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.

This is a particularly interesting one; 'X rays are known to cause look at that. Not solve it.' They also claim, 'Also, they weaken the patient, and the patient often dies from the X-ray damage rather than from the statistics show that the patient who no longer receives the treatments live just as long or longer than those who subject themselves to all of this.' The approach proposed is to 'Treat the symptom of the tumor rather than the actual addressing the root cause.' The speaker concludes: 'This is a very powerful book that I highly recommend everybody look into.'

Speaker 0 begins by stating that cancer is not their favorite topic and asserts, “Eighty percent of folks who are told they have cancer don't have cancer. They're perfectly healthy.” They acknowledge that people with a cancer diagnosis don’t want to hear this, and express a reluctance to talk about cancer due to their attitude. Speaker 1 asks for a definition of cancer. Speaker 0 replies, “No, that’s actually very clear. So many people who are diagnosed with cancer do not have an uncontrolled growth of anything. So that definition is actually a good enough definition to exclude eighty percent of folks who are diagnosed with cancer. They may have a lump, they may have a growth, but it is controlled. Maybe it hasn't changed in size for three months or six months, but it's still labeled as cancer and they're rushed off to surgery.” Speaker 1 then asks for anecdotal stories of miraculous success stories using turpentine therapeutically. Speaker 0 answers with a story from two weeks prior on a radio show. They say, “My daughter's got cerebral palsy. She's 15 years old, half her body has been paralyzed. She's not able to move around or do anything.” They claim, “you need to check out trepentine because cerebral palsy is caused by a parasite your wife picked up in her second trimester.” They state that after starting turpentine, “after just ten days she's able to move that part of her body and now she can walk and do a lot of things she couldn't do before.” Speaker 1 responds, “Well thank you so much a tremendous story.”

Cancer is not a disease but a survival mechanism to house toxins. The tumor is created to protect the body by containing toxins. Biopsies are unnecessary as treatment remains the same whether the tumor is cancerous or not. People often die from cancer treatment rather than cancer itself. The healthcare system profits from sick individuals, leading to unnecessary procedures like biopsies that can worsen the situation.

There's no such thing as biopsy spreading cancer. They say that out loud, but they have not even one scientific study to show for that, whereas I have 50 to show that they do spread cancer. They just believe so strongly and so blindly what they were told, and they're afraid of the truth because it means that for years and years and years, doctors have been killing people through biopsies. Be very careful. Never do a prostate biopsy. Never do a breast biopsy. There are better ways. You don't need the mammogram with its own radiation. You don't need biopsy to tell you if it's cancer or not. You can be 99% sure just by doing an ultrasound with a technician who knows what she is doing.

Chemotherapy has long been known to have dangerous side effects, and a new study from the Albert Einstein College of Medicine confirms that it can actually cause cancer cells to spread throughout the body. The study, led by Dr. George Carangianis, found that chemotherapy drugs increase the number of blood supply connections that cancer cells can attract, a process called angiogenesis. This allows the cancer cells to grow back stronger than before. Chemotherapy is toxic and damages the brain, heart, and kidneys. It also spreads more cancer cells, making patients repeat customers for the cancer industry. Oncologists often use scare tactics to pressure women into toxic treatments without disclosing their financial interests in chemotherapy drugs. This study focused on breast cancer, but similar effects may be observed in other types of cancer.

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.

I want to address why I’ve chosen not to get a mammogram. In nursing school, I learned not to deeply palpate a mass due to the risk of spreading infection or causing a cancerous mass to rupture and metastasize. It doesn’t make sense to compress a lump between plates, as that could lead to further issues. Research shows that people often die from metastasis rather than the primary tumor, and cancer treatments can cause metastasis. Additionally, I’m concerned about the radiation exposure from mammograms, as breast tissue is sensitive. I prefer to live a toxic-free lifestyle and remain hopeful, despite the rising cancer rates and reports of aggressive cancers. I encourage everyone to do their own research on this topic.

Chemotherapy was administered to subjects, and researchers found increased chemical markers in their bodies. A new method was developed to track dormant cancer cells in the lungs. Chemo reactivated these dormant cells, triggering metastasis. The same biomarkers were elevated in human blood samples after chemo, suggesting this also occurs in humans. While more study is needed, these findings are concerning because chemotherapy is intended to stop cancer, not reactivate it.

