Ivermectin Paste

 I was reminded about Ivermectin paste after this tweet today:

Let's do a quick search for the availability of Ivermectin paste in Jakarta:

AI Overview

Ivermectin paste (1.87% equine dewormer) is available in Jakarta primarily through online international retailers like Ubuy Indonesia, which offers brands like Bimectin and Durvet with shipping. It is generally not available in local physical stores, but sometimes listed on platforms like Tokopedia from specialty importers. 

• Availability: Primarily via online import (Ubuy, Tokopedia).
• Common Brands: Bimectin, Durvet, IverCare.
• Product Type: 1.87% paste designed for horse deworming. 

It is important to ensure any product purchased is for its intended veterinary use.

Ah, so it's a "horse dewormer" and not to be used for any other purpose (such as treating skin cancer). This is pretty much the expected response from Google and the same rhetoric that was used to disparage its use during the Covid plandemic. Let's try to amass some sources using NotebookLM using the following prompt:

Search the web for all information relating to Ivermectin paste as an effective topical treatment for skin cancer and other skin disorders.

51 sources were gathered with the following summary:

Ivermectin is a versatile antiparasitic that effectively treats Demodex mites, rosacea, and tropical diseases. While experimental research explores its anticancer and antiviral potential, clinical evidence for these uses is lacking. Supratherapeutic doses cause neurotoxicity. 

Yes, don't misuse it or you'll fry your brain. Again, pretty much as expected. Let's try a different prompt that will perhaps exclude all this negativity.

Find sources that support the use of Ivermectin as a topical treatment in humans for skin cancer and other skin disorders. I am not interested in caveats or cautions as to its proper use. Search only for present its use for human skin conditions positively.

This time 42 sources were gathered and the summary is a little more positive:

Ivermectin is a versatile drug used to treat parasitic infestations like scabies, rosacea, and Demodex mites. Research highlights its anti-inflammatory properties and potential as an anticancer agent. While effective for skin issues, its use for COVID-19 remains debated.

Let's be more explicit. I asked the following:

Summarise the information relating to Ivermectin paste's use in treating skin cancer in humans. 

The summary of its response was:

While ivermectin demonstrates potential antitumor activity in laboratory and animal studies, there is currently no evidence to support the use of ivermectin paste or cream for treating skin cancer in humans. Standard evidence-based treatments for skin cancer remain surgical excision, Mohs surgery, and radiation therapy.

Of course, no human trials on a drug whose patent has expired are likely to carried out and even less likely to be published even if they were. Medical research labs and medical publishing  houses rely on funding from Big Pharma. Mavericks who try to bypass this control mechanism are quickly ostracised by the medical community and achieve pariah status. 

Trying to push this matter further only brings you up against the "current medical consensus" and it's clear that an objective overview will never be provided by Gemini. The algorithm is heavily biased toward supporting mainstream narratives. Any evidence to support Ivermectin's efficacy is scattered and anecdotal such as the story that opened this post. Thus "surgical excision, Mohs surgery, and radiation therapy" will remain the recommended treatment for skin cancers.

The doctor who removed two basal cell carcinomas from me in Australia made a living from the surgical excision procedure. He was a nice guy. I'm sure he believed that he was doing the best by his patients. Even if he was willing to experiment with Ivermectin paste, he would risk deregistration as a doctor by the medical mafia if he were discovered. 

Saying all this, I don't blindly believe that Ivermectin paste will cure skin cancer but I certainly entertain it as a possibility because I understand how closely the doors to medically-approved cancer treatments are guarded. An industry has grown up around cancer treatment and it generates billion dollar profits for the medical mafia. Woe betide anything or anyone that threatens this.

Meanwhile here's a site for ordering Ivermection: https://genixmeds.com/.

