The Surprising Potential of Ivermectin Against Cancer: Dr. Kathleen Ruddy
YouTube video by Dr. Kathleen Ruddy (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xWi1ikXXo0). Transcript is the auto-caption track — verbatim ASR, not a certified transcript.

I was as astonished as anyone might be that Ivor mecon has potential as an anti-cancer agent I began to be aware there was 20 years of research showing that Ivor meon had great potential in the treatment of cancer in this episode I sit down with cancer surgeon turned researcher Dr Kathleen rdy who has been studying how repurposed drugs like ior mechon may impact cancer survival rates a guy in his 70s who had been losing weight for year and a half 40 lb not vaccinated and um he could no longer swallow and he could hardly talk the patient started taking Ivermectin and within a few weeks he started to feel a lot better we got the scan no tumors gone gone this is American thought leaders and I'm Yan Kell Dr Kathleen rdy such a pleasure to have you on American thought leaders thank you for having me you are deeply involved with the flccc and working on Ivermectin of all things as a possible treatment for cancer and this is kind of you know might be astonishing to some people right mean icton of course you know very famous drug for river blindness probably saved millions of lives we know it's effective for treating covid-19 in an early stage especially um there's been a lot of studies done around that but but cancer I mean is are U flccc people all just obsessed with ican that's the question right I'll have to say that I was as astonished as anyone might be that ior mechon has potential as an anti-cancer agent I'm a cancer surgeon we don't do parasites okay we don't do Ivermectin um and I was not really even familiar with those people who use iacon um and and so when in the early days of covid when it became clear that ior Macon was effective in preventing and treating patients with a SARS cob2 infection um I began to be aware having looked in the literature that there was 20 years of research showing that ior mecon had great potential in the treatment of cancer and I was like well I don't understand anything okay why would an anti-parasitic medication be effective against a virus they're two completely different not even organisms they are so far apart from each other on the evolutionary tree that I could not understand why a medication that would be effective in killing a virus and a parasite then show some efficacy in killing cancer cells so I went back to the beginning I think whenever you've got a big question some confusing information go back to the beginning and see if you can understand the vocabulary and the basic science and so the basic science begins historically with uh Satoshi mura digging in the dirt near a golf course in Japan everybody knows that story it's on Wikipedia okay the question that I asked was why was he digging in the dirt why would you look in the dirt for an antibiotic it didn't make sense to me so I I explored that and learned that if you were looking for antibiotics you would look in the dirt you would look in sewage you would dig up you know the ground why why well because single cell organisms um bacteria uh fungi uh mold yeast they anti-life described decades ago as bioweapons the researchers who were studying antibiotics refer to them as anti-life bioweapons again the question is why would a single cell organism you would think it's got a lot of things it needs to do why would it synthesize this molecule I matin or mebendazol or whatever because single cell organisms do not have an immune system multicellular organisms can diversify and they can assign immune defense defend the organism from Attack uh in a very marvelously intricate way and they do that single cell organisms it's they're on their own and so what they've done evolved over hundreds of millions of years to synthesize these molecules these bi weapons that they then secrete into the environment that act as sort of the Swiss army knife that's the immune system it's that molecule so it has to do as many things as possible in order to preserve the organism from predators and to give that organism an advantage when competing in the environment for resources so you're competing with your neighbors you may be competing with your relatives right but really you want not to be eaten or poisoned M and so over a period of hundreds of millions of years we can assume streptomyces synthesizes iacon and itin goes out there and that's the immune system into the environment around the organism and it can kill parasites and it can dismantle viruses and because I believe there is substantial information scientific evidence of tumor virus since we know that 50 to 20% of cancers are caused by tumor viruses it is my belief and I'm not alone in this that the majority of cancers are caused by tumor viruses yet to be discovered and so it makes sense to me once I understood that it made sense to me why iveron would be effective against parasites and everybody knows that for 50 years win the Nobel Prize fine basically eradicate river blindness almost entirely and dismantle viruses because viruses that get inside bacteria are called fases right and they disrupt the genome you want to get rid of those guys too and if in fact there is a close relationship between viruses and cancer I think there is then that gets at cancer too this very wonderful one molecule 3in thick Swiss army knife that's the immune system and I think when people understand that they're better able to um accept that if this single cell organism can do this with one molecule that perhaps knowing that it's safe and effective against parasites and safe and effective against SARS K2 and a host of other viruses and in the laboratory in vitro and Vivo studies 20 years of research at least effective against uh cancer cells well okay then the question is why don't we pose the question do these medications IIM bendas all the rest of them do they improve the survival of patients with cancer you can see it they kill cancer cells human cancer cells in the lab in animals fine are they effective in improving the survival of patients with cancer simple question and that brings us to the agenda for today it does indeed it does indeed um I can see you've done a few lectures uh uh you know and and and I I would say well I would have enjoyed uh you know basically learning learning from you as a as a resident or something so I wanted to take a quick break to tell you about something that's actually quite important to me I've been kind of resisting uh getting a sponsor for the show for some time there's been numerous offers let's just say Patriot Gold group came to me and that gold is actually something that I've been thinking about quite a bit because we're in very volatile times very unpredictable times so gold is the place that that I think is a one of the few kind of stable places to put money uh and Patriot Gold group is a good company we check them out and so I bought some gold with them and you know the value and this is kind of crazy uh since I bought it I think about 3 weeks ago of this gold has gone up by over $500 and this isn't a large amount of gold that I bought here so let me show you what I got so this is Rand Refinery 1 oz fine gold bullion the American Eagle and five silver eagles so I'm going to I'm actually going to pull out the Gold Eagle for you because it looks kind of awesome wow it's got an amazing weight to it so if you're inspired to buy some gold I recommend you call Patriot Gold group you can call them at 888 85749 888 85749 mention American thought Leaders with that let's head back to the interview you have a number of uh cases where Ivor mecon corresponded with a kind of somewhat dramatic reduction of cancer in in a patient so tell me about these well okay so the opening act in this story is that I began to do the scientific research peer-reviewed papers read them chronologically so you can understand what everyone is thinking as they make their discoveries and what they're thinking and the questions they ask and so on and so forth and here was in all this research that Ivor ma showed great potential as an anti-cancer agent having seen for myself and being very well persuaded by the work of drors Corey and merik and others the data coming out of South Africa and India that Ivor mein was safe and effective in treating patients with Co I began to Wonder to what extent might this be effective in treating patients with cancer well I understood that the pharmaceutical industries were not going to invest in a 10 cent per pill pill and if the pharmaceutical industries were not willing to do that no one was going to do it as Pharma funds everybody else that's doing research right um I was introduced to a patient with stage four for prostate cancer had received two vaccines perfectly healthy marathoner no history of cancer in the family two months after his uh second fer shot works for the government he going to lose his job in his pension if he wasn't vaccinated um he was diagnosed all at once with stage four prostate cancer he tells a very compelling story melodramatic story about that 24-hour period of time in his life um and he went through the traditional protocols radiation chemotherapy radiation chemotherapy pharmacologic castration all of it over a period of 9 months and then his doctor said you know there's really nothing else we can do and uh his name is Paul man and he was like can't you give me more radiation no can't you give me more chemo no aren't there any other drugs no are there any clinical trials there's nothing hospice send for the priest so a friend of his knew me and she said uh would you give Paul a call he just needs some moral support something so I said sure So I began calling him we spoke about once a week for 3 weeks and finally um the poor guy was suffering had cancer and 11 bones in his body his right leg was completely swollen obstructed with tumor he's miserable and I said Paul I don't know if this is going to help you but I know it's not going to hurt you I just can't imagine based on my judgment and understanding of the scientific literature and all the work that doors Corey and Merck had done and others around the world that ior in would hurt you it might help I can't say so he said