WEBVTT
00:00:01.120 --> 00:00:02.959
Okay, welcome everybody.
00:00:03.120 --> 00:00:24.480
This is uh September 2nd, 2026, and uh this is the first webinar after my uh summer break, and I appreciate everybody joining me, and I hope you had a great summer, and I am ready to get going again.
00:00:24.800 --> 00:00:31.120
Um I'll probably say a little bit more about what I have in mind these upcoming months.
00:00:32.240 --> 00:00:38.399
Uh, but I also wanted to say I it was a very productive summer for us.
00:00:38.560 --> 00:00:44.560
We spent a lot of time in the garden and even more time, probably food processing.
00:00:44.799 --> 00:01:02.000
We have literally hundreds of bags and jars and bottles of everything from asparagus and broccoli and pureeed pumpkins and 26 liters of water frozen watermelon juice.
00:01:02.159 --> 00:01:24.159
I love watermelons, and I uh grew about 40 of them, and I put them in a food processor and then strain it through a cheese cheesecloth and put the juice in a liter uh glass bottle and put it in the freezer, and then you can thaw it and have watermelon juice all winter, which is really good.
00:01:24.719 --> 00:01:41.439
We have uh a couple hundred uh wec jars of aronia berries and gooseberries and raspberries, blueberries, strawberries, currants and yastaberries.
00:01:41.519 --> 00:01:44.959
Uh probably forgetting some, all from our garden.
00:01:45.200 --> 00:01:51.680
Uh the vegetables are all from the garden and they're in bags and different containers.
00:01:51.920 --> 00:01:55.680
We try not to use any of those plastic containers.
00:01:55.840 --> 00:02:03.120
So they're all in glass whack jars or uh compostable or paper.
00:02:03.200 --> 00:02:06.879
Uh we wrap them in butcher paper and put them in the freezer.
00:02:07.840 --> 00:02:11.280
So that's a lot of what our summer was about.
00:02:11.520 --> 00:02:19.520
Um somebody asked in the chat, I saw what about uh if there's any news from pumpkin or the other animals.
00:02:19.840 --> 00:02:22.159
Uh all four cats seem fine.
00:02:22.319 --> 00:02:24.800
Three come and go inside and out.
00:02:25.039 --> 00:02:27.840
They spend a lot of time outside these days.
00:02:27.919 --> 00:02:35.120
Uh Lucy is only in an outside cat, and she lives in her little barn in the garden.
00:02:35.439 --> 00:02:40.319
Uh the goats, Charlie and Riley and Juni, are all doing well.
00:02:40.479 --> 00:02:51.599
We have six chickens who've been with us about 150 days, and they lay about 4.8 eggs per day.
00:02:51.919 --> 00:02:57.919
I actually uh every day now uh note the number of days we've had the chickens.
00:02:58.080 --> 00:03:03.840
I have a logbook, and I found that as I get older I like to write things down.
00:03:04.080 --> 00:03:15.039
So I write how many days we've had the chickens, if there's anything wrong with any of them, if they're broody or look like they're not well, I take make a note of that, or any of the goats.
00:03:15.520 --> 00:03:21.680
Um and then I write down how many eggs, and they're some of the best eggs uh we probably ever had.
00:03:21.759 --> 00:03:23.039
They're great chickens.
00:03:23.280 --> 00:03:31.199
They spend the entire day roaming around outside uh eating bugs and worms and grass and whatever else.
00:03:31.439 --> 00:03:37.039
They feel like uh the goats are all happy and uh well fed.
00:03:38.080 --> 00:03:50.800
Um the most interesting thing I've noticed about the goats is we have a uh you know regular fence and then two electric fence areas where they can roam.
00:03:50.960 --> 00:04:04.800
And we made it specifically so they could roam into the bushes, and there's rose stand of rose bushes and other trees they can browse at because goats apparently are browsers.
00:04:05.439 --> 00:04:27.439
But typically our goats uh will not go browse from the rose bushes, but they're very happy to uh have me cut the rose branches and stand there at six o'clock every evening uh and they eat right out of uh eat pull the leaves right off the branches in my hand.
00:04:27.920 --> 00:04:34.480
So apparently uh I've trained them to be lazy goats who don't forage for themselves.
00:04:34.879 --> 00:04:36.399
Uh they seem happy.
00:04:36.720 --> 00:04:41.040
I sometimes get annoyed with them, but otherwise we're good.
00:04:41.759 --> 00:04:52.480
Uh the only news about Pumpkin is uh last year he was gone for eight days, which was very unusual for Pumpkin.
00:04:53.199 --> 00:04:55.600
Uh we didn't see him for eight days.
00:04:56.079 --> 00:05:01.839
And uh then he came back, uh, which was a very happy day for us.
00:05:02.079 --> 00:05:08.079
So I decided to write in my logbook how many days Pumpkin has been home.
00:05:08.480 --> 00:05:24.959
Uh in other words, if I see him during the day, either at a feeding or he sleeps inside or comes inside or comes and sits with me in the garden, which he does almost every day, and he comes with us to help feed the goats, and he seems to be friends with Juni.
00:05:25.839 --> 00:05:35.920
Um so I write down pumpkins, uh, this is day 36, he's been home, and how he did today, just one line.
00:05:36.319 --> 00:05:44.879
So I will report that he's been home 341 days exactly uh that I've seen him.
00:05:45.120 --> 00:05:56.639
So I'm a little bit nervous about when it gets to 365, like there was something about end of September or October that made him want to leave, but I don't think so.
00:05:56.879 --> 00:06:05.839
So I will report back and hopefully we're gonna my goal is for the for us to hit 10,000 days.
00:06:06.639 --> 00:06:10.399
I don't know who's gonna give out first, me or pumpkin, but we'll see.
00:06:12.000 --> 00:06:13.199
So that's the news.
00:06:13.360 --> 00:06:18.720
It's been uh really great growing summer, and I hope everybody had a good summer.
00:06:18.879 --> 00:06:25.839
It's been way too hot, as everybody knows, but we've had enough rain, so I haven't had to water in about six weeks.
00:06:27.040 --> 00:06:31.600
And otherwise, that's this update.
00:06:32.240 --> 00:06:35.839
And I'm happy to be back with the webinars.
00:06:36.000 --> 00:06:38.800
Um, just to say a word about the intentions.
00:06:38.959 --> 00:06:58.800
A lot of what seems to be up uh and what I'm hearing a lot of feedback about is that uh Tom is getting too outrageous in his claims, uh saying there's no evidence for hormones and vitamins and omega-3s and a lot of other things.
00:06:59.759 --> 00:07:09.439
And I hope to address those issues in detail and to be very clear and specific about what I mean.
00:07:09.920 --> 00:07:17.199
Uh and to give an example, I am not saying that uh vitamins don't exist.
00:07:18.160 --> 00:07:39.759
What I'm saying is, as far as I can see, the uh rigorous proof for the existence of these chemicals we call vitamins in natural living substances like butter or us or whatever, um, has not been proven.
00:07:40.240 --> 00:07:56.480
So we have no real no uh no ability to say we have any of these vitamins, hormones, uh, etc., in in us or any living thing or in any of the natural foods that we eat.
00:07:56.720 --> 00:08:00.560
And of course, I don't expect anybody to take that on face value.
00:08:00.720 --> 00:08:02.879
I don't expect anybody to believe it.
00:08:03.120 --> 00:08:16.560
I didn't believe it myself, and a lot of the stuff that I've written about has been with talking about omega-3s and this vitamin or or whatever, this uh hormone or insulin or whatever.
00:08:16.800 --> 00:08:34.960
And it was it wasn't until I uh started to rigorously look at the evidence for these things that I started to shift, and I couldn't uh in good conscience uh agree that these things have been identified or found.
00:08:35.600 --> 00:09:04.320
So next week I'm going to pursue this a little bit more with a friend Jordan Grant, who probably many of you know, and I can't think of anybody who's done more and is better equipped to uh address the issue of has uh have vitamins in particular, we're going to look at vitamin D, been found in living substances or in natural substances like butter or cod liver oil.
00:09:04.559 --> 00:09:07.039
Uh so it's a very specific question.
00:09:07.279 --> 00:09:21.440
Not does uh vitamin D that's made in a lab, so-called vitamin D, and again, we'll even address whether that's actually something called vitamin D, but not whether chemicals have effects.
00:09:21.600 --> 00:09:34.240
That's not the question, nor is it the question uh that a so-called vitamin D test may be useless or useful.
00:09:34.480 --> 00:09:39.039
That's it also a different question, which we will also address.
00:09:39.440 --> 00:09:48.480
Uh, but we're really gonna, I'm really focused on what do we know is true, what do we know exists, what are we made of, uh, et cetera.
00:09:48.559 --> 00:09:54.159
So I hope everybody turn tunes in next week on next Wednesday webinar.
00:09:54.320 --> 00:09:57.919
Uh Jordan will join me and we'll take a look at that.
00:09:58.080 --> 00:10:16.799
And I hope to have uh not just me talking to everybody uh like now, but other people joining me so we can get some different takes, uh, some interesting takes on some of these very interesting and important questions, and we'll even go why why does this matter?
00:10:18.720 --> 00:10:29.279
Okay, before I get into today's subject, Ivermect Ivermecton and Fen Bendizal, I wanted to show you uh a news thing that I saw this week.
00:10:29.919 --> 00:10:41.279
Uh this is possibly in honor of uh the 25th anniversary of 9-11, which is coming up in another week.
00:10:41.519 --> 00:10:44.080
Let me see if this works.
00:10:49.600 --> 00:10:52.399
So hopefully you can see this.
00:10:53.120 --> 00:10:55.440
Uh so this was from the BBC.
00:10:55.600 --> 00:11:04.399
This is apparently there's going to be a trial set for the alleged 9-11 mastermind.
