We're going to have a panel discussion.
So you've met Dr. Reddy.
This is Dr. Nathan Goodyear.
Just a brief introduction.
He's one of our fellow warriors.
He's an integrative oncologist.
He's helped us do what we do.
And that's Nathan.
And he wears a fabulous jacket.
So what I'm going to do now is introduce you to Paul Mann,
Dr. Reddy's first patient who was dying from prostate cancer.
So we're going to have a conversation.
We're going to talk.
We're going to have some audience questions.
But before that, I do have a really interesting announcement
to make.
And I think Dr. Reddy set the stage talking
about the Framingham study.
So what we're going to do because we have no option now.
We have this miraculous drug.
We have a pathway in which we can help patients with cancer.
We can't stop there.
So what we have decided to do is we are going
to do a multi-center observational study looking
at repurposed drugs, but specifically ivermectin
for the treatment of a broad range of cancers.
And so this is a really exciting project
because you can bet the NIH and the agencies aren't going
to do this, so we're going to do this.
And we're going to just, as Dr. Reddy said, we're going to look.
We're going to see what happens and observe what happens
and then we'll decide.
The endpoint of the study is going to be five-year survival.
We'll do interim analyses.
But we really want to see the impact
that repurposed drugs, metabolic control, has on cancer.
Now, many of these patients are going to get concurrent therapy
with chemo and radiation.
That's fine because that will allow us to tease
out what works and what doesn't work.
So at this time, we have five medical centers
that are participating, Dr. Reddy, Dr. Nathan Goodyear,
Dr. Pierre Corrie, Dr. Molly James and Dr. Charles Meekins.
So we are developing this collaborative group
that are going to study repurposed drugs for cancer.
And you know what, I'm really excited about this
because I think this is an opportunity for us, for FLCCC,
for our partnership to make a really important difference
in a really important disease that nobody else wants to address.
So, you know, we're going to, you'll hear more about it
and we obviously will need support from our followers
because we know we're going to have to need to fund the study
that we're going to do it.
By hook or by crook, we're going to do this.
And I think it's a really exciting project.
And so with that, you know, we're going to start our discussion.
And maybe Nathan can tell us
because Nathan's been doing this a long time.
He can give us some idea of what integrative oncology is,
what you do and you know how you see the future.
Well, first I want to say thank you to Paul, you.
I consider you a dear friend and FLCCC
because where medicine desperately needs innovation
and elevation and empowerment of patients and doctors,
the FLCCC is standing up where most don't.
So thank you to FLCCC and Paul Merrick
and Pierre Coyle, what you do.
So for me it seemed logical.
I came out here to Arizona in 2018
to basically just do cancer full time.
And when you look at cancer and you look at parasites
and you look at viruses, they have a lot
of common characteristics.
They grow, they replicate, they evade the immune system
and they need a host.
So for me it was like, well, this makes sense
that I know there's some people that talk
about antiparasitics and cancer.
So I started going back into the literature just
like what you talked about, we're kind of rabbits like that.
We go down the rabbit holes.
And I noticed in 2015 there was a Nobel Prize
for medicine physiology for an antiparasitic,
a team out of China, that was Artesanate.
Oh, that's interesting.
And then another one was for ivermectin.
So with that then, I found in 2017,
they actually were talking
about the broad, exciting benefits
of ivermectin against cancer.
Then in 1996 I saw that, wow, they discovered
that it was inhibiting multi-drug resistant genes.
And then P-glycoproteins.
So then I started to reach out to people in Asia
and they go, oh yeah, we've been using this for 10 years now.
How do you dose it?
Oh, we don't know, we just dose it.
So I started using ivermectin in the treatment of cancer
in 2018 and have been using it ever since.
And have had to stop two patients over that course.
We dose it based on weight, 0.2 to 0.5 milligrams per kg.
And it's well tolerated.
And we have one patient that's had five different primaries.
The last one was stage four prostate cancer.
Previous was melanoma, colorectal cancer, leukemia.
And the other one was renal cell.
And he now captains ships in South Carolina.
And he's cancer free.
And he's on ivermectin.
Wow.
So that's just a question.
Yeah, one of the questions people ask,
and I've discussed this with Dr. Reddy,
is what's the dose of ivermectin?
And so we don't know precisely,
but we think probably 12 to 18 milligrams is enough.
