TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Speaker 0 argues that YouTube removed his videos by labeling the topic as medical misinformation. He states that the body produces parasites just as it produces fever, chills, nausea, vomiting, and other responses to try to rid the body of threats. When the body is overloaded with heavy metals, plastics, and toxins, he claims the body will produce worms to keep you alive, a phenomenon he says applies to animals as well (dogs, cats, chickens, cows, horses). He asserts that when animals are fed toxins or injected with heavy metals, the body becomes loaded with metals and will attempt to heal itself by creating parasites to remove the toxins and heavy metals. He contends that most people turn to ivermectin or fenbendazole and other pharmaceutical products, but these do not resolve the issue because heavy metals are never removed. He emphasizes the need to focus on pulling heavy metals out of the body and detoxing. He mentions several methods or substances people can use for this detoxification, including dragon’s blood, turpentine, raw milk, raw meat, cilantro, and wormwood. He notes that wormwood has been used for the last five hundred years to pull heavy metals out of the body. According to him, once heavy metals are pulled out, the worms begin to go away. He observes that on social media there is fear about worms jumping and infecting people, but he says that fear is unfounded and describes a broader critique of being programmed to destroy one’s own body, which he finds illogical given the goal of taking care of one’s body. Finally, he advocates cleaning up one’s diet, spending time in the sun, and generally taking care of oneself as part of the healing process. He frames these steps as essential to healing, arguing that through these practices, people can heal from the issues driven by heavy metals and toxins, and that the detoxification is what makes the worms disappear rather than relying on conventional anti-parasitic drugs alone.

The speaker discusses the misconception that sunlight causes skin cancer, emphasizing that lack of sun exposure can actually increase the risk. They explain that UVB is not the main culprit, but rather UVA. Sunscreens that only block UVB can lead to vitamin D deficiency, increasing cancer risk. Excessive use of sunscreen with harmful chemicals can harm the skin and potentially cause skin cancer. The speaker advises against washing off vitamin D-producing oils on the skin immediately after sun exposure. They also highlight the importance of maintaining healthy skin bacteria by avoiding excessive use of soap.

The speaker announces a happy eclipse and a giveaway for pearl powder, noting they were fact-checked and shown that Cultivate Elevate makes unverified claims about moles being rubbed off with pearl powder. Viewers are instructed to comment the word “pearl” and share the video with five friends for a chance to win a big bag of Pearl. The speaker references a video about them that discusses the lack of evidence that natural substances can remove moles, which are described as a buildup of toxins. They read testimonials from individuals claiming success with pearl powder. One person named Andrea says a raised mole on her chest was bothersome; doctors confirmed it was not a concern, but after applying pearl powder with a little castor oil, it dried up at the base and came off. The speaker highlights this as a positive solution. Another claim cited is that pearl powder is loved for many uses around the house, and that someone used castor oil to get rid of a mole. The speaker notes being six days into the combination and seeing it almost completely gone, and mentions using pearl powder orally and as toothpaste. The speaker questions professionals, suggesting they lie and that dermatologists don’t tell you these remedies because they charge insurance. They present another testimonial about removing moles with dragon's blood and castor oil, implying a similar outcome. A third testimonial mentions dragon’s blood and castor oil achieving mole removal. The speaker repeats the giveaway call to action: comment “Pearl” and share with five friends for a chance to win the big bag of Pearl. Towards the end, the speaker comments on the video’s framing, noting it ends by calling Pearl a trendy product. They claim Pearl dates back about four thousand years. They add a provocative assertion that professionals work for the Rockefellers and speculate on motives to “sell you poisons.” The overall message centers on promoting pearl powder as a remedy for moles, supported by personal testimonials, while contrasting this with alleged professional concealment and industry motives.

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.”

Viruses don't exist, according to the speaker. They argue that the process used to prove the existence of viruses is flawed, as it relies on adding samples from sick individuals to monkey cells and observing cell death. However, even when no sample is added, the cells still die. This suggests that viruses may not be real. The speaker refutes the theory of viruses and states that the cause of illness could be exposure to toxins or other factors. They compare it to refuting the existence of an evil butt gremlin under a bed based on lack of evidence.

