Latest / Radically Genuine / 226. They Named It a 'Cancer Killer' in 1976. Then It Mysterioiusly Vanished

Transcript

226. They Named It a 'Cancer Killer' in 1976. Then It Mysterioiusly Vanished · Radically Genuine

• Dr. McFillin (00:02.978) Welcome to the radically genuine podcast. I'm Dr. Roger McFillin. Every so often on this podcast, we encounter a story that forces us to ask a question that, you know, sometimes can terrify a lot of us. What if the thing that could have saved millions of lives was known and buried? My guest today, Dr. William Supple, a neuroscientist who stumbled into one of the most explosive areas of medicine. not through a research grant or career ambition, but because his 83 year old mother-in-law was dying, facing metastatic breast cancer, spread to her liver, lungs, and so many bones, radiologist simply wrote too numerous to list. She refused chemotherapy and was sent home on hospice. Today, she is 87 years old and cancer free from what I understand. What happened in between is a story about a 50 year old veterinary dewormer called phenbenzidol, a drug that cost pennies, has been used safely in billions of animals and according to a growing mountain of peer reviewed science, kills cancer through no fewer than six distinct mechanisms simultaneously. It's also a story about a drug nearly identical to Fenn Benzodol that was discovered in 1976. A name that literally means cancer killer. And then effectively disappeared from the scientific literature for nearly 30 years. For three years, Dr. Supple published this work anonymously under the pen name Ben Fenn. Because as he wrote at the time, the information was what mattered, not the messenger. He built a sub-stack community of hundreds of thousands of readers, collected and published dozens of human case reports, and had multiple cases accepted in peer-reviewed oncology journals. Today, he's here under his own name, with his credentials on the cover of a book published by Skyhorse called Cancer is a Parasite. Dr. Supple, welcome to the Radically Genuine Podcast. Bill Supple (02:15.894) Thanks, Roger. Great introduction. So you covered kind of like how I got into this and it was definitely a necessity as the mother, in this case, mother-in-law I've mentioned. the, you my mother-in-law, like you said, she was 83 and went in for a bowel obstruction. And in the course of getting that cleared up, imaging showed that she had cancer everywhere and turned out to be... Dr. McFillin (02:18.85) Thank you. Bill Supple (02:43.38) metastatic breast cancer and she didn't want to go through the horrors of chemotherapy and radiation just said I've had a good life I'm gonna go home and basically check out. She didn't want any treatment so just by accident I happened to be reading what I usually read in the morning and there was a comment actually in a I was reading an article on McCollough, Dr. McCollough about stomach cancer and kind of the etiology of that. how bacteria was linked to it and showed that you get rid of the bacteria and you get rid of the cancer. Completely unrelated to that particular topic, someone had wrote in, try fendendazole, it cured my prostate cancer. And I had heard the word before, it's hard to say, so we shortened it to fendend. But fendendazole, I looked into it and I had access to all the research and. Within a couple hours, I said, wow, know, this is really preclinical science with animals, Petri dish studies are really powerful. And it was like, wow, this stuff on paper, it looks like it should really work. And you always worry about the translation from animals to humans or from the Petri dish to humans. But because people were saying there were no side effects and you use it in your dog to treat the... deworm your dog, it seemed to be that, you we use animal models all the time and if, you know, nothing ventured, nothing gained. So she went home to hospice. She was so bad that it was two miles from the hospital to her house. So they weren't sure she could make that trip. So they gave her last rites before she left. That's how bad she was. So anyway, she went home and my wife was down there visiting with her. I was up in Vermont and this happened in Florida. And she sent down the Fenbendazole. I took it for three days, nothing happened, no side effects and didn't even felt like I took anything. And then my wife took it for three days, figuring she's a half genetic match to her mother. Bill Supple (05:05.332) if there was any genetic predisposition, which there wasn't, because we didn't want to make a sick woman sicker. No side effects. And then within a couple of days, her husband started mixing it into my mother-in-law's yogurt in the morning. You know, she really wasn't aware of what was happening, but kind of the, my in-laws decided, yeah, we'll give it a shot. My mother-in-law was on board as was her husband. So, you know, he started to do that. We didn't expect anything. And then she started to rally. You know, within a, within a couple of weeks, her attitude, appearance, appetite, and outlook greatly improved. three or four weeks, she was strong enough that she didn't need hospice anymore. So she fired hospice. And then at the two month period, she had rallied enough that it was worthwhile to go back to the oncologist who had written her off for death. So then she started to get some diagnostic markers. And with breast cancer, as with a lot of cancers, there's a blood tumor marker that allows you to essentially quantify how much cancer you have. So it's more or less a linear scale. The higher the number, the worse it is. So when she left the hospital, her blood tumor marker was 316. Two months after she left the hospital and was taking Fenben for two months, had dropped. It more or less was half of that, around 150. So we knew we were on the right track. We had some diagnostic evidence that was matching her appearance, because she seemed normal. So the cancer was on the run. So she went to her oncologist, and he said, hey, whatever you're doing, keep doing. She did have some... It wasn't a completely pure effect because she did have targeted radiation of two spots in her spine that were giving her trouble that were completely eradicated sooner than the radiologist expected. And there's a pretty strong literature showing that phenbenzol potentiates radiation and traditional chemotherapy, which is interesting as well. So anyway, he said, keep doing what you're doing. Bill Supple (07:31.564) She did. Within four to five months, her blood tumor marker had dropped below 38, which is normal. And it's been that way ever since. And she continues to take Fenben every day because she doesn't want to tempt fate. Whether she needs to take it or not, I'm not sure. But there's no side effects. It's cheap. It's available. So she continues to take it every day. And she has no... She's none the worse for wear for doing that. So in terms of it any long-term effects of taking this veterinary dewormer, she's really out on the frontier of she's going on five years taking this every day with no, other than being 88, she's very active, still with it and still alive. So that's how I got into it. So anyway, started the news of her. success spread like wildfire. So first we had to deal with family. So how did Roberta do this? So we had to tell her, it was amazing. I really would not have believed it if I didn't see it firsthand. it ignited this fire where, so our family wanted to know how she did it because there's cancer everywhere. So they started taking it themselves, but then friends of those people would start calling us and then friends of friends. So it was really getting out of hand by the end of 2022. So I decided to, we need to nip this in the bud, we're gonna be on the phone all the time. So I started a sub stack. Keep in mind, my wife and I are getting ready to retire, so this is like the last thing we want to do. But it was just such a story. just to tell her story for other people. But what happened with the substack was after you kind of get over the barrier to entry, learning the ropes of that process, I published her story and then other people started to submit their stories. So there's this parallel, it's not only my mother-in-law, there's a bunch of other people out there who are. Bill Supple (09:55.454) self-treating with fendendazole and a lot of other things, but I focus on fendendazole. And I started to get these really detailed case reports where, hey, it cured my prostate cancer, it cured my colon cancer. And a lot of these, what's