Welcome, everyone, to this, I think, incredibly important and exciting panel.
I mean, until Dr. Paul Merrick a few years ago reached out to me very excitedly telling
me that he discovered there's all this research out there that's been done, peer-reviewed
scientific research on cancer prevention and cancer treatment that simply most doctors
were unaware of.
I had no idea about this, right?
I assumed the conventional kind of orthodox methods for cancer treatment was all that
was out there.
And this is so I've been kind of following this issue.
I'm very excited to be on this panel.
have been following this issue, kind of following in Paul's journey or Dr. Merrick's journey
of basically discovering this whole kind of unknown world of the use of repurposed drugs
and other approaches to cancer prevention and cancer care.
So to start, I'll introduce Dr. Paul Merrick.
He's of course the co-founder of originally the FLCCC, now the IMA.
What is I?
Independent.
I was going to say independent.
It's independent?
Okay. I still have FLCCC on the brain.
Independent Medical Alliance.
I was struggling because I was thinking I was going to say association.
No, it's alliance.
Independent Medical Alliance.
He is now the chief scientific officer, okay,
and he is a former tenured professor of medicine and chief of the division
of pulmonary and critical care medicine
at the East Virginia Medical School.
Okay. Beside me, we've got Dr. Ray Page.
OK, senior advisor at the Center for Cancer and Blood Disorders
and the past president of this organization.
He has practiced medical oncology for 28 years
and is still practicing.
We're going to hear from him.
We have Dr. Ryan Cole in the beautiful salmon blazer
and salmon's very important to cancer prevention
as we'll discover soon.
I am a senior fellow in pathology, co-founder of Cole Diagnostics,
and a board-certified anatomic and clinical pathologist, okay?
And finally, we have Dr. Lin Fin, retired infectious disease doctor,
and now dedicated to unbiased clinical research
and development of novel therapeutics.
Okay, so let's get started.
I mentioned, you know, the starting pitcher,
that's going to be Dr. Paul Merrick.
So he has, as many of you might be aware, he has created a monograph
which is now in its, I think, second edition published,
third edition soon coming, basically looking at all the research
and there's considerable amounts of it that's been done on trying
to prevent and treat cancer.
And we're also going to learn about something very interesting
which is a cancer stem cell, which many people probably
until recently haven't even been aware of.
Dr. Merrick.
Do you want to, because the order may be different,
so you want to see what slides come up.
Yeah. Yeah.
Roll in first.
So, I didn't fully realize that I was doing the slides,
I'll be honest, until this moment.
In front of you.
In front of you.
Right there.
Right there.
No.
Oh, okay.
So, I'm going to start?
Yeah.
Okay. Fair enough.
Okay. So, we're going to do pathology first.
All right.
All right.
So, we're going to start by, all right.
How many people have heard of the word cancer?
Okay. Very good.
What causes cancer?
I'm going to confound the issue and make this panel.
This is going to be a fun panel
because we're not going to agree on anything.
Doctor, what's your zodiac sign?
Patient, cancer.
Ha! Doctor, what a coincidence.
Okay, we're going to talk about embryology in a second here.
How does cancer develop?
Here's the leading constructs.
There's the somatic mutation theory which is its gene breaks
and a bunch of different gene breaks and the cell goes bad
and becomes cancerous.
There's the immunologic theory
which is the immune cells don't recognize atypical cells
and lose surveillance.
There's the stem cell theory which we're going to talk about.
There's the distortion of tissue and losing connection
between cells theory.
There is the integrative theory of cancer including the
the metabolic theory, which I'm sure we will address.
There's the clonal evolution theory of cancer,
where a cell acquires a mutation, then another, then another,
and eventually becomes cancer.
There's chronic inflammation.
There's infections.
There's perhaps low vitamin D, which may relate to the immune theory,
which there may be the gut microbiome, et cetera.
Now, remember when you were this small.
Probably most of you don't remember back that far.
But once you were, and when you were this small,
there were three layers of you in the gastrolysis stage.
You had a mesoderm, an ectoderm, and an endoderm.
And these, there'll be a quiz on this, so memorize this page.
But each of those layers becomes different parts of you.
So you have basically three, not counting the sperm
and the eggs, the germ cell line.
He has three basic layers.
One layer ends up being skin cells, nervous cells, pigmented cells.
Another layer, the mesoderm becomes your muscle,
your skeletal muscle, your smooth muscle, tubules of the kidney,
part of your adrenal glands.
Other part of the adrenal comes from the ectoderm.
And then another part of you is your endoderm,
your epithelial linings of your digestive tract,
respiratory tract, et cetera, et cetera.
Now why am I telling you all this and taking you back
to basic embryology?
Because when people hear cancer and say, well,
it's a government conspiracy, of course,
they cured cancer 50 years ago and won't tell you.
Remember that not all cells are the same.
They start one way, but when you remember back to that big,
these cell lines differentiated.
And each of these cell lines also have different contents,
different functions, different protein markers
on their surfaces.
On the surface of every cell,
you have different what are called clusters
of differentiation.
in the laboratories say, this is this type of cell because we can see what types of protein
it's expressing.
And we know of at least 371 of those, if not almost 400 now.
So every cell has different little locks and keys on the surface that makes that cell unique
to that organ and that part of your body.
Cancer stem cells.
Paul will address this a little bit.
We have identified within certain cancers a basic stem cell type in each of these cancers.
They may have like cluster of differentiation, you know, 10,
133, 144, and 16, and the other one may have this,
that, or the other, et cetera.
They have basically a different Tetris pattern
on their surface.
But think of this.
Cancer is more like a hydra.
Now you can think of the Greek traditional,
either the seven-headed or the nine-headed.
You pick which mythology you want.
But within a cancer, not all cells
within the cancer generally are the same cell.
So cancer is unregulated cell growth.
So cancer pleomorphism, pleomanymorphous shape.
