5 minutes ago, transam said:

How come experts say you are wrong...........🤔

Are you a medical expert in the cancer field......?  🤫

 

... Got to love it.....

 

When overwhelming medical evidence and decades of real-world data show that vaccines are effective and necessary, the anti-vaxx crowd become self-styled “experts”, dismissing the entire scientific consensus because “Big Pharma are crooks”.

 

But the moment those same medical experts and that same scientific consensus state – clearly and repeatedly – that ivermectin is not an evidence-based cancer treatment, the very same anti-vaxxers magically switch sides and clutch the pharmaceutical industry’s product - ivermectin.

 

Funny, that. It’s almost as if the issue was never the medicine at all.
It’s not about data, evidence, or science.
It’s simply anti-establishment for the sake of being anti-establishment.

 

They’re not rebelling against corruption or incompetence – they’re rebelling against consensus itself.
They’re so desperate to feel like lone “free thinkers” that they reflexively oppose whatever the mainstream view happens to be.

Which is precisely why they drift into conspiracy territory so easily: the position matters less than the posture.

 

In short, it’s not enlightenment. It’s just contrarianism.

4 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

... Got to love it.....

 

When overwhelming medical evidence and decades of real-world data show that vaccines are effective and necessary, the anti-vaxx crowd become self-styled “experts”, dismissing the entire scientific consensus because “Big Pharma are crooks”.

 

But the moment those same medical experts and that same scientific consensus state – clearly and repeatedly – that ivermectin is not an evidence-based cancer treatment, the very same anti-vaxxers magically switch sides and clutch the pharmaceutical industry’s product - ivermectin.

 

Funny, that. It’s almost as if the issue was never the medicine at all.
It’s not about data, evidence, or science.
It’s simply anti-establishment for the sake of being anti-establishment.

 

They’re not rebelling against corruption or incompetence – they’re rebelling against consensus itself.
They’re so desperate to feel like lone “free thinkers” that they reflexively oppose whatever the mainstream view happens to be.

Which is precisely why they drift into conspiracy territory so easily: the position matters less than the posture.

 

In short, it’s not enlightenment. It’s just contrarianism.

Yep......🤗

1 hour ago, rattlesnake said:

 

Indeed. I think it was @Stiddle Mump who once said that tumors were enclosed environments built by the body to contain the nefarious elements (I'm paraphrasing in layman terms).

Indeed! It was me.

 

Cancer is a dreadful, and frightening word, to most people. Quite rightly so. And perfectly understandable, given the propaganda and fear that surround it. But (simplified) a tumor is the body protecting itself from far worse.

 

There is obviously something wrong when a tumor presents itself. Often there appears to not be a reason for it to emerge. It can be the result of many things. Lifestyle, diet, emotion, toxicity. The important thing is that it has been formed for a reason. Why? That's the first question a good doctor would consider.

 

 

 

 

 

9 minutes ago, novacova said:

I read an article back in the 90’s where researchers showed that needle biopsies exacerbated the cancer growth due to oxygen exposure. Whether or not it was proven, have no idea.

 

There is a grain of truth in that - and thats the issue - the 'contrarians'  (anti-vaxxers) take a grain of truth and conflate, confuse it, manipulate it and present the information to laymen with memes and bite sizes snippets of consumable misinformation and in doing so present highly damaging information. 

 

The realities: 

The Evidence Does Show that there is a risk of tumour cell displacement (“Seeding”)

Needle biopsies can displace some cancer cells. Reviews found that cell displacement along the needle tract happens fairly often. 

However, displacement does not necessarily lead to worse long-term survival. In breast cancer, the risk seems to be more about local recurrence rather than major effects on regional or distant metastasis.

Additionally, techniques can be adjusted (needle type, biopsy method) to reduce seeding risk.

 

There is also an inflammatory response after biopsy.

Real human data shows that a core needle biopsy in breast cancer can trigger local inflammation, and this inflammation isn’t harmless: studies showed there was increased proliferation of tumour cells around the biopsy wound. 

In a mouse model, biopsy was shown to increase circulating tumour cells (CTCs) and make the tumour microenvironment more “friendly” to metastasis (immunosuppressive, EMT changes).

More recently, a study in breast cancer models showed that needle biopsy triggered a pro-metastatic wound‑healing response (via COX‑2 / PGE2 signalling) that could promote systemic spread, especially if surgery is delayed (and thats the key point - IF surgery / removal was delayed - IF there is no cancer, there is no biopsy risk - if there is cancer surgery would be used to remove and the 'at risk tissue' from biopsy).

Additionally: in the mouse model - these effects were reduced or blocked by COX-2 or EP2 inhibitors in the mouse model and that suggests a mechanistic pathway.

 

Thus, for survival impact and clinical relevance some experimental models (e.g. mice) show increased metastasis after biopsy, human data don’t uniformly support a big, clinically meaningful risk. 

