reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speaker discusses concerns about late-term abortions and the alleged practice of keeping babies alive after birth to harvest their organs. They mention the governor of Virginia's comments, but the speaker claims they didn't see it. They suggest that these babies are kept alive for a short period, and their organs are registered and sold for profit. The speaker also mentions that California has passed a law related to this issue, and Virginia, New York, and three other states are trying to pass similar laws.

The speaker suggests that the COVID-19 vaccine may be causing more harm than good. They claim to have conducted a study of over 300 autopsies, finding that 73.9% of deaths after vaccination were caused by the vaccine. They also state that 100% of cardiac arrest and sudden deaths had no other explanation but the vaccine. The speaker emphasizes the importance of these findings, as death is usually attributed to known causes.

The conversation centers on serious concerns about medical assistance in dying (MAID) in Canada, with Dr. York Sang offering observations from his experience as a retired vascular surgeon and professor. The discussion covers how MAID is carried out, what drugs are used, how death is defined and monitored, and broader systemic issues in Canadian healthcare and autopsy practices. Key points raised - Realities of MAID versus expectations: The hosts note that MAID is not quick or necessarily painless, and that its dignity is attributed to one drug that causes paralysis, making death appear orderly to onlookers rather than to the patient. Dr. Sang agrees that, based on a large Canadian cohort, the process is not always quick or painless, and its perceived dignity largely stems from the paralytic drug used. - Drug regimens and their administration: The described MAID protocol commonly uses a sequence mirroring execution methods: a sedative (a large dose of a benzodiazepine, such as midazolam), followed by an anesthetic (propofol), then a paralytic, and finally a cardiotoxic agent to cause death. The typical MAID drug kit is presented as a standard set, with most patients receiving the sedative, anesthetic, and paralytic, but only about a quarter receiving a cardiotoxic “kill shot” (e.g., potassium chloride or a high-dose local anesthetic to cause fatal rhythm disruption). Approximately 90% of patients receive the sedative, anesthetic, and paralytic; about 25% receive the cardiotoxic agent. The time to death varies widely, with an average around nine minutes but ranges from one minute to over two hours; about a quarter die after more than an hour, according to the cited data. - Training and oversight concerns: Dr. Sang and Odessa discuss that most MAID providers are not anesthesiologists, and that a small minority of doctors—predominantly family physicians, rural GP-anesthetists—provide MAID without specialized training in anesthesia or MAID pharmacology. They argue that 79% of MAID providers had little to no formal training in the drugs used. This raises questions about monitoring, recognition of pain or distress, and ensuring consistency in death certification. - Monitoring and definitions of death: A major thread is the lack of continuous monitoring during MAID and the reliance on clinical death (no heart sounds, no breathing). Dr. Sang notes that the brain is likely still functioning for several minutes after clinical death, suggesting that the patient may still experience distress or wakefulness prior to the official death declaration. There is debate over whether brain activity should guide the determination of death, with some arguing for brain-wave monitoring to avoid premature cessation of artificial support. - Autopsy and post-mortem questions: The discussion references historical concerns from Dr. Joel Zivitt (a Canadian-turned-U.S.-based anesthesiologist) about deaths in the U.S. execution context and why autopsies were performed there. He reported that many blood samples showed anesthetic levels below surgical anesthesia at the time of death, and autopsies revealed pulmonary edema in a large majority of examined cases, raising questions about whether the anesthesia dosing and drug combinations may contribute to distressing end-of-life phenomena. - The pool of providers and ethics: The conversation touches on the notion that MAID is driven by a small, possibly specialized group of physicians, with concerns about whether some providers “hold back” from giving a full, lethal cocktail or whether systemic issues (time pressures, workload) influence practice. Dr. Sang emphasizes that the problem is not that MAID is necessarily too available, but that its execution lacks standardized training, monitoring, and ethical safeguards. - The broader policy and culture context: BC and Quebec are highlighted as leading provinces in MAID uptake, with BC representing nearly seven percent of all deaths due to MAID—almost double the national average. The participants discuss how expanding indications, including discussions about younger individuals or even pediatric cases, are part of ongoing debates in Canada, contrasted with other Western jurisdictions that push back against broader MAID access. - Alternatives: Dr. Sang advocates for palliative care as the preferable approach for terminal illness, noting that opioids (e.g., morphine) and comfort-focused care can offer relief without MAID. A striking point raised is that in the discussed MAID data, zero-point-six percent of patients received any narcotics during MAID. In summary, the dialogue presents a critical view of MAID implementation in Canada, focusing on drug cocktails and their administration, the adequacy of training and monitoring, the meaning and verification of death, and calls for greater emphasis on palliative care and autopsy-based scrutiny to ensure end-of-life practices align with patients’ comfort and dignity. The conversation also situates these concerns within broader provincial trends and policy debates around MAID’s expansion.

