reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss how to read events and who was responsible, highlighting that “the best reading of what happened there is who wanted JFK dead the most,” with claims that “Israel wanted JFK dead” but that “Lyndon Baines Johnson and parts of our own government and the Cubans” were also involved. They emphasize that there were “like 15 or 20 things that happened that day that were inexcusable,” including changing the parade route, JFK in an open-air convertible, LBJ not riding alongside him, the vehicle slowing down, and the Texas School Book Depository. They argue that “more than one person did it,” not just Lee Harvey Oswald, and that acknowledging that could expose government lies about the assassination. Speaker 0 notes the shift in the public’s trust toward the government and argues that those who now question government credibility previously failed to acknowledge multiple actors in JFK’s death. He asks about the fallout of this shift, noting that the PBD (Patrick Bet-David) show and its audience are pro-Israel and that “70% of those people overwhelmingly agreed with you.” Speaker 2 agrees, stating that “Find somebody who has ignored Gaza being bombed” and who “can call Kansas a demon, but has never once called BB Netanyahu a demon,” will align with protecting the Charlie Kirk narrative. He says the discussion around JFK didn’t make sense within 48 hours and argues that people find it suspicious. He adds that even if one believes “Tyler Robinson pulled the trigger,” you cannot claim nobody else was involved because “we haven’t been told anything.” He says this reflects the same tactics used during BLM to shut down inquiry about George Floyd, arguing that people who supported him on George Floyd would not say “there's no evidence” merely because Floyd had fentanyl in his system. They frame this as evidence that the narrative is being built and that scientific inquiry requires asking questions. Speaker 0 recounts learning during COVID that “it came from a bat in the Himalayas,” that “the vaccine was safe and effective,” and that “ivermectin was horse-paced,” asserting that questioning is essential for freedom. He references a Glenn Beck interview with Erica Kirk and describes elitist attitudes that equate trust in experts with correct understanding, characterizing the exchange as elitist and contrived. He argues Turning Point USA was not built on experts and would not survive if it continues down this path.

In this video, the speakers cover a wide range of topics including their experiences with the COVID-19 vaccine, the role of big pharma and government in controlling narratives, erosion of civil liberties, and the importance of free speech. They discuss conspiracy theories, government corruption, and the negative effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. The speakers emphasize the need for transparency in vaccine trials and the importance of plant-based medicine. They express admiration for individuals who have questioned authority and exposed corruption. The conversation also touches on the benefits of fasting, the addictive nature of sugar, and the importance of taking care of one's health. They discuss financial issues, government transparency, and the potential for societal change. The speakers express hope for a future where people are more united, civil liberties are protected, and individuals are empowered to make a difference.

Anthony Fauci and his understanding of evidence-based medicine is questioned by Speaker 0 and Speaker 1. They both agree that he seems to lack this understanding. Speaker 0 clarifies that they don't believe Fauci is intentionally misleading, but rather that his repeated phrase "trust the science" is akin to trusting a psychopath. Speaker 1 finds the concept of "trust the science" to be vague and questions its meaning, likening it to witchcraft.

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

The discussion centers on the credibility of vaccine safety claims made by various health organizations and the FDA. One speaker argues that vaccines undergo rigorous testing, while the other contends that no vaccine has ever completed a long-term placebo-controlled trial before being licensed. They express distrust in the FDA, citing past issues with drugs like Vioxx and opioids, suggesting that the FDA misled doctors and the public about their safety. The speaker believes that pharmaceutical companies influence these agencies, leading to misinformation about vaccine safety. The goal is to address and rectify this perceived corruption.

In this controversial video, the speaker highlights past medical controversies, such as doctors promoting cigarettes and initially rejecting handwashing. They emphasize the importance of using common sense and challenging anything that goes against personal values. The speaker also mentions the ongoing opioid pandemic and urges viewers to stand up for their civil liberties.

In this video, the speakers discuss the case of Rob Elens, a doctor who treated COVID-19 patients with hydroxychloroquine and zinc. He was criticized by the inspection for using an off-label treatment. The speakers debate whether it was fair to question his methods and suggest that there may have been a plan to discredit him. They also mention the influence of pharmaceutical companies and the lack of scientific evidence for the effectiveness of flu vaccines. They urge for critical journalism and express concerns about the future of independent media. They ask for support for Black Box, an independent media outlet.

