TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

" Cancer? Cancer, you know, we're we're seeing certain cases here and there." "for those three cases, you know, there was success. You know, I know two of the patients." "it's not for everybody." "why is it again that some patients are improving with high dosages of mebendazole, ivermectin, etcetera, and some patients are not?" "we did fecal transplant using her grandson, and we extended her life. She improved her appetite." "She improved her hemoglobin, but it wasn't continuous." "we've shown that loss of bifidobacteria is a problem in invasive cancer." "I think there's gonna be in a future where we're gonna have, every cancer is gonna have a microbe attached to it." "Think about HPV cervical cancer, H. Pylori, gastric cancer, Burkitt's lymphoma, Epstein Barr virus." "there's gonna be a link to a cancer and a microbe that's lacking that needs to be repopulated." "in other words, is it over is the tumor growing because of a microbe that's in there that’s allowing it to grow?" "suppression of that microbe would be first to to kill off the tumor." "the methods that we have right now at killing the tumor is we kill off everything. Kind of like what we do with hydroxychloroquine." "We kill off the virus, but then we kill the whole microbiome." "that's not necessarily a solution because the problem is, well, you've killed the virus this time, but then what happens now you've killed your microbiome and your bifidobacteria, and now you're gonna get another virus and another virus." "Knowing what I know today, which is once you kill your microbiome, it takes years to recover."

Speaker 0 describes being on the front line in Miami and using vitamin C as a go-to, questioning whether it is taken orally and in what amount. Speaker 1 confirms oral administration and notes taking a lot of vitamin C due to exposure and concern. Speaker 0 explains that a scientist contacted them after testing their sample, asking if they noticed their Bifidobacteria levels had risen fourfold. The speaker reveals they had been taking high dosages of vitamin C, which prompted a shift in approach. While dealing with treating COVID-19 patients and assessing stools in high-risk and severe cases, they decided to consult naturopaths and collect stool samples before and after treatment to evaluate the impact. Speaker 1 recounts that they began making phone calls, offering to pay for stool samples before and after on patients treated with vitamin C. They collected about twenty to twenty-five samples and observed that vitamin C increased Bifidobacteria. This finding led to publishing research showing that vitamin C increases Bifidobacteria in vitro, and they extended this to show an increase in patients as well. Key points: - Vitamin C was used as a primary approach by a frontline clinician in Miami, with emphasis on oral administration. - A scientist noted a fourfold increase in Bifidobacteria, prompting a change in strategy toward investigating vitamin C’s effects. - They initiated a program to collect stool samples before and after vitamin C treatment in COVID-19 patients, collaborating with naturopathic practitioners and funding the stool analyses themselves. - About 20–25 samples were analyzed, revealing that vitamin C increased Bifidobacteria. - They published a paper demonstrating the increase of Bifidobacteria with vitamin C both in vitro and in patient samples.

While treating COVID patients with hydroxychloroquine, the speaker discovered ivermectin's effect on oxygen saturation. This led to the realization that ivermectin is in the same phylum as bifidobacteria, which were found to be lacking in severe COVID cases. Antibiotics are essentially microbes, illustrated by the discovery of penicillin from apple mold killing bacilli. Similarly, vaccines are microbes or pieces of microbes. The speaker notes that drugs are made somehow. Ivermectin is the fermented product of a soil bacteria. The speaker poses the question of whether ivermectin's secretion feeds bifidobacteria, potentially boosting immunity, while emphasizing that this is still under research.

remember, I was the girl that basically was doing clinical trials for pharma, and I was doing fecal transplant. The first thing that came to me during COVID was I bet you it's in the stools. COVID can persist in the stools. Some people were asymptomatic and had COVID in their stools, but yet never had symptoms. What was the difference between those people? The difference was their bifidobacteria. Forty three severe patients with COVID had zero Bifidobacteria. Bifidobacteria was really the beginning for me. It was like, I wonder if that's the microbe I need to focus to neutralize COVID, to suppress COVID. If I have a lot of good bifidobacteria, maybe I'll be fine during COVID. Anecdotal studies like of kimchi and sauerkraut because obviously you can talk to people that ate sauerkraut and still got COVID.

