reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Speaker 0: The speaker describes using Dragon's Blood with coconut oil on the gums to address recessed gums, claiming that the gums will regenerate. They mention a first order of Dragon's Blood and say, “Recessive gums, dragon Dragon's Blood and coconut oil. Put it on the gums, and the gums will regenerate.” They also claim that Dragon's Blood, when used with coconut oil, can heal bites and stings, stating, “if you have any bites, you know, a tick, a wasp, a bee sting, a scorpion sting, you can put a little bit of Dragon's Blood and coconut oil on there and that will also heal that too.” The speaker asserts the broader point that “nature will give us to bring into our body and put on our body to heal without side effects,” describing it as “remarkable.” The speaker contends that if dentists were talking about regenerating gums, they wouldn’t be able to sell procedures, implying that such regeneration would undercut procedures. They assert a broader claim about professional healthcare: “every time you go to a professional, they never give you an actual solution. They always give you a treatment or they give you a pill or they give you a surgery. They never actually give you something to actually fix the issue that you're having.” The speaker contrasts this with their view of natural remedies as a genuine fix rather than a temporary treatment.

The speaker, a physician and psychiatrist, states that medicine faces the difficulty that most disease is preventable, but the medical field profits from curing or ameliorating disease with medications and procedures. The speaker claims that the medical field does not profit from preventing disease by encouraging people to socialize or exercise.

The difference between a food chemical and a drug is intended use; if intended for food, almost anything can be synthesized and added. The speaker claims we are being mass-drugged and poisoned by 10,000 virtually unregulated chemicals in our food. Monsanto's glyphosate litigation revealed ghostwritten papers claiming its safety, illustrating corruption. The speaker believes these unregulated chemicals are making us sick. Evidence-based approaches requiring long studies to prove harm from substances like glyphosate are flawed. The speaker asserts that the synergistic combination of toxins causes pleiotropic health issues, requiring common sense to understand the problem.

A speaker points out a peanut and says people become allergic because, in the 1960s, peanut oil was allegedly put into vaccines “by Pfizer,” so injecting peanut oil would supposedly cause peanut allergies. The speaker claims Pfizer owns the EpiPen used for peanut allergies, citing a book that explains Pfizer’s ownership of the EpiPen, and argues that Pfizer would then both have “made” people allergic and also own the solution carried by schools. The speaker then discusses other possible reasons people report allergic reactions when they eat peanuts. They suggest that peanuts may be processed with pesticides or chemicals, or sprayed with pesticides while growing, and that individuals might be allergic to pesticides rather than peanuts themselves. They further say that if someone is not allergic to pesticides and has not had a “peanut injection or vaccine,” the remaining factor is peanut processing: most peanut butters, they claim, are boiled and roasted, meaning peanuts are cooked twice before eating and are not in raw form. To obtain raw peanuts, the speaker says one should look to Virginia, which “grows all the raw peanuts” in the shell. They describe the peanut as “good for the prostate, ovaries, for the brain,” and for “testosterone” and “estrogen,” and say it helps push food through the stomach when there is buildup inside. The speaker also claims it can help with “the big C,” listing support for prostate cancer, breast cancer, and intestinal cancers, concluding that “that was the peanut.”

Speaker 0 argues that sunscreen is a product pushed by Big Pharma, which sells sunscreen while not promoting healthy choices like eating well or building a base tan. The speaker claims that pharmaceutical companies “took those chemicals and bake[d] it into their skin” and use fear of the sun to create a recurring customer base, including selling products for children and eventually pills later in life. The transcript contends that the real issue is diet and toxins: “What you're what you're eating,” and that consuming toxins leads to more burning, as the skin tries to expel these toxins with the sun. This creates a recurring cycle of exposure and illness driven by the supposed toxins in food and products. The speaker questions the ubiquity of sunscreen by contrasting humans with animals, noting that birds and other animals don’t wear sunscreen, even though humans are told to use it and follow doctor recommendations allegedly paid by Big Pharma. The implication is that consumer fear is manipulated and that medical professionals may be influenced by industry interests. The overall claim is that the sunscreen narrative is fear-based, designed to keep people buying sunscreen annually and to push products onto children, with a broader scheme to keep people sick and generate ongoing pharmaceutical sales. The speaker frames the sunscreen recommendation as a contrived protection tactic that benefits industry rather than solely protecting health.

