reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Dr. Anthony Fauci has been in a position of power for 50 years, promoting the pharmaceutical industry's growth and influence. He has nurtured financial ties between pharmaceutical companies and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), making NIAID essentially a subsidiary of the industry. Fauci has control over various agencies and organizations, including the CDC, FDA, and WHO, and has the power to manipulate scientific research outcomes. He rewards loyalty and punishes dissent among scientists. Fauci's management style allows NIAID employees to profit from pharmaceutical companies, and he himself benefits from royalties and patents. His focus on profitable drugs and vaccines has overshadowed NIAID's mission to research chronic diseases. Critics argue that Fauci prioritizes industry profits over public health.

The pandemic created 40 new big pharma billionaires. Companies like Moderna and Pfizer profited $1,000 per second from the COVID vaccine. Over 2/3 of congress received campaign funding from pharmaceutical companies in 2020. Pfizer made $100 billion in profit in 2022, funded by the public. The system benefits from crises, leading to perpetual emergencies for ordinary people, separate from the elite's interests.

Anthony Fauci is seen as a symbol of institutional corruption within organizations like the NIH and FDA. Other scientists, such as Frankie Kelsey and Bernice Eddie, who raised concerns about harmful substances in vaccines, were punished instead of being recognized. It seems that in order to succeed in these regulatory agencies, one must support the pharmaceutical industry. Fauci's longevity in his position is attributed to his ability to protect industry profits rather than public health.

Speaker 0 summarizes a view that public health has been militarized and the military repurposed as a public health front. The term “kill box” is used to describe a geographic or three-dimensional area established for military attacks; the speaker asserts the DOD and WHO aim to render the entire world as their terrain, with the population as all people and the campaign as permanent. Weapons in this campaign are described as informational (propaganda and censorship), psychological (fear and obedience to government), and chemical/biological/radiological/nuclear (referred to as pharmaceuticals, vaccines, but claimed to be toxins and pathogens). The speaker contends this project has centuries-long roots in globalist banking and military interests, intensifying in 1913 with the Federal Reserve Act and in the 1930s–40s with public health. By the mid-1960s, they claim, poisons were fraudulently labeled as medicines or vaccines to induce civic duty, citing COVID as an example of coercion (do this or you’ll kill your grandma). The pharmaceutical method is described as enabling plausible deniability and legal impunity, allowing mass harm with less traceable fingerprints. Coercion is described as cascading from the Bank for International Settlements to other federal central banks, then down through state, national, local governments, school districts, hospitals, and beyond. Compliance with masking, testing, isolation, and injections purportedly grants financial access, while noncompliance cuts such access. Legally, the speaker traces a framework beginning in 1969 with a U.S. law to set up chemical and biological warfare programs (50 USC Chapter 32) and the key terms “protective,” “prophylactic,” and “defensive,” used to justify research while arguing that all biologically active products are inherently toxic. The 1983 Public Health Service Act amendment created the Public Health Emergencies Program and a $30 million “slush fund” (still funded under later acts). The 1986 National Vaccine Program and the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act established a liability exemption for manufacturers and a compensation program for injuries, later modeled by the countermeasures injury compensation program post-COVID. Internationally, the World Health Organization is described as a military arm of a one-world government, with International Health Regulations amended in 2005 to 2007 to push national systems toward surveillance, detention, quarantine, and forced treatment during international outbreaks. The real aim is shifting sovereignty from nation-states to WHO and BIS upon a public health emergency of international concern. Key years cited include 1997–1998 (Emergency Use Authorization and rehoming CBRN stockpiles), 2000–2002 (Public Health Threats and Emergencies Act, AUMF), and post-9/11 legislation (Patriot Act, Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness, Homeland Security Act), expanding a permanent state of global conflict. From 2003–2009, executive orders, funding, and agency guidance integrated DHS, DOJ, HHS, and DoD, enabling experimental products like vaccines and gene therapies. The Pfizer matter is cited to claim DoD prototypes bypass standard trials and FDA authorization, with government support for early termination of normal processes. Since 2020, the speaker links the WHO declaration of Public Health Emergency of International Concern with domestic PREP Act declarations and subsequent acts (Defense Production Act, Stafford Act, National Emergencies Act) to build a funding stream for military-led bioweapons research and use, while shielding participants from liability and enabling state sovereignty pushback through Article 10 of the Constitution. The speaker argues that these developments threaten constitutions and state protections, calling for increased state authority, and predicts a tipping point with criminal prosecutions, asserting that the actions constitute war crimes.

