Document text
Dr Kathleen Ruddy On Ivermectin use. FULL INTERVIEW
YouTube video by Dr. Kathleen Ruddy (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bihNtDPzgyI). Transcript is the auto-caption track — verbatim ASR, not a certified transcript.
I was as astonished as anyone might be that ivormectin has potential as an anti-cancer agent. I began to be aware there was 20 years of research showing that Ivormectin had great potential in the treatment of cancer. >> In this episode, I sit down with cancer surgeon turned researcher Dr. Kathleen Ruddy who has been studying how repurposed drugs like Ivormectin may impact cancer survival rates. a guy in his 70s who had been losing weight for a year and a half, 40 lbs, not vaccinated, and um he could no longer swallow and he could hardly talk. >> The patient started taking Ivormectin and within a few weeks he started to feel a lot better. >> We got the scan, no tumors, gone, gone. >> This is American thought leaders and I'm Yana Kell. Dr. Kathleen Ready. Such a pleasure to have you on American Thought Leaders. >> Thank you for having me. >> You are deeply involved with the FLCCCC and working on Ivormectin of all things as a possible treatment for cancer. And this is kind of, you know, might be astonishing to some people, right? I mean, I of course, you know, very famous drug for river blindness, probably saved millions of lives. We know it's effective for treating COVID 19 in early stage especially. Um there's been a lot of studies done around but but cancer I mean as our UFLCCCC people all just obsessed with ivormectin that's the question right >> I'll have to say that I was as astonished as anyone might be that ivormectin has potential as an anti-cancer agent I'm a cancer surgeon we don't do parasites okay we don't do ivormectin um and I was not really even familiar with those people who use ivormectin um And so when in the early days of COVID when it became clear that Ivormectin was effective in preventing and treating patients with a SARS KB2 infection um I began to be aware having looked in the literature that there was 20 years of research showing that Ivormectin had great potential in the treatment of cancer and I was like well I don't understand anything. Okay, why would an antiparasitic medication be effective against a virus? They're two completely different, not even organisms. They are so far apart from each other on the evolutionary tree that I could not understand why a medication that would be effective in killing a virus and a parasite then show some efficacy in killing cancer cells. So I went back to the beginning. I think whenever you've got a big question, some confusing information, go back to the beginning and see if you can understand the vocabulary and the basic science. And so the basic science begins historically with uh Satoshi Mura digging in the dirt near a golf course in Japan. Everybody knows that story. It's on Wikipedia. Okay. The question that I asked was why was he digging in the dirt? Why would you look in the dirt for an antibiotic? It it didn't make sense to me. So I I explored that and learned that if you were looking for antibiotics, you would look in the dirt, you would look in sewage, you would dig up, you know, the ground. Why? Why? Well, because single cell organisms, um, bacteria, uh, fungi, uh, mold, yeast, they make antibiotics. So, antibiotics, anti- life, described decades ago as bioweapons. The researchers who were studying antibiotics referred to them as anti-life bioweapons. Again, the question is why would a single cell organism, you would think it's got a lot of things it needs to do. Why would it synthesize this molecule ivormectin or meendazol or whatever? Because single cell organisms do not have an immune system. Multisellular organisms can diversify and they can assign immune defense, defend the organism from attack uh in a very marvelously intricate way. And they do that. Single cell organisms, it's they're on their own. And so what they've done evolved over hundreds of millions of years to synthesize these molecules, these bioweapons that they then secrete into the environment that act as sort of the Swiss army knife. That's the immune system. It's that molecule. So, it has to do as many things as possible in order to preserve the organism >> from predators and to give that organism an advantage when competing in the environment for resources. So, you're competing with your neighbors, you may be competing with your relatives, right? But really, you want not to be eaten or poisoned. And so over a period of hundreds of millions of years we can assume streptoyces synthesizes ivormectin and ivormectin goes out there and that's the immune system into the environment around the organism and it can kill parasites and it can dismantle viruses and because I believe there is substantial information scientific evidence of tumor viruses we know that 15 to 20% of cancers are caused by tumor viruses. It is my belief and I'm not alone in this that the majority of cancers are caused by tumor viruses yet to be discovered. And so it makes sense to me once I understood that it made sense to me why Ivormectin would be effective against parasites and everybody knows that for 50 years, win the Nobel Prize, fine. Basically eradicate river blindness