reSee.it - Related Video Feed

In 1985, millennials received a few vaccines. Today, children may receive up to 70 shots by age 18, including 27 before age 2, and up to 6 shots in one visit. The speaker asks if these shots are producing healthier kids, and claims the data says no. The speaker suggests that asking questions about the vaccine schedule is discouraged. Some parents who question the schedule may be reported to Child Protection Services or dismissed from their pediatrician's office. The speaker asserts that parents are being held hostage and did not sign up to co-parent with the government.

Speaker 0 describes obtaining body cam footage in which a DCF worker is laughing and smiling at the door as she takes a child away, while the child screams and the mother cries. The seven-year-old girl is shown laughing and saying, "I don't need a warrant, I don't need anything, I can take your child away before we file anything in court," as the child is taken away. The child was thriving and on a treatment that's been used for cystic fibrosis since the 1950s. The speaker cannot pronounce the drug names but notes they have them in records and court filings. The child was given a drug used since the 1950s; the child was without oxygen and was running around, playing, and laughing perfectly fine, while often children with cystic fibrosis need oxygen. After the state took the child away, the reason given ostensibly was that she wasn't using a newer drug with a black box warning shown to cause death, liver failure, and other adverse reactions. They reportedly did not even put the child on the newer drug for nearly three months after removing her. The child was placed in a foster home rather than with her parents or family members, even though the family wanted her placed with relatives. Instead, she was placed with strangers in foster care. The speaker describes this as evil. The group, We The Patriots USA, states they committed about a year ago to a mission to end medical kidnapping in America and to bring the child home. They have retained an attorney for the plaintiff and have paid the initial retainer, noting that thousands of dollars have already been spent on the case, even though they haven't raised all the funds yet.

Speaker 1 argues that a biopsy can cause cancer to spread because the fibin sheath around a tumor, when breached, acts like a seal that, once broken, allows cancer to disseminate. They recount a personal anecdote of a New York ballerina who experienced tumor biopsies and observed spreading afterward. They explain that histological diagnosis, meaning a pathologist examining slides to determine the tissue origin and type (e.g., breast ductal carcinoma), is used to justify specific drugs. The assertion is made that this diagnostic step is part of a “sales team” and a sales technique because it supports treatment choices that align with FDA approval and insurance coverage. Speaker 1 then claims that research shows that taking certain drugs after a biopsy leads to “almost guaranteeing metastasis.” They further state that performing a biopsy, surgery, high-dose chemotherapy, or radiation will result in metastasis. The overall point is that these interventions produce a short-term reduction of the primary tumor and a perceived remission, but the cancer returns nine months later.

Speaker 0 describes a photo sent to Laura around Christmas last year: a 12-year-old boy with more than 50 pharmaceutical bottles in front of him, representing the prescriptions he took that year. The speaker asserts that this is about money, stating that the pharmaceutical industry and doctors aim to make children customers for life, and that if they can break children early, they give them asthma, allergies, eczema, ADD, ADHD, insulin-dependent diabetes, a long list of neurological problems, and cancers from an early age; all of those pills are the reason they do this. The speaker notes a correlation with POTS (postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome) and links it to Gardasil and to the COVID shot, while saying it can be associated with other vaccines too because of Guillain-Barré syndrome. The speaker mentions that their daughter has Guillain-Barré syndrome. They reiterate that all of those pills, though not every child takes that many prescriptions, almost all have something—an inhaler, something for headaches, something for something—due to disruption of their immune system that happened when they were six, eight, or ten pounds old. The speaker emphasizes that this disruption is intentional and that this part is particularly sinister.

A person at a book signing told the speaker a story about Remdesivir. According to the story, a woman's sister was in the hospital when a doctor ordered a second round of Remdesivir. The nurse cautioned the doctor that the patient had four young children. The doctor then rescinded the order. The speaker claims this shows the doctor and nurse knew the drug was killing people, but spared the patient because she had children. The speaker believes that without children, the doctor would have administered the drug and killed her anyway. The speaker concludes this reflects the personalities, behaviors, and ethos of hospital staff.

a husband whose wife is now dying of liver failure on a ventilator in an ICU because she was trying to prove that Tylenol doesn't cause autism because of what Trump said on the news. That's a Harvard study. The issue is that she's between twenty three to twenty five weeks and she overdosed on Tylenol. She's not gonna come off that ventilator. Tylenol overdosing and death, is that if you aren't administered the antidote, it is a very slow and painful death. Tylenol as well as Benadryl and aspirin are the three most common OTCs that people will typically try to unalive themselves with. But now people are just taking massive amounts of Tylenol to prove Trump wrong. Weren't these the same people who put Harvard and Fauci and the pillars of science on a pedestal, and now they refuse to believe it.

