TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

The transcript centers on Stanislav Brzezinski, a Houston physician who developed a treatment called anti-neoplastons. It follows both dramatic patient outcomes and a legal battle over whether Brzezinski’s drugs should be used outside approved medical channels. Key case: an eight-year-old boy named Paul Michaels, whose skull images six years after starting Brzezinski’s therapy show the tumor almost disappeared. Bruce Cohen, director of neurologic oncology at the Cleveland Clinic, states, “The only explanation is it shrunk because of the therapy Paul has received,” confirming Brzezinski’s claimed results on Paul. Background on Brzezinski: At Lublin Medical University, Brzezinski graduated first in his class, earned a PhD in biochemistry, and later discovered a strain of peptides in human blood and urine not previously recorded. He observed that cancer patients seemed to lack these peptides, while healthy individuals had an abundance. He theorized that extracting these peptides from healthy donors and administering them to cancer patients might treat the disease. Legal constraints and practice: Brzezinski sought permission to use experimental treatment (angioplastons) in private practice and to be involved in cancer research. Attorneys verified that, as long as he kept activities within Texas, he wasn’t breaking federal laws, but he could not introduce anti-neoplastons into interstate commerce. Consequently, he operated primarily within Texas to avoid federal issues, but word spread that he was curing terminal cancer in Texas, drawing patients from across the country. Funding and controversy: Brzezinski’s early research received funding from the National Cancer Institute and Baylor College of Medicine. After opening his own laboratory, funding came from bank loans, patient fees, and insurance payments. While some physicians acknowledge his science as credible and professional, controversy centers on organizational aspects and access to therapies rather than the scientific method, with critics arguing that broader medical institutions act as a closed system hindering alternative treatments. Public and legal proceedings: The Texas State Board of Medical Examiners sought to suspend Brzezinski’s license because treatments have never been approved. The Board argued that “the efficacy of anti neoplastons in the treatment of human cancers is not of issue in these proceedings.” Brzezinski argues he is saving lives, insisting, “They should realize that I am right. They’re fighting a losing battle.” He faces ongoing legal challenges, including a higher district court after a 1993 ruling. Support and testimony: Georgetown University expert Dr. Nicholas Petronas, who helped analyze Brzezinski’s cases for the National Cancer Institute, testified that in five brain-tumor patients, the tumors resolved or disappeared. Petronas described Brzezinski’s work as remarkable, noting a boy treated from age four to twelve who was initially given up on by his original doctor, and whom the family says they owe to Brzezinski. Impact on Paul and family: Paul’s mother, Mary Michaels, expresses fear about losing the treatment, emphasizing the personal stakes in the courtroom and the ongoing pursuit of Brzezinski’s methods as part of a broader legal and medical conflict.

The speaker developed a protocol, BioStrike, and believes it extended Harry Reid's life. In 2015, the speaker petitioned the FDA to use the treatment at diagnosis, hypothesizing that chemotherapy and radiation wipe out natural killer and T cells. The FDA required testing on end-stage patients who had failed standard care. Despite patients' collapsed immune systems, the speaker reports complete remissions in Merkel cell carcinoma (patient lived six years), bladder cancer (patients alive 10-11 years), triple negative breast cancer, and metastatic pancreatic cancer (patient disease-free after five years, still alive at six). After 700,000 pages of response, the treatment was approved in late 2024. The speaker believes they are on the verge of treating sepsis and cites a recent case of clearing a month-long inflamed lung due to valley fever. The speaker is treating patients with bladder, pancreatic, and lung cancer. The speaker wants to disseminate this information to the scientific, medical, and regulatory communities.

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.

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.

An identical twin lost her sister, Kristen, to a malignant brain tumor diagnosed at age four. Doctors offered two grim options: let her die or undergo aggressive treatment, which resulted in severe side effects. Despite enduring chemotherapy and radiation, Kristen survived but still had cancer. Refusing to accept the prognosis, her parents researched alternative treatments and eventually chose Dr. Brzezinski's method. Remarkably, after stopping the initial treatment, Kristen remained cancer-free for 18 months. However, the cancer returned, and they resumed Brzezinski's treatment, which eliminated the tumor. Tragically, she died from neurological necrosis caused by radiation damage, not cancer. An autopsy revealed she was cancer-free at the time of her death, making her case unique among similar patients. The loss was attributed to inadequate care and poor advice.