you know I'll give it a try and uh he drove to Tennessee where you could get it without a prescription PS I discovered last night having dinner with Paul and his wife Terry he drove from where he lives in Missouri to Tennessee and paid cash for his iveron that's it he didn't submit it to insurance company he didn't tell anybody back in Missouri his oncologist no his iacon prescriptions are listed in his chart how did that information get from the pharmacy in Tennessee to his chart in Missouri we don't know somebody does I'd like to know myself anyway he starts taking Iber maon and he doesn't have any problems with it and I talk to him every week and um how are you feeling well no change next week uh maybe a little bit better I I don't know how's your leg it's not quite as swollen how how's the pain pain everywhere maybe a little bit better slowly slowly slowly not getting worse not necessarily getting better not getting worse fast forward um two month follow-up appointment at the clinic they didn't expect to see him okay Paul um he's feeling a little bit better they do a PSA which was off the charts to begin with and if I'm not mistaken at the time they randomized him to hospice I think it was in the hundreds maybe 700 800 what does that mean exactly for the late person over four would be abnormal MH okay so what are we talking about here prostate cells normally secrete a protein prostate specific antigen it's one of the things that they do cancer cells that originate in the prostate that are dividing rapidly and growing fast are spitting out PSA MH okay it's not that they're contributing to the body economy in any way it's just they just want to multiply and divide and that's the end of the story and so your PSA levels start to rise which is a marker a screening marker oh your PSA was four and now it's eight let's do a prostate ultrasound whatever so PSA can be a screen for the emergence of a tumor but it can also be used particularly at high levels as evidence for cancer response to cancer recurrence of cancer his was I mean it's supposed to be you know four you know yeah it's hundreds okay he goes back for his two-month appointment it's 1.3 they said you're in remission well not you know complete remission he still had the bone Mets but you're in like a biochemical remission well that was good news slowly slowly slowly he begins to improve less pain swelling is okay a lot of other vaccine injuries however he's getting better he's getting better giving him uh nutritional support and other supplements he's having tias little mini strokes but he didn't tell me about that because we were talking about the cancer but over a period of time asking him questions and I said oh you're having TI his wife said yeah having tias I said what are the cancer doctors tell you cuz that's who he's seeing they say it's not related to my cancer was like so I get a call from his wife one evening he's in the emergency room he's had this Tia he whatever it is catastrophic and um I said Paul what are they doing for you and he said well they did a CAT scan of my head and they said they don't see anything specific it's a TIA and it's not related to my cancer they send them home I said did they do anything no I said well okay call me crazy I'm a cancer surgeon but I think you need to see a cardiologist I think there are things they can do okay and of course I look it up really quickly and and of course there things so get him to the cardiologist get him on blood thinners no more problems with tias okay that's an indictment of the healthcare system so he's getting better but nine months later um he's out dancing for 4 hours three nights a week he gets a head to toe uh rescanning and uh three of the bone Mets are gone there no growth of the Mets that are there no new lesions there's only one hot spot and that's where he received radiation therapy and the radiation um the radiologist really could not distinguish whether that was a tumor hot spot or radiation change um he is doing very well the vaccine injury is uh a problem but the cancer is no longer a problem except for the fact that it's still there and we want to get rid of it completely um and he and he said he called me for a hockey game and he said uh if I didn't know I have cancer I would not know I have cancer that was patient number one I was like that's interesting a second patient crossed my path a guy in his 70s who had been losing weight for a year and a half 40 lbs not vaccinated 40 lb weight loss smoker drink or all he does is fish and um he could no longer swallow and he could hardly talk and so I got on the phone with him and I said uh Eddie you know tell me a little bit about your history and so forth he knew someone with prostate cancer who had taken IAC had cured himself from prostate cancer with that so Eddie began taking iacon I have no idea what the dosing was he was just taking it and and I gave him some advice about diet you know try and get the weight back on and so on and so forth within a couple of weeks he sounded stronger mhm sounded stronger he could swallow he had gained six PBS his his voice was better followed him for the next couple of weeks maybe another month or so and I said Eddie we need to get a scan he doesn't have insurance he doesn't like doctors whatever he had been diagnosed in that interval with two esophageal tumors unresectable surgeons wouldn't go near it the uh doctor said well we'll give you chemo and radiation and Ed he said no you're not so he takes his IAC and maybe about 6 weeks later I said Eddie you need to get a scan had to argue with Eddie to get a scan we got the scan no tumors Gone Gone the problem was that he had sold his fishing boat that was the biggest problem he was getting better his tumor was gone now he need to grab by another fishing boat that was the second patient I was like well now that's interesting third patient was a woman who was referred to me her husband called me he said could you talk to my wife I think she's got a problem she could feel a lump in her lower pelvis and uh she'd had that for a while I said do you have any vaginal bleeding yes a little bit but not much she was in her 60s and I said um I think the best thing to do would be to go to the doctor and get a CAT scan she do like doctor she doesn't have insurance she's not getting a CAT scan I was able to convince her to get at least an ultrasound she gets an ultrasound she has a 6 cm tumor in her pelvis it's close to the colon it's close to the ovary it might be near the uterus who knows it's just wedged down there and I said you know it would be very helpful if you would at least be willing to do a needle biopsy because if it's cancer it's going to make a difference in terms of what your choices are nope she's not going to do that so I called her periodically over the next couple of months and I'm fine no no problem whatever and I said well call me if you need me you know so this was I think like April May um and I got a call December 23rd from her husband 9:30 at night her belly is distended she can't eat uh she's not passing gas she's not passing stool her her abdomen hurts and I said press down on her belly does that hurt yeah it press when he presses yet it hurts they said now press and lift up really quickly like flick the belly does that hurt yeah that's worse I said get her to the emergency room we don't have insurance we don't like doctors we're in West Virginia we hate the we hate the hospitals I said look she's going to blow out her bowel and then you're going to take her to the emergency room and she's going to die I suggest you go now okay take her to the emergency room they do a CAT scan 18 cm tumor who knows what it's wrapped around 18 cimet tumor they give her intervenous uh and I said let me talk to the ER doctor I said is she stable enough can you rehydrator she's stable enough to go to Charlottesville because I have family I know people and Charlottesville UVA is a great Hospital let's see if we can get her to Charlottesville yes so the ER doctor I can imagine was very happy happy to get her on the way to UVA and they admit her Christmas Eve and um they hydrate her and they give her nutrition and the Surgical Oncology uh head of the Surgical Oncology team comes in to see her brilliant surgeon brilliant surgeon a Persian and he said I'm not sure that I can resect this but let's tune you up and let's see what we can do if I can I will so she gets all tuned up ready to go um the hospital would not give her unvaccinated blood so there was a big Shakespearean melodrama the night before surgery but she said I've got to have a surgery so okay she did not require blood transfusion thank God so the surgical oncologist is brilliant SEAL Team Six surgeon goes in with a vascular team a DN team their Urologic team because it's wrapped around the urer and who knows what's going on with uterus and the surgical team so forth they all go in and 7 and 1 half hours later they close they have negative margins they got the whole thing to negative margins she had Mets in her liver three Mets in the liver and then post-operatively during her recovery um the metastic lesions in the liver multiplied which is not uncom common she went home maybe five or six days later uneventful post-operative course again you know A+ to the surgical team at UVA she gets in the car she goes back to West Virginia and of course the medical oncology people at UVA insist she have chemo they are breathing down they're making appointments for her it's not not a question you know we think you should have this Pro you know here's your appointment here's your appointment and she goes yeah I'm going back to West Virginia she starts taking icon and I think she was probably taking a little bit higher dose I can't really say um I don't think it was Sky High but anyway Ivor maon as I said to you is safer than a sugar pill you'd have to take a lot to make yourself sick well let's stop for a moment safer than tell me that again yeah yeah this might be a bit of an exaggeration but not by much um ior macin is so non-toxic that if you gave someone on you know ican every day if you did a randomized trial these people are getting ican every day and these people are getting sugar pills every day my prediction test it see what happens would be that the people who were getting the sugar pills