All right, we are now going to turn to, this is an incredible topic here, which has been
on everybody's minds of late.
And there's been a big debate about it, and this is the idea of the emergence and treatment
of turbo cancers, and the idea that there are such things as turbo cancer, so we'll
talk about that.
And as well, we are very much going to be hearing about, when I was standing around
last night talking with people, I was hearing about all sorts of weird things showing up
in cancers with people having different types of cancers arising at the same time, younger
ages, all of that.
So I'm really looking forward to hearing about this very much at this time.
So Dr. Paul Merrick is going to review this, and are you going to, you want to introduce
Kathleen?
Yeah.
You're done.
Perfect.
Thank you.
You can go.
Thanks, Chris.
So thank you.
This is really going to be quite interesting, and I think it's going to open up a lot of
people's minds, because we're going to be talking about cancer, and so there's probably
not a single person in this room, not a single person in this room, in whom cancer is not
going to affect directly or indirectly.
And as you'll see, this is going to become an even more important problem.
So we really privileged today in that I'm going to give an introduction just to paint
the picture of what cancer is and what kind of cancers.
And then we have Dr. Ruddy, who is a world-renowned, world-renowned breast surgeon who's now seen
a different path and is treating people, patients with cancer with repurposed drugs.
And then Dr. Nathan Goodyear, who's an integrative oncologist, will then join us after the break.
And Dr. Ruddy does have a special surprise for us.
It should be fascinating.
It's a topic that I didn't really quite appreciate when I got into this, and is truly astonishing.
So I'm going to be talking about cancer care.
If anyone's interested, this is the book I wrote.
I'm an intensivist, so what am I doing writing about cancer?
But it's a fascinating topic, and the book is available outside.
So obviously I have no conflicts of interest, which is really important.
I looked at the data objectively.
I have no vested interest in anything that we're going to talk about.
So just to put it into perspective, this is the other side.
This was an editorial written in The Lancet, Drug Repurposing for Cancer Treatments, a
well-intentioned but misguided strategy.
So let you decide for yourself how misguided this really is.
And if you really want to, you can email Vinay Prasad and tell him how completely misguided
he actually is.
So currently, the commonest cause of death in this country is heart disease,
closely followed by cancer.
But as you're going to see, this is going to change quite dramatically.
And within the next 10 years, cancer will become the commonest cause of death in this country.
So in 2023, there were close to 2 million people diagnosed with cancer
and about 600,000 deaths.
Talking about the most common cancers in women, breast followed by lung melanoma colorectal
cancer.
In men, it's prostate lung colorectal cancer.
We're going to be talking about these things, but just so you get a perspective of how common
this disease is and which are the most common cancers.
So this is the frightening statistics at multiple studies show this, that the global
cancer burden is going to increase exponentially.
And there are multiple reasons why the risk of cancer is going up.
Most of it is lifestyle related, diet, insulin resistance, vitamin D deficiency.
You may not know this, vitamin D deficiency significantly increases your risk of cancer.
Most patients who have cancer are vitamin D deficient.
And then of course, there's environmental pollutions and carcinogens and all kinds of
things.
But cancer will become the commonest cause of death on this planet.
And as I said, or as I'm going to say, it's largely a preventable disease.
So there are things that you can do and you can tell your patients to do that can reduce
their risk of cancer.
But they don't want you to know this because cancer is big business.
It costs about $100,000 a year for chemotherapeutic drugs.
They make an enormous amount of money.
They don't want you to interfere with their business.
The most important is obesity and insulin resistance, which underlies many cancers.
You want to quit smoking, you want to limit alcohol, vitamin D. It's really interesting
as you go north and south from the equator and your vitamin D levels go down, your risk
of cancer goes up.
Almost every patient who has cancer is vitamin D deficient.
It's quite simple to prevent this disease.
As I'll show you, you take vitamin D, avoid processed foods, avoid processed drinks.
We know processed foods per se increase your risk of cancer, exercise, stress reduction
and sleep.
So these are really very simple lifestyle changes that can reduce your risk of getting
cancer and who wants to get cancer.
So there's a lot you can do to reduce your risk.
So this was a randomized placebo-controlled trial.
This is what the Ivory Tower considers the gold standard published in a reputable medical
journal, which shows the combination of vitamin D and they use really minuscule low dose,
omega-3 and a simple home exercise program can reduce your risk of cancer by 60%.
Just think about that.
Three simple interventions, vitamin D, omega-3 and exercise can reduce your risk of getting
cancer by 60%.
This is published in peer-reviewed journals, but they don't want you to know about this
because the more people that have cancer, the more money they can make.
So this is the traditional approach to cancer, surgery, chemotherapy, radiation therapy,
which has enormous limitations as we'll see.
