reSee.it - Related Video Feed

"Just laid out the facts and that, hey, we don't the the fact is that this vaccine does not apply to eighty percent of the people." "But if you know the status, then you don't need to get that vaccine." "But that's, like, eighty percent of the people, so that's a lot less revenue." "Merck was like, we're not really making a lot of money." "We will put this or not Congress, but the FDA was like, oh, we're gonna put this on the childhood schedule so then it more could" "get the World Health Organization," "so it went global." "Would you rather create a drug that's only used when you get sick and you need it?" "Or one for everybody to quote unquote prevent that sickness?" "Therapy is gonna apply to what? One percent, half a percent of people." "Now you have 90% of the people."

Speaker 0: This is Prevenar, made by Pfizer. There are several products on the market, but the concept is the same. This is one of the studies that brought this product to market. Here’s what I want to show you. You’ll notice up here, this is the number of patients in the placebo group. This where my finger is is the control group that was treated, and then this is the placebo group. Notice how many there are. What it says is you need to treat forty two thousand two hundred forty patients with the vaccine Prevenar in order to prevent forty one cases of pneumonia. And they all get the benefits of the potential side effects of the drug. Let’s look at that quickly. Section 6.2 in the package insert, lymphadenopathy cyanosis in the pediatric population, anaphylaxis, hypotonia, reduced tone in kids that get this vaccine, skin and subcutaneous disorders, vascular disorders, etcetera. In this vaccine is polysorbate 80 and aluminum as an adjuvant. Aluminum neurotoxin. Of course, there’s section 13.1. The product has not been evaluated to see if it causes cancer or interferes with reproductive health. Pretty important information to know.

Speaker 0 recounts a 2013 mRNA-based trial with 'over 200,000 participants' that allegedly 'altered how the T cells produced antibodies' and 'worked phenomenally for not just lupus, but ulcerative colitis, Crohn's disease, multiple sclerosis as well.' He claims 'every last one of us, including myself, had their heart stop' and 'less than five of us are still alive today,' with injections 'over about a year' and complications after 'two years'—'cancer, heart attack, stroke, myocarditis.' He insists he didn't commit 'government assisted suicide.' He discusses 'stage three human testing' and says if a drug 'does not show what the pharmaceutical company wants it to show ... that drug does not pass FDA testing, that's because it killed over two percent of the people that were in that trial.' He says pharma pays medical bills, enforces NDAs, and 'destroy it' and 'bury that data' to conceal deaths; claims 'Since 1920, doctors have killed over two hundred million Americans.' He adds 'open heart surgery. Lost my colon, three strokes.'

200 congresspeople have been treated with Ivermectin for COVID, which was a common off-label treatment before vaccines were available. The motivation behind the negative perception of this medication is unclear, but it may relate to financial interests since Ivermectin is a generic drug with a low cost of about 30 cents per dose.

The speaker claims that chemotherapy first wipes out red blood cells, causing anemia, with Epogen; second, neutrophils that prevent infection, with Neupogen; and most importantly, NK and T cells—the lymphocytes. He says, "the only thing that protects your body against cancer is your lymphocytes, meaning the NK cells and T cells," and that, with chemotherapy or radiation, "within a day or two, you wipe out the only cells that matter, i.e. The cells that kill can." He notes, "for thirty five years, we've never had a treatment for that." He links this to long COVID: during viral infection, "the virus is smart, it wipes out the T cells and NK cells." He points out the irony that Epogen and Neupogen are needed because chemotherapy has wiped out the cells that matter. A South African pancreas transplant surgeon says, "everything we've done so far has been wrong. We've actually treated cancer wrongly."

Fenbezodizole, a potential miracle drug for cancer, has at least 12 proven anti-cancer mechanisms of action. It is speculated that big pharma fears it due to its low cost. The speaker hopes that Flint is aware of this and examines it. There has been some reaction to this discovery, and it is revealed that a similar drug in the same family, menbendazole, has already been approved by the FDA and is in clinical trials for brain and colon cancers. The lack of clinical trials for Fenbezodizole is attributed to its low cost, safety, and effectiveness. Big pharma's lack of interest in it is seen as an obstacle to people accessing potentially life-saving treatments. The speaker suggests that society is designed to make people sick, allowing big pharma to profit from their remedies.

I'm Karen DeVore, a dermatologist in South Carolina. I've been prescribing hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin for over 30 years, off-label. In 2020, the FDA called Ivermectin horse medicine and doctors couldn't prescribe it. I knew these drugs were safe and effective, and I saw great results in my patients. None of the patients I treated with these drugs were hospitalized or died from COVID. They had no side effects and felt better within hours. It's frustrating that insurance companies and pharmacies denied access to these drugs. Even terminally ill patients on ventilators couldn't try them. How many lives could have been saved?