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 explains how their child's case ended up in court after a meeting with BC Children's Hospital. The hospital planned to administer cross-sex hormones to the child, but the speaker objected and halted the process. The hospital then sent a letter stating that they would proceed with the hormone injections unless the speaker took legal action within two weeks. The speaker ended up in court because they did not respond with legal action. The speaker also mentions that using the wrong pronouns for their child is considered criminal violence, and they were jailed for it. The speaker confirms that their child is now on hormone pills, as ordered by the court.

Someone said Matt loves to rip into fenben and ivermectin. The speaker argues that these are pharmaceutical drugs being put into the body and claims that ivermectin and fenben represent “the whole entire pharmaceutical industry,” tying it to companies like Merck, which they call a vaccine company. They say that using ivermectin and fenben may “fix” someone by suppressing symptoms rather than addressing the underlying problem, and they claim that months and years later people become “poisoned” and develop significant issues. The speaker describes repeated accounts from “hundreds of messages” from people who say they felt great after using ivermectin and fenben but later reported new symptoms, including lumps all over the body. They claim these lumps are side effects from the pills, saying that instead of breaking down a tumor, the tumor spread throughout the body and began appearing as small lumps or growths coming out through the skin. The speaker attributes this to failing to “get to the root cause,” stating that the root cause is “heavy metals and toxicities and poisons” being introduced into the body, which they say leads the body to react and worsens outcomes. They also claim the speaker’s page receives “big pharma bots” that spam similar promoted content, encouraging people to buy products. The speaker questions the idea that if the products were truly life-saving and fixing everyone, the medical system would not be needed because everyone would be fixed. They further claim that these products make billions of dollars and add that one source they mention is a “toxic golf course” sprayed with glyphosate.

The speaker argues that vaccines should be administered in smaller doses over several years: "when you go for the shot, you do it over a five time period. Take it over five times or four times, but you take it in smaller doses and you spread it out over a period of years." They describe the process as "they pump so much stuff into those beautiful little babies, it's a disgrace" and say, "they pump it looks like they're pumping into a horse." They claim, "you have a little child, little fragile child, and you get a a vat of 80 different vaccines, I guess, 80 different blends, and they pump it in." The speaker further states, "ideally, a woman won't take Tylenol." And suggests, "instead of one visit where they pump the baby, load it up with stuff. You'll do it over a period of four times or five times."

I shared a nurse's story about REM medication causing patients to deteriorate rapidly. Patients with high oxygen levels would suddenly crash after receiving REM, leading to organ failure and death. The nurse suspected the combination of multiple medications being administered simultaneously was causing organ failure, not just the virus itself. The nurse raised concerns about the medication's impact on patients' health and the need for further investigation.

An independent third party determined outcomes were 24% better than the peer group. There was a discussion about videotaping, with someone stating they couldn't videotape what was happening. Doctors were not blocked from prescribing Inventon or any medical treatment they found best for the patient.

Speaker 0 notes a doubling or tripling of baby deaths in the last year, which sparked curiosity. Speaker 1 says their own government told them a medical treatment was safe, and it killed babies. Speaker 2 states they have lost all faith that Health Canada is looking out genuine for the best interests of Canadians. Speaker 1 says doctors made extra money to push vaccines and were given a billing code to do it, and she has pulled all the billing codes. Speaker 3 asserts they’ve purchased the vaccine that hasn’t been approved and distributed it to the provinces, so the second it’s approved they can start jabbing themselves and pregnant mothers with it. Speaker 4 asks why vaccinations were necessary, noting that when going to the hospital for birth, you expect to go home, and then you don’t. Speaker 0 suspects criminal negligence by the government and public health officials. Speaker 2 agrees, saying “Possible.” Speaker 0 contends they pushed a narrative to everybody, including pregnant and breastfeeding women, that the mRNA shots were safe and effective. Speaker 2 recalls wiretapping, harassment, and charges, and that they didn’t allow any expert witnesses to testify. Speaker 1 says Canadian babies died, and police are trying to cover it up by stopping detective Helen Graves from testifying about it. Speaker 3 comments that dominant individuals maintain subordinates’ place through constant aggression. Speaker 5 argues that choosing not to vaccinate is one thing, but being unable to fly or ride trains with vaccinated people and thus putting them at risk is another issue. Speaker 2 says CBC started with a story to implicate her and paint her in an uncomplimentary light to the public. Speaker 6 claims Canada must shift its understanding of CBC, describing it as a state broadcaster pushing the agenda of the Liberal government of Canada. Speaker 3 declares this is the most significant health matter affecting children today, and they are still not investigating. Speaker 2 asserts that everything emanates outward from this case involving law enforcement, the judicial system, the pharmaceutical industry, and health agencies, and how they work together and censored information; all of it ties to this one case, making it dangerous.