So we're going to look at melanoma as an example.
This great paper has some pretty weird melanomas.
So all you see, I'm going to make you a pathologist
in two minutes, pink and purple, pink and purple, dots.
Those are cells.
Purple is the nucleus.
But that stain in the bottom, that brown,
we can determine which proteins are expressed
on the surface of these cells.
Now, in this particular cancer,
melanoma generally expresses a protein called S100.
But this cancer, deep down,
all of a sudden it's not expressing that.
So it decided, well, yes, I'm a cancer, but part
of me is going to do this, but part of me is going to do that.
Think back to the hydra.
And then this is a melanoma, but this one is spindled
and it also has big round epithelioid cells
and part of it stains for, wait a minute,
it's staining for muscle cells.
Why would a melanoma stain for muscle cells?
Well, because it didn't read the textbook.
And so it's not acting like the other one was.
And so it says, but I want to express this protein
and that protein because my mutations are this
and I chose to be this type of cancer
or this one, which is expressing keratins,
which are generally what?
Your skin.
And so cells in the body produce different proteins
for different functions.
And so in the laboratory,
we can generally identify the type of cancer something is
by what it expresses.
Here's an example of a colon cancer.
And on your left, you could see normal glands
of the colon, or on the right,
those are the big bad beasties,
the cell's gone bad.
But even those are all the same shape or size.
Now, if we look at a cancer like this,
this is a de-differentiated sarcoma.
What do you notice about this?
Sesame Street, one of these things is not like the other.
Kind of like all of them.
Some are big, some are small.
Some are dark, some are light.
Because they have different amounts
of genetic material within them.
Because not every cell in that cancer
has the same mutation or is the same cell.
Confused yet?
Okay, good, because I'm going to confuse you a little more.
Or this breast cancer, same Sesame Street game,
one of these things is not like the other.
Some are big, some are small, some are dark, some are light,
and that's again because the amount of genetic material
within the nucleus of each of these cells.
So again, this is a hydra.
So when you say, well, we gave the patient therapy
and look, the tumor is shrinking.
Yeah, about one head of the hydra is shrinking,
But what about the other six heads?
And so that's another way to think about cancer is not every cell within the cancer is the
same cell line with the same problem.
Then these are the ones that Dr. Page likes because these are the cancers generally that
are uniform, monomorphic, one type.
And these are the cancers that usually only have one mutation and it's a predictable mutation.
And so when you use a treatment, that treatment tends to be easier because you're only treating
one head of a hydra and the other six are already gone.
Or this myeloma, same thing.
It is one cell gone bad with generally the same mutation
and it has a similar behavior.
And I'm almost done.
So think about this.
There are about eight billion unique human beings on the planet.
You have your basic three embryologic cell lines,
because you remember when you were that small.
Arguably there are 79 organs, 22 internal organs.
Cells in your human body, uniquely you, are in women around 28
to 30 trillion and men about 36 trillion.
Do the math.
So the textbooks say, oh, there are over 200 cancers.
But given you as a unique individual and everybody
on this planet, what's the reality?
The number of cancers is actually incalculable.
So, when you say, well, of course they cured cancer 50 years ago
and aren't telling us, there are trillions upon trillions
to the whatever nth zero numbers of potential cancers.
Remember the hydro.
A wise doctor once wrote, that's the, that, that, that, that.
You see how I go back here, Juan?
Okay, yeah, so I think Ryan, Dr. Cole,
showed just how easy cancer is, you know.
And I just want to introduce myself and let you know that my goal
and purpose here is to give you context to the complexities
of cancer and cancer treatment.
And I am a full-on practicing board-certified hematologist,
oncologist in the United States
and have been killing cancer since 1994.
So I've seen a lot, done a lot, done everything.
Nothing scares me.
And I have been full on with doing clinical trials,
cancer research, education, advocacy,
running the business oncology.
And I am an independent community oncologist
that has one of the most successful community
oncology practices in the United States.
The people come to see us on how we do things
that are not in your traditional institutionalized care.
So I'm very proud of the fact
that I'm an independent, independent thinking medical oncologist.
And so I want, so, yeah and it's very difficult because in the oncology world virtually everybody
is very academic and they're very narrow and they see one tumor type.
I'm a general oncologist, I see everything and I think in some ways that gives advantages
to where I can see things from a broad and a breadth rather than being so narrow because
Because you know, even though many of our medical oncologists are some of the most brilliant
people that I've ever met and they're very smart, they're very narrow.
You know, it's colon cancer, colon cancer, colon cancer, colon cancer, and they become
experts in that area, but you know, an expert is somebody that knows more and more about
less and less until they know everything about nothing at all, okay?
So I don't claim to be an expert of anything.
But the American Cancer Society every year collects data that's reported through cancer
registries and reports on the cancer statistics every year.
So it comes out every year.
And just recently, they analyzed data from 23 million people between 1920 and 1990.
They looked at 34 common cancer types diagnosed between 2000 and 2019.
And what they found was that in 17 of those cancers, there was a rise in the younger generations.
This should be alarming.
This is a serious problem.
And it's like, why is that going on?
So they made some attributions for a variety of things, but they attributed to obesity,
insulin resistance, lack of exercise, processed foods, and fortunately, Kennedy, he's going
to be working on trying to solve some of those problems.
But what has gone on since 2019, because we had a pandemic that occurred, and it's interesting
to see that if you look at the trends of cancer over the years, we see that the incidence
is rising and the incidence is going up.
But when we look at cancer survival
and the number of people that are dying from cancer,
that's been going down.
And so every year, year over year,
it's not a big change, but it's about 1% per year
of improvement in cancer survival.
But for my career of like over 30 years,
in my career, I've seen about a 30% change
in the number of people that are living
and surviving long-term with cancer and are cancer-free.
So the gains are incremental and small,
but they're substantial over a period of time.
