reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The transcript discusses several intertwined points about the FDA's funding, information sources, and a personal health journey. It states that the FDA gets 47% of its funding from the pharmaceutical industry, and that this information was released only after a rumor claimed 50% of their funding came from big pharma. The speaker notes, “the people that you’re supposed to be making rules and regulations for are the same people that are paying you money,” describing this as a conflict of interest and urging readers to consider the implication of funding influencing regulatory decisions. The speaker then shifts to their personal experience with health issues and the challenge of finding valid information that isn’t paid for by big pharma. They share a statistic attributed to women with similar issues: “85 to ninety percent of the women who experience the same issues that I experience notice changes in their symptoms or alleviation completely from their symptoms simply by changing their diet, namely going gluten free.” Although the speaker says they personally are not inclined to adopt gluten-free changes, they are cutting out refined carbs and sugars from their diet and report progress: “I've been on this diet for two days now, and I already feel a ton different.” This personal anecdote is presented in the context of comparing diet-driven symptom changes to pharmaceutical influence. The speaker mentions ongoing changes to their living space and routines as part of their broader stance. They say, “we're putting up our squat rack again in our home gym,” signaling a strengthening or lifestyle shift. They also report, “we did get some egg laying birds,” suggesting new household activities. Throughout, there is a reiterated sentiment directed at big pharma: “basically saying a big to big pharma,” underscoring their stance against pharmaceutical influence. Finally, the speaker emphasizes the surprising nature of the 47% funding figure and reiterates, “I still can't believe it's 47% of their funding, and they think that's okay.” They invite audience engagement, closing with, “as always, I look forward to hearing your thoughts about all of this down below.”

I'm in Sherwood, Connecticut, discussing why entities like Gates and China are buying up American farmland. My experience with factory farms highlights this issue. For 20 years, I sued large producers like Smithfield Foods, which built a massive slaughterhouse in North Carolina. Partnering with a state senator, they passed laws making it illegal to sue factory farms. This led to the demise of 28,000 independent hog farmers, replaced by a few large factories controlled by Smithfield. They dictate farming practices, leaving farmers with no control. As a result, Smithfield now controls 80% of hog production in North Carolina and sold itself to China, threatening the vision of American democracy rooted in independent family farms. This industrial agriculture not only compromises food quality but also undermines our landscapes and democracy.

The speaker says the cattle industry has changed dramatically due to government allowance of meat processing consolidation. Four giant companies consolidated, which has a detrimental effect on national economic health. The government allowed two giant companies controlled by foreign governments to acquire US companies. One is controlled by the Chinese, who bought Smithfield, and the other is a Brazilian company. Four companies now control 85% of the industry and dictate who gets what, where, and when. The speaker claims the government has allowed over 50% of beef processing to be controlled by countries outside of the US. The speaker questions why the US would want an antagonist controlling 25% of its meat processing, citing food source security and the geopolitical situation.

Farmers have been saving and planting seeds for thousands of years, but the idea of corporations owning food crops is relatively new. In the 1980s, the Supreme Court allowed the patenting of life, leading to companies like Monsanto patenting valuable crops. Monsanto, a chemical company known for products like DDT and Agent Orange, developed Roundup and genetically engineered soybeans that could resist it. Farmers initially resisted the idea of not being able to save their own seeds, but over time, acceptance grew. Now, if a farmer saves seeds, Monsanto, the main company involved, may send investigators to look into the matter.