almost entirely and dismantle viruses because viruses that get inside bacteria are called phasages, right? And they disrupt the genome. You want to get rid of those guys too. And if in fact there is a close relationship between viruses and cancer, I think there is, then that gets a cancer too. This very wonderful one molecule 3-inch thick Swiss army knife, that's the immune system. And I think when people understand that they're better able to um accept that if this single-c cellled organism can do this with one molecule >> that perhaps knowing that it's safe and effective against parasites and safe and effective against SARS KV2 and a host of other viruses and in the laboratory in vitro and vivo studies 20 years of research at least effective against uh cancer cells. Well, okay. Then the question is why don't we pose the question, do these medications, irrectend, all the rest of them, do they improve the survival of patients with cancer? You can see it. They kill cancer cells, human cancer cells in the lab, in animals. Fine. Are they effective in improving the survival of patients with cancer? Simple question. And that brings us to the agenda for today. It does indeed. It does indeed. Um I can see you've done a few lectures uh uh you know and and and I I would say well I would have enjoyed uh you know basically learning learning from you as a as a resident or something. >> So I wanted to take a quick break to tell you about something that's actually quite important to me. I've been kind of resisting uh getting a sponsor for the show for some time. There's been numerous offers. Let's just say Patriot Gold Group came to me and the gold is actually something that I've been thinking about quite a bit because we're in very volatile times, very unpredictable times. So, gold is the place that that I think is a one of the few kind of stable places to put money. Uh, and Patriot Gold Group is a good company. me check them out. And so I bought some gold with them. And you know, the value, and this is kind of crazy, uh, since I bought it, I think about 3 weeks ago, of this gold has gone up by over $500. And this isn't a large amount of gold that I bought here. So, let me show you what I got. So, this is Rand Refinery 1 fine gold bullion, the American Eagle, and five silver eagles. So, I'm going to I'm actually going to pull out the gold eagle for you because it looks kind of awesome. Wow. It's got an amazing weight to it. So, if you're inspired to buy some gold, I recommend you call Patriot Gold Group. You can Mention American thought leaders. With that, let's head back to the interview. you have a number of uh cases where Ivormectin corresponded with a kind of somewhat dramatic reduction of cancer in in a patient. >> So tell me about these. >> Well, okay. So the opening act in this story is that I began to do the scientific research, peer-reviewed papers, read them chronologically so you can understand what everyone is thinking. as they make their discoveries and what they're thinking and the questions they ask and so on and so forth. And here was, you know, all this research that Ivormectin showed great potential as an anti-cancer agent. Having seen for myself and being very well persuaded by the work of doctors Corey and Merik and others, the data coming out of South Africa and India that Ivormectin was safe and effective in treating patients with COVID. I began to wonder to what extent might this be effective in treating patients with cancer. Well, I understood that the pharmaceutical industries were not going to invest in a 10-centent per pill. And if the pharmaceutical industries were not willing to do that, no one was going to do it as pharma funds everybody else that's doing research, right? Um I was introduced to a patient with stage 4 prostate cancer. Had received two vaccines, perfectly healthy marathoner, no history of cancer in the family. Two months after his uh second Fiser shot, he works for the government, was going to lose his job and his pension if he wasn't vaccinated. um he was diagnosed all at once with stage four prostate cancer. He tells a very compelling story, melodramatic story about that 24-hour period of time in his life. Um and he went through the traditional protocols, radiation, chemotherapy, radiation, chemotherapy, pharmacologic, castration, all of it over a period of 9 months. And then his doctor said, you know, there's really nothing else we can do. And uh his name is Paul Man, and he was like, can't you give me more radiation? No. Can't you give me more chemo? No. Aren't there any other drugs? No. Are there any clinical trials? There's nothing. Hospice. Send for the priest. So, a friend of his knew me and she said, "Uh, would you give Paul a call? He just needs some moral support, something." So, I said, "Sure." So, I began calling him. We spoke about once a week for 3 weeks. And finally, um, the poor guy was suffering. He had cancer and 11 bones in his body. His right leg was completely swollen, obstructed with tumor. He's miserable. And I said, "Paul, I don't know if this is going to help you, but I know it's not going to hurt you. I just can't imagine based on my judgment and understanding of the scientific literature and all the work that Drs. Corey and Merrick had done and others around the world