reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Particularly the new evening news shows are just bracketed one after the other by pharmaceutical ads. Brought to you by Pfizer. Making a difference. Brought to you by Pfizer. CNN tonight. Brought to you by Pfizer. Anderson Cooper three sixty brought to you by Pfizer. And so, you know, you look at somebody like Anderson Cooper, I think Anderson Cooper makes about $20,000,000, you know, give or take. If you say he's got a $20,000,000 salary and 75% of that or 80% of that is coming from the pharmaceutical companies, that's who his real boss is.

A network president revealed that allowing certain voices on air could lead to the host's firing due to advertiser pressures, particularly from pharmaceutical companies. During non-election years, up to 70% of news revenue can come from pharma ads, which serve as a public relations tactic rather than simply promoting drugs. This funding influences the media, making it reluctant to investigate pharmaceutical practices, even when there are serious concerns about vaccine safety and corporate misconduct. The media often dismisses legitimate questions as anti-science, silencing discussions about vaccine injuries. There's a growing need to reconsider trust in the pharmaceutical industry, especially with the increasing government funding for drugs like Ozempic.

There are 250,000 drugs in the PDR, but none are designed to cure anything except maybe antibiotics for strep throat. Pharmaceutical companies focus on making money from insurance policies rather than creating cures. Laws do not require them to produce drugs that cure, despite their ability to do so.

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.

Pharmaceutical companies buy TV ads not to influence people to ask for specific drugs, but to manipulate the news industry. The ads are a tactic to buy off the news and prevent them from investigating the pharmaceutical industry. The news acts as a referee, labeling anyone who questions vaccine safety as anti-science, while the two largest vaccine makers have been involved in criminal activities. People who have experienced vaccine injuries are silenced and labeled as anti-science. The media is funded by pharmaceutical companies at all levels, creating a dark reality. The speaker believes it is empowering to recognize this and calls for a shift away from trusting pharmaceutical companies, especially considering the massive government funding they receive.

There is a lot of corruption in politics due to money, bribes, and backdoor deals. One major mistake was allowing drug companies to advertise on television, which only two countries, the United States and New Zealand, permit. These commercials often make exaggerated claims and list potential side effects very quickly. It's concerning how they can make something seem great one moment and then mention serious side effects like suicidal thoughts and rectal bleeding. Personally, I haven't taken many medications, but when I tried SSRIs, I found the last 20 seconds of the commercial more impactful than the rest, and I didn't experience any benefits from them.

Big Pharma spends heavily on media propaganda, influencing public perception and political campaigns. A recent vote in Idaho ended funding for COVID-19 vaccines, reflecting growing skepticism. Studies show vaccines may harm natural immunity, with significant increases in severe health issues among vaccinated individuals. The pharmaceutical industry is a major advertiser on networks like CBS and MSNBC, with top drugs linked to companies like Pfizer. In the 2020 election, a large portion of Congress received funding from pharmaceutical companies. Since 2011, digital ad spending in healthcare has surged, with billions spent on advertising and censorship efforts. The COVID-19 response is viewed as a significant wrongdoing, and there’s a call for accountability and a return to health. It's never too late to seek justice for those affected.

In an interview with John Abramson, a Harvard lecturer and expert in drug litigation, he discusses how America's commercialization of medical knowledge has led to the highest healthcare expenditure with the worst health outcomes. The country has experienced a decline in life expectancy and an increase in chronic diseases. Abramson attributes this to drug companies prioritizing profit over providing the best treatment and controlling information about their drugs. He highlights that prescribed medications are the third leading cause of death globally. He also connects these issues to the neoliberal economic model promoted by figures like Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, and economist Milton Friedman, who believed that corporations should prioritize profits over people. This mindset helps explain the current state of healthcare. The COVID mRNA vaccine mandates have further exposed this issue.

