reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Speaker recalls monoclonal antibodies: "They worked very well" and "They were not controversial." After the government took over distribution, access "became harder and harder to get them," and the speaker turned to ivermectin. They claim, "they did that on purpose" and, "They they did that to encourage people to take the the COVID shot." The speaker suggests the timing was orchestration, noting "in March, the government put out the big information on ivermectin and why you should not take it for COVID. They put that on the FDA's website." At the same time, they launched "COVID-nineteen Community Core, and this was 04/01/2021." They describe this as "an $11,500,000,000 slush fund to propaganda, to feed out propaganda."

I have a chart that shows the CDC and FDA's own numbers on adverse events. Despite social media censorship, these are the true numbers. Over 28 years of reporting, Ivermectin, Hydroxychloroquine, and Dexamethasone are shown to be safe drugs. However, since the COVID pandemic, remdesivir and the COVID vaccines have had adverse events. Our response to COVID has been a failure, with 4% of the world's population but supposedly 16% of the deaths. The VAERS system has recorded 1,600,000 adverse events from the COVID vaccines alone.

Tony Fauci's problem is that a federal law prohibits emergency use authorization for a vaccine if there is an approved medication that is effective against the target disease. If Fauci had acknowledged the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine or Ivermectin against COVID, it would have been illegal to approve the vaccines. The medical community, including 17,000 doctors, supported the use of these medications, but Fauci dismissed them as dangerous. It is speculated that Fauci had a strong incentive to discredit these medications. Many doctors, such as Harvey Reach, Peter McCulloch, and Pierre Corey, who have successfully treated COVID patients, believe that hundreds of thousands of American lives could have been saved if these medications were not suppressed.

The 2018 FDA guidance recommended using drugs off-label for unmet medical needs. Hydroxychloroquine, Ivermectin, colchicine, doxycycline, Azithromycin, budesonide, prednisone, and enoxaparin were used to treat COVID-19. However, certain drugs like hydroxychloroquine faced strong opposition. Clive Palmer in Australia procured hydroxychloroquine for the entire population, but it was seized and destroyed by authorities. The motive behind targeting these drugs is unclear. If they were proven useful, there would be no need for vaccine mandates. It's questioned why people couldn't use hydroxychloroquine or Ivermectin if they were willing to try and pay for them, even if they didn't work.

The United States government has been the main source of misinformation during the pandemic, spreading false claims about COVID transmission, vaccine immunity, and mask effectiveness. The Cochrane review, the most authoritative evidence body in medicine, disproves these claims. Myocarditis is actually more common after vaccination, and young people don't benefit from boosters. Top vaccine experts resigned from the FDA in protest over this issue. The CDC withheld hospitalization rates among vaccinated individuals under 50, and vaccine mandates didn't increase vaccination rates but created more opposition. Medical research has been weaponized, with the CDC releasing flawed studies to support their desired outcomes. Public health officials have been dishonest and lied to the American people.

The Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) regulation from the Clinton administration included safeguards. You can distribute a medication without approval, clinical trials, or safety testing, but only if no existing approved drug is effective against the target illness. To use the EUA for vaccines, any effective drugs against COVID needed to be discredited. Early on, it was known that hydroxychloroquine was effective against coronavirus. NIH studies demonstrated its effectiveness both as a preventative and as a cure. Ivermectin was also very effective. Acknowledging that these drugs worked would have eliminated the use of the emergency use authorization. So, they had to suppress them.

Speaker expresses frustration with monoclonal antibodies: "They worked very well" and "They were not controversial." Initially, they were readily available: "I could get as many doses as I wanted. I mean, show up at my doorstep the next day. And it was great." After the government took over distribution, access declined, leading me to use ivermectin: "I turned to ivermectin." "But, you know, in my opinion, they did that on purpose." They claim the government did that "to encourage people to take the the COVID shot." They assert timing: "If you look at the timing, in March, the government put out the big information on ivermectin and why you should not take it for COVID. They put that on the FDA's website." They reference "COVID-nineteen Community Core," launched "04/01/2021," described as "an $11,500,000,000 slush fund to propaganda, to feed out propaganda."