Speaker 0: Medicine follows a chain from diagnosis to prognosis. If the diagnosis is misdiagnosed as a genetic disease, the prognosis won’t match what’s actually happening. Speaker 1: The ultimate approach is to look under the microscope at a biopsy. People rely on staging—stage one, two, three, four—a system used for over a hundred years. There are also stage zero ideas where there might be something or nothing. Then they remove breasts, use toxins, and do aggressive treatments to some patients. They define stage four, but what does that really mean? We look at tissue removed from the body, examine it under a microscope, and assess how many mitotic figures there are and how crowded the cells are. The pathologist makes a decision, which is passed to the surgeon or oncologist to tell the patient they have this kind of disease, stage three or stage four, depending on cell crowding and mitotic figures. The problem, which has persisted for decades, is that we take a biopsy of a tumor—a section of it—and the pathologist quickly decides. Then we stick the patient with something that can actually make things worse and spread the disease. I have dozens of articles showing that biopsies from breast, colon, liver, and lung can spread the tumor through the body, creating medicine. Why? I say: don’t do anything. Don’t poke the bear. Shrink it down, make it weak, then come in and take the whole thing out. Why stick it for nothing? Just remove the whole thing after you shrink it with metabolic therapy. Then what they say is, this is not an aggressive tumor. Yes, because we shrunk it a lot. If you had stabbed it initially, it might have said it would kill you. But you have to know the biology: you don’t poke the bear; you take the food away from it. It becomes docile, you can cut it out, then follow with non-invasive imaging. We have non-invasive imaging—CT, PET, MRIs—and you can start looking at things before you poke them. If it goes away, why poke it in the first place? So we have all these tools available, but they aren’t used in the correct order or way. Once the knowledge comes out, people will realize what I’m saying and start doing things the right way.

The problem with a biopsy is this. Now it spreads all over the place. So you do spread it. But what they're not telling you is that the research is showing that if you take these drugs, you're almost guaranteeing metastasis. If you did a biopsy and or a surgery, you're gonna get metastasis. Now if you add high dose chemo, you're get metastasis. If you do radiation, you're gonna get metastasis. What they're looking at is giving you a short term reduction of the primary, and then you think, oh, I'm in remission. Nine months later, it would came back. The federal, the FDA will have approved it. Your insurance will pay for it. It's the right thing to do. And you're gonna do that. It's also part of the sales team. It's part of the sales technique.

Cancer is a symptom and a tumor for example is nothing else in the approach of the body to keep us alive. We have so many toxins in our system that would kill us so the body builds a bubble, a bucket, a tumor, and collects all these poisons and basically keeps the poisons on one spot where they don't do harm. That's a tumor. So the cancer is basically your friend. The tumor is working on keeping you alive. This view warns that a needle biopsy can pinch into this tumor and release the toxins into the system and suddenly you have a very fast growing, very aggressive cancer that you didn't have before the needle biopsy. The same problem occurs with mammography. They put 50 pounds of pressure on the breast. If the lymph node is ready to burst, that cannot be a good thing. Usually it bursts and that's what causes cancer. Not just two percent; "mammography's can cause cancer just by the pressure that's applied."

The speaker discusses the book The MD Emperor Has No Clothes by Peter Glidden, describing it as a phenomenal resource. They assert that when patients receive a cancer diagnosis and undergo a PCR test, they are then told they must undergo chemotherapy or radiation. According to the speaker, in the book Peter Glidden explains that the professional receives a 6% commission for recommending chemotherapy. They claim this leads to about $100,000 being charged to the patient’s insurance, which the speaker views as a significant incentive for doctors to push chemo and radiation. The speaker contends that professionals tell patients to pursue chemo and radiation largely because of the commission from Big Pharma, rather than offering alternatives or focusing on overall health. They allege that doctors do not inform patients about natural or alternative options, listing items such as soursop, sun exposure, reishi, apricot seeds, and dietary corrections as potential aids that could address the body’s signals for help. The implication is that the medical system prioritizes medication and procedures over nutritional or lifestyle approaches. A central claim echoed in the talk is that the medical system in the United States is financially driven: 20% of the country’s GDP is spent on healthcare. The speaker emphasizes “20% of the GDP of America” to illustrate how the system operates financially, suggesting that this economic framework contributes to the continued use of vaccines, chemotherapy, radiation, “poisonous pills,” and misdiagnoses. They argue that these financial incentives are why certain treatments persist, and why systemic changes are unlikely within the current framework. Overall, the speaker asserts that the U.S. medical system is a money-driven enterprise, with substantial financial incentives tied to specific treatments like chemotherapy, which are presented as standard responses to cancer diagnoses. The discussion centers on challenging the mainstream approach by highlighting alleged commissions, insurance costs, and the availability of alternative health information and practices that they claim are typically overlooked.