00:11:04.799 --> 00:11:07.679
This is uh Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.
00:11:09.039 --> 00:11:22.720
So this is uh supposedly the guy who brought down the entire US military uh and was the mastermind of the entire 9-11 event.
00:11:23.039 --> 00:11:43.440
And apparently he uh confessed, and all I can say is I'm wondering if his confession was in return for uh g had them giving him a t-shirt that actually fits, and maybe a uh Harry's uh shaving kit so he could clean up a little bit.
00:11:44.240 --> 00:11:50.240
And I uh somehow I thought that Osama bin Laden, we were told, was the mastermind.
00:11:50.399 --> 00:11:51.600
But never mind.
00:11:51.759 --> 00:11:57.279
This is the guy who brought down the uh mighty US military.
00:11:58.960 --> 00:12:03.600
Uh this is in the category of if you believe that, you'll believe just about anything.
00:12:05.840 --> 00:12:05.919
Okay.
00:12:07.519 --> 00:12:11.440
Uh so let me just stop share for a minute.
00:12:12.559 --> 00:12:14.080
I'll get back to that.
00:12:14.799 --> 00:12:50.480
So what uh just to say why why this tub subject first, for just uh I'm not sure why first, but anyways, it came up and there was a lot of talk and uh press and especially in the sort of MAGA and Truther and uh medical freedom community, this groundbreaking study showing that ivermectin and fenbendazole were a revolutionary new treatment uh for cancer published in peer-reviewed uh medical research.
00:12:51.039 --> 00:13:07.039
And uh so I I uh saw an ad or something, some news flash for it, something like 84% of people with cancer uh improved with these uh two pharmaceutical drugs.
00:13:07.279 --> 00:13:27.759
And I know the reaction even in me, uh uh I don't mean even in me, like I'm something different, but as much as I have looked into these things, there is a reaction of, oh, I should really do this, or I should get a hold of these drugs just in case someday I get cancer, I can use these drugs.
00:13:28.000 --> 00:13:30.879
Uh that that sort of wells up.
00:13:31.440 --> 00:13:37.279
Uh, and then you have to sort of take a step back, but probably I'm not the only one.
00:13:37.360 --> 00:13:41.120
It was a dramatic uh newsflash headline.
00:13:42.559 --> 00:13:58.399
Um and the other reason is so many of the uh people, the members of our new biology clinic who come to us with a cancer diagnosis are taking ivermectin and fenbendazole.
00:13:58.960 --> 00:14:02.799
And so we're really inundated with these questions about it.
00:14:02.960 --> 00:14:03.840
Does it really work?
00:14:04.000 --> 00:14:04.879
Is it safe?
00:14:05.120 --> 00:14:29.039
They people know it's it's it's a uh supposedly kills parasites and it's basically an insecticide and it's a pharmaceutical product, but did somehow, uh maybe inadvertently, the pharmaceutical industry came up with the cure for cancer, and those nasty people are keeping it from us, even though it's safe, cheap, and effective.
00:14:29.200 --> 00:14:40.559
And so not only does it kill SARS-CoV-2 and every other virus, but it stops you from getting cancer or treats the cancer if you have it, and a whole lot of other diseases.
00:14:40.799 --> 00:14:44.000
And we keep getting inundated with these questions.
00:14:44.240 --> 00:14:50.720
And so I thought it would be worthwhile to take a look at uh what the studies actually show.
00:14:51.039 --> 00:14:54.080
So that was the motivation for doing this.
00:14:54.320 --> 00:14:57.039
Um, so here's what I found out.
00:14:57.200 --> 00:15:18.000
Uh so the way I want to do this is just like a lot of things, I want to invite uh to clearly elucidate the claim, and then I'm going to uh look at a group that tried to debunk this claim or to comment on this claim.
00:15:18.240 --> 00:15:36.240
And so we'll have two competing versions, and then we'll look at the study and see uh if the people who are criticizing the study got it right and what we can make of this information.
00:15:37.120 --> 00:15:50.240
So uh this is the wellness company who I think funded or did the study, I'm not sure which, um, but they uh certainly are the ones who are promoting it and touting it.
00:15:50.399 --> 00:15:55.759
And I wanted you to notice the wording here anti-cancer research journal.
00:15:55.840 --> 00:16:03.360
So this is a peer-reviewed journal, publishes groundbreaking ivermectin cancer study.
00:16:03.600 --> 00:16:07.519
Uh the first thing I want you to notice is the word study.
00:16:07.840 --> 00:16:16.399
So this is uh a medical study, and we have certain things that uh sort of conjures up in our minds.
00:16:17.440 --> 00:16:22.240
And so then we look at what it what was this study about?
00:16:22.399 --> 00:16:37.759
So the wellness company's chief medical board and McCullough Foundation submitted a first of its kind observational report of cancer patients who were prescribed compounded ivermectin and mobendazole through the wellness company.
00:16:38.159 --> 00:16:49.840
Uh, and here, interestingly, they changed the wording from study to an observational report, which is interesting.
00:16:50.000 --> 00:16:55.360
Why did they call it a study in the beginning and then an observational report later?
00:16:55.519 --> 00:16:57.200
Maybe that's no big deal.
00:16:57.440 --> 00:17:10.400
But here's the uh really interesting uh thing, then and it's the thing that's in the uh headlines and all the things that you read, just if you see, just read a headline.
00:17:10.640 --> 00:17:17.039
A six-month follow-up group, 84.4% reported clinical benefit.
00:17:17.279 --> 00:17:25.599
They reported no detectable cancer, no evidence of disease, tumor shrinkage, or disease that stayed stable.
00:17:25.920 --> 00:17:37.359
And this was uh the uh then you can read the study if you want, and you can even buy ivermectin and mebendazole uh from them if you want to do that.
00:17:38.640 --> 00:17:41.920
And so here's more information about the study.
00:17:42.160 --> 00:18:00.000
Among the 122 cancer patients who completed the six-month follow-up, 84.4% reported clinical benefits, 48.4 reported the strongest possible outcome, either tumor shrinkage or no current evidence of disease.
00:18:00.319 --> 00:18:04.640
36.1% reported disease stayed about the same.
00:18:05.119 --> 00:18:08.480
15.6 reported disease progression.
00:18:08.720 --> 00:18:17.279
So all these numbers uh, like the 84 and the 15, are consistent, so that seems uh sort of legitimate.
00:18:18.160 --> 00:18:20.400
Uh and that's a pretty remarkable.
00:18:20.559 --> 00:18:24.079
Almost half had the strongest possible outcome.
00:18:24.240 --> 00:18:30.960
And then again, you can read it on PubMed or in the journal, and then you go deeper into it.
00:18:31.200 --> 00:18:36.480
And here's an interesting thing which we're going to uh get back into later.
00:18:36.640 --> 00:18:45.359
Uh the study began with 197 uh cancer patients and 122 completed follow-up.
00:18:46.240 --> 00:19:02.960
So, in other words, of these 197 patients who uh started in this so-called study, and here we're again using the word study, uh 75 of them, is that right?
00:19:03.119 --> 00:19:12.880
And 197 minus 122, that's 75 of them, so that's about 40 percent, completed the follow-up.
00:19:13.359 --> 00:19:19.519
In other words, 40 percent, uh, we have no information about what happened to them.
00:19:19.839 --> 00:19:25.920
Maybe they all died, or maybe they had horrible side effects and stopped taking it.
00:19:26.160 --> 00:19:40.160
Or maybe nothing happened to them and they ran out of money, or maybe they were all cured of cancer and so uh they didn't want to do this uh the the follow-up uh questionnaire.
00:19:40.880 --> 00:19:48.400
All those or many more possibilities could be true, but we have no way of knowing that.
00:19:48.880 --> 00:19:58.960
Uh patients were prescribed uh this dose, they took up to four capsules a day, uh and we'll get into that a little bit later.
00:19:59.119 --> 00:20:08.079
And so then you have uh another way of just showing what happened, no current evidence of disease, regression, stable progression.
00:20:08.400 --> 00:20:12.720
Uh and here's another thing that I want to um point out.
00:20:19.599 --> 00:20:29.759
Uh not sure yes, so patient uh 197 cancer patients, and here in the chart you see an interesting word.
00:20:30.240 --> 00:20:34.480
This is the self-reported cancer outcomes.
00:20:36.000 --> 00:20:48.480
And we'll get back into that a little bit, but that means that nobody was checking or there was no testing done to see whether these were accurate.
00:20:48.799 --> 00:20:54.240
Everything in this so-called study is self-reported.
00:20:54.640 --> 00:21:10.880
In other words, the pa the uh people self-reported without any uh seemingly attempt to check whether it was accurate or not, that they in fact did have this disease that uh they said they did.
00:21:11.200 --> 00:21:25.119
And then they self-reported without any lab tests, without any x rays, without any studies, without any examinations, just they self-reported how they had done.
00:21:27.279 --> 00:21:34.240
And here you see the authors of the study and a medication that costs 1% of chemo.
00:21:34.640 --> 00:21:40.480
Again, you see here's again 84% reported clinical benefits.
00:21:40.640 --> 00:21:47.039
Uh nearly one in two reported the strongest possible outcomes, tumor shrinkage or no evidence.
00:21:47.359 --> 00:21:51.920
15.6 reported progression of disease.
00:21:53.440 --> 00:22:02.960
Uh and so now you see uh the the um Information in a different uh form.
00:22:03.440 --> 00:22:06.880
And there's a few things in this that I wanted to show.
00:22:07.119 --> 00:22:11.519
The study designed prospective observational cohort.
00:22:13.359 --> 00:22:26.240
So again, 197 started, and all they did was ask them on their phone, I guess, or on a sort of um computer to uh fill in some checkboxes.
