishment. The pharmaceutical industry's financial influence controls medical schools, research, and publications, preventing natural remedies from receiving a fair chance. Nutritional therapy, including Doctor Gerson's therapy, is opposed by medical associations due to its threat to pharmaceutical profits. Other alternative therapies like mistletoe and shark cartilage have also shown promise but are not widely recognized or recommended. Many potential cancer cures have been ignored or dismissed without proper scientific evaluation, leaving patients without effective treatment options. The fear of cancer and the lack of accessible and effective treatments continue to be significant challenges in society.

Sugar is the main fuel for cancer, as it operates on a fermentation system driven by sugar. Despite this knowledge, the focus shifted to chemotherapy and radiation instead of finding a cure. The current approach to cancer involves managing the disease and maintaining symptoms, which is where the money lies. The profit is not in healthy or deceased individuals, but in those who can be convinced they have a chronic condition requiring ongoing treatment.

Every early cancer detection is customer creation and fraud, with no proof that it cures anyone. The cancer industry is a $300,000,000,000 industry driven by money, with each patient bringing in between $3,000,000 and $7,000,000. If a patient doesn't have cancer, they may be given it. Cancer is not an illness but an accumulation of symptoms. Cancer rates have increased from seven percent in 1900 to fifty-six percent today, and including "the thing we cannot talk about," it's ninety-two percent. The speaker claims to have cured 66,000 cancer patients.

Chemotherapy drugs are prescribed by doctors because they profit directly from them. Doctors buy it for $5,000, sell it for $12,000 to patients, insurance pays $9,000, and doctors keep the $4,000 difference. Chemotherapy's success rate is only 3%, yet it's used for profit. The pharmaceutical industry controls us, diverting funds from breast cancer events to drugs and surgery, neglecting other research like nutrition, homeopathy, acupuncture, and naturopathy.

In the United States, the medical industry is driven by doctors, leading to poor outcomes for cancer patients. Despite fundraising efforts like breast cancer runs, none of the money goes towards nutritional, homeopathic, acupuncture, traditional Chinese medicine, or naturopathic research. Instead, it all goes towards drugs and surgery, which are ineffective. If women focused on selenium intake, breast cancer could be reduced by 82% in one generation. However, the profit-driven nature of the medical industry prevents this from happening. Many people are unaware of this and blindly trust high-tech medicine directed by medical doctors.

- 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.

Sugar is the main fuel for cancer, as it operates on a fermentation system driven by sugar. Despite this knowledge, the medical community shifted towards chemotherapy and radiation treatments instead of focusing on sugar's role in cancer. As a result, there is no cure for cancer, only disease management and symptom maintenance. This approach is financially beneficial as it targets individuals with chronic conditions who require ongoing treatment. The money lies in this middle ground, not in dead or healthy individuals.

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.”

Therapeutic drugs are the only drugs doctors profit directly from. Chemotherapy is used because it's profitable, not effective. The pharmaceutical industry controls us. Funds raised for breast cancer don't support alternative treatments, only drugs and surgery that don't work.

The speaker claims that the Rockefellers control major drug companies through their influence on directors and officials. They aim to control all aspects of biology, from birth to death, including hormones, glands, and genes. The Rockefellers gained control of the medical industry in 1910, leading to the current allopathic system of medicine in the US. This control has resulted in skyrocketing healthcare costs, making it unaffordable for most Americans. Cancer treatment is particularly expensive, with an average cost of $120,000. The speaker suggests that doctors often offer costly treatments with little chance of success, benefiting financially while patients suffer. These monopolies are interconnected and controlled by a group of elitists known as the world order people.

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

Speaker 0 contends that the medical industry operates on a foundational lie. They claim that John D. Rockefeller bought all the major universities and major media companies early on, using his money to create his own curriculum for medicine. According to this view, the only way to obtain grants was to use that curriculum for medicine, and that curriculum was based on pharmacology. The assertion continues that pharmacology was rooted in the extraction of substances from oil, and that these medicines extracted from oil were discovered to be cancer-causing. It is claimed that those in power used their influence and media reach to debunk all forms of natural therapy. The statement then alleges that any doctor who dared speak up against them was completely discredited, had their lives destroyed, and some were assassinated and killed. The speaker adds a broader maxim: whatever you need in life will control you, and if you think you need your pills, you’ll be controlled by the pharmaceutical companies and the people who control them. The message concludes with an emotional reaction, “Anyway, fucking hell. Just calm down.”

