reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Pharmaceutical companies paid $1.06 billion to reviewers at leading medical journals, including the New England Journal of Medicine, JAMA, Lancet, and BMJ, allegedly corrupting the peer review process. Studies from the CDC, FDA, and Pfizer purportedly revealed major breaches in safety signals for COVID-19 vaccines in pregnancy, but these findings were ignored. Independent researchers who published findings contradicting pharmaceutical industry narratives faced persecution, censorship, and threats to their medical licenses and board certifications. The speaker claims this happened to them personally.

Speaker 0 proposes that the Justice Department should immediately begin an investigation into medical boards and the alleged collusion between the pharmaceutical industry and medical boards that delicenses physicians who strive to heal and treat patients. The plan also calls for the Justice Department to examine medical journals corrupted by the pharmaceutical industry and to explain that they will be subject to criminal and civil RICO actions if they do not provide a pathway to stop revoking studies and refusing to publish research that challenges the mercantile interests of pharmaceutical companies. The overall aim is to change the way business is conducted at NIH.

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 speaker claims that the COVID-19 vaccines were not developed by Moderna and Pfizer, but by the NIH, which owns 50% of the patents. They also assert that the vaccines were not manufactured by Pfizer or Moderna, but by military contractors. According to the speaker, Pfizer and Moderna were paid to put their stamps on the vaccines, implying they originated from the pharmaceutical industry, when in reality, the speaker says, it was a military project from the beginning.

Speaker 0 frames the issue as 'the corruption of science' and the 'capture of the agencies' by pharmaceutical industries, stating the goal is to restore integrity and credibility to science. Speaker 1 cites a CDC internal study: 'black boys who got the vaccine on time had a two hundred and sixty percent greater chance of getting an autism diagnosis than children who waited.' He adds that 'The chief chief scientist on that, Doctor. William Thompson, the senior said vaccine safety science at CDC, was ordered to destroy that data. And then they published it without that fact.' Finally, he asserts, 'So, you know that story. And you know of hundreds of stories like that. It happens all the time. We are being lied to by these agencies, and we're gonna change that right now.'

I'm an investigative reporter who initially trusted the medical establishment, but I've uncovered conflicts of interest and financial incentives that corrupt health research. The pharmaceutical industry legally launders taxpayer money through universities to produce unchallenged, biased studies. For example, a researcher who found a chemical feminizing frogs faced immense pressure to suppress his findings. Scientific journals are also compromised; former editors admit they couldn't stop industry-tainted studies. Drug companies ghostwrite articles for doctors to promote their products. They also influence medical schools, doctor education, media, and federal agencies, prioritizing profit over public health. This has led to a rise in chronic diseases, especially among children, that the medical establishment largely ignores. There's pressure to normalize these outcomes rather than address the root causes, as that is more profitable. Informed consent is also threatened, with the FDA loosening requirements for disclosing study risks.

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.

Drug companies are teaming up with big agencies and tech platforms to censor social communication, limiting our ability to share information. Manufacturers and the FDA manipulate science to meet regulatory requirements, leading to harmful products. The regulatory system is a facade, and the public is paying for products that harm instead of help. This manipulation must be stopped. Translation: Drug companies are working with big agencies and tech platforms to censor communication, preventing us from sharing information. Manufacturers and the FDA manipulate science to meet regulations, resulting in harmful products. The regulatory system is a facade, and the public is paying for products that harm instead of help. This manipulation must be stopped.

Pharmaceutical companies buy TV ads not to influence people to ask for specific drugs, but to manipulate the news industry. The ads are a tactic to buy off the news and prevent them from investigating the pharmaceutical industry. The news acts as a referee, labeling anyone who questions vaccine safety as anti-science, while the two largest vaccine makers have been involved in criminal activities. People who have experienced vaccine injuries are silenced and labeled as anti-science. The media is funded by pharmaceutical companies at all levels, creating a dark reality. The speaker believes it is empowering to recognize this and calls for a shift away from trusting pharmaceutical companies, especially considering the massive government funding they receive.

Pharmaceutical companies paid $1.06 billion to reviewers at major medical journals, allegedly corrupting the peer review process. Studies from the CDC, FDA, and Pfizer purportedly revealed major breaches in COVID-19 vaccine safety signals during pregnancy, but these findings were allegedly ignored. Independent researchers who published findings contradicting pharmaceutical industry narratives faced persecution, censorship, and threats to their medical licenses and board certifications. The speaker claims this happened to them personally.