The problem with chemotherapy, so when you go when a poor patient has cancer and goes
to an oncologist, the oncologist doesn't tell the patient the truth.
It's unfortunately their treatment strategy is based on fraud.
And so oncological drugs only act on rapidly dividing cells, which we'll see.
They allow the cancer stem cell to proliferate.
So the cancer stem cell is the cell that gives rise to the cancer.
Chemotherapy actually allows the stem cell to proliferate.
It increases inflammation in the tumor microenvironment, which increases your risk of metastases.
It increases angiogenesis.
It increases metastatic potential.
This is what chemotherapy does, but the oncologist won't tell you all of this because this is
a big business, $100,000 at least a year.
It's highly toxic, as patients know, and it's highly costly.
And what they want to tell you is that for most cancers, chemotherapy, all it does is
increase toxicity.
It does not improve survival.
So as you see, there are a few cancers, maybe five, eight percent, where chemotherapy is
curative.
But these are a very small group of cancers.
We talk about certain leukemias, we're talking about certain lymphomas, we're talking about
testicular cancer.
This is the minority of cancers that are curable.
There are some cancers in which chemotherapy can cause a modest improvement in survival.
But for most cancers, colorectal, prostate, pancreas, endometrial, neuroblastoma, melanoma,
esophageal head and neck, chemotherapy only causes toxicity.
It bankrupts the patient.
It does not have a survival advantage.
Oncologists will not tell you the truth.
This is the truth.
They will give you chemotherapy regardless of how ineffective the chemotherapy actually
is.
The other big fraud is chemotherapy or the whole field of oncology is based on the chromosomal
theory that you have a genetic mutation which then gives rise to a population of cells that
are genetic, that have this genetic mutation.
This theory is false and it's based on the theory that the chemotherapy is based.
Cancer is largely a metabolic disease.
This is a metabolic disease.
This is a major paradigm shift.
As we'll talk about, Dr. Thomas Seafreed at a Boston University is a pioneer in this field.
There's written extensive data and there can be no question of doubt cancer is a metabolic
disease.
Now there is some genetic overlay so that women who have the BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene or genetically
have an increased risk, but their risk has increased from about 40% 40 years ago to 70%
now.
There are lots of other factors that come into play.
This goes back to 1921 and Dr. Warburg, Otto Warburg, who came up with the Warburg effect.
What he found in every cancer cell known to humankind is that cancer cells have an abnormality
of metabolism.
Cancer cells cannot utilize glucose as a source of energy.
In a normal cell, glucose will go in, it will make pyruvate and pyruvate goes into the
mitochondrion and is a source of energy.
All cancer cells are unable to use glucose aerobically.
They have a problem with metabolism primarily due to a mitochondrial problem and are unable
to use glucose efficiently and use it through this pathway.
Just to summarize our approach to cancer, this is a treatable disease with metabolic interventions
and we'll talk about it later.
It's not complicated, it's quite simple.
Cancer cells can do this themselves or together with their oncologist or integrative physician.
The first step without question is a low carbohydrate ketogenic diet.
It's highly efficient in controlling cancer and then exercise, stress reduction, sleep.
Vitamin D then becomes really very important as we saw it's really important for prevention
but it becomes really important for the treatment.
Then we have a whole host of repurposed drugs that have been shown to be highly effective
through multiple metabolic pathways in controlling cancer proliferation, growth and spread.
As you can see, many of these are cheap over the counter.
There's metformin which you require prescription.
It costs about my prescription for metformin cost me $0 so nobody's going to make any money.
Then we have mabendazole and othermectin.
It's just so fascinating that this drug othermectin which came to fame with COVID as we will
see is a highly effective drug for the treatment of cancer across the board.
By utilizing a number of repurposed drugs together with metabolic control, you can improve
the patient's quality of life.
You can increase the chances of going into remission and you can prolong their life.
I had a lady who came up to me this morning and thanked me for saving her life through
these simple steps.
This doesn't mean ideally you want your oncologist to listen to the patient and to be involved.
Most oncologists won't have nothing to do with this because it goes against their money-making
fraudulent scam.
Ideally you want your oncologist to be involved because this doesn't have to be either or
the most chemotherapeutic drugs are highly effective when combined with many of these
drugs when combined with ketosis.
As Dr. Nathan will talk about, the optimum is to have this discussion with the oncologist
and integrative physician and the patient.
As we know, in this country it doesn't really happen, which is actually in contrast to many
European countries where they will actually practice integrative oncology within the hospital
and use many integrative approaches.
Just because in the US this is such a lucrative business, they don't want to hear anything
about this.
The role of repurposed drugs is dynamic and really it depends on the kind of cancer the
patient has.
Obviously, the less chemoreceptor or responsive it is, the greater the role for repurposed
drugs.
So really we've entered the age of personalised management for cancer.
