TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

In the early days of COVID, I learned about Ivermectin's potential in cancer treatment. I met Paul, a healthy marathoner diagnosed with stage 4 prostate cancer shortly after his second Pfizer vaccine. After exhausting traditional treatments, he was given no options and referred to hospice. A friend suggested I speak with him for support. I recommended Ivermectin, which he obtained in Tennessee without telling his oncologist. Over time, he reported slight improvements, and during a follow-up, his PSA levels dropped significantly, indicating a biochemical remission. Despite some health issues, including TIAs, he eventually saw a cardiologist and improved further. Nine months later, he was dancing and had no new cancer growth, with some bone metastases gone. He felt so well that he said if he didn't know he had cancer, he wouldn't suspect it.

Chemotherapie werkt maar in 30 tot 40 procent van de gevallen, en soms is het zo zwaar dat patiënten er vroegtijdig mee moeten stoppen. De farmaceutische industrie zou mee moeten betalen aan onderzoek om te bepalen of iemand baat heeft bij chemotherapie. We accepteren dat chemotherapie voor 20 tot 30 procent van de mensen werkt, maar 70 tot 80 procent wordt er alleen maar doodziek van. Als dokter is dit frustrerend. We moeten proberen hier iets aan te doen. Bij alvleesklierkanker overlijdt het merendeel van de patiënten binnen afzienbare tijd, vaak binnen 6 weken tot 3 maanden, gemiddeld een half jaar. 80 procent van de patiënten kan niet geopereerd worden en krijgt chemotherapie, terwijl dit maar voor een beperkt aantal werkt. Een grote groep krijgt chemotherapie voor niks. Ik ben verplicht te kijken of we dit anders kunnen aanpakken. **Translation:** Chemotherapy only works in 30 to 40 percent of cases, and sometimes it is so severe that patients have to stop early. The pharmaceutical industry should contribute to research to determine whether someone benefits from chemotherapy. We accept that chemotherapy works for 20 to 30 percent of people, but 70 to 80 percent only get sick from it. As a doctor, this is frustrating. We must try to do something about this. With pancreatic cancer, the majority of patients die within a foreseeable time, often within 6 weeks to 3 months, on average half a year. 80 percent of patients cannot be operated on and receive chemotherapy, while this only works for a limited number. A large group receives chemotherapy for nothing. I am obliged to see if we can tackle this differently.

Speaker 0: This is interesting because we actually have some positive news to discuss today, which is always a good thing. We have RFK junior, saying that added sugars are the things that are driving metabolic diseases. Today, our government declares war on added sugar. My message is clear. Eat real food. Imagine that. We are finally hearing a message that is going to help people improve their health. It's really refreshing. Speaker 1: Yeah. It I've been in this fifty one years. As you recall, I I was diagnosed with, high grade embryonal cell carcinoma fifty one years ago, and I decided to leave the Mayo Clinic. Not gonna give you the whole story this morning, but, I decided to leave the Mayo Clinic and go down to Oasis of Hope Hospital in Tijuana. And there I met the Contreras family, and big, big message to me was stop eating sugar. Sugar feeds your cancer. Can you do that, Rick? And the reason I did do it, and I can look you in the eye and say I didn't cheat on this, is because my church had put money into sending me there. My my fam my father-in-law kicked in good amount of money, people praying for me. And I thought, how ungrateful would a person be to take their money and then cast the advice to the wind? So I did. I, for five years, I I eliminated the sugar. And even today, I was reading in the bible a few days ago where god says in two places, don't eat a lot of honey. Imagine that, you know, long time ago. And and god said, you know, honey is is good. It's tasty, but use it sparingly just like wine.

Chemotherapy prolongs life by about two to three months, which is the sum benefit. For some cancers like gastric cancer, it reduces life expectancy. Chemotherapy is a hoax perpetuated by big pharma to make money from people who suffer. Chemotherapy cures cancer in only about five to eight percent of cases. For common cancers like breast, prostate, pancreatic, and lung cancer, chemotherapy's performance is appalling, but it generates billions of dollars.

I have three friends who had stage 4 cancer, and now they are cancer-free. They used treatments like Ivermectin, Fenbendazole, and methylene blue, which was originally a textile dye but has shown significant benefits for mitochondria. It's surprising to see effective treatments being overlooked, raising questions about the medical industry's priorities. Why are cures that aren't profitable often ignored or demonized? This situation highlights a failure in our medical institutions to promote genuinely effective solutions.

