reSee.it - Related Video Feed

My name is Gwen Olsen, a former pharmaceutical industry veteran. The industry focuses on maintaining diseases, not curing them. Psychiatric drugs keep patients reliant on medications for life. Many drugs are no more effective than placebos, with exercise often proving more beneficial. The pharmaceutical industry prioritizes profit over patient well-being, pushing unnecessary medications. It's crucial to educate yourself on alternative health options to avoid becoming a lifelong pharmaceutical customer. Take charge of your health, share knowledge, and prevent loved ones from falling victim to unnecessary medications. Thank you. Translation: The speaker, Gwen Olsen, discusses the pharmaceutical industry's focus on maintaining diseases rather than curing them, highlighting the ineffectiveness of many drugs and the importance of educating oneself on alternative health options.

Speaker 0 argues that the food supply is treated with a chemical called folic acid, which is not a natural vitamin and did not exist until the 1980s. According to the speaker, folic acid is not found anywhere on the surface of the earth, whereas folate does exist in nature. The speaker notes that during pregnancy, women are told to take high doses of folic acid, and questions why a man-made chemical that didn’t exist until the eighties is deemed absolutely necessary for a healthy pregnancy. The comparison is made between folate and methylfolate, implying a distinction between natural forms and synthetic forms. The speaker also states that in the United States, the entire grain supply—flour, rice, bread, pasta, grains of any kind, and cereals—is required to be sprayed with folic acid, although this is not openly labeled as such. Instead, it is described as fortified or enriched foods. The speaker claims that these fortified or enriched nutrients are fed to children, and asserts that half of the population has a gene mutation that prevents them from processing folic acid effectively. The consequence, according to the speaker, is that when a person cannot process a high amount of something introduced into the body, it becomes dysfunctional. The speaker then connects this to a broader societal issue, describing a common scenario: a child goes to school, comes home with a phone call reporting inattention and poor ability to follow directions, and the ensuing medical response is the prescription of stimulants such as Adderall or Ritalin. The speaker characterizes this as a solution that uses amphetamines to accelerate the central nervous system to match the pace of a racing mind, rather than addressing underlying factors. Ultimately, the speaker presents a proposed solution: remove folic acid, fortified, and enriched nutrients from the diet, and observe changes in behavior. The underlying claim is that eliminating these synthetic nutrients would calm behavior and improve function, implying that the current approach relies on artificial chemistry rather than natural nutrition.

The speaker discusses peptides and their rise in popularity on social media, describing them as big pharma products. They claim peptides are essentially the same as big pharma vitamins, just in injectable form, and assert that people are now supporting the same pharmaceutical companies by using peptides rather than taking vaccines. The speaker expresses astonishment that, after 2020, people would inject things into their bodies without knowing what they are putting in, yet peptide injections have become a trending topic across the Internet and social media. They extend the critique to other substances, stating that methylane blue, ivermectin, and nicotine are also part of the same pattern: if something is trendy on social media, it is backed by big pharma. The speaker asserts that this is what is happening with peptides and that big pharma maintains powerful marketing to influence public perception. They claim that big pharma gets people to believe in certain products and to ignore other concerns, such as “cell phone towers out in front of their house,” while encouraging them to jump on the bandwagon of other products to put into their body. The speaker argues that peptides represent a broader phenomenon where trendy health products are promoted by big pharma, similar to the way vaccines were promoted in 2020. They state that after 2020, one would think people would avoid injecting anything into their body because they don’t know what they are putting into it, yet the trend continues with peptides and related products. The overall assertion is that big pharma has strong marketing that convinces people to adopt various products and to overlook potential concerns, shaping consumer behavior through trends on social media. The speaker notes that the peptide trend is part of this larger pattern, alongside other substances like methylane blue, ivermectin, and nicotine, all of which are implied to be backed by big pharma when they gain online popularity.