that I would hurt you. it might help. I can't say. So, he said, "You know, I'll give it a try." And uh he drove to Tennessee where you could get it without a prescription. PS. I discovered last night having dinner with Paul and his wife Terry, he drove from where he lives in Missouri to Tennessee and paid cash for his ivormectin. That's it. He didn't submit it to insurance company. He didn't tell anybody back in Missouri. He is on an encologist. Now his Ivormectin prescriptions are listed in his chart. How did that information get from the pharmacy in Tennessee to his chart in Missouri? We don't know. Somebody does. I'd like to know myself. Anyway, he starts taking ivormectin and he doesn't have any problems with it. And I talk to him every week. And um how are you feeling? Well, no change. Next week. Uh maybe a little bit better. I don't know. How's your leg? It's not quite as swollen. How How's the pain? Pain everywhere. Maybe a little bit better. Slowly slowly. Slowly. Not getting worse. Not necessarily getting better. Not getting worse. Fast forward. Um two-month follow-up appointment at the clinic. They didn't expect to see him. Okay. Paul, um, he's feeling a little bit better. They do a PSA, which was off the charts to begin with. And if I'm not mistaken, at the time they randomized him to hospice. I think it was in the hundreds, maybe 700, 800. >> What does that mean exactly for the lay person? >> Over four would be abnormal. >> Mhm. >> Okay. So, what are we talking about here? Prostate cells normally secrete a protein prostate specific antigen. It's >> one of the things that they do. Cancer cells that originate in the prostate that are dividing rapidly and growing fast are spitting out PSA. >> Mhm. >> Okay. It's not that they're contributing to the body economy in any way. It's just they just want to multiply and divide and that's the end of the story. And so your PSA levels start to rise, which is a marker, a screening marker. Oh, your PSA was four and now it's eight. Let's do a prostate ultrasound, whatever. So PSA can be a screen for the emergence of a tumor, but it can also be used particularly at high levels as evidence for cancer, response to cancer, recurrence of cancer. His was I mean it's supposed to be, you know, four, you know. Yeah, it's hundreds. Okay. He goes back for his two-month appointment. It's 1.3. They said, "You're in remission." Well, not, you know, complete remission. He still had the bone mets, but you're in like a biochemical remission. Well, that was good news. Slowly, slowly, slowly, he begins to improve. Less pain. Swelling is okay. A lot of other vaccine injuries. However, he's getting better. He's getting better. We're giving him uh nutritional support and other supplements. He's having TAS, little mini strokes, >> but he didn't tell me about that because we were talking about the cancer. But over a period of time, I'm asking him questions and I said, "Oh, you're having TAS." His wife said, "Yeah, having TAS." I said, "What do the cancer doctors tell you?" Because that's who he's seeing. They say, "It's not related to my cancer." Like, so I get a call from his wife one evening. He's in the emergency room. he's had this TIA is whatever it is catastrophic. And um I said, "Paul, what are they doing for you?" And he said, "Well, they did a CAT scan of my head and they said they don't see anything specific. It's a TIA and it's not related to my cancer. They send them home." I said, "Did they do anything?" "No." I said, "Well, okay. Call me crazy. I'm a cancer surgeon, but I think you need to see a cardiologist. I think there are things they can do." Okay. And of course I look it up really quickly and and of course there are things. So get him to the cardiologist, get him on blood thinners, no more problems with TAS. >> Okay. That's an indictment of the healthare system. >> So he's getting better about nine months later. Um he's out dancing for 4 hours three nights a week. He gets a headto toe uh rescanning and uh three of the bone mets are gone. there. No growth of the METs that are there, no new lesions, there's only one hot spot and that's where he received radiation therapy and the radiation um the radiologist really could not distinguish whether that was a tumor hotspot or radiation change. >> Um he is doing very well. the vaccine injury is uh a problem, but the cancer is no longer a problem except for the fact that it's still there and we want to get rid of it completely. Um and he and he said he called me from a hockey game and he said uh if I didn't know I have cancer, I would not know I have cancer. That was patient number one. I was like that's interesting. A second patient crossed my path. a guy in his 70s who had been losing weight for a year and a half, 40 pounds, not vaccinated, 40 pound weight loss, smoker, drinker, all he does is fish. And um he could no longer swallow and he could hardly talk. And so I got on the phone with him and I said, "Uh, Eddie, you know, tell me a little bit about your history and so forth." He knew someone with prostate cancer who had taken ivormectin. He cured himself from prostate cancer with that. So Eddie began taking Ivormectin. I have no idea what the dosing was. He was just taking it. And I gave him some advice about diet, you know, try and get the