Speaker 0 contends that the medical industry operates on a foundational lie. They claim that John D. Rockefeller bought all the major universities and major media companies early on, using his money to create his own curriculum for medicine. According to this view, the only way to obtain grants was to use that curriculum for medicine, and that curriculum was based on pharmacology. The assertion continues that pharmacology was rooted in the extraction of substances from oil, and that these medicines extracted from oil were discovered to be cancer-causing. It is claimed that those in power used their influence and media reach to debunk all forms of natural therapy. The statement then alleges that any doctor who dared speak up against them was completely discredited, had their lives destroyed, and some were assassinated and killed. The speaker adds a broader maxim: whatever you need in life will control you, and if you think you need your pills, you’ll be controlled by the pharmaceutical companies and the people who control them. The message concludes with an emotional reaction, “Anyway, fucking hell. Just calm down.”

The speaker states they decided to break the system, referring to drug companies, which they describe as the most powerful lobby in the world with tremendous power over the Senate, the House, governors, and everybody. The speaker notes that drug companies spend billions of dollars. The speaker claims they don't care and have to do what's right.

The speaker claims there is active suppression of positive vitamin D news and research because it competes with top-selling drugs. The speaker presented data to top vitamin D researchers and faced vicious attacks, with researchers claiming vitamin D doesn't do what the data suggested. The speaker stated they were only presenting assembled data. The speaker was told they were jeopardizing careers of researchers who had spent their lives studying vitamin D, because they never conceived the presented data could be true.

The speaker claims that those who oppose the pharmaceutical industry are punished, while those who support it, like Anthony Fauci, rise to the top. Fauci, who has been in his position for 50 years, is highly paid and serves the agency's ambition. The speaker accuses the National Institutes of Health (NIH) of abandoning its mission to understand why Americans are sick and instead focusing on developing drugs for profit. The NIH earns billions of dollars from the Moderna vaccine, with Fauci's employees benefiting from patents and royalties. The speaker suggests that the agency's commercial interests have overshadowed its regulatory responsibilities.

There is a conspiracy to not help in a lot of different ways. One speaker believes another is a politician as much as a scientist. The other speaker disagrees, stating they are not a politician and that no political consideration has ever influenced their scientific decisions. One speaker thinks the other may be naive in understanding how to get things done in Washington, stating you don't get many shots of going out like the Lone Ranger. There is a blatant conflict of interest that runs rampant through all of NIH. This is the history of how AZT became the subject of over eighty percent of the studies being done by NIH for AIDS treatments, a drug that's already shown itself to be highly toxic, very expensive, and of at best extremely limited effectiveness.

The speaker says that even for obstetrics and gynecology societies, vaccination during pregnancy has been pursued as a duty, but physicians do not know the actual facts. They reference the New England Journal of Medicine, a famous medical journal, where a study of a vaccine’s adverse outcomes claimed that the user rate was 12.6%. Based on that paper, the Sanpeshikawa (Sanbushikawa) Association reportedly promoted vaccination for pregnant women as well. In reality, the data were as follows: of 827 people, 700 were in late pregnancy, and 127 were in the early stages (first trimester). When restricting to the 127 people who were under 20 weeks, the usage rate was 82%. Therefore, the speaker argues that this data reveals how dangerous the vaccine is, and that the data were hidden and mixed with high-profile 700-person data to produce the 12.6% miscarriage rate that was published. This is presented as evidence of a situation where even in medical journals, information was handled to favor the other side due to money and other influences.

Science hinges on replication, yet NIH stopped enforcing it, creating incentives to publish even when hypotheses fail. Null results often go unpublished, and journals resist publishing critiques of vaccines due to pharmaceutical funding. Editors like Marcia Engel and Richard Horton have lamented that journals have become propaganda vessels for pharmaceutical companies. Pharma pays to publish, hires mercenary scientists to validate products, and preprints spread favorable findings. Pharma reps visit doctors to influence prescribing. It is claimed that 50% of revenues to most pediatricians come from vaccines, and insurers offer bonuses for high vaccination rates, pressuring doctors to follow schedules. Corporate ownership now surrounds practice, with many doctors employed by corporations and facing revenue pressure. The system is described as incentivized to keep people sick, and the conclusion is we’re the sickest nation in the world.

Big Pharma, they own everything. There's a number of past chief editors of journals, and we're not talking just, you know, like some throwaway journals. We're talking New England Journal of Medicine, Lancet, British Medical Journal. Okay. Some of the biggest journals in the world. Those are top three out of the top four that I just named. Journal of American Medical Association is the other one. But chief editors in the last twenty years, at least six of them have come out and said that at least 50% of the science that's published is fake. Come on. Read their quotes. Marcia Angel is one of them that I can remember her name. There's a guy by the name of Richard something or other from the British Medical Journal who said the same thing. I just read an article about it the other day. I'll I'll send it to you because it's I'm not surprised. I mean, depth of corruption is is stunning and and the fact that pretty much nothing's been done about it makes you wonder how long this can all last.