For early-stage non‑small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), a study found no significant difference in recurrence‑free survival or overall survival between patients who had a preoperative needle biopsy vs those who didn’t. 

Another study (in lung cancer) suggested that intraoperative needle biopsy did associate with increased recurrence and reduced 5‑year survival in certain contexts - but this doesn’t translate to all biopsy scenarios or cancer types.

 

As far as the “Oxygen Exposure” theory - thats a flawed 'layman claim' - misinformation based on a crumb of information.

 

 

 

In summary: What’s True and What’s Exaggerated ?

 

-  True risk: There is a small risk that a needle biopsy can dislodge tumour cells and contribute to local spread or recurrence - but in this case cancer would most commonly be surgically removed (where possible).

There’s also real inflammatory signalling changes in the tumour microenvironment after a biopsy.

 

- Exaggerated claim: The idea that biopsies are routinely “opening the floodgates” and letting oxygen in to supercharge cancer growth is not supported by strong clinical evidence.

 

- Clinical trade-off: Biopsies are critical for diagnosis, treatment planning, and staging. In most cases, the benefit of getting accurate information far outweighs the low risk of biopsy-related spread.

 

Thats the reality with a lot of medicine - its a clinical trade-off - but the contrarian anti-vaxxers dumb these issues down to a binary 'good vs evil' with misinformation and targeted ignorance. 

 

1 hour ago, transam said:

I have quoted a few times on here that RP & SM are dangerous, unqualified fruitcakes.....🥴

 

I also think they should not be allowed to peddle their dangerous nonsense on here......🤔

Oh dear!

 

 

11 minutes ago, Stiddle Mump said:

Cancer is a dreadful, and frightening word, to most people. Quite rightly so. And perfectly understandable, given the propaganda and fear that surround it. But (simplified) a tumor is the body protecting itself from far worse.

 

There is obviously something wrong when a tumor presents itself. Often there appears to not be a reason for it to emerge. It can be the result of many things. Lifestyle, diet, emotion, toxicity. The important thing is that it has been formed for a reason. Why? That's the first question a good doctor would consider.

 

This is perhaps the first time we've agreed... 

 

Cancer arises for a reason, and in that sense, your references to terrain theory (in other threads) do have some validity. After all, the environment of the body - the “terrain” - does influence tumour development and progression. Lifestyle factors, chronic inflammation, immune status, and metabolic health can all create conditions that make malignancy more likely or aggressive.

 

But terrain theory does not, and cannot, exist in isolation.

There are other, often far more powerful drivers of cancer, chief among them genetic susceptibility. Inherited mutations in genes like BRCA1/2, TP53, and mismatch repair genes can dramatically increase the risk of cancer, independently of lifestyle or “terrain.” Environmental exposures, viral infections, and random somatic mutations also contribute in ways that terrain-focused strategies alone cannot prevent.

 

Thus, any responsible approach to cancer prevention and management must integrate both perspectives. Optimising the terrain - through diet, exercise, reducing inflammation, and supporting immune function - can complement, but not replace, evidence-based medical interventions such as screening, early detection, surgery, chemotherapy, immunotherapy, and targeted treatments.

 

Relying solely on “natural” methods or terrain theory while rejecting or delaying standard medical care is fundamentally flawed. Worse, advising others to do so is not just misguided - it is actively dangerous, as it leaves individuals vulnerable to cancers that are often curable if detected and treated promptly.

 

In short: terrain theory is a piece of the puzzle, but medical science provides the tools to act on the puzzle. Ignoring one side in favour of the other is a recipe for preventable tragedy.

17 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

There are other, often far more powerful drivers of cancer, chief among them genetic susceptibility. Inherited mutations in genes like BRCA1/2, TP53, and mismatch repair genes can dramatically increase the risk of cancer, independently of lifestyle or “terrain.” Environmental exposures, viral infections, and random somatic mutations also contribute in ways that terrain-focused strategies alone cannot prevent.

Don't agree with you Sir. 

 

The 'gene' as a reason for the beginnings of cancer, has been grossly exaggerated. Mostly to cover up other things that the white-coats would prefer to remain uncovered. Vaxxes maybe?!

 

Not just white-coats either. Adulterated food. Chemicals in the air, on the land in rivers, seas and oceans, all have devastated communities and wreaked havoc down the decades. And that big one; yes war. Present, it seems, somewhere at all times.

 

There has been a deliberate (IMO) fudging of research into cancer. Its causes, its presence, its containment and its eradication. Why? Don't have to stray too far from the $$$ river. The one that keeps on giving for so many.

 

Remember POTUS Nixon's war on cancer? Still fighting that one we are. And unless our tactics change we can never win it.