ADDENDUM 1:

Mohs surgery is a highly precise, tissue-sparing procedure used to treat common skin cancers (basal cell and squamous cell carcinoma) by removing thin layers of cancer, checking them immediately under a microscope, and continuing until no cancer cells remain. It offers the highest cure rates (up to 99%) while preserving healthy skin, making it ideal for sensitive areas like the face, neck, and hands. 

Key Aspects of Mohs Surgery:

• Procedure Method: The surgeon removes a thin layer of visible tumor, maps it, and examines it under a microscope to identify hidden "roots".
• Targeted Removal: If cancer cells are present at the edges (margins), the process is repeated only in those specific areas, allowing for minimal damage to surrounding healthy tissue.
• High Cure Rate: It is the most effective technique for treating high-risk, recurring, or complex skin cancers, with a 5-year cure rate of 92-99%.
• Application Areas: It is commonly used for skin cancers on the head, neck, ears, nose, lips, hands, and feet.
• Recovery: After the area is cancer-free, the wound is closed with stitches, a skin graft, or a skin flap. 

This technique, which was developed in the 1930s, is often performed in an office setting under local anesthesia.

ADDENDUM 2:

🚨 Dr. William Makis MD – Cancer Protocol A powerful protocol using Ivermectin + Fenbendazole for remission, aggressive cancer, and poor prognosis.

📌 Ivermectin 

– 0.5–2.5mg/kg/day based on cancer severity 

– Proven results: prostate, ovarian, gallbladder, brain cancer 

– No long-term side effects (even at high doses)

📌 Fenbendazole 

– 222–1000mg/day (6 days/week) 

– Add: CBD, Curcumin, Milk Thistle 

– Supports liver/kidney health

🧪 Real case studies.

📷 Full dosage chart below

Source: link

A Thousand Words

A picture is worth a thousand words, so the cliche goes, and the graphic in Figure 1 confirms this.

Figure 1: source

Notice the bump on the right hand side of the Polio graph, the reasons for which I've discussed in an earlier post titled The Moth in the Iron Lung. The site where the above graphic was taken has this to say on its opening page:

THE U.S. HEALTHCARE SYSTEM IS A LEADING CAUSE OF DEATH

A 2016 report from Johns Hopkins School of Medicine shows that medical errors in hospitals and other healthcare facilities are incredibly common, and may now be the third-leading cause of death in the United States — claiming 251,000 lives every year, more than respiratory disease, accidents, stroke and Alzheimer’s.

Moreover, a 2014 study found that prescription drugs are now the fourth leading cause of death in the US. The Harvard study reported 2.74 MILLION serious adverse drug reactions per year come from properly prescribed drugs. And about 106,000 people DIE EVERY YEAR from drugs prescribed to them.

In addition to pharmaceutical drugs and medical error, vaccines are put into the mix. Vaccines do not create immunity, they create customers. It’s the best business model in the world. It keeps people coming back for more – forever.

There are multiple toxic ingredients in vaccines — some known to cause cancer and autoimmune disorders. These toxins create health issues that in turn create customers.

The best defense against disease is a healthy, strong immune system, not overloaded with toxins from food, water, air, and pharmaceutical products.

The site also has the graphic shown in Figure 2 on its opening page:

Figure 2

The site goes on to say:

At Learn The Risk, we realize that nothing will change with the system until more people understand the harm it is doing to our health. We are dedicated to educating and empowering people to step outside the system that profits off keeping us sick, then change will follow. We believe action is more important than words. We focus on educating and motivating people to find REAL health, those who then take to the streets to educate others and save lives.

How do we do this? With the most active and powerful billboard and ad campaigns, as well as the most impactful outreach program in the health movement. We host dozens of outreach events, successful social media campaigns, health talks and our annual health summit.

While it's difficult to trust anybody in the medical mafia nowadays, there are still some doctors who are genuinely trying to do the right thing. Dr. Suneel Dhand is one such doctor and in the video below, he gives his fellow professionals are well-deserved right roasting.

It will be interesting to see if this video remains accessible on YouTube.