And Paul will tell us what the dose he was on.
But just to reinforce, it's particularly safe.
There is a physician in the Philippines
who treats cancer with a dose of five milligrams per kilogram.
So we're talking about 300 milligrams of ivermectin
until the patient recovers and patients do fine.
So we're talking about the margin of safety
with ivermectin is truly astonishing.
The only caveat with ivermectin is the blood-brain barrier
because it doesn't go through the blood-brain barrier.
So patients who have brain tumors,
we would prefer to use the bendazole.
But otherwise, as Dr. Reddy has said,
there's no cancer that isn't killed by ivermectin.
So I'm gonna hand it over to Paul.
Maybe he's been down this journey.
And I wanna thank him for being here
because it means a lot to us.
And he's patient number one.
So you will always be special to us.
Well, thank you very much.
I wanna thank Dr. Reddy
for basically keeping me alive so far,
doing better apparently.
So here I am.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Maybe you could tell us how sick you really were.
The very first day when I went into the emergency room,
they diagnosed me pretty quick.
They said, we think this,
we're pretty sure it's prostate cancer.
We won't know for sure until the biopsy comes back,
but we know that's what you have.
Because the PSA level was over at 850, the other issues.
So within an hour, I'd head scan,
came, I was in the emergency room, waiting room,
or the exam room.
A team of oncologists came in and one of them,
the first thing I was mind was like,
you were well beyond any kind of surgery.
So it was across my pelvis, up my spine,
across a bunch of the ribs, across the shoulders,
in the right leg, part of the right sternum was real bad,
down part of the right arm.
They started hormone treatments there in the,
the exam room there in the emergency room.
Had to biopsy an hour or two later.
You know, it came back, it was confirmed,
it was prostate stage four,
met's all over.
They started radiation because I had severe sciatica-like pain.
They started radiation treatments the next day.
Had 12 treatments to my right sacrum,
had a treatment to my sternum, did the chemo.
At the next to last chemo, I was talking to the oncologist
and I knew about the steps, the next, a little bit.
And I was like, okay, so after the last chemo,
we wait six, eight weeks, I get more scans.
If I still have cancer in me, do I get more chemo?
What do we do?
And he's like, oh, this isn't curative.
And I was just sitting there looking
because I thought we were trying to cure me.
You know, that's why.
That was my goal.
I thought that was his goal.
And I was just sitting there staring at him
because I didn't know what to, what do you say?
And he must have, you know, I was mindlocked.
And he's like, you're completely full
of very advanced, very aggressive cancer.
There's no curative.
We're just trying to improve your quality of life
here at the end.
And I was like, well, that's not good.
And he's like, no, it's not good at all.
And he's like, at some point, one or more of your organs
is gonna have too much cancer in it to continue functioning
and you're gonna have a series of organ failures.
And I'm like, well, that doesn't sound fun.
And he's like, it's not fun at all.
And he goes, but we have medications
where you won't feel most of the pain.
And I was thinking the word most isn't the same
as the worst all.
And I was like, well, that's not good.
And he goes, it's really not.
And so, you know, I finished the chemo.
Or, you know, I told him something about future plans.
The only sentence I don't remember in the conversation.
And he's like, your only long-term goal
is to make it to next week's infusion.
And I'm like, am I living week to week?
And he goes, you're squeaking by day to day.
I'm trying to get you to week to week.
I was like, well, that's not good.
He's like, no, that's not good at all.
So, this is how the conversation went.
So, I finished the chemo the next week.
As a patient, you're so distraught whenever it ends.
When you're going through chemo, I told people,
it feels like you're in the ocean,
but you have a life vest on.
At the end of chemo, it's like someone comes by on a boat
and they take your life vest and they leave.
And they just leave you alone.
And you're just kind of floundering on your own.
And I was very upset, very distraught.
This is very depressing.
And that's when, in a very kind of confluted way,
an acquaintance, some of the acquaintance,
knew Dr. Reddy.
And a message came back, like,
would you like to ask her questions?
You know, I know an oncologist.
I go, I would.
I would like that.
So, you know, I sent my phone number.
It was on a Sunday evening.
Dr. Reddy called me and we spoke for like three and a half
hours over the phone, that first conversation.
You know, I was like, she's like, okay, what happened?