But the concern is, is that when you start looking at some
of the early data that's out there and you look at data
from other countries, Japan, England, Australia and some
of the early data from the United States, in these years
where we've seen kind of a decline
in the cancer death rates, we're seeing a little bit
of a hockey stick on those curves and we're starting
to see a little bit of a curve
to where the death rates have increased somewhat.
Now, the American Cancer Society data still lags behind
by a couple of years.
So we haven't really seen that from those kind of reports.
But when you look at a variety of information from the CDC,
actual data from insurances and all, you can start
to see these trends occurring.
And so it makes you think, hmm, what's going on here?
Because in my personal experience
over the last few years during COVID, you know,
I saw some things that was occurring in my office when the vaccines started for
COVID that in my 30 years of practice, it's like, wow, that's interesting.
Never really seen that before. That's a, that's a strange phenomena. Uh, and,
and I was seeing it just here and there across all the different diagnoses that I
treat. But the very first immediate thing that I saw when we started rolling
out vaccinations and everybody in my, my clinic was getting it. And then people
that I was getting consulted on in the hospital
was acute vascular events, clots.
Blood clots was one of the first things that I saw.
And yes, my cancer patients, they clot all the time.
It goes with cancer.
And so I deal with clots, you know,
clots in the legs and everywhere.
But these were different.
These were clots.
These were very large, propagated clots
that were arising in unusual locations.
And they were aggressive,
And they didn't always respond very well
to the anticoagulants that we give.
So the first thing I saw was that.
And then I saw a lot of vascular events,
you know, cardiovascular events, strokes,
and arterial internal tears and aneurysms.
You know, I see patients for years and years with CT scans
to monitor, you know, looking for cancer of all.
And you can see for years in a follow-up, you know,
they'll have an aortic aneurysm in the abdomen
that's four centimeters stable, stable, stable, stable with all the
substance. Nothing's changed. And then all of a sudden vaccination, eight
centimeter aortic aneurysm that's leading leaking. Gotta go to emergency
surgery to get that taken care of. So first thing I saw was acute vascular
events. And then not long after that, I started seeing all these unusual but
nine human to logic processes. I saw, you know, immune thrombocytopenia
thrombotic thrombocytopenia. I saw, uh, lymphocyte counts that were low. I saw
changes in immunoglobulin levels and just alterations of the blood counts that were
kind of benign in nature, but they were significant.
And then not long after that I started seeing a wide variety of unusual hematologic cancers.
And so I started seeing unusual lymphomas.
Oftentimes T-cell, we have B-cell and T-cell variety of lymphomas, T-cells are much, much
less common.
started seeing T-cell lymphomas like I've never seen before.
And I was going, wow, this is unusual.
And to even add to that, I had patients
that had B-cell malignancies that had been successfully
treated and under control.
But all of a sudden, now they've developed a T-cell lymphoma.
It's like, what the heck?
I don't see this kind of stuff.
You know, that's academic stuff that is rare.
And to see all of a sudden somebody
that's successfully been treated for a B-cell lymphoma
all of a sudden develop a T-cell lymphoma
aggressive was a concern, you know, and then when we look at transformation of
biologic processes, you know, I had a lady that had a MGUS, which is a
monoclonal gammopathy of a slight elevation of the proteins in the blood,
and most of those stay normal. So I followed this lady for 22 years in my
office, just yearly follow-up monitoring her monoclonal antibodies, 22 years,
stable, stable, stable, stable, stable, stable.
And then all of a sudden vaccination
and she went into full-blown myeloma.
And at that time she was 85,
she didn't tolerate therapy very well
and chose not to do anything further
and died quickly from very aggressive, explosive myeloma
that otherwise had a stable process for 22 years.
Another, and then as I predicted about three years ago,
I was very worried about solid tumors starting to rise
because that takes a little more time
than these rapidly growing hematologic malignancies.
And sure enough, you know,
starting to see patterns of changes in the office
where seeing latent relapses, you know,
have women with breast cancer that have been, you know,
10, 12, 14, 18 years out,
and then all of a sudden they have explosive disease
that shows up in their bone after all these years.
Had a guy with a sarcoma in his leg
that we treated with surgery and chemo
and radiation therapy, and 17 years later,
17 years later, he develops a pulmonary mass
that's the same pathology as that.
Now, that had been stayed, that had stayed dormant
for 17 years through immunologic phenomena
and all those kind of things.
But there's alterations that occurred, I believe,
after his vaccination that triggered a latent relapse.
See aggressive relapses, see unusual presentations
in unusual locations, and seeing the younger onset of cancers.
These are bad cancers, you know, rectal cancers,
anal cancers, GI cancers, esophageal,
pancreatic in young people.
And now there's over 1,000 case reports in the literature
to corroborate that.
So the elephant in the room, and I may be one
of the very few board certified medical oncologists
in the United States that will say this,
are these COVID vaccines causing cancer?
And the best answer I can give today is it appears so.
And it's, the data's evolving and it's very difficult,
but when you look at published case studies,
epidemiology reports, the VAERS data, the CDC data,
the Medicare and Medicaid ICD-10 codes with the C codes,
the institutions, international from other countries
that have been reported and even insurance, actual oils.
There's something happening here that we've never seen before.
And so, but this is very, very complicated to discern
because there's so many epithelial logic complexities
to this, when you have two million people a year
that get diagnosed with cancer and approximately 40%
people are going to potentially interact and encounter cancer in their lifetimes, you can
very easily attribute many, many things, and we see it all the time.
You know, we'll see a paper that comes out and a journal says, oh, vitamin A causes lung
cancer.
And then we get another paper a few years later that says, no, vitamin A doesn't cause
lung cancer.
You know, coffee causes pancreatic cancer.
Later on you see another paper that says, no, pancreatic, you know, coffee doesn't cause
pancreatic cancer.
And so it's very hard to sort out causal relationships because correlation doesn't always imply causation
But we do have, you know, some Bradford Hill criteria and some other criteria that we can
use even though it's not perfect.