consistent is my mother-in-law tried fendendazole from the beginning. She didn't want any traditional treatment. Most of the other case reports that I have, there's 21 or 22 in the book, but there's hundreds that are published elsewhere, and there's even more that haven't quite made it to the level of detail to publish them. Most of the success stories that I get are in the neighborhood of, it worked for me. And then I'll respond back to, well, what kind of cancer did you have? How long did it take? How old are you? And then people like, that's all I want to say, which I'm fine with that. You know, people are private about their medical issues and you no matter how much you tell them it's going to be anonymous, some people don't buy that. Even though I don't know who most of the case report people are. I've made friends with a number of them, but for the most part, if somebody submits a case report, it's completely anonymous. don't know who they are. But, so with... What was unique about my mother-in-law was that she only did fendendazole other than the targeted radiation in the spine. There was really nothing else that would actually account for her complete and total remission. There's not even standard of care drugs that can do that. The people primarily who are, the other people in the case reports, very few of them, if any, I don't think any of them, tried fendendazole first. They had gone through traditional treatment. There's only so much chemo, you can get so much radiation. And then basically the oncologist says, sorry, there's nothing else we can do for you. your affairs in order. So that is the time period primarily when people start Fembeth. It's kind of like they've got no other option. And this is their last hope. And fortunately, they found it sooner rather than later. some of the... Bill Supple (12:20.17) case reports are just this remarkable recovery of basically at death store, know, everything looks bleak and then they start taking Fandendazole, they start to rally and then eventually the cancer is completely eradicated. And whether it stays gone forever, we don't know. But it's something that really needs some serious study because the haphazard quality of doing case reports. There's strengths in that, but there's also weaknesses as well because people will say, well, how much do I, how much should I take? We don't know. So there's no parametric data out there. You know, the protocols are all over the place, but the common feature inherent in the noise of people self treating themselves is that if there's one common feature, that feature. rises to prominence. In all the case reports, no matter what other therapies people do, the common denominator determining success or failure is the presence of fendendazole. So it's really... I'm 100 % convinced this is the real deal. And, you know, that's kind of the good news with what we're talking about today is there's really a cure for cancer. I mean, try to wrap your head around that because we all fear that as we get older. It's like, damn, I hope that doesn't happen to me. And then when it does, people just go into this fetal position of, know, I've got to go get my oncologist. And the time to... to realize what you're gonna do if you ever get that diagnosis or if there's a loved one who gets that devastating news. If you're prepared, if you know, if that ever happens to me, this is what I'm gonna do. It's not like life insurance. This is death insurance. You wanna figure out when you get a cancer diagnosis, and one out of two of us are gonna, according to the American Cancer Society. Bill Supple (14:34.1) In our lifetime, we'll get a cancer diagnosis. It may not be a, you know, fatal or terminal cancer diagnosis, but it's going to be a diagnosis. You have to know what you're going to do. Are you going to go in a fetal position and run to your doctor and let someone else control your care who may not, you know, be up on the latest and greatest things that are of benefit to you? Are you going to research the options and kind of know what you're going to do? FenBEN is one. Fenben is one option. There are a lot of different things that are going to be coming out as being effective against different types of cancer. So it's, we're really at a cusp of kind of this Renaissance of empowerment, partially due to the internet, but as bad as the COVID fiasco was, it set the stage for things like Fenben dissolve. because people now are thinking for themselves. They're willing to question the status quo. And something like van Bendisal is definitely not in the status quo. But when you look at the science and you look at the proof in the pudding that it's saving all these people when traditional medicine couldn't, it's hard to deny that there's not something significant here. So, and like you alluded to before, this wheel has been discovered and reinvented and suppressed for at least 100 years. So, go ahead. Dr. McFillin (16:17.122) Yeah, Ben, opens up or Bill, I'm sorry. This opens up Pandora's box in a lot of ways, but I have a few questions before we even get to Pandora's box. When this was brought to the attention of your mother-in-law's treating oncologist and he was informed of what she was taking, did this surprise him? What were his thoughts? Did he understand anything about the background of this drug? Bill Supple (16:39.628) Well, I wasn't there, but according to her, was a relatively new doctor, which was good. He looked it up on his tablet and he looked at it he said, but it's not FDA approved. so that completely understandable, their hands were tied with standard of care, FDA approved treatments. I totally get that. And it's not really fair to the doctor. but it's most unfair to the patient to have that restriction. I understand the whole safety issue, but with something like van Vendizel, the risk reward under the right to try laws that we have, people should be at least given the option. But anyway, so what he said is just keep doing what you're he actually wasn't, yeah, it's not like he said here's how much to take. Dr. McFillin (17:34.32) Which... Good advice, actually. Bill Supple (17:39.212) you know, basically he knew that he would be providing diagnostics. He continued to twist her arm to do traditional, but she just stood her ground and knew that she didn't want to do anything like that. So one thing that happened with her that was kind of complex, kind of an eye-opening thing is as time passed, he couldn't really accept that her cancer was gone. So he knew it was in there because it just doesn't disappear. So they really wanted to test her to death, basically, with all kinds of CAT scans and PET scans. But her blood tumor marker was telling them there was nothing there. there's a lot of nuance with blood tumor markers. They're not 100 % predictable. But when they couldn't find any solid tumors, was... There's no sense in continuing to test her. She's no longer a cancer patient. And one thing that I see consistently is once you're labeled a cancer patient, that cures all other diseases. So anybody who is a current cancer patient, would suggest that when they develop, there's a lot of instances that I've been a fly on the wall for that are just shocking, but if they develop, like an infection or some unusual growth on their neck. The doctors are more likely to assume that's the cancer. There's nothing they can do about it. You as this is your body, don't accept that. Have them test and rule it out because I've seen a couple of people die. Their cancer is eradicated, but they die of an infection that could have easily been treated had it been diagnosed. That's sickening. Dr. McFillin (19:32.122) Mmm. Bill Supple (19:34.956) So just kind of keep in mind, cancer does not cure all other diseases. Dr. McFillin (19:35.301) Yeah. Dr. McFillin (19:40.699) Well, there's some of these things are just pure scientific principles, right? And they become violated quite often. if we develop hypotheses and then have to test out that hypotheses to determine the closest we can get to some type of truth, we know that the medical system often uses heuristics or shortcuts, these biases to make and pass on clinical judgment as if it's scientific. And that's just something of a vulnerability that exists because People enter into the healthcare system with this assumption that the physician is almost omnipotent in so many ways. And so then you surrender your autonomy to that authority and you don't trust your own intuition, your own body. And these things are just critical variables