In this video, the speakers delve into the controversy surrounding the use of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin as treatments for COVID-19. They express frustration with the restrictions placed on these medications and emphasize the importance of doctors' involvement in patient care. The speakers highlight their own positive experiences with these treatments and criticize the politicization of medical decisions. They also discuss conflicting scientific studies and the influence of pharmaceutical companies. Additionally, the conversation touches on the use of fluvoxamine and the challenges faced by the speakers within their institution, leading to their departure. Overall, the video emphasizes the need for a balanced and evidence-based approach to medical treatments.

Doctors' fallibility and the lack of consideration for natural immunity are discussed. The conversation touches on mandatory vaccination, anecdotal evidence, and the risks and benefits of vaccines. The speakers debate the number of children who died from COVID and the importance of vaccines. They also mention the potential harm caused by vaccines and the need for individual choice. The conversation ends with a mention of the COVID vaccine's testing and the speaker's personal experience with it.

During the pandemic, the speaker questions the idea of not doing their own research, particularly regarding corruption in pharmaceutical companies. They express concern about the lack of independent journalism and the prevalence of mainstream propagandists. However, they find hope in the fact that conversations are happening and people are paying attention. They mention the low uptake of the updated COVID shot and share anecdotes about adverse reactions. The speaker also discusses the removal and disparagement of respected doctors who have spoken out against the mainstream narrative. They believe that courageous individuals who take a stand inspire others to do the same.

Speaker 0: "the major problem in our government right now is that it's one with corporations." "corporate corruption collusion with the government" drives a lot of content. "it's easier for big pharma to do their thing if people aren't really talking about it." "they... try to make it a cultural issue." "vaccines to me is not really a cultural issue. It's a scientific medical situation." "It's insane." They discuss: "Does a newborn really need hepatitis b? What are these adjuvants in these vaccines like aluminum? Do we need these things? Are there safer alternatives?" "If you just say that, then all of a sudden, you're an anti vaxxer. That's a pejorative that's placed on you, and now you're a crazy kook, and you're not trustworthy." "If there's people out there to demonize you, that means you are pushing against something that there's a barrier that they don't want you to cross." "It's almost like China's social."

In this video, the speakers discuss the challenges faced by doctors who speak out against mainstream narratives. They explain that in order to speak freely, doctors often have to give up their medical licenses, which discredits them in the eyes of the media. The speakers argue that having a license does not determine one's knowledge or experience in the field. They also discuss how the regulatory bodies that control doctors' licenses, such as the colleges of physicians and surgeons, can easily be compromised. The speakers highlight the corruption within these bodies, which are run by lawyers and powerful families. They mention that in British Columbia, the government has amended the Health Professions Act to have more control over doctors and enforce mandatory vaccinations.

Doctors are generally educated and capable of understanding evidence, yet many have made incorrect statements about vaccines, causing harm. It's surprising that most American doctors haven't acknowledged their mistakes. Personally, I wouldn't trust a doctor who continues to misrepresent COVID information. One doctor I know treated me after I experienced vaccine-related issues. She recognized early on that something was wrong and treated her patients with steroids when others wouldn't, leading to better outcomes. Unfortunately, many people lack access to compassionate and knowledgeable doctors like her. It's hard to overlook the lack of accountability from many in the medical field, as credibility hinges on acknowledging past errors and the reasoning behind them.