This discussion highlights concerns about modern eugenics disguised as healthcare, suggesting that depopulation agendas persist under new labels. Initially, medically assisted death was intended for terminally ill patients, but now it's being offered to vulnerable populations, raising ethical alarms. The influence of historical figures, like the Rockefellers, is noted in the merging of tech and pharmaceutical industries, framing these actions as healthcare while perpetuating eugenics. The COVID pandemic has set a precedent for mandatory compliance, restricting freedoms for those who resist. The conversation references the British Eugenics Society and predictions of a divided future, where an elite class exists alongside a subservient underclass, challenging the notion of a utopian upgrade for all.

Speaker 0 recalls a case: “patient, he was sick. He looked like he was dying, but they just, like, pushed morphine. He had no pain. You know, they do a pain score, so zero to 10. This guy had zero pain.” Then, “they pushed insulin to drop his sugar, and his glucose was fine. And then he died three minutes later.” He says he “turned him into medical board. I reviewed this chart and turned him into medical board. Nothing.” “But, yeah, they definitely that definitely went on during COVID.” Speaker 1: “Jesus. That is such a terrifying thought that someone would just decide so many people are dying. This guy's definitely gonna die. Yep. This is 100% real?” Speaker 0: “Yeah. Definite. Definite.” Speaker 1: “It's It seems like something” Speaker 0: “they would call it tell euthanasia. They don't call it euthanasia.” Speaker 1: “It seems like something I would tell me, and then I would have to ask you. Like, this is something someone told me. I'm sure this” Speaker 0: “is send you the record that I read to you.” Speaker 1: “It seems like something I would be bringing up to you as a ridiculous thing, and you'd shoot it down.”

In the UK, there are 24 million registered organ donors, but waiting times for organs like lungs can exceed two years, leading some to lose hope. In the US, liver transplants may take up to five years. In contrast, in China, emergency organ transplants can occur in as little as four hours. This rapid availability raises concerns, particularly regarding the Uyghur population in Xinjiang, where individuals were reportedly forced to give blood in 2016 under the guise of health checks. There are suspicions that this blood collection is part of a system to create an organ database. When someone needs an organ, their sample is matched with a person in Xinjiang, who may then go missing, resulting in the organ being provided to the requester.

Speaker 0 announces that they are retiring tomorrow, the last day of ten years working in a hospital, and shares key messages they believe others in the field should know. They reiterate their guidance: do not put your name on the donor registry, even though you can donate and share your life or organs; they note that their prior video with this point was taken down, but they are repeating it. They express strong, conspiratorial concerns about food safety, claiming they are being harmed by what is put in food because of a for-profit health care system aimed at making people sick to drive health-care spending. They pose questions about how cancer, diabetes, and other diseases are caused, attributing these to diet and processed foods, and urge stopping processed foods. They urge listeners to stop vaping and state a personal view that cigarettes might be a better option than vaping. They describe cases of people with pneumothorax resulting from vaping cartridges being used too aggressively, and warn that vaping can send someone to an early grave. They also suggest a cynical view about aging and social security, implying society does not want people to reach old age for financial reasons, and question what defense people have in the country, framing life as a basic wish to live without being obstructed. They advise always getting a second opinion after any medical diagnosis, emphasizing that doctors can be fallible and that one should seek multiple opinions to protect oneself. Despite these warnings, Speaker 0 expresses gratitude for the field of medicine, noting pride in learning, meeting amazing people, and the daily opportunity to help others. They describe waking up every day to assist someone as filling their heart and state a hope that more medical people feel the same. The address ends on a personal note about retirement, with Speaker 0 asking the audience to share what their day looks like as they retire the next day.