What have they done?
Blah, blah, blah.
I was kind of hoping that she would say,
oh, they forgot to do this.
All we got to do is do this and you'll be cured.
But now she's like, you know,
the good news and the bad news are the same news.
You've received the best treatment possible.
You know, once you've reached the toxicity limit,
you've reached the toxicity limit.
And she kept calling.
We kept talking every Tuesday.
And like at the third conversation,
essentially like, you know, there's some evidence
that maybe Ivermectin is helping people.
Because they once or twice, twice.
I was in the hospital for maybe 20 days at a time.
They thought I was going.
I kind of thought I was going.
I just kept opening my eyes every morning.
I just kept waking up.
And I told one of the nurses,
maybe I'm too stupid to die.
I don't know.
So she's like, no.
So, you know, somehow they decided
I wasn't going to go after all.
And they kind of released me talking to Dr. Redding.
You know, she's like, try the Ivermectin.
What the hell do you have to lose?
If it doesn't work, what's going to happen
is going to happen anyway.
But if it does work, it might help you.
And, you know, I just celebrated being,
being 18 months since diagnosis, like in December.
So.
It's Dr. Redding's older credit.
I just do what she says.
Thank you.
I think his story tells you why we're here today
and why we're going to do what we're going to do.
Because if Dr. Redding can help Paul,
then we can help a whole bunch of people.
And it's absolutely clear that the oncologists
don't want to have anything to do with us.
Just because we're not making money out of this.
This is helping people.
This is saving lives.
This is not a financial investment to make money.
I've talked more to Dr. Redding
than I have my oncology team.
You know, three and a half hours that first night,
30 minutes or so every Tuesday since then,
you know, since October of 22.
I talked to her, Dr. Redding, 20, 30 minutes a week,
which is well beyond what I talked to my own oncology team.
So yeah, she's just, how are you doing?
How are you feeling?
Anything?
How's it going?
Are you still taking the ivermectin?
Yes.
I imagine I'll take it the rest of my life.
Yeah, don't stop.
I had no plans of stopping.
No, stop, don't stop.
No, I'm serious because we've seen that when people stop it
because another doctor takes them off of it.
It can spiral out of control really quick.
They asked me because somehow it has shown up.
It's not prescribed.
I go to Tennessee where it's kind of,
it's a similar, it's a over-the-counter,
not over-the-counter.
The pharmacists can prescribe it there at the pharmacy.
I go to the compounding pharmacy in Clarksville, Tennessee,
which is about four and a half hours from my house.
And they prescribe it as a propylactic for COVID.
So I get kind of that.
And then I kind of have to break it up.
You were talking about dosages, you know,
they sell me enough pills to take two pills a week
for three months, but I got to make that stretch.
So, you know, I kind of lie about my weight
to get more, I regret it.
So when I divide it up, I will get more.
At one time I was down to like 110 pounds,
but I've bounced back.
So.
Okay, well, you know, we have some contacts, believe it or not.
They have told me that.
So, you know, so I can't, you know,
we have some other Mectin contacts,
so we will get them in touch with you
to make your life a little bit easier.
So apart from the other Mectin,
were you taking any other medications,
or, you know, off-label or repurposed drugs for cancer?
Were you not also on Metformin?
Mbz, yes.
Metformin, the Ivermectin.
I do massive doses of D3, I do brown foxy.
I'm interested in the D3, you say massive doses.
So what kind of?
What, 20,000?
Okay, that's a reasonable dose.
That's not a massive dose.
It's a bare minimum.
It's bare minimum.
Just so that we all on the same page.
I take 10,000 units a day.
So 20,000 is a moderate dose.
And that's what we would, you know,
we would absolutely recommend.
And so, you know, we would suggest patients with cancer
push their bottom in D-level to 100, 150.
Would you agree, Nathan?
Absolutely, I think that's a good point
because it's what are the levels?
Because when somebody's dealing with massive inflammation
in stage four cancer like you were,
it's like that salmon swimming upstream.
The force of that water against it is the inflammation.
You can give 50,000 units to somebody with stage four cancer
and it may budge.
It may just budge.
And so you have to keep checking that
and keep pushing and keep pushing until it's,
it'll finally start to break through.
But yeah, I mean, I could have patients
on 50,000 units orally, 50,000 units I am,
three, four times a week.