ECT

I read an interesting article on the BBC website about ECT today, proving that there is occasionally a worthwhile story to be found. The article gives a good account of the early history of the treatment and then looks at reasons for the decline in its popularity. The observation is made that:

ECT was indiscriminately used on people it would never help. In 1946, two psychiatrists from Siena, Italy wrote, “Today there is no mental illness where [ECT] has not been tried.” This included homosexuality, which the first three volumes Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders (published between the 1950s and 1980s) categorised as a form of mental illness. Such widespread use – often without the patient’s consent – was a way to control uncontrollable patients. After a session, patients were in a dazed, sleepy, and therefore more manageable, state. It was custodial, not curative.

Sylvia Plath's The Bell Jar and the film One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest helped reinforce the image of ECT as a brutal and primitive therapeutic tool. The the use of ECT declined after the 1960's:

This was partly due to the rise in prescription drugs – though these were often less effective in severe depression – and partly due to the bad press ECT received in books, films, and the mass media. In the 1970s, historians David Healy and Edward Shorter write in their book Shock Therapy, a growing anti-psychiatry movement spearheaded by the Church of Scientology claimed that ECT ‘destroys minds’.

Clearly there is far more money to be made from a person on antidepressant or antipsychotic medication than from that same person receiving intermittent electric shocks, often at intervals of several months. The former needs to:

• purchase the medication on a regular basis
  (often for the remainder of the person's life)
• visit a doctor or psychiatrist to obtain the script for the medication
• be tested regularly by pathologists to monitor drug levels in the person's bloodstream
• sometimes take additional medication to counter the side-effects of the medication

This is tremendously lucrative to the medical industry (doctors, psychiatrists, pathologists) and the pharmaceutical industry (lifetime dependance) and any person presenting at the local medical centre with symptoms of depression is perceived as having a flashing neon dollar sign above their head. Compare this to the returns to be made from ECT and it's clear why the treatment was targeted and disparaged.

However, as the article observes:

Interest in ECT is returning. According to a recent report, a growing number of people are deciding to undergo the treatment. Between 2015 and 2016 in the UK, 22,600 sessions of ECT were performed, an 11% increase over the previous year. And ECT has been joined by more selective forms of electric therapy such as Deep Brain Stimulation (DBS) and Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS), both of which are growing in support and popularity in the treatment of depression, Parkinson’s disease, and other mental disorders.

The medical and pharmaceutical industries are not interested in a cure for depression and psychosis, just as they are not interested in a cure for cancer. There is too much money to be made in the treatment and absolutely no money to be made in the wake of a cure.

GIVE LOVE NOT HPV

An article in today's Brisbane Times trumpets the following headline: Queensland researcher sets Australia up to be first country to eliminate cervical cancer. The article then begins with:

Experts predict Australia is likely to become the first country to effectively eliminate cervical cancer, with the eradication expected in the next 40 years.

Professor Ian Frazer, who is attached to the University of Queensland, created Gardasil, the vaccine for Human Papillomavirus (HPV) which causes about 99.9 per cent of cervical cancers.

The mention of the word "experts" arouses suspicion. Who are these experts? Are 99.9% of cervical cancers really caused by HPV? Mention is made of some recent research:

According to research recently published in the Journal of Infectious Diseases, there's been a dramatic decline in the rates of HPV, which has been attributed to the effectiveness of Gardasil. 

The research paper is not identified in the news article that then goes on to mention that the International Papillomavirus Society (IPVS) had issued a statement saying that it believed cervical cancer could soon be eliminated as a public health problem. The IPVS is described as being made up of the world's leading cervical cancer and HPV researchers, including Professor Suzanne Garland from Victoria's Royal Women's Hospital and the University of Melbourne, who advises the WHO and global policymakers on cervical cancer prevention and screening. It is Garland who makes the claim that:

Australia would likely be the first country to achieve the milestone of cervical cancer eradication. "We are forecasting that over the next 30-40 years, rates of cervical cancer will drop from around the current 1000 cases a year in Australia to just a few".