weight back on and so on and so forth. Within a couple of weeks, he sounded stronger. >> Mhm. >> Sounded stronger. He could swallow. He had gained six pounds. His his voice was better. followed him for the next couple of weeks, maybe another month or so, and I said, "Eddie, we need to get a scan. He doesn't have insurance. He doesn't like doctors, whatever." He had been diagnosed in that interval with two esophageal tumors, unresectable. Surgeons wouldn't go near it. The uh doctor said, "Well, we'll give you chemo and radiation." And then he said, "No, you're not." So, he takes his ivormectin. Maybe about six weeks later, I said, "Eddie, you need to get a scan." Had to argue with Eddie to get a scan. We got the scan. No tumors. Gone. Gone. The problem was that he had sold his fishing boat. That was the biggest problem. He was getting better. His tumor was gone. Now we need to grab by another fishing boat. That was the second patient. I was like, "Well, now that's interesting." Third patient was a woman who was referred to me. Her husband called me. He said, "Could you talk to my wife? I think she's got a problem." She could feel a lump in her lower pelvis. And uh she'd had that for a while. I said, "Do you have any vaginal bleeding?" Yes, a little bit, but not much. She was in her 60s and I said, um, I think the best thing to do would be to go to the doctor and get a CAT scan. She doesn't like doctors. She doesn't have insurance. She's not getting a CAT scan. I was able to convince her to get at least an ultrasound. She gets an ultrasound. She has a 6 cm tumor in her pelvis. It's close to the colon. It's close to the ovary. It might be near the uterus. Who knows? It's just wedged down there. And I said, 'You know, it would be very helpful if you would at least be willing to do a needle biopsy because if it's cancer, it's going to make a difference in terms of what your choices are. Nope, she's not going to do that. So, I called her periodically over the next couple of months and I'm fine. No problem, whatever. And I said, "Well, call me if you need me, you know." So, this was I think like April, May. Um, and I get a call December 23rd from her husband. 9:30 at night. Her belly is distended. She can't eat. Uh, she's not passing gas. She's not passing stool. Her her abdomen hurts. And I said, "Press down on her belly. Does that hurt?" Yeah. Press when he presses. Yeah, it hurts. I said, "Now press and lift up really quickly." Like flick the belly. Does that hurt? Yeah, that's worse. I said, "Get her to the emergency room. We don't have insurance. We don't like doctors. We're in West Virginia. We hate the We hate the hospitals." I said, "Look, she's going to blow out her bowel and then you're going to take her to the emergency room and she's going to die. I suggest you go now." Okay. take her to the emergency room. They do a CAT scan. 18 cm tumor. >> Who knows what it's wrapped around 18 centimeter tumor. They give her introvenous. Uh and I said, "Let me talk to the ER doc." I said, "Is she stable enough? Can you rehydrate her? She's stable enough to go to Charlottesville because I have family. I know people in Charlottesville. UVA is a great hospital. Let's see if we can get her to Charlottesville." Yes. So, the ER doctor, I can imagine, was very happy to get her on the way to UVA and they admit her Christmas Eve and um they hydrate her and they give her nutrition and the surgical oncology um head of of of the surgical oncology team comes in to see her. Brilliant surgeon, brilliant surgeon, a Persian. and he said, "I'm not sure that I can reect this, but let's tune you up and let's see what we can do. If I can, I will." So, she gets all tuned up, ready to go. Um, the hospital would not give her unvaccinated blood. So, there was a big Shakespearean melodrama the night before surgery, but she said, "I've got to have the surgery." So, okay, she did not require blood transfusion. Thank God. So the surgical oncologist is brilliant seal team six surgeon goes in with a vascular team a gyn team the urologic team because it's wrapped around the urer and who knows what's going on with the uterus and the surgical team so forth they all go in and seven and a half hours later they close they have negative margins they got the whole thing to negative margins she had met in her liver three mets in the liver and then postoperatively during her recovery um the metastic lesions in the liver multiplied which is not uncommon. She went home maybe five or six days later. Uneventful postoperative course. Again, you know, A+ to the surgical team at UVA. She gets in the car, she goes back to West Virginia. And of course, the medical oncology people at UVA insist she have chemo. They are breathing down. They're making appointments for her. There's not not a question. You know, we think you should have this pro, you know, here's your appointment. Here's your appointment. And she goes, yeah, I'm going back to West Virginia. she starts taking ivormectin and I think she was probably taking a little bit higher dose. I can't really say. Um I don't think it was skyh high but anyway Ivormectin as I said to you is safer than a sugar pill. You'd have to take a lot to make yourself sick. >> Whoa. Let's stop for a moment. >> Safer than tell me that again. >> Yeah. Yeah. This