The pandemic created at least 40 new big pharma billionaires. Pharmaceutical corporations like Moderna and Pfizer made a $1,000 of profit every second from the COVID-19 vaccine. More than 2/3 of Congress received campaign funding from pharmaceutical companies in the 2020 election. Pfizer chairman Albert Bourla told Time Magazine in July 2020 that his company was developing a COVID vaccine for the good of humanity, not for money; Pfizer made $100 billion in profit in 2022. The American public funded the development of the Pfizer vaccine, and the German public funded the BioNTech vaccine. It is possible that these reading capitalists made a lot of money, and also there are a lot of people who did need the vaccine and would be dead without it. If you have an economic system in which pharmaceutical companies benefit hugely from medical emergencies, where a military industrial complex benefits from war, where energy companies benefit from energy crisis, you are going to generate states of perpetual crisis for the interest of ordinary people, separate from the interest of the elite.

Actions were taken to promote the vaccine by inflating COVID numbers through protocols in 2020. Hospitals were incentivized to label patients as COVID, put them on ventilators, administer Remdesivir, and profit from deaths. The goal was to instill fear and push vaccinations. Hospital administrators, driven by financial incentives, unknowingly contributed to unnecessary deaths. This greed-driven system continues to harm people.

It used to be that pharmaceutical companies were working with the doctors. Now unfortunately, companies are captured by the price of the stock. Know, venture capitalist owned pharmaceutical companies. They owned the CR or the clinical research organizations. They owned the site. They owned the institutional review board. They owned the advertising, the marketing. They influenced through the media. And so unfortunately, there's a big it's a it's a loaded question, but it's a big market. And what we saw this pandemic was the price of the stock mattered more than the price of a life.

The pandemic created numerous new billionaires in the pharmaceutical industry, with companies like Moderna and Pfizer making massive profits from the COVID-19 vaccine. Many members of Congress received campaign funding from pharmaceutical companies. Pfizer's chairman claimed they developed the vaccine for the benefit of humanity, but the company still made a staggering $100 billion in profit. This raises questions about an economic system where pharmaceutical companies profit from emergencies, similar to how the military-industrial complex benefits from war and energy companies benefit from energy crises. Such a system perpetuates states of crisis, prioritizing the interests of the elite over ordinary people.

In 2018, the World Health Organization changed the definition of an adverse event from immunization, only considering published literature. This means that genetically modified injections have no established adverse events. So when Pfizer and Moderna claim no adverse events, they are technically telling the truth. This change occurred just before the pandemic, leading some to speculate it was part of a plan. It's concerning that this information is not widely known, as discussing it can lead to censorship. Big pharma is the biggest killer in the world, surpassing even the military industrial complex. They have caused more deaths than guns and bullets. Big pharma is a means of controlling and limiting our freedoms.

The WHO is portrayed as a lobby organization funded by pharmaceutical companies and influenced by billionaires. It is claimed the WHO is not interested in public health. Governments are said to relinquish power to the WHO to avoid electoral repercussions for unpopular decisions. Politicians can then blame the WHO for policies like lockdowns and school closures, claiming they had no choice. This arrangement allegedly shields politicians from accountability.

Government regulators are influenced by big pharma, with FDA employees receiving royalties from approved vaccines and drugs. FDA's budget heavily relies on pharmaceutical industries, leading to agency capture. For instance, NIH owns half of the Moderna vaccine, with high-level deputies under Fauci receiving $150,000 annually from it indefinitely. This conflict of interest is not widely discussed in mainstream media, as speaking out can lead to censorship.

In 2018, the World Health Organization changed the definition of vaccine adverse events, only considering those already established in published clinical literature. This conveniently allows Pfizer and Moderna to claim no adverse events from genetically modified injections. The definition change occurred just before the pandemic, suggesting a plan. This information is not widely known, as it is censored by mainstream media. Most people avoid asking the question of whether we want to be a submissive and tyrannized population or live in freedom. The reality is that we are currently a docile and compliant humanity. Pharmaceutical companies are responsible for more deaths than the military-industrial complex, and they will control and limit our freedoms.

This year, it was revealed that $2.3 billion was allocated by the government, specifically the CDC and FDA, to pharmacies like Walgreens and CVS to discourage the prescription of ivermectin and other treatments recommended by doctors. The federal government has now acknowledged that these treatments were effective and expressed regret for suppressing them, admitting that this has led to unnecessary deaths. The influence of big pharma, particularly figures like Bill Gates, has resulted in restrictions on what healthcare professionals can prescribe, leading to consequences such as decertification and job loss for those who defy these guidelines. This situation highlights the dangers of a powerful cartel controlling medical practices.