Clayton opens by arguing that Agenda 2030, far from fading, is expanding its reach, reshaping how people live—from diet to travel to property ownership—and potentially enabling population management. He notes that the UN-led initiative, rolled out in 2015, promised poverty reduction, better health, education, equality, DEI, and a move toward a one-world framework. Critics feel Agenda 2030 has advanced globalist control rather than peace and prosperity, pointing to ideas like “you’ll own nothing” and a shift to digital systems and 15-minute cities as signs of a new control grid. Yet Clayton emphasizes that one component deserves more attention: agriculture. He says policies tied to Agenda 2030 allegedly promised safer, less chemical-intensive farming, reduced hazardous chemicals, and sustainable food production, but evidence from the FAO suggests the opposite approach is taking hold. Clayton cites FAO data: total global agricultural pesticide use in 2023 reached 3,730,000 tons of active ingredients, a 14% increase from a decade earlier, with pesticide use intensity over two pounds per acre. He notes the public assumption of a shift toward organic or safer practices, but asserts that the trend shows greater chemical dependence. He highlights a global database that found pesticide use rose about 20% over the prior decade. He questions why, despite sustainability rhetoric, agriculture appears more chemically reliant, and asks where insects have gone, recalling memories of decades past when windshields and ecosystems bore heavy insect presence. A sudden executive order is discussed as shifting protections toward Bayer and Monsanto in glyphosate production, despite glyphosate’s associations with cancer and neurodegenerative diseases. The main justification cited is protecting American manufacturing, but Clayton challenges this rationale, suggesting a conflict between public health goals and policy moves that appear to favor industry. Kim Bright, founder of Brightcore Nutrition, joins to unpack these policies further. She agrees Agenda 2030 marches forward regardless of administration and notes the confusion around current policy directions. Bright explains that farmers have become dependent on pesticides for decades to achieve high yields, which has degraded soils and reduced beneficial soil microbiota, leaving crops and ecosystems more vulnerable to pests. She argues that glyphosate and other pesticides are harmful to health, but she sees a potential silver lining in domestic manufacturing: reducing dependence on foreign glyphosate production could be a step toward reform. Bright emphasizes the broader environmental and health harms of pesticides, noting that pesticides, including chlorpyrifos, can damage DNA, cardiovascular and respiratory systems, and cognitive function. She argues that pesticides contribute to rising cancer and chronic diseases and may target vulnerable populations, including older adults. She asserts that while glyphosate is problematic, it is not necessarily the most toxic pesticide in use; chlorpyrifos, for instance, has severe health impacts and remains widely used, sometimes through regulatory back-and-forth (ban and unban). The conversation turns to the gut-brain axis and the microbiome. Bright explains that 90% of serotonin is produced in the microbiome and that the gut communicates with the brain via the vagus nerve. A healthy gut microbiome supports nutrient uptake, immune function, mood, and cognitive health; conversely, a depleted soil microbiome leads to a depleted gut microbiome, compromising health and potentially contributing to conditions like dementia. She links environmental exposure to pesticides with neurocognitive risks and argues that antibiotic overuse harms gut microbiota, necessitating mindful approaches to food sources and farming practices. They discuss kimchi as a potent dietary intervention. Bright cites studies showing kimchi degrades chlorpyrifos during fermentation (83% by day three, complete by day nine) and that kimchi’s probiotic, prebiotic, and postbiotic components offer multi-pathway gut, immune, and cognitive benefits. She claims daily kimchi consumption yields significant health improvements, including improved memory function, anti-aging effects, and cardiovascular benefits. The discussion then covers the superiority of a diverse, multi-strain microbial ecosystem over high-CFU probiotic pills. Bright notes that Kimchi One provides a convenient daily option, though the broader point remains: daily gut health supports brain health, and a healthy microbiome is central to resilience against pervasive environmental and dietary challenges. In closing, Clayton reiterates Agenda 2030’s ongoing influence and the need for personal responsibility in protecting health and soils. Bright encourages proactive steps, including dietary choices and awareness of food sources, while highlighting kimchi’s potential as part of a broader strategy to support gut health and overall well-being.

I'm here to address why figures like Gates and China are acquiring farmland. I spent 20 years involved with factory farms and saw firsthand how Smithfield Foods transformed North Carolina's pork industry. Smithfield built a massive slaughterhouse and partnered with a state senator who made it nearly impossible to sue factory farms. They then introduced warehouse-style pig farming, driving pork prices down and forcing 28,000 independent hog farmers out of business, replacing them with 2,200 factories. Farmers who remained became controlled by Smithfield, losing autonomy over their land and practices. This model spread to Iowa, and eventually, Smithfield sold itself to China, giving them control over a large portion of American hog production. This shift undermines the vision of a democracy rooted in independent family farms and poses a significant threat to our democracy by consolidating control of our landscapes.

Genetically modified food is not labeled in the US due to FDA regulations, as it's considered equivalent to unmodified food. Consumers are kept in the dark about GMO ingredients to prevent confusion. The FDA relies on safety assessments from the patent-holding companies like Monsanto, Pfizer, or Syngenta, without conducting independent studies. FDA scientists have expressed concerns about this practice, urging against allowing GMO foods on the market due to unknown consequences.