An independent third party determined outcomes were 24% better than the peer group. There was a discussion about videotaping, with someone stating they couldn't videotape what was happening. Doctors were not blocked from prescribing Inventon or any medical treatment they found best for the patient.

I participated in an mRNA-based immunomodulatory medication trial back in 2013. It was meant to alter how T-cells produced antibodies, and it worked phenomenally for lupus, ulcerative colitis, Crohn's, and multiple sclerosis. There were over 200,000 participants in the trial, and every one of us had our hearts stop. Less than five of us are still alive today. The medication was a series of injections over a year, and complications like cancer, heart attack, stroke, and myocarditis took two years to appear. If a medical trial doesn't show what the pharmaceutical company wants and the drug doesn't pass FDA testing because it killed over two percent of participants, the company pays everyone involved to sign an NDA. They bury the data because pharmaceutical companies kill more people than wars. Since 1920, doctors have killed over 200 million Americans. I had open heart surgery, lost my colon, and suffered three strokes.

Before we start, I want to say something that cannot be said enough. Even now, people are unnecessarily dying because the Dutch authorities do not allow a reliable and effective medicine. This is a serious and major scandal. I have mentioned it several times before, but it cannot be emphasized enough. This is terrible and it reflects the situation we are in.

Speaker 0: There were four drugs that were being tested for Ebola. Remdesivir killed more people than placebo, and the data safety monitoring board had actually stopped the study where literally fifty three percent of Speaker 1: the patients died in the failed Ebola trial and was repurposed. It was a failed Ebola drug because it caused more harm than good in Ebola trials. It was still unpatent. It was Tony Fauci's drug of choice. The majority of hospital deaths were actually caused by Anthony Fauci because his NIH put out protocols that if the hospital systems adhered to, they got bonuses, big bonuses, lots of money, $3,000 per for putting an IV in of remdesivir. Boom. $3,000. But guess what? On top of the entire hospital stay, a 20% bonus, that could be hundreds of thousands of dollars. Speaker 0: The data was so overwhelming that remdesivir killed patients more so than placebo. The drug had to be stopped, and this was published in the New England Journal in the 2019. Speaker 2: What happened during COVID could not have happened without propaganda and censorship. And how do we overcome that propaganda and censorship? It's primarily through people not being willing to shut up.

The probiotic industry understands the loss of bifidobacterium in cancer and aging populations, but cannot claim probiotics improve longevity due to FDA regulations requiring clinical trials. Doctors also face scrutiny for promoting products without sufficient data. The speaker conducts clinical trials, involving the FDA when bringing products to market, such as ivermectin, doxycycline, and zinc for COVID. Data showed no deaths during treatment, suggesting its effectiveness. Despite a product's market approval with a 20% success rate, the speaker emphasizes the need to address the remaining 80% of patients. Innovation and discussion among doctors are crucial, but social media is now essential for educating doctors and the public due to the high cost of publishing data.

An independent third party determined outcomes were 24% better than the peer group. There was a discussion about whether or not one can videotape the public. Doctors were not blocked from prescribing Inventon or any medical treatment they found best for the patient.

I found many clinicians dismissing the importance of asking about vaccination status when treating patients with blood clots. Despite frustrations, I continue to see cases where this information is overlooked. Collaborating with physicians in Birmingham, we witnessed an increase in severe cases, including young individuals with atrial fibrillation. I made the decision to prioritize patient care over job security, treating over 2,000 patients, including those with vaccine injuries.

In early 2013, I participated in a medical trial for an mRNA-based medication that aimed to change how T cells produce antibodies. The trial had over 200,000 participants, including myself, and unfortunately, all of us experienced our hearts stopping. Only a few of us survived. The trial lasted about a year, and complications like cancer, heart attacks, strokes, and myocarditis appeared two years later. When a medication doesn't meet the pharmaceutical company's expectations or fails FDA testing, they often pay the participants' medical bills and have them sign nondisclosure agreements. This information is usually buried because pharmaceutical companies have caused more deaths in America than wars have. Since 1920, doctors have killed over 200 million Americans. Personally, I've undergone open heart surgery, lost my colon, and had three strokes.

An independent third party determined outcomes were 24% better than the peer group. There was a discussion about whether or not one could videotape in a public space. Doctors were not blocked from prescribing Inventon or any medical treatment they found best for the patient.