Pharmaceutical companies paid $1.06 billion to reviewers at major medical journals, allegedly corrupting the peer review process. Studies from the CDC, FDA, and Pfizer purportedly revealed major breaches in COVID-19 vaccine safety signals during pregnancy, but these findings were allegedly ignored. Independent researchers who published findings contradicting pharmaceutical industry narratives faced persecution, censorship, and threats to their medical licenses and board certifications. The speaker claims this happened to them personally.

A small group of conspirators has manipulated global health organizations for profit, leading to widespread harm. The World Health Organization (WHO) has operated as a criminal cartel since its inception, prioritizing control and profit over public health. They employ a four-step process: planning, funding, creating rationale, and profiting from their actions. Evidence suggests that the WHO and its partners have engaged in unethical practices, including harmful vaccine trials. The funding structure, heavily reliant on the Gates Foundation, raises legal concerns. The narrative surrounding pandemics has been manipulated to instill fear and drive acceptance of vaccines. This situation is characterized as organized crime, requiring a reevaluation of the WHO's role and a call for its dismantlement rather than mere reform. The focus should be on addressing the criminal actions rather than debating public health measures.

The discussion traces the alleged dark origins and long-running influence behind modern medicine and vaccines, framing today’s pharmaceutical system as the culmination of a century-long strategy led by powerful interests. - Rockefeller’s role is presented as foundational. Speaker 0 describes John D. Rockefeller becoming America’s first billionaire in 1913 and using strategic philanthropy through the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research (1901) and the Rockefeller Foundation (1913) to shape Western medicine toward laboratory-based, drug-centered approaches. The narrative claims this shift marginalized herbalism, naturopathy, homeopathy, and holistic remedies, promoting a model in which a pill is developed for every illness and patients remain chronically ill to sustain repeat business. - The early to mid-20th century is characterized as a period of regulatory capture and a pivot to synthetic, patentable drugs. From the 1920s to the 1940s, oil and chemical companies supposedly moved into synthetic drugs with Rockefeller guidance, removing incentives to patent natural remedies while patenting synthetic ones. This, the speaker argues, created a profit motive to treat illness as a recurring revenue stream. - Regulatory capture and the FDA’s evolution are discussed. The claim is that the FDA became more of a gatekeeper dependent on the industry it regulates, with former pharma executives and consultants filling key roles and rubber-stamping drugs. The only notable counterpoint highlighted is Doctor Francis Kelsey, who reportedly blocked the thalidomide approval in the 1960s, preventing birth defects in the United States and illustrating a brief period when public safety was prioritized. - The subsequent decades are summarized as intensifying industry influence. The 1970s are described as a time when pharmaceutical funding of clinical trials and lobbying expanded, and the 1980 Bayh-Dole Act is cited as enabling private patenting of publicly funded research, increasing collaboration between universities and industry and training medical professionals to favor pharmaceuticals. The 1990s are marked by direct-to-consumer advertising on U.S. television, which allegedly shifted patient behavior and doctor prescribing patterns toward medications advertised directly to the public. - Whistleblower testimony is invoked to illustrate ongoing concerns about drug safety and industry practices. A whistleblower recounts bribes and perks tied to drug promotion, including lavish gifts and trips to doctors, and asserts that patients are often treated as a means to profit for corporations. - The conversation shifts to vaccine safety and regulatory issues. The discussion includes claims about the COVID-19 vaccines, with assertions that the FDA acknowledges a number of child deaths, and a reference to an autopsy-based analysis by Dr. Peter McCullough suggesting a high proportion of vaccine-related deaths in examined cases. There is mention that Dr. McCullough faced professional pushback. - The importance of gut health and the microbiome is emphasized as a counterpoint to pharmaceutical-centric medicine. Speaker 3 argues that gut microbiome diversity is linked to many chronic conditions and aging, and cites the benefits of fermentation and kimchi. A specific emphasis is placed on kimchi as having a broad spectrum of beneficial bacteria and on the purported anti-aging effects observed in cell studies. - Kim Bright of Brightcore Nutrition advocates kimchi-based products (Kimchi One) as a practical approach to support gut health and overall well-being, describing customer testimonials about improved digestion, immune function, skin and hair health, and weight management. She argues for the daily use of gut-supporting probiotics, especially after antibiotic use, and asserts that antibiotics can disrupt gut flora, necessitating restoration of beneficial bacteria. - The speakers discuss consumer engagement and the role of direct customer contact, contrasting it with impersonal pharmaceutical industry practices. They express optimism about changes in medicine and a desire to reduce reliance on processed foods and large pharmaceutical advertising, hoping for reforms and greater transparency. Throughout, the tone asserts a pervasive influence of Rockefeller-era strategies on today’s medical and vaccine landscape, while promoting kimchi-based approaches as a healthier counterbalance and offering products as a practical embodiment of that stance.