Government regulators are influenced by big pharma, with FDA employees receiving royalties from approved vaccines and drugs. FDA's budget heavily relies on pharmaceutical industries, leading to agency capture. For instance, NIH owns half of the Moderna vaccine, with high-level deputies under Fauci receiving $150,000 annually from it indefinitely. This conflict of interest is not widely discussed in mainstream media, as speaking out can lead to censorship.

This video explores the involvement of powerful entities like the Rockefellers and Rothschilds in the farming and food industry. It discusses the current paradigm of industrial farming, which involves the heavy use of toxic pesticides and the mistreatment of animals in factory farms. The concentration of power in the hands of a few mega producers is highlighted, along with the negative effects on the environment and human health. The video also delves into the debate surrounding genetically engineered foods (GMOs) and the influence of biotech and big ag companies on government regulators. It mentions concerns about the safety of GMOs, conflicts of interest in research, and the use of food as a weapon during times of war. The importance of local and decentralized food systems is emphasized as a solution to break free from the control of these powerful entities.

The speaker explains that they never switched to Monsanto Soybeans because they were getting good yields with conventional soybeans. They mention that their neighbors all use GMO soybeans, which can affect their crops. Another speaker points out that when a crop is genetically modified, the company owns it, which is a new concept in agriculture. They compare Monsanto to Microsoft, saying that Monsanto aims to own the intellectual property behind most of the food in America. Public plant breeding is now rare, and there are only a few varieties of soybeans available. The speaker expresses concern about not being able to buy certified seed and mentions a blacklist of unauthorized growers. They are on the list because they refused to turn over their records. The speaker concludes by discussing the limitations they face in choosing what to plant.

Speaker 0 explains that the time from hatched egg to market for chickens has dramatically shortened over the years. He notes it was four months when he started fifteen years ago, then eighteen weeks, then sixteen, fourteen, and twelve weeks, and recently reads that organically raised chickens are going to market in eight weeks. He questions how the industry can claim there are no hormones, given these rapid changes. He asserts that the key lies “in the field” and describes the practice of modern farming: a farmer buys fertilized eggs and signs a contract to buy food only from that egg supplier, with big multinational companies involved. He adds that the farmer also signs a contract prohibiting any attempt to find out what is in the food, stating that it is proprietary. He asserts that this lack of disclosure is accepted and enforced by the government. He emphasizes, “We don’t use hormones, but we won’t tell you what we give them,” highlighting a lack of transparency. The overall claim is that the industry maintains there are no hormones, while underlying contracts and proprietary practices control information about the feed, and government support reinforces this arrangement.

I'm at Sherwood Island in Connecticut, discussing the issue of farmland ownership by Gates and China. My experience in factory farming, particularly with Smithfield Foods in North Carolina, illustrates this problem. Smithfield built a massive slaughterhouse and partnered with Wendell Murphy, who passed laws making it illegal to sue factory farms. This led to the closure of 28,000 independent hog farmers, replaced by 2,100 factory farms controlled by Smithfield. Farmers who contracted with Smithfield lost control over their operations, becoming dependent on the company. As a result, Smithfield now controls 80% of hog production in North Carolina and expanded this model nationwide before selling to China. This shift undermines the vision of independent family farms and poses a significant threat to American democracy and our agricultural landscape.

During the Vietnam War, the American government compelled chemical companies, including Monsanto, to create Agent Orange. The same companies then sold patented seeds to farmers, which now cover 80% of American farmland. These seeds, including corn, soybeans, alfalfa, and wheat, were created to be resistant to Roundup, also owned by Monsanto. Roundup contains glyphosate, identified as a neurotoxin. These crops are subsidized by the government and are largely used to make ultra-processed food, which makes up 60-90% of the standard American diet. The government deems this food safe for American families.

