reSee.it - Related Video Feed

I found over 100 scientific papers showing Ivermectin's potential against cancer, primarily from preclinical studies. Researchers are puzzled by how this anti-parasitic drug, which has been effective for decades, can also treat cancer. Ivermectin is off patent, meaning there's little financial incentive for big pharma to invest in its research. Notably, Ivermectin can kill cancer stem cells, reverse chemotherapy resistance, and enhance the effectiveness of both chemotherapy and radiation. Patients combining Ivermectin with these treatments have shown remarkable results, including significant tumor reductions. After two years of research, I now treat over 1,000 cancer patients with Ivermectin and other anti-parasitic drugs. The recent mention by Mel Gibson about friends curing stage 4 cancer with these treatments highlights the growing awareness of this approach.

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.

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.”

Fenbendazole is an overlooked cancer drug with at least 12 proven anti-cancer mechanisms. It disrupts microtubule polymerization, induces cell cycle arrest, blocks glucose transport, increases tumor suppressor levels, inhibits cancer cell viability, migration, and invasion, induces apoptosis, autophagy, and necrosis, and inhibits angiogenesis and drug resistance. Mebendazole, a similar drug, is already approved by the FDA and in clinical trials for brain and colon cancers. However, there are no Fenbendazole clinical trials for cancer, likely because it is cheap, safe, and effective. Big pharma may not see a profit margin in it, which raises concerns about their motives. This highlights the issue of a society designed to make people sick, with pharmaceutical companies profiting from remedies.

Speaker 0 shares a story about three friends who previously had stage four cancer but are not cancer-free now. He notes that what they took included ivermectin and fenbendazole, repeating fenbendazole for emphasis. He mentions they also drank something described as hydrochloride something or other, and points to studies that indicate people have proven they’ve been drinking methylene blue and similar substances. He explains methylene blue is a fabric dye, originally a text-style dye, and adds that it has profound effects on mitochondria. He asserts, “This stuff works, man.” He then observes that there are a lot of substances that do work, which he finds strange. He attributes this strangeness to profit, suggesting that when people hear about things that are demonized and then turn out to be effective, it raises questions about why those treatments are not promoted. He asks how medical institutions have failed, implying that cures exist but are not promoted because they are not profitable. The overall narrative contrasts hopeful anecdotal outcomes with a critique of consensus and financial incentives in the medical establishment, highlighting the tension between what works and what is promoted within mainstream medicine.

"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."

Fenbezodizole, a potential miracle drug for cancer, has at least 12 proven anti-cancer mechanisms of action. It is speculated that big pharma fears it due to its low cost. The speaker hopes that Flint is aware of this and examines it. There has been some reaction to this discovery, and it is revealed that a similar drug in the same family, menbendazole, has already been approved by the FDA and is in clinical trials for brain and colon cancers. The lack of clinical trials for Fenbezodizole is attributed to its low cost, safety, and effectiveness. Big pharma's lack of interest in it is seen as an obstacle to people accessing potentially life-saving treatments. The speaker suggests that society is designed to make people sick, allowing big pharma to profit from their remedies.

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?

The speaker discusses promising results for high dose vitamin C in cancer treatment. A recent study on high dose vitamin C shows so much promise, and there have already been human trials underway in which patients who received high dose vitamin C did have drastically improved outcomes: they lived longer and they had less symptoms from the chemo. Mechanistically, the vitamin C literally wipes out the cancer cells via, like, four distinct very strong mechanisms. The speaker also notes that it is very safe as well. In addition, the speaker mentions other natural cancer therapies: ivermectin, fenbendazole, and now dandelion root extract, stating that all of these show extreme promise for natural cancer treatments.

The speaker shares their personal experience with cancer and their journey to finding an alternative treatment. They discuss undergoing surgeries and years of chemotherapy before reaching their lifetime maximum. Feeling hopeless, they receive a suggestion to try a dewormer called fenbendazole. Skeptical at first, they decide to give it a try and start taking a combination of fenbendazole, curcumin, somatodine, annatto, and AHCC. To their surprise, subsequent scans show a reduction in the disease, and eventually, they become cancer-free. The speaker emphasizes the importance of faith and encourages others to explore alternative treatments. They also mention the financial interests of the pharmaceutical industry.

Speaker 1 was deemed inoperable, incurable, palliative, and terminally ill, with a couple of months to live without treatment. Speaker 0 was also terminal after cancer spread to the liver and lungs and did not want to undergo chemo again. Metabolic therapy can manage the disorder and correct other problems like diabetes, high blood pressure, and hypertension, so you get healthier as you degrade your tumor. Speaker 0's cancer levels went down to 0.05, which is almost nothing, and was cancer-free by December 2020. Speaker 1 is doing really well fifteen to eighteen months later. Speaker 3's wife had stage four cancer and was cancer-free a year later using metabolic therapies. Fasting and metabolic therapy combined with chemo can lower chemo dosages while maintaining therapeutic efficacy. If you want to live and get healthy, you do metabolic therapy, but "they" will not allow the entire system to change.