4 minutes ago, Stiddle Mump said:

The 'gene' as a reason for the beginnings of cancer, has been grossly exaggerated. Mostly to cover up other things that the white-coats would prefer to remain uncovered. Vaxxes maybe?!

 

The genetic explanation to illness is one of the most cruel and cynical notions to ever be disseminated by the pharmaceutical cartel. "It's genetic", i.e. "it's your fault for being imperfect". Thankfully, Science™ is here to sell the solution to rectify nature's inherent flaws…

10 minutes ago, Stiddle Mump said:

Don't agree with you Sir. 

 

The 'gene' as a reason for the beginnings of cancer, has been grossly exaggerated. Mostly to cover up other things that the white-coats would prefer to remain uncovered. Vaxxes maybe?!

 

Not just white-coats either. Adulterated food. Chemicals in the air, on the land in rivers, seas and oceans, all have devastated communities and wreaked havoc down the decades. And that big one; yes war. Present, it seems, somewhere at all times.

 

There has been a deliberate (IMO) fudging of research into cancer. Its causes, its presence, its containment and its eradication. Why? Don't have to stray too far from the $$$ river. The one that keeps on giving for so many.

 

Remember POTUS Nixon's war on cancer? Still fighting that one we are. And unless our tactics change we can never win it.

 

 

Ah, the usual mix of conspiracy, selective outrage and stupidity....

 

Let’s be clear: genes as cancer drivers are real and well-documented. BRCA1/2 mutations confer up to a 70% lifetime breast cancer risk; Lynch syndrome mutations up to 80% lifetime colorectal cancer risk; TP53 mutations predispose to multiple early-onset cancers.

 

These aren’t “white-coat cover-ups” or an excuse to hide vaccines - they are decades of rigorous, reproducible science.

 

Yes, environment, pollutants, viruses, and even war can increase risk, but they are risk modifiers, not replacements for genetics.

 

Cancer is complex and multifactorial - pretending otherwise is fantasy. Large-scale projects like The Cancer Genome Atlas and thousands of independent labs globally make it impossible to “fudge” research on fundamental causes.

 

And Nixon’s “War on Cancer” didn’t fail because of Big Pharma conspiracies; it’s a testament to the biological complexity of cancer. Meanwhile, mortality from breast, prostate, and colorectal cancers has fallen steadily due to screening and treatment, not because someone hid the truth.

 

So yes, adulterated food and wars exist - but dismissing genetics while inventing conspiracies doesn’t prevent cancer; it delays detection and treatment, which is deadly.

 

Reality isn’t anti-establishment - it’s what saves lives...   

 

9 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

17 minutes ago, Stiddle Mump said:

The 'gene' as a reason for the beginnings of cancer, has been grossly exaggerated. Mostly to cover up other things that the white-coats would prefer to remain uncovered. Vaxxes maybe?!

 

The genetic explanation to illness is one of the most cruel and cynical notions to ever be disseminated by the pharmaceutical cartel. "It's genetic", i.e. "it's your fault for being imperfect". Thankfully, Science™ is here to sell the solution to rectify nature's inherent flaws…

 

A brilliant display of 'circle-jerk stupidity' - you're aligned in your anti-vax idealogy so support each other in this 'even more outlandish topic'... If I didn't know better I'd suggest you are in trolling cahoots !!! 

 

... But, let’s get real: genetics isn’t some cruel conspiracy designed to make you feel guilty or to sell products.

 

Genetics is a measurable, reproducible factor in disease risk, plain and simple. Mutations in BRCA1/2, TP53, and mismatch repair genes don’t exist to punish anyone - they exist because biology is messy, and we’ve finally got the tools to identify them.

 

Calling it “your fault for being imperfect” is pure nonsense. Knowing someone carries a high-risk mutation isn’t blame - it’s power. It lets doctors offer targeted prevention, early detection, and life-saving interventions.

 

That’s why screening, prophylactic surgery, and monitoring exist: to save lives, not to sell snake oil.

 

The pharmaceutical angle?  Yes, there’s money in medicine, its a primary drive, a necessity of advancement, the mother of innovation and invention, it always has been.... But the alternatives you contrarians suggest isn’t enlightenment, it’s ignoring science and letting preventable cancers go undetected.

 

Dismissing decades of genetics research because it makes your worldview uncomfortable is not rebellion - it’s just dangerous ignorance.

9 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

A brilliant display of 'circle-jerk stupidity' - you're aligned in your anti-vax idealogy so support each other in this 'even more outlandish topic'... If I didn't know better I'd suggest you are in trolling cahoots !!! 

 

... But, let’s get real: genetics isn’t some cruel conspiracy designed to make you feel guilty or to sell products.

 

Genetics is a measurable, reproducible factor in disease risk, plain and simple. Mutations in BRCA1/2, TP53, and mismatch repair genes don’t exist to punish anyone - they exist because biology is messy, and we’ve finally got the tools to identify them.