And we're still just creeping up 10 points every week or two.
So.
You also give a vitamin C, don't you?
I do.
Do you get it?
Do I get it?
Yeah, yes.
Okay, I know that.
You give it.
Don't you?
That's why you're wearing this orange jacket.
That's right.
This is impregnated with vitamin C, is it not?
It is, it is.
That's why I followed you around for years
because of your research.
It's like, I'm not the only crazy one
that's talking about vitamin C,
but it wasn't about sepsis.
Great for bone mats, by the way, too, vitamin C.
Hey, Chris.
Hey, so you have the Slido thing.
So maybe the people in the audience
who want to ask us questions.
You got it.
You know how to do that.
We, too, a little bit dense up here.
Oh, here's some questions.
So I'll be happy to read them out.
How about that?
Yeah, how about that?
We'll put you to use, Chris.
This anonymous dude, or doodad,
has been asking a lot of questions today.
And they're asking, do you think Ivermectin
could work on any type of cancer?
I have a good friend diagnosed with an aggressive,
hard to reach cancer in his sinus cavity.
Dr. Reddy.
Yes.
Ivermectin has been tested in virtually every cancer cell
line, human cancer cell line, particularly sarcomas.
And, you know, posterior nasopharyngeal tumor
is likely to be a neural crest or a sarcoma.
Interesting, two papers published in the past month.
Two separate institutions, two separate methodologies.
Both of these investigative groups
looked at the impact of the introduction
of what they call native spike protein.
Yeah, its native environment is a Ralph Barrick's lab
at the University of North Carolina.
Okay, okay.
So the native, or what we would say,
typically the wild spike protein versus the vax spike,
they're distinctly different.
What they did was they just introduced
the wild spike protein into 30 human cancer cell lines.
And the introduction of the spike protein per se
caused rapid proliferation of those cell lines.
Another investigative group using genomic array analysis
and had regrouped the tumors not based on tissue type,
but tissue profiling and genetic profiling, blah, blah, blah.
The same thing.
Particularly, there were three groups of cancer types
that shared sort of a common genetic
mutational consolation, as it were.
One of them were the sarcomas.
So the bottom line is I do not think that Ivermectin
would be a waste of time for anyone to consider
regardless of their tumor type.
So this next question is an important one.
What articles can we present as evidence
to advance our patients with cancer,
not to get the COVID booster?
Sorry, Chris.
So that's a really important question.
Probably the worst thing anybody can do
who has cancer, the worst thing.
The possibly the worst thing is to get a booster.
And so actually I gave the paper to Dr. Reddy.
There's a paper recently published in Curious
called the Multi-Hit Theory of Vaccine-Induced Cancer,
something to those of us.
It's a very good paper and it outlines
all the mechanistic pathways by which SARS-CoV-2
and particularly the spike antigen causes cancer.
It's a very well-referenced paper.
It's a very good paper.
And so the bottom line is for providers.
The worst thing you can do to a patient with cancer
is to vaccinate or boost them.
So Chris, you can read the question.
Yeah, no way.
But is there a specific paper in there
that we can direct people to?
So it's published in Curious, the journal Curious, C-U-R-E-U-S.
The two authors were from the University of Oregon.
It's published within the last two or three weeks.
We can try and get the reference
and post it at Kelly or somebody.
I think it's kind of the first of its kind
because before that we've had to piecemeal it together.
We've not been able to act,
because they're not gonna come out and say,
maya copa, our bag, the myth is actually a fact.
They're not gonna do that.
So it was actually a milestone, I think, in the literature.
Well, I had an exam early April 21.
I'd exam, my PSA was normal, I was clean bill of health.
I had, was held out to the end, but federal employee.
So they had to get a vaccination or be fired.
The Air Force was not only firing Air Force,
kicking them out of the Air Force,
but then they were denying them retirement,
insuring, you know, they were just completely destitute.
So I waited until the very end.
September, I took the two shots.
And then by June 3rd, the next year, June 3rd, 2022,
I was completely full of cancer.
Went from none, shot, cancer, like every six months.
And it wasn't just a little bit.
My whole body was, as the doctor told me,
you were completely full.
Yeah, so the problem of, you know,
turbo-cancers in the vaccine
is gonna become a serious issue.