This is a particularly interesting one; 'X rays are known to cause look at that. Not solve it.' They also claim, 'Also, they weaken the patient, and the patient often dies from the X-ray damage rather than from the statistics show that the patient who no longer receives the treatments live just as long or longer than those who subject themselves to all of this.' The approach proposed is to 'Treat the symptom of the tumor rather than the actual addressing the root cause.' The speaker concludes: 'This is a very powerful book that I highly recommend everybody look into.'

"We get sick because of three things primarily. We get sick because of electromagnetic radiation, because of poisons that they put into the environment, and because of parasites." "I found about about five or six years ago, underground group of people that were using Fenbendazole in these things for cancer, and it was working." "He had throat cancer." "So his wife searched around the internet and found this story about the Fenbendazole and started treating him using the protocol." "Isn't it interesting that parasitic medication also treats cancer?" "I think it's not that it also treats cancer, it's that cancer is parasites."

I have three friends who had stage 4 cancer, and now they are cancer-free. They used treatments like Ivermectin, Fenbendazole, and methylene blue, which was originally a fabric dye but is now known to have significant effects on mitochondria. It's surprising to discover that many effective treatments are overlooked or demonized, raising questions about the motives behind our medical institutions. Why are these cures not promoted when they are not profitable?

"In all the autopsy I've done of cancer patients, not one of them died of cancer. They died of liver failure, they died of cardiac failure, renal failure, all due to chemotherapy." "We got a patient that had been through chemo they had cooked her liver and cooked her kidneys." "We looked at the blood work and realized she had no organ function to speak of left." "And I said we can make her more comfortable but the radiation treatment that they used on her has actually destroyed her organs." "She'd been given three weeks, we gave her six months and she got time to say goodbye to her family." "I'm doing the death certificate and I don't know what to write for cause of death." "You might try writing the truth for a change." "And she wrote radiation poisoning, cause of death."

Speaker 0 describes being twenty-one months into the protocol and nearing completion. They’ve finished all frequent IV chemo and now only go in once a month for treatment, with oral daily chemo at home, resulting in much less treatment than a few months earlier. Speaker 1 asks if the alternative treatments, in addition to traditional treatment, are helping the child handle side effects. Speaker 0 confirms: “So much better. Okay. So much better.” They note a test result when doctors questioned why the child didn’t seem sicker or look worse; they backed off on some treatments to observe, and within less than a week the child experienced nausea, headaches, bone pain, and other common symptoms. They showed doctors this pattern, demonstrating that when they are not using supplements and daily support, the child becomes sick quickly. They say doctors were skeptical of their approach. Tensions rose around February after they presented a meta-analysis suggesting that some chemo is no longer shown to be helpful and may be more harmful due to toxicity. That, they say, was the last straw. They recount that doctors began to push harder and claimed they would refer to Child Protective Services (CPS) if the child did not look sicker soon. Doctors started testing at every visit for the presence of the oral chemo in the child’s blood, and it’s consistently present because it is given daily. They hired a nurse privately to come to their home at bedtime to administer the meds, and they record the process with video of the child eating the meds; the nurse signs an electronic log verifying administration. When conflicts intensified about a month ago, they had an attorney, who sent a certified letter to the clinic with evidence: the nurse’s documentation, lab results showing the drug in the blood, and observed side effects that were minimal and manageable. They point out there are other variables affecting the child’s ANC; they have twenty-one months of records showing the child’s ANC was sometimes higher even when there were no home meds. They claim the medication is metabolized faster when the child drinks milk. They mention living on an organic farm with their own cows, and that the child drinks milk. They note that taking vitamin D can affect ANC. Speaker 1 remarks on the extraordinary situation: instead of learning what is enabling the child to have fewer side effects, the state is threatening to remove the child. They ask if someone reported them and how they protected the child. Speaker 0 explains that they were told during a September visit that if the child’s ANC wasn’t below 1,500 by the October 17 visit, they would refer to CPS for suspected medication noncompliance, which would be considered neglect. Speaker 1 reiterates the surprise at labeling medication noncompliance and the state deciding what the child should receive, calling it utterly ridiculous.

Chemotherapy drugs are prescribed by doctors because they profit directly from them. Doctors buy it for $5,000, sell it for $12,000 to patients, insurance pays $9,000, and doctors keep the $4,000 difference. Chemotherapy's success rate is only 3%, yet it's used for profit. The pharmaceutical industry controls us, diverting funds from breast cancer events to drugs and surgery, neglecting other research like nutrition, homeopathy, acupuncture, and naturopathy.