 

Calling it “your fault for being imperfect” is pure nonsense. Knowing someone carries a high-risk mutation isn’t blame - it’s power. It lets doctors offer targeted prevention, early detection, and life-saving interventions.

 

That’s why screening, prophylactic surgery, and monitoring exist: to save lives, not to sell snake oil.

 

The pharmaceutical angle?  Yes, there’s money in medicine, its a primary drive, a necessity of advancement, the mother of innovation and invention, it always has been.... But the alternatives you contrarians suggest isn’t enlightenment, it’s ignoring science and letting preventable cancers go undetected.

 

Dismissing decades of genetics research because it makes your worldview uncomfortable is not rebellion - it’s just dangerous ignorance.

 

"Dangerous ignorance": dangerous for the most powerful legal cartel in the world, certainly. Not dangerous for the increasing numbers of people (often with stage IV cancer) completely cured by taking Fembendazole.

17 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Let’s be clear: genes as cancer drivers are real and well-documented.

I think it was Dr Tom Cowan (without looking it up for a reference) said that defective genes were 'perhaps' responsible for 1 in 1,000 cancers. Sounds like an exaggeration to me but he's the white-coat. I put mine away 45 years ago.

 

The cancer researchers are barking up the tree. In the wrong forest.

 

The body, yes, our nature based body, uses cancer tumors as a protection.

 

People down the decades that have brought forth good, solid research, have been metaphorically crucified. In fact Dr Bradstreet died by shooting himself twice in the back. So not all metaphoric.

 

Dr Koch, Hulda Clark, Davis Noakes all suffered because the industry couldn't stomach some person bringing out new ideas on cancer. Why? $$$$ look not any further. And still it continues.

 

Cancer is big, big bu$ine$$. But at least the people are getting healthier. So that's OK.

 

10 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

 

"Dangerous ignorance": dangerous for the most powerful legal cartel in the world, certainly. Not dangerous for the increasing numbers of people (often with stage IV cancer) completely cured by taking Fembendazole.

 

This is typical of your response - throw out a crumb and expect the rest of us to write a thesis in response. Your comment is lazy and intellectually dishonest.

 

Yes, fenbendazole (a deworming drug) needs further testing - and if it were officially approved, I’m sure your narrative would magically shift.

 

But right now, the fact that it isn’t approved doesn’t mean it’s being “ignored” or suppressed. The scientific community is actively studying it; promising preclinical results are exactly what drive clinical trials.

 

To imply otherwise (as you did with your comment) - that cancer researcher community are turning a blind eye while you hint at a “wonder drug” - is a misrepresentation and a piece of misinformation.

 

Fenbendazole is worth investigating, absolutely, as is everything with plausible preclinical potential - the below links prove that this drug is being seriously investigated from a cancer treatment perspective.

But, worth investigating is not the same as proven therapy, and spreading that false equivalence is dangerously misleading.

 

https://bmccancer.biomedcentral.com/counter/pdf/10.1186/s12885-024-13361-9.pdf

 

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37998737/

 

https://karger.com/cro/article/18/1/856/927630/Fenbendazole-as-an-Anticancer-Agent-A-Case-Series

2 hours ago, BritManToo said:

Age 70, don't fancy going bald, feeling like poop 24/7, and throwing up for my last year/s.

I've seen many people having cancer treatment, they all died as fast as those not treated.

Might be different for someone at age 30, but my life is done.

 

My wifes' pal, age 60, she has dialysis 3x a week, can't walk without someone to hold on to, sick all the time, can't see much, no energy, weak, has to stay at home on her own too sick and frail to go out ...... OK not cancer, but I'd rather be dead than live like that.

 

Must be <deleted>ty and expensive thai healthcare. No money, no honey...or in this case no help for the sick.

9 minutes ago, Stiddle Mump said:

I think it was Dr Tom Cowan (without looking it up for a reference) said that defective genes were 'perhaps' responsible for 1 in 1,000 cancers. Sounds like an exaggeration to me but he's the white-coat. I put mine away 45 years ago.

 

Misinformation again: You guys just can't help yourselves with the dangerous lies you keep pedalling.

 

The overall fraction of cancers that are “heritable” via germline mutations is commonly cited at 5–10%, depending on the source - that is a far cry from your fabricated stat that is a factor of 50x to 100x false... 

 

...Now, with that said, the rate of germline pathogenic variants varies a lot by cancer type: in some cancers, the percentage is higher; in others it's lower. Also, of note: having a germline mutation doesn’t guarantee you will develop cancer - it increases risk, often significantly, but environmental / somatic factors still play a big role - its complex rather than binary issue.

