reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Former employees acknowledge the significant influence of the pharmaceutical industry on media. They argue that shaping the message allows them to shape the world. They highlight the use of Ivermectin in various countries, including India and Argentina, where it has shown success in treating COVID-19. However, others dismiss its effectiveness and label it as a horse dewormer. The speakers criticize the pharmaceutical industry for manipulating clinical studies and influencing research grants. They also express concerns about censorship and the withholding of information, which they believe misleads the public.

The speaker expresses disappointment that the existence of myocarditis was known very early on. They claim to have written to Fauci in 2020 and 2021 about lymphopenia and the failure to clear the virus, asserting that this failure was also known early on. The speaker states the perception of 95% efficacy was inaccurate and suggests there were perverse incentives at play, and now the consequences must be recognized. Another speaker then states that this is why Fauci needed a pardon.

The FDA now approves the use of Ivermectin for COVID treatment, which surprises the speaker. They discuss their previous conversations about finding alternative treatments for COVID and express frustration with the FDA's actions. They believe that many lives could have been saved if Ivermectin had been widely available. They mention the importance of truth and courageous reporting to counter the mainstream media's narrative. The speaker warns about the dangerous path the country is heading towards, with an elite group seeking control over people's lives. They highlight government expansion, WHO amendments, and the need for people to wake up to the current dangers.

It is nearly impossible to publish data that goes against the national public health narrative, preventing doctors from finding solutions. The speaker has conducted clinical trials for pharmaceutical companies, including vaccine studies, and has brought vaccines and other drugs to market. Some drugs never made it to market because they killed people. Clinical trial guidelines ensure safe drugs, but these guidelines were not followed during the pandemic, affecting everyone. COVID should have been a time for doctors to unite, but interference with research occurred. Science evolves through experiments, skepticism, and an open mind. Challenging current knowledge must be allowed to move science forward, but what the speaker witnessed during the pandemic was not science.

The speakers discuss the dangers of pharmaceutical companies and the suppression of alternative treatments like ivermectin. They mention the spike protein's impact on DNA, the Tuskegee Experiment, and the public's blind trust in government and corporations. The conversation highlights the manipulation and deception prevalent in the healthcare industry throughout history.

The video discusses the FDA's Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) process and the controversy surrounding the use of Ivermectin as a potential treatment for COVID-19. It highlights the financial interests of pharmaceutical companies and the geopolitical implications of widespread access to a cheap and widely available medicine like Ivermectin. The video also questions the safety claims made by Merck, the company that holds the expired patent for Ivermectin. It emphasizes the need for critical evaluation of articles and information that may be influenced by financial motives.

The speaker references the Immunization Agenda 2030, specifically mentioning its Impact Goal Indicators and Targets. They state that, by a date written as "02/1930," there will be "500 new introduced," though the exact subject of what is introduced remains unspecified in the transcript. The speaker ties this to the broader framework of the Immunization Agenda 2030 as part of One Health, and then asserts a claim about exemptions: under this plan, "no man, woman or children, child will have an exemption." The speaker immediately contrasts this with a claim about the elite, stating that "the elite will have an exemption because they wouldn't do this to their bodies." The speaker emphasizes a contrast between the general population and elites, suggesting that ordinary people will be compelled to comply. Further, the speaker asserts that, for those who survive to the proposed point, they will be subjected to coercive measures with the phrase "will be forcibly" applied. The speaker then presents a stark interpretation of the language used in the plan, saying that the statement amounts to "no one left behind is how they put it, which really means no one left alone. One left alive." This phrasing is used to convey the speaker’s reading of the policy as implying extreme outcomes for individuals who comply or are affected by the program. The speaker then shifts to a meta-commentary about the document, noting the source of the material. They say, "Just want to bring up that chart right now, the Implementing the Immunization Agenda 2030 document." They identify the document as originating from or involving multiple institutions: "It's the United Nations. It's the World Health Assembly," followed by a reference to a prominent philanthropic-linked influence, "the Bill and Melinda Gates Immunization Agenda 2030." Throughout, the speaker foregrounds a sense of urgency and controversy surrounding the Immunization Agenda 2030, presenting a sequence of claims about exemptions, coercive implementation, and the involvement of international organizations and influential actors. The overall cadence emphasizes a perceived discrepancy between the stated goals and the individuals’ alleged experiences or rights, framed within the larger context of international health governance.