00:22:26.400 --> 00:22:32.720
And 122 completed the study, and we have no information about the other 75.
00:22:32.960 --> 00:22:36.240
Again, maybe they all died, maybe they all got cured.
00:22:36.319 --> 00:22:38.559
Uh we have no way of knowing.
00:22:38.960 --> 00:22:52.000
And so then they give you some cartoons about what uh ivermectin and mobendazol do, and it's all a bunch of uh PAC ones and WNT beta capogen and all this stuff.
00:22:52.079 --> 00:22:55.680
Uh so this is the proposed mechanism of how it works.
00:22:55.839 --> 00:23:16.400
Uh baseline can't, this is the type of cancer, and again, when they say it was actively spreading or stable, this is simply the patient reporting, no tests done, no doctor checking, no lab tests, no x-rays, no other radiographic studies.
00:23:16.720 --> 00:23:24.240
Um this was just patients self-reporting uh what they uh where their status was.
00:23:24.640 --> 00:23:26.480
And this is also interesting.
00:23:26.640 --> 00:23:34.000
So here's the distribution of how many capsules, uh, how what the dose of the medicine they took.
00:23:34.160 --> 00:23:44.000
Some people took one capsule, some two, some three, some four, some took a whole variable, uh, some completed it, some didn't.
00:23:44.240 --> 00:24:06.720
Um, and as far as I know, there's no actual uh medication study that does anything like this, that allows people to self-report whether they have the disease or not, and allows them to choose the dose of the medicine that they're going to use in a proper medical study.
00:24:07.200 --> 00:24:15.839
And you know, I was thinking about this, and I don't want to jump ahead of myself because I want to hear what the counter people have to say too.
00:24:16.960 --> 00:24:28.319
But in all my years of doing medicine, and we're not talking about studies now, we're talking about just uh one-on-one, me with uh person coming for help.
00:24:28.559 --> 00:24:58.559
Um if somebody said, Oh, I come and I have diabetes, and I wonder if you could uh help me with this, before I would publicly say that I they have diabetes and I gave them, I had them eat only bananas or whatever I was going to have them do, I would uh check to see whether that in fact they did have diabetes according to the conventional diagnosis of diabetes.
00:24:59.200 --> 00:25:11.039
Now, as everybody knows, I have nothing against um listening to the people, to the patient, to the member, and hearing how they're doing, and that tops everything.
00:25:11.279 --> 00:25:22.960
But if you're going to go public and say this is a uh this banana treatment is an effective treatment for something like diabetes, right?
00:25:23.119 --> 00:25:33.680
So they're saying this is an effective treatment for a specific diagnosis of cancer, then it cannot be a self-reported diagnosis.
00:25:34.640 --> 00:25:37.839
That I would have never done that in my practice.
00:25:38.079 --> 00:25:56.880
I can't imagine any study doing that because you have no idea whether it's accurate, you have no idea what this was based on, whether it was uh based on proper uh medical evaluation according to the way uh people are evaluated.
00:25:57.039 --> 00:26:00.000
You have just there's no information about this.
00:26:00.720 --> 00:26:07.519
I'm not, by the way, saying that people need to have those proper diagnoses.
00:26:07.680 --> 00:26:10.960
When I say proper, I mean conventional diagnosis.
00:26:11.200 --> 00:26:16.079
I'm not saying that they need to do that in order to do something that might help them.
00:26:16.319 --> 00:26:17.759
Don't get me wrong.
00:26:18.000 --> 00:26:35.839
But I'm saying if you're going to uh present a so-called study that says that these two medicines work in a specific uh disease, you have to have proven that those people have these diseases.
00:26:36.240 --> 00:26:43.519
And to say that it's self-reported, I think is basically invalidates the whole thing.
00:26:43.759 --> 00:26:54.559
So then they have side effects, uh, and you can see these, uh, you can see the demographics, male, female, the mean age, uh duration of diagnosis.
00:26:54.799 --> 00:27:00.480
And then something very interesting here: the concurrent interventions.
00:27:01.039 --> 00:27:12.880
So 49, 50% or so took supplements, 37% changed their diet, 28% or so, 27.9 actually took chemo.
00:27:14.079 --> 00:27:19.839
Uh 21% did radiation, and almost 20% do surgery.
00:27:20.319 --> 00:27:28.960
So this is about 65 or 68%, something like that.
00:27:29.039 --> 00:27:44.240
I didn't do the math, about 67 to 70, 65 to 70 percent actually did conventional treatment, surgery, radiation, or chemo, while they were doing this ivermectin and mibendazole.
00:27:44.559 --> 00:27:49.839
And so, how do they know that the regression didn't come because of this?
00:27:50.880 --> 00:28:01.920
Uh, how do they know that there's no current evidence of disease where because of these three, or even because they changed their diet, or even because of some other supplement?
00:28:02.400 --> 00:28:06.480
And there was no way to uh control for this.
00:28:06.880 --> 00:28:12.640
So this is a completely uncontrolled anti-scientific study.
00:28:13.119 --> 00:28:32.079
Uh and and again, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that chemotherapy, radiation, or surgery are good treatments for cancer, but certainly if you have surgery, you have less tumor burden, and you may even have no evidence of disease in three to six months.
00:28:32.240 --> 00:28:42.720
Uh and that doesn't allow you to make any comment on the effectiveness or not effectiveness of ivermectin and mibendazole.
00:28:43.440 --> 00:28:59.279
And if something like 40% of the people dropped out and 70 or so percent of the people did some other treatment, you're down to very few people who are self-reporting that they had a benefit.
00:28:59.599 --> 00:29:05.039
And that seems like a very uh problematic thing to me.
00:29:07.119 --> 00:29:14.880
Uh so this is if you're gonna get more about it, and this is an important tool in the battle against cancer.
00:29:15.119 --> 00:29:18.559
Again, uh clinical benefit 84.4%.
00:29:19.680 --> 00:29:36.000
Um this level of disease control substantially exceeds typical clinical benefits and uh disease control rates reported with standard chemo and advanced or pretreated, and so that's what they say.
00:29:36.880 --> 00:29:41.279
Now, let's take a look at something that I found.
00:29:44.720 --> 00:29:56.079
And again, I'm having a problem here because it I don't see the thing, so I'm gonna have to stop the share.
00:30:01.279 --> 00:31:07.039
This was a problem before, so you can't do it.
00:31:22.480 --> 00:31:30.960
Because I was going to show you the critique, but I actually I uh I think I've gone over most of them.
00:31:31.119 --> 00:31:44.559
So this was a um this was apparently this is an organization that critiques um sort of um alternative science stuff.
00:31:55.440 --> 00:31:57.359
Okay, I'm not gonna be able to find it.
00:31:57.759 --> 00:32:15.839
Um so they and they're very conventional, and they tout chemotherapy and radiation and surgery, and they crit they fact-check, they say people who say that this uh COVID shots are bad for you and all that.
00:32:16.000 --> 00:32:38.960
So they're called TechARP, techarp.com, and they did one of these fact-checking things on this ivermectin and fenbendazol study, and they basically came out with, and you can go and check it if you want, they came out with the same uh criticisms as I already went over.
00:32:39.200 --> 00:33:19.920
Number one, this was uh people who were already self-selected, they were customers of the wellness company and had decided to use the ivermectin fenbendazole therapy on their own, which is not how uh official scientific uh studies, especially with a cancer drug, what you would expect is that they would a cancer uh drug study, they would uh uh clearly identify uh people with cancer with all the conventional studies, the x-rays and the blood tests and whatever they need to do, the pathology reports.
00:33:20.160 --> 00:33:29.920
So there would be no there would be no um question as to whether you were dealing with uh which diagnosis.
00:33:30.160 --> 00:33:39.119
Again, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you we all need to do those kinds of tests or we all need to have that kind of diagnosis.
00:33:39.359 --> 00:33:58.880
But if you're gonna do a study and claim that this drug regimen uh works for cancer, you have to be due your due diligence and say, we have absolutely verified that all these people are not self-reporting, but have been diagnosed with cancer.
00:33:58.960 --> 00:34:06.079
And this was there was, as far as I can see, no information about how this uh was accomplished.
00:34:06.240 --> 00:34:08.320
It's purely self-reporting.
00:34:08.800 --> 00:34:20.320
Uh the other thing that they point out uh was that this approximately 40% of the people dropped out of the study, and no explanation or reason was given for this.
00:34:20.480 --> 00:34:30.159
And we don't know, again, whether they just died from the drugs or whether they got cured and think they didn't need it anymore, or somewhere in between.
00:34:30.480 --> 00:34:41.599
But that can't possibly be the way that you would conduct a legitimate scientific trial of these drugs, and the drugs would be the only independent variable.
00:34:41.760 --> 00:34:44.000
Uh, and that gets into the next thing.
00:34:44.159 --> 00:35:12.480
If you're going to do a clear scientific study with controls of whether fenbendazole and ivermectin help with a certain type or a certain different types of cancer, you give a certain specific dote dose, you verify the diagnosis, you do it for a certain period of time, you repeat the studies, uh, you don't re and you have self-reporting, but you repeat the studies.
00:35:12.719 --> 00:35:23.199
Uh, and then you uh have a placebo group, which taking the uh doing everything the same, not some are taking chemo and some are not.
00:35:23.360 --> 00:35:25.519
Uh everybody's doing the same thing.
00:35:25.679 --> 00:35:39.280
The only independent variable is the uh two drugs that are being given, and then you can call it a study and say whether uh the these uh drugs had any effect on cancer.
00:35:40.719 --> 00:35:46.639
According to this uh critique by TechARP, none of these things were done.
00:35:46.800 --> 00:35:52.480
Uh, and so this invalidates this as a uh legitimate scientific study.
00:35:52.639 --> 00:36:03.119
They question even how is it possible that this even got um published in a peer-reviewed journal, which is a whole nother question.