The speaker discusses the Gardasil vaccine for HPV, asserting that after the age of 26, if Gardasil is administered, it causes death. They claim that studies were conducted to determine if a person had HPV, which they describe as fake, and that giving them the Gardasil vaccine after age 26 results in death. They state that this was done to scare young people into believing that the virus is widely spreading and that they need to get the vaccine before 26. The speaker recalls growing up with the belief that “everybody’s got HPV,” calling it all nonsense. They extend the claim to broadly dismiss viruses, saying that all viruses are nonsense and that the real aim is to promote poisons and sell poison, with nothing “jumping all over and gonna get you.” They attribute sickness to personal actions and describe it as detoxification, asserting that what you do to your own body causes illness and that the body’s process is a purge of toxins.

The speaker argues that mercury poisoning from tuna is misunderstood. They claim a can of tuna is cooked twice before being placed in the can, and therefore people are not getting mercury poisoning from eating raw tuna but from the tuna being cooked twice and then packaged with polymers and chemicals. The speaker asserts that mercury poisoning results from this process rather than from raw consumption. According to the speaker, nobody gets mercury poisoning from eating raw wild-caught tuna, wild-caught salmon, or wild-caught fish. Instead, they claim poisoning comes from tuna that has been cooked, or from farm-raised tuna that is fed soy pellets, canola, corn, and other garbage. The speaker urges that people rethink what they’re being told about mercury in fish. The speaker references John, who reportedly discussed mercury as the substance that makes fish jump out of the water, and connects that idea to swordfish, which is described as loaded with mercury and “gets up into the air.” The claim is made that mercury in this context contributes to the fish’s ability to leave the water. The speaker contends that there are “benefits of mercury in your body,” but emphasizes that mercury is not meant to be injected with boosters, and is not meant to be cooked up and then released and eaten. They suggest that consuming wild-caught raw tuna yields “tons of energy,” and compare this to eating oysters, which they describe as aphrodisiacs and beneficial. The speaker states that oysters are real good for you, and implies that similar benefits apply to tuna and all fish when eaten raw. The overarching message is that raw fish, particularly wild-caught varieties, are presented as superior or energetically advantageous by the speaker, who also argues that the preparation process (cooking then canning) and the feed practices of farm-raised fish alter the mercury dynamics. The speaker concludes with the assertion that raw consumption is preferred, claiming that “raw is the law” for fish in general.

The speaker argues that tanning with a UV bulb has benefits and presents tanning as a solution while noting that government actions block out the sun. They claim that during Obama's administration tanning beds were targeted to be taxed to eliminate them, and that this tax “worked,” causing many people to stop tanning because they feared skin issues. The speaker contends the real factors were the lotions and what people are eating, and asserts that the government targets anything that could make people healthy, such as the sun or UV bulbs, especially in opposition to “big harma.” They recount a claim about Kellogg’s, stating Kellogg's was the creator of the first tanning bed in the 1890s, supposedly to find a solution to diabetes, and suggesting his cereal was causing diabetes while he actually wanted a solution. The speaker then references the early 1900s, noting that hospitals would put people out in the sun and that this was a natural method of healing, contrasting it with injections, radiation, chemotherapy, and pills, implying sun exposure was the preferred healing method.

The speaker asserts that arsenic is present in vitamins and in chocolate, saying, "even with vitamins by the way, you would be surprised about how many vitamins have arsenic in there." They add, "Oh yeah. And you would be surprised chocolate has arsenic." "Did you know that? We all think chocolate has arsenic." They further state, "So when you talk about, well, how do I, you know, benefit myself? You're living in a toxic world and the food that you're presented are not even the real foods. So that's the problem." The focus is on alleged arsenic in everyday items and a claim that the foods available are not real foods.