Laura Logan hosts a discussion with Dr. Sherri Tenpenny on vaccines, public health policy, and what they see as failures and harms within the system. The conversation weaves together personal history, policy details, scientific debates, and broader social concerns, intercut with promotional content for GiveSendGo. Key points and claims raised by Dr. Tenpenny - Vaccine ingredients and aluminum exposure: Tenpenny asserts that if someone receives every vaccine on the schedule, they would be injected with a total of about twelve thousand micrograms of aluminum, which she says is inflammatory to every organ system and can be stored in bones (60% of aluminum exposure). She notes aluminum is present in vaccines in order to replace mercury, which she describes as also a poison. - Early vaccine industry liability and the 1986 Act: The discussion explains that prior to 1986 there were liability concerns for vaccine makers due to injury lawsuits. Tenpenny recounts that in 1986 Congress passed a law giving the pharmaceutical industry liability immunity for vaccines, creating what she describes as a ramp in the vaccine schedule. She cites that by 1991 additional vaccines were introduced (Hep B at birth, Hib, chickenpox, Prevnar, Gardasil, Hep A, and more) and alleges this resulted in a rising autism incidence aligned with new vaccines. - The vaccine injury system: Tenpenny explains the Injury Compensation Act and the existence of VAERS as a tracking system, along with a separate pathway created under the PREP Act (the Preparedness and Readiness Act). She states that during the COVID era a separate program, the Covered Countermeasure Program (CICP), existed under the PREP Act, but it had no funding and a one-year statute of limitations, leading to under-compensation and very few adjudicated cases; she contrasts this with the earlier 1986 act, which funded vaccine injury compensation through the Federal Court of Claims and VAERS. - Perceived safety and effectiveness concerns: The speakers discuss studies suggesting that the flu shot might not prevent flu and that some studies indicate vaccines including pneumonia vaccines may be associated with higher risk of the conditions they aim to prevent. Tenpenny frames this as evidence of cracks in the vaccine program and argues that vaccines are linked to a broad spectrum of health issues, including autoimmune diseases, infertility, and cancers, which she says have been increasing. - Pediatric vaccination schedule and “pediatric poisoning program”: Tenpenny asserts that infants receive multiple injections early in life, with claims that by age two they will have thousands of micrograms of aluminum and other compounds that remain in the body, including in the brain. She characterizes the pediatric schedule as a systematic poisoning program for children and a parallel “adult assault program” for adults receiving vaccines. - COVID-19 vaccine controversy and health impacts: The conversation covers the COVID vaccines, including assertions about adverse effects such as myocarditis, strokes, kidney injury, autoimmune diseases, neurological issues, and cancers. Tenpenny describes long-term concerns (long COVID, autoimmune diseases) and claims of widespread injury and death, contending that the pandemic revealed how the health-care and pharmaceutical systems operate, including alleged corruption and profit motives. She discusses the difficult experiences of families during the pandemic, including restrictions on care and the use of alternate treatments like ivermectin in some cases. - The claim that COVID vaccines were not properly evaluated and that mandated vaccination reflected coercion: The speakers discuss mandates and the experiences of individuals in workplaces and educational institutions who faced pressure to receive vaccines, including religious exemptions and disputes about mandates. Tenpenny suggests a broader pattern of overreach in public health policy and questions about the balance between individual rights and mandates. - History and philosophy of public health programs: They discuss the Healthy People initiatives, arguing that the program’s goals have expanded in scope (from 15 goals to 1,200 for Healthy People 2030) and that the expansion is associated with greater surveillance and control over personal lives. Tenpenny claims that this is part of a broader trend toward data collection and governance of individual health and behavior. - The economics and incentives around vaccines: The conversation notes how physicians are compensated in part through vaccine administration, implying financial incentives influence clinical decisions. Tenpenny emphasizes the profit motive behind vaccines and the pharmaceutical industry’s financial interests, citing extreme examples like the one boy in a photo who allegedly became heavily medicated due to vaccines. - The role of media and information control: They discuss the influence of advertising in media since the 1990s and the difficulty of reporting critically on vaccines when major advertisers are pharmaceutical companies. They also mention AI and misinformation concerns, including examples of AI fabricating sources and the need to verify information. - Personal stakes, accountability, and political possibilities: Tenpenny discusses personal cost for challenging the vaccine paradigm, including an earlier period of potential licensing scrutiny and professional pushback. She names figures such as Fauci and Birx, argues that accountability has not yet occurred, and expresses hope that public interest in accountability could shift through advocacy and political leadership, citing RFK Jr. as a potential ally though acknowledging political and institutional obstacles. - Treatment and detoxification approaches: For those who have already received vaccines, Tenpenny outlines two separate tracks: detoxification for childhood vaccines and detox for COVID vaccines. For detox, she mentions products such as PureBody Extra (PBX), a zeolite-based supplement she says helps remove metals like aluminum and mercury from the body. She notes it is usable across age groups and even for pets, and she personally uses it. She also discusses non-specific detox approaches such as vitamin D optimization, lymphatic stimulation, exercise, and a diet focusing on avoiding white foods and reducing inflammation. She cautions that there is no proven blood or urine test to quantify spike protein after a COVID vaccine, and that detox strategies aim to support overall health rather than remove embedded spike protein from tissues. - The role of faith and resilience: The interview includes discussions of faith as a guiding force for Tenpenny, including her personal journey toward Christian faith in 2020. They reflect on fear, hope, forgiveness, and the idea that one can act with integrity and do the right thing even when faced with controversy or personal cost. They discuss existential questions about meaning, purpose, and moral responsibility, including the belief that life has a spiritual dimension that informs how to respond to public-health challenges. - Community and parenting: The conversation emphasizes the importance of community networks for new parents, including seeking mentorship from experienced parents and trusted health advocates, and maintaining parental agency in decisions about vaccines, medical interventions, and child-rearing. They discuss the value of critical thinking, asking questions, and avoiding blind trust in professionals or institutions. - Closing notes and resources: Tenpenny provides her websites and a Substack for ongoing information, including dr10penny.com, dr10penny.substack.com, and 10pennywalkwithgod.substack.com, as well as her X profile busy doctor t. The episode closes with a call to viewers to stay informed and to seek second opinions, while thanking the audience for supporting independent journalism. Overall, the dialogue centers on a critical, conspiratorial framing of vaccines, public-health policy, and the medical establishment; it weaves together testimonies about personal experience, policy history (notably the 1986 Act and the PREP Act), alleged systemic failures in compensation for vaccine injuries, criticisms of COVID-19 responses and vaccine mandates, and practical detoxification and faith-based guidance. The promotional content for GiveSendGo lightly interrupts the core discussion, but the majority of the exchange remains an extended argument about vaccine safety, accountability, and the perceived influence of big pharma on health care and public policy.