So, you know, as Pierre said, with cardiovascular death,
the window is up to a year.
So people post-vaccination
can have sudden cardiac death up to a year.
What we don't know is the risk of cancer.
How long does that extend?
It may extend for years or decades.
And you think about all the teenagers and kids
that have been vaccinated.
You know, are we gonna be facing
this overwhelming pandemic of cancer?
Because, you know, Pierre was just telling me,
he's just seen two patients with brain tumors in their 20s.
I mean, how common is that?
So we know that colorectal cancer,
it is, there's overwhelming colorectal cancer
in young people.
So there is something bad going on and it's the vaccine.
There's cancer pre-pandemic
and then there's cancer post-pandemic.
They are not the same.
That's right.
And I think when you look at it,
the new subvariant, the JN.1 variant,
it has actually a mutation in the spike protein
that is allowing it to increase its immune evasion.
That's not good, that's not good.
So I think it's gonna be, my concern is,
I see it in my population,
I love the slide that you had, Paul,
where you were showing that this is a shifting age group
of disease and I'm seeing that.
This is a younger than 50 disease.
Not only that, we're seeing more brain mats.
I mean, we're seeing co-primaries, breast and pancreatic,
four breast cancers in men in a year.
I mean, we're just seeing stuff
that makes you scratch your head.
Yeah, well, Dr. Goodyear, we have a question related to that,
which is what is the risk of cancer following COVID infection
in the unvaccinated?
So you just mentioned pre-pandemic, post-pandemic.
What is the, what's the connection?
Yeah, so that's a good question
because Nathan has presented patients with long COVID.
So it's the spike protein that does this,
obviously with the vaccine,
you will load a spike protein is much higher,
but Nathan has presented a patient with long COVID,
who was obviously not adequately treated,
who developed cancer, is this correct, Nathan?
Yeah, you're right about the spike protein from vaccination
and especially the booster.
I mean, if you see somebody with one booster,
cancer is gonna go crazy.
If you see somebody with two,
I mean, it may jump off of them onto you.
I mean, it's nuts, but from a non-vaccinated, so infectious,
I don't think the pathology is as extreme,
but it is nonetheless still present.
Because when you look at what this SARS-CoV-2,
which I said last year, I think it's an oncovirus,
it reactivates oncoviruses.
So if it itself is using similar pathways
that cancer uses and it's reactivating these,
and it's really just stimulating all these,
to like four receptors and stimulating
nuclear factor Kappa B
and just really driving this inflammatory process,
all of these metabolic pathways,
cancer just goes, well, I'm just gonna ride this train.
It's just gonna be a little bit of a slower.
I don't think we have exact data by any means
about what that looks like.
But clearly from a booster, it's more extreme
from a infection, it's gonna be less extreme,
but nonetheless, it's still there.
Right, well, Dr. Reddy, you mentioned a very important
difference between wild type, if we can call it,
that spike protein and vaccine-duced spike protein.
So Matthew Hall was asking a question,
is there any difference in treating spike-induced cancers
versus normal cancers?
But can you parse that by type of spike?
I don't think so.
I think once you've got a cancer, what you have,
you're familiar with complexity theory,
one of my favorite topics.
So in complexity theory, you have relatively
independent factors that really are interacting
with each other in positive and negative feedback loops.
It's complex, right?
But their minimum specifications,
they're not linear relationships like you have
with a cue ball and playing billiards.
They're complex, interactive, but you can boil them down,
often, to at least three minimum specifications.
So what are the three minimum specifications for cancer?
I think uncontrolled growth.
You could say it's immortal, you could say it's unregulated,
you could say it doesn't respond to apoptotic mechanisms.
It's uncontrolled growth, that's the point.
And that's the point of the Warburg phenomenon.
Why is the Warburg phenomenon a survival advantage?
You're making two ATP instead of 36 ATP,
why would you do that?
Because you can do it at a faster rate.
If you take a Ferrari and a scooter off a line
from a dead stop, the scooter is gonna go faster
off the line, the Ferrari is gonna go forever.
So you have an increased rate of generating ATP
and the pathways using aerobic glycolysis,
the Warburg phenomenon, allows you to generate
nucleic acids.
The only thing the cancer cell wants to do is replicate.
It is the mother of all parasites
it wants only to replicate.