Dr. Miley Trinh, a GP based in Sydney, Australia, joins Jim Ferguson for her first appearance on the show. She explains she has practiced as a GP for nearly thirty years and has been suspended since late 2021 amid a dispute with the health regulator over her license. She describes her suspension as part of a broader fight with regulators and regulators’ attempts to cancel her medical license. Trinh recounts how her concerns about the COVID-19 situation began in 2019, while following global events and studying debt-based economic systems. She states she became alarmed by reports of Wuhan’s lockdown timing, noting that authorities announced a lockdown five days earlier and allowed travel before it commenced, which she found alarming. She observed what she called unusual global coordination in reporting and policy responses to the pandemic, with early treatment being suppressed and a tightly controlled narrative across countries. Regarding ivermectin, she says she concluded after months of research that it was a key medication for treating COVID-19, particularly when given early. She describes participating in doctor groups and Zoom meetings to discuss how to treat patients and notes she treated a patient by telephone during lockdown who was deteriorating. She reports that the patient improved after her treatment but later faced complications requiring hospital care. She says two complaints were filed against her in September 2021—the first from a patient she had helped, and the second from an individual named John Smith who obtained a prescription that belonged to a family member for ivermectin. She asserts John Smith did not belong to her practice, and that the prescription was allegedly handed to an APRA (Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency) agent, a fact she says regulators overlooked when investigating her practice. Trinh emphasizes that she had never before faced a complaint in nearly thirty years of practice and that the suspension hearing concluded with her being deemed a danger to public health, despite her insistence that she saved a life. She has remained suspended for over four years. She describes the regulatory process as involving claims of prescribing ivermectin “below standard” and accusations of professional misconduct for not handing over 20 to 30 patient medical files, which she says she refused to provide because she did not know the patients’ names and because none of the patients had filed complaints against her. She notes that hearings occurred in December, March, and August, with subsequent issues over transcript integrity and requests for recusal of the presiding judge. She says a decision on the main case is imminent, but a cancellation of her license could entail a three to five-year suspension and substantial costs, complicating the possibility of reinstatement. Beyond her case, she argues the fight is about medical autonomy and the right for physicians to tailor treatments to individual patients, not be dictated by politicians or rigid guidelines. She criticizes what she views as a heavily censored environment for doctors who questioned the pandemic narrative or advocated for therapeutics like ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, vitamin D, and zinc. She asserts that the COVID-19 Task Force guidelines opposed ivermectin and other therapeutics, and she contends such guidelines restrict doctors’ ability to provide individualized care. Trinh links the censorship and regulatory pressure to broader concerns about global governance, citing media suppression, removal of dissent on platforms like Facebook and YouTube, and increased control over platforms such as X (formerly Twitter). She mentions public support, including her presence on X and Facebook, as important to her ongoing legal battle and the broader struggle over medical autonomy and truth during the pandemic. She concludes by inviting people to follow her on X and Facebook to learn more and to show support as she pursues potential appeals if the judgment does not go in her favor. She frames her case as about more than COVID-19 alone: it is about challenging what she views as a long-standing, disproportionate control of doctors and a fight for fundamental rights, including the right to a hearing before the tribunal and the right to medical decision-making free from political interference.

Lexi is stable and in the ICU, receiving a high level of care. She was not transferred to another hospital because it would have resulted in her being treated by residents instead of expert doctors. A concern is the source of blood and platelet transfusions she requires. It is important to consider whether the donors were vaccinated with COVID vaccines, given Lexi's previous adverse reactions to multiple vaccines. Receiving blood and platelets from unknown donors could create further complications in her care. Updates will be provided as the family allows.

panel discusses hydroxychloroquine and early treatments. Hazen states: "I did the clinical trial. I wrote those protocols on hydroxychloroquine, Z Pak, vitamin C, D and zinc, passed them through the FDA within twenty four hours." She adds, "No one died on my shift, even though I did a placebo controlled trial on hydroxychloroquine, Z Pak, vitamin C, D and zinc," and "And we had hundreds of patients on that." They argue the Lancet paper is invalid: "This paper is to me is not just, you know, I'm not going to criticize it and say, oh, well they overdosed. I'm going to say, no, this is a fake paper. This is a fake data." They insist: "There is no way that four or five authors took 17,000 records." They discuss predatory journals: "predatory journals" and "they can manipulate or retract the data to make you look bad." They claim: "Hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin are out of patents." They report outcomes: "zero mortality" and "zero hospitalizations," and critique media: "they control the media and they push all this narrative out there." They urge: "stop publishing papers that are so fraudulently, so obviously fraudulent." They reference the microbiome: "the microbiome is all shit," and advocate: "everybody needs a fecal transplant right now."