I'm here to discuss why companies like Gates and China are buying up farmland. I spent years suing factory farms, including Smithfield Foods, the largest pork producer. Smithfield came to North Carolina and, with a partner, created large-scale hog warehouses, dropping pork prices from 60¢ to 2¢ a pound. This put 28,000 independent hog farmers out of business, replaced by 2,200 factories controlled by or contracted to Smithfield. Farmers became like serfs on their own land, losing control over their practices. Smithfield dictated everything. Because of the price drop in North Carolina, Iowa had to adopt the same system. Eventually Smithfield controlled 80% of US hog production and then sold itself to China. Now China owns a large part of our hog production, threatening Thomas Jefferson's vision of a democracy rooted in independent family farms. This industrial agriculture gives us substandard food and threatens American democracy.

The cattle industry has changed due to meat processing consolidation by 4 giant companies, two of which are controlled by foreign governments (China and Brazil). This raises concerns about national security and control over our food source. It is alarming that countries outside the US have significant influence over our meat processing, posing a risk to our geopolitical situation.

Conflicts of interest in regulatory agencies, particularly the FDA, are a major concern for public health. Nearly half of the FDA's budget comes from the pharmaceutical industry, which raises questions about its impartiality. This issue is exemplified by the accelerated approval of an expensive and minimally effective Alzheimer's drug, despite expert disapproval. The revolving door between the FDA and pharmaceutical companies further complicates matters, with many former FDA officials taking lucrative positions in the industry. Similar conflicts exist in the USDA, where a significant majority of dietary guideline panelists have ties to the food industry. It's crucial to eliminate these conflicts to ensure fair and effective health regulations. The food pyramid has historically served economic interests rather than public health, highlighting the need for reform in how dietary guidelines are established.

During the Vietnam War, the American government compelled seven chemical companies, including Monsanto, to create Agent Orange. The same companies then sold patented seeds to farmers, which now cover 80% of American farmland. These seeds, including corn, soybeans, alfalfa, and wheat, were created to be resistant to Roundup, which is also owned by Monsanto. Roundup contains glyphosate, which is claimed to be a neurotoxin. These crops are subsidized by the government and are largely used to make ultra-processed food, which makes up 60-90% of the standard American diet. The speaker claims that the majority of American families are eating this food because the government deems it safe.

We are unaware of what we are consuming in our food supply. Merck has been injecting mRNA into pigs since 2018, creating transmissible mRNA that can be passed on to those who consume it. Without informed consent laws, those who have refused mRNA vaccines may unknowingly receive them through their food. This technology could be used in plants and animals, leading to unintended vaccination through food consumption.

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.

The cattle industry has changed due to meat processing consolidation by 4 giant companies, two of which are controlled by foreign governments (China and Brazil). This raises concerns about national security and control over our food source. It is alarming that over 85% of the industry is now controlled by these companies, impacting who gets what, where, and when. Allowing foreign control of such a vital industry poses risks to our economic and geopolitical stability.

Our food system is heavily influenced by chemical companies, leading to widespread health issues. After experiencing debilitating stomachaches, I discovered I had gluten intolerance and learned about the dangers of common allergens like corn and soy, which are heavily sprayed with glyphosate, a toxic herbicide linked to serious health problems. Glyphosate is found in many non-organic foods, and its presence is alarming, as it is classified as a carcinogen. Despite recent legislation requiring some GMO labeling, glyphosate remains unmarked on food products. The government subsidizes these pesticide-laden crops, contributing to rising chronic diseases and obesity. We must prioritize health over profits and reform our food system to ensure it nourishes rather than harms us.

I'm in Sherwood, Connecticut, discussing concerns about Gates and China buying up American farmland. My experience with factory farms in North Carolina highlights this issue. Smithfield Foods, the largest pork producer, partnered with a state senator to pass laws that made it illegal to sue factory farms. They drastically reduced pork prices, driving out 28,000 independent farmers. Those who remained had to sign contracts with Smithfield, losing control over their operations. This model spread to Iowa, giving Smithfield control over 80% of U.S. hog production, which is now owned by China. This shift threatens the vision of American democracy rooted in independent family farms, as industrial agriculture compromises food quality and landscapes. If you support my presidential campaign, visit kennedy24.com to donate.