A man in his seventies, a smoker and drinker, lost weight and had trouble swallowing. He started taking ivermectin after hearing about its benefits from someone with prostate cancer. Despite being diagnosed with unresectable esophageal tumors, he refused chemo and radiation. After taking ivermectin, his tumors disappeared, but his biggest concern was selling his fishing boat.

Oncologist Dr. Tullio Simancini wrote the book "Cancer is a Fungus" and discovered that all his tested patients had Candida in their bodies. He achieved a 90% success rate by injecting sodium bicarbonate, an alkaline mix, directly into the cancerous area. Cancer cannot survive in an alkaline environment. A friend of mine, Dr. Emma Fields, took a patient to him in Italy, but he was under investigation and later jailed for manslaughter. My husband believes that if he had used chemotherapy instead, he wouldn't be in jail. Is it possible that some patients came to him in advanced stages and would have passed away regardless?

By 2018, the speaker concluded that chemotherapy causes suffering and America has trained the world about it along with big pharma because it's profitable. The first chemotherapy, nitrogen mustard, was invented in 1946 from World War I and II nitrogen gas and became the nucleus of Sloan Kettering. Humans have T-cells and natural killer cells, the latter discovered in the 1970s and around for 450 million years. To design chemicals, the National Cancer Institute invented the nude mouse, lacking T-cells and natural killer cells, to test human tissue. Taxol, developed by Bristol Myers and the International Cancer Institute, is dissolved in castor oil, which can cause fatal anaphylactic shock. Chemotherapy wipes out natural killer cells and T-cells, making one susceptible to infection and cancer. The natural killer cell is essential for survival and prevents cancer.

- Chemotherapy prolongs life about two to three months. Two to three months. That's the sum benefit. - For some cancers such as gastric cancer, it actually reduces life expectancy. - Chemotherapy is a hoax. - It's a hoax perpetuated by big pharma to make money at the expense of, people who suffer. - There are a few cancers, maybe five to eight percent in which chemotherapy actually cures the cancer. - But the vast majority of cancers, know, the common cancers, breast cancer, prostate cancer, pancreatic cancer, lung cancer. - The performance of chemotherapy is appalling, but it generates billions of dollars.

The problem with a biopsy is this. Now it spreads all over the place. So you do spread it. But what they're not telling you is that the research is showing that if you take these drugs, you're almost guaranteeing metastasis. If you did a biopsy and or a surgery, you're gonna get metastasis. Now if you add high dose chemo, you're get metastasis. If you do radiation, you're gonna get metastasis. What they're looking at is giving you a short term reduction of the primary, and then you think, oh, I'm in remission. Nine months later, it would came back. The federal, the FDA will have approved it. Your insurance will pay for it. It's the right thing to do. And you're gonna do that. It's also part of the sales team. It's part of the sales technique.

Thirty years, forty years. They'll look back at chemotherapy as a barbaric and kind of caveman like thinking of destroying the entire body to treat a cancer. Know, we gotta get away from this. We gotta move towards targeted approaches and even towards natural compounds, like medicinal mushrooms—cordyceps, turkey tail mushroom—these have shown lots of promise. But also ivermectin and fenbendazole are now gaining national attention as possible cancer treatments, with positive anecdotal reports of remission after taking these products. A recent study—a systematic review of ivermectin in cancer—found not only is it completely safe if people are undergoing conventional treatment, but it does show potent anti-tumor effects in the test tube via 10 mechanisms. And so, we gotta go to natural compounds. Forty years from now, I hope we’re not still administering chemotherapy as the main form of treatment.

Kristen, my daughter's twin, developed a brain tumor that had spread through her spine, and she died. The doctors gave two options: 'take her home, let her die or bring her in for massive dosages of chemo and radiation simultaneously.' The treatment burned her skull and urine; six months later she survived, though she 'still had cancer.' We were told, 'We've done everything we can. Now she's going to die.' We read Brzezinski. I believe he 'does what he does out of earnest belief that his medicine works' and that 'it's well established by the FDA that it's nontoxic.' Eighteen months later she was cancer free off 'the anti oneeoplastin'; within a month cancer returned to her brain. After restarting Brzezinski's, it was gone within nine weeks. She died July of necrosis from radiation; autopsy showed cancer free. I swore an oath to uphold life: 'life right in the beginning.'