So the minimum specification is uncontrolled growth.
So if you look at the repurposed medications
and all the other interventions,
you try and then assign them
one of these three minimum specifications.
The other is metastasis.
It's gonna get up and go, okay?
It's got to move because if it just stays in one place,
it's benign, by and large it's benign.
The difference between a metastatic tumor
and a benign tumor, a breast cancer and a fiber adenoma
is that the cancer invades and moves.
So anything that interrupts its ability to invade and move
and there are a lot of things that you could do
in that regard, yeah, you wanna have that
as part of your scheme.
And the third thing is that it must escape
immune surveillance.
Your immune system is more complicated and larger
than the Department of Defense.
I worked with Professor Vincent Tuey before he died,
God bless his soul.
He created the first preventive breast cancer vaccine
against triple negative breast cancer,
which to the best of my knowledge,
20 years later still sitting on the shelf
waiting for the FDA to approve it.
I was talking with Vincent.
He and I worked together on a scientific advisory board
and he was an expert immunologist
and he said, your immune system has the ability
to recognize a billion, billion different antigens
and I began to think about that.
I thought if there are nine billion people on the planet,
if you put pictures in front of me of nine billion people,
I could probably get maybe to 1200 before I would say,
have I seen that person before?
Your immune system can recognize
a billion, billion different antigens.
So the cancer cells are very, very clever.
They escape immune surveillance.
So that has to be a target for your intervention,
understanding that particular mechanism
and undermining the ability of the cancer cells
to go undetected.
So just to add two things what Dr. Reddy said,
so in answer to the first question,
if it's spike related cancer,
you wanna try to get rid of the spike.
So you would do whatever it is to get rid of the spike,
natoconase, bromelain, NAC,
because you wanna get rid of the spike
because it's the spike that is promoting all this badness.
The second point is if one thinks about it,
chemotherapy is one of the stupidest things to do
because what chemo does is it knocks out your immune system.
You become lymphophenic and neutrophenic
and you need your immune system to fight the cancer
and you're treating the cancer
by suppressing your immune system.
It seems dumb to me.
Well, I wonder, you were talking about ivermectin
as a bio weapon in the soil, right?
Because they have no defenses.
Well, when you look at cancer,
you had a dysfunctional immune system.
Then you came in with chemo.
You had very little immune system.
So I wonder if one of the mechanisms
of what's actually happening is ivermectin
is doing the same thing that they were finding in the soil,
but we're finding it in people.
Whether immune system is dysfunctional,
whether immune system is destroyed,
ivermectin is coming in as that quote unquote bio weapon,
but this time it's a different bio weapon.
It's one we're using.
So what Nathan says is really true.
What's so fascinating about all of these repurposed drugs
is truly astonishing.
I mean, it's beyond belief is that they work
via multiple pathways.
They promote apoptosis.
They prevent angiogenic spread.
They act on the tumor micro environment
to improve your immune system, all of them.
So ivermectin acts to improve your tumor-associated
immunosuppression, so it improves immune suppression.
It acts on your cancer stem cells.
So ivermectin acts on the stem cells,
whereas chemotherapy actually activates them.
So if you were going to design a drug,
it would look like ivermectin just because it has
all these mechanisms of action.
All right, what can't ivermectin do?
It can't cross the bloodstream barrier.
There's certain things it can't do.
It can't make you smart.
I'm sorry.
Haven't seen it take away wrinkles yet.
Yeah, and it may not do too good for your wrinkles.
All right, a question from Anonymous.
What is your take on a thermogram instead of a mammogram?
Yeah, so that's for Dr. Ruddy.
Right, so a thermogram uses the detection of heat,
which you would presume to be there in the presence of a tumor,
excuse me, which is metabolically more active
than the surrounding normal tissue.
So you have a hot spot.
So the thermogram could detect that.
Could be helpful.
The mammogram is taking pictures.
And there's some challenges with the mammogram,
because it's as if you were taking an x-ray, a radiograph,
of a filing cabinet.
We've got files in the filing cabinet, sections in the breast.
So you take front to back, and then boom,
you go side to side in the filing cabinet.
And you see if you can identify a three-dimensional image,
or the mammogram can actually identify
finer radiographic indications of pre-cancer microcalcifications
and so forth.