The speaker discusses an ivermectin study showing ivermectin increased bifidobacteria before and after, noting it rose with ivermectin but didn't last: "Goes up, goes back down." He questions whether this yo-yo effect explains cancer patients' lack of improvement and whether timing matters. When someone reports a patient improved kidney cancer with ivermectin, mebendazole, he asks to see the microbiome before and after, blood work, and markers to understand why some survive while others don't. He praises courageous physicians who push the art of medicine to save lives, citing a seven-year-old with a brain tumor who was headed to hospice; he urges trying everything with informed consent. He concludes: "I don't know. This is research. I don't know, but I'm willing to try. These are the risks. Your kid may die on my protocol." He emphasizes weighing the risk-benefit ratio.

Speaker discusses anecdotal findings on bifidobacteria from vitamin C and ivermectin, and the publish‑or‑perish obstacle in research. "I took a lot of vitamin c at the beginning of the pandemic. Grams a day." "I do not recommend it to anybody." He did it as a guinea pig, and notes that vitamin C "increases bifidobacteria." He then tested about 20 patients to see what happened. "Ivermectin increases bifidobacteria," but publication was blocked by research interference, making long-term effects unclear—"could there be kidney problems? Could there be liver problems?" He laments that you cannot advance research if you don't publish, because publication validates work. When he published "the lost microbes of COVID," labs, Japan, China, and Italy, reproduced the data, confirming replication. "If that paper is real, it gets reproduced into three, four, five papers." He emphasizes colonization as the essence of the work and notes cross‑population questions about who it helps.

" I'm a big believer of vitamin c. " "This doesn't mean it's going to work for everyone and we're not making any claims. " "There is definitely something about vitamin C through the years that have said to people, wait, vitamin C is pretty safe. " "But then we looked at the in vitro studies and that's how they grow the bitter bacteria. " "In vitro studies of vitamin C effect on the microbiome, you actually see increased Bifidobacteria with in vitro. " "So we just proved on a human clinical model what the in vitro model did. " "I'm on this big push of increasing the betrobacteria. " "That's my science... my vision. " "Are antibiotics good? Are they good long term? " "Now we're in the world of biologics. What are biologics doing to the microbiome? " "Maybe all disease starts with lots of bifidobacteria. " "As I'm improving the benefit of bacteria, I see improvement in the disease clinically as a physician."

Speaker 0 argues that parasites and cancer have been kept separate topics despite evidence linking them, noting that the NIH has many studies on ivermectin and cancer while doctors worldwide show videos, and referencing a German 1990s project suggesting cancer is caused by intracellular parasites. He cites an example of an adenocarcinoma of the bowel or breast cancer under the light microscope appearing essentially indistinguishable from parasite egg sacs, and relays Brian Artis’s account of a forty-year Egyptian parasitologist who said, “In forty years in parasitology, not one oncologist has told me has made that association, but we talk about it all the time in parasitology circles.” He concludes that “they know that cancer is parasites” but that researchers do not speak about it to avoid losing funding. Speaker 1 shifts to the microbiome and physiology, noting that 40–60 percent of blood volume passes through the mesenteric gut, delivering blood through arteries with melanopsin receptors. He explains that prokaryotes (bacteria) release 5,000 times more light than eukaryotic cells. Physicist Fritz Pott reportedly showed that every cell emits a specific frequency of light called extreme low frequency UV, though the spectrum remains unknown. He conceptualizes the microbiome as a light projector and the enterocyte surface as the screen, with the information buried in the emitted light driving microbiome function. He contends that light is central to quantum biology in the gut and that current biology and gut health research do not fully understand this. Speaker 1 praises Jeff Leach’s work, referencing a paper on HASDA equatorial populations fed highly processed foods; the microbiome did not change with diet, and he views this as pivotal, arguing that exposure to nature and sun alters the microbiome. He explains that migration changes the microbiome due to changes in latitude and diurnal light variation, which suggests that light, water, and magnetism sculpt the gut microbiome in powerful, perhaps paradigm-shifting ways. He mentions a blog post (CPC number 42) and plans to share counterintuitive connections between the gut and brain in Europe (Poland and Germany) after releasing related material on Patreon. Speaker 1 urges microbiome researchers to analyze the spectrum of light emitted by the microbiome, proposing photo multiplier techniques to understand species variation tied to environmental light. He notes UV light is toxic to most prokaryotes, while blue, green, and red light are preferred by many bacteria; mitochondria, derived from a bacterium 650 million years ago, tolerate UV light due to cytochrome components and fluorophore proteins. He describes NAD/NADH as a light-absorbing electron acceptor linked to tryptophan, absorbing 340 nm light, and asserts that carbohydrate electrons enter mitochondria via cytochrome one, with environmental light signals influencing both the skin and gut, and ultimately affecting the brain, blood-brain barrier, and even the cervical spinal cord barrier. He concludes that the gut is a counterintuitive quantum biologic tissue and that many diseases originate outside the gut, with skin and eye signals altering gut processes and biophysical properties of CSF and barriers.