The speaker says they looked into “seedless watermelons” because they consider them “a mind blowing thing.” They claim that seedless watermelons are made by using an antibiotic so the fruit becomes infertile, preventing seeds from growing. They then connect this to what they believe happens after eating seedless fruit, arguing that if seedlessness is caused by making the watermelon infertile—so there is no seed and the fruit has been altered—then it will “make you infertile” in the gut lining. The speaker extends the claim beyond watermelons, saying that going into seedless grapes, seedless oranges, seedless lemons, and seedless watermelons are “Monsanto’s products” aimed at making people infertile. They say this is tied to a broader “fertility crisis” discussed by many people. In their view, the lack of seeds in food leads to a lack of seeds for people to “procreate” and “continue on” their lineage, because they argue seeds are involved in feeding fertility for both males and females. They claim that seeds “are going to feed the fertility of a male or a female” and that these reproductive parts need to be fed; therefore, eliminating the seed also eliminates fertility. The speaker advises that when choosing fruit like watermelons, people should look for “seeded watermelons.” They also say that seeds contain nutrients and that those nutrients are “the counters to many different diseases.” According to the speaker, a reason seeds are removed is that if people ate the actual seeds of the fruit, the seeds would counter illnesses. They then add that removing seeds makes it possible to keep people sick and to profit from it. Overall, the speaker’s argument is that seedless versions of multiple fruits are produced by applying an antibiotic to make the fruit infertile and seedless, and that removing seeds from food leads to infertility by removing seed-related fertility support. They further claim that eliminating seeds removes nutrients that would counter diseases, and they frame this as part of a larger system that benefits from keeping people unwell.

The speaker explains that glyphosate is a systemic chemical. A systemic herbicide is absorbed by the plant when glyphosate is sprayed onto the leaves, and it is translocated into the rest of the plant, meaning it goes into the plant and stays there. The speaker emphasizes that washing vegetables does not remove the glyphosate, underscoring that residue can remain in the plant even after cleaning. This point is presented as a key characteristic of glyphosate’s behavior in sprayed crops. The discussion then shifts to soil and dirt. The speaker recalls a saying from a farmer: even the soil, the bacteria in the soil, have been known to increase serotonin levels in the minds. This statement is presented as a positive connection between interacting with soil and mental well-being, suggesting that getting hands into dirt and feeling dirt can be beneficial. The speaker attributes positive outcomes to soil biodiversity and the natural state of farming, highlighting a contrast with chemical use. Throughout the message, the speaker reinforces a stance against chemical use in the food system. The closing remarks thank the audience for their support and explicitly credit the audience with helping to keep chemicals out of the food system. The overall framing ties together a concern about glyphosate’s persistence in plants with a broader appreciation for soil health and non-chemical farming practices.

The speaker discusses the role of cholesterol in the body, emphasizing that it is not the enemy. They explain how cholesterol is essential for brain function and repairing damaged cells. The speaker criticizes the overprescription of cholesterol-lowering medications, citing harmful side effects like memory loss and dementia. They share personal stories of individuals who experienced positive changes after stopping these medications. Additionally, the speaker questions the lowering of cholesterol level standards over time, suggesting it may be driven by profit rather than health concerns. The harmful effects of margarine and the misconception surrounding cholesterol and heart disease are also highlighted.