The FDA and FTC prohibited manufacturers of nasal products from promoting or researching their effectiveness against COVID-19. Companies like Xlear and Cofix RX faced strong warnings for attempting to investigate their products. Various treatments, including hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, and virosidal nasal sprays, were effective but met with government resistance. Higher doses of corticosteroids, zinc, vitamin D, vitamin C, quercetin, and famotidine showed promise, yet were largely ignored. Colchicine, proven to reduce hospitalization and death risk, received no acknowledgment from the federal government. Instead, the public was urged to fear the virus, adhere to lockdowns, and rely solely on vaccines, which were mandated every six months without exceptions. The focus was primarily on vaccination rather than effective treatments.

Speaker 0: They use them for to amplify fear, to boost compliance, and, of course, push those vaccines. Well, joining me now is primary care physician and author of unavoidably unsafe childhood Reconsidered. Doctor Jeff Barky is with us. Doc, it's great to have you back on. Speaker 1: Hey, Grant. Thanks for having me. Great to be with you. Speaker 0: Alright. I know this comes as no surprise, this number, that only fourteen percent of the PCR positive turned out to be COVID in Germany. I would imagine it translates to The United States. But your reaction and now seeing this done by real scientists, real doctors in a real journal of medicine. Speaker 1: Well, there's no surprise by this study. We knew it all along. The PCR test was never designed to detect infection. What it detects is miniscule particles of the RNA virus, and then they would crank up the cycle threshold. They would amplify the test to create positivity. And so the problem is that you could test the side of a table and get a positive result, let alone that we were actually going to treat based on a test result. I was always taught in medical school, we don't treat test results, we treat patients. And that's what I tried to do. And then the government went out of its way to suppress effective repurposed medication, like hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin. This was a money game. This was a scam. This was all based on fear. No surprise out of Germany. Speaker 0: You know, I I believe it. And let's not forget because we always talk about the money and the vaccines and big pharma and their ties to government, and I know that was a lot. But let's not forget too. This was weaponized to keep people home so they wouldn't vote for president Trump during during that twenty twenty election. It was all part of the big steal. Speaker 1: These positives, they wanted lots of positives. They didn't want negatives. They wanted positives. Didn't they, doc? Speaker 0: They absolutely did for a variety of reasons. The more you can keep people in fear, the more likely it is they're gonna follow your directive. We've never seen anything like this before. The government imposing its will upon free citizens. They closed churches. They closed mom and pop stores. They forced healthy people to stay indoors, and they closed down hospitals and told sick people to stay away. I've never seen anything like that happen before. The sad part here, Grant, is I'm not clear that the American people learned their lesson. And when the government comes around and does this again, I just hope enough of us will stand up this time and say, hell no. Well

In 2020, there was a disinformation campaign against Hydroxychloroquine, a generic drug. The pharmaceutical industry opposes generic drugs as they reduce profits. They conducted trials with toxic doses of Hydroxychloroquine, causing increased deaths. On the other hand, Ivermectin is beneficial when given in higher doses. The spike protein in COVID-19 causes clotting issues and suppresses interferon, a chemical that helps fight infections and cancer. Medicines like Ivermectin and others can boost interferon levels and prevent clotting by binding to receptors. Some patients given high doses of Ivermectin have shown remarkable recovery, as it competes with the spike protein for binding sites and prevents clot formation.

The speaker claims that the public had limited access to data when the vaccines received emergency use authorization. They believe regulators, who they consider corrupt, were determined to push forward with the mass vaccination program. The speaker argues that effective therapeutic medicines like Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin were intentionally suppressed to pave the way for vaccine authorization. They explain that a federal law prohibits emergency use authorization for a vaccine if there is an existing licensed drug that proves effective against the same disease. The speaker suggests that this decision was driven by financial interests, with the NIH owning half the patent for the Moderna vaccine and individuals associated with Anthony Fauci potentially receiving significant royalties.

Three papers by Nathaniel Mead, containing nearly a thousand references, concluded that COVID-19 vaccination risks outweigh any theoretical benefits. According to the speaker, wishful thinking suggests vaccines saved lives and reduced severity, but early multi-drug treatment, not vaccines, reduced the risk of death. The speaker claims a marathon runner died because he didn't receive effective early treatment, and his vaccination status was irrelevant. The CDC allegedly knew that thousands of fully vaccinated patients were dying of acute COVID-19 early in 2021, making it obvious the vaccines did not reduce the risk of death. The speaker does not want America to be fooled into thinking that the vaccines save lives because they didn't.