Speaker 0 asserts that parasites are a result of heavy metals in the body. According to them, if someone has parasites in the gut or elsewhere, it is because they have too many heavy metals. All the substances a person puts into their body are polluting the body with heavy metals, and that is the core issue. Once heavy metals are cleaned up, the parasites that the body supposedly created will disappear. The worms are described as the body’s last line of defense against heavy metals, functioning to protect the body by consuming the metals so that a person can survive longer. Speaker 0 continues by explaining that if metals begin to enter the organs, the person will die, and this is the underlying logic behind the presence of parasites. When people notice worms and fear them, the speaker emphasizes that the body is producing these worms to eat the metals and keep the person alive long enough to enable another day. The implication is that the body will continue to generate more and more worms until the metals in the body are cleaned up, at which point the “timer” would be turned off, i.e., the threat ends. The speaker notes that on social media there are parasite cleanses and related content, but frames these as irrelevant to the real issue. The core claim is that parasites are simply a manifestation of heavy metals. The remedy, in their view, is to remove or purify heavy metals from the body; after doing so, there will be no problems. In their broader point, they argue that the metals being ingested come from every source, including what is cooked into food. They assert that metal exposure occurs during cooking and through food preparation, implying that dietary and environmental sources continually introduce metals into the body. In summary, the key points are: heavy metals cause parasites; parasites arise as a defense against heavy metals; removing heavy metals will cause parasites to disappear; metals entering organs are fatal; the presence of worms is an adaptive response to metals; ongoing metal exposure maintains parasite production; social media parasite cleans are not addressing the root cause; and food preparation and cooking contribute metals to the diet. The overall solution, according to Speaker 0, is to pull heavy metals out of the body to resolve the issue.

The speaker discusses how various products like acne products, hand sanitizers, and sunscreens have been found to cause cancer. They emphasize the importance of being cautious about what is put on the skin since it gets absorbed into the body. The speaker advises against using products with harmful ingredients and suggests opting for natural alternatives. They highlight the contradiction of products being labeled as toxic if consumed orally but deemed safe for skin application. The speaker asserts their past claims about the dangers of these products and urges people to be mindful of what they expose their bodies to.

- Speaker 0 announces a fact check giveaway for a big bag of pearl and invites viewers to comment “pearl” for a chance to win. - The fact checkers told me that you can't rub off moles and they're not the build up of toxins. - Cheryl says, “I've been using your pearl powder and coconut oil and they are slowly popping off.” - A claim about peanut oil not being in the vaccines is raised, with a prompt: “Do you read that headline from 1964?” - The speaker asks, “Do you know what caused the peanut allergies?” - Two days ago, the speaker received medical misinformation on YouTube about prostate solutions, noting, “Look at how dangerous these solutions are.” - Other items mentioned include apricots, bee pollen, shibbolshot, reishi, and not microwaving your kahonas and keeping your phone out of your pocket. - The speaker references a video about not removing wisdom teeth because they affect your heart, calling it “unsupported information,” then instructs to Google meridian lines for wisdom teeth and to see “Heart.” - They state that viruses are not real: “There are no viruses.” - The statement “What you do to your body determines how you will get ill” is made, followed by the claim that “Those masks and those boosters weren't doing much of anything other than poisoning people,” and, “If it was real, we would be gone a long time ago.” - The message ends with good luck on the fact check giveaway, noting that it “takes a simple Google search to find the truth.” - Books suggested to look into include: The Contagion Myth, The Invisible Rainbow, Can You Catch a Cold? No, you can’t, and Murder by Injection; followed by “Keyword murder, farewell to virology, light as medicine,” and then The Peanut Allergy Epidemic by Heather Frazer as another recommended read.

The speaker states they used to believe inoculations were an elegant, minimal intervention with large benefits. They now consider injecting anything into tissue with a hypodermic needle a radical intervention. They argue that comparing mercury in shots to mercury in tuna is a game of smoke and mirrors because there shouldn't be mercury in tuna, the amount in tuna isn't trivial, and there's a huge difference between ingesting mercury and injecting it. The body doesn't have mechanisms to deal with injected mercury, so the consequences are arbitrary. While they still believe vaccination is potentially valuable, they do not trust the mechanisms that generate or test these products for effectiveness or safety.

The speaker discusses the relationship between sunlight, sunscreen, and skin cancer. They argue that lack of sunshine, rather than sunlight itself, causes skin cancer. They mention a new study that suggests it is UVA, not UVB, that causes cancer. They explain that using sunscreens that only block UVB can lead to vitamin D deficiency, which increases the risk of cancer. They emphasize the importance of maintaining normal vitamin D levels to reduce the risk of cancer. The speaker also criticizes sunscreens for containing potentially harmful chemicals that can be absorbed into the bloodstream and cause liver and skin damage. They advise against washing off vitamin D from the skin with soap after sun exposure. Additionally, they mention the importance of maintaining healthy skin bacteria.