So what exactly are the facts? An unnamed research article claims that somewhere in the world a study had indicated that there's been a dramatic decline in the rates of HPV. It's a bit of a stretch to forecast on the basis of that research that cervical cancer rates will drop dramatically in the next 30 to 40 years. Of course, Garland hastens to add that this will only happen if vaccinations continue.

The statistic is quoted that among Australian women aged 18 to 24, the HPV rate dropped from 22.7 per cent to just 1.1 per cent during the past 10 years. Before the vaccinations, almost all sexually active people had contracted HPV.

This of course means that only a little more than 22.7% of Australian women aged 18 to 24 were sexually active ten years ago because almost all sexually active people had contracted HIV. This is an absurd statistic but it's quoted by an expert so you'd better believe it. Of course, the old line is trotted out that the benefits of the vaccine far outweigh any dangers.

The statistic that struck me was that there only 1000 cases of cervical cancer a year in Australia. Considering that there are about 12.2 million females, that's a ratio of 1:12,200. Of course females younger than 15 are not likely to be at risk of this type of cancer. In 2017, the under-15s comprised 18.8% of the population and so that leaves a little under 10 million females aged 15 and above. That's still only a ratio of 1:10,000 and yet there's a determined effort to get every adolescent girl in Australia vaccinated. That's over 2 million girls based on 2017 figures. Of course, adolescent boys are encouraged to get vaccinated as well and together this cohort would total around 4 million.

That's requires a lot of Gardasil and a lot of money for Big Pharma. Let's forget screening. Garland wants increasing screening rates as well as increased vaccination rates for millions of females in Australia alone, regardless of the rest of the world. HPV is a cash cow for the medical and pharmaceutical industry and looks set to remain so as the fear-mongering about HPV shows no sign of abating.

So what are the facts about HPV? This 2005 article from The Body sheds some light on the matter:

There may be more than 100 kinds of HPV variants, with a few strongly linked to the development of cervical and anal cancer. Because the transmission of these worrisome kinds of HPV are associated with sex, the fight against the virus is becoming increasingly fraught with all of the fears, myths and misinformation that now accompanies any public health response to sexual issues in the United States. With two new vaccines against HPV on the horizon, there are emerging concerns that these weapons may not be effectively deployed due to moral and political objections. HPV infection is the most common sexually transmitted disease in the United States. Over 5 million cases are thought to occur each year, with half of all women between the ages 18 to 22 having vaginal infections at some point. The anal infection rate in young gay men is higher still. Infection occurs through skin-to-skin contact -- including areas not covered by condoms -- and warts need not be present for transmission to occur. Most infections are transient and are cleared by the immune system. Of the 40 or so types of HPV that infect the genital and anal regions, those that cause genital warts are deemed "low-risk" whereas those linked to cancer of the cervix or anus are termed "high risk." Types 16 and 18 are the most common high-risk varieties. Most HIV-negative people -- and 90 percent of women -- clear HPV infections within two years, but infections with types 16 and 18 seem to last longer. Studies have consistently found that persistent infection with varieties such as 16 and 18 are a necessary precondition for the development of precancerous lesions. Those who clear the virus are out of danger.

The same article explains that there are two vaccines available: Gardasil from Merck and Cervarix from GlaxoSmithKline (GSK). However, as of 2016 GSK seems to have ceded the market to Merck and its 9-valent human papillomavirus vaccine (Gardasil 9), which protects against infection from HPV types 16, 18, 31, 33, 45, 52, and 58. It is recommended that children and adolescents between 9 and 14 years receive two doses of this vaccine and in 2015, about 63% of US girls and about 50% of boys received at least one dose. Not surprisingly, Merck initiated a direct-to-consumer ad campaign to encourage parents to have their children vaccinated (article). Current price of a dose is US $116.22 (link). Merck has no competitors in the HPV vaccine marketplace, it has both a monopoly and the endorsement of all the officially sanctioned oncological organisations in the world. In Australia, if all the two million females on their way to adulthood have two doses, that would represent over US $450 billion dollars in sales. If the boys could be signed on as well, that's getting close to a trillion dollars. Some governments will offset the cost of the vaccinations for children and adolescents (at taxpayers expense) but Merck will still reap the rewards.