The speaker claims that those who oppose the pharmaceutical industry are punished, while those who support it, like Anthony Fauci, rise to the top. Fauci, who has been in his position for 50 years, is highly paid and serves the agency's ambition. The speaker accuses the National Institutes of Health (NIH) of abandoning its mission to understand why Americans are sick and instead focusing on developing drugs for profit. The NIH earns billions of dollars from the Moderna vaccine, with Fauci's employees benefiting from patents and royalties. The speaker suggests that the agency's commercial interests have overshadowed its regulatory responsibilities.

The pandemic has led to the emergence of 14 new billionaires in the pharmaceutical industry. Companies like Moderna and Pfizer made massive profits from the COVID-19 vaccine, earning $1,000 per second. In the 2020 election, over two-thirds of Congress received campaign funding from pharmaceutical companies. Despite Pfizer's chairman claiming their vaccine was developed for the good of humanity, the company still made a staggering $100 billion in profit in 2022. This economic system benefits pharmaceutical, military, and energy companies, creating perpetual crises for ordinary people.

The speaker outlines a version of the biological colonialism argument, referencing Jeffrey. The argument traces five hundred years of wealth accumulation by powerful nations: European ships with soldiers and guns arrive in the New World, take gold, enslave people, force labor in gold mines, and thereby make Europe and the UK rich. This pattern continues through neo-colonialism with unfair trade deals and, more recently, with the backing of the US military to compel third-world nations to produce goods for low cost, sustaining Western wealth. The speaker asserts that when there were no new lands left to conquer, the ruling class redirected exploitation toward the middle class in the United States and developed nations, extracting wealth through iatrogenic injury. According to the speaker, this modern form of exploitation involves the entire population injecting their children 72 times during childhood and encouraging further COVID shots for others, resulting in lifelong injury. The speaker claims that autism and other chronic illnesses generate substantial lifetime care costs, estimated at 5,000,000 to 7,000,000 dollars per child, with these costs benefiting the pharmaceutical industry, the hospital-industrial complex, and the ruling class. A concrete example is given: a middle-aged woman in Orange County, California who receives a COVID shot and develops myocarditis. Over the next five to ten years, her healthcare costs are projected to reach about 2,000,000 dollars, paid by insurance, government programs, and her family, circulating to pharma and doctors. The speaker contrasts this with the older colonial model of extracting wealth from a laborer in a gold mine, where at most about 20,000 dollars of labor could be harvested from a person. In the current model, the speaker argues that the same person could be drained of approximately 2,000,000 dollars through iatrogenic injury and healthcare costs over a decade, ultimately culminating in the person’s death. The core claim is that Western allopathic medicine has become a machine to extract wealth from the middle, working, and lower classes in the United States, enriching the pharmaceutical industry and the ruling class through iatrogenic injury. The speaker states that this crisis was already present with autism and other chronic illnesses before the COVID era but expanded in scale during the COVID epidemic, the response to it, and what they describe as junk science surrounding COVID shots.

In 2018, the World Health Organization changed the definition of an adverse event from immunization, stating that only adverse events established in published literature would be considered. This conveniently means that genetically modified injections have no published clinical literature, so when Pfizer and Moderna claim no adverse events, they are technically telling the truth. This change in definition occurred just before the pandemic, leading some to speculate if it was part of a plan. The mainstream media rarely discusses this, and those who do are often censored. Big pharma is the biggest killer in the world, surpassing even the military industrial complex. They have caused more deaths than guns and bullets. Big pharma is a means of controlling and limiting our freedoms.

The speaker discusses the control and influence of organizations like the World Health Organization (WHO) and the CDC, particularly by entities like the Gates Foundation. They highlight the coercion and manipulation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, leading to a loss of trust and a sense of betrayal. The speaker also delves into the history of these organizations, such as the Rockefeller Foundation and the Wellcome Trust, and their involvement in shaping allopathic medicine and promoting vaccines. They argue that these organizations operate as criminal conspiracies, with a focus on population control and the suppression of alternative healing methods. The speaker emphasizes the need for individuals to stand up against this agenda and for justice to prevail through non-compliance and legal action.