00:36:03.360 --> 00:36:08.400
Um, but certainly it is not a uh study of a cancer drug.
00:36:08.800 --> 00:36:16.719
It is just uh self-reported observation, uh completely uncontrolled, completely unverified.
00:36:17.440 --> 00:36:26.960
Um, and it should have been reported at that, in that they have no idea how many people were actually helped, how many people were hurt, etc.
00:36:27.440 --> 00:36:38.639
Now, from there we have to go to the original study and see whether uh what I'm saying is correct or what these people at TechARP were saying.
00:36:38.800 --> 00:36:41.039
Uh and so we can do that.
00:36:41.280 --> 00:36:52.079
We can go to the uh actual study, and I have it in this wonky format that I always get things at.
00:36:52.320 --> 00:36:54.239
So here is the uh study.
00:36:54.400 --> 00:37:05.440
This is the real-world clinical outcomes of ivermectin and mobendazole in cancer patients result from a prospective observational cohort.
00:37:05.679 --> 00:37:13.360
So they didn't use the study in this uh word study in this, it's just a observational cohort.
00:37:13.920 --> 00:37:30.719
And of course, we go down to our uh patient uh methods, and this is a prospective observational cohort to assess real-world self-reported cancer outcomes.
00:37:30.960 --> 00:37:35.119
So, in fact, they do say these are self-reported.
00:37:35.440 --> 00:37:46.000
Um they say they have confirmed cancer diagnosis, but they don't give any information on how they were how they confirmed this.
00:37:46.159 --> 00:37:55.360
So one would have to conclude there's a rule in scientific studies that if you don't report on how you did it, then you didn't do it.
00:37:55.519 --> 00:38:06.559
So I think that's fair to say, at least at this point, uh, all we know is that they self-reported, and so that's how they confirmed that they had a cancer diagnosis.
00:38:06.719 --> 00:38:13.199
There was no report in this of any lab tests or anything else, x-rays or anything.
00:38:13.519 --> 00:38:17.119
So they did it for six months, so that's what we thought.
00:38:17.360 --> 00:38:25.119
Uh and they have the this doesn't have the diagrams, those were in the in the wellness report thing.
00:38:26.159 --> 00:38:32.400
So this is the participants were over 18, confirmed cancer diagnosis, but they don't sell how.
00:38:32.639 --> 00:38:35.920
They got the ivermectin from the wellness company.
00:38:36.239 --> 00:38:47.440
Um they completed a medical intake form, and they could have had a consultation uh to see if they were eligible for the prescription.
00:38:47.599 --> 00:38:51.519
They were dispensed, the medicine was dispensed by a U.S.
00:38:51.679 --> 00:38:52.639
pharmacy.
00:38:53.199 --> 00:39:06.159
Um a total of 997 participants did the baseline evaluation, and 61.9% provided follow-up data at six months.
00:39:06.320 --> 00:39:22.239
So, again, we're confirming that uh 38.1, I think that's right, percent of the people, almost 40%, were lost to follow-up, and we have no information about what happened to them.
00:39:22.400 --> 00:39:24.239
So that seems accurate.
00:39:24.639 --> 00:39:29.039
Uh the initial prescription was typically 90 capsules.
00:39:29.199 --> 00:39:30.320
Here's the dose.
00:39:30.559 --> 00:39:34.880
They were individualized by prescribing provider and patient.
00:39:35.039 --> 00:39:44.400
In other words, the patient could decide how many they wanted, most commonly one or two, uh, and they reordered the medicine as desired.
00:39:44.639 --> 00:39:49.360
So this is uh not how any proper study would do it.
00:39:49.760 --> 00:40:09.920
Um then they uh data were collected using structured electronic questionnaires on a secure survey platform, uh, and they had demographic, socioeconomic cancer type, disease status, prior or concurrent conventional treatments, uh, and etc.
00:40:10.159 --> 00:40:18.639
So all this squares with what we said what we have uh learned so far, so the criticism seems correct.
00:40:19.599 --> 00:40:36.559
Uh and so the primary outcomes uh again were self-reported, whether the disease had spread or progressed, and there was no other information about how they evaluated this.
00:40:37.519 --> 00:40:47.199
So it seems like all the information that uh this uh group that tech our people said is correct, they got the details right.
00:40:47.840 --> 00:40:56.559
Um and I think that's pretty much all we need to say about that.
00:40:58.239 --> 00:41:00.159
So we're gonna stop share.
00:41:01.039 --> 00:41:03.280
So, what can we learn about this?
00:41:03.440 --> 00:41:07.360
So, this was basically not a proper cancer study.
00:41:07.440 --> 00:41:09.760
It was not a proper medical study.
00:41:09.920 --> 00:41:18.000
Uh, this is not a scientific study because there's no independent variable that was uh used with control groups.
00:41:18.159 --> 00:41:39.039
Um there was so many questions in how they did it about the 40% or so of the people who were lost to follow-up, and the 60% or so who did other treatments that makes it basically impossible to know uh whether any effects were from these two drugs or from something else.
00:41:39.360 --> 00:41:50.559
And so all you can say is that some of the people who self-report some benefit, but they don't know why, and a whole lot of people dropped out, and we don't know why.
00:41:50.800 --> 00:41:56.960
And that's a whole lot different than what we had uh heard from the press releases.
00:41:57.440 --> 00:42:14.719
Now, uh I'm not saying that uh this drug, these drugs, which is after all what they are, and it's interesting that uh this ivermectin and phabendazole have been part of the whole COVID story from the get-go.
00:42:15.440 --> 00:42:21.679
Uh, and it seems to be an example of uh that we see this.
00:42:21.840 --> 00:42:45.679
I think this is called something like Hegelian dialectic or some fancy word, where we're often given two competing narratives, but the actual uh truth is in neither of these, and then we're asked to take sides of whether these two competing narratives, which one is true?
00:42:45.920 --> 00:42:51.280
Uh, but in reality, uh they're both there to obscure the truth.
00:42:51.679 --> 00:42:55.679
So I think that's a big part of the Ivermecton story.
00:42:55.760 --> 00:43:08.480
Uh, it came out really early on with some high-profile people touting it, and it became the sort of glamour child of the uh health freedom movement.
00:43:09.119 --> 00:43:49.199
And it basically was the same sort of narrative that there's a deadly virus and there's a new disease, and the whole medical paradigm of diseases and the way we diagnose and everything is true, and that even they have this uh, but there's a twist on it that it's it's all what we say, you know, with the viruses and thing, but we we have forgotten that cancer is really a parasite, and that if we repurpose these uh old pharmaceutical drugs, which they say are safe, but are far from safe, um then we will be able to uh make an impact in cancer.
00:43:49.280 --> 00:43:53.840
And so the ivermectin story became a big part of the COVID story.
00:43:54.079 --> 00:44:04.480
It became the the glamour child of the whole uh true health and Freedom movement, and then it became the cancer treatment.
00:44:04.639 --> 00:44:35.519
And so we have now a pharmaceutical product probably making billions of dollars, keeping people locked into the same way of thinking that there's this horrible disease out there, which the medical profession is not assessing properly, and it's really from a parasite, and it's really from a certain dysregulation of certain genes, so it's the same exact way of thinking.
00:44:35.679 --> 00:44:46.000
And all you need to do is take this these two drugs and then change your diet a little bit and take some supplements, and everything will be fine.
00:44:46.159 --> 00:44:48.400
And we have this study to prove it.
00:44:48.719 --> 00:44:59.360
And that's just the other side of the coin we have the conventional way, we have this horrible disease, and it's all genetic, same thing.
00:44:59.679 --> 00:45:02.400
And you have to kill it, same thing.
00:45:02.559 --> 00:45:06.400
And we've got pharmaceutical drugs that will do that, same thing.
00:45:06.559 --> 00:45:14.320
These are different pharmaceutical drugs, and you can choose which of these two same ways of looking at the world you like.
00:45:14.639 --> 00:45:27.440
And nobody gets into uh actually asking the deeper questions of why we get sick and what is your body doing, and do we really need pharmaceutical drugs?
00:45:27.679 --> 00:45:30.639
Do we even really need these diagnoses?
00:45:30.880 --> 00:45:33.280
Are these diagnoses accurate?
00:45:33.519 --> 00:45:45.920
And you can see that when you actually get into looking at the whether they really follow the scientific method, and clearly they didn't, uh, that the whole thing falls apart.
00:45:46.239 --> 00:45:59.920
Now I know some of you are going to be uh wishing that I talked about so what is cancer, and maybe we'll get into that and uh as time goes on, but I didn't think that was the point of today.
00:46:00.159 --> 00:46:24.559
The point of today was looking at this extraordinary claim and actually seeing it for what it is, and so hopefully that in itself will free people from some of the fear and that they've been attacked and they need this pharmaceutical drug, which will have lots of repercussions for them.
00:46:24.800 --> 00:46:47.519
And we're gonna get away from that way of thinking and inaugurate a whole new world of biology, uh, and that's what we're all about here in the New Biology Clinic, uh, a non-fear-based, non-pharmaceutical, actually uh way grounded in the truth of uh how life really works.
00:46:47.679 --> 00:46:49.599
That's what we're going for here.
00:46:49.920 --> 00:46:55.039
And I don't think any of this actually gets us any closer to that.
00:46:55.599 --> 00:46:59.519
So, sorry about all the technological fumbling.
00:46:59.760 --> 00:47:02.000
Uh apparently that's still with me.
00:47:02.079 --> 00:47:03.599
And thanks for joining me.
00:47:03.760 --> 00:47:18.480
And I hope everybody tunes in next week where we're gonna get into this conundrum of have we shown that vitamins actually exist in living uh living beings and actual food.
00:47:19.440 --> 00:47:19.679
Okay.