Speaker 0: What results kind are you seeing with this study, with the fecal transplants in autistic children? We published that case supervised by the FDA: it was giving one sibling to another and the kid started verbalizing and he's not aggressive. He came to my office banging his head, breaking his teeth, and now he's responding and he's responding to treatment. He's communicating better. He's listening. He's doing classes. He's developing. Obviously, this kid was old when we got him, it's much better, we get better results and I think Doctor James Adams will tell you we get better results the younger they are. So that's one kid. We are on to more precise manipulations, kind of, with two twins that we did. We won a research award at the American College of Gastro about two weeks ago. And basically what we showed was two identical twins that had the same exact microbes at baseline. We manipulated the microbiome and then those microbes disappeared. But what we showed, which has been my path and my mission, save the Biff, is those kids, two identical twins, nine months later, their Bifidobacteria increased with whatever we did. And now they're verbalizing, they're fully reading, fully verbal. This is a beginning. The judge that judged my presentation said this is a proof of concept, right? That when you actually attain an engraftment of Bifidobacteria, these kids are improving. This is obviously my hypothesis, has been my hypothesis. To get to that, to do that, unfortunately, we do not have a stool assay right now that is valid, verified and reproducible in the consumer product, right? So this is the problem because parents are going to say, well, I gave my kids these probiotics and my kid's not improving. So what is Doctor Hazen saying? Well, the problem is if you don't see the increase in the bifidobacteria, your kid's not going to improve. And unfortunately, the tests that are out there are not valid, verified, or reproducible or anything that I could say, oh yeah, use this consumer product. We are developing a consumer product in full transparency, but we are far from that because of the fact that there are trillions of microbes in the gut. And as a responsible physician, I feel that I cannot give a report to a patient that says you have eubacteria or you have Alistope sphingoldi, but I have no idea what Alistope Spine Goldie does, if it's a good bug or a bad bug, because here's what's gonna happen. You're gonna get this lab test from me, you're gonna go to like a thousand doctors and they're gonna say, I have no idea what this test means. Which was the problem, by the way, at the beginning when all these tests were starting. Remember, UBiome, the company that sold all these tests? All these patients would get all these testing and then they would go to the GI doctor and the GI doctors would say, what is this? What the hell?

The speaker observed that patients with severe COVID were missing bifidobacteria compared to those highly exposed but uninfected. Bifidobacteria is a key microbe for immunity and is present in newborns but absent in older people. The speaker's research indicated vitamin C increases bifidobacteria, which may explain its use for treating colds. Ivermectin also increased bifidobacteria within 24 hours, possibly because it's a fermented product of a similar bacteria. The speaker hypothesized that ivermectin's observed benefits in COVID patients might be due to increased bifidobacteria. This hypothesis was the most read during the pandemic but was later retracted. The speaker believes the retraction of a hypothesis is not in the spirit of science.

