Since Richard Nixon declared war on cancer in 1971, the National Cancer Institute has Approximately $160 billion About research and treatment of this deadly disease. Add to this the complex Medicare, Medicaid, and insurance systems that collectively pay hundreds of billions of dollars annually for the same treatment, perpetuating the status quo.
Despite spending far more than any other country, we are not getting better results. The incidence of cancer is rapidly increasing, including among young people. With promising and cheaper alternatives available, why don't major medical journals and governments give them the attention they deserve? Perhaps the question itself may be the answer.
Deep down, we all understand why chronic diseases seem to be on the rise, along with the use of expensive treatments that offer no long-term solutions.
Some of the heroic doctors who pioneered innovative coronavirus treatments have published a peer-reviewed paper proposing a promising treatment for aggressive cancers. This protocol is Orthomolecular Medicine Journalis a combination of several anti-parasitic drugs that are much safer and cheaper than common cancer treatments such as ivermectin, fenbendazole, and mebendazole.
These same anti-parasitic drugs that have shown promise against the novel coronavirus may be effective against many cancers by targeting the junction between mitochondria and stem cells, which is thought to be a key component of cancer's aggressive growth. It also seems to have an effect on
Dr. William Makis, a Canadian oncologist and one of the lead authors, announced the publication on social media earlier this month.
“The future of cancer treatment begins now.” Makis said excitedly: On behalf of 15 authors from 6 countries. “First authors Ilyes Baghli and Pierrick Martinez for their incredibly inspired research, and Dr. Paul Marik from FLCCC for their extensive research on repurposed drugs, and for making this paper possible. We would like to thank all the co-authors for their efforts.”
While it's clear that everyone undergoing cancer treatment should do their own research and consult a trusted medical professional, the core of the paper's Makis-Malik Protocol is:
Ivermectin
Low-grade cancer:
Dose 0.5 mg/kg three times a week (Guzzo et al., 2002).
Intermediate-grade cancer:
Dose 1 mg/kg three times a week (Guzzo, et al., 2002).
High-grade cancer:
Doses range from 1 mg/kg/day (de Castro, et al., 2020) to 2 mg/kg/day (Guzzo, et al., 2002).
All these doses have been established to be tolerable for humans (Guzzo, et al., 2002).
Benzimidazole and DON
Low-grade cancer:
Mebendazole: 200 mg/day dose (Dobrosotskaya, et al., 2011).
Intermediate-grade cancer:
Mebendazole: 400 mg/day dose (Chai, et al., 2021).
High-grade cancer:
mebendazole at a dose of 1,500 mg/day (Son, et al., 2020) or fenbendazole at a dose of 1,000 mg three times a week (Chiang, et al., 2021).
The protocol recommends these drugs alongside intravenous vitamin C, high doses of vitamin D, zinc, a ketogenic diet, fasting, and other lifestyle changes.
Some studies support the use of ivermectin in cancer treatment to help kill cancer cells. Promising results have been shown, especially in highly lethal cancers such as pancreatic cancer. Doses for cancer treatment (0.5 to 1 milligram per kilogram of body weight) are higher than those used for COVID-19, but doctors are looking forward to studies showing these doses are safe for cancer patients. Pointed out. In one study, patients took 1 milligram per kilogram daily for 180 days with no adverse side effects.
Mebendazole is another antiparasitic drug, along with its veterinary counterpart, fenbendazole. provoke apoptosis By blocking cancer cells microtubule formation It also inhibits growth by inhibiting glucose metabolism. Doctors cite several studies in which patients go into complete remission after several weeks of this therapy.
Between 2020 and 2022, 59% of reviewers received at least one payment from the pharmaceutical industry.
So why aren't governments, big pharmaceutical companies, and prestigious medical journals taking advantage of this opportunity? These breakthroughs are often dismissed as too new or lacking sample size. It happens often. Are you okay. So why not fund placebo-controlled clinical trials? We're willing to spend billions of dollars on expensive treatments that often have extreme, life-altering side effects. In contrast, these drugs are much cheaper and harmless. If this protocol has even a 1% chance of curing more cancers, why is this effort left to a small number of independent physicians and obscure medical journals?
Once again, the question itself is the answer. a new research letterpublished in the Journal of the American Medical Association, revealed that between 2020 and 2022 (during the pandemic), 59% of reviewers received at least one payment from the pharmaceutical industry. did. Of the 1,155 reviewers known to be impartial, the total payouts amounted to $1.06 billion, potentially lining their own pockets and influencing the research.
Now consider competing products on the market for a variety of illnesses such as Parkinson's disease, cancer, diabetes, and heart disease. On the other hand, there are potential treatments with inexpensive repurposed drugs. On the other hand, there are expensive new drugs that have adverse effects on the body due to side effects, but enrich the pharmaceutical industry. These expensive drugs create a cycle of chronic disease, treatment failure, and side effects, each increasing the need for more drugs. Given this conflict of interest, which treatments do you think will be able to get past the gatekeepers of major medical journals?
Deep down, we all understand why chronic diseases seem to be on the rise, along with the use of expensive treatments that offer no long-term solutions. In 2022, researchers at Yale University analyzed the association between 2020 cancer treatment spending and age-standardized cancer mortality rates in 22 wealthy Western countries. Their findings were; Published in JAMAThe US spends $584 per person on cancer treatment, more than any other country and twice the median spending of 21 other countries. “It was not associated with standardized cancer mortality rates.”
Cancer rates are currently skyrocketing in the United States and other Western countries. aggressive, cancer that is difficult to treat In young adults. From 2019 to 2023, cancer has increased rapidly Among individuals aged 15-44, uterine cancer (37% increase), colorectal cancer (17% increase), liver cancer (8% increase), and unspecified metastatic cancer (14% increase) classified.
Early this year, American Cancer Society points out In the late 1990s, colorectal cancer was the fourth leading cause of cancer death for men and women under the age of 50; it is now the leading cause of death for men under the age of 50. Cancer rates in the UK reach record high In 2022, prostate cancer will be the most commonly diagnosed and particularly deadly cancer.
Why aren't alarm bells ringing in the field of oncology, recognizing that current approaches are clearly not working?
It remains to be seen how broadly successful ivermectin/mebendazole-based cancer treatment protocols will be for the general population. The problem is that we may never know it. If such protocols emerge from gatekeeper medical journals, the very organizations that fund those journals will lose out. billions of In terms of profits. This moral hazard is a problem that humanity cannot ignore.