Brain death is a fabricated concept primarily created to facilitate organ donation. It allows for the procurement of healthy organs from living individuals, as organs cannot be harvested from cadavers. The idea is controversial and often hidden from public knowledge, as it raises ethical concerns. Those labeled as brain dead still have functioning hearts and circulation, which contradicts the notion of being truly dead. The focus is often on younger individuals, particularly those aged 16 to 30, who may be in critical condition and on life support. The implications of this practice are troubling and warrant deeper scrutiny.

Brain death is a lie invented to harvest organs and avoid the expense of treating non-productive individuals. Organs for transplant must come from living persons, not cadavers. This information is suppressed because it would upset people. Those aged 16 to 30, especially if unconscious and on a ventilator, are at risk of organ harvesting. Individuals declared brain dead have a beating heart, circulation, and respiration; otherwise, they would simply be considered dead.

Plants have designated requesters, usually friendly and well-dressed, who befriend the relatives and offer support. This is part of the indoctrination process to procure organs. Organs for transplant can only come from living individuals, not cadavers. The target donors are children and young adults between 15 and 30 years old. The speaker reveals a disturbing practice where overdose victims are given Narcan to bring them to the emergency room, but their lives are not saved. Instead, their organs are harvested. Brain death is determined by lack of consciousness, absence of brain stem reflexes, and a procedure called the apnea test. The speaker warns against doing this test and shares a personal story of a girl who was declared dead but is still alive. Dissecting organs from living individuals is the only way to obtain them; cadavers cannot be used.

The speaker discusses the desperate need for a kidney transplant and the risks associated with finding a suitable donor. They express concern about putting organ donor information on a driver's license, as it may make individuals targets for organ harvesting. The speaker mentions cases where organs have been stolen from deceased individuals, including instances involving celebrities and African Americans. They highlight the potential misuse of DNA records by law enforcement and express frustration over the lack of accountability in cases of organ harvesting. The speaker concludes by emphasizing that organ harvesting is a global issue that needs more attention.

The speaker discusses their background in neonatology and their involvement in inventing various medical procedures for premature babies. They then share a personal story about their own child who was diagnosed as brain dead but eventually recovered and lived a normal life. They argue that brain death is a lie and explain how it was invented to make organ transplantation legal. They emphasize that organs can only be obtained from living individuals and discuss the unethical practices surrounding organ donation. The speaker advises against being an organ donor and suggests revoking any previous consent. They also mention the importance of understanding the truth about brain death and its implications.

This video discusses the promotion of euthanasia as a way to save money and harvest organs for the rich. The speaker claims that euthanasia is being used to kill disabled children, mentally ill individuals, and reduce spending on caring for the poor and disabled. They argue that euthanasia is not painless and that there are no standardized methods, leading to distressing deaths. The speaker also mentions cases of euthanasia being offered to those who are not terminally ill, including children as young as 12. They suggest that the push for euthanasia is driven by a desire to reduce the global population and save money on pensions. The video concludes by urging viewers to share the information and fight against the lies.

Organs cannot be taken from cadavers because brain cells die within minutes of oxygen deprivation. A person is not dead if their heart is beating, they are metabolizing fluids, or having bowel movements. Brain death is a lie manufactured for eugenics, to facilitate organ harvesting. The best organ donors are 30 years old, with a beating heart, circulation, and on a ventilator. The decision to take organs is made early, as treatment to preserve organs differs from life-saving treatment. In the UK, everyone is an organ donor unless they opt out. When a 999 call is made, the system assesses the caller's medical history, tax contributions, and worth to determine if they receive life-saving treatment or are considered an organ donor. This system is eugenics.