 

Here are 5 peer-reviewed / authoritative‑source stats about what proportion of cancers are due to inherited (germline) genetic defects, plus some nuance:

 

~10% of all cancers

According to a review of inherited DNA repair gene defects, up to 10% of cancer cases are attributable to germline mutations.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28454847/

 

Prevalence of pathogenic germline variants in cancer patients

In a large study of 10,389 adult cancer patients across 33 cancer types, 8% carried pathogenic or likely pathogenic germline variants in cancer‐predisposition genes. 

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29625052/

 

Inherited mutations in “types without hereditary testing guidelines”

In a real‑world analysis of 34,642 patients, 7.3% had pathogenic or likely pathogenic germline variants. 

Specifically: ~ 6.6% in bladder cancer; ~5.8% in lung cancer in that cohort.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35594047/

 

Hereditary endometrial cancer

For endometrial (uterine) cancer, 2–6% of cases are due to Lynch syndrome (mismatch repair gene) germline mutations. 

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33484353/

 

Inherited TP53 mutations (Li‑Fraumeni Syndrome) in breast / ovarian cancer

In a cohort of ovarian cancer patients, around 18% had a germline mutation in one of several cancer risk genes including BRCA1, BRCA2, TP53, and mismatch repair genes.

https://jnccn.org/downloadpdf/view/journals/jnccn/14/9/article-p1165.pdf

 

2 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

This is typical of your response - throw out a crumb and expect the rest of us to write a thesis in response. Your comment is lazy and intellectually dishonest.

 

Yes, fenbendazole (a deworming drug) needs further testing - and if it were officially approved, I’m sure your narrative would magically shift.

 

But right now, the fact that it isn’t approved doesn’t mean it’s being “ignored” or suppressed. The scientific community is actively studying it; promising preclinical results are exactly what drive clinical trials.

 

To imply otherwise (as you did with your comment) - that cancer researcher community are turning a blind eye while you hint at a “wonder drug” - is a misrepresentation and a piece of misinformation.

 

Fenbendazole is worth investigating, absolutely, as is everything with plausible preclinical potential - the below links prove that this drug is being seriously investigated from a cancer treatment perspective.

But, worth investigating is not the same as proven therapy, and spreading that false equivalence is dangerously misleading.

 

https://bmccancer.biomedcentral.com/counter/pdf/10.1186/s12885-024-13361-9.pdf

 

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37998737/

 

https://karger.com/cro/article/18/1/856/927630/Fenbendazole-as-an-Anticancer-Agent-A-Case-Series

 

I adapt my delivery on a case-by-case basis and therefore am not always inclined to spend my precious time demonstrating a point, only for the interlocutor to drop out of the discussion instead of having the honesty to make a concession (as has often been the case).

 

Yes, Fembendazole works according to an increasing body of empirical evidence, without the need for chemotherapy and conventional treatment paths. William Makis and Nicolas Hulscher are at the forefront of the research and the results are very encouraging (but this will lead to a drastic loss of market share for the cancer treatment industry as it exists, hence the attemps to smear, suppress and silence those inconvenient developments – all one needs to do is look at the 'fact checks' about the above-mentioned doctors for an illustration of how that works).

 

 

Only the body can heal. Give it the tools and support, and it will give it a good go.

 

There is no 'cure' for cancer. Just like there is no cure for the flu. What there is, is called prevention**. However, once a tumor is found, the body must be encouraged to do certain things. Seal it. Eradicate it.

 

BUT!! Why did the tumor start in the first place? Any decent doc would investigate. I mean; it could return after a bit of slash and burn.

 

** Cancer prevention. I've written about extensively on AN & TT threads. Something white-coats are never keen on debating.

Flame removed 

 

You were asked a valid question.

 

@Red Phoenix

 

A reply was removed 

9 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

Misinformation again: You guys just can't help yourselves with the dangerous lies you keep pedalling.

 

The overall fraction of cancers that are “heritable” via germline mutations is commonly cited at 5–10%, depending on the source - that is a far cry from your fabricated stat that is a factor of 50x to 100x false... 

 

...Now, with that said, the rate of germline pathogenic variants varies a lot by cancer type: in some cancers, the percentage is higher; in others it's lower. Also, of note: having a germline mutation doesn’t guarantee you will develop cancer - it increases risk, often significantly, but environmental / somatic factors still play a big role - its complex rather than binary issue.

 

Here are 5 peer-reviewed / authoritative‑source stats about what proportion of cancers are due to inherited (germline) genetic defects, plus some nuance:

 

~10% of all cancers

According to a review of inherited DNA repair gene defects, up to 10% of cancer cases are attributable to germline mutations.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28454847/

 

Prevalence of pathogenic germline variants in cancer patients

In a large study of 10,389 adult cancer patients across 33 cancer types, 8% carried pathogenic or likely pathogenic germline variants in cancer‐predisposition genes. 

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29625052/

 

Inherited mutations in “types without hereditary testing guidelines”

In a real‑world analysis of 34,642 patients, 7.3% had pathogenic or likely pathogenic germline variants. 