The speaker describes microbiome work on COVID-19 and post-mRNA vaccination, noting profound microbiome effects. “I was the girl that basically was doing clinical trials for pharma, and I was doing fecal transplant.” During COVID, “I bet you it's in the stools.” They found “COVID in the stools in a hundred percent of patients that were positive nasal swab” and that “COVID can persist in the stools.” Some asymptomatic individuals had COVID in stools; “the difference was their bifidobacteria.” Early anecdotal signals about kimchi and sauerkraut are discussed: “What's different between that population? Why is one person eating sauerkraut and kimchi is fine and another person not?” They observed that “forty three severe patients with COVID had zero Bifidobacteria.” They say they will “focus on Bifidobacteria, not the others, because there are some people that have zero bifidobacteria and never got COVID... create a resilience.” Finally, “So bifidobacteria was really the beginning for me. It was like, I wonder if that's the microbe I need to focus to neutralize COVID, to suppress COVID. If I have a lot of good bifidobacteria, maybe I'll be fine during COVID.”

"When fecal transplant showed more than, you know, improving C." "And one of my patients with Alzheimer's started remembering his daughter's date of birth, I said, what did I do? I just changed the microbiome." "I used the wife's microbiome to the husband." "It wasn't about pushing stools for Alzheimer's, but what was causing Alzheimer's? What microbes was the culprit?" "What microbes could suppress that microbe That's the culprit." "Babies have a lot of bifidobacteria, this important microbe that helps us decompose sugar." "And we saw a lot of Bifidobacteria in newborns." "There is obviously a consensus in the medical field because there's a lot of gynecologists now that are using the secretions from the vagina of the mom and smearing it on the baby that is born with C section to just make them healthier in a way."

The speaker envisions a future in which everything will be linked to microbes, including cancer. They point to current examples such as HPV cervical cancer, Epstein-Barr virus with Burkitt’s lymphoma, and Helicobacter pylori with gastric cancer to illustrate how specific microbes are associated with particular cancers. They suggest it is only a matter of time before doctors begin saying that certain cancers, like colon cancer, are associated with specific bacteria, referring to a hypothetical “colon cancer with X bacteria.” This framing implies that cancer development could be driven or influenced by the presence of particular microbial communities. From there, the speaker raises the question of how to neutralize a particular microbe in order to prevent it from contributing to cancer alongside another microbe. They emphasize that microbes are constantly present and interacting, describing a ongoing “war in our guts” where microbes compete and influence disease outcomes. The idea is that some microbes are beneficial, or “good ones,” and that understanding these relationships is key to prevention and treatment strategies. A central claim the speaker highlights is what has been learned from the COVID experience: it reveals the ability of a microbe to survive inside a virus, but also the ability of a virus to cause death in a person. This observation reinforces the notion of a complex battle between microbes themselves and between microbes and viruses, where outcomes depend on how different organisms interact with one another. The speaker stresses that the crucial insight lies in identifying which microbe neutralizes which other microbe, suggesting that these inter-microbial dynamics could determine disease progression and outcomes. Ultimately, the speaker defines this understanding as “the key to the whole research that I’m doing.” The emphasis is on mapping out the interactions between microbes and viruses, recognizing the dual role of microbes as potential drivers of disease and as possible targets for interception, and using that knowledge to guide the research trajectory aimed at preventing cancer and other illnesses by modulating the microbiome.

A colleague of mine, Doctor. Lee, his mother had stage four uterine cancer. He understood from the research that if you have low achromancy, patients don't respond to the immunotherapy, what they call checkpoint inhibitors, is this new form of cancer therapy that helps activate your immune system. So if your gut isn't healthy, you can't actually get the cancer cells to die with immunotherapy. So his mother had stage four uterine cancer and was gonna die and wasn't responding. He gave her pomegranate, cranberry, green tea, all these phytochemicals, got her achromancy levels up and she was cured of her stage four cancer within a month.