Biopsy is the only way to diagnose cancer, but it has its drawbacks. Breaking the fibrin sheath around a tumor during a biopsy can cause it to spread. A ballerina who had a biopsy experienced the growth of little tumors around the biopsy site. A histological diagnosis is needed, where a pathologist examines the slide to determine the type of cancer. However, this diagnosis doesn't provide much help. It is also a sales technique to justify specific drugs for treatment. Research shows that biopsies, surgeries, high dose chemo, and radiation can all lead to metastasis. These treatments may provide short-term reduction of the primary tumor, but the cancer often returns later.

Mammograms can produce cancer because they involve squashing the breasts, which are very sensitive. This squashing causes pain, which indicates inflammation. Inflammation involves increased blood flow and leaking blood vessels to bring in white blood cells and oxygen. The signs of inflammation are that the area is red, hot, painful, and swollen. Mammograms irradiate inflamed, acutely injured tissue with ionizing radiation. This process is not done with prostates or testicles, only breasts. The speaker believes this is a male-dominated madness.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss access to treatment protocols and the scope of their metabolic approach to cancer. Speaker 1 notes they recently published a comprehensive, open-access protocol for glioblastoma in Biomedical Central, co-authored with Doctor Thomas Durai and over 20 scientists, physicians, nutritionists, and dietitians. The paper also marks the launch of the new Society for Metabolic Oncology. The protocol targets glioblastoma, a deadly brain cancer; Speaker 1 highlights that the same metabolic issues—cancers’ need for glucose and glutamine and their inability to burn ketones or fatty acids—apply across cancers such as lung, colon, breast, and bladder. He asserts that glioblastoma has seen no major advancement in management for a hundred years and attributes part of the problem to how brain irradiation can increase glucose and glutamine in the tumor microenvironment, potentially hastening decline. Speaker 1 emphasizes that the protocol for glioblastoma could be used for other cancers and centers on “pulling the plug on the fermentable fuels.” The regimen involves a phase of mild exercise, monitoring the glucose ketone index (GKI), and transitioning patients from dangerous metabolic states to more manageable ones to reassess treatment strategies and progressively reduce tumor activity. He stresses they are not claiming a cure; instead, they aim to “manage cancer effectively,” enabling patients to maintain a high quality of life whether or not the tumor regresses. Speaker 1 shares a clinical example: Pablo Kelly, who died last year, lived ten years with glioblastoma; he married and had three children. Although never cured, his tumor was put into an indolent state. Pablo died after a fourth surgical debulking; the tumor had been reduced and became operable after metabolic therapy, though it was never completely eradicated. The discussion notes that initial diagnosis described his tumor as inoperable, with a prognosis of death within twelve months if treated with large doses of chemo and radiation; he avoided radiation and chemotherapy and pursued metabolic therapy. The tumor then shrank enough to allow subsequent surgery over years, illustrating a shift from an aggressive to a more indolent disease course. Speaker 0 clarifies that “debulking” means removal of tissue. Speaker 1 reiterates their stance: cancer can be managed, changing its diagnosis from extremely aggressive to indolent, but they avoid using the word cure. They acknowledge uncertainty about long-term cures and note that standard care does not guarantee cure, while suggesting their approach can achieve substantially better outcomes.

A tumor is a bubble the body builds to collect toxins and keep them in one spot, preventing harm. Cancer is a symptom, not an illness, and is essentially your friend. A needle biopsy can release toxins into the system, causing a fast-growing, aggressive cancer that wasn't present before. Similarly, mammography, which applies 50 pounds of pressure to the breast, can cause a lymph node full of toxins to burst, leading to cancer. Each mammography raises cancer risk by two percent and can directly cause cancer due to the applied pressure.

Biopsies spread cancer, and there are 50 scientific studies to prove it. Doctors have been killing people for years through biopsies, but they blame the cancer instead of the metastasis caused by the biopsy. Therefore, one should never do a prostate or breast biopsy. There are better ways to determine if it's cancer. Mammograms are unnecessary because of their radiation. An ultrasound with a skilled technician can provide 99% certainty.

The only definitive way to diagnose cancer is through a biopsy. However, biopsies can disrupt the tumor's protective sheath, potentially causing it to spread. A patient experienced this firsthand after a biopsy led to the emergence of multiple tumors. While a histological diagnosis from a pathologist identifies the cancer type, it often serves as a justification for specific drug treatments, which are approved by the FDA and covered by insurance. Unfortunately, research indicates that these treatments, including chemotherapy and radiation, often lead to metastasis. Patients may initially feel a sense of remission, but cancer frequently returns within months.