Specifically: ~ 6.6% in bladder cancer; ~5.8% in lung cancer in that cohort.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35594047/

 

Hereditary endometrial cancer

For endometrial (uterine) cancer, 2–6% of cases are due to Lynch syndrome (mismatch repair gene) germline mutations. 

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33484353/

 

Inherited TP53 mutations (Li‑Fraumeni Syndrome) in breast / ovarian cancer

In a cohort of ovarian cancer patients, around 18% had a germline mutation in one of several cancer risk genes including BRCA1, BRCA2, TP53, and mismatch repair genes.

https://jnccn.org/downloadpdf/view/journals/jnccn/14/9/article-p1165.pdf

 

I've read enough papers in my time Sir. When I have time. I'll take a look. Thanks.

 

I don't generally look things up. If I know it; I post it. Otherwise it will not see the light of day.

 

You know my position on all illnesses. Don't need to go over it again and again. But, I will say, IMO, most cancers are due to man himself. You might think that is unacceptable in today's world. But hey!! The $$$ is the bobbie.

 

Nature is our greatest friend and teacher.

 

I've said it 100 times. The biggest threat to humankind is our own ignorance and apathy.

 

5 minutes ago, Stiddle Mump said:

I've read enough papers in my time Sir. When I have time. I'll take a look. Thanks.

 

I don't generally look things up. If I know it; I post it. Otherwise it will not see the light of day.

 

You know my position on all illnesses. Don't need to go over it again and again. But, I will say, IMO, most cancers are due to man himself. You might think that is unacceptable in today's world. But hey!! The $$$ is the bobbie.

 

Nature is our greatest friend and teacher.

 

I've said it 100 times. The biggest threat to humankind is our own ignorance and apathy.

 

"I don't generally look things up."

 

"The biggest threat to humankind is our own ignorance and apathy."

 

Mmmmmmm?

7 minutes ago, GarryP said:

"I don't generally look things up. The biggest threat to humankind is our own ignorance and apathy."

 

Mmmmmmm?

Well!! Not to debate this thread. I'm writing a book at the mo. and that takes a great deal of research.

 

Put the word 'virus' or 'cancer' into google and see the replies. If one believes the results, one could be forever stupefied.

 

My teacher is nature. Truth. Common sense. Not some know-nothing white-coat supping from the $$ stream.

4 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

 

I adapt my delivery on a case-by-case basis and therefore am not always inclined to spend my precious time demonstrating a point, only for the interlocutor to drop out of the discussion instead of having the honesty to make a concession (as has often been the case).

 

Yes, Fembendazole works according to an increasing body of empirical evidence, without the need for chemotherapy and conventional treatment paths. William Makis and Nicolas Hulscher are at the forefront of the research and the results are very encouraging (but this will lead to a drastic loss of market share for the cancer treatment industry as it exists, hence the attemps to smear, suppress and silence those inconvenient developments – all one needs to do is look at the 'fact checks' about the above-mentioned doctors for an illustration of how that works).

 

 

While Makis is directly involved in clinical / case-report–level work. Hulscher seems more in the public / communication side. Neither (so far) are carrying out large-scale preclinical (lab / animal) research on Fenbendazole themselves, so no, they are not at the forefront, but as you point out - there really isn't much of a forefront at the moment - their involvement is more about case reporting by some who have self medicated... their work is currently clinical case observation, advocacy, and protocol promotion...

 

There is a 2024  case‑series paper, William Makis and colleagues describe three stage-4 cancer patients who self-administered Fenbendazole. This paper cites preclinical in vitro and in vivo studies to rationalise their use - 

Three patients with advanced cancer (breast, prostate, and melanoma), self‑administered Fenbendazole was associated with two complete remissions and one near‑complete remission over follow‑ups of 11 months to almost 3 years - which sounds amazing and is definitely worthy of further investigation.
All three tolerated the drug well, with no reported serious adverse effects. 
The authors (William Makis; Ilyes Baghli; Pierrick Martinez) conclude that Fenbendazole may be a promising repurposed anticancer agent, but emphasise that rigorous clinical trials are urgently needed. 

 

You stated: Quote [increasing numbers of people (often with stage IV cancer) completely cured by taking Fembendazole] - it was three people !!!  - (intellectually dishonest again) !

 

There is some bona fide preclinical research into FBZ is being done - but as you highlight not by major pharma heavyweights (not yet anyway).

 

But, your comment is another 'over simplification' which is really dressed up misinformation that requires yet another page to accurately address - its why earlier I mentioned how you throw out a crumb which is lazy and intellectually dishonest...

 

Now I have to give the response - which I can't really be bothered to do - but should as this is a new topic rather than the repetitive anti-vaxx misinformation you keep pedalling....