The days where the oncologist dictates what he's done is just no longer acceptable.
Patients have to be empowered, they have to understand, they have options and that they
should demand they get the best care available.
The best care may involve chemo, but more involved nutritional aspects and more involved
repurposed drugs, which as you will see, can completely turn around this disease.
The idea that the oncologist sets the rules is no longer acceptable.
This gets us into this topic of turbo cancer.
Most pathologists, Dr. Ryan Cole, see this every day in their practice.
So we need to talk about it because this will become a really important issue.
And so we know from cell culture lines that SARS-CoV-2 and the spike protein will go for
cancer cells, it's just what it does.
And so this is an example, there aren't many published because the journals don't like
to publish the adverse effects of their jab, but this is a patient who has an angioblastic
lymphoma, it's an immatological malignancy, the stuff that's all in black is tumour.
So you can see he has a baseline on the 8th of September, on the 22nd of September he
has a booster, and you can see eight days later, eight days later, how this tumour has
absolutely gone out of control.
And this is what we hear from patients and oncologists, they get the booster, the cancers
go out of control, the cancers that were previously well controlled, under control suddenly become
uncontrollable.
And it seems to be particularly after the boosters rather than the primary series.
This is DMED data from, this is the Department of Defense whistleblower, Lieutenant Colonel
Long.
So in the Department of Defense, these are healthy young people, remember this, these
are healthy young people.
They noted a 369%, 369% spike, spike in testicular cancer, a 664% spike in malignant neoplasms
in young, healthy people, and yet they want to dismiss this.
And so this is more recent data, this is from Dr, from Craig, part of Cooper, who's claimed
to fame as, he came up with the bad lots.
He looked at the VAWS data, and he showed using a whole statistical analysis, the risk
of appendix cancer, breast cancer, colonic cancer, endometrial cancer, hepatic cancer,
lung cancer, you can see the enormous increase in the risk of these cancers.
When we have, this is data from about two weeks ago from the UK.
So the UK keep reasonably up to date with the cancer data.
You can see the cancer, and this is 15 to 44 year old people.
This is why this is such a terrifying disease because it's young people, it's young people
who are vaccinated, who are getting cancers.
So you can see the rate up until 2020 was pretty flat or going down.
And then something happened in 2020, 2021, and I don't know what it is, maybe you know,
but you can see 21, 22, a massive increase in the risk of cancers in young people.
This is terrifying because we don't know what the future holds.
So this is data published in the US, Kansas statistics, 2024.
What they do is they look until 220.
They don't want to look any further because they know what it's going to find.
However, there is a very astute statistician, the ethical skeptic, who actually took the
data and extrapolated the data.
And you can see the massive increase in this country of cancers since 2020.
As I said, something mysterious happened in 2021.
So that's turbo cancers, but actually what is turbo cancer?
So if you go to Wikipedia, the source of all medical information, and this is the standard
narrative, turbo cancer is an anti-vaccination myth.
So this is a myth that has been generated by the anti-vax people.
The data I've presented, they made this up, that this idea that people who are vaccinated
against COVID-19 with mRNA vaccines suddenly get this exponential increase in cancers.
This is a conspiracy contrived by the anti-vaccination people.
That's what we're dealing with.
And so that was my brief introduction to cancer, metabolic therapy, repurposed drugs, and turbo
cancer.
And so that paints the stage for what's going to happen now, which I think will be very
exciting.
So I'd like to introduce Dr. Raddy.
So Dr. Raddy, she is a very experienced and well-known and highly reputable breast surgeon,
has an extensive clinic.
And for reasons that she will explain to you, she decided that there was another way.
And so Dr. Raddy has developed expertise in the use of repurposed drugs for the treatment
of cancer.
She's going to present a case, and then afterwards we have some very, very exciting news.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Oh, thank you for having me.
Let me just provide an introduction that follows Paul's remarks.
What is turbo cancer besides a myth?
Well, what is a turbo engine?
It's an engine that uses exhaust as fuel.
So you burn the fuel, you have the exhaust, you recycle the exhaust as fuel.
The Warburg phenomenon produces a lot of lactate as a byproduct of aerobic glycolysis.
We can talk about that maybe another time.
But what happens is you pour out a lot of lactate into the microenvironment.
There is some scientific evidence now to show that normal cells, and here is a good study
subject for someone who might be a premed student looking for something clever to contribute.
Take a look and see to what extent these cancers these days are using the lactate that is produced
by aerobic glycolysis as a turbo source of fuel.
So that's one reason that we can imagine that these cancers, which is so highly proliferative,
can be seen to be turbocharged.
The other reason that we can understand why some of these may be turbocharged is the result
of brilliant work done by Stephanie Senoff at MIT.
She picked apart the genome of the vaccine formulation, and she discovered sequences
that did not get into the vaccines because they crossed over from a wet market.