The speaker describes a medical situation in which cancer had spread extensively: “In my neck, my liver, my bladder, my pancreas, and in my bones from head to toe.” He notes that when small cell lung cancer metastasizes this far, the prognosis is extremely poor, stating that “Life expectancy goes below one percent.” Shortly after, he received a call from a large animal veterinarian who shared a remarkable anecdote involving cancer research at Merck Animal Health on the veterinary medicine side. The veterinarian explained that a scientist working there had been implanting cancer in mice for research, and as a result her entire mouse population developed intestinal parasites. According to the story, the scientist administered fenbendazole, the drug commonly used to treat parasites in animals. Remarkably, not only did the drug save the mice from dying of intestinal parasites, but weeks later it appeared to cure the mice of cancer as well. The speaker recounts this as a concise answer to the question at hand about possible treatments. Motivated by this anecdote, the speaker began taking fenbendazole himself, starting the day after receiving the veterinarian’s account. He reports that “three and a half months later” he was all clear of cancer. In summary, the speaker connects a dire prognosis for widespread metastasized cancer with an anecdotal account from a large animal veterinary context: fenbendazole, used for parasitic infections in animals, purportedly cured cancer in mice in that story, and the speaker credits starting fenbendazole with achieving an all-clear status several months later.

Chemo drugs are the only ones doctors profit directly from. They buy it for $5,000, sell it to patients for $12,000, and insurance pays $9,000. Doctors keep $4,000. Chemotherapy is used because it makes money, not because it works (97% failure rate). The pharmaceutical industry controls us. Money raised for breast cancer doesn't go to alternative treatments or research, only drugs and surgery that don't work.

Chemotherapy is claimed to be a hoax and scam by big pharma to profit from suffering people. It allegedly prolongs life by only two to three months and may reduce life expectancy for some cancers like gastric cancer. Chemotherapy is also said to help cancer spread and activate cancer stem cells. Chemotherapy drugs can cost patients over $100,000 a year, leading to financial problems for 50-60% of patients. Ivermectin combined with mebendazole or fenbendazole is suggested as a potentially effective first-line therapy for cancer. Testing over-the-counter medications and cheap prescriptions is recommended as well.

Rick responds to a question about what message he would want to leave to people frustrated with how cancer is approached today. He centers his message on the principle of do no harm, stating that it is supposed to be every physician’s dedication. He recalls that he himself was harmed when he was in big pharma medicine, and contrasts that with a shift he experienced when he moved toward what he calls participatory medicine. He notes that fifty-one years ago he was told, “we’re not gonna do that to you,” and that this shift involved a question: “Are you gonna help us? If you do, we think you can live.” He characterizes that moment as a move toward a collaborative, participatory approach to medicine. Rick argues for relying on what God has given us, saying that artificial substances were invented, whereas “the real deal without the chemicals” is what has allowed him to enjoy life. He emphasizes that the natural, non-chemical approach has enabled him to witness important personal milestones: his grandkids, his kids growing up, and many wonderful experiences. He asserts that all of that would have been missed if he had remained committed to a “chemical life,” urging the audience to “get rid of it.” The closing lines convey a strong personal conviction: “Stop it. Meant it.” In sum, Rick advocatesMoving away from artificial, chemical-based medicine toward a participatory, natural approach that he believes grants life, family, and meaningful experiences, while rejecting the conventional chemical paradigm he associates with big pharma.

The only definitive way to diagnose cancer is through a biopsy. However, biopsies can disrupt the tumor's protective sheath, potentially causing it to spread. A patient experienced this firsthand after a biopsy led to the emergence of multiple tumors. While a histological diagnosis from a pathologist identifies the cancer type, it often serves as a justification for specific drug treatments, which are approved by the FDA and covered by insurance. Unfortunately, research indicates that these treatments, including chemotherapy and radiation, often lead to metastasis. Patients may initially feel a sense of remission, but cancer frequently returns within months.

Chemotherapy can kill any cell, not just cancer cells. If those handling chemotherapy must wear hazmat suits because it's toxic, why give it to someone already sick? It's like using napalm for an ant problem; you might kill the ants, but you'll destroy everything else, including the healthy cells. Radiation, like chemotherapy, is dangerous. X-rays have warning signs because radiation damages DNA, which can potentially cause cancer. The speaker questions why a therapy known to create cancer is used to treat cancer.

Many cancer survivors who undergo standard treatments like radiation and chemo suffer immensely, paying a high price for their survival. They may experience ailments and debilities resulting from toxic treatments, surgical mutilations, high-dose poisons, and radiation. Cancer survivors may face psychological and neuropsychiatric problems, hormonal imbalances, microbiome issues, and metabolic homeostasis problems that they didn't have before treatment. Some newer treatments can kill patients faster than the disease itself, with the hope of a positive response. Many people suffer chronic problems for the rest of their lives or don't live as long as they could have without the treatments. The speaker believes that managing cancer doesn't require such toxic treatments, viewing the situation as a massive tragedy.