The speaker discusses a line of research comparing fat mice and skinny mice and how their own experiments align with those findings. They mention studies of the fat-versus-skinny mouse dynamic and describe an experiment they conducted in which skinny mice were given soy. As a result, the skinny mice began to gain weight, and a change in their microbiome was observed, shifting from a composition associated with skinny mice to one more characteristic of fat mice. The speaker then references broader studies that have examined the effect of transferring gut microbiota between mice. Specifically, they note that there have been studies showing that transplanting stool from a skinny mouse to a fat mouse leads the fat mouse to become skinny, and conversely, transferring stool from a fat mouse to a skinny mouse can cause the skinny mouse to become fat. This describes a bidirectional transfer of weight-related phenotypes through microbiome transplantation. A caveat is added regarding adult mice: while these stool-transplant studies have shown such effects, they have not yet been reproduced in adults. In other words, the phenomenon has not been consistently demonstrated in adult mice within the cited research, implying potential limitations or conditions required for replication in adult subjects. Overall, the speaker links dietary input (soy) to weight change and microbiome alterations in mice, and connects this to microbiome transplantation studies that suggest a causal role for gut microbes in determining weight phenotypes, while acknowledging that the adult replication of these effects remains unestablished.

In December 2020, the speaker began collecting stool samples from colleagues before and after their COVID vaccination to study the vaccine's impact on the microbiome. The speaker discovered that mRNA vaccines killed bifidobacteria but believed these findings were unpublishable due to the prevailing narrative. The speaker presented this research as an abstract at the American College of Gastroenterology in October 2022, where it won a research award, beating 6,000 other abstracts. This abstract drew the attention of 18,000 GI doctors, who began to consider that the loss of bifidobacteria may explain why they contracted COVID after vaccination. Further research indicated persistent damage to bifidobacteria from the vaccine. The speaker's presentation also linked the loss of bifidobacteria to Crohn's disease, Lyme disease, and invasive cancer.

Speaker 1 discusses probiotics and the current state of microbiome science: taking random probiotics may be questionable because the technology of the microbiome is not FDA-approved yet. The reason is that there are many bacteria in the microbiome and we don’t know what they are, what they do, whether they’re good or bad. For example, blotia and Rosaburia are poorly understood; 90% of GI colleagues don’t know blotia is a microbe, and 90% don’t know there’s such a thing as Rosaburia. Historically trained on Klebsiella pneumoniae, E. coli, Salmonella, C. difficile, Clostridium perfringens, but not on nonpathogenic microbes. The question remains: is blotia a good bug or a bad bug, and who has too high or too low levels? This represents the abyss of the microbiome and is still research, not consumer product or standard medical practice. Speaker 1 explains that doctors cannot be told to use a new stool test or to start using microbiome data broadly until researchers reproduce findings and doctors see the data for themselves. The idea is that oncologists may notice correlations, such as loss of bifidobacteria in invasive cancer, and observe improvements in cancer alongside bifidobacteria, which could influence acceptance of the gut-brain or microbiome link. However, such observations need replication to move from incidental findings to established conclusions. An example given is Colleen Kelly at Brown University, who published two cases of alopecia areata with C. difficile where hair grew back after fecal transplant. The question is whether fecal transplant for alopecia areata is valid; however, an academic center trying to reproduce the data could not. The speaker suggests uncertainty about whether a specific microbe caused hair regrowth or if exposure during treatment led to it. Until data are reproduced, no one can claim alopecia areata is improved by fecal transplant or microbiota transplant. Concluding guidance: if you’re healthy, keep doing what you’re doing and do nothing else; if you’re not healthy and have multiple diseases and you’ve tried a probiotic, if it works, continue, but if it doesn’t work, then it’s probably not a great probiotic. The overarching theme is careful interpretation, replication, and recognition that microbiome science is still evolving and not yet ready for universal clinical application.