They were put there, deliberately put there in the vaccine.
What was put in the vaccine that did not occur in the wild, as it were?
Sequences, G4 complexes, if you want to get into that, sequences that keep the reading
frame open, so for the viewers at home, if you have a blueprint for the production of
a protein and you keep that reading frame open, you're pouring out blueprints to make
that protein.
There could be PSA in a cancer cell that originates in the prostate.
You're pouring out PSA, why?
Because you've jammed open the genome to make these proteins.
These G4 complexes, among other things, keep the reading frame open, so if you keep the
reading frame open and you keep the energy source coming in at a very high rate, you
could get, perhaps one could imagine, mythologically, a turbo cancer.
I think that's what we're seeing.
So Paul asked me if I would briefly tell my story, why is a cancer surgeon talking about
Ivermectin?
That's a good question, and this is how I arrived here today to talk about this.
My background is a cancer surgeon.
I trained at Memorial Sloan Kettering.
I considered that to be, I believe, the penultimate opportunity for me in terms of my training.
I trained and worked with what I thought were the smartest people on the planet, certainly
in the area of cancer care.
You just can't get better, I think.
All hail MD Anderson, but really, Memorial, for me, is where it's happening.
And I was thrilled to be able to have the opportunity to train there.
I learned how to read the literature.
At Memorial, you don't talk about the textbooks.
The people in the audience, every single one of them, wrote the textbooks.
They were the editors.
You learn how to study and quote and understand and argue the literature and the literature
that is coming out day by day.
My first experience at a conference at Memorial, I thought, am I at a Baptist revival meeting?
These people are quoting literature like the Old Testament, the New Testament, yet you
had to be able to understand the literature.
So I developed a keen appreciation, actually a love for the literature and for the scientific
pursuit of knowledge.
Had a great opportunity to become a breast cancer surgeon.
The first in the state of New Jersey basically just replicated the breast service at Memorial.
And it was in practice for about, I guess, eight or nine years when I became aware of
an educational opportunity that I couldn't ignore.
Henry Minnsburg at McGill University had launched the first international masters for health
leadership.
And I was one of two people from the United States who was invited to be in that program.
So there were 20 odd people, we got together for 18 months, from all around the world trying
to sort through international health care leadership.
It was just amazing.
I made friends.
The Royal Family of Kuwait, I got grants from the WHO to screening in Uganda.
I made friends with the new president of medicine son Frontier Juan Lu, became friends with
Derek McNally, who was in my class, he ran the first SARS-CoV-1 outbreak in Toronto.
And so on and so forth.
It was during that experience that I became aware of the existence of the breast cancer
virus.
I was like, what?
I considered myself to be something of an expert in the field of breast cancer.
And I had never heard of that.
James Holland, who was a professor of virology and medical oncology at Mount Sinai, who actually
pioneered the use of combination chemotherapy in the treatment of lymphoma and leukemia,
Sydney Farber having failed a bit in monoclonal therapy or monotype therapy, I should say.
Holland came along and said, you know, if we do this cyclically and we head out with
a couple of different drugs, we're going to get better outcomes.
He was revered at the time for his contribution to oncology.
And then he became engaged with the whole business and research on the breast cancer
virus.
And thank God he was tenured, because that was pretty much the end of him in large part.
So when I learned of the existence of the breast cancer virus, this was in 2007, I thought,
because he had published a paper, he had presented it in San Antonio, and I was like, what?
That thought never occurred to me.
So I said to my librarian, Arlene Mangino, I said, would you please pull Holland's paper?
I want to read that paper.
And then I said, pull all the references.
And I said, stop.
Why are you at it?
Why are you up?
Pull all the references you can find about the breast cancer virus.
She came back three hours later.
She had a hundred years of research on the breast cancer virus.
Suspected for 30 years before it was finally discovered by John Bittner at Jackson Memorial
Labs.
A brilliant man who was nominated for the Nobel Prize twice.
So I was like, okay, was I asleep during those lectures?
I looked in my textbooks, no.
I looked in the literature, I could find nothing in the literature that I had accumulated about
breast cancer.
And I thought, how can there be a hundred years of research on the breast cancer virus?
And we're not talking about that.
And I didn't hear about it at Memorial.
Okay, so yeah, I wrote a book about that.
It became aware at the time of the existence of tumor viruses and the fact that the NCI
devoted itself largely in the area of cancer to the research on tumor viruses.
Prior to the launch of the National Cancer Act, the majority of the work in research
being done at the NCI was on tumor viruses.
And a large part of that was about the breast cancer virus.
And if you look at the congressional record as I did, you will find testimony before the
committee in the run-up to the National Cancer Act.
Researchers, including James Holland, talking about the breast cancer virus.