According to the speaker, the person who reported them in Zimbabwe worked for the Wellcome Trust and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. The speaker believes forces above governments are at play, influencing doctors who think they are doing the right thing, and that the media is heavily censored, preventing the public from accessing information. The speaker feels that they have been neutered and that medical registrars can now erase doctors for saying or doing the wrong thing. They are not optimistic about finding new regulatory bodies, believing the opposition is too powerful. The speaker anticipates doctors being replaced by AI and patients losing trust in the medical profession. They stated that a combination of silver, Ivermectin, doxycycline, and zinc was effective, and that adding Ivermectin stopped people from dying.

The speakers discuss the politicization of Ivermectin, an antiparasitic drug that also shows potential in stopping viral replication. They mention its success in treating yellow fever and winning the Nobel Prize. They express confusion over why a drug would be demonized and politicized. The conversation touches on the motivations behind this, including the desire to create a monopoly for vaccines and the Emergency Use Authorization Act. They highlight the affordability and accessibility of Ivermectin, which can be manufactured by anyone and costs only 7¢ per dose. The speakers also mention the discouragement and suppression of alternative treatments like monoclonal antibodies.

Speaker 0 argues that ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine were suppressed because they are well-established drugs with safety records and billions of doses used; ivermectin is a human drug that also works on horses and won the Nobel Prize for its effectiveness in humans. He states there is a federal law that says an emergency use authorization (EUA) for a vaccine cannot be granted if there is any approved medication shown effective against the target disease, so admitting effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin would have made EUA for vaccines illegal and would have collapsed a “200,000,000,000 enterprise.” Speaker 1 notes this is the first time hearing that assertion, acknowledging it’s in the book. He suggests that if the medical community had been saying ivermectin is an effective COVID treatment, EUA for vaccines could not have been granted. Speaker 0 explains that many in the medical community supported effectiveness, citing a petition signed by 17,000 doctors and numerous peer-reviewed publications, but Fauci aggressively crusaded against it, labeling it a horse medication and alleging danger and overdosing to drown out those reports. Speaker 1 asks why Fauci continued to push the claim after EUA was granted. Speaker 0 answers that, even with EUA, the law may require withdrawal if a functioning medication exists, implying a motive to undermine ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine. He mentions a strong incentive for Fauci to kill these medications and cites several doctors who treated tens of thousands of COVID patients and supported the claim that the science shows many lives could have been saved. He names Harvey Reich at Yale, Peter McCulloch as the most published doctor in history and prominent in biostatistics/epidemiology, and Peter Quarry in connection with the doctors who treated many patients. They allegedly state that half a million Americans did not need to die.

Fauci filled the world with mRNA, claiming control over science to prevent deaths. Pfizer's jab didn't work, media manipulation ensued. People blindly followed big pharma, ignoring rising deaths. The truth will surface eventually.

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.

The speaker wrote a book about Fauci with 2,200 footnotes and claims all sources are verifiable via barcode. The speaker invited readers to identify errors, and despite 27 editions, none were reported. The book allegedly details immoral and criminal behavior, accusing Fauci of imposing totalitarian controls without scientific basis. The FDA's chief attorney allegedly admitted there was no reason to discourage Ivermectin use, which the speaker claims was a cure for COVID, and that millions died because it was withheld. The speaker asserts that emergency use authorization for vaccines could not have been issued if existing remedies were acknowledged. They claim officials pretended there was no cure besides the vaccine, resulting in myocarditis and deaths among young athletes. The speaker states that athlete deaths have risen from 29 to 100 per month. They believe a reckoning is coming as the science is now available.

A group of individuals met and reached a consensus on the use of Ivermectin as a solution to a public health emergency. They promptly shared this information with the FDA and Dr. Fauci.

