reSee.it - Related Video Feed

- We need to stop trusting the experts. - We were told at the beginning of COVID, don't look at any data yourself. Don't do any investigating yourself. Just trust the experts. - And trusting the experts is not a feature of science. It's not a feature of democracy. It's a feature of religion, and it's a feature of totalitarianism. - In democracies, we have the obligation, and it's one of the burdens of citizenship, to do our own research and make our own determination. - And we're gonna give people gold standard science. We're gonna publish our protocols in advance. - We're going to tell people what we're doing, and then we're gonna use data, and we're gonna publish the peer reviews, which is never published by CDC studies. We're going to publish any time that we can the raw data, and then we're going to require replication of every study, which never happens at NIH now. That's something new that we're bringing in, is that every study will be replicated.

A Stanford scientist, John Iannidis, wrote a convincing paper in 2005 titled, Why Most Published Biomedical Papers Are False. The reasoning is not due to scientific fraud, but because science is difficult. When a statistically significant result is published, such as P equals 0.05, it means that some percentage of the time, the result will be false, even after peer review. Peer review involves colleagues reading the paper and looking for logical flaws, but not rerunning experiments or reanalyzing data. Peer review is not a guarantee of truth. Given the inherent difficulty of science, any published result has a high likelihood of being a false positive.

The transcript argues that “something potentially extraordinary” may be developing in American medicine, centered on claims by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. about possible Justice Department investigations into collusion involving pharmaceutical companies, medical boards, and medical journals. Kennedy is said to have raised the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) as a framework, and urged the DOJ to open an investigation into alleged collusion that “de-licenses” physicians who treat patients and challenge prevailing views. The transcript states that Kennedy also suggested medical journals could face civil and criminal RICO actions if wrongdoing were established. It emphasizes that the allegations are “extremely serious” and should be scrutinized, not accepted merely because they are made. The transcript explains that medical boards have long had broad authority to investigate, discipline, suspend, and remove doctors’ ability to practice, and frames a key question: what if those powers were influenced by commercial interests rather than patient protection? It notes that this became especially controversial during the COVID era, when governments imposed unprecedented public health measures, vaccines were deployed at enormous scale, protocols were intensely contested, and doctors who challenged elements of the prevailing consensus sometimes faced serious professional consequences. The transcript states that Rico requires more than disagreement or bad policy and would require demonstrable evidence such as emails, financial relationships, contracts, internal communications, instructions, and meetings. It then highlights medical journals as crucial because modern medicine depends on published research that universities, governments, regulators, journalists, and patients rely upon, and claims that influencing scientific literature would influence medicine itself. It specifies that conflicts of interest can include pharmaceutical funding of research, sponsoring clinical trials, employing scientists, engaging consultants, and funding medical education, asserting that the central issue is whether commercial influence distorts which research is performed, published, promoted, or ignored. It also argues that scientific transparency matters because real science depends on challenge, replication, argument, and evidence. Kennedy is also said to have singled out the National Institutes of Health (NIH), claiming NIH’s business should be changed. The transcript argues that NIH funding decisions shape which research questions are pursued and which careers flourish, raising questions about whether funding can influence scientific orthodoxy through incentives that affect grants, publications, professional standing, or career trajectories. It adds that institutions can create these incentives without requiring a coordinated conspiracy among everyone. Finally, the transcript stresses due process and evidentiary standards, stating that RICO and criminal accountability require evidence of criminal conduct and individual responsibility, and that investigations should be evidence-led. It concludes by framing the broader issue as whether the public can trust medicine, medicine-linked recommendations, journal studies, board discipline, and medical research funding decisions. It says trust cannot be demanded back after COVID-era trust failures and argues that transparency—open records, financial relationship review, communications examination, and evidence testing—is necessary. It ends by calling for follow-the-evidence investigation of allegations, whether or not they are ultimately unfounded, and for accountability if crimes were committed.