 

 

Why is is 'Big-Pharma backing for Fenbendazole  weak ???

 

Lack of Patent Incentive (money drives innovation)

Fenbendazole is off-patent, very cheap, and generic. That makes it not very profitable for big pharmaceutical companies to fund expensive cancer trials.

Without a strong patent or monopoly, there’s little financial motivation to pay for large Phase I/II/III trials. 

 

Regulatory Risks / Prohibitions

According to a Korean medical‑science review, FDA and EMA currently prohibit fenbendazole for human use because of toxicity concerns (its easy to point the finger - greater care needs to be taken with issues people such as yourself easily overlook when being critical).

That regulatory barrier is a huge disincentive for companies: they don’t want to bankroll a drug labeled “not permitted for humans” unless there’s a clear path to change that.

 

Repurposing Focus on Other Benzimidazoles

According to a review, benzimidazole-class drugs (like mebendazole and albendazole) have been more actively studied for cancer than fenbendazole - This is where you are intellectually dishonest - because other very similar drugs are being investigated - you conveniently do not highlight this.

Some research organisations do support repurposing work (drug‑repurposing philanthropy, academic groups), but these are not necessarily big pharma doing the heavy lifting. 

 

Safety / Toxicity Concerns

There are reported toxicities (e.g., liver toxicity) with fenbendazole in humans who self-medicate. 

That makes regulatory risk even higher, discouraging large-scale investment unless there is a new formulation or safety data.

 

Some Research, But Mostly Academic / Non‑Profit

Preclinical work is ongoing (e.g., benzimidazole anticancer reviews). 

But according to skeptical commentary, the lack of big-money sponsors is less about quashing by pharma and more about lack of financial incentive.

There are also repurposing‑drug funding initiatives, but these tend to come from philanthropic or non-profit repurposing organisations, not big pharma.

 

 

So... the conclusion

Pharma industry involvement is not being “quashed” in a conspiratorial way - rather, the economics don’t add up for them: no patent = no big profit = no big trials.

 

Regulatory barriers (toxicity, lack of human‑use approval) add further risk.

 

Most of the momentum around Fenbendazole as a cancer treatment is coming from academic researchers, repurposing enthusiasts, and non-profit funding, not major pharmaceutical players.

 

Sorry - no conspiracy... 

 

 

 

 

17 minutes ago, Stiddle Mump said:

I've read enough papers in my time Sir. When I have time. I'll take a look. Thanks.

 

I don't generally look things up. If I know it; I post it. Otherwise it will not see the light of day.

 

You know my position on all illnesses. Don't need to go over it again and again. But, I will say, IMO, most cancers are due to man himself. You might think that is unacceptable in today's world. But hey!! The $$$ is the bobbie.

 

Its not binary issue: Cancer is far from a modern phenomenon - it has existed for millions of years, as shown in the fossil record. Malignant bone tumours have been identified in a 240‑million-year-old turtle fossil, and evidence of cancer has also been found in dinosaurs and early hominins.

This demonstrates that cancer is a natural biological process that predates humans and is not solely a product of human activity.

 

That said, human-made environmental factors undeniably increase cancer risk. Exposure to air pollution, industrial chemicals, and occupational carcinogens has been clearly linked to cancer, with particulate matter (PM2.5) classified as a Group 1 carcinogen by the IARC.

 

The origins of cancer are complex and multifaceted, and some theories suggest that cancer may even represent an evolutionary byproduct - a consequence of cellular mutation that, while part of natural selection processes, manifests as a harmful facet of evolution rather than a beneficial one.

 

17 minutes ago, Stiddle Mump said:

Nature is our greatest friend and teacher.

 

Agreed - and your implication that scientists and the medical community somehow operate in a vacuum, detached from nature, is absurd. Modern medicine does not ignore natural compounds - in fact, a huge proportion of approved drugs originate from plants, fungi, or other natural sources. To suggest that researchers would refuse to study a mushroom and instead insist on “chemically inventing” one is not only ignorant but betrays a basic misunderstanding of how pharmacology works.

 

 

- Roughly 40-60% of modern medicines are derived from natural sources or inspired by natural compounds.

 

- Penicillin, statins, paclitaxel (Taxol), vincristine, morphine, aspirin, and many anticancer agents all originated from plants, fungi, or bacteria.

 

- Drug development often starts exactly with studying natural substances, then modifying them for safety, stability, and dosage control.

 

- Scientists do not “avoid nature” - they systematically screen tens of thousands of natural compounds for therapeutic potential.

 

This is where your ignorance really shows - in the myopic belief that “nature has all the answers,” as if the medical and pharmaceutical fields exist in opposition to nature rather than in partnership with it. Modern medicine is built on natural biology, natural compounds, and natural mechanisms; it doesn’t reject nature, it studies it, refines it, and uses it to save lives.