Fifteen percent of high schoolers are on Adderall, which was created by Merck in Nazi Germany to make German soldiers more aggressive. The drug was discontinued due to psychosis among soldiers, but Merck reformulated it into a stronger version, which is now Adderall. Parents are being pressured to put their kids on Adderall, just as they are with Ozempic, SSRIs, and SANs. Children in sedentary environments with limited sunlight, being fed ultra-processed food, are prescribed Adderall for being fidgety. This is mass child abuse, and it is being normalized.

The speaker claims the tobacco industry applied their expertise in addiction to food production, creating ultra-processed foods that lack satiability, leading to overconsumption. They state that almost 1,000 chemicals in American foods are banned in Europe and elsewhere, and that these novel chemicals are poorly processed by the body. The speaker notes a significant increase in chronic disease since their uncle's presidency, when 6% of Americans had chronic diseases and there was no budget for it. Now, chronic disease costs $4.3 trillion, five times the military budget. Pharmaceutical companies, insurance companies, and hospitals profit from this. The speaker asserts that the medical advice we receive is compromised due to corporate capture.

General practitioners, including the speaker, were prescribing psychotropic drugs to children. The European Medical Association planned to approve Prozac for children, and Ritalin was already being prescribed. The speaker realized the consequences of their actions, as people were dying from medication they had bribed the Swedish government to legalize. The speaker regrets their involvement, especially considering Sweden's reputation as a transparent country with the Nobel Prize of Medicine. The speaker's American friends emphasized the importance of obtaining Prozac registration in Sweden for prestige and career advancement.

Pharmaceutical advertising on TV targets consumers with the most expensive drugs, not generics, which have the highest profit margins for the companies. Unlike typical ads where consumers pay directly, pharmaceutical drugs are often paid for by Medicaid, Medicare, and taxpayers. Taxpayers also fund the ads themselves through tax deductions. These ads may lead people to request ineffective drugs from doctors who, under time constraints from corporate management, may find it easier to prescribe the requested drug rather than argue against it. The American Medical Association has opposed this practice for 30 years. This system distorts the market and cannot be considered a free market because the federal government subsidizes it.

Speaker 0 argues that history will view this presidency as probably the most reckless and corrupt in the history of the United States, and expresses fear that without change the country and the world risk major harm, including the possibility of World War III. They say, regardless of views on global leadership, that being on top “what good is it … if you've created an absolute hellscape?” They emphasize the need for the course to change and suggest the future of the United States as a cohesive country and the world is currently in question because of the administration’s behavior. Speaker 1 agrees that America used to hold the moral high ground—defending human rights, free speech, and free trade—but asserts that none of those things are true any longer. They claim America is “the terror regime of the world,” describing it as pillaging, stealing, bombing, assassinating, running color revolutions, lying, and doing everything possible to destroy others to keep America as the last nation standing on its pile of soon to be worthless debt. They state this is not a moral position from which to lead any civilization. Speaker 0 contends that America has the tools to be all those values, citing a great constitutional republican system, the federation of states, resources, and human capital. They note a problem, however: a “giant pile of worthless fiat paper,” with the bill coming due and the tantrums of an empire, referencing warnings by people like Gerald Celente and Alex Jones about a fiat bubble rupture. They say the question is where the country wants to be in the world, criticizing a lack of imagination among the “great and the good in America” about a compelling future. Speaker 1 adds a new issue: 31 million Americans are injecting themselves with GLP-1 drugs, which they say cause a 100% increase in risk of psychiatric disorders and suicidal ideation, especially among women, with the most use among 50–65-year-olds. They claim Trump is working to make these drugs more affordable so that more people can take them, potentially leading to half of US adults using a drug based on venom peptides of the Gila monster, a paralyzing agent, risking madness. They compare this to lead poisoning and reference Ozempic as one of these drugs. Speaker 0 asks, “What’s it called? Ozempic? Is that a GOP one?” Speaker 1 confirms “Ozempic,” and notes that the drugs are used for vanity to look healthy, not because people are actually healthy. They reiterate the core issue: what goes into bodies and the environment in which people live, stressing that there is an opportunity today to correct and improve the situation, and that many are taking that opportunity.