Bifidobacteria are important for immunity, but they are not the only important microbe. The speaker notes that bifidobacteria are the microbe that is disappearing. Analyzing thousands of stool samples, out of 4,000 stool samples, there are only four that can be said with certainty “these are both microbiomes.” Out of the thousand samples analyzed, less than five percent have bifidobacteria. The speaker highlights that loss of bifidobacteria is not universally linked to all conditions. It is present in Alzheimer's disease, with Alzheimer's patients having lots of bifidobacteria; Lyme disease patients also have lots of bifidobacteria. Crohn’s patients that have never been treated have lots of bifidobacteria. In autistic kids, there is enough data now; they showed data initially, and now more data and more labs reproducing that data show that there are lots of bifidobacteria in autism. The speaker mentions that “Loss of bifidobacteria in autism” can be addressed by replenishing bifidobacteria, and refers to this as proof of concept that the judge at the American College of Gastroenterology acknowledged, noting that this is what is needed to advance science to understand. Loss of bifidobacteria was also noticed in patients with invasive cancer. The speaker says they published that data at the American College of Gastroenterology and presented at Digestive Disease Week, showing that if a patient had a non-aggressive cancer, they had a better level of bifidobacteria than a patient with invasive cancer who has zero. Regarding therapeutic implications, the speaker asks whether modulating the gut to improve bifidobacteria is feasible and notes collaboration with multiple centers, including MD Anderson. The implication is to start modulating the gut and improving bifidobacteria in cancer patients rather than relying solely on chemotherapy and immunotherapy. In summary, the research conducted at Progena Biome—a research lab—focuses on bifidobacteria, its variable presence across diseases, its potential replenishment in autism, and its association with cancer progression, highlighting ongoing work to modulate the gut microbiome as a therapeutic strategy.

The speaker discusses striking clinical observations linking the microbiome, specifically Bifidobacteria, to major improvements in two areas: autism and cancer. They reference two twins with autism who were nonverbal. After improving and manipulating their microbiome, the twins are described as completely fully verbal and reading books, highlighting the potential power of Bifidobacteria in their treatment approach. The speaker then shifts to oncology, noting they recently finished speaking at the Win Consortium in front of academic oncologists. They presented data on a patient with stage four head and neck cancer who “shrunk by increasing the bifidobacteria,” emphasizing that the observed tumor response was attributed to the microbiome rather than surgery, chemotherapy, or radiation. This observation is described as illustrating “the power of the bifidobacteria.” Following this, the speaker describes how these findings are opening new collaborations with major cancer centers, specifically naming Penn State and MD Anderson, as oncologists recognize that while immunotherapy is being given, there is interest in long-term outcomes and better survival. The implication is that there may be an element being missed related to the microbiome. Finally, the speaker mentions ongoing research on neuroblastoma, focusing on Bifidobacteria and the broader microbiome to determine how immunotherapy can help on one side and how boosting the microbiome can help on the other. The overarching message is that “we tend to forget about the microbiome and immunity starts in the gut,” suggesting a central role for the gut microbiome in modulating immune responses and therapeutic outcomes.

The speaker investigated a commercially available microbe, typically given to infants in small doses. To increase the dosage, they created a yogurt-like substance to amplify the bacterial counts a thousandfold. The speaker observed effects in the mice they studied. Surprisingly, the speaker claims that every observation seen in mice has also been observed in humans.

The speaker observed three different groups of immune responses when examining data in more detail. One group experienced less inflammation overall, while two other groups had mixed results. The speaker found that individuals with the highest diversity in their gut microbiomes at the start of the study were the most likely to experience decreases in inflammation. The data suggests that a diverse microbiota, potentially better equipped to degrade various dietary fibers, may lead to a more positive response. Conversely, individuals with a depleted gut microbiome may not respond as well.

But I think there's you know, what's beautiful now because so many doctors are stepping up and seeing something and talking about something, I'm not saying that's the right thing. 'Is ivermectin improving cancer? Certainly some doctors have seen it.' 'So is that the way we is it improving for everybody? What is it in ivermectin that improves the microbiome of certain people and not in others? What is it in ivermectin that helps certain cancers and not others? Right? So we really need to be better to say, okay, look, I'm courageous enough to add ivermectin to my protocol of the chemo or the bio or the immunotherapy that I'm giving or maybe I don't.' 'And maybe at least I look at the microbiome. I look at the microbiome on what is believed right now, you know, a a good look at it.'