would end up having more harm at least you know spikes in their insulin level than the people taking irtin so that's why I say kind of flippantly you know it's safer than a sugar pill anyway she starts taking icton and uh I said uh we need to do a scan you know uh everybody gets sick of hearing me say we need to do a scan um she didn't want that how about an ultrasound because you can image the uh liver pretty well with an ultrasound and he she had had an ultrasound so we could compare liver's clean nothing in the liver she's fine she's driving around with the husband she's going down to the Border she's pushing back against the aliens whatever she's just she's doing very very well so that was the third patient and I thought I cannot just wait for patient 4 through n as I describe it to see if ior macton really is effective something has to be done I feel compelled to do something what is that going to be what am I going to do and I had to think hard because I didn't have the money to fund a study which would on average cost $6 million for phase one study of a repurpose medication what could I do what could I do and then after a good hard think I thought well an observational study like the Framingham study where you identify a population in the Framingham study it was the people who lived in Framingham but in this observational study it would be patients with cancer who themselves decided either in addition or instead of or whatever they decided they were going to use itin and other repurpose medications as part of their Cancer Care and I as principal investigator being just the neutral woman with a chart collecting data this observational data prospectively I would be recording the data and that would allow me to see over a period of time whether there was a survival advantage in patients with cancer who were taking icin and other repurpose medications compared to historical controls and we have Decades of historical controls as an example what is the likelihood that someone with a stage four prostate cancer sent to hospice would have over a period of N9 months a remission and a clinical Improvement as Paul experienced well as I say it's not zero probability but it approaches zero what is the likelihood that a patient with stage 4 cancer patient with stage three unresectable Sagal cancer a patient with an 18 cm kenberg tumor orelvis would all have such remarkable results that you might attribute to ior macton seeming to be the common denominator one two three what is the likelihood of that happening like winning the lottery the first three tickets you buy that approaches zero that probability approaches zero nonetheless that's not how we do science we you don't do science by saying you know it's really odd that these three people had this experience you create the hypothesis you create the question you design a study in such a way that you can answer the question and validate it and make sure that the data that you collect are neutral verifiable you can audit the data someone else who's not involved in the study is responsible the biostatistician for evaluating the data now you have the data You' accumulated that over a period of time you turn that over for peer review you go through all of that and then you publish so I began had a wonderful opportunity to speak to Dr Merck about this he was very interested and as God would have it um he thought there was great wisdom in having a multi-center observational study as I've described where you have multiple co-principle investigators with the clipboard with the data element list that we have compiled with an independent biostatistician all moving forward to collect the data with Dr Merck who you can't find someone with better credentials okay I believe that he's God teed him up to do this he probably didn't expect he was going to be doing this but I think that God teed him up to do this and so he'll be the the principal investigator on this large multicenter observational study will collect the data and if we see a signal that is if we observe and the biostatistician validates and peers concur that the patients who are taking these repurpose medications like Ivermectin especially now that we know how icon works when is working in the dirt um then we will be able to launch additional questions and additional studies and continue to move this ball downfield and so I just want to clarify one thing you said do I understand correctly that you tried itin three times only for cancer and these were the three results well I didn't try it okay so we had to be clear I didn't try it the I discuss with the patient I said you know think about this hear the studies refer the patients talk to them and then they decide I me is approved by the FDA and thank you the fifth district right and uh the incompetent attorney for the Department of Justice defending the FDA who wasn't able to argue that Physicians and providers cannot prescribe iek and or other FDA approved medications based on their judgment patients can get it across the counter in Tennessee patients chose to do this I was there calling finding out how you're doing and learning your Cancer's gone it's it's not there the the three cases you're aware of where this was done yeah that you know people were you know calling you about all of them cleared up that is an unexpected result that would warrant a study of the nature yeah that you're describing I think so yeah I think so so yeah no and so how many are is there a patient number right now across all these different centers oh it's just officially been launched okay um it I am asked a lot you know the past couple of days you know what are your data I'm like principal investigators do not discuss the data until they have the data and then they don't discuss the data until it's been validated by a biostatistician and peer-reviewed no principal investigator would jump in early on and say oh we have 100 patients and we're no that's not how studies are done now there is an imperative to do this as quickly as possible but not recklessly fortunately patients that we're seeing today particularly those with Advanced cancer don't have long to live so we don't have to do a 20-year study as you should if you were evaluating a vaccine right or a new J drug we don't have to wait 5 years to see the separation in curves if there is a separation based on these repurpose medications we're not going to have to wait 5 years to see that we'll conduct the study for at least 5 years I would imagine it's going to be open-ended why not do what Framingham did Framingham didn't shut the study down Framingham has been going at it for decades right why not keep the studies open and see how far down field you can get with that well you'll and you'll quickly see you know what how many out of the people that are around are making it basically because of that that's um incredible I wish you luck with this well you know science is the uncertain pursuit of the unknown and I'm not sure it's uh it's luck so much as it is paying attention right you pay attention you concern you use your judgment you use your judgment there a medical student asked the question uh in the Forum yesterday uh uh based on uh William osler's statement to the medical students at Johns Hopkins half of what we teach you is wrong we don't know which half it is and the medical student said well how am I supposed to figure this out you use your judgment that's what you really learn as a professional use your judgment pay attention look at the data ask questions ask question questions ask questions use your judgment act do something I mean unless you're just going to be an ivory Tower kind of person use your judgment and then act as the uh Africans say when you pray move your feet act okay three prepare for trouble no matter what it is prepare for difficulties flccc can tell you firstand the difficulties Merill Nash I mean people we ran into trouble right and we're running into trouble now prepare for difficulties expect it defend yourself identify what the vulnerabilities are expect them preempt them to the extent that you can you can't preempt everything don't be surprised when it happens don't give up okay don't give up Paul man has tattooed on the inner wrist don't give up he wanted to remind himself I'm dying of cancer don't give up okay don't give up and finally do your best do your best those five principles yeah luck sure fine we'll take luck just do those things um and you'll be lucky enough let's put it that way and you know in not too long we'll have some you know preliminary results from this from these stud I'll be very interested in knowing what they show me too um me too you know and it's not on the other hand you know at the beginning I was saying you know there's this iberin Obsession here with this group I'm kind of Jo I'm kind of being glib of course yeah but you know Dr Paul Merck has indeed you know looked into you know hundreds of different papers of methods of both prevention and treatment of cancer of things that we just simply weren't aware of or like we're not not in our frame of reference not in his frame of reference in most cases never mind mine right yeah and and there's a lot of them I mean V there's this astonishing uh study on vitamin D that that that we talked about in our interview he said it was the one of the most significant findings he had he had found I mean who knew right that vitamin D can help with a few other things and you know very rigorous yeah evidence for that right and but there's so many there's actually so many things that don't involve or could work in addition to things like you know radiation or a Keo and and so forth so why why not I vercon you know right I guess that that's also the the question yeah well let's see Ivor maon let's see mebendazol metformin sedan vitamin D3 at higher doses C all this a whole list are you are you are you working on those as well I allow the patients to make their decisions my job as I see it is to provide to answer all questions that occur to them and they're pretty well informed which is a blessing um and to give them the information that I have that I think they would find useful there are issues I believe potential issues uh with the use of ican in patients with the brain tumor it's a bit uh of a challenge you've got to discuss that with a patient