America has an addiction crisis related to food, which is profitable for big food companies whose objective is to create cheap, addictive food. Almost every chronic condition shortening American lives is tied to food. Ultra-processed food makes up 70% of our diet and is weaponized with sugar, seed oils, and processed grains. The speaker claims the food market is rigged, and while working for the food industry, they helped pay off regulators, the media, lawmakers, and researchers to promote ultra-processed food as healthy. Coca-Cola allegedly pays organizations like the American Academy of Pediatrics. The food industry is purportedly taking away humans' innate sense of what's good for them, hiring scientists from tobacco companies to shift them over to food science. Ultra-processed food is a science experiment that hijacks our evolutionary biology, making food addictive and normalized.

According to the speaker, big pharma breaks children through routine well visits. Healthy babies receive multiple vaccines, leading to chronic ear infections and fevers, which are treated with antibiotics and Tylenol. This progresses to eczema, gut issues, and food allergies, with doctors dismissing them as normal while administering more vaccines. The child then develops asthma and ADHD, requiring steroids, Ritalin, and lifelong medication, making them a lifelong customer. The speaker claims that mothers are brainwashed into thanking the system that harmed their children, and that a healthy child isn't profitable to big pharma.

The speaker lays out a series of provocative claims about nicotine and associated public health narratives. They begin by posing a rhetorical critique: “Can you hear about nicotine? I’ve talked about nicotine so many times.” They argue that doctors promote nicotine and even tell people to use nicotine, recalling a historical assertion that doctors used to tell people to smoke cigarettes while they were pregnant. This leads to a broader contention about the origins and motivations behind nicotine products. The speaker then asserts that all nicotine products currently on the market are controlled by big pharma. They specify examples such as nicotine gums and nicotine patches and assert that “all the nicotine products, they’re all synthetic.” This is presented as a blanket characterization of the entire nicotine product market, tying it to pharmaceutical interests. A visual claim follows: “the picture of the nicotine receptors was on an electric eel.” The speaker asks, “Are we electric eels?” as a way to question the basis for some scientific imagery or representations used in the discussion of nicotine receptors. This line is used to provoke skepticism about the sources or imagery used in nicotine-related science. The argument then shifts toward a broader environmental and technological frame. The speaker references “snake venom in the water” as part of a cascade of concerns, and they remark, “once again, aren’t looking at the cell phone towers which were installed in front of their house.” They claim people are worried about snake venom in the water while neglecting other pervasive concerns. They note that “there’s a billion chemicals in the water,” emphasizing the long-standing presence of numerous substances in aquatic environments and suggesting a focus on these dangers. In a final, pointed claim, the speaker asserts that vaccines “have been culling the population since 1626.” This claim is used to argue that vaccines are part of a long-standing pattern of population reduction. The closing sentiment ties the earlier points together: “That’s nicotine. … You have been sold. You have been sold by the same systems which were poisoning the people in 2020 who were making the same products to poison the people in 2020.” Overall, the passage presents a chain of criticisms regarding nicotine’s promotion, the pharmaceutical control of nicotine products, questions about scientific imagery, environmental health concerns, and a historical accusation about vaccines and population management, concluding with the assertion that the audience has been sold by the same systems referenced.

There is a lot of corruption in politics due to money, bribes, and backdoor deals. One major mistake was allowing drug companies to advertise on television, which only two countries, the United States and New Zealand, permit. These commercials often make exaggerated claims and list potential side effects very quickly. It's concerning how they can make something seem great one moment and then mention serious side effects like suicidal thoughts and rectal bleeding. Personally, I haven't taken many medications, but when I tried SSRIs, I found the last 20 seconds of the commercial more impactful than the rest, and I didn't experience any benefits from them.

According to the speaker, 100% of documented school shootings in America over the past 52 years were committed by teenagers on either an antidepressant or a barbiturate drug for anxiety. The speaker claims that every antidepressant, including Prozac, Zoloft, and Xanax, as well as anti-anxiety drugs, are published to increase the risk of suicide, violent behavior, and homicidal actions. The speaker asserts that these drugs are prescribed by doctors and sold at pharmacies like CVS and Walgreens.