The pandemic created 40 new big pharma billionaires. Companies like Moderna and Pfizer profited $1,000 per second from the COVID vaccine. Over 2/3 of congress received campaign funding from pharmaceutical companies in 2020. Pfizer's chairman mentioned developing the vaccine for humanity, not money, but the company made $100 billion in profit. The public funded the vaccine development, but companies took the profits. The system benefits from crises like medical emergencies, war, and energy crises, leading to perpetual crises for ordinary people's interests. Industries profit from these crises, like the COVID testing industry.

The discussion traces a long, shadowy arc in the development of modern vaccines and medicine, arguing that rapid COVID-19 vaccine progress rests on over a century of influence by powerful interests rather than sudden breakthroughs. - The narrative centers on John D. Rockefeller, who became America’s first billionaire in 1913, the same year the Federal Reserve was created. It frames Rockefeller as leveraging his oil wealth to monopolize medicine, promoting prescription drugs while vilifying natural and holistic remedies. The claim is that Rockefeller used strategic philanthropy (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, established 1901; Rockefeller Foundation, 1913) to push laboratory-based, drug-centered medicine, marginalize herbalism and naturopathy, and steer doctors toward pharmaceuticals. The effect, according to the speakers, was to keep people sick so they would return for ongoing treatments rather than cures. - The timeline continues with the rise of the pharmaceutical industry from the 1920s to 1940s, described as moving into synthetic drugs with Rockefeller guidance. Natural remedies were said to be non-patentable while synthetic drugs could be patented, creating a business incentive for ongoing, chronic treatment rather than cures. - The conversation shifts to regulatory dynamics, arguing that regulation became regulatory capture from the 1930s to 1960s, with the FDA functioning as a gatekeeper increasingly populated by former pharma professionals. The FDA’s integrity is debated through the example of Dr. Francis Kelsey, who resisted approving thalidomide; the drug was later linked to birth defects worldwide, and Kelsey’s stance is presented as a rare early stand for public safety. - In the 1970s and 1980s, the narrative asserts growing corporate influence: pharma lobbies expand, advertising budgets explode, and medicine becomes a growth industry. The Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 is cited as enabling private patents on publicly funded research, tying universities to pharma interests and shaping medical education toward pharmaceutical solutions. Direct-to-consumer advertising is highlighted as a turning point in the 1990s, pressuring doctors through patient demand spurred by TV ads. - The discussion includes a first-hand account from a former pharmaceutical sales representative, Lisa Prada, who describes bribes and perks (golf outings, concerts, strip clubs, etc.) to influence prescribing, and asserts that patients were often treated as means to corporate ends. - Kim Bright, founder of Brightcore Nutrition, joins to discuss current health issues, arguing that the pharmaceutical industry prioritizes profits over patient well-being. She notes that the Rockefeller Foundation funded COVID-19 vaccine efforts (she cites $55 million) and argues the foundation and industry continued to push medical interventions globally. She notes that the FDA’s public acknowledgment of COVID vaccine-related child deaths is incongruent with whistleblowers’ claims and autopsy data. - The program underscores the idea that prescription drugs are the third leading cause of death in the United States and Europe, citing studies on gut microbiome disruption from medications like antibiotics and acid-reducing drugs (dysbiosis) as a major contributor to chronic disease. - The gut microbiome is emphasized as central to health. Dr. David Perlmutter’s work on the gut-brain connection is referenced, including criticism faced for linking diet and fermented foods to health outcomes. Kimchi is highlighted as a powerful antimicrobial and a potential anti-aging agent in cellular studies. The hosts discuss kimchi’s health benefits, including improved digestion, immune function, and weight management. - Brightcore promotes Kimchi One capsules as a convenient alternative for Americans who dislike traditional kimchi, claiming benefits such as reduced bloating, better digestion, improved hair and skin, and weight loss. A discount offer is advertised: 25% off online, up to 50% off with a phone order, free shipping, and a free vitamin D3 with the first 100 callers, using the code provided. - The conversation closes with reflections on the do-not-mistake-the-system dynamic, optimism about changes in medicine, and calls for removing dependency on processed foods and advertising-driven medicine, with an acknowledgment of RFK Jr.’s activism against pharmaceutical ads on television.

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.

Hi. I'm Robert F. Kennedy Jr, your HHS secretary. Should doctors make decisions based upon what's best for their patients or based upon what makes them the most money? It rewards certain treatments, not because they're better for the patient, but because someone profits. Take what happened during COVID. Hospitals were paid to report staff vaccination rates. We're scanning every corner of the health care system for hidden incentives at corrupt medical judgment. What we're finding is alarming. Doctors are being paid to vaccinate not to evaluate. We've recently uncovered that more than 36,000 doctors had their Medicare reimbursements altered based upon childhood vaccination rates. That's not medicine.