Like hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin are no are out of patents. So because they're out of patents, you cannot make any money on these drugs. The most you could sell them for is, $300 Pharmaceutical companies are no longer interested in $300 drugs. They're interested in orphan drugs where they can get name your price for a drug. We're going to put it under an orphan and now we can bill whatever we want. From like $300 to $10,000 a month. Then all these companies started copying and doing biologic at $10,000 a month. But there is a movement that is controlling the research and stopping innovations, that is stopping out of patent drugs, drugs that are basically like hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin. So I think that's the number one thing and the attacks on that.

In the discussion, Speaker 0 argues that word-of-mouth PR surrounding ivermectin “saved so many lives” and created widespread distrust in the industry, describing a shift where people questioned official stances: “My oxygen was low, and I did take ivermectin and it did work. Why are they telling me ivermectin doesn't work?” This view frames ivermectin as having proven effectiveness in practice, contrasting with public or institutional statements. Speaker 1 adds that it’s “really hard not to get angry” about the official trials, claiming that the WHO and, specifically, the Oxford trials demonstrated that ivermectin didn’t work, but that it “patently does.” They describe the fundamental problem as the way those trials were conducted, implying methodological issues. They discuss specifics of how the studies tested different drugs: Speaker 0 notes that hydroxychloroquine was given “with food” in the study, while ivermectin was given on an empty stomach, implying a potential misapplication of administration guidelines. They state that Merck’s initial labeling for ivermectin in other indications (scabies and lice) recommends administration with a fatty meal, and share a personal anecdote that their sister introduced ivermectin to the market for lice and conducted a clinical trial with many patients. Speaker 1 questions why leading clinicians would administer these drugs without knowing the correct guidelines, suggesting there should have been knowledge about administration with meals for hydroxychloroquine and with food for ivermectin. They remark, “Why the heck didn’t they know that?” Speaker 0 contends that physicians adhere to guidelines and hospital rules and fear lawsuits; they claim this fear leads to doctors “not even wanna know” certain information. They express the sentiment that the medical community was discouraged or constrained by fear of legal consequences and licensing actions, which contributed to doctors avoiding or stopping certain lines of inquiry or treatment. Overall, the dialogue centers on a perceived discrepancy between real-world outcomes of ivermectin use and official trial conclusions, the role of administration guidelines in trial results, and the influence of fear of legal ramifications on clinical practice.

Speaker 1 notes that ivermectin has broken through to the public sphere beyond COVID and is now discussed for many diseases. Speaker 0 asks where ivermectin stands in the scientific and medical community today and what other use cases exist for the medicine. Speaker 1 responds that thousands of doctors follow their data; 18,000 GI doctors see their data when they publish or present at the American College of Gastroenterology. Word-of-mouth in the medical community is a major form of marketing, with one doctor speaking to another. Referencing the COVID era, Speaker 1 mentions corruption and retractions, then describes ivermectin as having created a healthcare revolution where doctors have lined up to work to see other benefits of ivermectin without needing to ask permission to treat patients. A whole branch of healthcare is moving away from the same institute that Speaker 1 helped create drugs to market with his sisters. He says a group of doctors who had sponsored or helped pharma are turning away from pharma and exploring other methods to treat patients. He states his job is to unite doctors to see the truth, while bringing pharma back to being righteous and stopping data manipulation and scientist censorship. Speaker 1 references his book, Let’s Talk SH.T, acknowledging he could be wrong and challenging others to prove him wrong and reproduce the data to retract the hypothesis or paper. He emphasizes that the scientific process should be followed, especially when everything was done by the book and as well as he could. He adds that the research was not funded by others; it was funded by his savings. He created the microbiome research foundation with the goal of raising money to study kids with autism and to push an IND to the FDA, which cost about $600,000 to obtain FDA approval. He clarifies that no external party paid for this work, and he continues to struggle to raise funds to treat poor autistic kids who cannot afford expensive stool testing, drugs, and vitamins; they need help and everyone should step in to assist these kids. Speaker 1 concludes that their focus is fixing autism, with the aim of later addressing Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, and cancer.

Once it was determined to be safe, the speaker began using a treatment and found that it worked. Over 6,000 patients were treated, and those who received early treatment avoided hospitalization. Some patients came in very sick in their second week, with oxygen saturation in the low 80s, refusing to go to the hospital. The speaker's office offered them the option to possibly die there. They treated these patients with IV steroids, IV antibiotics, home oxygen, and high doses of ivermectin, without using monoclonal antibodies, and the patients were saved.