might be a bit of an exaggeration but not by much. Um, Ivormectin is so non-toxic that if you gave someone, you know, Ivormectin every day, if you did a randomized trial, these people are getting Ivormectin every day and these people are getting sugar pills every day. My prediction, test it, see what happens would be that the people who are getting the sugar pills would end up having more harm at least, you know, spikes in their insulin level than the people taking ivormectin. So that's why I say kind of flippantly, >> you know, it's safer than a sugar pill. Anyway, she starts taking Ivormectin and uh I said, "Uh, we need to do a scan." You know, uh, everybody gets sick of hearing me say we need to do a scan. Um, she didn't want that. How about an ultrasound? Because you can image the, uh, liver pretty well with an ultrasound. And he she had had an ultrasound so we could compare. Liver's clean. Nothing in the liver. She's fine. She's driving around with her husband. She's going down to the border. She's pushing back against the aliens, whatever. She's just she's doing very very well. So that was the third patient and I thought I cannot just wait for patient four through N as I describe it to see if Ivormect really is effective. Something has to be done. I feel compelled to do something. What is that going to be? What am I going to do? And I had to think hard because I didn't have the money to fund a study which would on average cost $6 million for phase one study of a repurposed medication. What could I do? What could I do? And then after a good hard think, I thought, well, an observational study like the Framingham study where you identify a population, in the Framingham study, it was the people who lived in Framingham. But in this observational study, it would be patients with cancer who themselves decided either in addition or instead of or whatever, they decided they were going to use ivormectin and other repurposed medications as part of their cancer care. And I as principal investigator being just the neutral woman with a chart collecting data this observational data prospectively I would be recording the data and that would allow me to see over a period of time whether there was a survival advantage in patients with cancer who were taking ivormectin and other repurposed medications compared to historical controls. And we have decades of historical controls. As an example, what is the likelihood that someone with a stage 4 prostate cancer sent to hospice would have over a period of 9 months a remission and a clinical improvement as Paul experienced? Well, as I say, it's not zero probability, but it approaches zero. What is the likelihood that a patient with stage four cancer, a patient with stage three unresectable esophageal cancer, a patient with an 18 centimeter Kukenberg tumor in her pelvis would all have such remarkable results that you might attribute to ivormectin seeming to be the common denominator. One, two, three. What is the likelihood of that happening? Like winning the lottery the first three tickets you buy that approaches zero. the probability approach to zero. Nonetheless, that's not how we do science. We don't do science by saying, you know, it's really odd that these three people had this experience. You create the hypothesis, you create the question, you design a study in such a way that you can answer the question and validate it and make sure that the data that you collect are neutral, verifiable. You can audit the data. Someone else who's not involved in the study is responsible. The biostistician for evaluating the data. Now you have the data. You've accumulated that over a period of time. You turn that over for peer review. You go through all of that and then you publish. So I began wonderful opportunity to speak to Dr. Merrick about this. He was very interested and as God would have it um he thought there was great wisdom in having a multi-enter observational study as I've described where you have multiple co-principal investigators with the clipboard with the data element list that we have compiled with an independent biostatistician all moving forward forward to collect the data with Dr. Merrick who you can't find someone with better credentials. Okay, I believe that he's God teed him up to do this. He probably didn't expect he was going to be doing this, but I think that God teed him up to do this. And so he'll be the the principal investigator on this large multic-enter observational study. We'll collect the data and if we see a signal that is if we observe and the biostistician validates and peers concur that the patients who are taking these repurposed medications like Ivormectin especially now that we know how Ivormectin works when it's working in the dirt um then we will be able to launch additional questions and additional studies and continue to move this ball downfield. And so I just want to clarify one thing. You said, do I understand correctly that you tried Ivormectin three times only >> for cancer and these were the three results. >> Well, I didn't try it. Okay, so we had to be clear. >> I didn't try it. The I discussed with the patient. I said, you know, think about this. Here are the studies. >> Refer the patients. Talk to them. They and then they decide. I American is approved