The speaker argues that nicotine products, pharmaceutical companies, and big tobacco all contribute to widespread addiction, stating that every nicotine product is addictive. They claim tobacco companies shifted away from selling cigarettes—partly due to lawsuits and warnings about smoking during pregnancy—and pivoted to nicotine instead. They assert that these companies realized involving doctors with nicotine would accelerate sales, allowing nicotine products to be sold broadly. The speaker describes the entire nicotine situation as central to the issue. They suggest that when people say they love nicotine, they are also loving pharmaceuticals and big tobacco. They critique public attention, implying a contrast between focusing on nicotine and ignoring other modern technologies, such as cell phone towers or phone upgrades, while noting people are “busy chewing nicotine like a pharmaceutical Muppet.”

The key focus is on well-being, which has shifted over the past 20 to 30 years towards expensive remediation rather than wellness and prevention. The FDA plays a crucial role in this discussion. It raises the question of whether it's worthwhile to continue promoting costly drugs while neglecting preventive measures and overall wellness.

The discussion traces the alleged dark origins and long-running influence behind modern medicine and vaccines, framing today’s pharmaceutical system as the culmination of a century-long strategy led by powerful interests. - Rockefeller’s role is presented as foundational. Speaker 0 describes John D. Rockefeller becoming America’s first billionaire in 1913 and using strategic philanthropy through the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research (1901) and the Rockefeller Foundation (1913) to shape Western medicine toward laboratory-based, drug-centered approaches. The narrative claims this shift marginalized herbalism, naturopathy, homeopathy, and holistic remedies, promoting a model in which a pill is developed for every illness and patients remain chronically ill to sustain repeat business. - The early to mid-20th century is characterized as a period of regulatory capture and a pivot to synthetic, patentable drugs. From the 1920s to the 1940s, oil and chemical companies supposedly moved into synthetic drugs with Rockefeller guidance, removing incentives to patent natural remedies while patenting synthetic ones. This, the speaker argues, created a profit motive to treat illness as a recurring revenue stream. - Regulatory capture and the FDA’s evolution are discussed. The claim is that the FDA became more of a gatekeeper dependent on the industry it regulates, with former pharma executives and consultants filling key roles and rubber-stamping drugs. The only notable counterpoint highlighted is Doctor Francis Kelsey, who reportedly blocked the thalidomide approval in the 1960s, preventing birth defects in the United States and illustrating a brief period when public safety was prioritized. - The subsequent decades are summarized as intensifying industry influence. The 1970s are described as a time when pharmaceutical funding of clinical trials and lobbying expanded, and the 1980 Bayh-Dole Act is cited as enabling private patenting of publicly funded research, increasing collaboration between universities and industry and training medical professionals to favor pharmaceuticals. The 1990s are marked by direct-to-consumer advertising on U.S. television, which allegedly shifted patient behavior and doctor prescribing patterns toward medications advertised directly to the public. - Whistleblower testimony is invoked to illustrate ongoing concerns about drug safety and industry practices. A whistleblower recounts bribes and perks tied to drug promotion, including lavish gifts and trips to doctors, and asserts that patients are often treated as a means to profit for corporations. - The conversation shifts to vaccine safety and regulatory issues. The discussion includes claims about the COVID-19 vaccines, with assertions that the FDA acknowledges a number of child deaths, and a reference to an autopsy-based analysis by Dr. Peter McCullough suggesting a high proportion of vaccine-related deaths in examined cases. There is mention that Dr. McCullough faced professional pushback. - The importance of gut health and the microbiome is emphasized as a counterpoint to pharmaceutical-centric medicine. Speaker 3 argues that gut microbiome diversity is linked to many chronic conditions and aging, and cites the benefits of fermentation and kimchi. A specific emphasis is placed on kimchi as having a broad spectrum of beneficial bacteria and on the purported anti-aging effects observed in cell studies. - Kim Bright of Brightcore Nutrition advocates kimchi-based products (Kimchi One) as a practical approach to support gut health and overall well-being, describing customer testimonials about improved digestion, immune function, skin and hair health, and weight management. She argues for the daily use of gut-supporting probiotics, especially after antibiotic use, and asserts that antibiotics can disrupt gut flora, necessitating restoration of beneficial bacteria. - The speakers discuss consumer engagement and the role of direct customer contact, contrasting it with impersonal pharmaceutical industry practices. They express optimism about changes in medicine and a desire to reduce reliance on processed foods and large pharmaceutical advertising, hoping for reforms and greater transparency. Throughout, the tone asserts a pervasive influence of Rockefeller-era strategies on today’s medical and vaccine landscape, while promoting kimchi-based approaches as a healthier counterbalance and offering products as a practical embodiment of that stance.

