TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

The transcript discusses several intertwined points about the FDA's funding, information sources, and a personal health journey. It states that the FDA gets 47% of its funding from the pharmaceutical industry, and that this information was released only after a rumor claimed 50% of their funding came from big pharma. The speaker notes, “the people that you’re supposed to be making rules and regulations for are the same people that are paying you money,” describing this as a conflict of interest and urging readers to consider the implication of funding influencing regulatory decisions. The speaker then shifts to their personal experience with health issues and the challenge of finding valid information that isn’t paid for by big pharma. They share a statistic attributed to women with similar issues: “85 to ninety percent of the women who experience the same issues that I experience notice changes in their symptoms or alleviation completely from their symptoms simply by changing their diet, namely going gluten free.” Although the speaker says they personally are not inclined to adopt gluten-free changes, they are cutting out refined carbs and sugars from their diet and report progress: “I've been on this diet for two days now, and I already feel a ton different.” This personal anecdote is presented in the context of comparing diet-driven symptom changes to pharmaceutical influence. The speaker mentions ongoing changes to their living space and routines as part of their broader stance. They say, “we're putting up our squat rack again in our home gym,” signaling a strengthening or lifestyle shift. They also report, “we did get some egg laying birds,” suggesting new household activities. Throughout, there is a reiterated sentiment directed at big pharma: “basically saying a big to big pharma,” underscoring their stance against pharmaceutical influence. Finally, the speaker emphasizes the surprising nature of the 47% funding figure and reiterates, “I still can't believe it's 47% of their funding, and they think that's okay.” They invite audience engagement, closing with, “as always, I look forward to hearing your thoughts about all of this down below.”

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.

Former Coca Cola employee turned TrueMed founder discusses how food and pharma industries manipulate the system. Food companies pay medical groups like American Diabetes Association, influencing guidelines. Institutions receive more funding from food companies than NIH. Systematic deception leads to rising health issues like obesity and diabetes. Pharma and medical institutions profit from sickness caused by food.

Medical schools allegedly don't teach nutrition because they are incentivized to prescribe drugs. The drug lobby ensures this by subsidizing medical school professors. Professors, therefore, promote drugs instead of alternatives like vitamin C. Over a century ago, foundations like Carnegie and Rockefeller allegedly engineered the curriculum through grants and donations.

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.

I'm an investigative reporter who initially trusted the medical establishment, but I've uncovered conflicts of interest and financial incentives that corrupt health research. The pharmaceutical industry legally launders taxpayer money through universities to produce unchallenged, biased studies. For example, a researcher who found a chemical feminizing frogs faced immense pressure to suppress his findings. Scientific journals are also compromised; former editors admit they couldn't stop industry-tainted studies. Drug companies ghostwrite articles for doctors to promote their products. They also influence medical schools, doctor education, media, and federal agencies, prioritizing profit over public health. This has led to a rise in chronic diseases, especially among children, that the medical establishment largely ignores. There's pressure to normalize these outcomes rather than address the root causes, as that is more profitable. Informed consent is also threatened, with the FDA loosening requirements for disclosing study risks.

Pediatricians may be incentivized to administer vaccines due to revenue structures. One article claims that 50% of pediatricians' revenue comes from vaccines. Insurance companies like Blue Cross allegedly pay bonuses to pediatricians who maintain a 95% vaccination rate among their clients. This bonus structure may disincentivize pediatricians from accommodating alternative vaccination schedules, potentially leading them to dismiss patients who request them. These incentives may prevent doctors from prioritizing patient care due to financial considerations. The speaker claims that twenty years ago, 20% of doctors worked for corporations, but now 80% do, and these corporations prioritize revenue over patient well-being.

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.

Universities, health organizations, and other institutions are in need of funding, while big multinational corporations have the money to provide it. These corporations use their financial influence to gain control. They give grants for research, collaborate on projects, and pay individual professors, doctors, and researchers. They may also fund educational programs that align with their interests. Although these arrangements are supposed to be independent, it is clear that corporations prioritize supporting their own products. If organizations do not comply, they risk losing funding. This financial influence is how the medical establishment is swayed.