Tony Fauci's problem is that a federal law prohibits emergency use authorization for a vaccine if there is an approved medication that effectively treats the target disease. If Fauci or anyone had acknowledged that Ivermectin works as a treatment for COVID, the vaccine would not have received authorization. Despite many doctors and publications supporting Ivermectin, Fauci actively dismissed it as a dangerous medication to drown out its effectiveness. It is unclear why he continued to do so after receiving authorization, but there is a strong incentive for him to discredit Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine. Notable doctors like Harvey Reich and Pierre Cory have successfully treated thousands of COVID patients.

Monoclonal antibodies worked very well and quickly, and were initially readily available. The speaker believes the government intentionally made them harder to get to encourage people to take the COVID shot. The speaker didn't use ivermectin until the government took over distribution of monoclonal antibodies. In March, the government put out information on why people should not take ivermectin for COVID on the FDA's website. At the same time, they launched COVID-nineteen Community Core on 04/01/2021, an $11,500,000,000 slush fund to feed out propaganda.

The speaker claims the Biden administration covered up science related to the COVID shot. Information related to vaccine complications was allegedly censored as COVID vaccine hesitant content. The speaker alleges the heart inflammation in young, healthy men and boys was not disclosed as soon as it should have been, resulting in thousands of kids developing myocarditis unnecessarily. The speaker suggests the administration knew the shot didn't stop transmission but kept it secret. The head of the FDA is cited as saying the Biden administration suppressed information about myocarditis damage to children. The speaker believes this sounds criminal, especially considering mandates for school, work, and travel.

The FDA's website advises against using ivermectin for COVID-19, yet links to clinical trials, half of which indicate it may be effective. For three years, the FDA has warned against ivermectin while referencing studies that support its use. Additionally, there is increasing research suggesting ivermectin could be a vital treatment for COVID-19. The strong opposition from the federal government appears to be linked to the desire to maintain emergency use authorization for COVID vaccines. For more insights, consider subscribing for additional videos.

Vaccines were oversold, leading to mandates that caused people to lose their jobs. The intent behind vaccine liability laws was well-meaning, but companies must be held accountable for vaccine injuries. Early treatments like hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin were undermined, preventing effective therapies from being available and allowing emergency use authorization for vaccines. This approach resulted in unnecessary loss of life. The suppression of alternative treatments benefited pharmaceutical companies financially. Despite evidence supporting treatments like corticosteroids and ivermectin, these options were dismissed, paving the way for vaccine mandates. The public response to vaccine injuries has been inadequate and unacceptable.