in health outcomes. But I have another question for you. I think everyone who's listening right now is probably asking this question. I'm struck by the title of your book. It's right behind you. It's called, Cancer is a Parasite. So are we assuming because it's an anti-parasitic drug that then cancers a parasite? Explain to us how a drug designed to kill parasites in a dog could kill a cancer in a human being. Bill Supple (20:55.564) Great. So my training is as a neuroscientist. So I have a PhD. And when I got my PhD, neuroscience was like a, it used to be called physiological psychology or biological psychology. So the society of neuroscience wanted to jazz it up and call us neuroscientists. And I was one of the first neuroscientists. So I thought that was pretty cool. But anyway, so my expertise or my training is in brain stem mechanisms of complex behaviors, primarily learning memory and emotion. So in my mind, theory dictates everything, and this dovetails with what you were talking about when people go to the doctor and they have cancer, that they believe the doctor, the physician is omnipotent. That may be true in some cases, but I think the best patient, if I was an MD, I would love to have a patient come in and be informed and teach me something once in a while. But I think there's such a, I'll call it institutional arrogance that is frowned upon. Like some people will say that we go into, we'll bring a paper about Mbendizal or something about... to my oncologist and they kind of look at it and kind of toss it aside. So there's no interest in some doctors of learning about something new that these people are telling them this is what I'm taking and this is what saved my life. Now that is not obviously, that's just the tip of the iceberg that I've had experience with. And I'm sure there's other doctors who don't behave that way. To answer your question, the theory dictates, in my mind, everything that you are doing and you will do in the future. So the whole idea of cancer as a parasite emerged from... Bill Supple (23:07.5) experience. So as I was doing the research for the bug, when I was doing the substack, I figured I knew pretty much everything there was to know about fenn band worth knowing. So when I started to dig, I would be reading information about parasites, which I'm not a parasitologist. I'm not an oncologist. I'm a neuroscientist, but I can read and interpret data in papers. So as I was doing the research on the parasite chapters, which are in the beginning of the book, I would find myself as I was reading the paper going back and saying, am I reading about cancer or a parasite? And the 50th time that happened, finally the light bulb went off. That wait a minute, these things are, if you drew a Venn diagram, they lay right on top of each other. So I started to look at, trying to disprove the hypothesis, the idea that cancer was a parasite. First and foremost, the elephant in the room of evidence is that an anti-parasitic kills them both. when venbendazole is a veterinary anti-parasitic, the way it works is it preferentially attaches to a part of the parasitic cell called the microtubule. And that's exactly, it does exactly what it sounds. It's a, it's a tube within the cell that takes, is responsible for moving material in and out of the cell and throughout the cell. Microtubules are necessary for cellular division, you know, the whole mitotic stuff like that. when they divide like that, that's microtubules have to assemble and reassemble. So what Phenbendazole does is it preferentially attaches to the parasite microtubule, but not the mammalian healthy cell microtubule. So there's 100 % 100 times greater affinity for Phenbendazole attaching to the parasite microtubule than to a healthy human cell. Likewise, Bill Supple (25:32.044) So it kills the cells selectively. So the reason why fenben is such an effective and lethal cancer cure is you take it systemically. It goes throughout the blood system and it finds the cancer. kind of like how opposite poles of a magnet are. So the fenben dissolve goes into the bloodstream. you have, like with my mother-in-law, she had tumors in lungs, liver, bones. not in her brain, but somewhere else. But anyway, three or four different places. So she just took Phenbendazole by mouth and the drug found the tumors and eradicated them. Phenbendazole doesn't affect the healthy cells, it only finds the cancer cells. So it works the same way to find, to eradicate the body of parasites as it does. cancer. So that was the first, the first aha moment is an anti-parasitic kills both parasites and cancer. I mean that that should be enough, but the deeper I dug and it kills the parasite and cancer cells in actually 11 different ways, which is very important for other reasons, but it disrupts not only the microtubules, but it blocks. I've got all the all the different mechanisms here that I detail in the book that are in layman's terms. So it cuts off the cancer cell life support system, cuts off its energy, beats its camouflage, so the immune system is involved, stops it from building defenses, shuts down its defense mechanisms, blocks its escape routes, wrecks its repair tools. wages warrant its internal communication systems, prevents it from calling for backup. And finally, when any cell is damaged enough, it will trigger a process called apoptosis, which is cellular suicide. So cancer cells use all those mechanisms to defend themselves. So FenBEN attacks all those mechanisms. the cancer cell... Bill Supple (27:56.384) has no defense against fenben. It's basically the very definition of overkill. So we can get to that later. But basically, this is a complete and total specific lethal cancer poison. It just kills the cancer cell. And the reason why there's no side effects is it just kills the cancer cells. It picks them out of a crowd, you out, you out, and leaves the healthy cells alone. So that's why you have no side effects. It only affects the cancer cells, just like it only affects the parasite cells. So the two are one and the same on their reaction to the anti-parasitic, Benbendazole and Mabendazole, and perhaps Ivermectin as well. So the common thread here are anti-parasitics. And like I said before, this is old news. So I don't know if... Now it's two weeks ago, shortly after my book came out with the whole oncodysol thing, the discovery from 1976 that this was already known as a cancer cure, a report came out in the Daily Mail that the CIA knew the same thing in 1951. And the 1951... reference was to a CIA analyst document that just got filed away and became available in a 2016 document that had no meaning until my book came out. So someone who had found that document went back and said, oh, anti-parasitics, I heard about that before. They found the document and they read the analyst's reports, just a two page report. And it basically says that in the 1930s, Soviets knew that anti-parasitics killed cancer cells as well. what I, my current theory is that the CIA in 1951, they didn't have any rubric in which to understand that finding. Like it didn't make sense because it's just kind of out of the blue. So they just, whoever the analyst was, they just filed it away and you know, it's kind of like they had no meaning, so it just got filed away. Bill Supple (30:22.188) Fast forward to 2026, now that has meaning that antiparasitics that the Soviets were experimenting with, they realized it killed parasites and cancer at that point in time. I don't have any idea where that research went, whether it just kind of died on the vine. so this antiparasitics and cancer have been discovered, suppressed. rediscovered, suppressed for 100 years now, perhaps. But when you go back to 1976, it definitely was suppressed. So I don't know if you want to talk about that. Dr. McFillin (31:02.451) That's the next question. Why? Bill Supple (31:04.864) Yeah. So, so when I was doing the, sub stack, so the time is going on and I'm developing my own personal knowledge base. And you always have to wonder if there's some sort of, something I'm you're missing, you know, is there an uncontrolled variable here that is actually responsible for the effects that either synergizes with and bend us all, or is it something that something that you're not appreciating. So I was 95 % sure when I started writing the book that Fenn-Bendazol wasn't an artifact. The effect wasn't an artifact of some other uncontrolled process. Bill Supple (31:57.036) When I was, as I was doing the book, I found a paper from 2002, just stay