A common asthma drug costs almost $500 in America, but less than $40 in The United Kingdom. The speaker highlights the significant price difference, noting one person paid a small amount for the same shot in the UK. The weight loss drug Ozempic costs 10 times more in The United States than in the rest of the developed world, according to the speaker, who questions the reason for this disparity.

The speaker criticizes the healthcare system, advising people not to get sick or go to the hospital because they believe it will result in death. They argue that Americans spend the most on healthcare but have lower life expectancy. They also mention that Americans consume 55% of the world's prescription medication, indicating a high level of sickness. The speaker questions the effectiveness of commonly prescribed medications like statins, claiming they increase the risk of diabetes and Alzheimer's disease. They cite studies suggesting that high cholesterol levels are associated with better survival rates in elderly patients. The speaker concludes by stating that diabetes and Alzheimer's medications are also ineffective.

Mike Adams introduces “medication spellbinding,” a concept borrowed from Dr. Peter Breggin, a psychiatrist known for criticizing mass medication. The term, also called Anosognosia, describes patients’ unawareness that they are mentally impaired, which can lead to involuntary violence or suicide and a lack of significant therapeutic efficacy compared to placebo. Drugs mask or hide their harmful mental and emotional effects, causing people to feel better in their own minds while their real-world behavior deteriorates. Some individuals become desperately depressed or violently aggressive without realizing the medication is causing it. Adams notes that the pharmacopoeia of big pharma has historical ties to sorcery, and mentions Ambien as an example some people claim leads to bizarre sleepwalking or even sleep driving. He also cites akathisia and emotional blunting associated with SSRIs, where people lose empathy and feel detached from emotional reality. School shooters are discussed, with links suggested between SSRI use or sudden cessation and violent acts. The central claim is that psychiatric drugs work by disabling brain function; SSRIs are described as inhibitory—selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors—blocking serotonin reuptake and flooding the brain with serotonin, thereby “disabling” brain function and creating spellbinding effects. Dr. Breggin’s theory, articulated in articles in Ethical Human Psychology and Psychiatry and in his 2008 book Medication Madness, outlines four overlapping effects of these drugs. First, patients fail to recognize the degree of drug-induced mental impairment. Second, they deny that the drug causes any altered state, attributing changes to the underlying illness or personal failure. Third, patients may feel they are functioning better while objective markers—work performance, relationships, judgment—deteriorate. Fourth, severe forms can lead to actions radically uncharacteristic, including self-injury, suicide, or violence, without subjective recognition that the drug drives the behavior. Adams contrasts psychiatric drug intoxication with alcohol intoxication, noting society’s greater cultural recognition of alcohol effects and the relative lack of recognition of medication intoxication. He argues that conventional psychiatry maintains a presumption of benefit for these drugs, insisting they are safe and effective, even as they admit these drugs alter brain chemistry. The speaker questions the reliability of psychiatrists, claiming many are on medications themselves and that the DSM can pathologize normal emotions, leading to more drug prescriptions rather than addressing root causes. He urges extreme caution with psychiatric medications and favors natural approaches: sunshine, good nutrition, exercise, and reducing addictive substances. He emphasizes that these drugs can cause aberrant behaviors and suggest that obtaining proper diagnosis and treatment through conventional psychiatry may perpetuate a cycle of polypharmacy and worsening symptoms. He also touches on broader societal stressors—economic pressures, relationships, and global tensions—that exacerbate mental health concerns. The discussion closes with a brief note that discoveries will be shared regularly, with the aim of presenting both positive and other discoveries, and mentions resources for further information (omitting promotional content as requested).