Well, we were going to cure cancer in five years, so who cared what caused it?
Well, I cared.
I cared a great deal.
That gave me a kind of background in tumor viruses and in viruses in conjunction with
boots on the ground experiencing care of patients and really boots on the ground with
regard to international health care, leadership, and what that was all about, most interesting.
A few years later, I was invited to serve on the Leadership Council of the Harvard School
of Public Health, and I was there rubbing shoulders with a whole new crowd.
And I was there during the Ebola outbreak in West Africa.
That was serious.
We thought we're very close.
As a matter of fact, Partis Sabeti, who was the computational geneticist, there at Harvard
at the time, and they were flying blood samples to her, and she was spitting them out and
trying to figure out what the clade history and hierarchy was.
And she said, we are one mutation away from this thing being airborne.
And me, my hand perpetually in the air with a question, I said, excuse me.
But if I'm not mistaken, Osterham in Minnesota is saying that there's no way that Ebola could
be aerosolized.
And she said, no, we are one mutation away from this thing being airborne.
I was like, oh boy, we're in trouble.
Well, they were able to control that, but that got me very interested in an area where
I was already interested, and that was pandemics and the spread of infectious disease, the
spread of the breast cancer virus around the world.
So in the meantime, I bumped into a book written by Lori Garrett.
Do you know who Lori Garrett is?
Council of Formulations, chief scientific advisor for the movie Contagion.
We wrote a book, I think 15 years ago, someone was going to Google it and tell me I'm wrong.
It was 20, whatever, Google it, tell me what it was.
About 15 years ago, called VirusX.
Yeah, this is a screenplay.
So in January of 2020, when I thought I was coming to the end of what could only be described
as a marvelous career, there was a problem in Mubei province, wasn't there?
And I looked, and I was like, this is the big one.
This is the big one.
Of course, I was prepared for it, I knew all about it.
I had a crate of N100 masks.
You couldn't get it in N95, right?
I had a crate in N100.
I was giving to my friends.
My best friend from medical school, Scott, was an anesthesiologist in New Hampshire,
and he was in a flat spin trying to take care of patients.
So I looked at the map of the spread of SARS-CoV-2, and I thought to myself, this does not look
like the spread of a respiratory virus.
Go back and march to the Mubei contagion.
That's how a respiratory virus spreads.
It did not look to me, I'm not a world's expert, but it didn't look to me that this
was a spread of a respiratory virus per se.
Not that it did not have respiratory consequences, but the four major outbreaks of COVID in the
United States for a short period of time until it got everywhere.
New York, Chicago, LA, and Albany, Georgia.
Albany, Georgia.
I happened to have a winter home in Albany, Georgia.
There's nothing there besides my home.
They're an hour and a half from the nearest interstate.
They have an airport the size of a gas station.
That's how I describe it.
Okay.
Wonderful.
Wonderful place.
I love it.
The airport is actually bigger than that.
But how did you have the fourth largest outbreak?
What's there?
It used to be Firestone.
It used to be Goodyear.
It's the first plant.
They have a marine logistics base, I don't know, fourth largest outbreak.
Anyway, I thought this is not making sense to me from an epidemiologic point of view.
Then not to worry, we were going to have vaccines.
And I said, no, you're not.
I knew based on the work that Derek McNally had been involved with, the first SARS outbreak
in Toronto.
You could not make a vaccine against SARS.
You couldn't do it.
All the animals died.
Failure.
You couldn't make a vaccine against MERS, another coronavirus.
So when the narrative was pushed out pretty aggressively, not to worry, we have 140 vaccine
candidates.
I said, you don't have one.
There's nothing you can do.
The whole world shuts down.
Get vaccinated or die.
Or kill people.
Yeah.
I said, no.
Scott called me from New Hampshire, he was concerned.
He took the J&J and I was like, don't get in an argument with Scott, 64270, don't get
in an argument with him.
But I was like, I love you, Scott, but please don't take that vaccine.
And he was like, I love you, Kathleen.
You need to take it.
I was like, okay, we're going to disagree here.
So stay tuned, what are we going to do?
There were reports out of South Africa and India that Ivermectin was being used successfully
to treat patients with COVID.
And I was like, what?
I mean, I'm a cancer surgeon.
We don't do parasites.
We don't prescribe Ivermectin.
And I thought to myself, why would an anti-parasitic medication be effective against a virus?
File that question away for another day.
And I began to pay attention to the story of Ivermectin and it was when I saw Pierre
Corey testify before Congress and I thought, that man knows what he's talking about.
He is an expert.
He is the ground zero ICU.
He's taking care of these people and he says Ivermectin works.
It works.
Science says it works.
He says it works.
It's a go as far as I'm concerned.
And of course I did my due diligence and very little side effects.
There were people who were dying in the ICU who had no problems with Ivermectin.
