reSee.it - Related Video Feed

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

Sugar fuels cancer, as it operates as a fermentation system reliant on it. Despite Otto Warburg receiving a Nobel Prize for his findings, the focus shifted back to chemotherapy and radiation, which do not cure cancer. This approach leads to disease management rather than finding a cure. The financial incentive lies in treating chronic conditions rather than curing them, as the profit comes from those who require ongoing treatment rather than from healthy individuals or those who have passed away.

According to the speaker, MD-directed treatments are the third leading cause of death in the United States. They claim that 15,000 Medicare patients die each month due to these treatments, yet no one is held accountable. The speaker suggests that society has been misled into believing that medical doctors are infallible. They explain that in the early 1900s, various medical practices coexisted, but after the Flexner report, the medical profession gained dominance through political and financial alliances. The speaker emphasizes that this is a significant problem, as MD-directed pharmaceutical medicine is responsible for numerous deaths. They also criticize the reliance on medical insurance, which supports a flawed system. The video concludes with a mention of a nutritional deficiency test available for a small fee.

Cancer is a widespread problem, including breast cancer, leukemia, and prostate cancer. The speaker claims to have witnessed many people curing themselves of brain tumors. They discuss the work of Otto Warburg, who won two Nobel Prizes for proving that cancer is caused by a lack of oxygen. By increasing oxygen intake and raising red cell blood count, Warburg allegedly cured thousands of people and documented his findings in scientific research journals.

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.

Vitamin D alone could prevent about 30,000 cancer deaths in a single country in a single year. The study looked in Germany and examined what would happen if they administered wide-scale vitamin D to the 50 and older population. Based on the most recent meta-analyses of vitamin D and cancer, there is about a 13% reduction in cancer mortality, and that is extrapolated to an entire country, resulting in saving about 30,000 lives per year. A recent paper on vitamin D and cancer and its biological effects is highlighted: there are over 900 peer-reviewed recent papers finding that vitamin D, when raised to adequate levels, exhibits anticancer activity against literally basically every single cancer known, through vitamin D receptor signaling as well as tumor microenvironment control and immune modulation. This is described as very, very important as winter months approach, so ensuring adequate vitamin D intake is advised. The speaker notes that some of the most powerful cancer prevention tools are neither profitable nor novel, and vitamin D is very inexpensive, biologically active, and, according to randomized clinical trial evidence, saves lives at scale. The main question posed is why public health agencies are ignoring this.

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.

The speaker argues that there has been manipulation of science and a dangerous phenomenon called overdiagnosis that has affected millions of women, particularly in breast cancer, over the last thirty years. Citing a recent study in the New England Journal of Medicine, the speaker claims that over the past three decades in the United States, one point three million women were diagnosed with early stage breast cancer that would never have caused harm. This condition is described as ductal carcinoma in situ, or stage zero cancer, which the speaker asserts was equated with actual cancer. According to the speaker, these diagnoses led to standard treatments such as mastectomy or lumpectomy with radiation, with chemotherapy, and then follow-up hormone-suppressive therapies like tamoxifen and an aromatase inhibitor (arimidex). The speaker contends that many women were subjected to these interventions for cancers that would not have caused harm, and therefore experienced the associated physical, psychological, and social burdens. The speaker characterizes the consequence as a form of medical holocaust, asserting that women were diagnosed with a cancer they did not have, underwent treatment, and endured stigma and psychospiritual stress as a result. Additionally, it is claimed that the healthcare industry told these women that they were saved or that their lives were extended, but the speaker asserts the opposite outcome occurred. A further claim is that these women identify with the aggressor in a manner likened to Stockholm syndrome. The speaker notes that millions participate in breast cancer awareness marches, seemingly unaware that the events are funded by corporations that profit from the drugs used to treat breast cancer. In summary, the speaker presents a narrative in which overdiagnosis led to widespread unnecessary cancer treatments, causing harm to a large population of women, while the industry purportedly benefited financially from the drugs and treatments administered. The remarks connect the phenomenon to broader concerns about the motives of the pharmaceutical and medical industries and the messaging surrounding breast cancer awareness campaigns.

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.

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 speaker challenges the idea that cancer is solely genetic, pointing out flaws in current research and treatments. They emphasize the importance of healthy mitochondria in cancer prevention, criticizing society's focus on treatment over prevention. The speaker highlights the rise of cancer cases and the detrimental effects of current treatments, calling for a shift towards a more holistic approach to cancer care.

If all women in this country took 200 micrograms of selenium, breast cancer could be reduced by 82%. However, we are not currently taking this action.

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.

The speaker states that approximately 1,700 people in the U.S. die from cancer daily, which translates to about 70 deaths per hour, characterizing it as an epidemic. Despite massive funding from the government and private foundations, including pink ribbon campaigns, there's a lack of accountability and progress. The speaker suggests examining the scientific advisory boards of foundations to understand why progress is stagnant. They contrast the claim of major progress in reducing cancer deaths with the high number of fatalities, recounting a conversation where someone acknowledged the deaths as an "unfortunate problem" despite claiming it's an exciting time for cancer research.

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.

The speaker states that approximately 1,700 people in the U.S. die from cancer daily, which translates to about 70 deaths per hour. They criticize the continuous allocation of billions of dollars to cancer research by the federal government and private foundations without significant progress or accountability. The speaker suggests examining the scientific advisory boards of foundations to understand the lack of advancement. They contrast the claim of major progress in reducing cancer deaths with the ongoing high mortality rate, highlighting a disconnect between optimistic statements and the reality of cancer-related deaths.

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.

The video discusses the cancer industry and the limited treatment options offered by the medical profession, such as surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation. Alternative treatments like herbal remedies and nutritional therapies have been disregarded and suppressed. Dr. Gerson's therapy, which focuses on natural methods and diet, has been successful in curing cancer patients, but it faces opposition in the US due to its lack of patentability and high cost. Other alternative cancer treatments, including Laetrile, shark cartilage, and mistletoe, have also been dismissed without proper scientific evaluation. The fight against cancer has become a battle between the pharmaceutical industry and those seeking alternative solutions.

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.

Sugar is the main fuel for cancer because it operates on fermentation. Despite this, the medical community has shifted focus away from this knowledge and towards chemotherapy and radiation, which are not effective in curing cancer. Instead, they focus on managing the disease and maintaining symptoms. This approach is financially beneficial as it targets those who can be convinced they have a chronic condition requiring ongoing treatment.