If potential sales in a small country like Australia can total close to a trillion dollars then the potential sales worldwide are nothing short of staggering. The resulting influence that Merck can exert on the medical establishment and governments around the world is terrifying and explains why Gardasil will not be disappearing from the marketplace anytime soon. In the United States at least, lawmakers have granted the pharmaceutical industry immunity from prosecution for any ill-effects of vaccines so in the case of Gardasil Merck does not even have to worry about litigation from those harmed by it. The government quietly takes care of that side of things (at taxpayers expense) and often does make payment to the victims of vaccinations (on condition that they keep their mouths shut).

Merck as a company is not concerned with the future health of adolescents. However, the parents of these adolescents are concerned with the future health of their children and preying on this concern is the key to a successful marketing campaign. Firstly, identify a virus such as HPV that has been implicated in the development of a life threatening illness (in this case, the adult onset of cervical cancer, possibly acquired in late adolescence via sexual activity). Secondly, exaggerate the threat that this virus poses to the health of adolescents who become infected. The formula HPV = CERVICAL CANCER works just fine in the same way that HIV = AIDS once used to. Thirdly, develop a vaccine and then get the Medical Mafia and Big Government to endorse it (usually a formality). Lastly, aggressively promote the benefits of the vaccine to brain-washed medical professionals and, via advertising, to brain-dead sheeple. If some parents are reluctant to subject their children to the vaccine, then a stick must be used in place of the carrot. Some countries now are punishing parents financially by withdrawing child support benefits and excluding the children from school if they don't vaccinate their children. This hasn't happened yet with Gardasil but it might.

Here is a link to the Australian Standard Vaccination Schedule with an excerpt shown below:

Cancer Vaccine?

I'll reproduce the article that prompted this post in full, as it's not very long.

Stem cells which train the body to attack tumours could be the key to a breakthrough cancer vaccine. Researchers in California found the induced pluripotent stem cells (iPS) build an immune response to the disease in mice because of their remarkable similarity to cancer cells. The iPS could in the future be injected into humans to prevent the development of cancers – possibly for years after vaccination. They are made using samples from skin or blood, which are reprogrammed to mimic embryonic stem cells – meaning they can develop into any type of cell in the body. In a study, scientists tested the iPS cells on groups of mice with artificially induced breast cancer, injecting them once a week for four weeks. Within four weeks, breast cancer tumours were rejected by 70 per cent of the injected mice, while 30 per cent had significantly smaller tumours. Dr Joseph Wu, of Stanford Medical School, said: “Although much research remains to be done, the concept is pretty simple. “We would take your blood, make iPS cells and then inject the cells to prevent future cancers. “I’m very excited about the future possibilities.”

At first I thought that this was just another vaccine to be added to the growing list of what humans presumably need to stay healthy. However, it seems less a vaccine and more a series of medical procedures, so it may prove more of a boon to the medical mafia than to the drug companies, although they'll be looking for a way to profit from it if they can. Certainly if the procedure proves effective, then most of drugs used to treat cancer would become obsolete. The procedures wouldn't come cheap: blood must be taken, iPS cells manufactured and then injected. The procedure has the merit of using the body's own cells and so is very different from your usual vaccine.

It will be interesting to see what comes of it but it has the potential to be very disruptive to the way the cancer industry currently operates. The new procedure may well be shut down if it proves successful but less lucrative than current approaches. The medical mafia has no interest in curing cancer cheaply, even though many researchers (perhaps Dr Joseph Wu included) may be genuinely striving toward this goal. Meanwhile, many more rodents and other animals will suffer as the studies continue toward the human guinea pig stage.