Latest / Intellectual Medicine / Ivermectin and Fenbendazole for Prostate Cancer: The Conversation No One Is Having

Transcript

Ivermectin and Fenbendazole for Prostate Cancer: The Conversation No One Is Having · Intellectual Medicine

• 0:00
  Well, they're all over the Internet.
• 0:01
  Are they miracle cures or is this a fraud?
• 0:04
  I'm talking about ivermectin, benbendazole and its human
• 0:09
  equivalent, mebendazole. What do they do?
• 0:12
  Do they cure cancer? Will they prevent you from
• 0:14
  getting infected? Should you take it?
• 0:17
  Should you consider it in particular men?
• 0:20
  What about cancer? Are these things going to cure
• 0:24
  prostate cancer? Well, they're all over the
• 0:31
  Internet. Are they miracle cures or is
• 0:33
  this a fraud? I'm talking about ivermectin,
• 0:37
  thenbendazole and it's human equivalent, mebendazole.
• 0:41
  What do they do? Do they cure cancer?
• 0:43
  Will they prevent you from getting infected?
• 0:46
  Should you take it? It's available, folks.
• 0:49
  You can buy it on. You can get anything online.
• 0:52
  I mean, there's something called the dark web.
• 0:53
  I've never been there, but I understand you can get literally
• 0:56
  anything. So because you can buy it and
• 0:59
  because it is promoted, should you consider it?
• 1:02
  In particular men, What about cancer?
• 1:06
  Are these things going to cure prostate cancer?
• 1:10
  How did this all begin? We're going to talk about that
• 1:13
  all, and you're going to leave today's podcast knowing more
• 1:15
  about this than most doctors. It began, I believe, the focus
• 1:21
  on this with COVID, and that started our skepticism.
• 1:25
  We were lied to, we were misled, we were sold a bunch of bunk,
• 1:32
  and all of a sudden it was almost tantamount to illegality.
• 1:37
  As a physician, if I mentioned COVID and ivormectin in the same
• 1:41
  breath, I got an arrow in my head and everybody ran for
• 1:45
  cover. The idea of intellectual
• 1:49
  discourse was snuffed out in the zeal for conformity.
• 1:54
  Now that's not so bad. If they were right, if they gave
• 1:57
  us accurate information. I'm still mad about COVID.
• 2:00
  How about you guys? But the problem with that is we
• 2:03
  became hyper cynical. Now, it's good to be skeptical,
• 2:07
  but with that came a whole, you know, rejection of all things
• 2:13
  emanating from conventional medicine.
• 2:15
  So we went our own way. Or on the same time, you know,
• 2:18
  the Internet and now AI have made it possible for smart
• 2:23
  people to do their own research. Well, that could be a problem.
• 2:26
  There's nothing more dangerous than a wise fool.
• 2:29
  And if you're treating yourself, that's what you are.
• 2:32
  Look, I'm a doctor, board certified.
• 2:35
  I've been doing it for 30 years. I'm an expert in anti aging and
• 2:37
  prostate cancer therapy. I have a doctor.
• 2:41
  I don't treat myself. It's collaborative, but I'm a
• 2:44
  doctor anyhow. The other thing that began,
• 2:47
  let's talk about Ivermectin. First FDA approved in 1978 a
• 2:52
  breakthrough drug for treating parasites.
• 2:55
  A big deal. River blindness.
• 2:57
  These things are still out there, and ivermectin is great
• 3:01
  for that. In 2015, O'meara and Campbell
• 3:06
  won a Nobel Prize for having discovered it.
• 3:08
  Is that big deal? Then researchers began to
• 3:11
  notice. You know, the way that
• 3:14
  ivermectin works effects some of the same pathways, some of the
• 3:18
  same channels that seem to feed cancer.
• 3:23
  So research has begun and it continues.
• 3:25
  In vitro, that means in a Petri dish.
• 3:28
  In vivo that means sometimes in animals.
• 3:30
  But what about humans? Along the same time there was a
• 3:37
  an individual. His name is Tippins, who
• 3:41
  promoted his cure for lung cancer.
• 3:45
  Now he had a type of lung cancer that's particularly fatal and he
• 3:48
  did not die. He took ivermectin and he took
• 3:52
  thenbendazole. In the absence of any clinical
• 3:55
  research, of course he was about to die.