There's things that we can look to to try to translate that correlation into trying
to have a good cohesive theory that there could be potential causation of these things.
And so, as Dr. Cole mentioned, when we look at the mechanisms of carcinogenesis, Dr. Merrick
is going to talk in detail about the metabolic side of that thing, but I just want to emphasize
that there are many things that attribute to carcinogenesis.
Genetic germline that you're inherited, somatic that are required,
immune dysregulation, hormonal exposures, autoimmune,
infectious diseases, there's a number of viruses that cause cancer,
number of bacteria that cause cancer, exposures, dietary changes,
and even medications that can cause cancer.
So, and there is in the literature that looks
that many putative COVID vaccine causes,
and this just gets into the nerdy science stuff.
And I want to defer much of this that's published
in the literature to maybe Dr. Finn will talk a little bit
about the nerdy science stuff.
When I have nerdy science questions, I go to Dr. Cole
and Dr. Finn because those guys.
They're nerds.
They're nerds.
And I like that because I'm kind of nerdy too in many ways.
So, and then there's a great publication that came
out this last year from Angus and others that kind of summarizes many of those into creating
a hypothesis of ockigenesis that's associated with the mRNA COVID vaccine, and so that's
a good read, okay?
And so I think my concern is that we may have the tip of the iceberg with current cancers,
but when we look at the potential for future cancers, there's tremendous concern that indeed
if this kind of process is going on, if we don't make alterations, then we could be running
into problems that are serious.
And I want to finish up with just a little bit just talking about the transformation
of cancer therapeutics, because I've been doing this again since 1994.
And so back in the day, you know, we did radical surgery.
We did high dose radiation therapy that burned the hell out of people.
We did maximum dose of combination chemotherapies.
Those were the tools that we had.
We knew that, in general, with chemotherapy models,
the more the better.
So you gave everybody the maximum tolerated dose,
took them to the brink of death,
and then got them through to try to get favorable outcomes.
Very harsh stuff back in the day.
Hormonal therapy with hormonal removal,
removing your testicles for prostate cancer
and ovaries and et cetera.
And then ablative chemotherapy
with super high doses of chemo
with autologous stem cell transplantation
to replace your bone marrow with either your own bone marrow
or somebody else's bone marrow in order to try
to eradicate the cancer.
So I will, so anyway, those are serious problems.
And so back in the day, I was very much more of a medical oncologist
that did a lot of infectious disease also because everybody came
out with ablated bone marrows and serious infections
that could be potentially life-threatening.
But we've transformed, I think, in the last 15 years
into new therapeutics.
And we have made tremendous gains
in minimally invasive surgery.
We have stereotactic radiation therapy.
So we can really focus in the radiation
being through image-modulated and stereotactic radiation
to really just hit that target and spare the normal tissues.
We have radiopharmaceuticals where
we can now tie radioactive intravenous infusion.
So you get an intravenous infusion
radioactive material that then goes directly to the cancer cell and kills the cancer cell
and nothing else.
We have monoclonal antibodies that are targeted therapies that have been life changing for
many cancers that don't carry all the toxicities, you know, for many of your B cell malignancies
and others, HER2 blocking drugs for breast cancer and so forth.
We have a whole host of molecularly targeted therapies to actually block the cellular processes,
the metabolic processes in many way of cells to be able, as some of those processes are
revved up that tell the cancers to grow, these drugs, which most of them are oral, can turn
off the light switch, tell those cancer cells to stop growing, and many of them work quite
well.
We're now getting into the realm of antibody drug conjugates to where we're giving, attaching
toxic chemotherapy drugs to antibodies,
so it serves to deliver the payload
directly into the cancer cell
and not all the other normal cells in your body,
and we've seen some tremendous gains with those,
particularly in breast cancer.
Immunotherapy has been just radically life-changing
for many cancers, particularly melanoma.
Melanoma is a bad cancer, often hits young people,
and back in the day, before we had the advent
of immunotherapy combinations, people got melanoma,
They got horribly toxic chemotherapy and they crashed and burned and died in short order.
And we've made tremendous gains, even cures, in my opinion, from the combinations of immunotherapies
that we have.
And we're getting into bite therapies where you're linking up T cells that are trained
to kill the cancer cell, linking them up to the cancer itself to help augment that effect.
And then CAR T cell therapy, which allows us to also train up T cells to be infused
back into the body to go seek out the cancer cell and kill it.
So where I've kind of had medical oncology experience and an infectious disease experience
in the past, now I have to be a medical oncologist and an immunologist because that's the way
of the future.
Okay?
And immunology is extremely difficult, it's a very complex area to navigate.
The final thoughts going forward, I just want all of you to take great scrutiny with everything
that you put in your body, and I mean everything.
And that includes the chemotherapy drugs that I give.
You should definitely have a thorough conversation with your oncologist about the risk, benefits,
side effects, and toxicities of the chemotherapy.
You should be signing informed consent to receive those drugs because they can be dangerous
and potentially life threatening.
So you need to have scrutiny of receiving those drugs from folks like me.
I'll argue any drug with FDA approval.
I think you need to have scrutiny for any repurposed drug that has off-label use because
we give lots of off-label use of drugs.
Any beverage, any food, all health and nutrition products.
There's many out there that we all take to help improve our health, but there's a lot
to be said about the pedigree of some of those and the effectiveness of what the right dose
and duration of those things are.
And then vaccinations.
And as you've heard from so many people speaking to the choir, don't ever take any modified
gene product ever pushed as a vaccination or a prevention of any disease or infection.
There's better ways to do that.
Just stay away from those gene products.
They're originally designed as cancer therapies.
And this was talked about in one of the previous sessions, find a doctor that you can trust
because there's a study that came out that showed that public trust in physicians in
hospitals plummeted from 71 percent to 40 percent.