Every day, just the 1% of the cells of your DNA that gets replicated stretches from here to the sun four times. If you're to line it up end by end, that's very hard to conceptualize. But it should give you a little bit of humility before you go and start monkeying with it with these vaccines that can actually alter your DNA. And that's what I'm gonna show you. Is that the vaccines had a DNA contamination in them that didn't tell you about that could in fact alter your genome. Alright? These people are vibe coding your genome. And this is a major attack surface to the human gene pool because if this thing starts to alter the lifespan of people, it's going to part you with your Bitcoin. You're gonna end up spending money in a fiat system that has no controls, has no liability, and ends up oftentimes inducing mandates to get what it wants done. Many people had have peer have gone and replicated this work. It happened on Twitter. It did not happen very quickly in the peer review system. The peer review system kinda kicked it out. Some of these papers have now been peer reviewed, but it took years for them to come to this conclusion. Now, the FDA, the EMA and the TGA have all admitted that this mistake has happened. How did it happen? There's a big bait and switch. Pfizer actually ran the trial of 22,000 people on the process on the left and after they got to the trial, they then switched to the process on the right and didn't retrial the drug. And in doing so, they left a tremendous amount of excess DNA behind in the product. So all of the vaccine efficiency numbers you've heard in the news are flawed. They're not real because that's not what actually went into the trial. What went to the public was actually something that came out of this process too. It's published now in the BMJ that this fraud happened and no one has yet been prosecuted for it. So what did they leave in there? What they left in there was something we know from the polio scandal. If you're not familiar with the polio scandal, that polio vaccines were also contaminated with something known as SV40 and it created a massive cancer wave. Now the whole virus isn't in these vaccines, but there is a very curious part of this called the SV40 region that Pfizer intentionally removed from the disclosure that they gave to the FDA. So the FDA has admitted that this SV40 material is in there. They did not spell this out to the regulators. The regulators did not find them and they're actually running cover for them saying this DNA is too little consequence to matter, it's too small, and it's not functional. But we know it's functional because Dean et al has published that this piece of DNA drives DNA straight to the nucleus. It gets used in gene therapy vectors.

Danish study on aluminum in vaccines should be retracted, scientists say. The article by doctor Hvid, an apologist for aluminum in vaccines from Denmark, was caught. The first appendix published with the journal was not the right one; after press hoopla, the correct statistics were published. Senior scientist Collie Blanowski analyzed and said, 'they lied.' There is a 'statistical correlation between higher doses of aluminum' in their data, showing that people who got more aluminum had higher rates of autism, ADHD, and other neurodevelopmental problems, and it should be retracted. If you remember back in COVID, the surgosphere study was 'completely laced with fraudulent data, and it was retracted.'

Speaker 0: Asked about the system of retractions and whether retracting a paper discredits a hypothesis, and on what basis retractions occur. Speaker 1: Responded that quoting papers that are later retracted does not negate a hypothesis; there is no rule requiring a hypothesis to be retracted if a cited paper is retracted after publication. They note that the practice involves harassing journals rather than logically disproving a hypothesis. For example, they may present a dozen questions to the journal, answer all of them, and then continue harassing the journal to the point that the journal ignores the answers and retracts the paper to avoid further harassment.

Ideas are just concepts to explore and discuss, and you shouldn't be attached to them. The issue arises when people become possessive, wanting their ideas to prevail, often leading to dishonesty. Individuals may manipulate information or dismiss opposing views unethically to advance their careers. Academia and media often reward this behavior, especially when it results in high-profile publications. Ultimately, there's a tendency to prioritize personal success over truthfulness.

Science is often misunderstood. Many people with advanced degrees only trust peer-reviewed papers and ignore observation, thinking, and discussion. This narrow view is pathetic. Academia values peer-reviewed papers, but this blocks new scientific insights and advancements. Breakthroughs in science usually come from the fringe, not the center of the profession. The finest candlemakers couldn't have imagined electric lights. Our ignorance and stupidity may lead to our downfall.