by the FDA and thank you the fifth district, right? And uh the incompetent attorney for the Department of Justice defending the FDA who wasn't able to argue that physicians and providers cannot prescribe ivormectin or other FDA approved medications based on their judgment. Patients can get it across the counter in Tennessee. Patients chose to do this. I was there calling, finding out how you're doing and learning your cancer's gone. It's just not there. >> The three cases you're aware of where this was done. >> Yeah. >> That you know people were you know calling you about >> Yeah. >> All of them cleared up. That is an unexpected result that would warrant a study of the nature. >> Yeah. >> That you're describing. >> I think so. >> Yeah. >> I think so. So, yeah. No. And so, how many are is there a patient number right now across all these different centers? Um, >> oh, it's just officially been launched. >> Okay. >> Um, it I am asked a lot, you know, the past couple of days, you know, what are your data? I'm like principal investigators do not discuss the data until they have the data >> and then they don't discuss the data until it's been validated by a bioatistician and peer-reviewed. No principal investigator would jump in early on and say, "Oh, we have 100 patients and we're No, that's not how studies are done." Now, there is an imperative to do this as quickly as possible, but not recklessly. Fortunately, patients that we're seeing today, particularly those with advanced cancer, don't have long to live. So, we don't have to do a 20-year study as you should if you were evaluating a vaccine, all right, or a new drug. We don't have to wait five years to see the separation in curves. If there is a separation based on these repurposed medications, we're not going to have to wait 5 years to see that. We'll conduct the study for at least 5 years. I would imagine it's going to be open-ended. Why not do what Framingham did? Framingham didn't shut the study down. Framingham has been going at it for decades, >> right? >> Why not keep the studies open and see how far downfield you can get with that. >> Well, you'll and you'll quickly see, you know, what how many out of the people that are around are making it basically because of that. That's um incredible. I wish you luck with this. Well, you know, science is the uncertain pursuit of the unknown. And I'm not sure it's uh it's luck so much as it is paying attention, right? You pay attention, you discern, you use your judgment. You use your judgment. There a medical student asked the question uh in the forum yesterday uh uh based on uh William Osler's statement to the medical students at Johns Hopkins. Half of what we teach you is wrong. We don't know which half it is. And the medical students said, "Well, how am I supposed to figure this out?" You use your judgment. That's what you really learn as a professional. Use your judgment. Pay attention. Look at the data. Ask questions. Ask questions. Ask questions. Use your judgment. act. Do something. I mean, unless you're just going to be an ivory tower kind of person, use your judgment and then act. As the uh Africans say, when you pray, move your feet. Act. Okay. Three, prepare for trouble. No matter what it is, prepare for difficulties. FLCCC can tell you firsthand the difficulties. Marilyn Nash, I mean, people, we ran into trouble, right? And we're running into trouble now. Prepare for difficulties. Expect it. Defend yourself. Identify what the vulnerabilities are. Expect them. Preempt them to the extent that you can. You can't preempt everything. Don't be surprised when it happens. Don't give up. Okay? Don't give up. Paul Man has tattooed on the inner wrist. Don't give up. He wanted to remind himself, I'm dying of cancer. Don't give up. Okay. Don't give up. And finally, do your best. do your best. Those five principles. Yeah, luck. Sure, fine. We'll take luck. Just do those things. Um, and you'll be lucky enough. Let's put it that way. >> And, you know, in not too long, we'll have some, you know, preliminary results from this from these studies. I'll be very interested in knowing what they show. >> Me too. >> Um, >> me too. You know, and it's not on the other hand, you know, at the beginning I was saying, you know, there's this Ivormectin obsession here with this group. I'm kind of jo I'm kind of being glib, of course. >> Yeah. >> But, you know, >> Dr. Paul Merik has indeed, you know, looked into, you know, hundreds of different papers of methods of both prevention and treatment of cancer of things that we just simply weren't aware of or like we're not not in our frame of reference. Not in his frame of reference in most cases. >> Never mind mine, right? Yeah. Yeah. >> And and there's a lot of them. I mean, there's this astonishing uh study on vitamin D that that that we talked about in our interview. He said it was the one of the most significant findings he had he had found. I mean, who knew, right, that vitamin D can help with a few other things and, you know, very rigorous >> Yeah. >> evidence for that, right? And but there's so many there's actually so many things that don't involve or could work in addition to things like, you know, radiation or a chemo and and so forth. So why why not Ivormectin, you know, right? I guess that that's