Speaker 0 presents a series of claims linking COVID-19 to radio waves and 5G, and denying conventional ideas about viruses and contagion. The key points include: - COVID is described as radio wave sickness caused by cell phone towers and the rollout of 5G. The speaker asserts that “the COVID situation” was triggered by 5G, not a virus. - It is claimed that the loss of senses and other symptoms (loss of smell and taste, diminished ability to think, hair loss) are ("radio wave sickness"), and that this condition was diagnosed in 1919 as the Kansas flu when radio was rolled out. The speaker says, “one hundred years later, guess what they pulled? Same exact playbook.” - The so-called playbook is outlined as follows: wear your mask, get your booster, take this, inject this, stay indoors. The speaker notes a comparison to the past: “If you have a Bell radio or a Bell telephone, you could stay at home and chat with friends.” The implication is that the same approach was reused in covid times. - The speaker denies that viruses or contagion exist. They claim that coughing or sneezing does not cause illness; illness results from what a person puts into their body. Factors listed as causing illness include microwaving with radio wave signals, poisons and pesticides, negative thoughts, stress, and lack of sun. - Several book references are provided to support these views: The Invisible Rainbow; Farewell to Virology; Can You Catch a Cold?; and The Contagion Myth by Tom Cowan. The speaker also notes “10,000 studies on how viruses are fake,” suggesting a body of literature opposing mainstream virology. - Throughout, the narrative contrasts traditional germ theory with a belief that illness is driven by environmental exposure to radio frequencies, toxins, mindset, and lifestyle factors, rather than contagion from pathogens. In summary, the speaker contends that COVID-19 is a product of 5G and radio wave exposure, that the 1919 Kansas flu was similarly linked to radio rollout, and that conventional germ-based explanations are invalid. Illness is attributed to body inputs such as radiation, poisons, stress, and lack of sun, while promoting alternative literature that disputes contagion and viruses.

The speaker debunks the myth that the sun causes cancer, stating that it is actually sunscreen that can be harmful. They emphasize the importance of sunlight for overall health, as it provides vitamin D3 and keeps bones and skin healthy. The speaker advises against applying chemicals to the skin, but suggests using a little coconut oil for better sun exposure. They claim that sunlight is essential for the proper functioning of every cell in the body and that it can even help cure cancer. The speaker warns against using certain cosmetic products that contain harmful chemicals, which can lead to breast cancer. They conclude by stating that sunlight is the best preventive measure against disease.

The speaker discusses provocative ideas from the book We Want To Live regarding mold and detoxification. They claim that mold can eat heavy metals, and that moldy substances can play a detoxifying role in the body. The speaker notes that, in younger years, people were injected with penicillin, which allegedly makes you allergic to mold so that you won’t eat mold to detox heavy metals from those injections. They describe this as mind-blowing and reference the book to support the idea that mold can detoxify the body by consuming heavy metals. The speaker cites passages from We Want To Live about people consuming moldy berries to eliminate heavy metals inside the body, suggesting mold eats candida and cleanses metals and related toxins. They argue that moldy fruit such as a moldy strawberry or moldy blueberry, which many would discard, is actually detoxifying and connected to the amoxicillin, penicillin, and other penicillin-like injections used to induce allergies to mold. This, they say, is tied to the broader claim that those injections were used to make people allergic to substances that would otherwise pull metals from the body and thereby heal it. Throughout, the speaker emphasizes the emotional reaction to the book, describing it as the kind of read that makes you want to punch somebody in the face. They use the book's ideas to explain why someone might be wondering why they are allergic to something. The narrative suggests a causal chain: injections were administered to people to induce allergies to certain substances, which would otherwise facilitate detoxification by pulling metals out of the body and promoting healing. The speaker asserts that the system injected people with substances to make them allergic to others, implying a deliberate design behind such allergies that impacts detoxification processes. Overall, the speaker presents a controversial and conspiratorial interpretation of how mold, heavy metals, antibiotics, and allergic responses are linked, drawing on We Want To Live as the source for these claims. The central assertions are that mold can detox heavy metals, that moldy foods participate in this detox, and that medical injections (penicillin/amoxicillin) were used to generate mold allergies to prevent detoxification. The discussion centers on the provocative implications of these ideas and the emotional reaction they provoke.