with me a minute here, that was talking about mabendazole, N-E-B-E-N-D-A-Z-O-L-E, mabendazole, which is a form of fendendazole that is designed to stay in the gut, to treat parasites in the gut. it'll enter the systemic circulation, but not as well as fendendazole. And mabendazole is... FDA approved for humans. Fenbendazole is not, it's a veterinary drug, but people who self treat primarily use Fenbendazole because you can buy it on Amazon. You know, it looks little white box. You can get it in a cream. Bill Supple (32:49.878) So, you know, they're veterinary medicines and, you know, they cost pennies and you don't need a prescription or anything to get them. So in 2002, a group of scientists at the University of Texas, which was affiliated with MD Anderson at the time, were looking at mabendazole as a anti-cancer drug. So they did all the preclinical experiments and Petri dish experiments and in vivo experiments that you would do to show that this is something that is interesting. and they showed that it actually, no side effects, and it actually worked better than the standard of care treatments at the time. in the discussion, the scientists had said that this was the first time that a antiparasitic had been proven, had been shown to have these promising anti-cancer effects. Well, I just read a paper a couple weeks earlier from 1976 that said the same thing. So I was looking for how could they say this was the first time. with that paper out there. So I went through the references and it wasn't cited. I, knowing how scientific papers are researched, written, peer reviewed and published, I knew that that was a major flag, that paper missing. Cause when you say this is the first or this is the novel, you better be sure. So these guys were obviously capable scientists. Bill Supple (34:36.48) they would have done the appropriate literature review. It's not like there's thousands of papers on this. There's a handful. So the paper on oncodysol was suspiciously missing from their reference list. And that was from 1976. So I went back and I took a hard look at the oncodysol paper. And I realized that because it wasn't cited in 2002, chances are it wasn't available to be cited for whatever reason. the, it wasn't, and it's not that it was. missed. It wasn't available to be seen because you think about how a paper is written and first of all you have the editors who will go through and as soon as you say this is the first time this has been demonstrated, if they're in the cancer business, they're the experts, they would know about the oncodysol paper. Secondly, once it's published, this was in Bill Supple (35:51.18) a very prominent cancer journal. So it's not like a fringe journal. All the top oncologists would have gotten this paper or this journal. None of the people who read the article said, hey, wait a minute, this isn't new. There's this drug oncodysol out there. So how is this any different? It really was no different than the 1976 oncodysol paper. So it appears that the 1976 Oncidazole paper was nowhere to be found to be cited. So what happened between, so how did I find it? So what happened between 2002 and 2026? The internet. So I found it on the internet. Back in 2002, most journals were still in the stacks, paper versions. So, the, you you would have to, in medical libraries. the, the oncodysol paper was in biochemical and biophysical communications, you know, relatively prominent journal. But, you know, it's not like it's going to be on your dentist's waiting room table, you know, so you're going to, only scientists are going to read this stuff and it's only going to be available in medical libraries. So the reason I found it is because of the internet. Someone went in and digitized that particular, that entire series of that journal. And I know that because of the form that it's on the internet. It's just a photograph. It's a PDF. It's not a searchable document. So now modern publications, they're primarily on the internet. So this is just a photograph of the page out of the journal. And that's what I found. So I actually paid to get the copyright to reproduce that in the book because it's so unbelievable that it wasn't cited. And it shows that back in 1976, some scientists had realized that Fenbendazole cured cancer. And they were bold enough and excited enough. Bill Supple (38:12.748) to give it a name like oncodysol, which kind of tells you everything you need to know. you know, it's, it's, do you know who Gary Larson is? The far side guy. That's really how scientists are. So I could tell you kind of how these guys were doing the basic research and it's like, holy cow, this looks like we found a cure for cancer. And they're not just gonna do. Dr. McFillin (38:24.328) Yes, yes. Bill Supple (38:40.588) one series of experiments, they're going to be doing a lot of things in parallel. So they're going to, they would know that it's not harmful to animals. So anybody in their circle who had cancer, they would be given it to them, right? Because it's, you know, if it works in humans, you have it. So they would be given it to their friends, families, acquaintances who had cancer. And then they would actually know whether it worked or not. Obviously we know now that it works. what they knew back then, I don't know. But what's interesting is, I hope I'm not meandering too much, is that in 1984, there was an effort to remove the name oncodysol from the pharmacological literature. So what they changed the name oncodysol to nocodysol, N-O-C-O-D-O-Z-L-E. And this is in the published record. So they were trying to scrub the... literature of the word Anca dissolve because that they are. Dr. McFillin (39:42.1) Who's they, Bill? Bill Supple (39:49.92) I don't know who that is. You can say that the authors who, I don't really know exactly when Ancidusal was scrubbed, the name was changed. And I have no idea why you would change that name or any other purpose than to hide its purpose. Right? Dr. McFillin (40:09.576) That's the only reason, right? I think we're all reasonable people here. We know where you're going. You argue in the book that the mechanism of this drug, can you pronounce it again for me? Bill Supple (40:26.59) Oncodysol, O-N-C-O, just like oncologist, just like oncologist, only you add the end of fendendazole, oncodysol. Dr. McFillin (40:35.41) Yeah, and I have a theory that you make these drugs very difficult to pronounce, and they're difficult then to remember, you know, the names of these drugs. So I think you made the argument that this drug was essentially reverse engineered then into expensive, toxic chemotherapy drugs. And so that's a very serious charge. Like, what's your strongest piece of evidence for that? Bill Supple (41:03.99) Well, the mechanisms are more or less the same. So remember we talked about the mechanism through which phenbendazole kills parasites and cancer cells. It has to do with disruption of microtubules. So specifically what phenbendazole does is it effects, depolymerizes microtubules, which is a fancy way of saying if they're assembled, it will melt them apart. It will deconstruct. That's exactly how it works and it works in a very specific way. Around 1980, Pharma started to develop blockbuster cancer drugs that were targeting microtubules, specifically the drugs known as Taxanes. The main one is called Taxol. And let's just focus on that one. Its stated mechanism of action in a paper published in 1984 was it froze microtubules in place so that the cell couldn't divide. Now you're talking the same pharmacological space as Phenbendazole is operating. Yet now you have a drug that's patented that's based on the Phenbendazole mechanism. that now is going to be monetized by Big Pharma. So if you're looking for a motivation as to why they want to scrub the literature of the word oncodysol, there you have it. one way that Little Pharma became Big Pharma was by potentially repurposing Phenbendysol. So why does Phenbendysol not have side effects, whereas the... standard of care drugs based on it do. This is where the theory of cancer as a parasite is becoming more reality. the explanation is not, to the question I posed, why do standard of care drugs have these toxic side effects and phenbenzole doesn't if they're based on the same pharmacological mechanism. Well, Bill Supple (43:34.56) The problem with the standard of care drugs is they just repurposed a one mechanism. That's the microtubule disruption. So you have a cell that's, I call it a one trick pony. You have a drug that's a one trick pony. So