How Ivermectin Is Useful: Ivermectin and Cancer Treatment

Executive Summary

• This is a drug is proven to treat parasites and covid.
• We covered the topic of ivermectin and cancer treatment.

Introduction

After researching Ivermectin for covid, it was surprising to learn that the drug is also effective for treating cancer. Ivermectin cancer treatment is important as the health authorities and even the original Ivermectin (Merck) have undermined faith in the drug because it is off-patent. We cover Ivermectin and cancer treatment.

The History of Ivermectin

• Ivermectin was initially developed in 1975 and was introduced in 1981 to treat parasite infestations.
• Ivermectin eventually won the Nobel Prize for its inventors.

This video shows the history of Ivermectin.

This video shows that Ivermectin was developed from a natural source and has proven to be remarkably useful. 

Ivermectin is an…

• Anti-Parasitic
• Anti-Bacterial
• Anti-Inflammatory
• Anti-Viral
• Anti-Cancer

…medication. However, it is only approved for its original submission to the FDA as an anti-parasitic. This is why it is frequently critiqued as only a “horse dewormer” by the establishment media, even though it has been approved for human use since 1987.

Recent History of Ivermectin

• Recently, Ivermectin began to be used to treat the coronavirus.
• At first glance, repurposing an anti-parasite drug to treat a virus seems strange, but there is a long history of anti-parasite medications being used for this purpose.

We will get to Ivermectin’s effectiveness against cancer in just a moment. Still, it is crucial to understand the battle waged by the medical system against Ivermectin for use against covid to understand why Ivermectin is so deliberately minimized in emphasis for use against cancer.

Ivermectin’s Effectiveness Against Covid

Ivermectin has not only been proven (as you will see below) to be effective against coronavirus, but it has a history of being used against other types of viruses. This is explained in the following quotation.

Ivermectin proposes many potentials effects to treat a range of diseases, with its antimicrobial, antiviral, and anti-cancer properties as a wonder drug. It is highly effective against many microorganisms including some viruses. In this comprehensive systematic review, antiviral effects of ivermectin are summarized including in vitro and in vivo studies over the past 50 years. Several studies reported antiviral effects of ivermectin on RNA viruses such as Zika, dengue, yellow fever, West Nile, Hendra, Newcastle, Venezuelan equine encephalitis, chikungunya, Semliki Forest, Sindbis, Avian influenza A, Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome, Human immunodeficiency virus type 1, and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. Furthermore, there are some studies showing antiviral effects of ivermectin against DNA viruses such as Equine herpes type 1, BK polyomavirus, pseudorabies, porcine circovirus 2, and bovine herpesvirus 1. Ivermectin plays a role in several biological mechanisms, therefore it could serve as a potential candidate in the treatment of a wide range of viruses including COVID-19 as well as other types of positive-sense single-stranded RNA viruses. Ivermectin has been used for several years to treat many infectious diseases in mammals. It has a good safety profile with low adverse effects when orally prescribed. – NIH

Understanding the Chasm Between Published Research at the NIH Website and NIH Policy

Remember, this is a study published at the NIH at their National Library of Medicine; it is not a statement by the NIH.

The NIH maintains a peer-reviewed publication journal. This is hosted at the NIH URL https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/. So it is on the NIH’s website. I can find all the evidence to support Ivermectin for cancer right at this Library, yet, it is not part of NIH or other US health authority policies. 

The NIH has a peculiar situation where its stated health policy contradicts the published scientific studies in its National Library of Medicine. I would like to say that the NIH won’t let scientific literature interfere with their policy decisions. Leaders of the NIH and other US health authorities make statements that directly contradict studies published right on their websites. Why isn’t this called out and made more publicly known? Scientists know they better not critique the NIH or get any NIH funding. This happened to Dr. Duesberg, who illustrated that no matter how prominent you are as a research scientist, the NIH will end your research career if you cross swords with them, which would only mean questioning their policies.