American medical groups, including the American Diabetes Association, accept money from processed food companies like Coke. Hospitals have soda machines and sponsorships from these companies. The ADA recommends small cans of Coke for diabetics despite rising diabetes rates. The medical system profits from sickness, not health.

The medical industry is based on a lie because John D. Rockefeller bought major universities and media companies early on. He created his own curriculum for medicine based on pharmacology, which was rooted in the extraction of substances from oil. These medicines extracted from oil were found to cause cancer. Rockefeller used his power and media influence to debunk all forms of natural therapy. Doctors who spoke against him were discredited, their lives were destroyed, and some were assassinated. If you think you need pills, you'll be controlled by pharmaceutical companies.

The issue with medical education in America can be traced back to the late 1800s and early 1900s when the Rockefeller and Carnegie Foundations aimed to establish a medical monopoly. They achieved this by funding universities and appointing their staff to the boards of directors, ensuring their influence. As a result, the curriculum shifted towards pharmaceutical drugs, and this influence remains today. The medical profession is seen as subservient to the pharmaceutical industry, as money from vested interests dictates the outcome.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss the COVID-19 vaccine episode, challenging why the vaccine was pursued as a public health solution and exploring deeper incentives behind the program. - A knowledgeable figure at the stand answered a burning question: did they know the vaccine wouldn’t be effective from the start and could be dangerous? The answer given was that it was “a test of a technology.” The exchange suggests the broader aim was testing an entire program of control previewed in Event 2019. - They ask whether inoculation was necessary on billions, noting it could have been tested on a much smaller population. If shots had been basically empty or inert, the data could have been spun to claim success and end the pandemic, preventing injuries from appearing. The absence of that approach remains a mystery. - The speakers point to high pre-vaccine seroprevalence in 2020, including studies from South Dakota showing 50-60% seroprevalence before vaccine release, implying that a saline shot or no shot could have achieved “indomicity” (immunity) without a vaccine. - They discuss why people might fear vaccines and interpret the broader impact: the public is waking up to something terrible having occurred, as it revealed readiness to lie, potential data quality concerns, and risk to pregnant women and healthy children who might get little justification for risk. - The disease’s lethality is framed as greatest among the very old or very sick; for others, it was less deadly, with natural evolution potentially reducing vulnerability over time. - The mRNA platform was touted as a means to outrun mutations, but the timeline to release was still insufficient to stay ahead of natural change. They note accelerated development was the fastest vaccine in history, from detection to inoculation, reducing the timeline by about a year or two, yet not fast enough. - Political and logistical factors delayed release; there is mention that it would not have appeared under Trump and that Eric Topol argued to delay the rollout. Fauci reportedly sent Moderna back to trials due to insufficient racial diversity in participants. - The discussion questions whether the vaccine qualifies as a normal consumer product, given ongoing subsidies, mandates, indemnifications, wartime-like supports, and propaganda. They wonder if there has been an ongoing two-century revolt by industry against public scrutiny, with public interest repeatedly leading to pushback and rebranding. - A central theme is the sophistication of pharma: the “game of pharma” involves owning an IP-based health claim, crafting supportive research, convincing it is safe and effective, achieving standard-of-care status, securing mandates and government funding, and leveraging ongoing propaganda. They describe pharma as a long-running arms race with deep institutional knowledge, implying that it is far more capable of shaping reality than the public realizes.

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.

The medical industry is based on a lie. John D. Rockefeller bought major universities and media companies, creating his own medical curriculum based on pharmacology, which extracts substances from oil. These medicines were found to cause cancer. Rockefeller used his power to debunk natural therapies, discredit doctors who spoke against him, destroy their lives, and even assassinate some. If you think you need pills, pharmaceutical companies will control you.