And then I followed the work of Dr. Merrick and others and I thought, okay, Ivermectin
is the way to go here.
Well by that time, of course, it was like the pit in the pendulum, right?
You know, you were running into trouble if you were going to encourage patients to consider
not being vaccinated, encouraged patients to consider taking Ivermectin and vitamin
D3.
Thank you.
Dr. John Campbell, these men need, you know, Rushmore too.
These people need to be on Rushmore too.
And Dr. Chetty from South Africa, a brilliant, brilliant primary care physician, really.
So I began prescribing Ivermectin and I began encouraging patients to steer clear of the
vaccines.
Then I began to look at this whole question of Ivermectin.
That was when I discovered why we breast cancer virus.
What?
There's 20 years of research showing that Ivermectin has potential as an anti-cancer agent.
You're kidding me.
And then that question came out.
Why would an anti-parasitic medication be effective against parasites?
They seem pretty different from viruses, if you ask me, viruses and cancer.
Well, I kind of understood cancer because, in my view, whereas the World Health Organization
will admit that 15 to 20 percent of cancers are caused by viruses, Dr. Rudi will bet a
six pack of beer that they're all caused by viruses, you just haven't found them yet.
And so I can understand why Ivermectin was effective against viruses, effective against
cancers, and effective against parasites, but still I was like, what's with this molecule?
So again, I go back into the deep literature and you do a Google search, you know, Ivermectin,
Satoshi Amura.
Okay, so Satoshi Amura, who was about eight years old when we bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
And by the way, my father was in Japan at the time serving in the Army.
He was digging in the dirt.
Digging in the dirt as a PhD, looking for antibiotics, and I was like, why was he digging
in the dirt?
Did I miss that chapter in microbiology?
If you're looking for an antibiotic, go to CVS, okay, what are you doing, looking in
the dirt?
Well, that's where the antibiotics are.
Why are antibiotics in the dirt?
Oh, start looking, start studying.
Yeah.
Antibiotics, anti-life, are molecules described decades ago as bioweapons.
These single cell organisms, streptomycesa makes ivermectin and others, molds fungi,
they make these molecules that they secrete into the environment to kill predators and
to establish advantages against their competitors.
Why would they do that?
Because single celled organisms don't have an immune system.
We do.
Multicellular organisms can afford to assign the Department of Defense to a whole group
of cells.
A single cell organism has got to live or die.
Over hundreds of millions of years, ivermectin was intelligently synthesized so that it
became like the Swiss Army Knife of the Department of Defense.
That is why this very large and complex molecule is effective against parasites and viruses
and cancer.
I think once you understand that, just as your man in the street, you can begin to appreciate
that the Venn diagram of the utility of this particular drug and others like it.
When earlier today someone put up a slide with baobob doing all the things that ivermectin
does, I was like, baobob's doing it too.
We have to look into that.
That's ivermectin.
What about the work that I'm doing?
Patients started to come down with cancer following the rollout of the vaccines as we
know.
It's not a myth.
I got a call from a woman who knew me and she said, look, I've got a friend of mine.
He's just been diagnosed with stage 4 prostate cancer.
He's a marathoner.
There's no cancer in his family.
He's perfectly healthy.
He's been through everything.
Nine months, he's out of options.
The doctors have given him three weeks to live and they say there's nothing more they
can do.
Would you be willing to call him?
I said, sure, of course.
So I called Paul and just how are you doing?
Can I give you some advice about how to eat, position, whatever, whatever you needed, encouragement.
Listen to the patient.
It goes a long way.
He was really circling the drain, that's a medical term, used in the ICU.
Yeah, he was circling the drain and had meds to 11 bones, right leg completely obstructed
with tumor, down to about 15% of his vitality according to him.
And I called him once a week for about three weeks and then I finally said, Paul, look,
I don't know whether this is going to help you.
I don't think it's going to hurt you.
My judgment is not going to hurt you.
There have been very fine doctors who have given ivermectin to patients who were dying
critically ill in the ICU, didn't bother them.
And you're not critically ill, you're very sick, but you're not critically ill.
I don't think it's going to bother you.
He said, okay, so he jumped in the car and he drove to Tennessee where you could get
it over the counter and he started taking it.
Body weight dosing.
Who knew what the dose was?
Body weight dosing, okay.
So I would call him.
How are you feeling?
I'm about the same.
Oh, wait.
How are you feeling the next week?
Maybe a little bit better.
How's the weight?
Leg swelling?
I don't know.
It's maybe a little bit better.
I was like, you're not worse, you might be a little bit better, that's progress.
That is progress.
Okay.
Fast forward, he's alive for his two-month follow-up.
They were like, Paul Mann is in the clinic.
We didn't expect to see him.
How are you doing, Paul?
His PSA, it was, I think initially, off the charts.