I have three friends who had stage 4 cancer, and now they’re cancer-free. They took Ivermectin, Fenbendazole, and Methylene Blue, which has surprising benefits for mitochondria. It’s concerning how effective treatments are often ignored for profit. I got COVID and received remdesivir, which caused severe issues, while a friend died. There’s a troubling trend of prioritizing profit over lives in healthcare. Monoclonal antibodies were restricted to promote vaccines, which raises ethical questions. Mel Gibson and others are starting to speak out against these issues, highlighting the dangers of certain treatments and the need for awareness. We must recognize the importance of sharing knowledge and supporting those who fight against these injustices.

People increasingly distrust governments and mainstream systems, leading to greater independent research and critical thinking, especially regarding the pharmaceutical industry. Mel Gibson shared alarming experiences on the Joe Rogan podcast, revealing he suffered severe health issues after taking remdesivir, a drug linked to numerous deaths during the COVID pandemic. He also mentioned three friends who overcame stage 4 cancer using alternative treatments like ivermectin and fenbendazole. Dr. William Macas, who has treated many cancer patients with these repurposed drugs, highlighted their effectiveness against cancer while criticizing the pharmaceutical industry's focus on profit over patient care. He emphasized the need to rethink cancer treatment, advocating for the use of affordable, repurposed medications that have shown success in clinical studies.

A man claims his father beat stage four lung cancer in eight months without doctors, chemo, or radiation using Panacur, vitamin D, and CBD oil. Panacur is described as similar to ivermectin and a deworming medicine. The speaker says they bought it on Amazon for about $100 a month. A year prior, they had traveled to Japan as a farewell trip because his father was expected to die. The speaker references Joe Tippins, who in 2017, allegedly found that Panacur cured rats of cancer. Tippins then took Panacur, vitamin D, and CBD oil and cured his own cancer after doctors gave him a month to live. The speaker says they avoided chemo because it killed his mother, who also had stage four lung cancer, in 2014.

Fenbezodizole, a potential miracle drug for cancer, has at least 12 proven anti-cancer mechanisms of action. It is speculated that big pharma fears this drug due to its low cost. There is hope that Flint, who is mentioned in the conversation, will be interested in examining it. The drug disrupts microtubule polymerization, induces cell cycle arrest, blocks glucose transport, increases tumor suppressor levels, inhibits cancer cell viability and migration, induces autophagy, apoptosis, and necrosis, and inhibits angiogenesis and drug resistance. A similar drug, menbendazole, is already approved by the FDA and in clinical trials for brain and colon cancers. The lack of clinical trials for Fenbezodizole may be due to its low cost and effectiveness. Big pharma's lack of interest in it is seen as preventing people from accessing potentially beneficial treatments. The conversation also touches on the idea that society is designed to make people sick, with big pharma profiting from remedies.

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.

Ivermectin, once considered a conspiracy theory, is now reportedly curing diseases like cancer, diabetes, MS, and Parkinson's by addressing parasites. The speaker prefers the dura mectin version, a white paste, over the ivermectin yellow gel. According to the speaker, no one has ever died from ivermectin overdose, unlike aspirin and acetaminophen. Ivermectin won a Nobel Prize in 2015 for its effectiveness against diseases like malaria. Positive effects were seen for COVID, but its use was discouraged to maintain the emergency declaration. The speaker takes a full capsule of ivermectin daily for two weeks, followed by a week off, as a prophylactic. They wash it down with a sweat tonic containing quinine, which is hydrochloroquine. Hydrochloroquine and ivermectin were allegedly dismissed by organizations like the WHO, despite being effective. Links to more information are provided in the comments.

I'm excited about the recent bill in Arkansas aiming to make ivermectin an over-the-counter medication; all states should follow suit. Ivermectin, despite being an antiviral, antimicrobial, and anti-parasitic medicine, was villainized during COVID. When I contracted COVID in 2020, I decided against the under-researched options and tried ivermectin. My symptoms vanished within 24 hours. Ivermectin's benefits extend beyond COVID. I know three people who had stage four cancer that were cured after taking ivermectin. It is strange that effective treatments are often suppressed due to profit motives. The medical industry wants to keep you sick. Get ivermectin now from a reliable US-based source like All Family Pharma before it becomes more expensive and harder to find. You never know when you might need it.

Speaker 0 notes the scientists mentioned created the protocol my mother used when diagnosed with cancer twenty seven years ago. Speaker 1 recounts that in 1992 a Canadian scientist, Helda Clark, wrote cure all cure for all, claiming she identified 100 different individuals and gave them three herbs in supplement form for five days, curing all of them—a 100% cure. She claimed seventy to eighty percent of cases are caused by parasite infections and misdiagnosed. Helda Clark used three herbs made by God and God's pharmacy to cure these people in five days: red clover, sweet wormwood, which is the natural version of ivermectin, and green walnut hole extracts. The green whole extract along with red clover and sweet wormwood cured a 100 different five days, Shameen.

Ivermectin, a Nobel Prize-winning anti-parasitic drug, has been vilified. Merck, who held the patent until 1996, claims it doesn't work for COVID-19. However, Merck has a 50/50 partnership with Moderna on mRNA cancer vaccines. Because Merck will make billions on mRNA cancer vaccines, they have no interest in investigating ivermectin for cancer. There is evidence that high-dose ivermectin is effective in treating many types of cancers.