Taxol will kill cancer cells, but it doesn't kill them all because they're all not equally susceptible to the microtubule disruption. So the cells that survive are what come back and kill the person because by definition, modern medicine does not have a treatment for them. Kind of like, you'll notice the pattern with most cancer patients is with traditional treatment, they will get treated and then they'll rally. It'll go into remission, but then they don't know how long it's gonna last. And then cancer comes back even more furious and that kills the person because they don't have any treatment for it by definition because the cells that were spared are by definition not... susceptible to the chemotherapy. With phenbenzol, the 11 different ways that it kills the cancer cell, there are none left to come back and kill the person. a tumor is a heterogeneous mass of cells. Some are more susceptible to certain types of treatment, some more susceptible to others. The phenben, when it comes in and kills the cancer cell, If there's a bias towards microtubule disruption or P53 oncogene disruption or upregulation of drug efflux pumps as a defense mechanism, it's eight other different ways that cancer cells defend themselves, FenBEN comes in and says, I don't care. I'm going to blow a hole in the side of the cell. You're not going to be able to repair. Bill Supple (45:41.696) they're completely gone and dead. There's no cells that remain that can come back and restage and kill the person. And that's been shown in a number of different preclinical experiments. And it also explains why when people, most of the people in the case reports who are given up for dead after traditional treatment, why FenBEN saved them because of the mechanism. And you don't know that mechanism is not understood, I did not have any idea about that mechanism until I understood exactly how Fenben worked, exactly that some of these standard of carry drugs are based on Fenben, but because they're only based on one feature, it's the one feature is the problem, multiple features solves the problem. So it's an emergent finding that if you didn't have the cancer as a parasite theory, you would not comfort because it's not self evident. becomes when you, when you look at how it kills a parasite and parasites, parasites or cancer cells in this, you know, by a different name, then you realize why it completely wipes them out. Whereas the one trick pony drugs don't go ahead. Dr. McFillin (47:03.25) Yeah, so I want to jump in here, Bill, because I think your substack, your book lays out the scientific evidence. And so that's available for anyone to go and explore. Where people begin to shut down is their minds have a hard time incorporating this because of what it means. What it means is that institutions that they have counted on through their entire life potentially have engaged in fraud. And people have a hard time believing that that's a possibility. And for those who are listening, who have a hard time believing that's a possibility, I just want to reveal to you some recent real world precedents. GlaxoSmithKline suppressed Paxil pediatric suicide data and had to settle for $3 billion. Merck Viocx internal emails showed cardiovascular risk was known and hidden. $4.85 billion settlement. Eli Lilly, Zyprexa suppressed metabolic risk data $1.4 billion settlement. Johnson and Johnson with Risperdal. Hid risks in children and elderly $2.2 billion settlement. Purdue Pharma as we know suppressed addiction data on Oxycontin. executives were criminally charged. So none of this is new. When we start asking these questions, it's not conspiracy theory. Okay. These are very known and accepted for anyone who wants to look that the interest of the pharmaceutical companies have been financial. And so they suppress data and it would make sense why they would go to this length to obstruct data. to make sure that you wipe out a drug from the history of support in the literature in order to promote or to continue to use your charges or your current drugs, especially if there's any type of cure. So the way the pharmaceutical companies work is a customer cured is not necessarily the best outcome for them, but people who Dr. McFillin (49:25.59) can become sick, remain sick, use products for extended longer period of time and more customers that you can create. So the more sick people you can create, the better that you're going to do as an industry. Does any of that sound crazy to you, Bill, just saying that kind of stuff out loud? Bill Supple (49:41.324) It does until I mean, imagine what's going to come about with COVID and the COVID vaccines, not to change the subject, but all those big numbers that you talked about, are the drug companies won all of those. The actual damage is orders of magnitude greater than that. Crime is paying here. This is a way that they do business. They calculate, okay, how far, how many, how much money can we accumulate before this gets shut down. And that nonsense has to stop. As unpalatable as it is, the system, it's not any one drug company, it's the system. And the only way to fix the system is to throw it out. People are getting screwed and killed for profit. And some people would say, well, if there was a real cure for cancer, why wouldn't my doctor know about it? Well, it's not your doctor that's suppressing this. Your doctor is just as much of a victim as the word oncodysol implies that the cancer patient is. certainly, I think that if you were an oncologist and you had something that you knew gave people a chance to live, you would certainly recommend it, whether it's standard of care or not, if they could do it themselves. And, you know, one thing that I hope that comes out of all this is not to litigate the past, but to move forward and say, there is a legitimate cure for cancer here. And anybody who's currently being treated, and it's not an either or situation. So if you're in traditional treatment, There's absolutely no reason at all to not add Fenbendazole or some other treatment that's not going to make you sick because Fenben is not going to interfere with any traditional treatment. Actually, the science suggests that it potentiates it. And my two sense is that it potentiates it because the traditional treatments are marginal at best and Fenbendazole is doing all the heavy lifting. So those types of statements are hard to prove, but Bill Supple (52:08.544) you would just do a FenBendazole only trial and prove it. for anybody who is currently in chemotherapy, for solid tumors, so we're talking primarily solid tumors, there's no reason to add FenBend to whatever you're doing. And if your doctor says, well, if you're gonna treat yourself, I can't treat you, find another doctor. And your goal is to, you don't care what works, you care that something works. So you want to go forward with that. So I don't think the... Litigating the past and pointing fingers. It's just such a heinous sickening disgusting thing to think about that you People are gonna be pissed off. I mean, how many people do you know who died of cancer? my mother and father did and to think that they didn't have to go through that really kind of pisses me off so and So and again, it's too it's too big of a crime to even contemplate So let me tell you another reason why fenben is the real deal. other than how much should I take, which we don't really know, the number one question that we get with the substack is, does fenben dissolve prevent cancer? And the logical problem inherent in that is you can't prove a negative. So what I mean by that is if you're taking jelly beans, as a cure for cancer and you never get cancer, you can't really say jelly beans prevent cancer. Likewise with fenben. But sometimes we just luck out. We have what's known as an experiment in nature. And this is really the, kind of like the checkmate in the book on is fenben a cure for cancer or not. Because it also prevents cancer and let me tell you why. Bill Supple (54:12.364) So around, remember it's an anti-parasitic. So it's primarily used to control parasites around the world. So there's 123 nations that give anti-parasitics like Fenben, Albendazole, Mbendazole to their population to control parasites. And there's 62 countries that don't. The difference between the two countries is The 62 that don't are places like the US, Australia, Europe. They tend to be Western and wealthy. The countries that do use anti-parasitics tend to be developing in places like India, Mexico, Niger. They're very different, but they