also the the question. >> Yeah. Well, let's see ivormectin. Let's seeendol, metformin, sedanaphil, vitamin D3 at higher doses, curcum, all there's a whole list. Are you are you are you working on those as well? >> I allow the patients to make their decisions. My job as I see it is to provide to answer all questions that occur to them and they're pretty well informed which is a blessing. Um and to give them the information that I have that I think they would find useful. There are issues I believe potential issues uh with the use of ivormectin in patients with a brain tumor. It's a bit uh of a challenge and we've got to discuss that with a patient. So they might say well I don't know if I'm interested in using I've got a brain tumor and from what you're telling me that I might not be the best choice. There is something else that would be perhaps a better choice. Meendazol. So the patients are making the choice. My job is to give them the information that they need to help them make that choice. But they decide. They decide. It's up to >> So that reminds me of something that sometimes gets lost recently is something called informed consent. >> Yeah. >> Mhm. >> That's what informed consent is. I'll tell you what I know. Um and I I encourage patients to do this. um a desperately ill, wonderful man, desperately ill with a brain tumor and um there was nothing else he could do, radiation, chemo, there's nothing else he could do. Um and he was, you know, losing the fight by the day. And uh but there was a protocol. His medical oncologist said, "You have to do this. You have to do this." And I said, "Ask the medical oncologist why you have to do this. Ask the medical oncologist, does he have any information about the potential for this to be beneficial? Is there anything in the literature anywhere? And if there is any information, could he share that information? Oh, we 40% of the patients dropped out of the trial and 2% of the patients had a catastrophic side effect and nobody lived longer, but you have to do this trial. You have to sign. And so the patient goes to this is the conversation and uh the patient's like you can't tell me if there's any benefit of the trial. Uh you're not free to tell me what any of the preliminary complications might be. I'm signing this consent and you got two pages of complications here, but you're not discussing that with me, but you're telling me that I have to do this. This is my only choice. And the patient said, "No, thank you." So yeah, thorough informed consent. >> Well, and you know, when it comes to all of these existing standard therapies, there is all of them have, you know, they they don't work 100%. You have to there's a there's a risk benefit, right, in any one of these scenarios that that and this is, you know, this is one of the things I hadn't really thought about that much until co, right? and understanding that that's always the calculation you have to make with any disease, any treatment for that disease and the side effects and and so forth. There's kind of that's that's why every doctor needs to look at each patient individually. >> Yeah. >> And and ask the question how how valuable is this for you and what are the possible costs? Then you'll and in the end you can you can choose if this is right. >> Right. >> Right. And some patients may say, you know, enroll me in the study. If it kills me, maybe I add some beneficial information. >> Fine. There'll be some patients who will say, I've had enough. Okay, I'm done. Okay, I'm dying. If you can't tell me that, I'll tell you, I'm dying. I'm going to go home. Make me comfortable at home, please. Patient choice. And I can just, you know, imagine there's some cases where people are, you know, where the doctor will say, well, frankly, this seems to be the only reasonable, it has its risks, but it's the only thing I see helping. Yeah. Right. And that that's reasonable, too. Right. >> Sure. Yeah. Sure. Right. Yeah. >> You were also talking about um these uh breast cancer viruses, >> right? And so, so what do we know about that right now? What's this? What's the state of knowledge? We know that a breast cancer virus exists in mice. No one has any question about that. The animal models that are used to study drugs and interventions uh that might translate into use in women with breast cancer are all based on these mice that get breast cancer and they get breast cancer because of the breast cancer virus which was discovered by John Bitner in 1936. That virus has been found in other animals. That virus has been found in rats, cats, dogs, monkeys, and that virus has been found in humans. Uh Dr. Dr. James Holland who since passed away um a highly respected venerated researcher professor of medical ancology and verology at Mount Si Beatatric Pogo a professor of verology at Mount Si found this virus in human breast cancer. Others have found it. There's decades of research, I mean a hundred years of research um on this breast cancer virus. In the runup to the uh passage of the National Cancer Act, there were hearings in the Senate. And at that hearing, uh Dr. Holland talked about the breast cancer virus. That was 50 years ago. There were other researchers talking about tumor viruses. The one of the largest study sections at the NCI. So the NCI funds research