For women who do not want to expose themselves
to the radiation that they incur with mammogram screening,
thermography may be their preferred choice.
It's their choice.
I think the patients need to understand
that if they are at an increased risk,
my mother had breast cancer.
My brother died of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.
That's kind of a picture of increased risk
for malignant transformation in the family trait.
If you are Ashkenazi Jew, if you carry a BRCA mutation,
you may think, I really want to find this early with a screening
intervention that is as sensitive as possible,
in which case you may decide mammogram and then MRI
every six months.
But if you have no risk factors to speak up,
you're a woman and you're perfectly healthy,
no guarantees that you're not going to get nailed
with breast cancer, then you may decide,
I don't want the radiation.
I'm going to go with thermography.
Okay, your choice.
I think one thing to be concerned about there is not all tumors
are hot, as you mentioned,
and that requires immune infiltration.
And so if you are using a thermogram there
and they have a cold tumor, then that may not show up,
because it doesn't have a lot of immune infiltration.
But stand up Ivermectin 2021 showed it can take cold tumors
and help them to be hot.
Yeah, right.
That's right.
Great, great.
So we have a question here.
Do you treat with both Ivermectin and Mbendazole?
Fenbendazole is available without a prescription.
Is this an alternative?
So that's a really good question and people have been asking.
So I'll give you my take and then we'll get Nathan and Dr. Reddy.
So we don't know.
We think that Ivermectin and Mbendazole
act synergistically or additively together.
We don't know this for sure, but that's our gut feeling
and we're going to test it out in the study.
In terms of Fenbendazole, we can't recommend it
because it is made for animals and it's animal grade
and it's not designed for humans.
People have reported success with Fenbendazole,
but as a clinician, we can't.
We can only recommend Mbendazole.
Their mechanism of action is similar.
There's also a problem with liver
this toxicity with Fenbendazole.
So for that reason, we recommend Mbendazole.
There is a problem with the pricing,
but where people put up an obstacle,
you'll find a way around it.
So fortunately, there are compounding companies in the US
that do provide generic compounded Mbendazole.
So our preference would be the combination
of Ivermectin plus Mbendazole.
Do you want to take that?
Yeah, I think that's correct because being integrative
is simply being in the science.
Being in the science just makes one
to be more natural, holistic and integrative.
I think that's just what the science forces you to do.
The problem is a lot of doctors are not in the science.
That was an Institute of Medicine 2001 article, by the way.
They showed that doctors were actually practicing a level
that was 17 years behind the current published science
and that was in 2001.
But we don't have to rush to something
that's not evidence-based.
Mbendazole is for animals.
We have Mbendazole and we have some decent studies
to guide us on how to use that.
So we don't have to rush to something
that's alternative simply because it's alternative.
They ostracized Ivermectin as a horse dewormer.
Interestingly enough, it was approved
for human consumption in 1987.
That's obviously a fact that the Saturday night
comedians failed to mention because they're not a scientist.
But we don't have to go down that road.
Follow the science, Ivermectin, Mbendazole,
but simply, you said a great point earlier, Paul,
is that it is you did.
The science is confined to preclinical right now.
What we're doing, and what you've already started
and what you're going to help us advance,
is we're gonna start asking those questions
and bringing this to the human experience
and human science.
So follow the science, stick with the science,
so I don't think we need Mbendazole there.
Great.
Yeah, two things.
Just to explain our preference for Mbendazole.
When Ivermectin was first discovered,
it was used in animals.
Worked beautifully.
The question was, would it work in humans?
Ivermectin did not need to be reformulated
to be used in humans.
Enter, Mbendazole worked very well in animals.
Was not safe in humans, needed to be reformulated.
Mbendazole.
The problem with Mbendazole,
and which is why everyone was like,
we're gonna go with Fin,
is that the pharmaceutical industry
put a price tag of $650 a pill, and you need two a day.
And when I discovered that, I said,
well, that thing must work.
Okay?
So I called my people, you know?
I'm from New Jersey.
And I said, we need to get Mbendazole at a reasonable price.
$650 a pill is not a reasonable price.
I had a father with a seven-year-old son
with a nasopharyngeal ewing sarcoma,
who needed Mbendazole for his son.
He spent $5,000 to get it for three days
while it was coming in from other sources.
It can now be sourced at a reasonable price, dollars a pill.