Only two countries worldwide allow pharmaceutical TV ads, including the U.S., where over a billion dollars monthly is spent. These ads convey that Americans frequently experience bowel and bladder issues, active seniors enjoy tennis and sex, and pills can solve any problem, even pill overuse. The speaker questions the need to suggest medications to doctors and highlights the growth of ketamine clinics in America. Western medicine, it's argued, treats respectable drugs differently from street drugs, despite similarities. Oxycodone is heroin, Adderall is meth, and Ritalin is cocaine for kids. Ketamine, once an illegal club drug, was FDA-approved as an anesthetic. The speaker suggests the first drug one uses is the gateway drug, be it beer, pot, or pharmaceuticals prescribed to children. Resisting profitable but harmful substances requires individual effort.

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.

Politicians have long promised to eliminate the discrepancy between drug prices in the U.S. and Europe. This was a key issue for Bernie Sanders, but previous leaders haven't acted on it. Politicians make these promises knowing they likely won't have to fulfill them. The reason is that Congress is heavily influenced by the pharmaceutical industry. There is at least one pharmaceutical lobbyist for every congressman, senator, and Supreme Court member.

We're paying too much for drugs compared to other countries, and existing laws make it hard to lower costs. The middlemen in the drug industry are profiting significantly without adding value. We're going to eliminate these middlemen to reduce drug prices to unprecedented levels. This topic dominated our discussions with executives and others involved.

Medicare overspent on dimethyl fumarate in 2022, paying $590 million for a drug I offer at $65 per prescription. This discrepancy highlights how Pharmacy Benefits Managers (PBMs) inflate drug costs to increase their profits. Medicare's PBM charged them $3,800 per prescription when the real price is only $65. This PBM price gouging cost Medicare $580 million on just this one drug. The solution is simple: eliminate PBM contracts to save money. Also, your insurance likely uses a PBM, overcharging you too. Check if you're overpaying for your medications at fourthparkpharmacy.com to use our price checker.

The people involved in drug companies, insurance companies, and the food industry work together, often holding stock in each other’s companies and serving on each other’s boards. The transcript describes this as a “criminal enterprise” and outlines one way it allegedly works. In the food industry’s meetings, food companies discuss adding ingredients and claim their chemists understand that each additive, in minute amounts, does not cause problems and has no long-term negative effects when consumed. The account then says that when three additives are combined, a new compound forms that leads to leg twitching or shaking. It may take three to five to seven years to develop because the effects impact nerves. The transcript describes the conversation as follows: the food companies would knowingly begin adding these ingredients because, years later, they expect hundreds of thousands or millions of people to develop symptoms and need treatment. They would propose labeling the condition—restless leg syndrome—when it emerges. The drug companies would then be prompted to have an approved drug ready by that time to generate major profits. It also claims that drug companies work toward these future “epidemics” by developing drugs in advance, contributing to the emergence of illnesses presented as widespread—such as psoriasis, diabetes, hypertension, restless leg syndrome, irritable bowel syndrome, and other conditions said to not have existed fifty years earlier. The transcript links these conditions to advertising campaigns where, if someone experiences twitching, they are told to take another drug. It describes the response as “take another drug.” Finally, insurance companies are said to become involved by figuring out how to profit. The transcript claims that through lobbyists, they work out deals so insurance and government-funded programs effectively pay for the drugs, citing Medicare and Medicaid in the United States. It says similar arrangements exist in other countries and concludes that these groups “make their money” through coordinated actions.

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.

The media in our country is heavily influenced by the pharmaceutical industry, with 75% of advertising revenues on mainstream media coming from pharma. The evening news, where pharmaceuticals are advertised, has an even higher ratio. Anderson Cooper, with a $12,000,000 annual salary, receives $10,000,000 from Pfizer. His allegiance lies with Pfizer, not CNN. They openly acknowledge this partnership, as seen in the "brought to you by Pfizer" tagline. Consequently, Cooper is unlikely to provide unbiased information about Pfizer's products. Instead, he aims to sell them and instill fear by suggesting that not using them could be fatal.