The speakers discuss government surveillance and the harmful effects of spike proteins from certain treatments. They highlight the increase in health issues like cancer and pulmonary embolisms. The conversation also touches on the lack of transparency from pharmaceutical companies and the suppression of natural remedies like ivermectin.

- The discussion opens with a critique of how public health authorities in the United States and much of the media discouraged experimentation with COVID-19 treatments, instead pushing vaccination and portraying other approaches as dangerous. The hosts ask why treatments were sidelined and treated as heretical to question. - Speaker 1 explains that the core idea was to stamp out “vaccine hesitation,” which he frames not as a purely scientific issue but as a form of heresy. He notes a broad literature on vaccine hesitancy and contrasts it with the perception of the vaccine as a liberating savior. He points to a Vatican €20 silver coin (2022) commemorating the COVID-19 vaccine, described by Vatican catalogs as “a boy prepares to receive the Eucharist,” which the speakers interpret as an overlay of religious iconography with vaccination imagery. They also reference Diego Rivera’s mural in Detroit, interpreted as depicting the vaccine as a Eucharist, and a South African church banner reading “even the blood of Christ cannot protect you, get vaccinated,” highlighting what they see as provocative uses of religious symbolism to promote vaccination. - They claim that the Biden administration’s COVID Vaccine Corps distributed billions of dollars to major sports leagues (NFL, MLB) and that many mainline churches reportedly received money to push vaccination, with many clergy not opposing the push. The implication is that monetary incentives influenced public figures and organizations to advocate for vaccines, contributing to a climate in which questioning orthodoxy was difficult. - The speakers discuss the social dynamics around vaccine “heresy,” using Aaron Rodgers’ experience with isolation and shaming in the NFL and Novak Djokovic’s experiences in Australia to illustrate how prominent individuals who questioned or fell outside the orthodoxy faced punitive pressure. They compare this to a Reformation-era conflict over doctrinal correctness and describe a psychology of stigmatizing dissent as a tool to enforce conformity. - They argue the imperative driving institutions was the belief that the vaccine was the central, non-negotiable public-health objective, seemingly above other medical considerations. The central question they raise is why vaccines became the sole priority, seemingly overriding a broader, more nuanced evaluation of medical options and individual risk. - The conversation shifts to epistemology and the nature of science. Speaker 1 suggests medicine often relies on orthodoxies and presuppositions, rather than purely empirical processes. He recounts a Kantian view that interpretation depends on preexisting categories, and he uses this to argue that medical decision-making can be constrained by established doctrines, which may obscure questions about optimization and safety. - They recount the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act and discuss Sara Sotomayor’s dissent, which argued that liability exposure is a key incentive for safety and improvement in vaccine development. They argue that the current system creates minimal liability for manufacturers, reducing the incentive to optimize safety, and they use this to question how the system encourages continuous safety improvements. - The hosts recount the early-treatment movement led by Peter McCullough and others, including a Senate hearing organized by Ron Johnson in November 2020 to discuss early-treatment options with FDA-approved drugs like hydroxychloroquine. They criticize what they describe as aggressive pushback against such approaches, noting that McCullough faced professional sanctions and lawsuits despite presenting peer-reviewed literature. - They return to the concept of orthodoxy and dogma, arguing that the medical establishment often suppresses dissent, citing YouTube removing a McCullough interview and the broader pattern of silencing challenge to the vaccine narrative. They stress that the social and institutional systems prize conformity and punish those who deviate, creating a climate of distrust toward official health bodies. - The discussion broadens into metaphysical and philosophical territory, with references to the Grand Inquisitor from Dostoevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov. They propose that elites—whether religious, political, or scientific—tend to prefer “taking care” of people through control rather than preserving individual responsibility and free will. The Grand Inquisitor tale is used to illustrate a recurring human temptation: to replace personal liberty with a protected, paternalistic order. - They discuss messenger RNA (mRNA) technology as a central manifestation of Promethean or Luciferian intellect—humans attempting to “read and write in the language of God.” They describe the scientific arc from transcription and translation to mRNA vaccines, noting Francis Collins’s The Language of God and the idea of humans “coding life.” They caution that mRNA vaccines involve injecting genetic material and point to the symbolic and ritual power of vaccination as a form of modern sacrament. - The speakers emphasize that the mRNA approach represents both a profound scientific achievement and a source of deep concern. They discuss fertility signals and potential adverse effects, including myocarditis in young people, and cite the July 2021 NEJM case study as highlighting safety concerns for myocarditis in adolescent males. They reference the FDA deliberative-committee discussions, noting that some influential voices publicly questioned the risk-benefit calculus for young people, yet faced pressure or dismissal within the orthodox framework. - They describe post-hoc investigations and testimonies suggesting that adverse events (like myocarditis) might have been downplayed or obscured, and they assert that public trust in health institutions has eroded as a result. They mention ongoing debates about whether vaccine-induced changes might affect future generations, referencing studies about transcripts of mRNA in cancer cells and liver cells, and they stress the need for independent scrutiny by scientists not “entranced” by the vaccine program. - The dialogue returns to the broader human condition: a tension between curiosity and restraint, knowledge and humility. They return to Dostoevsky’s moral questions about free will, responsibility, and the limits of human knowledge, concluding that scientific hubris can lead to dangerous consequences when it overrides open inquiry and accountability. - In closing, while the guests reflect on past missteps and the need for integrity in medicine, they underscore the ongoing questions about how evidence is interpreted, how dissent is treated, and how society balances scientific progress with humility, transparency, and respect for individual judgment.