Speaker 0 begins by stating that cancer is not their favorite topic and asserts, “Eighty percent of folks who are told they have cancer don't have cancer. They're perfectly healthy.” They acknowledge that people with a cancer diagnosis don’t want to hear this, and express a reluctance to talk about cancer due to their attitude. Speaker 1 asks for a definition of cancer. Speaker 0 replies, “No, that’s actually very clear. So many people who are diagnosed with cancer do not have an uncontrolled growth of anything. So that definition is actually a good enough definition to exclude eighty percent of folks who are diagnosed with cancer. They may have a lump, they may have a growth, but it is controlled. Maybe it hasn't changed in size for three months or six months, but it's still labeled as cancer and they're rushed off to surgery.” Speaker 1 then asks for anecdotal stories of miraculous success stories using turpentine therapeutically. Speaker 0 answers with a story from two weeks prior on a radio show. They say, “My daughter's got cerebral palsy. She's 15 years old, half her body has been paralyzed. She's not able to move around or do anything.” They claim, “you need to check out trepentine because cerebral palsy is caused by a parasite your wife picked up in her second trimester.” They state that after starting turpentine, “after just ten days she's able to move that part of her body and now she can walk and do a lot of things she couldn't do before.” Speaker 1 responds, “Well thank you so much a tremendous story.”

Partner and mother cried as doctors delivered a stage 4 cancer diagnosis. Given 8 weeks to live, the speaker chose alternative treatments after seeing improvement off chemotherapy. Despite medical skepticism, biopsies showed no cancer cells, surprising doctors. Two years later, scans revealed no active disease. Doctors praised the speaker's miraculous recovery, attributing it to alternative treatments like mesima mushrooms and IP 6 Gold supplements.

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.

My name is Ernest Best. I was diagnosed with stage 4 plasmatory carcinoma and given six months to live, with no treatment options available. After researching, I found a story about Joe Tipton, who used a dog dewormer containing Fenbendazole that helped him overcome cancer. I decided to try it myself, purchasing $250 worth of the dewormer. After undergoing various scans and procedures, I passed the tumor and am now cancer-free. The dewormer can be bought online, and I took one pill in the morning and one at night. After four scans at the OU Cancer Center, doctors were astonished and called it a miracle.

I was diagnosed with small cell lung cancer that had spread, and the prognosis was grim. I was given a 0% chance of survival and told to prepare for hospice. However, a friend who is a veterinarian told me about a scientist at Merck who accidentally discovered that a drug called Fenbendazole, commonly used in animals, killed cancer cells in mice. This drug has been around for 40 years and is considered safe. It was a surprising and fortunate finding that gave hope to those with cancer.

I was diagnosed with small cell lung cancer that had spread, and the doctors gave me no chance of survival. However, a friend told me about a scientist at Merck who accidentally discovered that a drug called fenbendazole killed cancer in mice. Fenbendazole is commonly used in veterinary medicine and is safe. The scientist had implanted cancers in mice and gave them fenbendazole to treat intestinal parasites. To her surprise, the drug also killed the cancer. This discovery gave me hope for a potential treatment.

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?

I had cancer in multiple organs with a low chance of survival. A vet told me about a scientist who accidentally cured cancer in mice using fenbendazole for parasites. I started taking fenbendazole and was cancer-free in three and a half months.

A nurse's mother initially hesitated to take Fenbendazole for her cancer, dismissing it as a dog dewormer. However, after months of persuasion, she started the treatment and experienced remarkable results. The golf ball-sized tumors in her brain, lung, liver, and kidneys disappeared. The new doctor, upon learning about the Fenbendazole, refused to treat her if she continued taking it. Sadly, she stopped the treatment and passed away three months later. A tumor in her brain grew rapidly during this time. The speaker believes that Fenbendazole is effective for cancer treatment and recommends it to others.

The speaker shares a personal story about their mother's experience with cancer and Fenbendazole. Initially skeptical, the mother eventually started taking Fenbendazole and saw positive results. The tumors in her body disappeared, impressing her doctors. However, when a new doctor learned about the Fenbendazole, he refused to treat her if she continued taking it. The mother stopped taking Fenbendazole and three months later, she passed away with a tumor in her brain. The speaker believes that Fenbendazole is effective and recommends it for cancer patients.

