Document text
A Conversation with Sarah Green PA-C, Dr. Paul Marik | Ivermectin, Cancer & Spike Protein
YouTube video by Dr. Paul Marik (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3uJT2y_ixgs). Transcript is the auto-caption track — verbatim ASR, not a certified transcript.
Tonight I want to introduce you to Dave. He's one of my co-conspirators here. We do a lot of um recordings and record different people kind of coming out with new uh data to support kind of the stuff that we believe in. And we are so honored to have again with us Dr. Paul Merrick who is um >> legendary >> paving the path yeah legendary and paving the path to something that's really near and dear to my heart because I have so many patients calling my practice um with new diagnoses of cancers and he is really kind of who I'm following and he's been a legend in kind of showing what some of these repurposed drugs can do to help fight cancer. So Paul, go ahead and give us a little bit information about what you've been doing and what you've been seeing. >> Well, thank you Sarah. Thanks for having me back again. And so, you know, obviously this is this is a dynamic process. It evolves every day as we're learning as the science evolves. And you know, we need to be clear that this is not just coming out of thin air. We we follow the science closely. And this is supported by an enormous body of scientific evidence. But what has become clear is our understanding of the process has evolved. So you know when I started I we had a list of I don't know 35 repurposed drugs but we have a now a much better understanding of how they work together, how to group them, which ones to use together, which ones to use for for different cancers. And so that gives a much more logical and scientific approach. So to actually tell you what happened is really kind of interesting. So, for the last two years, I've been reading papers, maybe 2,000 papers on um repurposed drugs and, you know, came out with my first book and then the second book in which I listed 35 drugs, but I had listed them, you know, in an order I thought made sense, but it was very much based on just common sense rather than a way to scientifically validate it. And then my co-conspirator Justice Hope said, "You know what we should do? Why don't we ask artificial intelligence AI what AI thinks and how we should rank these drugs?" And so then we started ranking the drugs according to AI. At first I was a little bit suspicious because I thought AI would be controlled by big farmer and the the enemy. but soon to discover that the information it provided provided was remarkably accurate and supported by scientific references and made an enormous amount of sense. >> So the remarkable thing is and so maybe this is why it it we know it's it's valid is that AI's list of drugs and our list of drugs were almost the same. So what what took me two years to do AI did in five minutes and um since we've now understand how AI works better and we know how to ask it better questions it's it's become more refined and so basically you know to a large extent chemotherapy is shotgun therapy you you give an agent which damages ES chromosomes. It doesn't it's not specific. While there are targeted therapies, it's not specific. Acts on one specific pathway and it does a lot of damage. And probably the most absurd thing about chemotherapy is it damages the immune system. It damages your T-C cells and your lymphosytes and your B cells, which are the cells you most need when you have cancer. So you need to have your immune system fighting the cancer. But what does chemotherapy do? It knocks out those very cells that you need to fight cancer. So it actually makes no sense. It's a completely meaningless senseless kind of therapy. So the way we've kind of decid looked at this now is that cancer has a number of components you need to deal with. The first is the metabolic dysfunction. So what we do know going back to 1924 and Otto Warberg is the cancer cell is metabolically different and all cancer cells are metabolically different. Doesn't matter what an oncologist says. That is just an absolute truth and a fact. So the first line of therapy is to use drugs that target those metabolic pathways. And so we know which drugs do that and we know which drugs which pathways they target. you know pathways such as what's called heft one or CMIC or or NFCappa B these are specific biochemical pathways these aren't random pathways hexocinise 2 uh these are specific pathways of the cancer cell so the first line of therapy is to target those biochemical pathways which the cancer cell relies upon because cancer cells need glucose. They're highly glucose dependent. This is the Warberg effect. They they cannot undergo oxidative metabolism. So the metabolism of the cancer cell has changed. So we as clinician can use this to our therapeutic benefit by targeting those pathways which the cancer cell uses. It's pretty simple because they are different from normal cells. The pathways are different and it just so happens some of the most powerful pathways are affected by EGCG which is green tea and curcumin. Isn't that astonishing? >> Right? Beautiful. most powerful path the most powerful pathways that interfere with cancer metabolism is these two. >> So the first approach is to deal with