People should not take medical advice from non-physicians and should be skeptical of all medical advice, doing their own research. Experts could form a technocratic class funded by Big Pharma, which influences information. The aim could be to turn humans into a cattle class controlled by corruption, rather than relying on inner connection or nature. Living in a democracy requires doing your own research and being skeptical of authority, as people in authority and the media lie. Critical thinking was shut down during COVID, with media complicity. The CDC no longer recommends vaccines for pregnant women, suggesting those who took them may have a case, but Big Pharma has immunity. The public paid for COVID research, media campaigns promoting vaccines, and will pay for lawsuits related to vaccine injuries, while an elite class evades justice. The solution is to reject the corrupt system and embrace a higher divine power.

The speaker discusses the issue of vaccine disinformation and the need for platforms like Facebook to be more transparent about their algorithms and engagement. They emphasize the importance of holding these platforms accountable and demanding better. The conversation also touches on the spread of misinformation by Donald Trump and the similarities between misinformation about elections and blocking access to vaccines. The speaker suggests that self-policing across various groups, such as lawyers and state medical boards, is necessary. They mention the damage caused by false claims and express hope for investigations into profiteering off the pandemic.

The speaker is questioned about his stance on childhood vaccines, with many scientific and medical organizations disagreeing with him. The audience asks how they can help him align with science. The speaker clarifies that he is not anti-vaccine, but believes vaccines should undergo safety testing like other medicines. He criticizes the lack of prelicensing placebo-controlled trials for vaccines and cites examples of potential risks and lack of long-term studies. The other speaker argues that there is evidence of vaccines preventing diseases and highlights the importance of distinguishing between association and causation. The speaker emphasizes the need for good science and questions the trustworthiness of pharmaceutical companies. The conversation ends with a discussion about the speaker's family not supporting his views on vaccines.

During COVID, some people saw the actions of figures like Dr. Fauci, Bill Gates, the WHO, and Klaus Schwab, and wondered why more people didn't notice. This narrative has been ongoing since at least 1910, aiming to discredit chiropractors, naturopaths, nutritionists, and functional medicine doctors. Pharmaceutical companies pay doctors kickbacks and fund the schools that educate them. These doctors often sit on government boards, creating a system that protects its members and exploits vulnerable, sick individuals. Pharmaceutical companies, which educate doctors, prioritize profit over people's well-being, and are unconcerned about the millions of deaths they may have caused as long as they profit.

People used to call it reading, but now doing your own research is seen as something to be shamed for. People shame others for trying to get informed, even though they would never shame someone for doing the same in any other subject. It's like waking up in the middle of a Bill Hicks comedy routine. The shame comes from internalizing the propaganda of big pharma. It's as if they want us to believe that everything worth reading has already been read by a smart person. It's absurd.