have in common, they're poor. So on a per capita basis. So let's take a place like India. India deworms its population twice a year, February 10 and August 10. They call it national deworming days. Hallmark probably makes a card for it. So it's just standard practice in India to deworm the population. The US has a cancer incidence rate of about 334 per 100,000. India has about 93. So one third the cancer rate in India compared to the US. Well, maybe that's an outlier. There's a lot of differences between India and the US geographic diet, genetics, environment. If you take those 123 countries, which are all around the world, they're more different than they are similar in terms of genetics, diet, geography, culture, climate. compare like Niger to Brazil or Mexico or India, the more you lump them in a category, the more different they become. If you collapse across all the countries who use antiparasitics on the population, works as those that don't. The cancer incidence is twice as high in the countries that don't. So we kind of have an experiment in nature, fair evidence that anybody, any high school kid could do this. Bill Supple (56:33.556) It's all WHO information. And there's no reason for them to go and pollute it now. I mean, there will be after this, but this is readily available now, cancer incidence data. it's surprisingly, not surprisingly, it's never been analyzed this way. It's so obvious once you see it that either, you know, I think it's been purposely ignored. It's just such a profound signal. that this anti-parasitic use threat that runs through all these other countries that have a low cancer rate, that it's hard to deny that it's not having this preventative effect, especially when you see the mechanisms of how it eradicates cancer. One compelling finding is I did an analysis of the countries in the Middle East. So there's 22 or 23 different countries that... the Middle East and one of them doesn't use anti-parasitics and that's Israel. Israel has twice the cancer incidence rate of all the other countries. So you you're in a confined region of the country and then there's even more information that has come to light since the book has come out. When you take an Indian and they move to a place from a low cancer incidence rate to a place that has a high cancer incidence rate, like the UK. The first generation, so remember that it's one third the rate in India that it is in roughly in the UK. So Indian moves to the UK, the first generation cancer incidence rate will increase by half, basically double. And then by the second generation, it's at the level of the host country. So you completely lose the protective effect of living in that country. The protective effect is getting the deworming treatment. So you could argue that it's the diet and all that sort of stuff, but it wouldn't account for that dramatic an effect in that shorter period of time. Bill Supple (58:54.956) And there's a lot of other examples like that as well, that if an epidemiologist were to dig into this, they would see that the signal is very strong, that the anti-parasitic use on a population-wide scale is preventing cancer as well. So then the question becomes, well, why don't we use it in the US? How come we don't deworm the population here? Well, we're a first world country. You know, we don't have parasites, but we're full of parasites. The CDC in 2010 to 2014 published an alarming series of papers. The primary author in a lot of the papers was this guy, Peter Hotez, who is a cancer COVID doctor. You've seen, saw him on TV. So he was the primary author, which is very interesting, but he was saying and his colleagues that we have an unappreciated, unrecognized and untreated parasite problem in the US. He estimated that there were about 60 million people in the US affected with toxoplasmosis, which is something you get it from a cat. And we're infected with all these other parasites as well. on an epidemic scale. So why don't we treat them? Well, you can hypothesize as to why we don't treat them because that would reveal a signal that's embedded in the other countries that use anti-parasitics because our cancer rate would plummet. And it wouldn't take Einstein to figure out what the deal is. So... Dr. McFillin (01:00:45.625) Bill, I have a question about the drug itself. Let's say I, for example, chose to take Fenben, not knowing if I had parasites or not. And I know you took it for a few days without side effect. Your wife took it as well. Would we know if it's killing parasites? Would the parasites be removed then through our feces? Would they be observable? Anything of that nature? Bill Supple (01:01:15.008) Yeah, I I got a lot of my information from public through the Substack and some of it were some interesting pictures that were sent to me of what happens sometimes when you take something like Fenben. So yeah, will kill if you have intestinal parasites, it will kill them. Fenben is not the best substance for intestinal parasites, Mabendazole is, but it will kill some of them. So you'll have... If you are infested, you might have some gurgling and churning, maybe some loose stools, depending on the level of infestation and the effectiveness of the venvendazole and killing those intestinal parasites. So basically what it does is it kills them, they detach, and then they get digested. And part of when they get digested, it's they dump all the toxins that are. that they've accumulated in their bodies as well. And that gets flushed out, so you might have some of stools for a while. But what happens with people who have cancer is very interesting, because the same process happens. Let's say you have non-small cell lung cancer. So you've got a mass, a tumor. The vanvendazole attacks the tumor. attacks the cancer cell and is killing it. Well, those cancer cells release toxins that they've built up as a function of living inside your body. So as you're killing those cells, they release the toxins. So you might have a reaction to that. It's called a herxamer reaction, where it's an inflammatory response to the killing of the cancer cell as well. And one thing that is not necessarily completely known, but a theory that I have is that some people will claim that their liver enzymes will spike after taking fenben. So what appears to be happening is fenben is not affecting liver function directly. It's Bill Supple (01:03:37.546) the massive die off of billions of cancer cells is causing an event that stresses the liver. as that cancer cellular debris enters the bloodstream and gets filtered through the liver, it stresses the liver, making it work more. So you have this transient elevation in liver enzymes that some people will see. The reason why it's unlikely to be a problem is that as the cancer is, after the cancer is gone, the liver enzymes return to normal and the, despite continuing to take vendent. So if it was a primary hepatotoxin, a liver toxin, you would expect that as long as the drug is there, the liver function would be impaired. So liver enzymes will fluctuate with any type of sickness. So it's kind of a meter that it's actually working. So that's. food for thought, research for someone else to figure out the details. But that's what happened with my mother-in-law and I published a substack to that. Dr. McFillin (01:04:43.159) Well, as you were talking, I decided to do a little bit of an AI search on the epidemic regarding parasites in this country. And it really did support what you just said. And I think it's a bit frightening actually. The realistic estimate of Americans carrying some form of parasitic infection, mostly undiagnosed, is likely well over 60 to 80 million people. with toxoplasma alone, accounting for roughly one in five Americans. And it says that this is a profound public health failure, hiding the diagnostic blind spots of a medical system that essentially just stops looking. And I guess here's some of the things that I'm really concerned about is regarding birth defects, for example, for pregnant women. How many... I mean, we have certain epidemics here that we're seeing a profound rise in these, you probably well know these neurocognitive conditions and as well as an epidemic of autism and a number of things. And more than 60 million people in the United States are chronically infected with taxoplasma. I think it's Gandhi. New affections in pregnant women can lead to birth defects, infections. Immunocompromised individuals can be fatal and most have no idea that they're infected at all. you know, there's for