• 3:58
  In that circumstance, you don't need to wait around for a
• 4:00
  double-blind placebo-controlled study.
• 4:02
  You say what the heck, I'm going to die anyhow.
• 4:04
  Let me try this. Well, he didn't die, however,
• 4:08
  and he did promote Fendazole. Why Fendazole?
• 4:12
  Because he could get it. It's online, it's a worm, it's a
• 4:16
  deep warmer for for animals. It's not approved for human use,
• 4:20
  but he used it and I I can't blame him combination along with
• 4:27
  and this important detail folks, because some people take away
• 4:30
  the impression that that alone cured him.
• 4:33
  He was on conventional drug therapy.
• 4:35
  He was on Keytruda and other big pharma agents.
• 4:38
  He was one of 1000 people in a cohort, an experimental cohort.
• 4:43
  So it's interesting, it's information, it's not
• 4:47
  unreliable. But here's the difference.
• 4:51
  It's one out of 1000. How will it affect other people?
• 4:55
  That's an unknown. What about prostate cancer?
• 4:59
  Whole different animal. You guys have to remember,
• 5:02
  whatever is out there, whatever is promoted for cancer at large
• 5:06
  may not apply to prostate cancer in particular.
• 5:09
  Prostate cancer is unique. It divides at a very slow rate.
• 5:14
  It's doubling time can be over a year.
• 5:17
  So it's a slow moving train. In other words, you could do
• 5:19
  something that looks like it's working just because the cancer
• 5:22
  is not moving. But what about the five year
• 5:25
  window? That's where we need observation
• 5:28
  and you need a clinician with years and years and years of
• 5:31
  experience at the very least, and ideally published outcomes.
• 5:36
  So there's ivermectin, its mechanism of action.
• 5:39
  It interferes with the channels that help to feed and propagate
• 5:43
  cancer cells. It does not kill cancer cells in
• 5:47
  the same manner that kills parasites, but has some similar
• 5:51
  effect. It can damage the DNA of cancer
• 5:54
  cells and it can interfere with their stem cells.
• 5:56
  This is from in vitro research, so looking at cells, putting the
• 6:00
  drug in, seeing what happens. There's another phenomenon
• 6:05
  called pyropoptosis. Pyropoptosis refers to the
• 6:09
  release of inflammatory mediators.
• 6:13
  That's right. Inflammation in the setting of
• 6:15
  cancer is an assessor, is a necessary component to kill
• 6:19
  cancer cells. Well, what about all the anti
• 6:22
  inflammation? It's a balance.
• 6:24
  It's called burn and build, so you have to have some of both.
• 6:28
  That's why you need to be thoughtful about the use of your
• 6:31
  anti inflammatories folks. Studies with vitamin E in
• 6:35
  particular have demonstrated that lower dose correlated with
• 6:39
  benefit and higher dose actually accelerated malignancy.
• 6:43
  There's some other supplements that also have that attribute.
• 6:46
  You need to know what they are. So you need to work with
• 6:49
  somebody and know the research behind it.
• 6:53
  So the Ivermectin was engineered, is engineered as a
• 6:57
  once a week drug. The most frequently it's ever
• 6:59
  used is daily for seven days. So is it part of my protocol?
• 7:04
  Yes, it is. But we I have it applied once a
• 7:08
  week. Why once a week?
• 7:10
  I already told you cancer moves slowly and these drugs are not
• 7:15
  intended for durable sustained use.
• 7:17
  Ivermectin is not intended to be used every day.
• 7:21
  The maximum safe dose is noted and that's where we go with
• 7:25
  regard to the once a week regimen.
• 7:27
  In my protocol, I combine it with mebendazole.
• 7:29
  We'll talk about that in a in a minute.
• 7:32
  Is it safe? Well, as far as drugs go, it's
• 7:35
  not horrible. I mean it's reasonably safe.
• 7:38
  However, in a study out of Oregon, actually was an
• 7:40
  observational looking at ER visits in a 5 month period in
• 7:45
  one state, the state of Oregon, they had about 37 ER emissions
• 7:50
  for ER evaluations for ivermectin dosing side effects
• 7:55
  from it. Some 24 of those people got
• 7:58
  hospitalized and one of them died.
• 8:02
  That's in five months in one state.