Clayton opens by arguing that Agenda 2030 is not dead but advancing more aggressively than ever, reshaping how people live, eat, travel, work, own property, and how populations are managed. He notes the plan was rolled out by the United Nations in 2015 as a global mission to tackle poverty, hunger, and promote health, education, equality, DEI, and a move toward a one-world governance system. He contends that, despite promises of peace and prosperity, evidence suggests Agenda 2030 has pushed forward a broader globalist control agenda, including depopulation theories, the end of private property, and a shift to digital ownership. He highlights “fifteen minute cities” and other reforms as developments seen in real time, while claiming the policy has not fulfilled its stated health or sustainability goals. Clayton emphasizes a specific disconnect: while Agenda 2030 promised safer agriculture and reduced chemical exposure, actual agricultural data show increasing chemical dependence. He cites FAO data indicating that total pesticide use in 2023 reached 3,730,000 tons of active ingredients, a 14% rise over a decade, with pesticide use intensity over two pounds per acre—twice the 1990 level. He notes that other global studies show pesticide use up about 20% over the previous decade. Despite rhetoric about sustainability and reduced chemical inputs, Clayton argues agriculture has moved toward greater chemical dependence, implying a contradiction between promises and outcomes. He also references a curb in insects he previously observed, suggesting ecosystem disruption consistent with rising chemical use. Clayton then critiques a recent executive order that he sees as protecting Bayer and Monsanto in glyphosate production, despite allegations linking glyphosate to cancer and neurodegenerative diseases. He frames the move as counter to the stated goals of better health and safer food, calling out a tension between official health claims and policy action. Kim Bright, founder of Brightcore Nutrition, joins to unpack these concerns. She agrees Agenda 2030 marches forward regardless of administration, noting that the policy has created chaos and confusion. She argues farmers have become dependent on pesticides for quantity of food production, not necessarily quality, leading to soil degradation and diminished ecosystem health. She asserts glyphosate and other pesticides are harmful to human health and soil microbiomes, and she emphasizes the need to regain local control of farming inputs to reduce dependence on foreign manufacturers. She argues that even organic farming cannot fully avoid pesticide exposure due to global contamination, and she highlights chlorpyrifos as particularly damaging to DNA, cardiovascular and respiratory systems, and cognitive health. She discusses the link between environmental toxins and increases in dementia and other neurocognitive disorders, suggesting environmental exposure plays a role alongside other factors. Bright stresses that the gut microbiome is central to health and cognitive function, describing the gut-brain axis via the vagus nerve, where gut microbes influence mood, digestion, and cognition. She explains that a degraded soil microbiome leads to a degraded gut microbiome, reducing the body's ability to produce serotonin and other essential compounds, contributing to anxiety, depression, and chronic diseases like heart disease and diabetes. She notes that antibiotics and modern medical practices can disrupt the microbiome, and she criticizes the tendency for physicians to treat symptoms rather than root causes. In discussing mitigation, Bright advises careful food sourcing, supporting organic or regenerative farmers, and prioritizing prevention while acknowledging that some pesticides cannot be entirely avoided. She highlights kimchi as a potent natural modulator of the gut microbiome, pointing to its 900+ probiotic strains, prebiotics, and postbiotics that work together to support gut health. She cites studies showing kimchi improves cognitive function impaired by amyloid beta, reduces aging in human cells, and may lower body fat when eaten daily. She argues kimchi provides a robust, multi-pathway benefit beyond typical probiotic supplements and emphasizes daily consumption for health gains. Bright explains that kimchi fermentation degrades chlorpyrifos, a pesticide with high toxicity, and notes that kimchi’s gut-protective properties help shield against toxins. Bright further discusses the superiority of a diverse microbial ecosystem over sheer CFU counts, arguing that complex microbial ecosystems more accurately predict health. She shares anecdotal success stories of Kimchi One customers experiencing brain fog relief and mood improvements, attributing these outcomes to gut health. The conversation concludes with Bright reiterating that Agenda 2030 remains active and urging proactive personal health measures, including daily kimchi intake and informed food choices. She encourages readers to take responsibility for their bodies and to seek reliable information while resisting uniform passivity.

BlackRock owns the four meat packers in the country, who are keeping meat prices high and cow prices low, hurting both farmers and consumers due to their monopoly. BlackRock also owns all the pharmaceutical companies. The speaker suggests initiating antitrust suits against the meat packers and regulating pharmaceutical companies to prevent cartel-like behavior.