the altered metabolism and then obviously together with that is diet. I mean you know most oncologists are completely clueless but we know these cells are dependent on glucose. So you need to limit the amount of glucose you take in. Now obviously we would suggest a ketogenic diet but for some patients it's not that easy um to adopt a strict gluccogenic diet. But you ketogenic diet but you know what you need to reduce your intake of glucose. Glucose generally is a cellular toxin. It causes glucose and carbohydrate addiction. So patients should just cut out processed food and glucose because what they're if they think about what they're doing, they're feeding the cancer cell with the sodas and carbohydrates that they're eating. They're feeding the cancer cell. So, so if you use metabolic therapies, which we've mentioned, together with dietary manipulation and ketosis, you that's really the first prronged approach to dealing with cancer. The second is something called a cancer stem cell. And it seems like oncologists have no idea about a cancer stem cell because they don't deal with it. And so the cancer stem cell is the is the cell that gives rise to the cancer. And so the astonishing thing is that chemotherapy does not kill the stem cell. In fact, many chemotherapeutic drugs actually promote the growth of stem cells. >> So what you're doing is you're cutting you're taking away the rapidly dividing cells. that the stem cells which ultimately give rise to the cancer you leaving alone and these then give rise to metastatic spread. It is so completely and utterly stupid and inconceivable that an oncologist can ignore a cancer stem cell because you cannot we don't like to use the word cure but you cannot induce a remission unless you deal with a stem cell. You have to deal with a stem cell and we know what the pathways are. Again, this is all biochemistry. It's well published. We know the pathways that are involved with a cancer stem cell. And so guess what drug is the most effective drug for dealing with and I hate to say it and you're laughing because >> where's the worst >> here it comes it's this word that yeah you get banned >> and you see you don't have to ask me >> you can go to AI and AI is not going to lie to you >> it's the eye drug. The I drug is the most effective drug in dealing with uh cancer stem cells and then you combine that with you know the other antiparasitic drug mandisol they very potent together and then you add vitamin D. So those five drugs form the basic um components of our basic therapy you know including >> the ECGC and the curcumin. >> Yeah the ECGC the curcumin the ivamectin the meendazol and vitamin D. Those five um serve the basic or the cornerstone of any of all of our treatment protocols. And then there are other things that that you can add. But but we we believe those are the f at this point in time the f five major drugs or agents patients need to take. Um and when we talk about ivameactin we're not talking about doses you know gazillion milligrams you know we're talking about you know.3 initially to 6 milligrams per kilogram. And when we talk about bandazol 200 milligrams. So you know these are these are reasonable doses because there are people out there recommending completely ridiculous doses. >> The other thing that that I need to say is that there is this notion out there that is perpetuated by complete goofheads. think they're goofheads or or nutcases or I don't know what you want to call them who think that who believe that because I meendol are active against cancer and because I meendol are parasitic drugs that cancer is a parasitic disease. >> Thank you. So these people are complete and utter net cases because as I've explained to you ivame works via specific pathways >> right >> this is well reported in the in the medical literature it's not this is not made up and these pathways have nothing to do nothing to do with the way ivameactin kills parasites. So it's a completely it's just one of those remarkable things about ivameactin. It's this multi-potent drug that acts via multiple modalities. One of the ways it does it kills parasites but it's not the way it kills cancer cells. And so there is this ridiculous notion that patients should go on a cancer cleanse. Sorry, a parasite cleanse. So what you need to do to prevent cancer or treat cancer is go on a on a parasite cleanse. It's complete and utter BS and we need to stop this nonsense from being further perpetuated. Other than me acts via specific biochemical pathways which interfere with the the the um cancer stem cell survival. It's as simple as that. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> And then obviously the other things that are important is the immunity. It's really important. I mean you know cell surveillance and and te- cell immunity is really important. That's how we get rid of cancers is we have our our tea killer cells, our lymphosytes, our getting rid of cancer. And to to to have therapy which knocks out your immune system makes absolutely no sense. It just so happens that kurcumin and green tea actually have very important effects on your on your tumor micro environment to improve your you know your tea cells and to suppress your myoid depressor cells and your T- regulatory cells. So these drugs have multiple modes of action. So, it's a beautiful orchestra that's played together with all of these drugs working together, working on the stem cell, the specific biochemistry of the cancer cell, working on the tumor micro environment, tumor pH, the tumor imunological status. You it it makes no sense if you think about it. The way we get rid of cancer cells is our immune system. Why would you want to whack out our immune system? And then you have things like angiogenesis, which promotes metastasis. So, it just so happens that all of these drugs act on all of these pathways to um improve the outcome of cancer. I think the chemo the chemo answer is because quarter million to half a million dollars to extend somebody's life maybe for months. >> Yeah. So the data shows that the and this is published data in oncology that the newer FDA approved drugs approved by the FDA costing on average over $100,000 on average prolong life two months. And they make you so sick. So it's not that they're prolonging your life and you feel really good. They're you >> destroying your immune system. >> Yeah. >> Exactly. What they're doing is they're prolonging your suffering because they don't talk about quality of justice life. They're prolonging your suffering by two months at enormous expense. >> And so that's the problem. But it's because the FDA was in bed with big farmer. Maybe this will change now. But obviously money speaks and you know I just you know vitamin D is so important. Vitamin D is really you know has multiple modes of action. That's why it's our number five in the list. A has multiple modes of action in cancer predominantly by improving um T-C cell and lymphosy function. So it improves the immune system. So, I just replenished my yearly supply of vitamin D. >> What's your goal? >> It cost me >> $14. >> That tells you why they are so scared. >> Sure. >> I'm still trying to get mine for free. >> Yeah. I mean, you can lie out outdoors naked for a while and you can get enough vitamin D, but you know what? It's probably easier just to to take a tablet. I'm quite happy. I go outside, but I also take my vitamin D. I check my levels, and it costs 14 $14 a year. A year. So, that just gives you an example of what a complete and utter scam this is. when you're testing uh vitamin D levels on patients, what what is your goal? Because I know big pharma has their reference range and then I've heard some people say, well, we're looking for like 100 120 and some are saying 6080. What do you what is >> Yeah, it's a good question. We don't know exactly. I would say somewhere between 100 and 150. Uh >> everyone would say that's toxic. And so you're saying, >> but we know it isn't. So they they say that because they don't want you to know it works. And so I looked at this recently and so there have been a few studies looking at highdose vitamin D for cancer. Do you know what they call high dose? 2,800 units. >> Oh boy. >> Yeah. So So yeah, they don't want they do not want you to know that vitamin D is an effective treatment for cancer. They do not want you to know that. So, but there's a there's a there's a pro, you know, if you really want to be safe, the way I do it, there's something called the colum columbra protocol. I don't know if you know it, where you actually follow the PTH level. So, if you follow the PTH level, it has to be safe. You you cannot overdose on vitamin D. So, what I would say if you're using highdosese vitamin D, which is fine, just add a PTH level and it will tell you if you're the right range. >> For for reference, what are we calling high dose? >> So, it's really interesting you ask. I take 10,000 a day, which I would consider moderate dose. More recently, for for various other reasons, um I've increased my dose to 50,000 a day. 50,000. >> And you'll do that for how long? >> So, I plan to do this for about two months and then I'm going to check my vitamin D level, my calcium level, and my PTH level. >> Okay. Okay. >> Just 20,000, but that's >> just for giggles. What can the body generate in a full day of sunshine? >> Yes. So, that's a good question. So >> I'm I'm basically outside 8 to 10 hours a day. Today was full sunshine the next six months for me. >> Yeah. So it's a good question and it depends upon the time of the day and the latitude you're at, you know, where where you are in terms of how far you are from the equator, >> right? Um, obviously the further you are from the equator, the less you can generate. And you generate most vitamin D related to the angle of the UV rays usually between 10:00 and 2:00 in the day. >> How much that actually translates into already is a really good question. Um, and and I would be guessing to be honest with you. >> That that's all I was looking for. >> Yes. But there's no question if you did that you would. So I know somebody who does that. Um Dr. Mcola in Florida. Um he had he had levels close to 100 and he would get on his bicycle almost completely naked every day and drive around for a few hours on his bicycle to generate vitamin D. So I think you can develop, you know, you can develop pretty high levels if you ex completely expose yourself to ultraviolet radiation. Um >> skin tone also has something to do with it. So if you've got super light skin and you go out and sit in the sun for four hours and then you've got really dark skin, your