Chemotherapy can kill any cell, not just cancer cells. If those handling chemotherapy must wear hazmat suits because it's toxic, why give it to someone already sick? It's like using napalm for an ant problem; you might kill the ants, but you'll destroy everything else, including the healthy cells. Radiation, like chemotherapy, is dangerous. X-rays have warning signs because radiation damages DNA, which can potentially cause cancer. The speaker questions why a therapy known to create cancer is used to treat cancer.

The speaker explains that the Pfizer shot is designed so that its messenger RNA enters cells and can be replicated indefinitely by ribosomes, so it “cannot get it out of your body,” and there is “no detoxing from it.” The speaker says that although the body can be detoxed or made healthier overall, it is not possible to eliminate the spike protein, antibodies to spike protein, or advocated monoclonal antibodies. The speaker claims that the presence of spike proteins “sensitize your dendritic cells and your b cells,” and that “those spikes are gonna be there probably forever.” A central claim is that messenger RNA “ablates, wipes out, destroys Toll like receptor three, seven, and eight.” The speaker describes Toll-like receptors as “God inside our body,” “radars” that constantly patrol to get rid of viruses, bacteria, and things that do not belong, and as the “innate, God given” immune system present from birth. The speaker asserts that destroying Toll-like receptors 3, 7, and 8 makes people “more susceptible to getting COVID,” and claims this is why people “that get the shots suddenly are sick.” The speaker further says doctors “are illiterate and not reading” the mechanisms. The speaker adds that in hospital settings, people treated with remdesivir and placed on a ventilator have “greater than eighty percent mortality rate.” The speaker frames this as part of a known mechanism: spike proteins enter the nucleus of cells and “bind to our DNA.” The speaker states that any claim that the spike proteins do not irreversibly bind DNA is wrong, and says the binding “blocks the door,” converting the cell into an abnormal cell that “if that cell replicates, will turn into cancer.” The speaker also claims that spike binding prevents “our God given immune system repair enzymes” from repairing the damage, allowing cancer to form. The speaker links this to a “explosion of cancer in people that get these shots,” including people who were in remission and later experience cancer returning or worsening, and mentions endometrial cancer and “all kinds of blood cancers, lymphatic cancers, breast cancers.” The speaker refers to doctor Ryan Cole discussing this. The speaker also cites recent data, stating that a person “is injected” and is then “eight point one two times more likely to be infected with Omicron.” The speaker concludes by asserting that repeated shots further suppress the immune system: the more shots, the more “destroy your immune system” and the faster it happens. The speaker then claims that “German data” says that by the end of 2022, every fully vaccinated person over age 30 may have the equivalent of “full blown vaccine induced

Many cancer survivors who undergo standard treatments like radiation and chemo suffer immensely, paying a high price for their survival. They may experience ailments and debilities resulting from toxic treatments, surgical mutilations, high-dose poisons, and radiation. Cancer survivors may face psychological and neuropsychiatric problems, hormonal imbalances, microbiome issues, and metabolic homeostasis problems that they didn't have before treatment. Some newer treatments can kill patients faster than the disease itself, with the hope of a positive response. Many people suffer chronic problems for the rest of their lives or don't live as long as they could have without the treatments. The speaker believes that managing cancer doesn't require such toxic treatments, viewing the situation as a massive tragedy.

Speaker 0 argues that medical procedures can cause death or spread disease: - A colonoscopy in elderly people (60–70, completely healthy and fit) can lead to death three days later because “they poke a hole in the colon, the bacteria goes in and they are dead.” - In mammography, when something is found, the medical profession proceeds with a needle biopsy, and “pokes into something that's there to save your life.” A tumor is described as there to save your life, yet the procedure is claimed to spread illness. - The body builds a bag to store toxins in its lymph nodes; “so now they come and poke into the lymph node and what will happen is they now spread the poison that the body is collecting for ten-twenty years in the entire body and twelve days later these women are dead.” - Mammography is described as applying “50 pounds of pressure on a woman's breast.” The analogy is made: if you have a lymph node or a pimple ready to burst, applying that pressure would “burst it to give the patient the cancer.”

Speaker 0 argues that chemotherapy is unique among cancer treatments because it is the only procedure in which an oncologist can receive a four to six percent commission. They claim that because chemo can cost $100,000 with insurance, the commission check would be $4,000 to $6,000, and that patients are effectively “walking in” to offices where the oncologist’s motivation is shaped by commission incentives. Speaker 0 contrasts this with why people “don’t learn about apricot seeds” or “soursop,” asserting that these alternative healing approaches are not emphasized within the system. They conclude that the system is about making as much money as possible from people.