The speaker asserts that a common vitamin C supplement has a problematic underlying issue. They state that vitamin C supplements are ascorbic acid, and that synthetic ascorbic acid is produced from GMO corn. The speaker notes that the vast majority of GMO corn is sprayed with Roundup, the glyphosate weed killer. They claim that, in head-to-head studies, naturally occurring vitamin C found in foods such as oranges versus synthetic ascorbic acid shows benefits for humans, whereas the synthetic form does not appear to have the same impact. The speaker refers to a specific head-to-head study comparing camu camu berries to ascorbic acid in smokers, and they report that only naturally occurring vitamin C from camu camu berries lowered oxidative stress. They also mention observational studies in which the consumption of synthetic vitamin C has been associated with worsening metrics of cardiovascular disease. Based on these points, the speaker presents a takeaway: the synthetic form of vitamin C is derived from GMO corn, and consuming more of this synthetic form may be less healthy, while consuming the naturally occurring vitamin C from sources like camu camu berries or other natural sources could be more beneficial. The overall message emphasizes two main claims: (1) synthetic ascorbic acid is produced from GMO corn, which is largely treated with Roundup glyphosate, and (2) evidence from head-to-head and observational studies suggests that naturally occurring vitamin C provides benefits or oxidative stress reductions that the synthetic form does not, with observational data linking synthetic vitamin C to worse cardiovascular metrics. The speaker concludes that, to be healthy, one should eat more of the naturally occurring vitamin C sources and less of the synthetic ascorbic acid.

The discussion covers apricots and the “counter” to claims about the seeds. It notes that people are told not to eat the inside of the seed, referencing a “cyanide scare” in which “there’s cyanide in the seeds,” attributing the warning to the FDA. The speaker contrasts this with the claim that the same source is promoting vaccination, saying this juxtaposition is “delusional.” They also assert that the Hunza tribe has been eating “thousands of apricot seeds” with “there has never been a case” of harm, including “look at that in the Hunza.” The speaker then gives practical instructions: obtain apricots, use a mallet to crack the seed, and remove the inner part, which they describe as “a little seed” that is “bitter.” The bitterness is said to be “really good for this right here.” The speaker claims that “professionals aren’t gonna tell you about that” because they “get a 6% commission from doing chemo on you.” They add that apricots can be found for “$10,” and conclude by stating they would “rather trust the apricot seed than the government.”

Dandelions, heart medicine, and Roundup are all connected. Dandelions are great for your heart, cleansing and strengthening it naturally. The company that sells the top heart medicine also owns Roundup.

Bayer has removed glyphosate from Roundup weed killer, and according to the speaker, this is presented as good news only to reveal a new toxic lineup being sprayed in homes and public spaces. The speaker notes that all of these ingredients are horrible, with special emphasis on Dequat dibromide, which is stated as not only banned in the European Union but also more toxic than glyphosate and capable of damaging the gut, kidneys, liver, and nervous system. Despite these warnings, the speaker asserts that this mixture is still being sprayed. The message is that the problem with Roundup isn’t that it’s fixed, but that it’s not fixed at all—the product has not been made safe; instead, it has been rebranded, swapping one toxic chemical for four others, and the public is being led to believe it is safe. In addition to the product changes, the speaker highlights a legislative development: AB 453. This bill is described as shielding pesticide companies from liability in court, even if their chemicals cause harm. The speaker asserts that this reduces accountability and results in more toxins being sprayed near families. The overall claim is that Bayer did not make Roundup safer by removing glyphosate; rather, they replaced it with a new set of toxic ingredients, and now a state bill would protect manufacturers from legal consequences related to any harm caused by these chemicals.