In 1970, a Japanese biochemist named Satoshi Omorra discovered a bacterium with intriguing effects against roundworm and shared it with American colleague William Campbell of Merck. Campbell used the bacterium to create ivermectin, released by Merck in 1980. Ivermectin proved extremely effective against river blindness (onchocerciasis), a disease caused by a parasitic worm that affected Central and South America and much of Africa. With ivermectin, river blindness has been largely eliminated in the Americas and greatly reduced in Africa. Billions of doses have been administered; it is listed among the World Health Organization’s essential medicines. Merck’s patent expired in 1996; the drug is cheap to produce, globally available in various formulations, and, at normal dosages, has no important side effects. In 2015, Omurra received the Nobel Prize for Medicine, shared with Campbell. Fast forward to early 2020, when the COVID-19 pandemic spread. Scientists searched for drugs with antiviral activity, and Monash University in Australia conducted a literature search that found ivermectin had shown activity against Zika, West Nile, and influenza. They performed experiments and found that ivermectin displays remarkable activity against SARS-CoV-2 in vitro, reporting a 5,000-fold reduction in viral levels after a single treatment without cytotoxicity, and proposed a mechanism for this effect. Around the same time, two American scientists noted that ivermectin was used as prophylaxis against river blindness in Africa and examined whether widespread ivermectin prophylaxis correlated with COVID-19 rates. They found that countries with extensive ivermectin prophylaxis had significantly lower COVID-19 rates. In Miami, Dr. Jean Jacques Reiter, a critical care and pulmonary specialist, treated COVID-19 patients with ivermectin after being urged by a patient’s son. He reported rapid improvement: the patient’s FiO2 requirements declined within 48 hours, and she was discharged within about a week. Reiter treated many patients with ivermectin and published a June 2020 preprint; he later testified before a Senate committee about his experiences. He stated that among hundreds of outpatients treated by his team, only two were admitted to the hospital; neither died or required intubation. Uncontrolled studies on ivermectin as prophylaxis and treatment circulated globally. A daughter described a care-home incident in Ontario, where residents on a floor receiving high-dose ivermectin for scabies reportedly had no COVID-19 infections among residents, even as staff on that floor became infected. In New York, Pierre Corry teamed with Reiter and Paul Merrick to form the Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC). In October 2020, the FLCCC released the Eye Mask Plus protocol, centering on ivermectin for prevention and treatment, and published a meta-analysis reviewing nine studies on prophylaxis and 12 studies on treatment, including seven randomized trials, all showing ivermectin’s superiority to controls. They presented figures showing reduced mortality and case rates associated with ivermectin use in various regions, including Peru, Mexico (Chiapas), and Argentina (healthcare workers). On December 8, 2020, FLCCC members appeared before a Senate subcommittee, with testimony claiming mountains of data showing ivermectin’s miraculous effectiveness and requesting the NIH to review their data. The transcript asserts widespread suppression of ivermectin information by mainstream media (New York Times, AP), big tech (YouTube, Twitter, Facebook), and the NIH. It alleges the NIH COVID-19 treatment guidelines panel, established in April 2020, largely recommended against early treatment and promoted remdesivir instead, even though remdesivir’s mortality impact was unproven and the World Health Organization advised against its use for improving survival. The panel’s treatment recommendations (as of 01/03/2021) are cited, highlighting monoclonal antibodies for early patients and no other treatments, except for remdesivir for deteriorating patients. Fauci publicly touted remdesivir’s endpoint as time to recovery, with the primary endpoint reportedly changed mid-trial from mortality to time to recovery, raising concerns about impartiality. The transcript traces remdesivir's production by Gilead Sciences and notes financial ties: seven panel members disclosed funding from Gilead; two of the three panel chairs received Gilead support, and Clifford Lane (one co-author on a remdesivir study) was closely connected to the study, with undisclosed ties among other authors. It argues these ties could impact decision-making and bias toward remdesivir over cheaper, repurposed drugs like ivermectin. The narrative then contrasts the U.S. approach with Uttar Pradesh, India, which authorized ivermectin as prophylaxis and treatment in August 2020. In January 2021, Uttar Pradesh reported near-zero COVID-19 deaths, while the United States faced ongoing high mortality, suggesting potential differential outcomes if ivermectin had been broadly authorized. The closing remarks emphasize the suffering caused by COVID-19 and its broad impacts on families and society.