00:00:01.120 --> 00:00:02.959
Okay, welcome everybody.
00:00:03.120 --> 00:00:24.480
This is uh September 2nd, 2026, and uh this is the first webinar after my uh summer break, and I appreciate everybody joining me, and I hope you had a great summer, and I am ready to get going again.
00:00:24.800 --> 00:00:31.120
Um I'll probably say a little bit more about what I have in mind these upcoming months.
00:00:32.240 --> 00:00:38.399
Uh, but I also wanted to say I it was a very productive summer for us.
00:00:38.560 --> 00:00:44.560
We spent a lot of time in the garden and even more time, probably food processing.
00:00:44.799 --> 00:01:02.000
We have literally hundreds of bags and jars and bottles of everything from asparagus and broccoli and pureeed pumpkins and 26 liters of water frozen watermelon juice.
00:01:02.159 --> 00:01:24.159
I love watermelons, and I uh grew about 40 of them, and I put them in a food processor and then strain it through a cheese cheesecloth and put the juice in a liter uh glass bottle and put it in the freezer, and then you can thaw it and have watermelon juice all winter, which is really good.
00:01:24.719 --> 00:01:41.439
We have uh a couple hundred uh wec jars of aronia berries and gooseberries and raspberries, blueberries, strawberries, currants and yastaberries.
00:01:41.519 --> 00:01:44.959
Uh probably forgetting some, all from our garden.
00:01:45.200 --> 00:01:51.680
Uh the vegetables are all from the garden and they're in bags and different containers.
00:01:51.920 --> 00:01:55.680
We try not to use any of those plastic containers.
00:01:55.840 --> 00:02:03.120
So they're all in glass whack jars or uh compostable or paper.
00:02:03.200 --> 00:02:06.879
Uh we wrap them in butcher paper and put them in the freezer.
00:02:07.840 --> 00:02:11.280
So that's a lot of what our summer was about.
00:02:11.520 --> 00:02:19.520
Um somebody asked in the chat, I saw what about uh if there's any news from pumpkin or the other animals.
00:02:19.840 --> 00:02:22.159
Uh all four cats seem fine.
00:02:22.319 --> 00:02:24.800
Three come and go inside and out.
00:02:25.039 --> 00:02:27.840
They spend a lot of time outside these days.
00:02:27.919 --> 00:02:35.120
Uh Lucy is only in an outside cat, and she lives in her little barn in the garden.
00:02:35.439 --> 00:02:40.319
Uh the goats, Charlie and Riley and Juni, are all doing well.
00:02:40.479 --> 00:02:51.599
We have six chickens who've been with us about 150 days, and they lay about 4.8 eggs per day.
00:02:51.919 --> 00:02:57.919
I actually uh every day now uh note the number of days we've had the chickens.
00:02:58.080 --> 00:03:03.840
I have a logbook, and I found that as I get older I like to write things down.
00:03:04.080 --> 00:03:15.039
So I write how many days we've had the chickens, if there's anything wrong with any of them, if they're broody or look like they're not well, I take make a note of that, or any of the goats.
00:03:15.520 --> 00:03:21.680
Um and then I write down how many eggs, and they're some of the best eggs uh we probably ever had.
00:03:21.759 --> 00:03:23.039
They're great chickens.
00:03:23.280 --> 00:03:31.199
They spend the entire day roaming around outside uh eating bugs and worms and grass and whatever else.
00:03:31.439 --> 00:03:37.039
They feel like uh the goats are all happy and uh well fed.
00:03:38.080 --> 00:03:50.800
Um the most interesting thing I've noticed about the goats is we have a uh you know regular fence and then two electric fence areas where they can roam.
00:03:50.960 --> 00:04:04.800
And we made it specifically so they could roam into the bushes, and there's rose stand of rose bushes and other trees they can browse at because goats apparently are browsers.
00:04:05.439 --> 00:04:27.439
But typically our goats uh will not go browse from the rose bushes, but they're very happy to uh have me cut the rose branches and stand there at six o'clock every evening uh and they eat right out of uh eat pull the leaves right off the branches in my hand.
00:04:27.920 --> 00:04:34.480
So apparently uh I've trained them to be lazy goats who don't forage for themselves.
00:04:34.879 --> 00:04:36.399
Uh they seem happy.
00:04:36.720 --> 00:04:41.040
I sometimes get annoyed with them, but otherwise we're good.
00:04:41.759 --> 00:04:52.480
Uh the only news about Pumpkin is uh last year he was gone for eight days, which was very unusual for Pumpkin.
00:04:53.199 --> 00:04:55.600
Uh we didn't see him for eight days.
00:04:56.079 --> 00:05:01.839
And uh then he came back, uh, which was a very happy day for us.
00:05:02.079 --> 00:05:08.079
So I decided to write in my logbook how many days Pumpkin has been home.
00:05:08.480 --> 00:05:24.959
Uh in other words, if I see him during the day, either at a feeding or he sleeps inside or comes inside or comes and sits with me in the garden, which he does almost every day, and he comes with us to help feed the goats, and he seems to be friends with Juni.
00:05:25.839 --> 00:05:35.920
Um so I write down pumpkins, uh, this is day 36, he's been home, and how he did today, just one line.
00:05:36.319 --> 00:05:44.879
So I will report that he's been home 341 days exactly uh that I've seen him.
00:05:45.120 --> 00:05:56.639
So I'm a little bit nervous about when it gets to 365, like there was something about end of September or October that made him want to leave, but I don't think so.
00:05:56.879 --> 00:06:05.839
So I will report back and hopefully we're gonna my goal is for the for us to hit 10,000 days.
00:06:06.639 --> 00:06:10.399
I don't know who's gonna give out first, me or pumpkin, but we'll see.
00:06:12.000 --> 00:06:13.199
So that's the news.
00:06:13.360 --> 00:06:18.720
It's been uh really great growing summer, and I hope everybody had a good summer.
00:06:18.879 --> 00:06:25.839
It's been way too hot, as everybody knows, but we've had enough rain, so I haven't had to water in about six weeks.
00:06:27.040 --> 00:06:31.600
And otherwise, that's this update.
00:06:32.240 --> 00:06:35.839
And I'm happy to be back with the webinars.
00:06:36.000 --> 00:06:38.800
Um, just to say a word about the intentions.
00:06:38.959 --> 00:06:58.800
A lot of what seems to be up uh and what I'm hearing a lot of feedback about is that uh Tom is getting too outrageous in his claims, uh saying there's no evidence for hormones and vitamins and omega-3s and a lot of other things.
00:06:59.759 --> 00:07:09.439
And I hope to address those issues in detail and to be very clear and specific about what I mean.
00:07:09.920 --> 00:07:17.199
Uh and to give an example, I am not saying that uh vitamins don't exist.
00:07:18.160 --> 00:07:39.759
What I'm saying is, as far as I can see, the uh rigorous proof for the existence of these chemicals we call vitamins in natural living substances like butter or us or whatever, um, has not been proven.
00:07:40.240 --> 00:07:56.480
So we have no real no uh no ability to say we have any of these vitamins, hormones, uh, etc., in in us or any living thing or in any of the natural foods that we eat.
00:07:56.720 --> 00:08:00.560
And of course, I don't expect anybody to take that on face value.
00:08:00.720 --> 00:08:02.879
I don't expect anybody to believe it.
00:08:03.120 --> 00:08:16.560
I didn't believe it myself, and a lot of the stuff that I've written about has been with talking about omega-3s and this vitamin or or whatever, this uh hormone or insulin or whatever.
00:08:16.800 --> 00:08:34.960
And it was it wasn't until I uh started to rigorously look at the evidence for these things that I started to shift, and I couldn't uh in good conscience uh agree that these things have been identified or found.
00:08:35.600 --> 00:09:04.320
So next week I'm going to pursue this a little bit more with a friend Jordan Grant, who probably many of you know, and I can't think of anybody who's done more and is better equipped to uh address the issue of has uh have vitamins in particular, we're going to look at vitamin D, been found in living substances or in natural substances like butter or cod liver oil.
00:09:04.559 --> 00:09:07.039
Uh so it's a very specific question.
00:09:07.279 --> 00:09:21.440
Not does uh vitamin D that's made in a lab, so-called vitamin D, and again, we'll even address whether that's actually something called vitamin D, but not whether chemicals have effects.
00:09:21.600 --> 00:09:34.240
That's not the question, nor is it the question uh that a so-called vitamin D test may be useless or useful.
00:09:34.480 --> 00:09:39.039
That's it also a different question, which we will also address.
00:09:39.440 --> 00:09:48.480
Uh, but we're really gonna, I'm really focused on what do we know is true, what do we know exists, what are we made of, uh, et cetera.
00:09:48.559 --> 00:09:54.159
So I hope everybody turn tunes in next week on next Wednesday webinar.
00:09:54.320 --> 00:09:57.919
Uh Jordan will join me and we'll take a look at that.
00:09:58.080 --> 00:10:16.799
And I hope to have uh not just me talking to everybody uh like now, but other people joining me so we can get some different takes, uh, some interesting takes on some of these very interesting and important questions, and we'll even go why why does this matter?
00:10:18.720 --> 00:10:29.279
Okay, before I get into today's subject, Ivermect Ivermecton and Fen Bendizal, I wanted to show you uh a news thing that I saw this week.
00:10:29.919 --> 00:10:41.279
Uh this is possibly in honor of uh the 25th anniversary of 9-11, which is coming up in another week.
00:10:41.519 --> 00:10:44.080
Let me see if this works.
00:10:49.600 --> 00:10:52.399
So hopefully you can see this.
00:10:53.120 --> 00:10:55.440
Uh so this was from the BBC.
00:10:55.600 --> 00:11:04.399
This is apparently there's going to be a trial set for the alleged 9-11 mastermind.