Speaker 0 argues that it was not until the 1960s, with the SPF push, that people were told not to go out in the sun. The claim is that Big Pharma created SPF and told people to avoid sun exposure, promoting petroleum-based sunscreens with many chemicals perceived as linked to illnesses the sunscreen is meant to prevent. The speaker asserts that, once you look at lawsuits, there are many cases claiming sunscreen causes skin cancer because of the chemicals baked into the skin for hours. The speaker describes observing people at pools and beaches who spray sunscreen all over their bodies and then questions why they experience acne, hormonal issues, low energy, fatigue, and infertility, suggesting that these problems stem from absorbing chemicals through the skin, noting that the skin is the largest organ. The claim is made that sunscreen makes no sense and that the sun heals, while pointing to the government’s ongoing efforts to block sunlight. The speaker asks why the government spends so much time blocking the sun and offers a rationale: if there were lots of sunshine, people would have revolutions. According to the speaker, cold weather keeps people indoors, watching Netflix and cuddling up, reducing the likelihood of revolt, whereas abundant sunshine would incite revolts, which is presented as the reason behind extensive sun-blocking efforts. Throughout, the speaker ties sunscreen use to broader social and political manipulation, presenting a narrative where the sun’s healing properties are real, sunscreen chemicals are harmful, and public policy is driven by a desire to suppress dissent. The overarching theme is that the sun is beneficial and that the promotion of sunscreen by Big Pharma in the 1960s represents a deliberate attempt to control people and prevent revolutions.

One speaker argues that mold should not be feared because mold consists of spores, and spores are everywhere; spores are equated to pollen, suggesting that fear of mold is unfounded since they are the same thing. The other speaker adds that there are studies indicating that “those ones all heal all the diseases,” highlighting a notion that fear campaigns around mold are misleading. They claim that if a person has mold, candida, or similar issues in their body, it signifies “too many toxins” and that the body is signaling this excess as a remedy to keep the person alive. The dialogue includes a specific recollection about Ajana, who purportedly said that certain things are in the body so that toxins, metals, or similar substances may not actually take you out; otherwise they would seep into the organs and end you quickly. This is presented as evidence of the body’s miraculous nature. A central theme repeatedly asserted is that “the human body is absolutely miraculous” and that “everything is reversible.” The speakers list various conditions—autism, autoimmune diseases, lupus, and even eyesight—claiming they have witnessed people reverse these conditions. It is stated that people can regenerate their eyes and no longer need an eye professional, and that reversing all conditions is possible if one takes initiative. The speakers critique the medical establishment, implying that “every single professional will tell you the opposite because they want you to be their patient for life.” This sentiment is tied to a broader call for personal action: if people do not make changes—such as removing WiFi or taking other unspecified steps—they will continue to complain rather than find solutions. Overall, the message emphasizes that fear about molds and toxins is misguided, that the body possesses remarkable self-healing capabilities, and that proactive efforts can reverse a wide range of health issues. The speakers express a strong desire to provide solutions and to move people forward, rather than remain mired in complaint.

The Wall Street Journal questioned why sunscreen is not used. The speaker promotes a tallow-based sun balm as a healthier alternative to chemical sunscreens. They were fact-checked by the Journal, revealing conflicts of interest with scientists funded by Johnson & Johnson. The speaker suspects financial motives behind sunscreen recommendations.

