- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Ivermectin: Cancer killer Are you aware of these studies?
Posted on 3/3/25 at 8:24 am to The Boat
Posted on 3/3/25 at 8:24 am to The Boat
quote:
Unfortunately it’s generic so they can’t make money off of it so it’s not allowed to be used.
They can probably add an ingredient or two amd call it canivermectin for cancer use.
0
Posted on 3/3/25 at 8:39 am to cajuns td
quote:
just made it through 9 pages and that adam Sandler movie quote comes to mind. We're all collectively dumber for having engaged in this conversation.
Well if you're referring to the part of the conversation about "cancer is parasites" - yeah, that is dumb. But don't let that discussion poison the idea that ivermectin, despite its well-known use as an antiparasitic, could indeed have beneficial effects on cancer. Many drugs have multiple mechanisms of action.
Posted on 3/3/25 at 9:12 am to cajuns td
The anti-parasitic drugs used off-label for cancer are extremely inexpensive and free of adverse side effects.People who have used those dugs to great effect have all the proof that they need.
Cancer treatments with radiation and chemotherapy have always been expensive, largely ineffective and damaging. Cancer, combined with cancer treatment, killed my sister's husband and both of her children.
The FDA and mainstream medicine will not tolerate inexpensive and effective cancer treatments. Profits will be protected even if that means loss of life. Proof is linked below.
Burzynski: The Cancer Cure Cover Up
Cancer treatments with radiation and chemotherapy have always been expensive, largely ineffective and damaging. Cancer, combined with cancer treatment, killed my sister's husband and both of her children.
The FDA and mainstream medicine will not tolerate inexpensive and effective cancer treatments. Profits will be protected even if that means loss of life. Proof is linked below.
Burzynski: The Cancer Cure Cover Up
Posted on 3/3/25 at 9:15 am to N2cars
quote:
Hint: Invermectin is cheap, you can get all ypi want. If it worked, insurance companies would be thrilled)
I have no clue if Ivermectic works on Covid or cancer. I have friends that swear it made their Covid symptoms disappear in 2 days but no way to know if it’s from Ivermectin.
But, why wouldn’t the insurance companies pay for these studies and if the results are positive, wouldn’t they dictate that Ivermectin be used first? Since we all agree that these decisions are financially motivated by pharma and medical community, insurance is the other side of that coin. They dictate medical practices all the time, why not here?
This post was edited on 3/3/25 at 10:05 am
Posted on 3/3/25 at 9:19 am to The Boat
quote:
Unfortunately it’s generic so they can’t make money off of it so it’s not allowed to be used.
Don't you think some developing nations would gladly deploy a cheap generic drug to improve their cancer mortality rates?
Posted on 3/3/25 at 10:30 am to LSUDad
quote:
Think there’s a chance of handling your animals, you might have parasites?
I’m not having any issues. I am exploring a protocol for a cancer prophylaxis based on the studies I linked in my original post.
There are protocols for parasites, but I guess none has been developed for cancer prevention or treatment. At least I haven’t been able to find anything.
Posted on 3/3/25 at 12:28 pm to jimmy the leg
Correct.
Like I stated, it helped with Covid
Like I stated, it helped with Covid
Posted on 3/3/25 at 5:10 pm to tigerskin
quote:
Making sure I got this straight. You are saying that all cancer is caused by parasites?
I believe some believe Ivermectin’s potential anti-viral properties, (not it’s anti-parasitical ones), are potentially effective on cancer, specifically cancers that are caused by a monkey virus first introduced to humans by polio vaccines in America and some HIV vaccines introduced into parts of Africa.
The theory was that a “bad” batch of Salk’s original polio vaccine, that used ground up green monkey liver as a growth medium, became tainted with live SV-40 not killed by formaldehyde and that virus, harmless to monkeys, causes cancer in other mammals, principally mice, and possibly humans.
Monkeys, Viruses, and vaccines. - The Lancet
To expand and extrapolate; polio is viral and in the campaign to eradicate it a potential cancer causing virus was introduced to multiple millions of humans.
The connection in Ivermectin’s advocates’s thinking seems to be that it’s Ivermectin’s possible antiviral properties effective against the coronavirus may also be effective on particular human cancers caused by SV-40.
Posted on 3/3/25 at 6:16 pm to Mr. Misanthrope
We share a lot of life-views, but this isn't one.
Invermectin hasn't been trialed in humans for cancer treatment, and likely won't ever be.
There's no evidence to support it.
None.
Invermectin hasn't been trialed in humans for cancer treatment, and likely won't ever be.
There's no evidence to support it.
None.
Posted on 3/3/25 at 7:10 pm to wallowinit
quote:
There are protocols for parasites, but I guess none has been developed for cancer prevention or treatment. At least I haven’t been able to find anything.
You may want to check out Dr. Paul Marik's book, Cancer Care: Repurposed Drugs & Metabolic Interventions in Treating Cancer. It is available on Amazon, but you can freely download in the link below. Ivermectin is discussed, along with many other interventions.
https://imahealth.org/research/cancer-care/
Posted on 3/3/25 at 8:45 pm to idsrdum
Thanks!