so they might say well I don't know if I'm interested in using I've got a brain tumor and from what you're telling me that I've might not be the best choice there is something else that would be perhaps a better choice mendas all so the patients are making the choice my job is to give them the information that they need to help them make that choice but they decide they decide so that reminds me of something that sometimes gets lost recently something called informed consent yeah that's what informed consent is I'll tell you what I know um and I I encourage patients to do this um a desperately ill wonderful man desperately with brain tumor and um there was nothing else I could do radiation C there's nothing else I could do um and he was you know losing the fight by the day and uh but there was a protocol his medical oncologist said you have to do this you have to do this and I said ask the medical oncologist why you have to do this ask the medical oncologist does he have any information about the potential for this to be beneficial is there anything in the literature anywhere and if there is any information could he share that information oh 40% of the patients dropped out of the trial and 2% of the patients had a catastrophic side effect and nobody lived longer but you have to do this trial you have to sign and so the patient goes to me this is the conversation and uh the patient's like you can't tell me if there's any benefit of the trial uh you're not free to tell me what any of the preliminary complications might be I'm signing this consent and you got two pages of complications here but you're not discussing that with me but you're telling me I have to do this this is my only choice and the patient said no thank you so yeah thorough inform consent well and you know when it comes to all of these existing standard therapies there is all of them have you know they they don't work 100% you have to there's a there's a risk benefit right in any one of these scenarios that that and this is you know this is one of the things I hadn't really thought about that much until Co right and understanding that that's always the calculation you have to make with any disease any treatment for that disease and the side effects and and so forth you there's kind of that's that's why every doctor needs to look at each patient individually yeah and and ask the question how how valuable is this for you and what are the possible costs then you'll and in the end you can you can choose if this is right right right and some patients may say you know enroll me in the study if it kills me maybe I add some beneficial information fine there'll be some patients who will say I've had enough okay I'm done okay I'm dying if you can't tell me that I'll tell you I'm dying I'm going to go home make me comfortable at home please patient series and I can just you know imagine there's some cases where people are you know where the doctor will say well frankly this seems to be the only reasonable it has its risks but it's the only thing I see helping yeah right and that that's reasonable too right yeah sure right yeah you also talking about um these uh breast cancer viruses right and so so what do we know about that right now what's this what's the state of knowledge we know that a breast cancer virus exists in mice no one has any question about that the animal models that are used to study drugs and interventions uh that might translate into use in women with breast cancer are all bed based on these mice that get breast cancer and they get breast cancer because of the breast cancer virus which was discovered by John bner in 1936 that virus has been found in other animals that virus has been found in rats cats dogs monkeys and that virus has been found in humans uh Dr James Holland who since passed away um highly respected venerated researcher professor of medical oncology and virology at Mount Si beatric Pogo a professor of virology at Mount Si found this virus in human breast cancer others have found it there's Decades of research I mean a 100 Years of research um on this breast cancer virus in the runup to the uh passage of the National Cancer Act there were hearings in the Senate and at that hearing uh Dr Holland talked about the breast cancer virus was 50 years ago there were other researchers talking about tumor viruses the one of the largest study sections at the NCI so the NCI funds research based on study sections this is a section we're going to study this so one of the largest study section sections at the NCI for maybe 10 20 years prior to the drafting of the National Cancer Act was tumor viruses Leukemia Lymphoma sv40 the breast cancer virus when the National Cancer Act was passed and it was declared as if written in stone that we would cure cancer in five years this was a pipe dream the pipe dream of a woman who had a degree in art history who persuaded Nixon who needed a way out from a deteriorating public polling he was having a bad rap in Vietnam the war on cancer how about that we'll replace the war in Vietnam with a war on cancer everybody ought to love that and we're going to cure cancer in five years great we don't need to know what causes it so all of the research on tumor viruses was completely deep sixed that's the end of the story on the breast cancer virus I was completely unaware of it I had done my fellowship at moral and kering I had never heard of the breast cancer virus so when I heard of the existence of one because Holland had uh published a paper and presented at the San Antonio breast uh meeting um 2006 December 2006 I was like what a press cancer virus the story as I began to understand it was so intriguing so I wrote a book about it and then tried to advance to reawaken Susan choman Foundation Susan love Foundation American Cancer nobody's interested in the breast cancer virus why because we're treating it we have mamogram screening and we're finding it early and we have a Arimidex and we have re setin I'm like you know we discovered that HPV causes cervical cancer make a vaccine a proper vaccine against that you need make a proper vaccine against that one that's safe if you take the virus out of the equation you don't get cervical cancer John Bitner showed that with the breast cancer virus so the research on the breast cancer virus has inched forward against enormous opposition in the past 20 years but perhaps one of the great blessings of This Global catastrophe will be a better understanding of MEC and and repurpose medications and how and why they work and given the fact that I've been asked to share my thoughts about this from time to time I get a chance to talk about the breast cancer virus and see if we can't reawaken some interest in this because if it's true that a virus causes breast cancer in women we need to know about that and we need to do something about that and another monoclonal antibody is not what I'm talking about I mean absolutely fascinating and and you know a book A book another book to for my for my reading so how many other molecules are have been identified that are these you know immune systems in a molecule as you would describe it well I think all of the antibiotics are nature's bioweapons I dare we even use that [Music] term which is why something like doxy cyclon is part of a protocol uh right um ader vastan you know a Statin um I think that Dr Merck has identified 10 13 uh various natural compounds green tea extract right tea green tea leaves in nature nature paths will tell you all about this how many are there I have no idea um I know that uh Dr mer has identified uh a list my view is that there's justification for the items on his list and if we begin to take this seriously and move forward seriously we can begin to look at other naturally more naturally occurring I mean is this almost like a kind of new sub branch of medicine or something that we're launching here no I think it's a renovation of an Old Branch of medicine called cancer oncology okay every now and again you have to renovate right have you ever renovated a kitchen you can take the house down to the foundation um I don't think we need to burn the house down I think there's so many smart people so many good people um I mean really brilliant wonderful people that have contributed to this vast body of knowledge I think we have to renovate I think we got a leaky roof and the windows aren't quite right the floor is slow big job ahead of us um I think we can renovate and I think that a renovation of cancer I'll probably take a lot of heat but prepare for trouble right item number three on the list prepare for trouble I think that it's possible that the principles of medical oncology based on chemotherapy cytotoxic chemotherapy will give way to a new approach where it's not targeted because targeted therapy is not targeted to the tumor herceptin targets cancer cells that Express her too new but also targets the heart okay targets other other organs truly um targeting the cancer and the metabolic pathways of cancer leaving the rest of you alone boosting the immune system that's the renovation and as I I said earlier today this is something of an exaggeration but maybe this will be what happens uh you replace um things like the iron lung for polio right um and you replace face masks you replace cytotoxic chemotherapy with other interventions that are not toxic but that get the job done well Dr Kathleen rdy it's such a pleasure to have had you on thank you very much thank you all for joining Dr Kathleen rdy and me on this episode of American thought leaders I'm your host Yan Kell [Music]

Summary: I was as astonished as anyone might be that Ivor mecon has potential as an anti-cancer agent I began to be aware there was 20 years of research showing that Ivor meon had great potential in the treatment of cancer in this episode I sit down with cancer surgeon turned researcher Dr Kathleen rdy who has been studying how repurposed drugs like ior mechon may impact cancer survival rates a guy in his 70s who had been losing weight for year and a half 40 lb not…


A Conversation with Sarah Green PA-C, Dr. Paul Marik | Ivermectin, Cancer & Spike Protein
YouTube video by Dr. Paul Marik (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3uJT2y_ixgs). Transcript is the auto-caption track — verbatim ASR, not a certified transcript.