The speaker discusses mistletoe as a “superfood” and highlights its berries, noting that they are very bitter—“just like apricot seeds.” The speaker then asserts that mistletoe is “the solution to cancer.” They claim that mistletoe therapy has been used “all throughout the world” but has been banned in many places. The speaker asks the audience to wonder why this is the case and answers that it is because “the Rockefeller's control the system, natural remedies are not allowed to be told.” They further suggest that the widespread use of mistletoe therapy was restricted due to influential control over medical information. The speaker connects these ideas to a broader critique of information about natural remedies, asserting that “natural remedies are not allowed to be told.” They then refer to the cultural practice of kissing under a mistletoe, proposing that “the whole kissing under a mistletoe, they kind of subconsciously telling you all along to eat this.” The message implies that a cultural ritual around mistletoe serves as a subconscious cue to consume the plant. In closing, the speaker reiterates that mistletoe is “pretty delicious,” reinforcing the claim that it is enjoyable to eat despite the earlier discussion of its bitterness and therapeutic potential.

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.

Speaker 0: I have three friends. All three of them had stage four cancer. All three of them don't have cancer right now at all. And they had some serious stuff going on. And what did they take? Yep. Jesus. They took some what you've heard they've taken. Speaker 1: Ivermectin. Fenbendazole. Fenbendazole. Yeah. Speaker 0: That's it. Speaker 1: Yeah. I'm hearing that a lot. Speaker 0: They drank hydrochloride something or other? There's studies on Speaker 1: that now where people have proven that they've Speaker 0: drinking methylene blue and stuff Speaker 1: like that. Yeah. Methylene blue, which was a fabric dye. Speaker 0: Yeah. Yeah. It was a textile dye, and now they find it has profound effects on your mitochondria. Yep. Yeah. Speaker 0: This stuff works, man. There's a lot of stuff that does work, which is very strange Speaker 1: Mhmm. Because, again, it's profit. When you when you hear about things that are demonized and that that turn out to be effective, you always wonder, well, what is going on here? Mhmm. How is how is our medical institutions how have they failed us so that things that do cure you are not promoted because they're not profitable?

Chemo drugs are the only ones doctors profit directly from. They buy it for $5,000, sell it to patients for $12,000, and insurance pays $9,000. Doctors keep $4,000. Chemotherapy is used because it makes money, not because it works (97% failure rate). The pharmaceutical industry controls us. Money raised for breast cancer doesn't go to alternative treatments or research, only drugs and surgery that don't work.

Therapeutic drugs are unique because prescribing doctors receive a direct profit from them. For example, a doctor purchases chemotherapy for $5,000, sells it for $12,000, and after insurance pays $9,000, the doctor keeps the $4,000 difference. This profit motive raises concerns about the efficacy of chemotherapy, which reportedly fails 97% of the time. If a car manufacturer had such a failure rate, they wouldn't survive. Additionally, fundraising for breast cancer often does not support alternative treatments like nutritional research or acupuncture; instead, it primarily funds drugs and surgeries that are ineffective.

Chemotherapy is claimed to be a hoax and scam by big pharma to profit from suffering people. It allegedly prolongs life by only two to three months and may reduce life expectancy for some cancers like gastric cancer. Chemotherapy is also said to help cancer spread and activate cancer stem cells. Chemotherapy drugs can cost patients over $100,000 a year, leading to financial problems for 50-60% of patients. Ivermectin combined with mebendazole or fenbendazole is suggested as a potentially effective first-line therapy for cancer. Testing over-the-counter medications and cheap prescriptions is recommended as well.

Sugar is the main fuel for cancer, as it operates on a fermentation system driven by sugar. Despite this knowledge, the medical field has shifted towards chemotherapy and radiation, which we know do not cure cancer. Instead, we have disease management and symptom maintenance, as that is where the money lies. The focus is on the people in the middle who can be convinced that they have a chronic condition requiring ongoing treatment.

In the United States, the medical industry is driven by doctors, leading to poor outcomes for cancer patients. Despite fundraising efforts like breast cancer runs, none of the money goes towards nutritional, homeopathic, acupuncture, traditional Chinese medicine, or naturopathic research. Instead, it all goes towards drugs and surgery, which are ineffective. If every girl in the country took 200 micrograms of selenium, breast cancer rates could be reduced by 82%. However, the profit-driven nature of the medical industry prevents this from happening. Many people are unaware of this and blindly trust high-tech medicine directed by medical doctors.

According to the speaker, 50% of pediatricians' revenue comes from vaccines, with insurance companies like Blue Cross offering bonuses for high vaccination rates, potentially influencing doctors' recommendations. The speaker claims that pediatricians may dismiss families who want alternative vaccine schedules to protect these bonuses. The speaker alleges that 80% of doctors now work for corporations focused on revenue over patient care, creating pressure to generate funds due to medical school debt. The speaker suggests the entire system is incentivized to keep people sick, not necessarily deliberately, but through financial incentives. Insurance companies allegedly profit more from a sick population because they collect money as friction, taking a cut of revenues. The speaker claims that doctors, hospitals, and pharmaceutical companies also benefit financially from people being sick, creating systemic pressure regardless of individual intentions.

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.