me, I've had dogs. It's just estimated that millions of Americans have been exposed to Toxocara parasites, although how many have become ill from it is really unknown. At least 14 % of the US population has been exposed to this each year. At 70 people, 70, at least 70 people, most of the children are blinded by a result of a benign disease. I don't want to be fear-mongering here because obviously, you know, that can be a problem as well as creating unnecessary fear. I think all we're saying is that there's blind spots in our culture. Bill Supple (01:06:46.644) And if you have a dog or a cat or if you eat organic food, if you eat sushi, if you go outside and eat in the grass, you're infected. And parasites are, know, they're the top of the food chain. We are the food. So they've been around for millions of years and they figured this all out. once you get infected with a parasite... you manage it, you do not, you're very unlikely to get rid of them. That's why if you have a dog, you take it to the vet every three or six months to get dewormed. The same worms are affecting you, we don't do that. Well, the reason, why don't we do that? And here's a reason why we should be doing that, and I'll get to why we don't do it in a minute. We're in a chicken or egg situation with the... the multi-drug administration, mass drug administration to control parasites in other countries. So there are primary anti-cancer effects of the venbenzole and albenzole. So it could be snuffing out incipient tumors. That would be how it could be preventing cancer that's never been diagnosed. So it lowers the population signal. But it could also be reducing the risk factor caused by parasites. So parasites are a risk factor for cancer and primarily in the following way. They cause sub-threshold inflammation that's chronic. And chronic inflammation is probably the biggest risk factor for cancer. So undiagnosed, untreated, asymptomatic parasitic infection, which is epidemic in the U.S. and other is an unappreciated risk factor for cancer. So we should be deworming the population in the US. it's inexpensive, it's done in other countries routinely. Obviously, it shows how safe fendendazole is. It's given out on a population-wide scale. You can't argue that this stuff's dangerous. It's probably the safest drug ever invented. Bill Supple (01:09:14.764) And because of how many doses are given out every year. So the question is, how come the wealthy countries don't deworm the population? And, you can be cynical or you can, you know, you can give the powers that be the benefit of the doubt, but we should be deworming the population, which is, you know, it's not invasive. You just take a pill. It's cheap to do it. But that stands in contrast to our fanatical approach to treating seasonal illnesses with vaccines. So that's invasive, expensive, it doesn't work. You you're trying to hit a moving target. And quite frankly, it's dangerous. So here we have a public health dichotomy where we put a lot of effort that's Dr. McFillin (01:10:04.559) Yeah. Bill Supple (01:10:14.112) rather, I would say ineffective on the whole to control seasonal flu. Yet, which, know, yeah, it affects some people, but you should target the vulnerable, not give it to everybody. Yet here we have a known epidemic infection of parasites that we are not treating, which is a demonstrable risk factor for cancer at the minimum. maximum this stuff prevents and cures cancer, we should have public health initiatives to deworm the population. And my guess is that our cancer rate would drop to at least half within five years. targeting susceptible populations like older people, the upside is unlimited. And it's inexpensive. And what I'm hoping is that there's going to be first mover advantage for big pharma to kind of change its ways. And what it can be doing is you can either focus on making a lot of money from a few people, those are cancer victims, or you can focus on making a little money from a lot of people. Those are people that you're helping prevent cancer. So. It's a six and one half dozen of the other and if you're out there improving the human condition by eradicating cancer with drugs like Benzal and whatever else is going to come down the pike you're doing the right thing and you can make just as much money if not more and You know be the hero instead of the villain so that that would be my two cents is gonna change your ways and focus on preventing cancer you're still gonna have you're still gonna have instances of cancer where fendent won't work. We don't know the conditions under which it won't work, but certainly for solid tumor cancers, it's the real deal. Dr. McFillin (01:12:21.275) I'm fascinated by AI right now. Certainly have concerns about AI, but I have found myself in today's conversation just following up a little bit into AI just to see what they say about it. And the question I put is why don't we deworm people in the United States like other countries and very clear. There's no financial incentive. The drugs are dirt cheap. and the conditions parasites cause are highly profitable to treat symptomatically. Bang. Bill Supple (01:12:55.328) So who's this honest AI that you have there? Dr. McFillin (01:12:59.675) It's Claude. Bill Supple (01:13:01.068) Okay, yeah. I mean, that's the reason, right? So, and you have to take some AI with a grain of salt, but I would agree a thousand percent with that. Dr. McFillin (01:13:14.791) boy, illuminating conversation today, which is now going to really piques my interest. And I'm now fascinated to go into other directions. There's nothing about the medical industrial complex, the CIA and hiding cures for cancer. That surprised me that that I, that I knew I've had too many private conversations. I've done too much of my own research and your book fits exactly. to the topics I wanna bring to my growing audience. What I am now interested more in is the role of parasites. I know that there would be other guests who might come on and say, well, living with nature and parasites in themselves are not necessarily dangerous. Actually, it's part of an ecosystem that we have evolved into. However, we'd have to understand when do they cause problems and under what conditions. Is it part of our, our like a modern lifestyle where we take these pharmaceuticals are exposed to certain foods, we're poisoned in the fruit source with, with life was eight and we're so unnatural and we're combining that with the nature and environment, which are parasites. Are we disrupting a natural ecosystem? Right. And so like, that's a whole nother question. Bill Supple (01:14:37.77) It is, but I say that we have the epidemiological data to kind of answer that question. one thing that I want to clear up is most of the theory as to cancer theories are few and far between. Most of the theories have to do with what causes cancer, whether it's a rogue cell that's gone bad. You know, that's called the somatic mutation theory or it's a metabolic error. The cancer is a parasite notion that I have. It's describing the nature of cancer. What is cancer? It's a parasite. And the power in that is that you get tremendous predictive capability because the field of parasitology, again, I'm not a parasitologist. That is way more developed than oncology, cancer biology. And it would be a fruitful exercise for parasitologists and cancer biologists to start talking. Because the parasitologists have model systems where we could be testing new drugs on parasites instead of humans. And we could see how the parasite tries to defend itself against these new drugs. So in terms of screening new drugs, testing them on parasites, there's no ethical issues unless there's a, know, a PETA for parasites, which I don't think there is one yet. Maybe we'll spawn one. Parasites are people too. But it's a model system that is just set up for rapid deployment of, for research. And, So I hope that that happens. And I'm sorry, but I think I lost your question there. I went off the reservation a little bit. Dr. McFillin (01:16:43.812) No, you didn't. don't actually don't think I have a question. It's just us just being curious, I think, and asking just some questions out loud about the natural ecosystem and what happens when you disrupt the natural ecosystem are, you know, if there's so many ways we can be able to obtain a parasite, including just being barefoot outside on the lawn or at the beach or something like that. It makes me like just consider that we've evolved within this natural ecosystem. If these parasites