Tonight I want to introduce you to Dave. He's one of my co-conspirators here. We do a lot of um recordings and record different people kind of coming out with new uh data to support kind of the stuff that we believe in. And we are so honored to have again with us Dr. Paul Merrick who is um >> legendary >> paving the path yeah legendary and paving the path to something that's really near and dear to my heart because I have so many patients calling my practice um with new diagnoses of cancers and he is really kind of who I'm following and he's been a legend in kind of showing what some of these repurposed drugs can do to help fight cancer. So Paul, go ahead and give us a little bit information about what you've been doing and what you've been seeing. >> Well, thank you Sarah. Thanks for having me back again. And so, you know, obviously this is this is a dynamic process. It evolves every day as we're learning as the science evolves. And you know, we need to be clear that this is not just coming out of thin air. We we follow the science closely. And this is supported by an enormous body of scientific evidence. But what has become clear is our understanding of the process has evolved. So you know when I started I we had a list of I don't know 35 repurposed drugs but we have a now a much better understanding of how they work together, how to group them, which ones to use together, which ones to use for for different cancers. And so that gives a much more logical and scientific approach. So to actually tell you what happened is really kind of interesting. So, for the last two years, I've been reading papers, maybe 2,000 papers on um repurposed drugs and, you know, came out with my first book and then the second book in which I listed 35 drugs, but I had listed them, you know, in an order I thought made sense, but it was very much based on just common sense rather than a way to scientifically validate it. And then my co-conspirator Justice Hope said, "You know what we should do? Why don't we ask artificial intelligence AI what AI thinks and how we should rank these drugs?" And so then we started ranking the drugs according to AI. At first I was a little bit suspicious because I thought AI would be controlled by big farmer and the the enemy. but soon to discover that the information it provided provided was remarkably accurate and supported by scientific references and made an enormous amount of sense. >> So the remarkable thing is and so maybe this is why it it we know it's it's valid is that AI's list of drugs and our list of drugs were almost the same. So what what took me two years to do AI did in five minutes and um since we've now understand how AI works better and we know how to ask it better questions it's it's become more refined and so basically you know to a large extent chemotherapy is shotgun therapy you you give an agent which damages ES chromosomes. It doesn't it's not specific. While there are targeted therapies, it's not specific. Acts on one specific pathway and it does a lot of damage. And probably the most absurd thing about chemotherapy is it damages the immune system. It damages your T-C cells and your lymphosytes and your B cells, which are the cells you most need when you have cancer. So you need to have your immune system fighting the cancer. But what does chemotherapy do? It knocks out those very cells that you need to fight cancer. So it actually makes no sense. It's a completely meaningless senseless kind of therapy. So the way we've kind of decid looked at this now is that cancer has a number of components you need to deal with. The first is the metabolic dysfunction. So what we do know going back to 1924 and Otto Warberg is the cancer cell is metabolically different and all cancer cells are metabolically different. Doesn't matter what an oncologist says. That is just an absolute truth and a fact. So the first line of therapy is to use drugs that target those metabolic pathways. And so we know which drugs do that and we know which drugs which pathways they target. you know pathways such as what's called heft one or CMIC or or NFCappa B these are specific biochemical pathways these aren't random pathways hexocinise 2 uh these are specific pathways of the cancer cell so the first line of therapy is to target those biochemical pathways which the cancer cell relies upon because cancer cells need glucose. They're highly glucose dependent. This is the Warberg effect. They they cannot undergo oxidative metabolism. So the metabolism of the cancer cell has changed. So we as clinician can use this to our therapeutic benefit by targeting those pathways which the cancer cell uses. It's pretty simple because they are different from normal cells. The pathways are different and it just so happens some of the most powerful pathways are affected by EGCG which is green tea and curcumin. Isn't that astonishing? >> Right? Beautiful. most powerful path the most powerful pathways that interfere with cancer metabolism is these two. >> So the first approach is to deal with the altered metabolism and then obviously together with that is diet. I mean you know most oncologists are completely clueless but we know these cells are dependent on glucose. So you need to limit the amount of glucose you take in. Now obviously we would suggest a ketogenic diet but for some patients it's not that easy um to adopt a strict gluccogenic diet. But you ketogenic diet but you know what you need to reduce your intake of glucose. Glucose generally is a cellular toxin. It causes glucose and carbohydrate addiction. So patients should just cut out processed food and glucose because what they're if they think about what they're doing, they're feeding the cancer cell with the sodas and carbohydrates that they're eating. They're feeding the cancer cell. So, so if you use metabolic therapies, which we've mentioned, together with dietary manipulation and ketosis, you that's really the first prronged approach to dealing with cancer. The second is something called a cancer stem cell. And it seems like oncologists have no idea about a cancer stem cell because they don't deal with it. And so the cancer stem cell is the is the cell that gives rise to the cancer. And so the astonishing thing is that chemotherapy does not kill the stem cell. In fact, many chemotherapeutic drugs actually promote the growth of stem cells. >> So what you're doing is you're cutting you're taking away the rapidly dividing cells. that the stem cells which ultimately give rise to the cancer you leaving alone and these then give rise to metastatic spread. It is so completely and utterly stupid and inconceivable that an oncologist can ignore a cancer stem cell because you cannot we don't like to use the word cure but you cannot induce a remission unless you deal with a stem cell. You have to deal with a stem cell and we know what the pathways are. Again, this is all biochemistry. It's well published. We know the pathways that are involved with a cancer stem cell. And so guess what drug is the most effective drug for dealing with and I hate to say it and you're laughing because >> where's the worst >> here it comes it's this word that yeah you get banned >> and you see you don't have to ask me >> you can go to AI and AI is not going to lie to you >> it's the eye drug. The I drug is the most effective drug in dealing with uh cancer stem cells and then you combine that with you know the other antiparasitic drug mandisol they very potent together and then you add vitamin D. So those five drugs form the basic um components of our basic therapy you know including >> the ECGC and the curcumin. >> Yeah the ECGC the curcumin the ivamectin the meendazol and vitamin D. Those five um serve the basic or the cornerstone of any of all of our treatment protocols. And then there are other things that that you can add. But but we we believe those are the f at this point in time the f five major drugs or agents patients need to take. Um and when we talk about ivameactin we're not talking about doses you know gazillion milligrams you know we're talking about you know.3 initially to 6 milligrams per kilogram. And when we talk about bandazol 200 milligrams. So you know these are these are reasonable doses because there are people out there recommending completely ridiculous doses. >> The other thing that that I need to say is that there is this notion out there that is perpetuated by complete goofheads. think they're goofheads or or nutcases or I don't know what you want to call them who think that who believe that because I meendol are active against cancer and because I meendol are parasitic drugs that cancer is a parasitic disease. >> Thank you. So these people are complete and utter net cases because as I've explained to you ivame works via specific pathways >> right >> this is well reported in the in the medical literature it's not this is not made up and these pathways have nothing to do nothing to do with the way ivameactin kills parasites. So it's a completely it's just one of those remarkable things about ivameactin. It's this multi-potent drug that acts via multiple modalities. One of the ways it does it kills parasites but it's not the way it kills cancer cells. And so there is this ridiculous notion that patients should go on a cancer cleanse. Sorry, a parasite cleanse. So what you need to do to prevent cancer or treat cancer is go on a on a parasite cleanse. It's complete and utter BS and we need to stop this nonsense from being further perpetuated. Other than me acts via specific biochemical pathways which interfere with the the the um cancer stem cell survival. It's as simple as that. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> And then obviously the other things that are important is the immunity. It's really important. I mean you know cell surveillance and and te- cell immunity is really important. That's how we get rid of cancers is we have our our tea killer cells, our lymphosytes, our getting rid of cancer. And to to to have therapy which knocks out your immune system makes absolutely no sense. It just so happens that kurcumin and green tea actually have very important effects on your on your tumor micro environment to improve your you know your tea cells and to suppress your myoid depressor cells and your T- regulatory cells. So these drugs have multiple modes of action. So, it's a beautiful orchestra that's played together with all of these drugs working together, working on the stem cell, the specific biochemistry of the cancer cell, working on the tumor micro environment, tumor pH, the tumor imunological status. You it it makes no sense if you think about it. The way we get rid of cancer cells is our immune system. Why would you want to whack out our immune system? And then you have things like angiogenesis, which promotes metastasis. So, it just so happens that all of these drugs act on all of these pathways to um improve the outcome of cancer. I think the chemo the chemo answer is because quarter million to half a million dollars to extend somebody's life maybe for months. >> Yeah. So the data shows that the and this is published data in oncology that the newer FDA approved drugs approved by the FDA costing on average over $100,000 on average prolong life two months. And they make you so sick. So it's not that they're prolonging your life and you feel really good. They're you >> destroying your immune system. >> Yeah. >> Exactly. What they're doing is they're prolonging your suffering because they don't talk about quality of justice life. They're prolonging your suffering by two months at enormous expense. >> And so that's the problem. But it's because the FDA was in bed with big farmer. Maybe this will change now. But obviously money speaks and you know I just you know vitamin D is so important. Vitamin D is really you know has multiple modes of action. That's why it's our number five in the list. A has multiple modes of action in cancer predominantly by improving um T-C cell and lymphosy function. So it improves the immune system. So, I just replenished my yearly supply of vitamin D. >> What's your goal? >> It cost me >> $14. >> That tells you why they are so scared. >> Sure. >> I'm still trying to get mine for free. >> Yeah. I mean, you can lie out outdoors naked for a while and you can get enough vitamin D, but you know what? It's probably easier just to to take a tablet. I'm quite happy. I go outside, but I also take my vitamin D. I check my levels, and it costs 14 $14 a year. A year. So, that just gives you an example of what a complete and utter scam this is. when you're testing uh vitamin D levels on patients, what what is your goal? Because I know big pharma has their reference range and then I've heard some people say, well, we're looking for like 100 120 and some are saying 6080. What do you what is >> Yeah, it's a good question. We don't know exactly. I would say somewhere between 100 and 150. Uh >> everyone would say that's toxic. And so you're saying, >> but we know it isn't. So they they say that because they don't want you to know it works. And so I looked at this recently and so there have been a few studies looking at highdose vitamin D for cancer. Do you know what they call high dose? 2,800 units. >> Oh boy. >> Yeah. So So yeah, they don't want they do not want you to know that vitamin D is an effective treatment for cancer. They do not want you to know that. So, but there's a there's a there's a pro, you know, if you really want to be safe, the way I do it, there's something called the colum columbra protocol. I don't know if you know it, where you actually follow the PTH level. So, if you follow the PTH level, it has to be safe. You you cannot overdose on vitamin D. So, what I would say if you're using highdosese vitamin D, which is fine, just add a PTH level and it will tell you if you're the right range. >> For for reference, what are we calling high dose? >> So, it's really interesting you ask. I take 10,000 a day, which I would consider moderate dose. More recently, for for various other reasons, um I've increased my dose to 50,000 a day. 50,000. >> And you'll do that for how long? >> So, I plan to do this for about two months and then I'm going to check my vitamin D level, my calcium level, and my PTH level. >> Okay. Okay. >> Just 20,000, but that's >> just for giggles. What can the body generate in a full day of sunshine? >> Yes. So, that's a good question. So >> I'm I'm basically outside 8 to 10 hours a day. Today was full sunshine the next six months for me. >> Yeah. So it's a good question and it depends upon the time of the day and the latitude you're at, you know, where where you are in terms of how far you are from the equator, >> right? Um, obviously the further you are from the equator, the less you can generate. And you generate most vitamin D related to the angle of the UV rays usually between 10:00 and 2:00 in the day. >> How much that actually translates into already is a really good question. Um, and and I would be guessing to be honest with you. >> That that's all I was looking for. >> Yes. But there's no question if you did that you would. So I know somebody who does that. Um Dr. Mcola in Florida. Um he had he had levels close to 100 and he would get on his bicycle almost completely naked every day and drive around for a few hours on his bicycle to generate vitamin D. So I think you can develop, you know, you can develop pretty high levels if you ex completely expose yourself to ultraviolet radiation. Um >> skin tone also has something to do with it. So if you've got super light skin and you go out and sit in the sun for four hours and then you've got really dark skin, your melanin is much higher. You're not going to get as much. So it's going to vary depending on your ethnicity as well. And you you don't want to burn. You know, the idea is you don't want to be in the sun so long that you burn. Some people can be in the sun. You know, people who have outdoor jobs and they're fine, but other people burn. You don't want to get to the point where it actually burns the skin. >> Sure. I've got a question about your Oh, go ahead, Dave. >> That That's me is the outdoor work. So, at this time of year, it's shorts and shoes. By the time summer rolls around, I'm already brown. Yeah, the only thing maybe I would suggest and is the face is particularly vulnerable to basilc cell carcinoma which is related to radiation. So I wouldn't put you know sunscreen on your body but maybe just wear a cap just to protect your nose and and your your your face. That's the only thing I would do. >> Yeah. Yeah. I have a question about your the medbendazol as well. So you I I thank you for all your protocols. I love it. I I've been reading them and I've been implementing them. You have 200 milligrams medendazol is kind of your uh main dose. Would you and that's kind of where I start my patients. But if if you have someone with glyobblasto, let's say, and we've I don't know if this is true. This is what I've been taught is that Ivormectin crosses the blood barrier but not quite as effective as meendazol. Do you up your meendazol depending on what cancer it is and where it's located or are you kind of like 200 milligrams that's good and we're staying there and we just kind of >> Yeah. So that's a good question. So I think all of these drugs act synergistically not I think we know they act synergistically together. So that's why you don't want to use one drug when it comes to meendazol. So for many of these drugs, we're not sure if there's a dose response relationship. We don't know. So for example, for other we don't know what the optimal dose is, >> right? >> So what I would say and so what we've done is say or start off at a for either MACD like three or four and see what happens. If the patient's not doing well, you know, you're what by whatever way you're measuring it, tumor marker or tumor growth or pet scale and then increase the dose. I mean, it's not rocket science. >> So, we don't know what the optimal dose is. And hopefully with time you know we'll get more data because out of all the questions that I want answered the most important would be is there a dose response curve with ivame is there a dose response curve with mendazol and the answer is we don't know but obviously the higher the dose the greater the risk of toxicity and side effects which we want to minimize and I think you know you probably have the maximal benefit at like 3 or 0 4 and I think as you increase the dose the benefits become less obvious but if a patient has a a g which is a really bad tumor I think it makes sense to you know you can follow the patient start off at 3 or point 4 you know obviously I would start off at the higher end and then see what happens if the patient's not doing well then increase the dose Mhm. Okay. And and I have everyone asking me this and I've talked to you about this, but methylene blue, that's that's all over the media. Everyone's talking about it. You have the naysayers, of course, and well, I'll talk a little bit about what some naysayers are saying about ivormectin. I want to get your take on that, but um a lot of people wanting to take methylene blue. I've tried it. I didn't use the red light therapy with it. I'm not sure I felt a whole lot of change or difference, but what do you what's your take on methylene blue? >> Yes. So, um the answer is we don't know. There's not a lot of data on methylene blue and cancer. And so once we finished our little chitty catty, I'm going to go back to AI and ask it again. But when I looked last time, there wasn't a lot of data. But on the reverse side, um, since cancer is primarily a metabolic disease and as Thomas Zfried has shown, it's a disease of mitochondria and since um, methylene blue does improve mitochondrial function and electron transport, it may it may have a role. So what I would say is that you know we've decided what our five major drugs are and if patients are struggling then I would there's nothing wrong with adding methylene blue it's safe >> and so and if patients want to add it I think it's safe now you want to use it in reasonable doses because I know there are people that are recommending you know completely thousand gazillion milligram doses which I think are insane but if If you use the, you know, I use the 10 or 15 drops a day, which is fine. The only precaution is that you shouldn't be on SSRIs or psych psychoactive drugs because it could cause you to become really sick. >> So, so you just have to be careful of the drug interactions with with methylene blue. The other thing is methadine blue works quite well with photobiomodulation. It kind of acts synergistically. So for diseases like brain fog, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's disease, it makes a lot of sense. >> Sure. Yeah. >> And so as you say, you know, this is a growing and developing field. um we don't know all the answers but at least we you have to keep an open