The speaker outlines a version of the biological colonialism argument, referencing Jeffrey. The argument traces five hundred years of wealth accumulation by powerful nations: European ships with soldiers and guns arrive in the New World, take gold, enslave people, force labor in gold mines, and thereby make Europe and the UK rich. This pattern continues through neo-colonialism with unfair trade deals and, more recently, with the backing of the US military to compel third-world nations to produce goods for low cost, sustaining Western wealth. The speaker asserts that when there were no new lands left to conquer, the ruling class redirected exploitation toward the middle class in the United States and developed nations, extracting wealth through iatrogenic injury. According to the speaker, this modern form of exploitation involves the entire population injecting their children 72 times during childhood and encouraging further COVID shots for others, resulting in lifelong injury. The speaker claims that autism and other chronic illnesses generate substantial lifetime care costs, estimated at 5,000,000 to 7,000,000 dollars per child, with these costs benefiting the pharmaceutical industry, the hospital-industrial complex, and the ruling class. A concrete example is given: a middle-aged woman in Orange County, California who receives a COVID shot and develops myocarditis. Over the next five to ten years, her healthcare costs are projected to reach about 2,000,000 dollars, paid by insurance, government programs, and her family, circulating to pharma and doctors. The speaker contrasts this with the older colonial model of extracting wealth from a laborer in a gold mine, where at most about 20,000 dollars of labor could be harvested from a person. In the current model, the speaker argues that the same person could be drained of approximately 2,000,000 dollars through iatrogenic injury and healthcare costs over a decade, ultimately culminating in the person’s death. The core claim is that Western allopathic medicine has become a machine to extract wealth from the middle, working, and lower classes in the United States, enriching the pharmaceutical industry and the ruling class through iatrogenic injury. The speaker states that this crisis was already present with autism and other chronic illnesses before the COVID era but expanded in scale during the COVID epidemic, the response to it, and what they describe as junk science surrounding COVID shots.

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.

I mean, it's become a joke. These papers that are winning awards at the American College of Gastro, and they're not getting published. So and what I do is I do what I do best, which is basically stir up shit, and I call all my friends. And I go, by the way, my paper has been retracted. That paper of the finding COVID in the stools Yeah. Was considered to be retracted. So, I called Trial Site News, and I said, by the way, you may wanna investigate. That's how they found out about the publishing house, private publishing house that is retracting these papers. So somebody must be paying them. And then I called all my colleagues, Mayo Clinic, Harvard, Yale, and I go, by the way, remember that paper that I found COVID? Well, it got retracted. And they're like, what? But it it passed peer review. Well, your peer review means nothing. And here's the thing. So guess what? You're not getting paid to do these peer reviews. Maybe you should start charging the journals now because clearly, they're going about wasting your time reviewing a paper, and they're going behind your back to retract the paper because it doesn't fit the narrative. So, that's what I do. So, and then the other thing that I did is I called the National Institute of Standards, Scott Jackson. And I basically said, remember my paper that we found COVID in the stools, and you also found COVID in the septic tanks? Well, my paper was retracted. And, you know, they couldn't believe it. They could this is at the government level. People are waking up to see we have a problem. Yeah. This is like the burning of the books.

I would use the Justice Department and the moral authority of the office to begin an immediate investigation of the medical boards and the collusion between the pharmaceutical industry and the medical boards that are de-licensing physicians who try to heal and treat patients. The Justice Department will also call in the medical journals corrupted by the pharmaceutical industry and explain that they're subject to criminal and civil RICO actions if they don't stop revoking and refusing to publish studies that challenge the mercantile interests of pharmaceutical companies. We're going to change the way business is done at NIH.

I would use the Justice Department and the moral authority of the office to begin an investigation of the medical boards and the collusion between the pharmaceutical industry and the medical boards. They are de-licensing physicians who actually try to heal patients, and the Justice Department will also call in the medical journals that are corrupted by the pharmaceutical industry. I will explain to them that they're all going to be subject to criminal and civil RICO actions if they don't show us a way that they're going to stop revoking studies and refusing to publish studies that challenge the mercantile interests of pharmaceutical companies. We're going to change the way business is done at NIH.

The Justice Department should initiate an investigation into the collusion between medical boards and the pharmaceutical industry, particularly regarding the de-licensing of physicians who aim to heal patients. Additionally, the Department must address the corruption in medical journals influenced by pharmaceutical interests, warning them of potential criminal and civil RICO actions if they continue to suppress studies that challenge these interests. There will be significant changes in how the National Institutes of Health (NIH) operates moving forward.

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.