Speaker 0 outlines a sequence of political and corporate protections related to litigation and public health. He states that a Trump executive order will federally protect pesticide companies, such as Bayer, from lawsuits related to $7,200,000,000 in cancer. He contrasts this with Clinton’s protection of cell phone tower companies from lawsuits and Reagan’s protection of vaccine companies, implying a pattern across administrations. He then deepens the claim by alleging that all three presidents supported “the tiny hats, the Rothschilds,” and cites Murder by Injection to assert that Bayer was owned by the Rothschilds. Based on this, he advises against spraying pesticides on land and suggests boycotting as a strategy, noting that some farmers practice organic methods without pesticides. He names Amos Millers, Polyface, and White Oak Pastures as examples of farms that can operate without chemicals. The speaker contends that chemicals are used because if people aren’t poisoned, big pharma doesn’t make money, and the medical system is “ran by the Rawls Childs.” He mentions having delivered hundreds of talks on electroculture, which he says demonstrates that it’s possible to avoid using any pesticides, and asserts that those talks were deleted by YouTube for the topic. When asked what electroculture does, he promises it would bring “abundance”—“lots and lots and lots and abundance, all without chemicals.” Throughout, he repeatedly urges listeners to question everything and connects pesticide use to broader conspiratorial claims about corporate and financial control, as well as the influence of the Rothschilds on health and agriculture.

Dandelions, often seen as weeds, are actually great for heart health, cleansing and strengthening the heart naturally. The company that produces the best-selling heart medicine also owns Roundup, a controversial herbicide. This connection shows how they profit from both sick and healthy individuals.

The speaker discusses mistletoe as a “superfood” and highlights its berries, noting that they are very bitter—“just like apricot seeds.” The speaker then asserts that mistletoe is “the solution to cancer.” They claim that mistletoe therapy has been used “all throughout the world” but has been banned in many places. The speaker asks the audience to wonder why this is the case and answers that it is because “the Rockefeller's control the system, natural remedies are not allowed to be told.” They further suggest that the widespread use of mistletoe therapy was restricted due to influential control over medical information. The speaker connects these ideas to a broader critique of information about natural remedies, asserting that “natural remedies are not allowed to be told.” They then refer to the cultural practice of kissing under a mistletoe, proposing that “the whole kissing under a mistletoe, they kind of subconsciously telling you all along to eat this.” The message implies that a cultural ritual around mistletoe serves as a subconscious cue to consume the plant. In closing, the speaker reiterates that mistletoe is “pretty delicious,” reinforcing the claim that it is enjoyable to eat despite the earlier discussion of its bitterness and therapeutic potential.

We're going down rabbit holes on this podcast. Bayer is a pharmaceutical company. Monsanto is a pesticide company. Bayer bought Monsanto. Bayer makes drugs for non Hodgkin's lymphoma. Monsanto makes a toxic herbicide called glyphosate that they spray on food. Glyphosate, wait for it, causes non Hodgkin's lymphoma. Now we've come full circle. Big pharma is in bed with big food, and both of them are in bed with our western health system. None of which is concerned with making cures, all of which is concerned with making customers. Welcome to the circus.

The speaker argues that “Bad cholesterol” is a misnomer and claims it is “the biggest fraud.” They state they have spent countless hours researching cholesterol and that “None of it says anything about cholesterol being bad.” They assert that “The only bad thing about cholesterol is not having enough,” and claim that “One of the biggest defenses against stroke is cholesterol.” They further connect depression to serotonin levels, stating “Depression is directly related to how much serotonin is in the body,” and conclude that “Who controls the amount of serotonin that's manufactured? Cholesterol.”

Dandelions, heart medicine, and Roundup are all connected. Dandelions are great for your heart, cleansing and strengthening it naturally. The company that sells the top heart medicine also owns Roundup.

The speaker claims that marijuana (“Mary Jane”) is owned by Monsanto and that Monsanto works with aluminum companies to spray marijuana with a lot of aluminum. They say that when people smoke it, the aluminum goes into the brain, leading to dementia, brain fog, and other health issues. The speaker also claims that marijuana has been “tweaked,” so people are no longer getting the original cannabis plant, saying Monsanto would not provide the original healing plant of cannabis and instead provides a changed plant with chemicals. The speaker argues the government legalized marijuana for two reasons: to generate large tax revenue and to poison people. They say legalization was not driven by people wanting to smoke marijuana again, but by those underlying motives. The speaker adds that people are driving around “stoned out of their mind,” which they describe as control. They suggest other plants—mugwort, blue lotus, and “amarita,” described as “the Super Mario mushroom”—as alternatives. They claim the government would never give these options to people because they would “break all their addictions.” The speaker concludes that the government needs “vices” as part of a control mechanism, using “same old tactics.”