- The discussion opens with a critique of how public health authorities in the United States and much of the media discouraged experimentation with COVID-19 treatments, instead pushing vaccination and portraying other approaches as dangerous. The hosts ask why treatments were sidelined and treated as heretical to question. - Speaker 1 explains that the core idea was to stamp out “vaccine hesitation,” which he frames not as a purely scientific issue but as a form of heresy. He notes a broad literature on vaccine hesitancy and contrasts it with the perception of the vaccine as a liberating savior. He points to a Vatican €20 silver coin (2022) commemorating the COVID-19 vaccine, described by Vatican catalogs as “a boy prepares to receive the Eucharist,” which the speakers interpret as an overlay of religious iconography with vaccination imagery. They also reference Diego Rivera’s mural in Detroit, interpreted as depicting the vaccine as a Eucharist, and a South African church banner reading “even the blood of Christ cannot protect you, get vaccinated,” highlighting what they see as provocative uses of religious symbolism to promote vaccination. - They claim that the Biden administration’s COVID Vaccine Corps distributed billions of dollars to major sports leagues (NFL, MLB) and that many mainline churches reportedly received money to push vaccination, with many clergy not opposing the push. The implication is that monetary incentives influenced public figures and organizations to advocate for vaccines, contributing to a climate in which questioning orthodoxy was difficult. - The speakers discuss the social dynamics around vaccine “heresy,” using Aaron Rodgers’ experience with isolation and shaming in the NFL and Novak Djokovic’s experiences in Australia to illustrate how prominent individuals who questioned or fell outside the orthodoxy faced punitive pressure. They compare this to a Reformation-era conflict over doctrinal correctness and describe a psychology of stigmatizing dissent as a tool to enforce conformity. - They argue the imperative driving institutions was the belief that the vaccine was the central, non-negotiable public-health objective, seemingly above other medical considerations. The central question they raise is why vaccines became the sole priority, seemingly overriding a broader, more nuanced evaluation of medical options and individual risk. - The conversation shifts to epistemology and the nature of science. Speaker 1 suggests medicine often relies on orthodoxies and presuppositions, rather than purely empirical processes. He recounts a Kantian view that interpretation depends on preexisting categories, and he uses this to argue that medical decision-making can be constrained by established doctrines, which may obscure questions about optimization and safety. - They recount the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act and discuss Sara Sotomayor’s dissent, which argued that liability exposure is a key incentive for safety and improvement in vaccine development. They argue that the current system creates minimal liability for manufacturers, reducing the incentive to optimize safety, and they use this to question how the system encourages continuous safety improvements. - The hosts recount the early-treatment movement led by Peter McCullough and others, including a Senate hearing organized by Ron Johnson in November 2020 to discuss early-treatment options with FDA-approved drugs like hydroxychloroquine. They criticize what they describe as aggressive pushback against such approaches, noting that McCullough faced professional sanctions and lawsuits despite presenting peer-reviewed literature. - They return to the concept of orthodoxy and dogma, arguing that the medical establishment often suppresses dissent, citing YouTube removing a McCullough interview and the broader pattern of silencing challenge to the vaccine narrative. They stress that the social and institutional systems prize conformity and punish those who deviate, creating a climate of distrust toward official health bodies. - The discussion broadens into metaphysical and philosophical territory, with references to the Grand Inquisitor from Dostoevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov. They propose that elites—whether religious, political, or scientific—tend to prefer “taking care” of people through control rather than preserving individual responsibility and free will. The Grand Inquisitor tale is used to illustrate a recurring human temptation: to replace personal liberty with a protected, paternalistic order. - They discuss messenger RNA (mRNA) technology as a central manifestation of Promethean or Luciferian intellect—humans attempting to “read and write in the language of God.” They describe the scientific arc from transcription and translation to mRNA vaccines, noting Francis Collins’s The Language of God and the idea of humans “coding life.” They caution that mRNA vaccines involve injecting genetic material and point to the symbolic and ritual power of vaccination as a form of modern sacrament. - The speakers emphasize that the mRNA approach represents both a profound scientific achievement and a source of deep concern. They discuss fertility signals and potential adverse effects, including myocarditis in young people, and cite the July 2021 NEJM case study as highlighting safety concerns for myocarditis in adolescent males. They reference the FDA deliberative-committee discussions, noting that some influential voices publicly questioned the risk-benefit calculus for young people, yet faced pressure or dismissal within the orthodox framework. - They describe post-hoc investigations and testimonies suggesting that adverse events (like myocarditis) might have been downplayed or obscured, and they assert that public trust in health institutions has eroded as a result. They mention ongoing debates about whether vaccine-induced changes might affect future generations, referencing studies about transcripts of mRNA in cancer cells and liver cells, and they stress the need for independent scrutiny by scientists not “entranced” by the vaccine program. - The dialogue returns to the broader human condition: a tension between curiosity and restraint, knowledge and humility. They return to Dostoevsky’s moral questions about free will, responsibility, and the limits of human knowledge, concluding that scientific hubris can lead to dangerous consequences when it overrides open inquiry and accountability. - In closing, while the guests reflect on past missteps and the need for integrity in medicine, they underscore the ongoing questions about how evidence is interpreted, how dissent is treated, and how society balances scientific progress with humility, transparency, and respect for individual judgment.

The forest plot shows COVID medicines, with only expensive ones approved in the US. Cheaper drugs were ignored. Studies manipulated endpoints and faced negative PR. Over 420 trials on hydroxychloroquine and 100 on Ivermectin show significant benefits, but they are dismissed in the US.