become problematic and you become infected or they play a role in cancer, then the questions then in my mind are for who, for when, under what conditions, what might be another variable that's affecting that population. So I just have a curious mind around that. Bill Supple (01:17:37.228) Yeah, I mean, if you want my opinion. So the one thing that I realized doing this book is traditional cancer research is very productionistic. They're looking, just looking at the cancer cell. When you have a cancer as a parasite perspective, you look at more of a holistic point of view. And that's exactly what your question is getting at is what is the role of the parasite in the organism? Is there some sort of symbiotic relationship that we're not aware of? And I'm not going to put words in your mouth, but you seem to be suggesting that perhaps cancer is a natural process that performs some function. And I don't disagree with you. I think that cancer is a natural process. What's very interesting that is, you know, way out in the weeds. Dr. McFillin (01:18:23.375) Yes. Bill Supple (01:18:35.584) that's not in the book, but it's an extension that I've been talking with some other scientists about is in what ways is cancer not like a parasite? Well, there's two ways that are kind of interesting. One is origin. Parasites, usually you catch them, you pick them up from somewhere, you ingest them, you get them from your dog. Cancer is presumed to come from a cell gone bad. It's your own, it's a self cell. So you have non-self, parasite, self, cancer cell. Well, one thing that's kind of interesting that I alluded to before is when you really do a deep dive into the differences and similarities between cancer and parasites, they kind of fade away. And in particular, so they use the same sort of immune cloaking mechanisms to hide from the immune system, know, parasites in your body. How come it's not rejected? Well, they fool the immune system that says, we belong here. We're self. Move on. It's very similar to how a fetus is not rejected by the mother's immune system because it's a parasite, right? Yeah, they're cute little things, but technically it's a parasite. It's not, it's your, it's, yeah, anyway, it's a theoretical parasite. Dr. McFillin (01:19:59.387) Right. Bill Supple (01:20:04.928) So it does that by fooling the immune system and cancer and parasites use the same mechanisms to do that. Well, one thing that was really interesting is cellular biological clocks. we all have, we all have cell, all the cells in our body run on the same biological clock. They're, we're active and non-active all at once, you know. We're on a sleep-wake cycle, activity-rest cycle. What's interesting about parasites and cancer cells, parasites march to their own clock, so they're not synchronized to the host, whether it's an animal or a human. So they're active when the host is sleeping and so on. the parasite is active, its biological cycle is conducive to its own fitness, survival. Cancer does the same thing. Cancer has its own biological clock, even though it came from the cell theoretically. So how can that be? How can a cancer cell of the cell that origin is from the cell, a cell gone bad, cell mutated, why would it develop a different biological clock? Why does it have a different wake activity and rest cycle? Well, that's kind an interesting point. That's very similar to a parasite. So it's kind of a gray area. See my hands waving? That means gray area. I'm not sure what to make of that. So that kind of surprised me, the biological clock desynchronization. So that opens up a whole area of cancer therapeutics. Perhaps cancer cells are more susceptible at certain times of the day. So that would be like prono, oncology, something like that. Because parasites certainly are, to anti-parasitics. So malaria is usually very active while the person is sleeping. That's why they call it sleeping sickness. So if you give the anti-malarial drugs when they're sleeping, they work much better than when the person's awake. Because while the person's sleeping, that's when the parasite is most active. Bill Supple (01:22:31.252) and most susceptible to the drug. You would predict that you would have similar findings in cancer research as well. Again, whole frontier of waiting to be discovered. Secondly, is about origin. And here's where it gets really long-haired theoretical, but very exciting. The whole notion that you can catch a parasite, right? So you catch it, you pick it up. It's transmissible. The cancer as a parasite theory suggests that, well, our cancer is transmissible. Can you catch cancer? Well, that's a very interesting question. There are two, in the lower animal kingdom, primarily mollusks and some other sea animals, transmissible cancer is a very common thing. There are two known instances in mammals. Dr. McFillin (01:23:08.922) Mm. Bill Supple (01:23:30.706) a Tasmanian devil facial tumor, which is transmissible from one Tasmanian devil to another. Usually, during fighting or mating, they will fight each other. if they have the tumor, they'll transmit it to the other party. And there's a canine venereal tumor as well that's transmissible. Both are highly studied. very interesting instances of mammalian transmissible cancers that you can catch. But there's at least one human study showing that a surgeon was cutting out a tumor out of someone's stomach. And he was cutting through the tumor and he stabbed his hand with the scalpel. And a few months later, he had a growth in his hand, which was the exact tumor that he resected because they still had the biopsy from that one. So that tumor was implanted in the surgeon's hand. Now he survived, they took it out and everything. So it was implantable and transmissible. So we have a kind of an interesting situation regarding can cancer be transmissible? And currently it Some people have suggested that what may be happening is that cancer evolves from one entity to another over time, and it may acquire different characteristics, which may suggest that it can, over many iterations, that it may acquire more obligate features of a parasite, including transmissibility. So what that means is that in terms of killing cancer, certain drugs might be more effective at different lifespans. this is all going back to the looking at cancer more holistically. Dr. McFillin (01:25:29.946) So this is Dr. McFillin (01:25:50.264) Yeah, no, I think what this conversation does is it's a couple things. One, it exposes us to the dark reality that potential cures are hidden from the public for very nefarious and dark reasons. That's well accepted. You can do your own research on that. It's truth. It's fact. It's not conspiracy theory. The second thing here is being fully transparent about the limitations of our knowledge. When it comes to innovation, you move away from the nonsense of the war on cancer and wearing pink in October and somehow funding these organizations is doing anything to advance the conversation because it is not. Think about those organizations as, as part of a system designed to keep you asleep. Um, that's a whole different discussion. Um, I, I am on a hard out here, so unfortunately we're to have to wrap it up. Bill, I mean it was absolutely fascinating because I want to push people to your book because that's where they can really get in depth into this as well as your sub stack. Where can people find you, your book, where can they read more on this? Bill Supple (01:27:01.964) It's on Amazon primarily, then the Substack is venbendazole.substack.com. And it's searchable. You'll find it. But to kind of dovetail with what you were saying is the whole idea of cancer being a parasite, it knocks cancer down to a manageable problem. we'll see what happens in the future. But right now, if you think... of cancer as parasite, as a natural process, and we already know how to kill it, you become very empowered. Cancer isn't this foe that we can't defeat, that we should be afraid of. It's a bug that we already know how to kill. So the key to this is to understand why I'm calling it a parasite. above and beyond that anti-parasitics kill it, which is the bottom line. We just want to get rid of it. But theoretically, if you know that it's a parasite, or at least behaves primarily like a parasite, it's just a bug that we can kill. And the government should be doing something about this. Dr. McFillin (01:28:14.101) Yes, Dr. Bill Supple, I want to thank you for a radically genuine conversation. Bill Supple (01:28:17.792) Thank you. Thanks.