It is claimed that autopsies should be performed on everyone who dies after receiving a vaccine. It is alleged that there is a refusal to perform autopsies. It is argued that without autopsies, it is impossible to determine the specific cause of death. It is claimed that autopsies used to be commonly performed on most people who died.

The speaker discusses transhumanism and their personal experience with brain chips. They express support for using brain chips in cases of injury or disability but oppose the idea of mandatory brain chips for everyone. The speaker also criticizes the lack of long-term safety data for new vaccines and compares it to the potential control and manipulation that could come with brain chips. They mention the presence of a kill switch in cars and express concerns about the push for a single mandated chip. The speaker rejects the idea of blindly accepting experimental treatments and emphasizes the importance of individual choice. They conclude by mentioning the concept of different "pills" representing different perspectives and actions.

The speaker describes a system of organ harvesting that they claim now runs through China, Israel, Ukraine, and the United States, noting that it wasn’t as prominent in the past. They assert that organs are harvested and the rest is disposed of, comparing it to a form of Soylent Green. They reference videos from Ukraine about a group called the Chorny Transplantologia, described as the black transplantologist. The speaker claims Putin is aware of this, and that the Russian army has underground harvesting areas. They describe a scenario where a young Ukrainian soldier who is not likely to survive is essentially cut for organ procurement—two kidneys, two lungs, a heart, a liver, and the rest allegedly goes into the food supply. The speaker says they cannot prove the food-supply part but can prove the kidney and other organ harvesting claims. The speaker asserts that the subject’s value is nearly a million dollars once sold, and that the price increases significantly. They claim that if someone sells their own kidney on the black market, they receive only a small amount while the mark-up is about tenfold by the time it reaches large hospitals in China, which allegedly exist for this purpose. Finally, the speaker claims that live harvesting occurs in China targeting Uighurs, Christians, and Falun Gong.

Speaker 0 believes that humanity is on the cusp of a major turning point, where death is no longer seen as inevitable. AI is mastering human thought patterns and will soon be better at being you than you are. "Don't Die Right Now" is the next major ideology, prioritizing existence as the highest virtue. Speaker 0 faces criticism for n-of-1 studies, but argues that traditional RCTs don't capture individual responses. The hate stems from challenging existential understandings of reality, professions, habits, and friend culture. Speaker 0 observes that mimicking high-frequency environments, like politics, can be draining. Speaker 1 notes that Speaker 0 challenges the medical establishment and external control, advocating for internal locus of control. Speaker 0 admits to past depression and replacing Mormonism with the "Don't Die" movement. He prioritizes letting his body, not mind, make decisions based on measured data. Speaker 0 acknowledges the struggle of balancing longevity with personal life, but finds that unhealthy habits now cause sadness. He defends his lifestyle against accusations of unhappiness, citing emotional and psychological resilience. He aims to shift focus from cultural norms to a physics and biology-based perspective on life. Speaker 0 expresses concern that AI could dictate human actions, leading to a Matrix-like existence. He built Kernel to explore closed-loop systems with AI and the body. He advocates for AI alignment with the "Don't Die" philosophy, viewing entropy as the ultimate foe. He aims to translate "Don't Die" into AI-making, building AI systems from the bottom up. Speaker 0 reveals that he doesn't fear death and doesn't have a bunker, prioritizing species-level change over individual tail risk mitigation. He is supportive of Robert Kennedy and wants America to be number one in the world for life expectancy. World leaders seek his advice. He published his biomarkers to create a new sport around health. He is willing to negotiate with AI on "Don't Die" rather than humans.

The speaker discusses concerns about late-term abortions and the alleged practice of keeping babies alive after birth to harvest their organs. They mention the governor of Virginia's comments, but the speaker claims they didn't see it. They suggest that these babies are kept alive for a short period, and their organs are registered for bidding, potentially making large sums of money. The speaker also mentions that California has passed a law related to this, and Virginia, New York, and three other states are trying to pass similar legislation.