And then, I think, after he had failed chemo-radiation, chemo-radiation, whatever, whatever.
I think it was hundreds at this follow-up visit, with nothing but Ivermectin, and my
favorite, the fasting mimicking diet.
Another subject for another day.
His PSA was 1.3.
Yeah. Yeah, praise God.
So I was like, I guess we're on the right track.
Let's continue.
Let's just stay the course as they say, you know.
There were a couple of other things that he considered along the way.
I'll let him tell his story.
But nine months later, having exceeded his life expectancy,
I don't know, 1,000 percent,
he was out dancing for four hours, three nights a week.
Three of the Mets were gone.
No progression of disease, only one hotspot
that the radiologists really couldn't say was that post-RT changes
or was that a hot tumor, who knows.
Anyway, clinically, he was a lot better.
In the meantime, I was like, hmm, how about that?
Another patient crosses my path.
Eddie, Eddie is in his 70s.
And Eddie smokes, and he drinks, and he fishes, and that's about it.
Those are the minimum specifications for Eddie's not complex life.
And he lost 40 pounds over 18 months.
And then he was having difficulty swallowing,
and then he could hardly talk.
And his godson called me and said, can you talk to my godfather?
And I was like, oh, your godfather?
And I said, Eddie, tell me a little bit about what's going on.
Well, you know, I said, well, he said, I finally went to the doctor,
and they did a CAT scan.
He said, I've got two tumors in my esophagus,
and they tell me that they can't do surgery,
but they'll do chemo and radiation.
And I told them no.
So he said, well, you're going to tell me.
And then he jumped in, and he said, you know,
I know somebody who took ivermectin,
he had prostate cancer, he took ivermectin,
and his prostate cancer went away.
He said, I'm going to take ivermectin.
And I was like, OK.
I had no idea how much he was taking.
He was probably doing shots of ivermectin.
I'm going to guess about two months later, he's swallowing.
I said, try eggnog, OK?
Eggnog was great.
He was gaining weight, he gained six pounds in like 10 days.
He sounded stronger, his voice was stronger.
I said, Eddie, we need a CAT scan.
Well, he hates doctors.
He doesn't have insurance, and he was not going to have a scan.
And I said, Eddie, you've got to have a scan.
You're talking to a girl, and she has a knife in one hand
and a script for scan in the other.
OK? You need a scan.
OK. So, big melodrama, he gets a scan.
No tumors.
Gone. Gone.
His biggest problem, besides being iverate,
because he's kind of irascible, was that he'd sold his boat.
He sold his boat.
I was like, Eddie, I can't help you with your boat.
OK. Third patient.
A friend whose wife was sick, she had felt a lump in her pelvis.
And he said, would you talk to her?
She hates doctors, and she doesn't have insurance.
And we're in West Virginia, and we hate hospitals.
OK. So, I talked with her.
And I said, you can feel this lump in your pelvis?
Yeah. I said, you can feel it.
Yeah. Have you had any vaginal bleeding?
Oh, once or twice.
Anything else?
No. Hasn't lost weight, whatever.
So, I said, well, we need a scan.
And she said, I'm not getting a scan.
I was like, how about an ultrasound?
Can I talk to you in having an ultrasound?
Yes. Ultrasound.
6 centimeter tumor.
Don't know, is it colon?
Is it uterine?
Is it ovarian?
I don't know.
It's 6 centimeters.
It's jammed down there.
And I said, it would be very helpful if you would agree
for a needle biopsy, because it might not be cancer.
But if it is, you want to know about it,
because there may be some options.
Nope. She wasn't going to have that.
She randomized herself to driving around the country,
going down the border, push back against the aliens,
and all the rest of it.
And I called her periodically.
The patient is the boss.
I called her periodically.
How are you doing?
Oh, I'm fine.
Or she didn't answer my calls.
And I thought, well, someday I think she'll call me.
December 23rd, I get a call from her husband.
It's like 9.30 at night.
And he said, her stomach is extended, distended.
She's not passing gas.
She's not passing stool.
She can't eat.
I said, press down on her belly.
See if that hurts.
Yeah, a little bit.
I said, now, press down and lift up really quickly.
See if she had peritoneal sign.
Oh, that's worse.
I said, get her to the emergency room.
He said, nope.
We're not taking her to the emergency room.
Bad doctors, bad hospitals, West Virginia, no way.
And I said, she's going to blow out her bow.
And then you're going to take her to the emergency room.
And then she's going to die.
Why don't you take her there now?
Oh, OK.
Off they go.
So they go to the emergency room.
And they do a CAT scan.
And he calls me.
I said, put the ER doctor on the phone.
So I said, look, I have family and friends at UVA.
And it's a good school.
Is she stable enough?
Can you hydrate or whatever?