The United States government has been the main source of misinformation during the pandemic, spreading false claims about COVID transmission, vaccine immunity, and mask effectiveness. The Cochrane review, the most authoritative evidence body in medicine, disproves these claims. Myocarditis is actually more common after vaccination, and young people don't benefit from boosters. Top vaccine experts resigned from the FDA in protest. Vaccine mandates didn't increase vaccination rates, but instead created a group of never vaxxers. Medical research has been weaponized, with the CDC releasing flawed studies to support their desired outcomes. Public health officials have been dishonest and lied to the American people.

**Bahasa Melayu:** Penceramah berkongsi pengalamannya sebagai penasihat WHO dan pengetahuannya tentang vaksin. Beliau mendakwa telah memberi amaran tentang vaksin COVID-19 sebelum ia dikeluarkan, tetapi disenyapkan. Beliau mencadangkan alternatif seperti ivermectin, tetapi juga disekat. Isu COVID-19 digunakan untuk agenda lain, dengan vaksin sebagai fokus utama. Vaksin mRNA yang digunakan berbeza daripada vaksin tradisional dan dipromosikan secara agresif walaupun terdapat kesan sampingan. Pakar tempatan dan tokoh agama digunakan untuk mempromosikan vaksin, manakala pandangan alternatif disenyapkan. FDA digunakan sebagai sandaran untuk kelulusan vaksin kecemasan, walaupun terdapat pilihan rawatan lain. Maklumat yang salah disebarkan melalui media, dan percubaan untuk berkongsi maklumat alternatif disekat. Rakyat disogok untuk mengambil vaksin dan booster. Beliau mendakwa tiada bukti vaksin menyelamatkan nyawa, tetapi banyak bukti kesan buruk. Vaksin COVID-19 sebenarnya adalah terapi gen yang mengubah genetik manusia, menyebabkan pelbagai masalah kesihatan. Beliau menggesa orang ramai untuk tidak panik tentang virus dan fokus pada meningkatkan sistem imun. **English Translation:** The speaker shared his experience as a WHO advisor and his knowledge of vaccines. He claimed to have warned about the COVID-19 vaccine before its release but was silenced. He suggested alternatives like ivermectin but was also blocked. The COVID-19 issue was used for other agendas, with the vaccine as the main focus. The mRNA vaccines used differ from traditional vaccines and were aggressively promoted despite side effects. Local experts and religious figures were used to promote the vaccine, while alternative views were silenced. The FDA was used as a backup for emergency vaccine approval, even though other treatment options existed. Misinformation was spread through the media, and attempts to share alternative information were blocked. People were bribed to take vaccines and boosters. He claimed there is no evidence that vaccines save lives, but plenty of evidence of adverse effects. The COVID-19 vaccine is actually gene therapy that alters human genetics, causing various health problems. He urged people not to panic about the virus and focus on boosting their immune systems.

Treat COVID at home with zinc, hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, and other remedies that reduce viral spread. Current protocol delays treatment until hospitalization, using harmful ventilators and remdesivir. Fauci knew remdesivir's dangers from Ebola trials. He manipulated data to make it standard care, causing kidney and heart failure. Many pandemic deaths were due to remdesivir, not the virus.

Monoclonal antibodies worked very well and quickly, and were initially readily available. The speaker believes the government intentionally made them harder to get to encourage people to take the COVID shot. The speaker started using ivermectin when monoclonal antibodies became difficult to obtain. In March, the government put out information on the FDA's website about why people should not take ivermectin for COVID. Simultaneously, the government launched COVID-nineteen Community Core on 04/01/2021, an $11,500,000,000 slush fund for propaganda.

The speaker discusses the use of various drugs, including hydroxychloroquine, Ivermectin, colchicine, doxycycline, Azithromycin, budesonide, prednisone, and enoxaparin, for treating COVID-19. They mention that these drugs were considered lightning rods, particularly hydroxychloroquine, which faced strong opposition. The speaker questions why authorities would prevent the use of these drugs if they were not believed to be effective, and highlights the safety profile of Ivermectin. They suggest that people should be allowed to try these drugs if they are willing to pay for them. The motive behind targeting these drugs is unclear.