00:11:04.799 --> 00:11:07.679
This is uh Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.
00:11:09.039 --> 00:11:22.720
So this is uh supposedly the guy who brought down the entire US military uh and was the mastermind of the entire 9-11 event.
00:11:23.039 --> 00:11:43.440
And apparently he uh confessed, and all I can say is I'm wondering if his confession was in return for uh g had them giving him a t-shirt that actually fits, and maybe a uh Harry's uh shaving kit so he could clean up a little bit.
00:11:44.240 --> 00:11:50.240
And I uh somehow I thought that Osama bin Laden, we were told, was the mastermind.
00:11:50.399 --> 00:11:51.600
But never mind.
00:11:51.759 --> 00:11:57.279
This is the guy who brought down the uh mighty US military.
00:11:58.960 --> 00:12:03.600
Uh this is in the category of if you believe that, you'll believe just about anything.
00:12:05.840 --> 00:12:05.919
Okay.
00:12:07.519 --> 00:12:11.440
Uh so let me just stop share for a minute.
00:12:12.559 --> 00:12:14.080
I'll get back to that.
00:12:14.799 --> 00:12:50.480
So what uh just to say why why this tub subject first, for just uh I'm not sure why first, but anyways, it came up and there was a lot of talk and uh press and especially in the sort of MAGA and Truther and uh medical freedom community, this groundbreaking study showing that ivermectin and fenbendazole were a revolutionary new treatment uh for cancer published in peer-reviewed uh medical research.
00:12:51.039 --> 00:13:07.039
And uh so I I uh saw an ad or something, some news flash for it, something like 84% of people with cancer uh improved with these uh two pharmaceutical drugs.
00:13:07.279 --> 00:13:27.759
And I know the reaction even in me, uh uh I don't mean even in me, like I'm something different, but as much as I have looked into these things, there is a reaction of, oh, I should really do this, or I should get a hold of these drugs just in case someday I get cancer, I can use these drugs.
00:13:28.000 --> 00:13:30.879
Uh that that sort of wells up.
00:13:31.440 --> 00:13:37.279
Uh, and then you have to sort of take a step back, but probably I'm not the only one.
00:13:37.360 --> 00:13:41.120
It was a dramatic uh newsflash headline.
00:13:42.559 --> 00:13:58.399
Um and the other reason is so many of the uh people, the members of our new biology clinic who come to us with a cancer diagnosis are taking ivermectin and fenbendazole.
00:13:58.960 --> 00:14:02.799
And so we're really inundated with these questions about it.
00:14:02.960 --> 00:14:03.840
Does it really work?
00:14:04.000 --> 00:14:04.879
Is it safe?
00:14:05.120 --> 00:14:29.039
They people know it's it's it's a uh supposedly kills parasites and it's basically an insecticide and it's a pharmaceutical product, but did somehow, uh maybe inadvertently, the pharmaceutical industry came up with the cure for cancer, and those nasty people are keeping it from us, even though it's safe, cheap, and effective.
00:14:29.200 --> 00:14:40.559
And so not only does it kill SARS-CoV-2 and every other virus, but it stops you from getting cancer or treats the cancer if you have it, and a whole lot of other diseases.
00:14:40.799 --> 00:14:44.000
And we keep getting inundated with these questions.
00:14:44.240 --> 00:14:50.720
And so I thought it would be worthwhile to take a look at uh what the studies actually show.
00:14:51.039 --> 00:14:54.080
So that was the motivation for doing this.
00:14:54.320 --> 00:14:57.039
Um, so here's what I found out.
00:14:57.200 --> 00:15:18.000
Uh so the way I want to do this is just like a lot of things, I want to invite uh to clearly elucidate the claim, and then I'm going to uh look at a group that tried to debunk this claim or to comment on this claim.
00:15:18.240 --> 00:15:36.240
And so we'll have two competing versions, and then we'll look at the study and see uh if the people who are criticizing the study got it right and what we can make of this information.
00:15:37.120 --> 00:15:50.240
So uh this is the wellness company who I think funded or did the study, I'm not sure which, um, but they uh certainly are the ones who are promoting it and touting it.
00:15:50.399 --> 00:15:55.759
And I wanted you to notice the wording here anti-cancer research journal.
00:15:55.840 --> 00:16:03.360
So this is a peer-reviewed journal, publishes groundbreaking ivermectin cancer study.
00:16:03.600 --> 00:16:07.519
Uh the first thing I want you to notice is the word study.
00:16:07.840 --> 00:16:16.399
So this is uh a medical study, and we have certain things that uh sort of conjures up in our minds.
00:16:17.440 --> 00:16:22.240
And so then we look at what it what was this study about?
00:16:22.399 --> 00:16:37.759
So the wellness company's chief medical board and McCullough Foundation submitted a first of its kind observational report of cancer patients who were prescribed compounded ivermectin and mobendazole through the wellness company.
00:16:38.159 --> 00:16:49.840
Uh, and here, interestingly, they changed the wording from study to an observational report, which is interesting.
00:16:50.000 --> 00:16:55.360
Why did they call it a study in the beginning and then an observational report later?
00:16:55.519 --> 00:16:57.200
Maybe that's no big deal.
00:16:57.440 --> 00:17:10.400
But here's the uh really interesting uh thing, then and it's the thing that's in the uh headlines and all the things that you read, just if you see, just read a headline.
00:17:10.640 --> 00:17:17.039
A six-month follow-up group, 84.4% reported clinical benefit.
00:17:17.279 --> 00:17:25.599
They reported no detectable cancer, no evidence of disease, tumor shrinkage, or disease that stayed stable.
00:17:25.920 --> 00:17:37.359
And this was uh the uh then you can read the study if you want, and you can even buy ivermectin and mebendazole uh from them if you want to do that.
00:17:38.640 --> 00:17:41.920
And so here's more information about the study.
00:17:42.160 --> 00:18:00.000
Among the 122 cancer patients who completed the six-month follow-up, 84.4% reported clinical benefits, 48.4 reported the strongest possible outcome, either tumor shrinkage or no current evidence of disease.
00:18:00.319 --> 00:18:04.640
36.1% reported disease stayed about the same.
00:18:05.119 --> 00:18:08.480
15.6 reported disease progression.
00:18:08.720 --> 00:18:17.279
So all these numbers uh, like the 84 and the 15, are consistent, so that seems uh sort of legitimate.
00:18:18.160 --> 00:18:20.400
Uh and that's a pretty remarkable.
00:18:20.559 --> 00:18:24.079
Almost half had the strongest possible outcome.
00:18:24.240 --> 00:18:30.960
And then again, you can read it on PubMed or in the journal, and then you go deeper into it.
00:18:31.200 --> 00:18:36.480
And here's an interesting thing which we're going to uh get back into later.
00:18:36.640 --> 00:18:45.359
Uh the study began with 197 uh cancer patients and 122 completed follow-up.
00:18:46.240 --> 00:19:02.960
So, in other words, of these 197 patients who uh started in this so-called study, and here we're again using the word study, uh 75 of them, is that right?
00:19:03.119 --> 00:19:12.880
And 197 minus 122, that's 75 of them, so that's about 40 percent, completed the follow-up.
00:19:13.359 --> 00:19:19.519
In other words, 40 percent, uh, we have no information about what happened to them.
00:19:19.839 --> 00:19:25.920
Maybe they all died, or maybe they had horrible side effects and stopped taking it.
00:19:26.160 --> 00:19:40.160
Or maybe nothing happened to them and they ran out of money, or maybe they were all cured of cancer and so uh they didn't want to do this uh the the follow-up uh questionnaire.
00:19:40.880 --> 00:19:48.400
All those or many more possibilities could be true, but we have no way of knowing that.
00:19:48.880 --> 00:19:58.960
Uh patients were prescribed uh this dose, they took up to four capsules a day, uh and we'll get into that a little bit later.
00:19:59.119 --> 00:20:08.079
And so then you have uh another way of just showing what happened, no current evidence of disease, regression, stable progression.
00:20:08.400 --> 00:20:12.720
Uh and here's another thing that I want to um point out.
00:20:19.599 --> 00:20:29.759
Uh not sure yes, so patient uh 197 cancer patients, and here in the chart you see an interesting word.
00:20:30.240 --> 00:20:34.480
This is the self-reported cancer outcomes.
00:20:36.000 --> 00:20:48.480
And we'll get back into that a little bit, but that means that nobody was checking or there was no testing done to see whether these were accurate.
00:20:48.799 --> 00:20:54.240
Everything in this so-called study is self-reported.
00:20:54.640 --> 00:21:10.880
In other words, the pa the uh people self-reported without any uh seemingly attempt to check whether it was accurate or not, that they in fact did have this disease that uh they said they did.
00:21:11.200 --> 00:21:25.119
And then they self-reported without any lab tests, without any x rays, without any studies, without any examinations, just they self-reported how they had done.
00:21:27.279 --> 00:21:34.240
And here you see the authors of the study and a medication that costs 1% of chemo.
00:21:34.640 --> 00:21:40.480
Again, you see here's again 84% reported clinical benefits.
00:21:40.640 --> 00:21:47.039
Uh nearly one in two reported the strongest possible outcomes, tumor shrinkage or no evidence.
00:21:47.359 --> 00:21:51.920
15.6 reported progression of disease.
00:21:53.440 --> 00:22:02.960
Uh and so now you see uh the the um Information in a different uh form.
00:22:03.440 --> 00:22:06.880
And there's a few things in this that I wanted to show.
00:22:07.119 --> 00:22:11.519
The study designed prospective observational cohort.
00:22:13.359 --> 00:22:26.240
So again, 197 started, and all they did was ask them on their phone, I guess, or on a sort of um computer to uh fill in some checkboxes.