Speaker 0 challenges the doctor, asking if they are being forced to put their child on ADHD medicine or risk CPS involvement. Speaker 1 asserts that the medication is recommended for the child and that following the doctor’s instructions is in the child’s best interest. The doctor states they will be forced to call CPS if the guidance isn’t followed and emphasizes doing what’s best for the child, framing it as not a favor but a necessity. Speaker 0 contends the child has not shown ADHD symptoms and asks for a second opinion, to which Speaker 1 responds that they are the doctor. Speaker 0 reiterates that they are being told either to put the child on medication or CPS will be called, calling this forcing. The doctor clarifies that they asked about a second opinion, maintains they are the doctor, and says if the patient doesn’t trust their doctor, they shouldn’t be coming there, which Speaker 0 finds unreasonable. Speaker 1 repeats that they are not threatening, but are trying to do what’s best for the patient and their child, and adds that if you love your child enough you will listen to their words. Speaker 0 pushes back, stating you cannot tell them how to feel about loving their child, and reiterates that the doctor is still the doctor, with Speaker 1 acknowledging the child’s importance but underscoring their medical role.

Someone said Matt loves to “rip into” fenben, ivermectin, and other promoted drugs, arguing that these are pharmaceutical substances put into the body. They stated that ivermectin and fenben are “the whole entire pharmaceutical industry,” and claimed the companies behind them include Merck, calling Merck a vaccine company. They argued that taking these substances may suppress symptoms rather than actually fix the underlying problem. The speaker said they have seen many cases through “hundreds of messages” where people reported feeling great after using ivermectin and fenben, then later developed problems “three months” afterward. They described developing “lumps all over” the body, stating these lumps and tumors allegedly spread after the initial treatment. The speaker also claimed they have seen tumors appearing as “little lumps” and “little things coming out of” skin, arguing this happens when something is broken up without addressing the “root cause,” which they described as heavy metals, toxicities, and poisons in the body. They argued that this leads the body to react and that more toxic pharmaceuticals are being brought into the body. They repeated that this is why they “rip on” fenben, ivermectin, and other promoted “garbage.” They claimed that “big pharma bots” come to their page and spam the same promoted products with links “so you can buy this.” They added that if the products were truly life-saving and effective, “everybody would be fixed,” and the medical system would not be needed. They also stated that these products make “billions of dollars,” and claimed one product “came from a toxic golf course” sprayed with glyphosate.

Some medicines may have side effects, so safety testing is necessary. This includes genetically modified organisms that are injected into children's arms directly into the vein.

A parent shares their experience with their daughter's cancer treatment. The doctors offered two options: let her die or undergo intense chemo and radiation. They chose the latter, but it caused severe burns and other complications. After six months, the standard treatment didn't cure her cancer, and they were told she had only a few months to live. Desperate, they discovered Dr. Brzezinski's treatment, which the FDA deemed nontoxic. They took their daughter off the standard treatment and tried Brzezinski's, and within nine weeks, the tumor disappeared. Sadly, she later died from radiation damage, but the autopsy showed she was cancer-free. The speaker questions why the bureaucratic process for accessing this treatment is so difficult, preventing many patients from receiving a potential cure.