This was in a 50-state survey that was published.
And, you know, in general, physicians did a great job of losing that patient trust.
I'll tell you, I think it started with the onset of Obamacare, when doctors through Obamacare
all of a sudden lost their independence, and independent doctors all of a sudden got sucked
up by the hospitals and systems, and they became hostage to the hospital systems that
were involved and then that process kind of handcuffed doctors to be independent thinking
physicians and all of a sudden you get a process that goes on that kind of tells doctors what
to do and what protocols to follow.
And I'm telling you the pandemic cemented that lack of trust when at the point in time
in history where physicians really needed to step up, of the million physicians we have
in the United States, I'm telling you that 99.9% of them did not step up and manage patients
early on.
Hence, we had all the problems that we've had.
And as a result, we've lost tremendous trust that the physicians have to earn back.
And I will say that the nurses and pharmacists are now more trusted than physicians.
And for any nurses that are in the offices, in the audience, I just want to give kudos
to the nurses because I think during the pandemic, if you look at the people in healthcare on
the bravery scale, I think they were at the top because they were hands-on taking care
of the patients, whereas it seemed like to me the majority of the doctors wouldn't even
see patients.
They were at home in their bed, curled up in a fetal position, sucking their thumb,
and it was bad.
So thank you, nurses, for stepping up to the plate.
Develop a relationship with the physician you trust, and with that, I'll turn it over.
Hey, Dr. I think it's Len, isn't it, Len?
No, Dr. You're next, Dr. Mack.
Oh, I am.
Thank you.
So thanks for let's say to me again, I'm going to be talking about the cancer stem cell,
which I think is a major fundamental progress in understanding how to treat cancer cells.
So just so that we're all on the same page over the last 10 years.
So we're not doing well.
You can see there's 17% this is data from the American Cancer Society, a 17% increase
in the risk of cancer.
And as I said, the risk is going up.
So the likelihood is that half the people in this room are going to get cancer.
So you really have to pay attention and it's getting worse.
And this is a global phenomenon and deaths were up by 5%.
So cancer, as Ryan showed you, is highly heterogeneous with mass of diverse cells with genetic and
phenotypic diversity. So these cells are all very different. They look different and they're different
genetic mutations. And this really strongly criticizes or strongly invalidates the somatic
mutation theory of cancer. So what is a cancer stem cell? So research has shown that almost all
tumors almost all tumors have cancer stem cells they vary from about 1% to 70% so it's a minor
generally a minor population of in the tumor so these are self-renewing with infinite proliferative
potential so they keep on dividing and they keep on dividing and they keep on dividing
and they keep on dividing. They are the roots which supply the tumor. They have enhanced resistance
to drugs, radiation, and stress, cell stress, as I'll show you. They're tumorigenic. They give rise
to other cell types in the tumor, giving rise to this heterogeneity. They are associated with
metastases and relapses. So they are found in almost all tumors. So you can see the cancer
and the cancer stem cell. You give anti-cancer drug. It gets rid of the refugee dividing cancer
but it leaves the slower dividing cancer stem cells. They're there. They replicate and what do
they do, they grow, they replicate, they reproduce, and they form the tumor again.
So that with treating the cancer without treating the stem cell is a somewhat pointless exercise
as the cancer stem cells survive chemotherapy.
So this is from my friend, Justice Hope, who wrote the book on one of the books on cancer.
So it's a really good analogy is you have the tree trunk, you have the tree and the
roots.
So chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and surgery deals with the trunk and the leaves.
You're cutting them down, but you're leaving the roots.
And the roots grow back and form the little tumors.
And so there are certain pathways in the roots which represent embryological pathways.
There's the hedgehog pathway, the notch pathway, the wind pathway, the IKPV pathway.
So there are a number of distinct biomedical pathways in the cancer stem cells which become
important because they can be targeted.
So you can see if you don't deal with the roots, you just cut down the tree, it's going
to grow back again. So this is cancer stem cells. This is from a clinical oncology journal.
So it's not like I'm making this up. So this is natural review clinical oncology targeting
notch hedgehog and the wind pathway in cancer stem cells. Numerous researchers hypothesize
that treatments targeting the cancer stem cell population
can be more effective than existing therapies
and could dramatically transform treatment outcomes in oncology.
So basically, again, illustrating what happens.
So on your left, you have the cancer with the cancer stem cell.
With conventional therapy in the middle,
you get rid of the rapidly dividing cancer cells,
but what are you left with?
The cancer stem cell, which then reproduce, proliferates,
and grows into the tumor again.
In the top, you have cancer stem cell-targeted therapy alone,
and it will get rid of the stem cell
that leaves the rapidly dividing cells
which will eventually die.
At the bottom, you have a combination,
And this is what I think is so really important.
So you have conventional chemotherapy,
which we'll get to together with therapy,
which targets the stem cell,
you get rid of the stem cell,
you get rid of the rapidly dividing cells,
you get rid of the cancer.
So I discovered AI,
I thought it was somewhat of a conspiracy
and that the data it provided would be misleading
and it would be influenced by big pharma,
but actually when cross-referenced it,
we checked the primary references,
we checked the MEDLINE reviews,
and it's actually highly scientifically accurate.
So what we found was the top cancer stem cell blocking agents,
and so it just happens, argument and keeps on coming up.
So, ivermectin came up, and this is AI, we repeated this multiple times and multiple
papers, ivermectin is the most effective cancer stem cell agent, and you can see it blocks
the Wnt, the Hedgehog, the Notch, and F-CaP instead, the phosphoartanazole pathway, ivermectin,
who would have thought the horse dewormer would be really effective as parallel therapy
for the treatment of cancer.
And then you have curcumin, which actually is a really phenomenal compound because it
interferes not only with the stem cell, but with multiple biological processes in the
cancer, in cancer apoptosis, in cell cycle replication, cell death, sulforaphone, doxycycline,
which acts on that tumor microenvironment, EGCG from green tea.