A nurse's mother initially hesitated to take Fenbendazole for her cancer, dismissing it as a dog dewormer. However, after months of persuasion, she started the treatment and experienced remarkable results. The golf ball-sized tumors in her brain, lungs, liver, and kidneys disappeared, impressing her doctors. Unfortunately, when she informed her new doctor about the Fenbendazole, he refused to treat her if she continued taking it. She stopped the treatment and passed away three months later. A subsequent MRI revealed a tumor in her brain that had rapidly grown since she stopped taking Fenbendazole. The speaker believes that Fenbendazole is effective and recommends it for cancer patients.

A parent shares their experience with their daughter's cancer treatment. The doctors offered two options: let her die or undergo intense chemo and radiation. They chose the latter, but it caused severe burns and other complications. After six months, the standard treatment didn't cure her cancer, and they were told she had only a few months to live. Desperate, they discovered Dr. Brzezinski's treatment, which the FDA deemed nontoxic. They took their daughter off the standard treatment and tried Brzezinski's, and within nine weeks, the tumor disappeared. Sadly, she later died from radiation damage, but the autopsy showed she was cancer-free. The speaker questions why the bureaucratic process for accessing this treatment is so difficult, preventing many patients from receiving a potential cure.

Pablo Kelly was from Devon, England, and had a glioblastoma, the worst of the worst. He was all over the Devon press and constantly sent me articles from England—Man rejects standard of care. He had the tumor removed, but it was said to be inoperable; even with radiation and chemo, they warned he might live nine, maybe twelve months at most. Pablo came from a family that doesn’t dabble in conventional medicine and was more holistic. He emailed me in 2014 saying he wanted to try this metabolic thing. He rejected chemo and radiation. They said it wasn't surgically capable of being completely removed anyway. He did this metabolic therapy, alongside a very low-carbohydrate paleo diet with avocados and fish oil. Two and three years go by, he emails me. I said, jeez, Pablo, I thought you would have been dead.

The speaker shares the story of their 7-year-old daughter, who was an identical twin. The sister developed a malignant brain tumor at the age of 4, and the doctors gave two options: let her die or undergo intense chemo and radiation. Despite the treatment causing severe burns and side effects, the sister survived. However, the cancer returned and she eventually passed away due to radiation damage. The speaker believes that a doctor named Brzezinski's treatment helped their daughter, and criticizes a government institution for spreading false information. They mention their oath to uphold the constitution, which emphasizes the value of life.

My mother, a nurse, initially resisted taking Fenbendazole for her stage 4 melanoma cancer. However, after 8 or 9 months on the regimen, her tumors significantly reduced in size and some disappeared completely. The new doctor she saw later discouraged her from taking the medication, and she stopped. Unfortunately, her tumor in the brain grew rapidly, and she passed away three months later. The speaker believes that Fenbendazole is effective and recommends it for cancer patients.

I was diagnosed with small cell lung cancer that had spread extensively, leading to a life expectancy below 1%. The next day, I learned about a scientist at Merck Animal Health who had been conducting cancer research on mice. When her mice developed intestinal parasites, she treated them with fenbendazole, a common veterinary drug. Surprisingly, not only did it cure the parasites, but it also eradicated the cancer in the mice. Inspired by this, I started taking fenbendazole myself. Three and a half months later, I was cancer-free.

A nurse's mother initially hesitated to take Fenbendazole for her cancer, dismissing it as a dog dewormer. However, after months of persuasion, she started the treatment and experienced remarkable results. The golf ball-sized tumors in her brain, lung, liver, and kidneys disappeared. The new doctor, upon learning about the Fenbendazole, refused to treat her if she continued taking it. Sadly, she stopped the treatment and passed away three months later. A tumor in her brain grew rapidly after she stopped taking Fenbendazole. The speaker believes that Fenbendazole is effective for cancer treatment and recommends it for others.

I had tumors in multiple parts of my body due to small cell lung cancer that had spread extensively. The prognosis was grim, with less than 1% life expectancy. However, I received a call from a veterinarian who shared an intriguing story about a scientist at Merck Animal Health. This scientist had accidentally cured her mice of cancer while trying to treat them for intestinal parasites using a drug called fenbendazole. Inspired by this, I started taking fenbendazole the very next day. After three and a half months, I was completely cancer-free.