I've identified wasteful spending in Medicare, specifically with generic Cialis, or Tadalafil. In 2022, Medicare spent $237 million on this drug, averaging $481 per prescription across 492,000 prescriptions. However, at my pharmacy, the same prescription costs only $14 without insurance. That means it would only cost $7 million to cover the entire country at my pharmacy's pricing. The overcharge of $230 million for just this one drug is due to pharmacy benefits managers (PBMs). PBMs manage all pharmacy-related aspects for Medicare, deciding coverage, copays, government costs, and pharmacy payments. They've essentially decided on a 3000% markup. It's time to fire the PBMs and bring prices back to reality. To check the markups on your prescriptions, visit forestparkpharmacy.com and use our price checker.

The people involved in drug companies, insurance companies, and the food industry work together, with many holding stock in each other’s companies and serving on boards across companies. The transcript describes this as a “criminal enterprise” and explains one example of how it works. The food industry proposes adding multiple ingredients or additives to food. According to the description, each additive by itself, in minute amounts, does not cause any problem, and does not have long-term negative effects when consumed separately. The meeting conversation then turns to how, when all three additives are combined, they form a new compound that leads to leg twitching or shaking. The onset is described as sometimes taking three to five to seven years because it affects nerves. The food companies allegedly discuss the strategy: they plan to start putting the additives in food, anticipating that years later hundreds of thousands or millions of people will develop the leg-shaking issue and will seek treatment. The issue is described as being named “restless leg syndrome.” The drug companies are said to work on a medication in advance so that once the condition becomes widespread, they will have an approved drug ready to sell. The transcript also claims this pattern appears in other conditions, stating that when “an epidemic” occurs—such as psoriasis, diabetes, hypertension, restless leg syndrome, irritable bowel syndrome, and other newly described diseases—drug companies create or market treatments for symptoms and prescribe additional drugs, including when a person taking a drug experiences twitching. Insurance companies are described as then seeking ways to make money and allegedly involve the government through lobbyists. The transcript says they arrange for taxpayer-funded payment for the drugs through insurance coverage, citing Medicare and Medicaid in America, and says similar arrangements occur in other countries. In the transcript’s account, the combined actions of the food industry, drug companies, and insurance companies—backed by government payment—are presented as a recurring method of making money.

Most physicians and clinicians avoid getting involved in the issue of profit-driven healthcare. The real problem lies in the collusion between academic institutions, doctors, medical journals, and industry for financial gain. These corporations, as legal entities, often exhibit psychopathic traits, prioritizing profit over the well-being of patients. Many top drug companies have been fined billions for illegal marketing, hiding harm data, and manipulating results. However, these fines are often outweighed by the profits they make from selling the drugs. While the pharmaceutical industry has contributed life-saving treatments, the net effect of their practices is negative, with a significant amount of wasted resources and harmful drugs approved.

Politicians have long promised to address the discrepancy between drug prices in the U.S. and Europe. This issue was central to Bernie Sanders' presidential campaigns. However, these promises were never fulfilled because Congress is heavily influenced by the pharmaceutical industry. There is at least one pharmaceutical lobbyist for every member of Congress, the Senate, and the Supreme Court.

Americans pay significantly more for prescription drugs than other countries, sometimes up to 10 times more. Pharmaceutical companies generate two-thirds of their profits in the U.S., effectively making Americans subsidize healthcare in other countries. The administration is introducing a "most favored nation" pricing model, ensuring the U.S. pays the lowest price available globally for drugs. For example, a breast cancer drug costing over $16,000 in the U.S. is a fraction of that price in Australia and Sweden. Similarly, an asthma drug costs almost $500 in the U.S. but less than $40 in the UK. The plan involves directing investigations into foreign nations that block drug products unless they accept low prices, and the U.S. will defend drug companies from unfair pricing demands. The administration aims to cut out middlemen and facilitate direct drug sales at the most favored nation price. If companies don't comply, the U.S. will use its trade powers and open the market to safe, legal drug imports.

Americans are programmed to trust only FDA-approved drugs, but Big Pharma buys the FDA's approval. The FDA stopped independently reviewing all drugs about 30 years ago. Drugmakers can pay a lump sum upfront, such as $10,000,000, to get immediate approval to sell their products. The approval is granted if the drugmaker believes and can prove through their own research studies that the drug is safe and effective.

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.