00:22:26.400 --> 00:22:32.720
And 122 completed the study, and we have no information about the other 75.
00:22:32.960 --> 00:22:36.240
Again, maybe they all died, maybe they all got cured.
00:22:36.319 --> 00:22:38.559
Uh we have no way of knowing.
00:22:38.960 --> 00:22:52.000
And so then they give you some cartoons about what uh ivermectin and mobendazol do, and it's all a bunch of uh PAC ones and WNT beta capogen and all this stuff.
00:22:52.079 --> 00:22:55.680
Uh so this is the proposed mechanism of how it works.
00:22:55.839 --> 00:23:16.400
Uh baseline can't, this is the type of cancer, and again, when they say it was actively spreading or stable, this is simply the patient reporting, no tests done, no doctor checking, no lab tests, no x-rays, no other radiographic studies.
00:23:16.720 --> 00:23:24.240
Um this was just patients self-reporting uh what they uh where their status was.
00:23:24.640 --> 00:23:26.480
And this is also interesting.
00:23:26.640 --> 00:23:34.000
So here's the distribution of how many capsules, uh, how what the dose of the medicine they took.
00:23:34.160 --> 00:23:44.000
Some people took one capsule, some two, some three, some four, some took a whole variable, uh, some completed it, some didn't.
00:23:44.240 --> 00:24:06.720
Um, and as far as I know, there's no actual uh medication study that does anything like this, that allows people to self-report whether they have the disease or not, and allows them to choose the dose of the medicine that they're going to use in a proper medical study.
00:24:07.200 --> 00:24:15.839
And you know, I was thinking about this, and I don't want to jump ahead of myself because I want to hear what the counter people have to say too.
00:24:16.960 --> 00:24:28.319
But in all my years of doing medicine, and we're not talking about studies now, we're talking about just uh one-on-one, me with uh person coming for help.
00:24:28.559 --> 00:24:58.559
Um if somebody said, Oh, I come and I have diabetes, and I wonder if you could uh help me with this, before I would publicly say that I they have diabetes and I gave them, I had them eat only bananas or whatever I was going to have them do, I would uh check to see whether that in fact they did have diabetes according to the conventional diagnosis of diabetes.
00:24:59.200 --> 00:25:11.039
Now, as everybody knows, I have nothing against um listening to the people, to the patient, to the member, and hearing how they're doing, and that tops everything.
00:25:11.279 --> 00:25:22.960
But if you're going to go public and say this is a uh this banana treatment is an effective treatment for something like diabetes, right?
00:25:23.119 --> 00:25:33.680
So they're saying this is an effective treatment for a specific diagnosis of cancer, then it cannot be a self-reported diagnosis.
00:25:34.640 --> 00:25:37.839
That I would have never done that in my practice.
00:25:38.079 --> 00:25:56.880
I can't imagine any study doing that because you have no idea whether it's accurate, you have no idea what this was based on, whether it was uh based on proper uh medical evaluation according to the way uh people are evaluated.
00:25:57.039 --> 00:26:00.000
You have just there's no information about this.
00:26:00.720 --> 00:26:07.519
I'm not, by the way, saying that people need to have those proper diagnoses.
00:26:07.680 --> 00:26:10.960
When I say proper, I mean conventional diagnosis.
00:26:11.200 --> 00:26:16.079
I'm not saying that they need to do that in order to do something that might help them.
00:26:16.319 --> 00:26:17.759
Don't get me wrong.
00:26:18.000 --> 00:26:35.839
But I'm saying if you're going to uh present a so-called study that says that these two medicines work in a specific uh disease, you have to have proven that those people have these diseases.
00:26:36.240 --> 00:26:43.519
And to say that it's self-reported, I think is basically invalidates the whole thing.
00:26:43.759 --> 00:26:54.559
So then they have side effects, uh, and you can see these, uh, you can see the demographics, male, female, the mean age, uh duration of diagnosis.
00:26:54.799 --> 00:27:00.480
And then something very interesting here: the concurrent interventions.
00:27:01.039 --> 00:27:12.880
So 49, 50% or so took supplements, 37% changed their diet, 28% or so, 27.9 actually took chemo.
00:27:14.079 --> 00:27:19.839
Uh 21% did radiation, and almost 20% do surgery.
00:27:20.319 --> 00:27:28.960
So this is about 65 or 68%, something like that.
00:27:29.039 --> 00:27:44.240
I didn't do the math, about 67 to 70, 65 to 70 percent actually did conventional treatment, surgery, radiation, or chemo, while they were doing this ivermectin and mibendazole.
00:27:44.559 --> 00:27:49.839
And so, how do they know that the regression didn't come because of this?
00:27:50.880 --> 00:28:01.920
Uh, how do they know that there's no current evidence of disease where because of these three, or even because they changed their diet, or even because of some other supplement?
00:28:02.400 --> 00:28:06.480
And there was no way to uh control for this.
00:28:06.880 --> 00:28:12.640
So this is a completely uncontrolled anti-scientific study.
00:28:13.119 --> 00:28:32.079
Uh and and again, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that chemotherapy, radiation, or surgery are good treatments for cancer, but certainly if you have surgery, you have less tumor burden, and you may even have no evidence of disease in three to six months.
00:28:32.240 --> 00:28:42.720
Uh and that doesn't allow you to make any comment on the effectiveness or not effectiveness of ivermectin and mibendazole.
00:28:43.440 --> 00:28:59.279
And if something like 40% of the people dropped out and 70 or so percent of the people did some other treatment, you're down to very few people who are self-reporting that they had a benefit.
00:28:59.599 --> 00:29:05.039
And that seems like a very uh problematic thing to me.
00:29:07.119 --> 00:29:14.880
Uh so this is if you're gonna get more about it, and this is an important tool in the battle against cancer.
00:29:15.119 --> 00:29:18.559
Again, uh clinical benefit 84.4%.
00:29:19.680 --> 00:29:36.000
Um this level of disease control substantially exceeds typical clinical benefits and uh disease control rates reported with standard chemo and advanced or pretreated, and so that's what they say.
00:29:36.880 --> 00:29:41.279
Now, let's take a look at something that I found.
00:29:44.720 --> 00:29:56.079
And again, I'm having a problem here because it I don't see the thing, so I'm gonna have to stop the share.
00:30:01.279 --> 00:31:07.039
This was a problem before, so you can't do it.
00:31:22.480 --> 00:31:30.960
Because I was going to show you the critique, but I actually I uh I think I've gone over most of them.
00:31:31.119 --> 00:31:44.559
So this was a um this was apparently this is an organization that critiques um sort of um alternative science stuff.
00:31:55.440 --> 00:31:57.359
Okay, I'm not gonna be able to find it.
00:31:57.759 --> 00:32:15.839
Um so they and they're very conventional, and they tout chemotherapy and radiation and surgery, and they crit they fact-check, they say people who say that this uh COVID shots are bad for you and all that.
00:32:16.000 --> 00:32:38.960
So they're called TechARP, techarp.com, and they did one of these fact-checking things on this ivermectin and fenbendazol study, and they basically came out with, and you can go and check it if you want, they came out with the same uh criticisms as I already went over.
00:32:39.200 --> 00:33:19.920
Number one, this was uh people who were already self-selected, they were customers of the wellness company and had decided to use the ivermectin fenbendazole therapy on their own, which is not how uh official scientific uh studies, especially with a cancer drug, what you would expect is that they would a cancer uh drug study, they would uh uh clearly identify uh people with cancer with all the conventional studies, the x-rays and the blood tests and whatever they need to do, the pathology reports.
00:33:20.160 --> 00:33:29.920
So there would be no there would be no um question as to whether you were dealing with uh which diagnosis.
00:33:30.160 --> 00:33:39.119
Again, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you we all need to do those kinds of tests or we all need to have that kind of diagnosis.
00:33:39.359 --> 00:33:58.880
But if you're gonna do a study and claim that this drug regimen uh works for cancer, you have to be due your due diligence and say, we have absolutely verified that all these people are not self-reporting, but have been diagnosed with cancer.
00:33:58.960 --> 00:34:06.079
And this was there was, as far as I can see, no information about how this uh was accomplished.
00:34:06.240 --> 00:34:08.320
It's purely self-reporting.
00:34:08.800 --> 00:34:20.320
Uh the other thing that they point out uh was that this approximately 40% of the people dropped out of the study, and no explanation or reason was given for this.
00:34:20.480 --> 00:34:30.159
And we don't know, again, whether they just died from the drugs or whether they got cured and think they didn't need it anymore, or somewhere in between.
00:34:30.480 --> 00:34:41.599
But that can't possibly be the way that you would conduct a legitimate scientific trial of these drugs, and the drugs would be the only independent variable.
00:34:41.760 --> 00:34:44.000
Uh, and that gets into the next thing.
00:34:44.159 --> 00:35:12.480
If you're going to do a clear scientific study with controls of whether fenbendazole and ivermectin help with a certain type or a certain different types of cancer, you give a certain specific dote dose, you verify the diagnosis, you do it for a certain period of time, you repeat the studies, uh, you don't re and you have self-reporting, but you repeat the studies.
00:35:12.719 --> 00:35:23.199
Uh, and then you uh have a placebo group, which taking the uh doing everything the same, not some are taking chemo and some are not.
00:35:23.360 --> 00:35:25.519
Uh everybody's doing the same thing.
00:35:25.679 --> 00:35:39.280
The only independent variable is the uh two drugs that are being given, and then you can call it a study and say whether uh the these uh drugs had any effect on cancer.
00:35:40.719 --> 00:35:46.639
According to this uh critique by TechARP, none of these things were done.
00:35:46.800 --> 00:35:52.480
Uh, and so this invalidates this as a uh legitimate scientific study.
00:35:52.639 --> 00:36:03.119
They question even how is it possible that this even got um published in a peer-reviewed journal, which is a whole nother question.