The speaker questions the safety of glyphosate, the key ingredient in Roundup, despite claims from Bayer that it does not cause cancer. They cite 180,000 lawsuits against Bayer, resulting in over $12 billion in damages, and Bayer's efforts to prevent future glyphosate-related cancer lawsuits. Roundup Ready crops, genetically engineered to resist glyphosate, led to a surge in its use, with approximately 60% of crops now treated with it. The speaker highlights a letter from members of Congress arguing against glyphosate overregulation, suggesting that without it, widespread hunger will occur. They point out that some signatories, like Deb Fischer and Chuck Grassley, are major recipients of funding from big agriculture and biotech companies like Bayer, DuPont, and Dow. The speaker implies that these contributions influence their support for glyphosate.

Speaker 0 notes a contrast: people are afraid of parasites, yet caterpillars are worms too and nobody is afraid of them. They suggest this is something to think about. They state that the body makes parasites, and when there are too many heavy metals in the body, the body will make worms. Therefore, they argue, one should be afraid of the metals put into the body—like pesticides, vaccines, toxins, and related substances. They claim that people will take dewormers made by Rockefeller-founded pharmaceutical companies to destroy the worms, and question what these dewormers actually do, asserting that they destroy your own body. They remark that it’s wild to think about these things and that the dewormers’ origin isn’t commonly known, mentioning Rockefeller and “Great Public school.” The speaker contends that Rockefeller-created synthetic dewormers are sold as poison to destroy worms, while making the worm seem dangerous when, in reality, it’s one’s own habits being the issue. They then reference doctor Joel Weinstock, claiming he was healing diseases with parasites, adding this as something to think about.

Speaker 0 argues against labeling certain plants as weeds, stating that destroying them would mean destroying the land. They point out that the plants produce flowers, which come from them, and these flowers help butterflies, bees, and all the other pollinators. The speaker notes that “Monsanto wants to sell you some poison to get rid of the bees, the pollinators, and then Walmart will sell you, guess what, robotic bees.” They question whether viewers are watching the same video. The speaker concludes by asserting that “Monsanto says destroy the weeds because it destroys the beets.”

Big food, big pharma, big chemicals get super wealthy. Right? What is the product of health care? It's a healthy body. If we take The US population and compare it to the world, we're at the very bottom when it comes to health, yet we spend the most for health care. Over $4,100,000,000,000 every single year.

The speaker claims that the synthetic vitamin industry is a scam created by Big Pharma to sell more products. They argue that even organic vitamins are made from industrial waste such as coal tar ash, petroleum oil, black mold, and cyanide. The speaker explains that the push to sell vitamins began in the 1920s, with organizations lobbying for iodine to be added to table salt. This was followed by the fortification of milk with vitamin D and the identification of new vitamin deficiency diseases. The speaker suggests that this created a cycle of new vitamin discoveries and the need for chemical substitutes to keep people healthy.

The speaker recalls having wisdom teeth removed at age 20 and mentions an insurance company offering a $5,000 reward for removing wisdom teeth. They claim to have learned that wisdom teeth are connected to the heart and that there is no reason to remove them. They state that wisdom teeth are pulled out so they could get a “from the” and then mess with the meridian line, and that wisdom teeth are connected to the brain and the heart. They assert that when people get their wisdom teeth removed, they often start developing heart issues, implying a causal link to the procedure. The speaker argues that the meridians of the wisdom teeth connect not only to the brain but also to the heart, so removing them disrupts the body’s pathways. They claim the dentist industry is a break off of the industry, that they fluoridate mouths, take teeth out, and x-ray people, and that all teeth are meridian lines; messing with those meridian lines messes with the body’s pathways.