Put it down in a G-tube.
Can you get her in the car and drive her for three hours?
He said, yeah.
Of course, he was glad to see her go, I think.
Buff and turf, remember House of God?
Yeah.
So she goes wheeling into the ER at UVA Christmas Eve.
And they admitted her.
And they tuned her up.
And the surgical oncologist, a Persian,
a brilliant capable surgical oncologist,
I would let him operate on me.
He said, look, we'll try and tune her up.
TPN, rehydrator, the whole works.
18 centimeter tumor in the pelvis at this point.
And three meds in the liver.
He said, I don't know if we can get this out.
He said, but I'll try.
Well, she wasn't very thrilled about that.
But she had very little choice.
She was going to die quickly if she had nothing.
So she said, OK, fine.
So he goes into the OR with his surgical oncology team,
the vascular team.
That's always a bad sign.
When the surgical oncologist is going
with the vascular guys, you know you're in for trouble.
The urology team, because it's wrapped around the ureter
and the gynecologic team.
And I didn't hear anything for about 45 minutes.
I said, call me.
I didn't hear anything.
45 minutes and now I'm like, they're resecting her.
They're going after that thing.
Seven and a half hours later, they wheeler
into the recovery room, negative margins.
They didn't touch the liver.
As you could expect, postoperatively,
she had a flare of the medicine in the liver,
probably secondary to the pouring out of the wound
factors associated with what we call a big whack.
Yeah, so you get doubling of the medicine in the liver.
She had an uneventful postoperative course.
I mean, like five days and she was home.
They were hammering her for chemo.
Oh man, they were breathing down her neck in a nasty way.
As good as they were, the hospital
refused to allow her to have direct blood donation.
There was a bit of an opera the night before the surgery.
We got past it.
She goes back to West Virginia.
She starts taking ivermectin and other naturopathic remedies.
I have no idea.
I think it was a long list.
And I said to her, we need to understand.
I need to know.
How are you feeling?
I feel fine.
She's driving around with her husband.
I said, would you at least do an ultrasound?
Can we just ultrasound a little?
OK.
No meds.
Meds are gone.
So that was 1-2-3.
Now, what is the likelihood, I asked myself,
that after 30 years in practice as a cancer surgeon,
working with other cancer surgeons,
and I've never seen spontaneous remission in an IVIR,
that three patients, 1-2-3, would have this kind of a response
that could only be attributed to ivermectin,
as far as I can tell.
What is the likelihood that that would happen?
Well, it's not 0, but it approaches 0.
And I thought, OK, what am I going to do?
I can't just wait around for patients 4 through N to appear.
Something has to be done.
Well, funding a clinical study to evaluate ivermectin
for patients with cancer, what do you think
the likelihood of that is?
That's 0.
That's flat out 0.
So what am I going to do?
What am I going to do?
So I thought about this for a couple of days.
And then I thought, Framingham.
Framingham.
Who here knows what Framingham is?
Yeah.
Framingham is, to the medical profession,
what Taylor Swift is to everybody else.
Right?
Yeah.
Framingham, an observational study.
The government, back in the day when the government was doing
good work, went into Framingham, Massachusetts,
and said to 52,000 people or so, we
would like to query you regularly every two years.
And we're going to ask you more questions
than you can even imagine can be asked.
And we're going to collect data.
And we're just going to follow you.
We are not going to tell you what to do.
We're not going to pass judgments.
We're not going to give you protocols.
We're just going to record the data.
And the Framingham study is the reference
for so many discoveries.
Where is Dr. Martinsen?
Is he here?
Where is he?
He knows.
Peek Prosperity Guy.
What is that largest oil deposit in Saudi Arabia?
What field is that?
That's it.
Framingham.
Framingham.
That is the source of so much information.
Observational data, neutrally acquired,
and independently evaluated by unbiased biostatisticians.
They get the data.
They send it to the biostatistician.
They evaluate it.
It's peer reviewed.
It's accepted for publication.
And then you discuss it.
And it turns out there's a lot to discuss
over two years or something else to discuss.
So I said that Framingham study.
A Framingham type study in which the population are those
patients with cancer who themselves have decided
that they wish to use ivermectin
and other repurposed medications, FDA approved medications.
And thanks to the fifth district decision
in which the FDA defense attorney from the department
of justice caved and had to admit that physicians
and prescribers could prescribe FDA approved drugs
using their best judgment.
Patients can now, if they choose to take repurposed
medications, can do so.
And an observational study that records these data
over a period of time looking for a signal, a signal,
a data set.
The question is simple.
Does ivermectin do these medications?
Ivermectin, abendazonic, isoxazide, metformin,
salenifil, longlist.
Do these medications improve the survival of patients
with cancer?
And if the answer is yes, we have a few other questions
that we'll be happy to pose and answer.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