• 8:04
  This doesn't get reported. People dead men don't post, do
• 8:08
  not look at these graphs they have out there online.
• 8:11
  They're all made-up and there's a doctor, at least one doctor I
• 8:16
  know of, who promotes it as if there's a science behind it.
• 8:20
  There is none. A daily high dose of ivermectin
• 8:23
  is a risk not worth taking, especially if you have prostate
• 8:28
  cancer. Man, you need multiple
• 8:31
  approaches because prostate cancer is a varied animal.
• 8:35
  You're not going to get where you want to be banging it with
• 8:37
  high dose ivermectin. You could end up with liver
• 8:40
  failure. You could end up with
• 8:41
  neurological disorders. That was a primary symptom, by
• 8:44
  the way. It was confusion, headache,
• 8:46
  seizures. Those are some of the side
• 8:48
  effects the drug accumulates. Do you know what the half life
• 8:52
  is? Well, your doctor should know
• 8:53
  it's 18 hours. What does that mean?
• 8:55
  It means if you take it every day, you're going to be stacking
• 8:57
  it one on top of the other. It's elimination rate is about 3
• 9:01
  days. So if I'm taking or patients
• 9:04
  taking ivermectin every day, the blood levels are going to creep
• 9:08
  up and up and up. You could take the same dose for
• 9:11
  a week, feel nothing, and somewhere in month two or three,
• 9:14
  all of a sudden the roof caves, caves in.
• 9:17
  So all that is a concern. I don't believe in curing cancer
• 9:21
  by having you die from neurologic side effects or liver
• 9:24
  failure. It's not cool.
• 9:26
  You have to have a doctor, a nurse practitioner, or a very
• 9:30
  highly educated healthcare practitioner shepherding you on
• 9:34
  this journey. Any doctor that's trying to
• 9:36
  treat you via the Internet without actually talking to you,
• 9:41
  in my opinion, is malpracticing. You can't be promoting a
• 9:46
  treatment and then fire and forget.
• 9:49
  Who's monitoring it, who's assessing it.
• 9:52
  So ivermectin has a mechanism of action that's legitimate.
• 9:56
  It's a part of my protocol, but it's not the one bullet, It's
• 10:00
  not the silver bullet. It's got to be blended and that
• 10:03
  gets into drug drug interactions.
• 10:06
  Ivermectin has about 105 of them.
• 10:09
  Do you know what they are? You should.
• 10:11
  You know how to be careful because those drugs can affect
• 10:13
  each other. Want to talk about fenbenazole
• 10:17
  because this was also popular. It's called fenben on the
• 10:20
  Internet with shorthand. Fenbenazole is a anti worm drug
• 10:27
  for animals. It works in the manner of
• 10:31
  interfering with the channel that feeds sugar and food into
• 10:35
  the parasite. So some clever research.
• 10:38
  We we love our PhD researchers, those of us on the front line of
• 10:42
  clinical medicine. My job is to research their
• 10:46
  research and then apply it to humans.
• 10:49
  That requires one-on-one focus. You can't just do it
• 10:54
  shotgunning. So the mebendazole which is the
• 10:58
  human equivalent of then bendazole, I like it because
• 11:01
  it's safer. It's been cleared by the FDA.
• 11:04
  Now it's an off label use. It has no FDA clearance for
• 11:08
  cancer. By the way, none of what I'm
• 11:10
  talking about is FDA cleared or FDA approved for treating cancer
• 11:14
  and none of it is a known cure for cancer.
• 11:17
  But it doesn't mean it may not have value.
• 11:20
  So why do we use drugs that are not FDA approved?
• 11:22
  Because you're never going to hit the market with approval,
• 11:24
  folks. They're all generic.
• 11:26
  That's one thing I agree with my colleagues on functional
• 11:29
  Medicine World, this drug will never be put to a major research
• 11:33
  protocol, nor will ivermectin. But we're doing it at
• 11:38
  intellectual medicine. We have an observational cohort
• 11:41
  ongoing. We study our patients, we look
• 11:44
  at all the outcomes and we do month over month evaluation.
• 11:48
  Is it working? Are they having side effects?
• 11:51
  That's how we're going to get answers.
• 11:52
  It's going to take time, but they're coming.