A common asthma drug costs almost $500 in America, but less than $40 in The United Kingdom. The speaker stated that an individual in the UK paid a small amount for their shot, contrasting sharply with the $500 cost in the US. The weight loss drug Ozempic costs 10 times more in The United States than in the rest of the developed world. The speaker questions the reason for this disparity.

The speaker urges listeners to ask themselves whether their symptoms or diagnosed conditions, and the prescription drugs they take, are truly caused by drug deficiency. They question the idea that conditions like high blood pressure, migraines, diabetes, or heart disease are due to a lack of the drugs themselves. The speaker makes several pointed claims about specific medications: - Lisinopril: described as snake venom in a tablet from a viper in Brazil (Jarocas Viper) since 1981, and asserts that the listener may be swallowing dried snake venom to lower blood pressure, even though the doctor may not have explained it this way. - Xarelto: said to be prescribed for atrial fibrillation by a cardiologist. - Imitrex: noted as something people inject for migraines. They challenge the notion that symptoms are caused by deficiencies in these drugs or by the body lacking them. They ask whether the body is deficient in acetaminophen (and by extension Advil) or Tylenol to cause fever, arguing that none of these claims are true. They assert that these are man-made chemicals and drugs and that none of us are deficient in them. The speaker then presents a contrasting view: every single disease and every single symptom is a clear sign that you are specifically nutrient deficient. They contend that when the nutrients are put back into the body—“the nutrients back in that God gave you and put in the earth”—the earth’s supply to the human body aligns with how God designed it, providing everything that’s for the benefit of man. The overall message emphasizes a shift from relying on drugs to restoring nutrients from natural sources as the body’s path to health.

The speaker, who used to work in the pharmaceutical industry, criticizes the industry for prioritizing profit over people's health. He shares his own experiences of being involved in corruption and unethical practices. He highlights the lack of transparency and the influence of the industry on doctors and politicians. He also discusses the overprescription of medication to children, particularly psychotropic drugs, and the harmful effects they can have. The speaker calls for public awareness and action to hold the pharmaceutical industry accountable and protect the health of future generations.

Our healthcare system is criticized as a hoax, and the speaker advises against getting sick or going to the hospital because they believe it will lead to death. They argue that instead, people should focus on maintaining a healthy lifestyle. The speaker presents a graph comparing healthcare expenditure and life expectancy in the US, highlighting that despite spending the most on healthcare globally, Americans have a lower life expectancy. They also mention that Americans consume a significant amount of prescription medication, indicating a high level of illness. The speaker questions the effectiveness of commonly prescribed medications like statins, claiming they increase the risk of diabetes and Alzheimer's disease. They conclude by stating that diabetes and Alzheimer's medications are also considered hoaxes.

America is ridiculously overmedicated, especially with antidepressants and anxiety drugs, and Britain is following suit. Millions of young people are taking unnecessary, mind-bending drugs for self-diagnosed anxiety and depression. This leads to a generation of isolated, mentally altered individuals, which correlates with issues like mass shootings. We are massively overmedicating young people. Therefore, I support efforts to curb America's reliance on these mind-altering substances.

To make someone chronically ill and dependent on drugs, one should have them eat the standard American diet, lower their cholesterol below 200, and give them proton pump inhibitors. This creates nutrient and vitamin D deficiencies due to lack of cholesterol, as well as testosterone and estrogen deficiencies. The result is a lifetime of illness requiring multiple drugs, as additional medications are needed to mitigate the side effects of the initial drugs, leading to polypharmacy. The FDA is supposed to protect us, but is influenced by big pharma, due to the large profits made from drug therapy.