In this exchange, Speaker 0 challenges a doctor’s stance on treating a child for ADHD. The doctor states, “this is what’s recommended for your kid. You have to put your kid on these meds,” saying, “I’m trying to do you a favor. Not even do you a favor. Do what’s best for your child,” and adds, “if you don’t follow these instructions, ma’am, I will be forced to call CPS.” The parent presses back, asking, “You’re forcing me? You’re saying either I put my kid on medication that they don’t need I will be forced to call CPS,” and asserts that the doctor is jeopardizing the child’s future. The parent clarifies that the child has “not shown any symptoms of ADHD” and requests a second opinion. The doctor replies, “I am your second opinion. I’m the doctor,” and when the parent insists, “No. You’re not,” the doctor insists that they are the authority: “I’m your doctor. If you don’t trust your doctor, then you shouldn’t be coming here.” The parent questions trust, suggesting that if they trusted the doctor, they wouldn’t feel threatened by CPS, to which the doctor responds that it’s not a threat, but an effort to do what’s best for both the parent and child. The doctor reiterates, “If you love your kid enough, then you will listen to my…” as the conversation ends, with the implication that the doctor believes compliance is essential for the child’s welfare. The exchange centers on a clash between parental autonomy and medical recommendations, with CPS being invoked as a potential consequence for not adhering to the prescribed ADHD medication plan.

Speaker 0 describes a case involving cancer where a man with a large 22-centimeter neck tumor refused chemo, radiation, and surgery. Speaker 0 says they “manipulated the microbiome” by giving products that increased bifidobacteria without fecal transplant, noting that fecal transplant requires FDA approval for anything that is not C-diff. Speaker 0 reports that the tumor decreased from 22 centimeters to 12 centimeters, hemoglobin increased, appetite improved, and the patient began improving more. Speaker 1 asks what was specifically given. Speaker 0 explains that one product is in a clinical trial as a phase one for pancreatic cancer and is intended to become a pharmaceutical product administered by mouth as a pill. Speaker 0 states that, under NDA, the compound cannot be discussed in detail, but says it changes the microbiota by targeting it. Speaker 0 reports that this product was previously discovered to improve a patient with ALS, and that ALS patients have zero bifidobacteria. Speaker 0 says this led to considering use for cancer because increasing bifidobacteria coincided with tumor decrease. Speaker 1 asks how long after. Speaker 0 says about a month. Speaker 1 asks whether the patient received other treatment. Speaker 0 says they were receiving no other treatment and again emphasizes the patient did not want chemo, radiation, or surgery. Speaker 0 adds that the case is being published and concludes with the direction of focusing on improving bifidobacteria and killing the cancer without having to do implants.

Speaker 1 claims ivermectin is made by “big pharma,” specifically that it is made by Merck and “the vaccine companies.” They say people who promote ivermectin are “taking a vaccine product,” and then using it in a way that encourages others to take pharmaceutical pills during and after the pandemic. Speaker 1 describes that they “got a whole bunch of influencers on board to tell people to take pharmaceutical pills after the pandemic and during the pandemic,” and that this is done “without showing them that their cell phone tower is in front of their house,” after which people “have gone and take ivermectin instead.” Speaker 1 further states that ivermectin is “linked to liver toxicity,” listing “jaundice, brain damage, whole bunch of infertility, all that stuff.” They add that “that’s why they push it,” and that “anytime that they can make the population infertile, kinda goes hand in hand.” Speaker 0 responds by asserting that ivermectin has “productive toxicity” and that this is seen “in many different animal studies, rabbit studies, and other mammal studies.” Speaker 0 says the idea that ivermectin is “only toxic to arthropods, crabs, et cetera, cockroaches, is not true.” They say it is “a well-proven and well-known reproductive toxic substance” to “many different kinds of mammals.” Speaker 0 then mentions “the next one is another video on the neurotoxic effect of ivermectin,” and says they “know vets who talk about the routine use of ivermectin and the continual use of ivermectin resulting in all sorts of” effects.

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.