• 11:54
  Let's go back to mebendazole. Mebendazole came to market in
• 11:57
  the 1970s. Jensen Pharmaceutical brought it
• 12:00
  to the market. Let's just pause for a moment.
• 12:04
  Most of us are very, very suspicious of big Pharma as
• 12:08
  well. We should be.
• 12:09
  Profit drives innovation, drives promotion, drives drug
• 12:15
  advertising and all these new drugs come out with the same
• 12:19
  thing. It's great.
• 12:21
  You'll live longer and you see people dancing and they're
• 12:24
  fishing and they're having a they don't some hugging a toilet
• 12:27
  bowl, vomiting. They don't show them in the
• 12:29
  hospital on IV medicine because side effects from the drug.
• 12:33
  That's a bad picture. They talk about it in the fine
• 12:35
  print. Or remember these drugs Once
• 12:38
  Upon a time were major releases from big pharma.
• 12:41
  It doesn't exclude their potential merit.
• 12:44
  But don't fool yourself. Take an ivermectin every day.
• 12:47
  It's not like taking vitamin D and vitamin C and thinking
• 12:49
  you're going to ward off illness.
• 12:52
  That is a hypocritical paradox to those of us that aspiring to
• 12:57
  live most healthy. You don't live your most healthy
• 13:01
  life in the absence of disease. If you have a targeted reason to
• 13:05
  take a drug with tangible benefit, I'm not against it.
• 13:09
  Look, I'm a therapeutic agnostic.
• 13:11
  If it'll help my patients, it's safe and they need it good.
• 13:15
  My point is simply this. You do not add this as part of a
• 13:18
  health maintenance protocol. Some people have used ivermectin
• 13:22
  in particular because it's easy to get.
• 13:24
  They're going to take it every day, right through cold and flu
• 13:26
  season. Are you out of your mind,
• 13:27
  people? What did I just tell you?
• 13:30
  It accumulates. It's not natural to the body.
• 13:33
  Use your body's natural defenses when you're well.
• 13:37
  If you're sick and you want to reconsider the approach and
• 13:40
  consider pharmacology, that's OK.
• 13:42
  Well, those of you that are fighting cancer, you know,
• 13:45
  welcome to the pharmacological world.
• 13:48
  I like lifestyle. It's critical.
• 13:50
  Without that, you're not going to win.
• 13:52
  I like the targeted use of supplements.
• 13:54
  They can build. But if you're fighting cancer
• 13:58
  and you know you're sucking down cinnamon and green tea hoping
• 14:01
  it's going to cure it, you're missing a a considerable asset.
• 14:06
  I don't mind green tea. I think it's fabulous.
• 14:10
  But I think if there's a known remedy, particularly if it's not
• 14:14
  going to harm you. So I get it, folks.
• 14:17
  Some of the chemotherapy, some of the conventional treatment
• 14:19
  for cancer has got awful. And especially in the world of
• 14:22
  prostate cancer, you know how I feel about that.
• 14:25
  It should never be used in my opinion unless they're an
• 14:28
  extreme level and only in certain circumstance.
• 14:32
  But the idea that you're going to put chemotherapy for a guy
• 14:35
  with prostate cancer to proven failure.
• 14:38
  So what about mebendazole, those microtubules, those are the
• 14:42
  little channels that feed cancer.
• 14:45
  It looks like mabendazole can interfere with them and
• 14:48
  mebendazole, unlike ivermectin, does have some human studies.
• 14:52
  Is a phase two study where they looked at it in the setting of
• 14:56
  of cancer was not prostate cancer, but they noted some
• 15:01
  benefit and they also noted A tolerance.
• 15:05
  However, the study was really small.
• 15:06
  There were maybe 24 people in it.
• 15:09
  So it's interesting. It's great that it's happening
• 15:11
  in humans, but we have to go back to safety.
• 15:15
  So how do I decide the dose? How do I decide how to apply it?
• 15:18
  The first order of business is safety.
• 15:21
  When you have prostate cancer, it's a long term suppression.
• 15:25
  You're not going to go to Mexico, get a bunch of Ivs and
• 15:27
  come back with no prostate cancer.
• 15:29
  You'll come back a little less wealthy, but the cancer will
• 15:33
  still be there and it will progress.
• 15:35
  So we have to suppress it and live with it.