So these are really important over-the-counter largely drugs which are cheap and ineffective
which act both on the cancer as well as the stem cell.
So not only does chemotherapy leave the stem cell untouched, but there are in fact some
chemotherapeutic agents which actually stimulate the stem cell.
So you actually have an even worse situation that not only are you leaving the cancer stem
cells alone, but you have chemotherapy which provokes their multiplication and replication.
And you can see this is a list here.
And just to make it worse, radiotherapy does exactly the same thing to the stem cell.
It actually leaves it alone.
can see that external beam radiation therapy has no effect in getting rid of the cancer cells.
This is a paper which we recently discovered. Radiation induces the generation of cancer stem
cells, a novel mechanism for cancer radio resistance. So not only does radiotherapy
kill the stem cells, it actually enhances their generation. So the traditional therapy
of chemo and radiotherapy. Basically, it leaves the stem cell untouched, which will then regrow
into the cancer. So that's why we believe all patients with cancer must be treated with a
cancer stem cell agent. So you can get traditional radiotherapy, chemotherapy, immunotherapy,
But at the same time, you have to get rid of the stem cell otherwise the tumor will recur.
And that's my little story.
Thank you.
Once again, I don't have any slides.
I see eyes glazing over.
So I think they did a fantastic job explaining the complexity of cancer.
And someone says, oh, they found the cure for cancer years ago.
They just don't want us to know.
That is not true.
Cancer is not one disease.
It's a million diseases and a million combinations.
And it takes a very nuanced way to treat it.
A patient goes to see his doctor.
His doctor says, I'm sorry to say you have stage four malignancy.
And the patient says, I don't understand.
I have no cancer in my history.
I'm very, I eat cleanly.
I exercise.
I'm in good health.
I don't understand how this could have happened.
And the physician says, well, I don't know how it happened either.
I don't know what caused it, but I know it wasn't the vaccine.
And your eyes glaze over.
Since the, we have been increasing in cancer incidence.
There's just no doubt, as Dr. Merrick showed from, was it 2013, was when your data started,
there has been a more rapid increase in these cancers, particularly in the younger population
when you don't see it.
Babies being born with cancer.
I don't know if you've noticed, just watching TV, have you seen just in the last couple
of years a huge rise in St. Jude's commercials?
Right?
Right? Out of nowhere, all of these St. Jude commercials.
But at the same time, in order to be a patient at St. Jude early on,
they require them to get the COVID vaccines.
Make a wish, a dying child's wish.
We can make your wish come true after you get these two messenger
RNA injections.
None of that made sense.
That was a huge red flag.
With the SayTude commercials comes these heartfelt images
and you just, you're crushed.
And I know Dr. Biss is probably seeing odd cancers in babies.
We're seeing young men, healthy athletes.
We're seeing late stage diagnosis of aggressive cancers
that are a bit resistant to conventional therapies.
And, you know, we can take it back to basics.
Just talking about the lipid nanoparticles of this,
what they call a vaccine, but it is a gene therapy.
The lipid nanoparticles themselves are highly inflammatory.
Cancer is multifaceted, but inflammation is a common thread.
Universal unchecked inflammation in the body is a recipe for disaster.
If you think you know about the manufacturing process, in a just world, this never would
have been a vaccine rollout.
This would have been classified as a gene therapy and undergone explicit scrutiny on
on genotox, on carcinogenesis, on its effects on the fetus,
teratogenicity, all of these things would have been highly
scrutinized, but something with an infection fatality rate
so low, they declared an emergency
so they can drop all of what would typically occur.
And this was another red flag.
Why we only had 100 cases and all of a sudden they were closing
everything down.
So you had to start, the wheels had to start turning at that point.
Comornati, which was the mRNA Pfizer version, was approved,
fully approved, not just EUA, fully approved,
But it was never released in the United States.
No one in the United States received Comornati.
Everyone received the EUA version of the vaccine.
What was approved in Comornati was the CMC, which is the chemistry
and manufacturing process.
That was approved along with the gene therapy.
However, that's not the manufacturing process they used
on the EUA version, which is what the U.S. received.
In that manufacturing process, the contaminants
in the vials far exceeded what is allowable.
There should be a step in there that removes these contaminants
because they're transfecting contaminants.
There is a chance it could integrate in our DNA.
Where's the funding to find that out?
They should be rushing to find that out.
What happens with these contaminants when you inject them?
You start producing proteins that are unknown.
You don't know what proteins you're producing in addition
to the spike protein which you have now charged your cells,
your healthy cells to become factories of.
The recent Yale study on post-vaccination syndrome,
another red flag, but something everybody on this panel knew.
We knew in 2020 when the EUA studies came out, but now Yale has declared that the spike
is persistent in the vaccinated individual.
They declared that they found circulating spike protein in 709 days post-injection.
So there goes that, well, if it didn't happen within the first two weeks, it's not attributable
to the vaccine.
It's not a vaccine.
It's a gene therapy.
It works in a different way.
It affects a KRAS system, mTORS system.
It affects toll-like receptors, CCL5, microRNAs.
There are so many complex pathways in the body between the lipid nanoparticles and the
persistent spike that plausibly give rise to multiple malignancies.
And to not look at it and to not divert some of this funding to find out why.
And when we do that, we halt the therapy while we're studying it.
We don't keep giving it out.
We don't have agencies saying, pregnant ladies, protect your baby too.
out and get it while we figure it out. There is enough information, there is enough data
to halt it. COVID is not a thing right now. We can treat it. We always could treat it.
So why not halt it? Why not divert some of that funding to find out why? Again, I stress
This is why organizations like Independent Medical Alliance are so important.
We need the funding to do the proper studies.
The gold standard is a well-controlled, randomized trial.
And without those controls and without the proper gold standard for study, anyone can
say whatever they want.
But it costs money.