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 is now found to have significant effects on mitochondria. It's surprising how many effective treatments are overlooked or demonized, often due to profit motives. Many beneficial substances, such as vitamin D, K2, magnesium, zinc, and quercetin, are not promoted because they lack patent protection and cannot be controlled by pharmaceutical companies.

The speaker focuses on treating stage four cancer patients, often with late diagnoses. They use ivermectin combined with fenbendazole or mebendazole, both antiparasitics, even in early-stage breast cancer cases before surgery. The speaker claims that stage four cancers, including pancreatic, ovarian, and melanoma, have responded, with some patients becoming cancer-free. Tumors reportedly shrink significantly within months when patients take ivermectin and mebendazole before surgery. The speaker notes that ivermectin and fenbendazole are inexpensive, off-patent drugs, but customs in British Columbia and Mississauga are allegedly confiscating packages. A published paper supports the use of ivermectin and fenbendazole in cancer treatment. The speaker treated a friend of Mel Gibson, who then shared the story on Joe Rogan's podcast. Ivermectin is described as a chemo and radio sensitizer. The speaker faced backlash from a pancreatic cancer support group for sharing a patient's story. The speaker claims to have patients in hospice who are now cancer-free and one patient who was offered medical assistance in dying but is now cancer-free. The speaker recounts a case where a patient with terminal melanoma and liver failure stabilized and improved with ivermectin and fenbendazole. Oncologists are portrayed as limited to expensive, profitable treatments.

In the discussion, Speaker 0 argues that word-of-mouth PR surrounding ivermectin “saved so many lives” and created widespread distrust in the industry, describing a shift where people questioned official stances: “My oxygen was low, and I did take ivermectin and it did work. Why are they telling me ivermectin doesn't work?” This view frames ivermectin as having proven effectiveness in practice, contrasting with public or institutional statements. Speaker 1 adds that it’s “really hard not to get angry” about the official trials, claiming that the WHO and, specifically, the Oxford trials demonstrated that ivermectin didn’t work, but that it “patently does.” They describe the fundamental problem as the way those trials were conducted, implying methodological issues. They discuss specifics of how the studies tested different drugs: Speaker 0 notes that hydroxychloroquine was given “with food” in the study, while ivermectin was given on an empty stomach, implying a potential misapplication of administration guidelines. They state that Merck’s initial labeling for ivermectin in other indications (scabies and lice) recommends administration with a fatty meal, and share a personal anecdote that their sister introduced ivermectin to the market for lice and conducted a clinical trial with many patients. Speaker 1 questions why leading clinicians would administer these drugs without knowing the correct guidelines, suggesting there should have been knowledge about administration with meals for hydroxychloroquine and with food for ivermectin. They remark, “Why the heck didn’t they know that?” Speaker 0 contends that physicians adhere to guidelines and hospital rules and fear lawsuits; they claim this fear leads to doctors “not even wanna know” certain information. They express the sentiment that the medical community was discouraged or constrained by fear of legal consequences and licensing actions, which contributed to doctors avoiding or stopping certain lines of inquiry or treatment. Overall, the dialogue centers on a perceived discrepancy between real-world outcomes of ivermectin use and official trial conclusions, the role of administration guidelines in trial results, and the influence of fear of legal ramifications on clinical practice.

Speaker 1 notes that ivermectin has broken through to the public sphere beyond COVID and is now discussed for many diseases. Speaker 0 asks where ivermectin stands in the scientific and medical community today and what other use cases exist for the medicine. Speaker 1 responds that thousands of doctors follow their data; 18,000 GI doctors see their data when they publish or present at the American College of Gastroenterology. Word-of-mouth in the medical community is a major form of marketing, with one doctor speaking to another. Referencing the COVID era, Speaker 1 mentions corruption and retractions, then describes ivermectin as having created a healthcare revolution where doctors have lined up to work to see other benefits of ivermectin without needing to ask permission to treat patients. A whole branch of healthcare is moving away from the same institute that Speaker 1 helped create drugs to market with his sisters. He says a group of doctors who had sponsored or helped pharma are turning away from pharma and exploring other methods to treat patients. He states his job is to unite doctors to see the truth, while bringing pharma back to being righteous and stopping data manipulation and scientist censorship. Speaker 1 references his book, Let’s Talk SH.T, acknowledging he could be wrong and challenging others to prove him wrong and reproduce the data to retract the hypothesis or paper. He emphasizes that the scientific process should be followed, especially when everything was done by the book and as well as he could. He adds that the research was not funded by others; it was funded by his savings. He created the microbiome research foundation with the goal of raising money to study kids with autism and to push an IND to the FDA, which cost about $600,000 to obtain FDA approval. He clarifies that no external party paid for this work, and he continues to struggle to raise funds to treat poor autistic kids who cannot afford expensive stool testing, drugs, and vitamins; they need help and everyone should step in to assist these kids. Speaker 1 concludes that their focus is fixing autism, with the aim of later addressing Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, and cancer.

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.'