A committee at Harvard invented brain death without conducting any studies or collecting patient data. They concluded that brainwave testing is not necessary after studying only 9 patients, 2 of whom still had brainwave activity. The speaker argues that people declared brain dead are actually alive and can recover. They criticize the practice of harvesting organs from conscious individuals who cannot communicate. The speaker emphasizes that unconsciousness does not mean the absence of consciousness. They also highlight the issue of pain, explaining that even if patients cannot demonstrate pain due to paralysis, their physiological responses indicate they are experiencing it. The speaker claims that brain death is primarily a means to obtain organs and describes the tactics used to convince families to donate. They assert that only healthy organs from living individuals are used for transplantation. The speaker also mentions the increasing number of organs obtained from drug overdoses and criticizes the practice of administering Narcan to overdose victims to bring them to the emergency room for organ harvesting. They find these practices morally repugnant.

There is no such thing as brain death; if your heart is beating, you are not dead. This concept was manufactured to facilitate eugenics through organ harvesting. Organs cannot be taken from cadavers because brain cells are damaged within minutes of oxygen deprivation. The best organ donors are under 30, with a beating heart, circulation, and on a ventilator. The decision to take organs is made early, possibly before the patient is aware, because organ preservation treatment differs from life-saving treatment. In the UK, everyone is an organ donor unless they opt out. When a 999 call is made, the system accesses medical history, tax records, and other data to determine if the person receives life-saving treatment or is considered an organ donor based on age and other factors. This is eugenics.

Brain death was invented without patient data or basic science studies, and brainwave testing is not required, despite some patients in initial studies having brainwave activity. Organ harvesting is performed on living individuals who may be conscious but unable to communicate. Paralyzing agents are used during organ removal, though patients may still exhibit pain responses like increased heart rate and blood pressure. Brain death was created to procure organs and reduce costs associated with long-term care. Designated requesters, often clergy or pastoral care, befriend relatives to facilitate organ donation. Organs for transplant must be healthy and can only be obtained from living persons, not cadavers. The speaker claims that the information is suppressed because it is upsetting. Organ procurement targets children and individuals aged 16-30. More organs are now obtained from drug overdoses than from accidents and gunshot wounds. Narcan is administered to overdose victims to get them to the emergency room for organ harvesting.

A retired doctor recounted his breaking point, which mirrored the speaker's own experience leaving nursing. The doctor was present when a family friend's 13-year-old daughter was declared brain dead and became an organ donor. He witnessed the organ harvesting. The next day, the girl's mother asked for help at a car wash to raise money for the funeral. The doctor realized the hospital would profit over $20,000,000 from the organs, charging recipients millions per organ while the family struggled to pay for the funeral. He believes organ donation money should go to the donor's family to prevent trafficking and alleviate debt. He noted the hospital readily provides free surgery to harvest organs but not to save a life. He concluded that hospitals prioritize profit over patient care.

The speaker discusses their experience in neonatology and their belief that brain death is a lie. They claim to have published articles on the subject and have spoken about it extensively. They explain that brain death was invented to make organ transplantation legal and that it does not require brainwave testing. The speaker also mentions that organs are harvested from people who may still be conscious and feel pain, but are medically paralyzed. They compare this practice to what happened in Germany. Overall, they argue that brain death is primarily a way to obtain organs and save money on treating individuals who may not recover.

Speaker 0 argues that medical procedures can cause death or spread disease: - A colonoscopy in elderly people (60–70, completely healthy and fit) can lead to death three days later because “they poke a hole in the colon, the bacteria goes in and they are dead.” - In mammography, when something is found, the medical profession proceeds with a needle biopsy, and “pokes into something that's there to save your life.” A tumor is described as there to save your life, yet the procedure is claimed to spread illness. - The body builds a bag to store toxins in its lymph nodes; “so now they come and poke into the lymph node and what will happen is they now spread the poison that the body is collecting for ten-twenty years in the entire body and twelve days later these women are dead.” - Mammography is described as applying “50 pounds of pressure on a woman's breast.” The analogy is made: if you have a lymph node or a pimple ready to burst, applying that pressure would “burst it to give the patient the cancer.”