based on study sections. This is a section we're going to study this. So, one of the largest study sections at the NCI for maybe 10, 20 years prior to the drafting of the National Cancer Act was tumor viruses, leukemia, lymphoma, SV40, the breast cancer virus. When the National Cancer Act was passed and it was declared >> as if written in stone that we would cure cancer in five years, this was pipe dream. The pipe dream of a woman who had a degree in art history who persuaded Nixon who needed a way out from a deteriorating public polling. He was having a bad rap in Vietnam. The war on cancer, how about that? We'll replace the war in Vietnam with a war on cancer. Everybody ought to love that. And we're going to cure cancer in five years. Great. We don't need to know what causes it. So all of the research on tumor viruses was completely deep sixed. That's the end of the story on the breast cancer virus. I was completely unaware of it. I had done my fellowship at morals cuttering. I had never heard of the breast cancer virus. So when I heard of the existence of one because Holland had uh published a paper and presented at the San Antonio breast uh meeting um 2006 December 2006 I was like what is a breast cancer virus? The story as I began to understand it was so intriguing. So I wrote a book about it and then tried to advance to reawaken Susan Chiccomman Foundation, Susan Love Foundation, American Cancers. Nobody's interested in the breast cancer virus. Why? Because we're treating it. We have mammogram screening and we're finding it early and we have arimidex and we have receptin. I'm like, you know, we discovered that HPV causes cervical cancer. You make a vaccine, a proper vaccine against that. you need to make a proper vaccine against that, one that's safe. If you take the virus out of the equation, you don't get cervical cancer. Jean Bitner showed that with the breast cancer virus. So, the research on the breast cancer virus has inched forward against enormous opposition in the past 20 years. But perhaps one of the great blessings of this global catastrophe will be a better understanding of ivormectin and repurpose medications and how and why they work. And given the fact that I've been asked to share my thoughts about this from time to time, I get a chance to talk about the breast cancer virus and see if we can't reawaken some interest in this because if it's true that a virus causes breast cancer in women, we need to know about that and we need to do something about that. and another monoconal antibbody is not what I'm talking about. >> I mean absolutely fascinating and you know a book a book another book to for my for my reading. >> So how many other molecules are have been identified that are these you know immune systems in a molecule as you would describe it? Well, I think all of the antibiotics are nature's bioweapons. Dare we even use that term, which is why something like doxycycline is part of a protocol? Uh, right. Um, Advasten, you know, a statin. Um, I think that Dr. Merrick has identified 10 13 uh various natural compounds. green tea extract, right? Tea, green tea leaves in nature. Nature paths will tell you all about this. How many are there? I have no idea. Um, I know that uh Dr. Merrick has identified uh a list. My view is that there's justification for the items on his list. And if we begin to take this seriously and move forward seriously, we can begin to look at other naturally more naturally occurring. >> I mean, is this almost like a kind of new subbranch of medicine or something that we're launching here? >> No, I think it's a renovation of an old branch of medicine called >> cancer oncology. Okay. >> Every now and again you have to renovate, right? Have you ever renovated a kitchen? you could take the house down to the foundation. Um I don't think we need to burn the house down. I think there's so many smart people, so many good people. Um I mean really brilliant, wonderful people that have contributed to this vast body of knowledge. I think we have to renovate. I think we got a leaky roof and the windows aren't quite right. The floor is slow. Big job ahead of us. >> Um I think we can renovate and I think that a renovation of cancer I'll probably take a lot of heat, but prepare for trouble, right? Item number three on the list, prepare for trouble. I think that it's possible that the principles of medical oncology based on chemotherapy, cytotoxic chemotherapy, will give way to a new approach where it's not targeted because targeted therapy is not targeted to the tumor. Her septin targets cancer cells that express her too new but also targets the heart. Okay. Targets other other organs truly um targeting the cancer and the metabolic pathways of cancer leaving the rest of you alone boosting the immune system. That's the renovation. And as I I said earlier today something of an exaggeration but maybe this will be what happens. uh you replace um things like the iron lung for polio, >> right? Um and you replace face masks. You replace cytotoxic chemotherapy with other interventions that are not toxic, but that get the job done. >> Well, Dr. Kathleen Ready, it's such a pleasure to have had you on. >> Thank you very much. Thank you all for joining Dr. Kathleen Ruddy and me on this episode of American Thought