Posted on 3/3/25 at 9:29 pm to wallowinit
Why do you think they fought against it so hard? I mean, what hard could it have been to take a $5 medication, after exposure to Covid? It was like having a cow over someone taking aspirin for a headache.
"I started taking Ivermectin for Covid, and to my shock and surprise my tumor shrunk!!"
How fast would one huge section of the medical practice vanish? Thats why they went batshit crazy (pun intended)
"I started taking Ivermectin for Covid, and to my shock and surprise my tumor shrunk!!"
How fast would one huge section of the medical practice vanish? Thats why they went batshit crazy (pun intended)
Posted on 3/4/25 at 7:42 am to N2cars
quote:
What are you seeing in the 2nd gen of Alpelisib?
Better containment of the hyperglycemia?
I do not have any patients on those agents- the high blood sugars are still an issue from what I gather.
Posted on 3/4/25 at 7:45 am to LSUAngelHere1
quote:
A ball of tightly wound parasites protected in biofilm that they biopsy and spread.
God damn this is so gloriously retarded.
Posted on 3/4/25 at 7:46 am to wallowinit
Why do you think big pharma hated on it so much during COVID?
Branch Covidians take yet another L
Branch Covidians take yet another L
Posted on 3/4/25 at 7:48 am to Obtuse1
quote:
You are mixing up a noun with an adjective. If anyone explained cancer as a parasite to you they were either making a bumbling attempt at dumbing down a concept or were intentionally leading you down a primrose path.
Parasites as a cancer analog has been a subject of discussion since the 1800s. The thing is, cancer is parasitic (an adjective) but is not a parasite (a noun). The biofilm you mention is used by some parasites and some cancer tumors for evading the bodies immune response and they can also crank up the immune response and produce anti-inflammatory reactions as well as metabolic changes that accelerate tumor growth.
In some ways, parasites can be used as an analog or corollary to cancer cells and tumors but again, cancers are parasitic in nature but not parasites. Noun vs adjective.
I don't have much knowledge on cancer, but this is funny. She can't even repeat what she hears right. Yet people are dumb for not doing what she does.
Posted on 3/4/25 at 8:56 am to wallowinit
In looking at the data for this( and leaving out all the political and financial arguments), the big issue is that it is not as compelling as many other drugs in development. There are hundreds of drugs that destroy cancer in mice and human cell lines- that is needed before considering progressing to Phase I trials.
Essentially all drugs now are designed specifically to target certain pathways on certain cancers with the aim to increase effectiveness and decrease toxicity.,
Even with excellent in vitro results with these agents, less than 10% of drugs make it from Phase I to Phase 2, and only about 20% make it out of Phase 2. Even after all that only about half of the phase 3 trials are positive.( So you can see less than 1 in 100 drugs at the end make it).
Looking at the data with no real specific cancer this targets or pathway it hits better than drugs in development, the chance this drug would make it through all of those hurdles is near zero. Investigators who will spend years developing a drug are going to go after a drug that separates itself from the others, and this agent does not look as promising as many in development.
Essentially all drugs now are designed specifically to target certain pathways on certain cancers with the aim to increase effectiveness and decrease toxicity.,
Even with excellent in vitro results with these agents, less than 10% of drugs make it from Phase I to Phase 2, and only about 20% make it out of Phase 2. Even after all that only about half of the phase 3 trials are positive.( So you can see less than 1 in 100 drugs at the end make it).
Looking at the data with no real specific cancer this targets or pathway it hits better than drugs in development, the chance this drug would make it through all of those hurdles is near zero. Investigators who will spend years developing a drug are going to go after a drug that separates itself from the others, and this agent does not look as promising as many in development.
Posted on 3/4/25 at 9:02 am to N2cars
quote:
There's no evidence to support it. None.
When you don’t look, you won’t find.
Posted on 3/4/25 at 9:08 am to DocOnc
quote:
Investigators who will spend years developing a drug are going to
Look to recoup their money.
FIFY
Big pharma is a BIG business.
If Covid taught me anything, it’s that the pharmaceutical / medical industrial complex can me trusted.
I noted how the FDA suddenly went after NAC during Covid.
I could also note all of the policy decisions put forth by the WHO / CDC. I mean, the WHO threatened removing funding from developing nations if they used Ivermectin as a preventative.
Why would they do that, especially given that it had been distributed for years to the poor in those nations prior to Covid?
I’m sorry, but those decisions didn’t pass the smell test then, and they are even more dumbfounding upon reflection.
Posted on 3/4/25 at 9:43 am to HattiesburgTiger5439
quote:
So you can't research this on your own and make and figure out on your own if it would be beneficial to you and your treatment. Gotcha! So just fall in line and do as THEY say. Dont use your brain and think for yourself. If it can help you and wont hurt you, why not try it. And dont say you dont know if it wont hurt you bc theyve been using this drig in humans a long arse time.
frick off man. That poster is going through their cancer treatment and obviously has a good rapport and trust with their doctor. It’s a godamn terrifying situation for someone and they have likely been inundated with any number of suggestions, treatments refs, etc. No need to be an a-hole for internet points.
This post was edited on 3/4/25 at 2:13 pm
Page 10 of 13
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News