And right now, with so much conflicted interest in clinical research, you're only going to
read what they want you, the conclusion they want you to come to.
So the whole bait and switch on the manufacturing process of these products in the U.S. gave
They've rise to the rule or the guidance that, okay, so we know it's safe and effective.
So all boosters can be released without fully scrutinizing further.
So they only had to go into, what, six mice to come out with a booster.
But here's where they tricked us again.
Because they said, if you follow the same manufacturing process with the boosters, you
You don't have to do more trials.
But they didn't.
They came out with a bivalent booster and instead of putting one of the valent proteins
in or the genetic code in an LNP and then the other one in another LNP and then doing
it that way, they put both in each LNP.
And that is not the manufacturing process that we signed up for either.
So now the toxicity profile went through the roof.
And I'm sure most of the practicing physicians in this room can say that they saw a market
increase in some of these adverse events when they started getting boosters even further.
And I'm not surprised by any of it.
So now they've piggybacked on the false manufacturing of the mRNA-EUA version versus Comornati with
a different manufacturing version of a booster.
And now they're telling everybody, what, you're on your 10th shot now, your 10th shot?
And you're not only altering your innate and adaptive immune systems, hello, cancer, but
But you're also sending your immune system into dysregulation, again, hello, cancer.
And in doing so, this dysregulation is causing reinfections.
So the very thing it's supposed to protect you from, you're more likely to get reinfected
with the amount of, it's a dose-dependent relationship between the amount of shots you
get.
So these mRNA platform injections, they were never meant to be given repeatedly.
Lipid antiparticles are very inflammatory.
They were never meant to, they were meant for curative reasons, and as Dr. Page pointed
out, probably started off for cancer treatment.
And you're absolutely right.
Do I think it will become a good cancer treatment?
Not in vivo, not in the body.
I think it could be very helpful in making therapeutics and then putting them in the
body, but not injecting into the body, am I right?
That's my personal opinion.
But that said, what started off as a cancer treatment, they have now rushed out and sent
out to many, and that was supposed to be a one-shot curative exposure.
These LMPs accumulate, and with each repeated injection, these LMPs accumulate.
You're going to have more and more.
The head scientific officer of BioNTech literally said, these should be used in a curative manner,
not as repeat therapeutics.
And here we are on shot number 10, with almost 100 other vaccines in the pipeline to be placed
in this exact same platform.
If that doesn't set off every oncologist's radar, I mean,
very few are like Dr. Ray Page here, very few.
They have not even addressed the elephant in the room.
I don't know what caused this surge in young people,
but I know it wasn't the vaccine.
So, we've just took in an incredible amount of information here.
And I'll start us off, we have a bunch of audience questions.
I'll start us off with a general question that just struck me.
You know, there is probably an opportunity
with this new HHS and sub-agency leadership
to do some research, okay?
Research that has not been done before, right?
If you, and we've mentioned research about,
you know, what is causing these cancers,
kind of looks like the mRNA is involved in that.
We've looked at, and there's also research
that needs to be done in the area
of how these repurposed drugs might actually work
in conjunction with the existing therapies for cancer
and treatments for cancer.
If you had to choose, right?
If you had to choose, and I'll go,
let's go to everybody here,
which research is the most important?
Which research should come first?
What would you say?
And let's start at the end over there with Dr. Merrick,
after us.
Yeah, obviously I'm biased.
I think we need to look at the use
of repurposed drugs in cancer.
They, you know, alongside traditional therapy,
I think these studies aren't that difficult to do.
And I think we have an obligation to do them
and just develop some data and see what it looks like.
I think we need to prove the cause.
We pretty much have suggested strongly with all the criteria
The stains are available to look for residual of the injection
in the tissues.
Dr. Burkhart did it.
I did it before all the attacks on me
and my life got derailed, whatever.
Kevin McKernan has done great genetic work.
He's already shown Pfizer sequence
and colon a colon cancer, pre-mortem and post-mortem.
We know that the gene sequence
from the contaminating DNA is showing up in tumors.
In fact, we've got a project working
with Children's Health Depends on that right now
in an IRB stage and we'll do a pilot study
of 30 or 40 cancers.
And I think we know what the results are going to be.
These things are a piece and patchwork around the world.
We need to do that.
And then we need to add the Yale study
to all these patients because it's not everybody.
That's good news, folks.
Don't panic.
But it's happening.
And then we need to, and what I'm getting to there
is we need the immunologic studies in these patients
that are developing the cancers
and look at those T cell profiles.
What's the immune system doing?
Why is it suppressed and to what degree is it suppressed?
And then finally, we need the government
to aggregate the data.
We have the AI technology.
We can crawl all the different databases
and tell the truth in real time.
The data's there around the world.
Yes, more to Dr. Cole's point, the government has all of this data.
It's very, very slow, if at all, uploaded.
If they would come clean, we could get to the bottom of this.
But as he mentioned, project with Children's Health Defense or another project with a group
of friends of colleagues that are putting in their own money and scraping all throughout
the world scraping money together to try to find these answers versus the hoards of funding,
the hoards of money being thrown at more of the same.
In this 2020 to present time span, the amount of money and the amount of scientific data
as poor as a lot of it is that have been published on COVID,
you can literally find a paper to support whatever you think.
Whatever you think.
Just pick something.
You know, COVID increases with the amount
of ice cream you eat.
Whatever subject you want, somebody funded a study for it.
And it's ridiculous that important studies based on facts,
based on the fact that we're staining spike protein
and tissue of colorectal cancer.
That should stop right there.
That should be a government source of funding.
We need to find the answer there.
So put pressure on your reps.
Put pressure on your representatives to work with HHS
to start diverting the funds.
And granted, Fauci is now gone, sort of.
But yes, you can clap for that.
I'm all for it.
Forty-five years of terror in my opinion.
But Fauci's gone.
In his tenure, he has redirected more than a trillion dollars.
