re: Ivermectin: Cancer killer Are you aware of these studies?

quote:

---

The fact that you can’t refute what she said says everything.

You’re jabbed and boosted so you have no credibility.

---

I’m not going to watch an hour video on Rumble by an orthopedic surgeon about a medication that supposedly kills cancer.

Ivermectin isn’t even hard to obtain. I’ve used it topically for rosacea. My grandmother did as well (topically) and still developed skin cancer on her face that had to be removed. So it’s apparently not too damn fantastic at it.

This is from 3 years ago.

I think you are missing the point. I can find information for each side of the argument so why am I supposed to trust one side over the other?

quote:

---

My grandmother did as well (topically) and still developed skin cancer on her face that had to be removed. So it’s apparently not too damn fantastic at it.

---

But LSUAngel used it for 5 years and hasn't had cancer.

quote:

---

I have had numerous of my farmers, cattle, horse people tell me during all this that they've been doing it for decades. They don't get sick. I'm open minded to it, but I can't just recommend it without more info and dosing regimens.

---

I’ve taken Ivermectin as a preventative.

Mebendazole, is more of overall, now. My Dr prescribed it. Take one pill, three weeks later, take a second. Finished.

You are right about the HCQ.

quote:

---

But LSUAngel used it for 5 years and hasn't had cancer.

---

And thankfully not one of those who volunteered for the social experiment injections and are dying from turbo cancers.

So this experiment gives people, who doesn't have cancer, Ivermectin then basing it on whether or not they are getting cancer?

I read that about 2 million people get cancer for the first time every year with the majority of those being 65 years or older.

So they have studied people for a lifetime? Ivermectin was discovered in the 1970s and approved for human use in 1987 so I assume a lot of people they gave it to hasn't passed away yet right? So they can still develop cancer?

quote:

---

A ball of tightly wound parasites protected in biofilm that they biopsy and spread.

---

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.

quote:

---

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.

---

Nah man, cancers just worms. Even pappy knew that. We’d use meemaws melanoma worms to stack up slabs of sac-a-lait every spring.

I 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.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And no, I'm not COVID vaxed or boosted.