The discussion centers on foster care incentives, education outcomes, and how system structure affects both children and foster parents. Speaker 1 explains that someone referred to “a D-rate kid” and described it as a way the foster care payment rate increases with a child’s academic failure and medication needs. The woman says she makes $28,000 a month off foster care and tells Speaker 1 that the foster parent “want[s] to make sure they fail in school.” She explains that if a child fails in school and can be placed on medication, “your rate goes up.” Speaker 1 recounts that “Every time they don’t pass a grade, your rate goes up because they’re a more difficult kid,” and “Every time they need a medication, your rate goes up.” Speaker 0 responds with “Holy shit,” and Speaker 1 says she was shocked and believes it contributes to “statistics” being “so bad,” describing how increasing the rate can incentivize “all the wrong people” instead of those motivated “for the love of a child.” Speaker 1 adds personal context: she says she “desperately need[s] medication” for one child so his “brain” slows down, because without it he is “very reactive” and making decisions she describes as “rash.” She says the child is “sweet” and “everybody’s favorite student” at school, but at home it becomes “a totally different situation,” and she says the rate would go up because the child “needs medication.” She contrasts this with another adopted child and emphasizes that it is “a lot harder than” her other kids. The conversation then expands on broader concerns: Speaker 0 says it is “making money off the government,” while Speaker 1 argues that the situation is worse than that and says it can “incentivize the other way,” including scenarios meant to lead to medication placement. Speaker 1 also frames the situation as connected to church involvement, saying it is “a demonic situation that exists because the church closed her doors,” while also stating there are “so many wonderful churches” and “so many wonderful Christian programs” doing good work, but “far too few.” Speaker 0 references a statistic: if every church in the country fostered one child, “there would be none left to foster.” Speaker 1 confirms it as “an accurate statistic,” and reiterates: “One child per church.” Speaker 1 further claims that the statistic is even better than that, stating there are about 344,000 children in foster care, referencing a Health and Human Services survey from May 2026, and contrasting it with an AFCARS-related figure of 330,000. Speaker 1 says there are “on average, 350,000 churches” and that 75% of foster care children have homes, so if one family in every four churches fostered, it would eradicate foster care placement in multiple institutional settings and provide enough licensed homes for future children. Finally, Speaker 1 explains why people may not foster, citing discomfort and lack of control over cases. She says children do not always get their opinions heard; a guardian ad litem interviews them sometimes, and it depends on the social worker. She also gives an example from 2016 where a social worker had 86 children on her caseload, illustrating how overworked social workers are and how conditions are said to have worsened since then.

Speaker 0 describes starting leucovirin for her five-year-old son, who is nonverbal and low-functioning autistic. She notes that he wasn’t always this way: up until about a year and a half to two years old, he knew words and could put one or two words together, though he couldn’t form sentences. She mentions an incident she cannot discuss openly due to TikTok regulations; she says they took down the video where she tried to talk about what happened. She asserts that right after that incident, her son had a steep decline in language and hadn’t spoken since. She reports that her son has been on leucovirin for less than forty-eight hours and has spoken for the first time. She emphasizes that her nonverbal son spoke for the first time in over three years. She says she has been praying daily for an answer and for her son to be healed. She states that all this time, they have had Luke Overn sitting on the shelves. She directly urges other parents of nonverbal autistic children to get their child on Luke Covrin as soon as possible, asserting that this is the answer they have all been praying for.

- "a great product to stop Crohn's disease, to decrease inflammation, but you have to keep taking it on a monthly basis." - "So basically you're not fixing the problem, you're just suppressing the inflammation." - "The problem is find the reason why this happened to begin with." - "There used to be a time where we would do a whole workup on patients with Crohn's disease." - "And now we've kinda stepped away from that." - "We're not fixing the problem that stops these people from having Crohn's to begin with. We're basically putting them on medications." - "The problem with the medication is that now the kid is being reminded that he has Crohn's disease every single month." - "So he's identified."

Speaker 0 discusses anemia as an iron issue but calls it a copper imbalance, and notes that Google says iron supplements are recommended but not too much because they can damage organs. The speaker advocates a natural solution and shares a friend’s story: Aunt Chill has been receiving shots for the last year and no longer needs the IV iron she’s been on for twelve years. This is presented as evidence of how conventional approaches are used. The speaker claims that people are not given natural solutions and that the cause of anemia isn’t explained. They mention fluoride in the public water supply and WiFi Bluetooth as factors that can lower red blood cells. Back to the Chillshot, the speaker states it also helps with hair loss, emphasizing that when hormones are messed up, hair starts falling out. They claim Chillshot can help with that. They assert Chillshot has some of the most studies for a natural remedy and suggest checking these studies. The product is said to help balance hormones, including during menopause and premenopause, and for people taking DIM. The speaker recommends starting to use Chillazade for balanced hormones, noting that there are solutions and that Chillazade comes from the earth. The underlying message is that by eating what is described as beautiful mother nature, one can heal and restore balance.