Speaker 0 explains that people wonder why ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine were suppressed, noting these are well established drugs with safety profiles and billions of doses given. He says ivermectin is a human drug and also works on horses, but it would win the Nobel Prize because it works so well on human beings. Speaker 1 responds “Mhmm.” Speaker 0 states there is a little known federal law that says you cannot give an emergency use authorization (EUA) to a vaccine if there is any medication approved for any purpose that is shown effective against the target disease. So if Tony Fauci or anybody had admitted that hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin are effective against COVID, it would have been illegal to give the EUAs to the vaccines, and they could never have gotten them approved. He suggests this would have collapsed a “200,000,000,000 enterprise.” Speaker 1 says, “That is fascinating,” noting they had been covering this for two years and that this is the first time hearing that; if the medical community had been saying ivermectin works, it would have affected EUA. Speaker 0 responds that the medical community did say that—17,000 doctors signed a petition, and there are many peer reviewed publications consistently saying so. Yet Fauci aggressively crusaded against it, insisting it’s a horse medication, that people are overdosing, and so on. He asks why Fauci kept saying it. Speaker 1 asks why Fauci continued to say it after he got the authorization. Speaker 0 offers possible explanations: one, even if you have an EUA, the law appears to say you can't have it anymore if there is a functioning medication. He acknowledges, though, that he cannot read Fauci’s mind but speculates there is a strong incentive for Fauci to kill ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine. He cites several doctors who treated tens of thousands of COVID patients successfully and who argue that half a million Americans did not need to die, naming Harvey Reich at Yale, Peter McCulloch, and Peter Quarry.

The discussion centers on ivermectin and various claims about its origins, promotion, and effects. One speaker asserts that ivermectin is made by big pharma, specifically naming Merck and vaccine companies, and that people are using it because influencers told the public to take pharmaceutical pills after the pandemic, while not disclosing that cell phone towers are in front of their houses. The speaker claims that people took ivermectin instead, and states that ivermectin is linked to liver toxicity, jaundice, brain damage, and infertility, suggesting these risks are part of a broader strategy to reduce fertility in the population. The other speaker counters by describing ivermectin as having productive toxicity, noting this is observed in animal studies, including rabbits and other mammals, and rejecting the idea that its toxicity is limited to arthropods like crabs or cockroaches. This speaker claims it is a well-proven reproductive toxic substance for many mammals. They reference another video discussing the neurotoxic effect of ivermectin and mention that veterinarians discuss routine use and continued use of ivermectin, associating it with various adverse outcomes.

Worldwide, the death toll from the COVID vaccine is estimated to be over 13 million, possibly even 17 million. The speaker agrees with this estimate. They praise an interview with Brett Weinstein and agree with his points. The conversation then shifts to questioning how governments can ignore the deaths of over 10 million people and not take responsibility or make amends. This raises philosophical questions about accountability and morality.

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.

The FDA issues emergency use authorization for medical products when there are no approved alternatives. The effectiveness of Ivermectin as a treatment is questioned, as it would have affected the authorization of vaccines. Powerful forces with financial interests oppose Ivermectin, as it threatens global vaccination policies. Pharmaceutical companies like Pfizer, BioNTech, and Moderna have made significant profits from COVID-19 vaccines. Ivermectin is a cheap and widely available drug, but its safety is disputed by Merck, despite distributing it when it was under patent. It is important to be cautious of articles that may be biased or paid for.

The speaker questions the source of the claim that 20 million lives have been saved. They ask for data and studies to support this number. The response is indirect and the meeting is about to end when the speaker jumps back in to clarify that the 20 million lives saved refers to all vaccines, not just mRNA vaccines. The speaker is unable to ask for further clarification. They find it suspicious that this number is being thrown around without proper explanation. They suggest that these numbers are made up.

The speaker believes that Ivermectin's effectiveness threatened the emergency use authorization for vaccines, which would impact the global market worth over $100 billion. The speaker suggests that Ivermectin's low cost and availability posed a threat to patented pharmaceuticals like PAXLOVID and Molnupiravir. They argue that Ivermectin could have ended the pandemic if widely used, but was suppressed due to its potential impact on the market. Translation: The speaker suggests that Ivermectin's effectiveness posed a threat to the emergency use authorization for vaccines and the global market, potentially impacting billions in revenue. They argue that Ivermectin's affordability and availability could have ended the pandemic if widely used, but was suppressed due to its potential impact on the market.

The speaker believes COVID vaccine programs should be stopped. They are astounded by the number of papers critical of the vaccine or showing negative effects. The speaker claims a group of researchers funded by Pfizer and the NIH bullies editors to retract papers with negative findings about the vaccine. They assert the number of retractions is appalling. According to the speaker, in one instance where an editor resisted, Nature Springer bought the journal and retracted the paper. The speaker states that this is what they have been dealing with.