00:36:03.360 --> 00:36:08.400
Um, but certainly it is not a uh study of a cancer drug.
00:36:08.800 --> 00:36:16.719
It is just uh self-reported observation, uh completely uncontrolled, completely unverified.
00:36:17.440 --> 00:36:26.960
Um, and it should have been reported at that, in that they have no idea how many people were actually helped, how many people were hurt, etc.
00:36:27.440 --> 00:36:38.639
Now, from there we have to go to the original study and see whether uh what I'm saying is correct or what these people at TechARP were saying.
00:36:38.800 --> 00:36:41.039
Uh and so we can do that.
00:36:41.280 --> 00:36:52.079
We can go to the uh actual study, and I have it in this wonky format that I always get things at.
00:36:52.320 --> 00:36:54.239
So here is the uh study.
00:36:54.400 --> 00:37:05.440
This is the real-world clinical outcomes of ivermectin and mobendazole in cancer patients result from a prospective observational cohort.
00:37:05.679 --> 00:37:13.360
So they didn't use the study in this uh word study in this, it's just a observational cohort.
00:37:13.920 --> 00:37:30.719
And of course, we go down to our uh patient uh methods, and this is a prospective observational cohort to assess real-world self-reported cancer outcomes.
00:37:30.960 --> 00:37:35.119
So, in fact, they do say these are self-reported.
00:37:35.440 --> 00:37:46.000
Um they say they have confirmed cancer diagnosis, but they don't give any information on how they were how they confirmed this.
00:37:46.159 --> 00:37:55.360
So one would have to conclude there's a rule in scientific studies that if you don't report on how you did it, then you didn't do it.
00:37:55.519 --> 00:38:06.559
So I think that's fair to say, at least at this point, uh, all we know is that they self-reported, and so that's how they confirmed that they had a cancer diagnosis.
00:38:06.719 --> 00:38:13.199
There was no report in this of any lab tests or anything else, x-rays or anything.
00:38:13.519 --> 00:38:17.119
So they did it for six months, so that's what we thought.
00:38:17.360 --> 00:38:25.119
Uh and they have the this doesn't have the diagrams, those were in the in the wellness report thing.
00:38:26.159 --> 00:38:32.400
So this is the participants were over 18, confirmed cancer diagnosis, but they don't sell how.
00:38:32.639 --> 00:38:35.920
They got the ivermectin from the wellness company.
00:38:36.239 --> 00:38:47.440
Um they completed a medical intake form, and they could have had a consultation uh to see if they were eligible for the prescription.
00:38:47.599 --> 00:38:51.519
They were dispensed, the medicine was dispensed by a U.S.
00:38:51.679 --> 00:38:52.639
pharmacy.
00:38:53.199 --> 00:39:06.159
Um a total of 997 participants did the baseline evaluation, and 61.9% provided follow-up data at six months.
00:39:06.320 --> 00:39:22.239
So, again, we're confirming that uh 38.1, I think that's right, percent of the people, almost 40%, were lost to follow-up, and we have no information about what happened to them.
00:39:22.400 --> 00:39:24.239
So that seems accurate.
00:39:24.639 --> 00:39:29.039
Uh the initial prescription was typically 90 capsules.
00:39:29.199 --> 00:39:30.320
Here's the dose.
00:39:30.559 --> 00:39:34.880
They were individualized by prescribing provider and patient.
00:39:35.039 --> 00:39:44.400
In other words, the patient could decide how many they wanted, most commonly one or two, uh, and they reordered the medicine as desired.
00:39:44.639 --> 00:39:49.360
So this is uh not how any proper study would do it.
00:39:49.760 --> 00:40:09.920
Um then they uh data were collected using structured electronic questionnaires on a secure survey platform, uh, and they had demographic, socioeconomic cancer type, disease status, prior or concurrent conventional treatments, uh, and etc.
00:40:10.159 --> 00:40:18.639
So all this squares with what we said what we have uh learned so far, so the criticism seems correct.
00:40:19.599 --> 00:40:36.559
Uh and so the primary outcomes uh again were self-reported, whether the disease had spread or progressed, and there was no other information about how they evaluated this.
00:40:37.519 --> 00:40:47.199
So it seems like all the information that uh this uh group that tech our people said is correct, they got the details right.
00:40:47.840 --> 00:40:56.559
Um and I think that's pretty much all we need to say about that.
00:40:58.239 --> 00:41:00.159
So we're gonna stop share.
00:41:01.039 --> 00:41:03.280
So, what can we learn about this?
00:41:03.440 --> 00:41:07.360
So, this was basically not a proper cancer study.
00:41:07.440 --> 00:41:09.760
It was not a proper medical study.
00:41:09.920 --> 00:41:18.000
Uh, this is not a scientific study because there's no independent variable that was uh used with control groups.
00:41:18.159 --> 00:41:39.039
Um there was so many questions in how they did it about the 40% or so of the people who were lost to follow-up, and the 60% or so who did other treatments that makes it basically impossible to know uh whether any effects were from these two drugs or from something else.
00:41:39.360 --> 00:41:50.559
And so all you can say is that some of the people who self-report some benefit, but they don't know why, and a whole lot of people dropped out, and we don't know why.
00:41:50.800 --> 00:41:56.960
And that's a whole lot different than what we had uh heard from the press releases.
00:41:57.440 --> 00:42:14.719
Now, uh I'm not saying that uh this drug, these drugs, which is after all what they are, and it's interesting that uh this ivermectin and phabendazole have been part of the whole COVID story from the get-go.
00:42:15.440 --> 00:42:21.679
Uh, and it seems to be an example of uh that we see this.
00:42:21.840 --> 00:42:45.679
I think this is called something like Hegelian dialectic or some fancy word, where we're often given two competing narratives, but the actual uh truth is in neither of these, and then we're asked to take sides of whether these two competing narratives, which one is true?
00:42:45.920 --> 00:42:51.280
Uh, but in reality, uh they're both there to obscure the truth.
00:42:51.679 --> 00:42:55.679
So I think that's a big part of the Ivermecton story.
00:42:55.760 --> 00:43:08.480
Uh, it came out really early on with some high-profile people touting it, and it became the sort of glamour child of the uh health freedom movement.
00:43:09.119 --> 00:43:49.199
And it basically was the same sort of narrative that there's a deadly virus and there's a new disease, and the whole medical paradigm of diseases and the way we diagnose and everything is true, and that even they have this uh, but there's a twist on it that it's it's all what we say, you know, with the viruses and thing, but we we have forgotten that cancer is really a parasite, and that if we repurpose these uh old pharmaceutical drugs, which they say are safe, but are far from safe, um then we will be able to uh make an impact in cancer.
00:43:49.280 --> 00:43:53.840
And so the ivermectin story became a big part of the COVID story.
00:43:54.079 --> 00:44:04.480
It became the the glamour child of the whole uh true health and Freedom movement, and then it became the cancer treatment.
00:44:04.639 --> 00:44:35.519
And so we have now a pharmaceutical product probably making billions of dollars, keeping people locked into the same way of thinking that there's this horrible disease out there, which the medical profession is not assessing properly, and it's really from a parasite, and it's really from a certain dysregulation of certain genes, so it's the same exact way of thinking.
00:44:35.679 --> 00:44:46.000
And all you need to do is take this these two drugs and then change your diet a little bit and take some supplements, and everything will be fine.
00:44:46.159 --> 00:44:48.400
And we have this study to prove it.
00:44:48.719 --> 00:44:59.360
And that's just the other side of the coin we have the conventional way, we have this horrible disease, and it's all genetic, same thing.
00:44:59.679 --> 00:45:02.400
And you have to kill it, same thing.
00:45:02.559 --> 00:45:06.400
And we've got pharmaceutical drugs that will do that, same thing.
00:45:06.559 --> 00:45:14.320
These are different pharmaceutical drugs, and you can choose which of these two same ways of looking at the world you like.
00:45:14.639 --> 00:45:27.440
And nobody gets into uh actually asking the deeper questions of why we get sick and what is your body doing, and do we really need pharmaceutical drugs?
00:45:27.679 --> 00:45:30.639
Do we even really need these diagnoses?
00:45:30.880 --> 00:45:33.280
Are these diagnoses accurate?
00:45:33.519 --> 00:45:45.920
And you can see that when you actually get into looking at the whether they really follow the scientific method, and clearly they didn't, uh, that the whole thing falls apart.
00:45:46.239 --> 00:45:59.920
Now I know some of you are going to be uh wishing that I talked about so what is cancer, and maybe we'll get into that and uh as time goes on, but I didn't think that was the point of today.
00:46:00.159 --> 00:46:24.559
The point of today was looking at this extraordinary claim and actually seeing it for what it is, and so hopefully that in itself will free people from some of the fear and that they've been attacked and they need this pharmaceutical drug, which will have lots of repercussions for them.
00:46:24.800 --> 00:46:47.519
And we're gonna get away from that way of thinking and inaugurate a whole new world of biology, uh, and that's what we're all about here in the New Biology Clinic, uh, a non-fear-based, non-pharmaceutical, actually uh way grounded in the truth of uh how life really works.
00:46:47.679 --> 00:46:49.599
That's what we're going for here.
00:46:49.920 --> 00:46:55.039
And I don't think any of this actually gets us any closer to that.
00:46:55.599 --> 00:46:59.519
So, sorry about all the technological fumbling.
00:46:59.760 --> 00:47:02.000
Uh apparently that's still with me.
00:47:02.079 --> 00:47:03.599
And thanks for joining me.
00:47:03.760 --> 00:47:18.480
And I hope everybody tunes in next week where we're gonna get into this conundrum of have we shown that vitamins actually exist in living uh living beings and actual food.
00:47:19.440 --> 00:47:19.679
Okay.