I can publicly critique the NIH because I am not a scientist looking for funding from the NIH. And that is the amazing thing that outside the medical system have freedom of speech, while those inside the system do not.

MD Anderson’s False Claims About Ivermectin

However, notice what the world-famous and top-ranked MD Anderson Cancer Center, according to US News and World Report, said about Ivermectin and covid.

There is no conclusive clinical evidence showing that ivermectin is effective at either preventing a COVID-19 infection or treating one. People should not take ivermectin to prevent or treat COVID-19.

The over 90 studies on Ivermectin performed over many years are conclusive. Here, MD Anderson deceptively uses the term "conclusive."

They can't say there aren't many studies, and they can't say that the studies don't show Ivermectin is highly effective, so they state that the totality of the studies is not "conclusive." What would be more conclusive is challenging to imagine. Remember, it only takes two studies controlled by pharmaceutical companies to get any drug approved by the FDA. If Ivermectin were an expensive on-patent drug, MD Anderson would declare that Ivermectin has been conclusively found to be effective against COVID-19 with just those two studies controlled by the pharmaceutical company.

Understanding The Medical Establishment’s Definition of Conclusiveness

What is considered conclusive to MDs and the medical establishment entirely depends upon the ability of that item to generate high profits for the MD and medical establishment. Remember that the COVID-19 vaccines were ineffective against COVID-19 and had major side effects hidden in the clinical trials. However, MD Anderson and the rest of the medical establishment had no problem supporting them. Suppose the medical establishment wants something to be true. In that case, it takes no evidence to be considered conclusively effective.

Rigged Pharmceutical Trials Are A-Ok

MDs and the medical establishment are more than happy to rely upon rigged pharmaceutical trials. They will continue ineffective treatments for decades as long as those treatments are profitable.

One should never allow scientific evidence to interfere with a profitable line of business. 

Why MDs are “So Tired of Evidence-Based Medicine”

As one MD who had been prescribing anti-depressants for many years stated at a presentation when faced with the evidence against their effectiveness and safety problems --

I am so tired of evidence based medicine.

Why Evidence-Based Medicine is Such a “Major Downer” for the Medical Establishment

The biggest problem with evidence based medicine is that it does not align 100% of the time with the profit maximizing needs of the medical establishment. Evidence based medicine is a major downer as it is very damaging for profit maximization.

This illustrates that a very large component of the medical establishment wants the uncontested right to provide ineffective treatments to the public. The medical establishment wants the public to think all of their treatments are based on scientific evidence -- but then prefer to do what they want and choose their preferred treatments without scientific evidence. And as the medical establishment controls the regulators -- there is no one to stop them from doing what they want concerning treatment selection.  

The C19Early.com Aggregated or Pooled Covid 19 Studies 

Notice below that Ivermectin is the most effective item against covid. Regdanvimab is rated higher than Ivermectin, but it has very few studies, most of which were rigged by pharmaceutical companies.

As soon as more studies are done, it will drop far below Ivermectin, as with Paxlovid and Molnupiravir.

This should demonstrate that MD Anderson is willing to lie to the public about the effectiveness of different treatments. If MD Anderson will lie about something that can be verified and contradicted -- what else are they lying about?

The bottom line is that MD Anderson provides information to the public and their patients that is configured around profit-maximizing their lines of business. That is, MD Anderson's allegiance is not to what is true but to profit maximization. 

MD Anderson Maintains Its Credibility

• The existence of large amounts of false information on MD Anderson's website has not reduced its popularity or prestige.
• Furthermore, it is not just MD Anderson. Any website from the medical establishment will take the same view on Ivermectin, and they also retain their credibility.

MD Anderson doesn't want anyone to use Ivermectin instead of conventional treatments. That would not be good for MD Anderson's business. They have a fiduciary responsibility to shareholders to provide false information on cancer treatments and Ivermectin to the public.