I was doing the background research for my lecture on Prostate Cancer in my IPAK-EDU Course, The Biology of Cancer, looking for treatments that enhance genomic instability - and Guess What?
This is amazing.
I hate all in the medical fields but the ones honest is my hero.
I pray for a big karma in medical fields whos intention is to kill people. I call onto those intentions of powerful thoughts that karma will serve each and every single one of them and their whole clan what they deserve
So they’ll understand whats it like being used as a lab rats and not lose their income
I put that intentions for themselves and their whole clan
Well, well, well. Won't the purveyors of chemo drugs be dismayed. I cannot express my delight enough; thank you for the update.
Dr. Mikovits discussed the use of Ivermectin at the beginning of the plandemic for Cancer. She explained it can suppress Cancer tumor grotwth which is one of the reason it was being attacked. Pharma & the corrupt Fauci types aren’t interested in stopping disease or treating for money.
I printed an article from the NIH website for my covid file 3 years ago that suggested more study into Ivermectin for a wide range of cancers. Of course, such a miraculous generic substance must be suppressed. Have you done any research into fenbenzadole?
Does any research indicate a dosage and transport recommendation (oral, intravenous, etc.) when bringing this to one’s oncologist’s attention? I would imagine many would want to give it a try compared to the current abusive treatment regimens. This is confirming more and more that we must take responsibility for our own health. We now know good, honest information is available. Thank you!
For+5 years I've been struggling to understand the meaning of my high PSA score (9). An MRI at Mayo's showed a "questionable area" in the upper right lobe of my prostate. The next step for conventional medicine was biopsy which I've declined so far because I'm concerned it is neither definitive nor entirely safe. Last time I checked,+30 patients die annually in the USA of complications from botched conventional biopsies. Recently liquid biopsies (MiR Scientific) have become available. Mine showed a modest probable existence for clinically significant prostate cancer. Instead of the mechanical treatments, I'm more attracted to less invasive methods. I'm particularly impressed by the study of Dr. Dean Ornish that clearly showed prostate cancer can be resolved by changes in diet. This led me to Care Oncology's supplement and off-label drug protocol. Because of this new study, now I can propose to add Ivermectin to their protocol. I'm extremely grateful for your alerting me to it. Frankly, I suspected as much when I learned that Ivermectin is being researched for treatment of breast cancer.
@James have you by any chance done any digging on Chlorine Dioxide, the so called by the media "bleach" which Trump suggested be tried as a treatment for Covid?
It's a common agent used to purify public water systems and food produce, recognized widely in literature as a broadly effective and safe antibacterial, antifungal and antiviral, is extremely cheap to produce and also shows seems to show promise in vitro against cancer cells:
And on Covid, there are a handful of papers out there concluding a good effect and recommending certain uses. For example:
The FDA "warning" and summary of cases of adverse events released a while back recognizes there are no recorded deaths from the substance. Those who had been hospitalized (13 in the last decade) and for whom amounts ingested were made public took by my calculations between 1000x and 22,000x the doses recommended by those using it as a home remedy (~0.022ml diluted with water to 25ppm from what I've seen online). Home remedies also seem to me to recommend concentrations in a similar range to those used in public water treatment.
I'm about 1/4 through relevant literature on Pubmed, quite a confusing conflict between the research and prior declarations of safety from other health bodies including the EPA, USDA and CDC and the more recent warnings from the FDA. Interested in anyone else's thoughts or if able to provide further clarity.
To quote - “Chlorine dioxide gas provides a much greater antimicrobial effect compared to currently used sanitizers and antimicrobial processing systems. The use of chlorine dioxide gas, when conditions are optimized, should provide a far better alternative for treating fruit and vegetable products. In turn, it is expected that produce will be safer and have a longer shelf-life. This provides benefits to the public health sector and economically to the produce industry.”
Quote - “Maximum residual disinfectant level” is a term defined by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) at 40 CFR §§ 141.2, 141.65 as the highest level of a disinfectant allowed in drinking water. This level is currently established by EPA at 4 mg/L for chlorine (as Cl2) and 0.8 mg/L for chlorine dioxide."
Here is a CDC page also mentioning that it is used in disinfect drinking water:
Yet here is the FDA's public warning:
And a recent FDA paper reviewing adverse events:
And for fun an article about Trump and the substance from The Guardian:
Is there something I'm missing?
I don't wish to recommend that anyone take it btw, only to point out what seems to me a similar fact pattern - a cheap and readily available compound showing promise in basic research with a known low risk profile painted by the FDA and media for being dangerous based on what seems to me to be dubious evidence.
Interested if anyone can provide further clarity or info.
Most cancer cells and most virally-infected cells share similarities in how they reconfigure metabolic processes (Warburg metabolism) from a normal healthy cell and therefore it’s highly likely a single therapeutic, like IVM, could be a ‘magic bullet’ to target BOTH aberrant conditions but be safe for normal cells - and therefore DISASTROUS for Big Pharma profits. Oh how wonderful to hope that IVM could destroy Big Pharma!
Wow. What would the treatment dosage be for humans?
Thank you for all the details. Still, I'm having problems that you might help me resolve.
Please, explain how the following problems can be remedied in order to make "medical" studies at least feasible, if not fully credible:
1. My first problem with any "medical" study these days is that they cannot be done at home in the kitchen for free. Somebody has to cover the expenses of a lab and the study materials.
2. My second problem is that most "medical" research is either flawed or plain fraudulent, so how can an "author" rely on previous studies?
3. My third problem is that due to the complexity of most such research cannot escape the trap of having to rely on previous studies.
Tess Lawrie's article from 11 days ago also addresses the subject:
On my end, I have to rely on conjecturing and common sense. Your comments to the following would be highly appreciated:
There is an active community based trial for this application in Philippines and Spain. They combine it with lactiferrin as well. Initial reports of some excellent responses. Not just prostrate cancers. I shared your post with one of the study leaders.
A pleasant day wherever you all are. We're treating breast cancers, prostate cancers, brain cancers, liver with pancreatic cancers. Some of our participants are in the US, Spain, India, Philippines, South Africa and hopefully soon in Germany. Our results are encouraging. If you're a doctor anywhere in the world and you think you're ready to join us to show the world that IVM can knock out cancers. Send me an email at firstname.lastname@example.org. If you're not a doctor but know of doctors worldwide whom you think will want to join us, send me an email. Thanks