The speaker discusses mold, heavy metals, and detoxification in a way that connects several claims. Key points include: - A moldy organic beet is referenced as something consumed because mold supposedly makes someone allergic by pulling out heavy metals; the speaker asserts that mold and parasites eat heavy metals, and that once metals are eliminated, the body begins to heal. - The speaker claims that vaccines contain heavy metals and that mold is connected to a spore; they reference the idea that spores heal cancer, citing the Cancer Institute to suggest the information exists there, even if not publicly told. - It is stated that most vaccines also contain yeast, described as a form of mold, which is injected into the body to make people allergic to it so they cannot detox the metals. - There is a claim about citric acid: described as something to avoid, a Monsanto product grown on soy and canola and aluminum, with heavy metals going into the body. - The speaker questions what to do instead of eating organic moldy berries, then lists additional heavy metal detox methods: dragon's blood, organic papaya seeds, fasting, baking soda, borax, spirits of turpentine, cilantro, wormwood, and black walnut. - They mention a regulatory point from 1986: a rule was put in place to protect vaccines, allegedly to prevent lawsuits that could bankrupt the vaccine system when people discover “the truth.” - The closing line is a salutation: “Have a great day.” Note: The content presents a sequence of interconnected claims about mold, heavy metals, vaccines, and detox methods, presenting both the asserted mechanisms (mold and parasites eating metals; vaccines containing heavy metals and yeast to induce allergy) and suggested alternatives (listed detox methods) alongside the implication of a regulatory protection mechanism from 1986.

Speaker 0 asks if something is real or placed there. Speaker 1 confirms it is real and suggests looking at it. Speaker 0 compliments Speaker 1's speaking skills and mentions they are not from the jungle. Speaker 1 explains they are from the mountains but have been living in Popoyá for a while. Speaker 0 asks about the river and people's reactions. Speaker 1 mentions that some people speak well of them while others criticize them. Speaker 0 asks what happened to Speaker 1, who replies that it is natural and they have many moles. Speaker 1 points out their 33 moles and shows the largest one. Speaker 0 comments on how hairy it looks. Speaker 1 says people think they are somewhat common because of it. Speaker 0 asks if there is a cure, but Speaker 1 says it has nothing to do with it.

The speaker presents a series of claims about mold, heavy metals, and vaccines, framing them as interconnected health dangers and detox strategies. They begin by describing eating a moldy organic beet and claim that mold was used to make someone allergic to it because “the mold pulls out the heavy metals.” They state, “Mold and parasites eat heavy metals,” and claim that “worms growing in your body to eat the metals” and “mold growing in your body to eat the metals” can be found, with healing occurring once heavy metals are eliminated. The speaker asserts that vaccinations contain heavy metals. They then say, “what’s also interesting on the mold situation is it’s connected to a spore,” and claim that “if you go to the Cancer Institute, they talk about how spores heal cancer, but I guess they don’t wanna tell people that.” The discussion deepens with the claim that most vaccines also contain yeast, “a form of mold,” which is being injected into the body to make people allergic to it so they can’t eat it to detox the metals. When addressing cautions about food, someone asks about citric acid, described as “the one to avoid.” The speaker asserts it is “a Monsanto product grown on soy and canola and aluminum,” implying heavy metals enter the body through this product. The speaker then offers detox alternatives for heavy metals, listing: dragon’s blood, organic papaya seeds, fasting, baking soda, borax, spirits of turpentine, cilantro, wormwood, and black walnut. They conclude with a brief historical note: “1986, they put a rule in place to protect the vaccines,” suggesting it was due to lawsuits that could bankrupt vaccine makers, and sign off with “Have a great day.” In summary, the transcript presents a chain of claims that mold and parasites target heavy metals in the body, vaccines contain heavy metals and possibly yeast, spores are linked to healing cancer, citric acid from Monsanto products is a heavy-metal source, and a set of natural and chemical detox methods is proposed. It also asserts a regulatory measure in 1986 intended to shield vaccine manufacturers from lawsuits.

The speaker challenges common beliefs about parasites and contagion. They assert that fear campaigns on social media about parasites jumping from person to person have not been proven; no studies have demonstrated transmission of parasites between individuals. Instead, they claim that when an animal is loaded with heavy metals, it will grow parasites in its body to eat the metals, and that parasites are an indicator of heavy metals. The speaker states that there are about 5,000 studies on PubMed supporting this point and invites listeners to search Google for these studies. They argue that science has “figured” this out, but claim that the consequence is that people are sold dewormers, which the speaker characterizes as poison.

I am being fact-checked for discussing sunscreen ingredients, but the fact check is misleading. It lacks scientific evidence and only includes opinions from dermatologists. Research shows harm from approved sunscreen ingredients, like avobenzone and octinoxate affecting pregnancy and reproductive systems. These toxic chemicals can enter bodily fluids like breast milk. I will launch my own fact-checking system to counter biased fact checks.