mind. So you know who would have thought three years ago we would have been suggesting ivameactive to treat cancer but you know what there's good science and I think you just keep an open mind is we don't know. Yeah, >> there's a lot of talk. I'm sure Dave, you've gotten videos. I probably get 10 or 15 a day of the naysayers. Some of which are they talk about polyorbate 80 in there and they talk about >> I could I could name them. Yes, I do get them. >> Nanotech. I've talked to ph my compounding pharmacists who said no, that's not a thing. But now the new hype is Ivormectin causing infertility, which I I I disagree with. recycling >> ongoing. >> I've even brought that up. They were dosing rats at 14.5 mg per kilogram of body weight and destroying their bodies with it. That's an insane dose. 14.5 milligrams. >> So, this is Michael Yeden. For some reason, >> this is what he's been perpetuating. But just remember, Michael Eden doesn't believe that SARS virus exists. So, um that that's how out of space he is. So, um we've looked at it. You know, it's been used in millions of people and billions of doses. There's seem to be a lot of Africans running around Africa. It doesn't seem >> quite a few. >> There does not seem to be a fertility issue. you know, almost everyone in central Africa has been exposed in one way or the other. So, we don't think it's a major issue. Um, and >> well, they're taking it prophylactically as well. It's not just a treatment all the time in some. >> Yes. And so, I suppose also if you think of it, if you're dying of cancer, you your first thought shouldn't be, oh, I'm going to be m I'm going to be infertile. That's a That doesn't seem to be a logical um thought process. >> Right. Right. >> Yeah. >> Before Before we lose the time, we did talk about this pre-recording. >> Yeah. >> The the metabolic information, but going further than that to the, you know, the prophylactic steps in food. You brought up glucose obviously and the ketogenic diet, but things people can be thinking about to not wind up in this position hopefully. >> Yeah. So actually you ask an interesting question because you know if you read the standard literature they say about 40% of cancers you can prevent and the things they talk about are um glucose control insulin resistance metabolic syndrome vitamin D smoking alcohol but they don't really talk about pesticides on our food. And so I read a paper like three days ago which shows that the pesticides they spray on our food causes a whole range of cancers. >> Yeah. >> And so we don't even think about it. You go to the store and you buy food, you don't know what it's being sprayed with. And so many of these pesticides have known carcinogenic properties. So, um I think it makes a case for organic food. I don't know what else to say as best you can. The problem is is that of course it's always the impoverished to get hit the worst because they can't really afford you know um organic food. But I think what it does do mean is that you know the new department of health and human services needs to look very closely at the pesticides that they spray on the crops and what we are ingesting you know because there's certain things like Wi-Fi you know and and 5G which you know and the air you have to breathe the air but you can control the food you eat and what the food is sprayed with. Um, so I think that's another important area that that we should look at. You know, it's we need to get more back to basics and it's not all about making money. It's about making healthier food. >> Yeah, >> I would agree with that. And I encourage people to grow their own food as often as possible. Um, I raise most of my own meat and my diet is very meat heavy. Not a lot of vegetables. A little more sugar than I care to admit. Sometimes I have a a thing for donuts occasionally, but moving away from the food system, but like you said, it's often the impoverished that are sort of stuck in that that repeat performance of pulling things off the grocery store shelves because that's what's available. >> Yep. >> Right. Well, glyphosate for sure. And then of course the elephant in the room which is the vaccines and not just covid vaccines but all vaccines that I mean we've seen a huge I've seen a huge increase in cancer patients with the onset of the covid vaccine. Not all of them actually received the covid vaccine. I'd say 80% of my patients who are coming to me with cancer did. Um so that there's we talked about this there's going to be just this huge I think it's going to be higher deaths. >> Yeah. >> It's going to be a tsunami of cancer. So what's interesting is there was a paper in Lancet looking at the increase in cancers prior to um 2020. So there was I think something like 16 different cancers were already increasing in young people for reasons that we're not sure. Maybe it has to do with environmental things. But then starting in 21, there's been a massive surge in the risk of cancers. And these are aggressive cancers, early cancers, unusual cancers. And these seem to be very closely linked with the um co vaccines. And this is where the problem is because you know some of the problems with the vaccine, the autoimmune things manifest kind of early on. um we don't know how long these effects because we know the spike protein hangs along around a long time and it may integrate into your DNA. So there was a study out of I think it was Yale where where they looked at um people who had been vaccinated and persistence of the spike protein. So in that study what they reported there was a page patient who had circulating spikes 700 days after the vaccine. But in fact there was another patient who they excluded cuz they didn't want to make that even worse who had circulating spike for 1,400 days. So think about what they said to us that you get injected in the arm, it stays in the arm and two days it goes away. This poor patient who is still profoundly vaccine injured has circulating spike in her blood, 1400 days after the vaccine. She's the longest known person with circulating spike. >> Figure at that point her body is making it. >> Well, her body is making it. That's the problem. That's the problem is the only way to explain it is that the RNA has now reverse transcribed into the DNA and which is kind of what they wanted to do but they thought the RNA would go away but now it must be in the DNA and her body is just making spike protein. >> Yeah. And how do you shut that off? I mean there's spike protein detox protocols. you've I I've follow I followed your FLCCCC protocol for my CO patients and I have to thank you because thousands of patients were saved because of your heroic measures to get that available to people. So, thank you so much. And then the spike protein detox protocol that you guys have on there that I follow as well. And I don't know if there's an answer for these patients because it really is I don't know how long you've got to be on these and maybe forever because if you're now making it >> so the problem is it's not very effective you know we can you use nattokynise which breaks down the extracellular spike protein but now this is in the cell in the nucleus >> it may be impossible >> and so what the new NIH needs to do there are a few things they need to do. But one of the most important things they need to do is they need to study the vaccine injured. They need to study why these people are continuing to shed spike protein and they need to investigate methods that we can somehow get rid of the spike protein if integrated. It's an absolute medical priority to kind of figure out what's going on. Why why is the body continuing to make spike protein? >> Yeah. >> Well, like you said, reverse transcription. It it's part of the body's instructions to itself now. >> Yeah. And then if that's what's happening, you know, I'm not a I'm not a biologist or an immunologist or nucleiologist, but it would have to be some kind of really fancy technique to actually excise the the in the inserted RNA or DNA out of the nucleus. How you would actually do that? But >> and it's in all the cells. I mean, it's in every cell. >> Yes. So that but but you know what you need we need to look into that. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> That probably gets into more editing. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. It's much like video editing. You you know how how we do it. I don't know. But it's it's certainly something the NIH should be looking at. Sir, >> I can't think of a more urgent priority than to study the effects, the long-term effects of these vaccines and why people are have circulating spike for so long, where it's being made and what we can do. >> Yeah, >> I think starters we could stop putting it in more people. Oh, >> of course. I mean obviously the first thing is to stop is to stop putting it in. >> Yeah. >> Sure. >> Sure. Let's talk about that. >> That's research that needs to be done. Oh, so we did we did bring that up prior to recording as well that there are now two fasttracked mRNA vaccines. One is the Gates Arc Taurus bird flu self amplifying. And then last week I saw one that blew my mind. They're fasttracking an mRNA vaccine for chlamydia. >> Yeah. So, you know what you would imagine with everything that's happened, I mean, it's impossible to deny the fact that there are millions of vacine injured patients following these mRNA jabs. >> Yeah, >> you can't deny it. So if we were a responsible society, we would at least put this on hold until we have a better idea. There should be a moratorum on messenger RNA vaccines. And honestly, I don't think they have a place at all. You know, it's not like civilization has been deficient in mRNA vaccines for tens of thousands of years and suddenly we need them for the survival of humanity. we don't need them and I think we have to be very careful with what we messing with um you know because we may not be able to go back again you know as as we've just spoken you know once it gets into your DNA you may be done for so we need to stop we need a moratorum on these vaccines until we know exactly what's happening >> I would agree with that and I think we need actual evidence even in placebocont controlled trials that I I don't see it as being possible that they're actually useful for something. I don't think they could prove they're not dangerous, but I don't think they can prove they're useful either. >> Yeah. No, I agree with you. I mean, the whole question of