• 15:38
  It's more like a chronic viral infection than a a malicious
• 15:42
  cancer that's going to wipe you out like this week.
• 15:44
  It's kind of like keeping your immune system strong so you
• 15:47
  don't get recurrent cold sores, right?
• 15:50
  There's an analogy between the dormancy and the activation.
• 15:54
  So it's got to be long term. Therefore I have to do the
• 15:56
  research to make sure that fits the bill.
• 15:59
  Then it's got to be evidence of effect, evidence of potential
• 16:03
  benefit. We don't need clinical outcomes.
• 16:05
  We don't wait for that. There's a reason why this stuff
• 16:09
  gets disparaged by mainstream medicine, because they don't
• 16:12
  want it to work. They don't want us to go off on
• 16:14
  a tangent. They want control.
• 16:17
  Control means money. Control means status, Control
• 16:20
  means power. You go to your urologist, you're
• 16:23
  on college and say, you know, I've, I've been listening to
• 16:25
  this guy, Doctor Pedarudi on a, on a podcast and right away
• 16:29
  their hair stands on end. Oh my goodness, another podcast
• 16:32
  quack. No, no, no.
• 16:35
  I'm board certified and I see patients and I treat them.
• 16:38
  And that is a point of separation.
• 16:41
  Does the doctor actually treat patients or is he operating in a
• 16:44
  pure theoretical vacuum? The theories are important.
• 16:48
  They help lead us toward thought, but then you got to put
• 16:51
  it to action and you got to put things together and you have to
• 16:54
  evaluate what's going on. So mebendazole, Ivermectin, they
• 16:58
  are components of the doctor Pedruti RDT protocol, the
• 17:03
  research drug therapy protocol, and they're highlighted in my
• 17:07
  book Fighting Cancer Like a Man. Yes, the book is out.
• 17:10
  It's on Amazon. Go buy it.
• 17:11
  It'll help spread the word. Yeah, maybe I'll make money.
• 17:16
  I don't know. That's not the point.
• 17:18
  The point is by the book because it has all this information in
• 17:21
  it. My mission is to educate.
• 17:23
  My mission is to give men an alternative to the horrible
• 17:27
  conventional pathways as well as filter out the noise.
• 17:31
  A lot of people are lobbying for your money and they're doing so
• 17:36
  by promising simple, easy, non physician connected pathways
• 17:41
  that are dangerous, pathways that are not shown to have
• 17:44
  value, pathways that are not being monitored and evaluated.
• 17:49
  So iverbectin, mebendazole, they have a role Febenazole, like why
• 17:53
  would you use it? Mebendazole is inexpensive and
• 17:56
  it's available. It's not that pricey and we have
• 18:00
  a lot more knowledge about dose range with that drug than the
• 18:03
  others. So keep researching, keep
• 18:07
  thinking, keep hunting for information, but use your
• 18:10
  filter. Look for duplicity of
• 18:14
  verification. If one person says something,
• 18:18
  check it and make sure there are three other people.
• 18:21
  If one article says something, check it and make sure there are
• 18:24
  three other articles. And if it's an article that is
• 18:27
  not published anywhere, it's extraordinarily weak.
• 18:32
  If you have something to say, put it in a journal, because
• 18:36
  that takes time. It cost money.
• 18:37
  I've done it. My articles, two of them in
• 18:40
  journals, medical journals, cost thousands of dollars.
• 18:42
  It's worth the effort. All right, guys.
• 18:45
  Well, listen, it's been a delight as always chatting with
• 18:47
  you. I hope this gives you some
• 18:49
  information. So there is legitimacy to the
• 18:52
  potential value of these drugs. There's also concern about
• 18:56
  potential harm, not only directly from the drug, but what
• 19:00
  can be. What can occur is called a false
• 19:02
  comfort. I'm taking ivermectin, I'm going
• 19:05
  to be fine. And in the background, there's
• 19:07
  damage, neurologic in the background, there's damage in
• 19:10
  the liver. In the background, the cancer
• 19:12
  can progress. I had a patient who came to me
• 19:15
  with PSA remaining stable, but his MRI progressed significantly
• 19:21
  and he was on another protocol using ivermectin.
• 19:25
  Got to be monitored. All right, hey, have a great
• 19:27
  week and I'll talk to you next time.
• 19:29
  Thanks for being with me. Bye.