 

17 minutes ago, Stiddle Mump said:

I've said it 100 times. The biggest threat to humankind is our own ignorance and apathy.

 

You’re absolutely right - ignorance is a major threat to humanity. The irony is that statements like yours is that it comes with torrent of exactly the kind of ignorance you’re warning about. The real danger isn’t people lacking information, it’s people thinking they’re informed while spreading half-digested conspiracy theories and YouTube science. Apathy isn’t the problem here - wilful anti-intellectualism is.

 

16 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

You stated: Quote [increasing numbers of people (often with stage IV cancer) completely cured by taking Fembendazole] - it was three people !!!  - (intellectually dishonest again) !

 

It was three people in the study you mention. What I said in my post was:

 

"Yes, Fembendazole works according to an increasing body of empirical evidence, without the need for chemotherapy and conventional treatment paths."

 

If you look at William Makis' social media accounts, you will see dozens and dozens of detailed reported cases, so what I stated was simply the truth.
[Edit: the site has problems embedding X posts today, but the page below is still clickable]

 

And as an added bonus, the "medical community" gives its opinion on "the Makis problem":

 

The Quack Pack
The Makis Problem: How an Unlicensed Doctor Built a Lucrative Business Promoting Livestock Drugs for Cancer

 

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/makis-problem-how-unlicensed-doctor-built-lucrative-business-powell-phtge/

Anyway, that’s enough from me.

 

Your anti-science misinformation has been laid bare, and it’s obvious that the anti-vax stance isn’t about evidence at all - it’s just reflexive contrarianism.

 

Whatever the scientific consensus happens to be, there are a handful of you who position yourself against it, as though disagreeing with experts somehow makes you an enlightened free-thinker rather than just predictably anti-authority.

FYI - this just popped into my Youtube feed

Eric Berg is referencing a book from 1926 -- the United States Dispensatory

He says most remedies before then were "natural remedies" which were then replaced by pharmaceuticals.

 

 

3 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

But the moment those same medical experts and that same scientific consensus state – clearly and repeatedly – that ivermectin is not an evidence-based cancer treatment, the very same anti-vaxxers magically switch sides and clutch the pharmaceutical industry’s product - ivermectin.

 

It's the other way around, ivermectin showed promising results and the pharma cartel reacted by negatively labelling it… exactly as they did during Covid.

 

Kudos to Chris Cuomo, who wanted ivermectin users publicly shamed during the Covid crisis and now has the courage to admit he takes it to treat his vax injury, because it works. If it works, it works, there's a difference between reality and ideology.

 

 

1 hour ago, richard_smith237 said:

disagreeing with experts

Do you mean the experts that were on MSM during covid telling anyone that cared to listen, that vaxxes were 'safe & effective'? That masks were the key. 

 

Why can't science be challenged? Especially if it's a science that is built on myth and made up nonsense; as vaccines are.

 

The truth is that many of these experts, many of them white-coats, are simply chancers. 'Know-nothings' is too gentle a word to call them.

 

They are putting filth into babes and toddlers. You think they know the science of the technology and the real effectiveness of the ingredients?. Well, if the last Big Pharma rep, through the door, had mentioned something they might. But not many care to even look in the mirror. First do no harm.

On 11/16/2025 at 8:40 PM, Red Phoenix said:

When Knowing Less Is More: On Cancer Screening

Source: https://unbekoming.substack.com/p/when-knowing-less-is-more-on-cancer

= = = 

This essay draws extensively on H. Gilbert Welch’s Should I be tested for cancer?: maybe not and here’s why (University of California Press, 2004).

Welch, a physician and researcher at Dartmouth Medical School, synthesized decades of autopsy studies, randomized trials, and clinical observations to challenge conventional wisdom about cancer screening.

The evidence, statistics, and patient cases presented here come from his work. The argument—that finding cancer can harm more than help—is his. What follows is an examination of that counterintuitive claim and the data supporting it.

 

> "Most doctors have stumbled onto cancers having nothing to do with their patients’ initial complaints. Most know the resulting quandary: lethal cancer or innocuous one? Remove the kidney or watch it? Most feel trapped by the finding, compelled to act. Many wonder if their action won’t create as many problems as it solves. Many suspect the patient might have been better off never being tested.

This suspicion contradicts everything we’ve been taught to believe about early detection. Finding cancer early saves lives. Anyone who dies of undetected cancer would have been saved by screening. More testing equals better medicine. These principles feel self-evident, beyond question.

They are wrong."

 

= = = 

Cool, my skin cancer was fake.  Good to know.

59 minutes ago, TedG said:

Cool, my skin cancer was fake.  Good to know.

 

You probably should have just ignored it and let 'nature give you the answers'...  you wouldn't want those corrupt Dr's, uneducated white-coats, and criminal 'big-pharma' profiting from you....