vaccinology, the benefits to humanity is is is now become an open question. And just and an additional layer is the mRNAs. And I think we we you know we need we need to stop using them you know and particularly in children. So this move by Kennedy of trying to get the COVID vaccine off the childhood schedule is is is the right first step to do. >> We should not be giving these to children. >> Right. Well, and we were just talking also earlier about uh having, you know, doing testing. No, no vaccine out there right now h has been tried against a placebo. So, start then we we talked about this. The new vaccines coming out need to be tested, tried before they get it out there, which is going to be a big move. But what about all these other ones that are quite >> So, that's not quite true. is that the FISA um mRNA vaccine was a placebo trial. The problem is that FISA cheated. They manipulated the data. They fraudulently changed the data. So what's the point in doing a randomized control trial where you fraudulently changed the data? We know there were more deaths in the FISA arm than in the placebo arm. We know that. >> So, but they won't talk about it. So what's what's the point? So the whole system needs to be changed where where their third party people who overseeing. So if you think about it, FISA designs the study so it's positive. They they execute the study so it's positive. They collect and manipulate the data so that it's positive. They then write up the paper using ghost riders so that it's positive. It's completely a bogus system that gives the drug company complete control over their bogus data. >> I should think third party trial with no accountability but public. >> Yes. >> I don't want the government in on it either because they'll do the same thing. They'll lie for >> the release the data. >> You want professional trial companies who that's what they do. who are held accountable because if you have FISA deciding is this an adverse event or not it obviously it will sway in their benefit. So these should be done and they should only break the the code at the end of the study. So the way that clinical trials are done needs to be completely revamped. >> Sure. What about liability? So, if they're not going to go back and test these, how about we start making these vaccine companies liable for any kind of vaccine injury? Once that was put in place, the the number of childhood vaccines rose exponentially and no no liability, no accountability, that that has to change. >> Yes, I agree with you 100%. As soon as liability becomes involved and the bottom dollar becomes involved, they will be much more cautious and will it has to happen. There's no other product that consumer project that doesn't have some kind of liability. How can you make give them liability protection? It'll allow people to make cars that fall apart or explode. So you you you you have to you you can't give them protection. They need that their products need to be safe as advertised and they need to be, you know, be open to litigation if they lie, >> right? We'll see if this happens. Hopefully that's the new push. >> Hopefully it's the direction we're moving in. I I I'm always skeptical that, you know, even if everybody was on the same team moving in the right direction, I'm always skeptical that four years is enough to get that kind of work done because of who you're working against. Even working in a vacuum, four years is not a lot of time to change the system. But when the system is pushing back against you, four years is not but a day. >> Yes. No, I agree with you. So um a lot has to happen in four years and it could be quickly reversed >> if the election went the other way in four years time and um this has been going on for 40 50 60 years. So there's a lot that needs to be done that needs to be undone. But I think also there needs to be a lot of, you know, there's been so much propaganda and misinformation perpetuated by the the media that don't give you the truth that we really do need the population to understand what's actually happened, >> right? >> And I think >> I think that's a desperate part of the social media game. And in spite of constantly saying I don't want to keep doing this, I keep doing it anyway. Like if I can reach one person a week or one person a month that changes their outlook and they start paying attention then I feel like the time investment is worth it. >> Yeah. So I think it it's changing. You would imagine the data is so clearcut. You would imagine it would be changing at a much more rapid rate. Um because it's not it's not subtle. But there's still there's still people that believe the earth is flat and vaccines are safe and effective. >> Yeah, they're lining up. >> And all cancer is parasites. >> And all cancer is parasites. Yeah. >> Yeah. Well, we know parasites cause a lot of problems, but not that. Um, okay. So, we I I I know that we got to probably wrap it up, but I'm so grateful, Paul, for you being here. And I Dave and I every time we're like, we're so excited that you're coming on and we get to pick your brain and ask you questions. So, we want to we definitely want to do this again. Um, I'm excited to have your research and have your documents that I could implement in my practice and my I you know I have so many I have a a patient who has uh colon cancer mets to the liver and just gave me his numbers and they're just they're almost non-existent. You know, I've got breast cancer patients who had large masses that are no longer palpable. um you know it's just it brain cancer patients whose scans are now negative and it's you know those are the good days. Not everybody responds to this like we want it to but when you have a win it's it just makes everything so much so much better. So it's your knowledge and your expertise and your time because you're putting in so much time to then give this to everybody to be able to utilize and use in their practice. So I really >> you know what I think every win is a win and you know if patients are on chemotherapy they need to we're not saying stop all chemotherapy but maybe you know think twice about the dosage that is used you know to cause complete neutropenia doesn't make a lot of sense. >> Many of these repurposed drugs work together with what's called metronomic chemotherapy. So, you know, it would be nice if the oncologist weren't basically their prime interest was making money. Um, you know, because the old adage was, you know, you stopped giving chemo once the patient was in the coffin. And in fact, it seems like that's the truth is they just want to give chemotherapy. And so if they were more interested in the patients health and well-being then and they can work together with us. This should should be a synergistic you know effort. The bottom line is what's what's best for the patient. >> I wonder if they've become to large degree and this is giving credit where it might not be due but desensitized when the outcome is almost always the same. >> Yes. All we're doing is prolonging your life. You're going to die in a couple months. >> Yes. >> Or you you may make it you may make it another year. We can give you another six months. Whatever it is that they're desensitized to the fact that the process that we're undergoing is definitely going to result in failure and your family is going to be broke. >> Yes. >> Well, they don't. This is what they're trained to do as well. and they don't know or want to hear anything outside that box. So, I have oncologists telling my patients, um, it doesn't matter what you eat. Sugar doesn't increase your risk. They go to their chemotherapy infusion centers and there's cookies and there's donuts and there's just crap for all these patients to eat. And you're right, the highdosese uh chemotherapy and they'll tell all my patients, you need to be completely off any neutrauticals. You can't take anything that's going to help boost your immune system. Our job right now is to kill everything. There are some hospitals. I have one patient right now at a hospital in Scottsdale and Vita. And it was fascinating. She's on four different chemo drugs. She's got metastatic breast cancer, but it's very, very microscopic doses. They make her fast for three hours and then they give her insulin to drop her glucose to 40. And then they do this very low dose chemotherapy. They rotate it. And so when they give it to her, it's only 10 minutes. And these then and they mix it with sugar. And so these cancer cells who are now starved of sugar and depleted of sugar then will suck in the chemotherapy mixed with the sugar. And she said it's very like no she feels great. And then the next week they will uh mix the cancer the chemotherapy with her PRP. We know PRP will travel to the site of inflammation. So again, they make her hypoglycemic and then they infuse her with this chemo and PRP and a little bit of glucose and she's she has no more cancer in her liver. She's also taking Ivormectin. They're very they're very active in that. She's taking Meendazol, IV curcumin, um hyperaric, ozone, red light, I mean everything. And it's it's amazing. Not everybody gets that result, but the way that she explained it to me, I'm like, that's genius. >> Yes, >> that's awesome. >> Yeah. I think we have to change the traditional oncology paradigm because it's clearly not working. >> Yeah. Yeah. Awesome. Well, thank you so much. Thank you, Dave. You guys, as always, this is so much fun. Let's do this again. >> It is always good to see you, Paul. Thank you so much. >> Yeah. Thank you. So you know we have some new documents that are evolving as we understand. So they are available on our website. Um it used to be FLCCCC it's now independent medical association uh IMA and uh you can download these documents they are evolving um but uh they are available for free. >> So what's the name of the second book Paul? It has an interesting title. The second edition. >> Yeah. >> Great. That'll make it really easy for me. >> Yeah. >> All right. Wonderful.

Summary: Tonight I want to introduce you to Dave. He's one of my co-conspirators here. We do a lot of um recordings and record different people kind of coming out with new uh data to support kind of the stuff that we believe in. And we are so honored to have again with us Dr. Paul Merrick who is um >> legendary >> paving the path yeah legendary and paving the path to something that's really near and dear to my heart because I have so many patients calling my practi…