And so, from a practical point of view, consider this.
If you can get Mbendazole at a reasonable price,
less than a copay, it might be a better choice
than Finbendazole, which can produce liver problems.
It doesn't in everyone.
So there are all of these reports.
I was cured, well, maybe you were cured.
But you know what, if you're not cured
and you have liver failure,
when you go wheeling into the ICU with liver failure,
the guy might not know you were taking Finbendazole,
you might not tell him,
and you're not gonna report it on your Facebook page.
Okay?
The other thing is Ivermectin Mbendazole.
Ivermectin does not cross the blood-brain barrier
to any extent whatsoever, except in collies.
What happens when Ivermectin crosses
the blood-brain barrier in the collie?
It kills him.
Now, let's say you've got a patient with a brain tumor
whose blood-brain barrier has been disrupted
by radiation therapy, or by chemotherapy, or whatever,
and you're giving, or the patient is taking Ivermectin,
don't try this at home, get some help here.
Ivermectin may not be the best choice,
but then dissolve across the blood-brain barrier
and be safe.
What if you have a patient that has lung cancer, okay?
Small cell carcinoma along.
Goes right to the brain, gets on the cella,
goes right to the brain, okay?
You could use Ivermectin for the primary tumor
in the periphery.
What are you gonna do about the brain, Matt?
And so in that patient, you might say,
Ivermectin plus minus, or just Mbendazole,
so there's a certain amount of finessing.
Ivermectin being used for patients with COVID
was much more of a straight shot.
Mbendazole used in patients with COVID a straight shot.
Ivermectin in patients with parasites.
As a matter of fact, in Africa,
there were some parasites that were resistant
to Ivermectin, and routinely you got a pack of Ivermectin
and a pack of Mbendazole, you could give it together,
no problem.
So you really do want to have the benefit
of some guidance about, are you gonna take Ivermectin
or Mbendazole, are you gonna take them together separately?
Because if you run into a problem with a brain tumor
and a repurposed medication, I want to know,
how are you going to distinguish between a central nervous
and complication to the antiparasitic drug
from the progression of disease?
Those neurologic complications
are going to look identical, keep that in mind.
Excellent answer.
This is why it's so valuable what we're doing
is because doctors are not looking at this,
they're not prescribing it,
so patients are doing this on their own,
and they can go in there with Ivermets,
already have liver dysfunction,
take a whopping dose of Mbendazole
and send themselves right into liver failure.
Nathan, do you want to take this question,
it's an interesting question.
What about using Ivermectin as cancer prophylaxis
and those people who took the jab?
Well, I guess I could answer it by this way,
I take it every day, I didn't get the jab.
So I would say yes.
I would say yes, you don't want cancer.
So I think one of the things that,
and we're going to talk about the post-vax protocol,
and what we've figured out is Ivermectin
actually is very effective in binding spike protein.
It prevents Rulo formation,
and apart from all the other wonderful things
that Ivermectin does, it truly is a wonderful drug.
It binds the spike protein.
So if it binds the spike protein,
it helps you get rid of the spike protein.
So theoretically, it should lower your risk
of getting spike-related disease
as well as spike-related cancer.
So with that, I want to thank everybody.
I want to thank Paul Reddy for coming.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Oh, I don't know.
Oh.
Very inspirational.
So thank you all.
Tell everybody what's on your wrist.
I think we're going to continue in a few minutes.
Paul, tell everybody what's on your wrist, I saw that.
This one says he believed he could, so he did.
And this one says, I won't give up, I won't give in.
And this one literally saved my life.
One of the two times I was in the hospital
for about 15, 18 days when they thought I was
going to go again, I thought I was pretty close to giving up.
It's hard, you know, going through that.
And I was like, you know, I was close to giving up.
And I was like, I can't give up.
I literally had it put on my arm that I won't.
How can I give up if I had it put on my arm?
So that tattoo has saved my life.
Thank you.
Thank you, thank you.
All right, big hand for everybody up here.
I think since we're talking about tattoos,
Pierre Corie has to show us his tattoo.
He said, oh boy.
It's in a good place.
But, but I think he,
his tattoo is really very appropriate
to the conversation we're having
because it has to do with evidence and ivermectin.
Is this true, Pierre?
It is true.
Anyway, thank you all.
All right.
Thank you so much.