All the purse strings were held by this man at NIAID.
That can never happen again.
that can never happen again.
We need honest data and honest studies to be done.
I want to piggyback real quick.
Like I've said, if I've said it once,
I've said it a thousand times,
you can't find what you don't look for.
We have to look and we have, our government has to fund it.
Doctor.
Yes, let me talk a little bit about
how to go through the process of studying
and evaluating and treating the stem cell
because this is indeed a resistant strain of cancer cells
And as was discussed, you know, if you have a tumor burden
of 10 centimeters of cancer in your body,
so you got different tumor not just 4 centimeters here,
4 centimeters there, 2 centimeters there,
the 10 centimeters has about 4 trillion cells in it.
Now that's an unfathomable number.
Most of us can't get into, wrap our head
around just how many a trillion is.
But you can give therapies, chemotherapy,
radiation therapy, hormonal therapy.
And even when you kill 99.9999% of those cells,
you still have a million of them left.
So it's polymorphic.
There's new restraints, it's the hydra,
so you can kill all that.
And so nowadays, you know, we do have a lot
of great molecular diagnostic techniques,
and as Dr. Merrick showed,
there are specific stem cell mutations
that are common with these stem cells,
and there's many, but the Notch and the PIC3CA
and all those mutations that you can see.
And so oftentimes, it's interesting what I see from my end
because I'll do molecular genetics
and look at circulating tumor DNA for folks with cancer.
And you will see a pattern of mutations
that occur in certain cancer.
And so it'll say that there's 8% of the cancer cells
that have EGFR positive and then 4% have TP53
and blah, blah, blah, and all that kind of stuff.
And so it's like, wow, you're EGFR positive.
I got a drug for that.
And so you can treat that and get great responses,
fantastic responses.
Sometimes, in some instances, you
can get responses for years, but then you'll
have a relapse in recurrence.
And you look and do the molecular profile again,
the EGFR-positive tumor is eradicated.
It's gone.
But now you have an amplification of notch one,
or TP53 or any of the other stem cell mutations.
So you've got stem cells that are there.
So I think there's opportunity to particularly study people
that are at high risk of having relapses and recurrences
and having a high risk
of not completely eradicating the cancer.
So in other words, you do the best therapy
that we have proven on demand, but we still know
that maybe there's a 40% or 80% chance of it coming back.
You know, those are folks that we definitely want to see
if we can try things like repurposed drugs
and those kind of things.
studied so we've got to prove it to me that those kind of things work but we can easily
do randomized controlled trials with that and we can use molecular diagnostics because
we have, you know, techniques to measure minimal residual disease so you can find circulating
tumor DNA early on and I think that can give you markers to be able to identify when there
is recurrence or response and how that's looking with the molecular therapy.
I think we have to work out dosing,
gotta work out schedule, gotta work out duration.
We gotta be able to look, use the molecular profiles
that we have to see if it's actually effective in working.
But I think, you know, we've made tremendous gains
and therapy is far better in cancer
than it was 10, 15, 20 years ago.
So don't throw out the baby with the bath water,
but I think there's ways that we can work with synergy
to be able to do these things,
but it needs to be studied and good controlled studies.
And we gotta use our knowledge and our techniques
with molecular profiling and all to answer these questions.
So let's jump to a related audience question here.
This is from Nancy Brown, Dr. Nancy Brown.
I've heard that these recent more aggressive cancers
do not respond to current typical chemotherapy
in the same way they did prior to 2022.
Would you agree?
And I guess the crawlery is what's the place
for using repurposed drugs here?
Yeah, in general, I'd say the majority of cancers I see are, you know, similar flavors
of cancers that we've seen, but you can see subsets of cancer that are highly aggressive
and unusual.
And it's like I said, I've never seen that one before, and they don't respond very well
to chemotherapy, so I have some effectiveness, but not always.
So I'm all about when there's glaring failures from what I have.
So you have pancreatic cancer that has short durations of response and all.
Yeah.
Why not have the right to try, particularly when you have advanced stages of disease and
my drugs have short-lived responses or in general, a dismal failure, say for pancreatic
cancer.
Yeah.
Why not?
You should have the opportunity to do that.
I'd like to see it studied.
And again, I think that's because the immune system is suppressed.
We're dealing with T-cell subsets that have been retrained in a way that they're not acting.
That's why they're not responding, because really that's what's killing the cancer is
your immune system.
And we've altered the immune system of a lot of humanity.
And then going to like ivermectin, I mean, one of the main mechanisms no one talks about
and Dr. Page knows about this in oncology, one of the drugs we use is interferon.
And what does ivermectin do?
It tickles your nucleus to say, hey, make more type 1 interferon.
And that's both an antimicrobial as well as an anti-cancer signal.
I'll tell you, with oncology, I gave lots of interferon.
It's a nasty drug.
It makes you feel like you have the flu for two years.
And kind of celebrated when we had all these great checkpoint inhibitors and immunotherapies
for, say, melanoma, which interferon was like a mainstay.
Kind of celebrated that I got to put interferon on the shelf in exchange for much better immunotherapy
drugs to stimulate your natural immune system to kill the cancer, because the bottom line,
you know, there's nothing more powerful than turning on your natural immune system to kill
the cancer.
It's far better than anything that I have, and so we continue to work on the science
behind that to improve the successes of that with immunotherapy.
Like you said, there is an immunologic phenomenon, which for me creates excitement, you know,
our T-cell therapy and being able to train up the T-cells
exudispo out of the body.
Maybe use mRNA to train those cells outside the body
in the test tube, not in the laboratory, not in the body.
Should never go on the body.
And be able to augment those.
So you do have augmented T-cells.
So whether it's using the body,
they go seek out the cancer and kill them.
And I've seen miraculous cases with that therapy.
Well, folks, with that, that is, I think marks
the end of our session, please give these amazing doctors a hand.