The speaker discusses the finding of plasmids in Pfizer vaccines, referencing a widely read paper that initiated inquiry into the consequences of this residual contaminant. David Speaker replicated this work in Canada, finding it in every one of over 30 vials. Philip Buchholz replicated this in South Carolina, and Dr. Sid Lee replicated the work using different primers and Sanger sequencing. Bridget Koning has replicated this in Germany, and several federal agencies have admitted the presence of DNA, though disagreeing on clinical implications. Ulrich Kammerer's lab replicated the work, transfecting plasmids from the vaccines into cell lines, where they persisted for several cycles of cell division. High schoolers interning at the FDA White Oak facility also measured it and found it to be significantly over the limit. Numerous studies have replicated these findings, with most finding levels over the limit. One individual with ties to Moderna claims it is not over the limit. Kaiser et al. claimed to have found it slightly over the limit but deemed it inconsequential; however, their DNA isolation method has been refuted by Kommer and Konig.

The gold standard in scientific research requires replication, which is currently lacking at the NIH. At least 20% of NIH budgets should be allocated to replication studies, and all science should be published with raw data and peer reviews. A notable example is a 20-year-old NIH study on amyloid and Alzheimer's, which incorrectly claimed amyloid plaques were the cause. This led to the cessation of alternative hypotheses and resulted in 800 studies based on a fraudulent premise, wasting two decades in the search for a cure. It's crucial to eliminate outdated practices and ensure transparency and replicability in scientific research.

Kendall asks for an explanation of the process by which the MMR vaccine causes autism, referencing the movie Vaxxed. Speaker 2 responds that they are currently researching those questions, as parents and physicians have reported children developing autism immediately after the MMR vaccine. The speaker claims studies that should have been done long ago were not. Instead, the speaker alleges that captured researchers at the CDC, mainly people who work for the pharmaceutical industry, produced bad epidemiological studies. The speaker asserts that these studies deliberately avoided comparing health outcomes in vaccinated versus unvaccinated groups. Speaker 0 states that this is one of the things they are studying now with gold standard science. Speaker 2 confirms they are doing gold standard science, which includes replication. They are allocating about 20% of their budget to replicating studies. Speaker 0 explains replication as an independent group repeating a study with the same parameters and data sets to achieve the same result. Speaker 2 agrees.

A PDF crowdsourced document that I believe CNN put out was sent to me by a New York Times reporter researching me, citing 200 different studies on vaccines that supposedly used placebo. I spoke with Dr. Joel Worsch, a pediatrician with an MS in epidemiology who wrote a book and is credible, neutral, and honest, and he says we don't know. There's not enough data to know. He breaks it down: the vast majority of these studies are not on the CDC schedule; many used active comparables, not inert placebo. After filtering, 25% of these studies pertain to vaccines on the schedule. Of those, inert placebo is used in about 5% of items. Longitudinal safety studies are zero; perhaps one or two were prelicensing. Journalists do their job: I spoke to doctor Joe; here's what I found. Cognitive dissidence is described as insecurity about flaws in the party.

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.

Big Pharma, they own everything. There's a number of past chief editors of journals, and we're not talking just, you know, like some throwaway journals. We're talking New England Journal of Medicine, Lancet, British Medical Journal. Okay. Some of the biggest journals in the world. Those are top three out of the top four that I just named. Journal of American Medical Association is the other one. But chief editors in the last twenty years, at least six of them have come out and said that at least 50% of the science that's published is fake. Come on. Read their quotes. Marcia Angel is one of them that I can remember her name. There's a guy by the name of Richard something or other from the British Medical Journal who said the same thing. I just read an article about it the other day. I'll I'll send it to you because it's I'm not surprised. I mean, depth of corruption is is stunning and and the fact that pretty much nothing's been done about it makes you wonder how long this can all last.

People leaving universities with advanced degrees only trust peer-reviewed papers, stifling new scientific insights. Breakthroughs often come from outside the mainstream, not the center of a profession. This narrow view of science is blocking progress and may lead to self-destruction.

176 drugs that were considered safe and effective, but now are off the market because they found they were quite dangerous. Accutane, they took it off the market because they found it creates liver damage after twenty seven years. Hey, these things were backed by science. But I think the worst of the worst is that industry is allowed to cherry pick their data and not have to publish the studies that don't align with what they want. So the main question is who is funding the study, which many times gives grants to universities. And then you have industry, which then also funds the universities. And then we allow industry to pay certain individuals who sit on boards and committees that regulate a lot of the guidelines in our health care. Unfortunately, what we're missing in science is this thing called ethics.