The speaker says that even for obstetrics and gynecology societies, vaccination during pregnancy has been pursued as a duty, but physicians do not know the actual facts. They reference the New England Journal of Medicine, a famous medical journal, where a study of a vaccine’s adverse outcomes claimed that the user rate was 12.6%. Based on that paper, the Sanpeshikawa (Sanbushikawa) Association reportedly promoted vaccination for pregnant women as well. In reality, the data were as follows: of 827 people, 700 were in late pregnancy, and 127 were in the early stages (first trimester). When restricting to the 127 people who were under 20 weeks, the usage rate was 82%. Therefore, the speaker argues that this data reveals how dangerous the vaccine is, and that the data were hidden and mixed with high-profile 700-person data to produce the 12.6% miscarriage rate that was published. This is presented as evidence of a situation where even in medical journals, information was handled to favor the other side due to money and other influences.

Doctors have incentives related to vaccines, with one article claiming that 50% of pediatricians' revenue comes from them. Insurance companies like Blue Cross allegedly pay bonuses to pediatricians who maintain high vaccination rates among their clients, potentially tens of thousands of dollars. This bonus structure is claimed to be the reason pediatricians might dismiss patients who want alternative vaccine schedules. These incentives are characterized as perverse, hindering doctors from prioritizing patient care over financial gain. It is claimed that twenty years ago, 20% of doctors worked for corporations, but now 80% do, with corporations prioritizing revenue over patient well-being.

Drug companies are the wealthiest businesses and buy influence, including ministers of health. They target professors and chiefs of departments to become key opinion leaders who indoctrinate other doctors to use expensive drugs over cheaper alternatives. Medical education is partly corrupted. Doctors should avoid educational events funded by the drug industry, as key opinion leaders are selected for their sales abilities. Denmark is considered one of the least corrupt countries, but its healthcare system is corrupt. In Denmark, thousands of doctors are on drug company advisory boards or consult, which is how influence and loyalty are bought. Many of these doctors don't do much but are being bought.

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.

Science hinges on replication, yet NIH stopped enforcing it, creating incentives to publish even when hypotheses fail. Null results often go unpublished, and journals resist publishing critiques of vaccines due to pharmaceutical funding. Editors like Marcia Engel and Richard Horton have lamented that journals have become propaganda vessels for pharmaceutical companies. Pharma pays to publish, hires mercenary scientists to validate products, and preprints spread favorable findings. Pharma reps visit doctors to influence prescribing. It is claimed that 50% of revenues to most pediatricians come from vaccines, and insurers offer bonuses for high vaccination rates, pressuring doctors to follow schedules. Corporate ownership now surrounds practice, with many doctors employed by corporations and facing revenue pressure. The system is described as incentivized to keep people sick, and the conclusion is we’re the sickest nation in the world.

Medical doctors are trained in allopathic reductionism, which focuses solely on drugs and surgery. While these interventions have their place, MDs receive training limited to this area. The pharmaceutical industry influences medical education and research in the United States, prioritizing pharmaceutical research over other areas like homeopathic or botanical medicines, acupuncture, or medical nutrition. The focus is on developing new drugs or gene splices. Just as one wouldn't seek advice from a Republican about social programs or a Democrat about military funding, medical doctors are not trained in medical science, but rather in allopathic reductionism, which exclusively values drugs and surgery.

Les médecins reçoivent de l'argent des laboratoires, mais le vrai problème est le lobbying politique et économique caché. Les décisions importantes sont prises lors de rencontres secrètes, influençant la mise sur le marché des médicaments. Il est crucial de surveiller les conflits d'intérêts partout, y compris au sein de l'exécutif. Le lobbying pour des entreprises devrait être interdit pour éviter les abus.

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.

During COVID, some people saw the actions of figures like Dr. Fauci, Bill Gates, the WHO, and Klaus Schwab, and wondered why more people didn't notice. This narrative has been ongoing since at least 1910, aiming to discredit chiropractors, naturopaths, nutritionists, and functional medicine doctors. Pharmaceutical companies pay doctors kickbacks and fund the schools that educate them. These doctors often sit on government boards, creating a system that protects its members and exploits vulnerable, sick individuals. Pharmaceutical companies, which educate doctors, prioritize profit over people's well-being, and are unconcerned about the millions of deaths they may have caused as long as they profit.