melanin is much higher. You're not going to get as much. So it's going to vary depending on your ethnicity as well. And you you don't want to burn. You know, the idea is you don't want to be in the sun so long that you burn. Some people can be in the sun. You know, people who have outdoor jobs and they're fine, but other people burn. You don't want to get to the point where it actually burns the skin. >> Sure. I've got a question about your Oh, go ahead, Dave. >> That That's me is the outdoor work. So, at this time of year, it's shorts and shoes. By the time summer rolls around, I'm already brown. Yeah, the only thing maybe I would suggest and is the face is particularly vulnerable to basilc cell carcinoma which is related to radiation. So I wouldn't put you know sunscreen on your body but maybe just wear a cap just to protect your nose and and your your your face. That's the only thing I would do. >> Yeah. Yeah. I have a question about your the medbendazol as well. So you I I thank you for all your protocols. I love it. I I've been reading them and I've been implementing them. You have 200 milligrams medendazol is kind of your uh main dose. Would you and that's kind of where I start my patients. But if if you have someone with glyobblasto, let's say, and we've I don't know if this is true. This is what I've been taught is that Ivormectin crosses the blood barrier but not quite as effective as meendazol. Do you up your meendazol depending on what cancer it is and where it's located or are you kind of like 200 milligrams that's good and we're staying there and we just kind of >> Yeah. So that's a good question. So I think all of these drugs act synergistically not I think we know they act synergistically together. So that's why you don't want to use one drug when it comes to meendazol. So for many of these drugs, we're not sure if there's a dose response relationship. We don't know. So for example, for other we don't know what the optimal dose is, >> right? >> So what I would say and so what we've done is say or start off at a for either MACD like three or four and see what happens. If the patient's not doing well, you know, you're what by whatever way you're measuring it, tumor marker or tumor growth or pet scale and then increase the dose. I mean, it's not rocket science. >> So, we don't know what the optimal dose is. And hopefully with time you know we'll get more data because out of all the questions that I want answered the most important would be is there a dose response curve with ivame is there a dose response curve with mendazol and the answer is we don't know but obviously the higher the dose the greater the risk of toxicity and side effects which we want to minimize and I think you know you probably have the maximal benefit at like 3 or 0 4 and I think as you increase the dose the benefits become less obvious but if a patient has a a g which is a really bad tumor I think it makes sense to you know you can follow the patient start off at 3 or point 4 you know obviously I would start off at the higher end and then see what happens if the patient's not doing well then increase the dose Mhm. Okay. And and I have everyone asking me this and I've talked to you about this, but methylene blue, that's that's all over the media. Everyone's talking about it. You have the naysayers, of course, and well, I'll talk a little bit about what some naysayers are saying about ivormectin. I want to get your take on that, but um a lot of people wanting to take methylene blue. I've tried it. I didn't use the red light therapy with it. I'm not sure I felt a whole lot of change or difference, but what do you what's your take on methylene blue? >> Yes. So, um the answer is we don't know. There's not a lot of data on methylene blue and cancer. And so once we finished our little chitty catty, I'm going to go back to AI and ask it again. But when I looked last time, there wasn't a lot of data. But on the reverse side, um, since cancer is primarily a metabolic disease and as Thomas Zfried has shown, it's a disease of mitochondria and since um, methylene blue does improve mitochondrial function and electron transport, it may it may have a role. So what I would say is that you know we've decided what our five major drugs are and if patients are struggling then I would there's nothing wrong with adding methylene blue it's safe >> and so and if patients want to add it I think it's safe now you want to use it in reasonable doses because I know there are people that are recommending you know completely thousand gazillion milligram doses which I think are insane but if If you use the, you know, I use the 10 or 15 drops a day, which is fine. The only precaution is that you shouldn't be on SSRIs or psych psychoactive drugs because it could cause you to become really sick. >> So, so you just have to be careful of the drug interactions with with methylene blue. The other thing is methadine blue works quite well with photobiomodulation. It kind of acts synergistically. So for diseases like brain fog, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's disease, it makes a lot of sense. >> Sure. Yeah. >> And so as you say, you know, this is a growing and developing field. um we don't know all the answers but at least we you have to keep an open mind. So you know who would have thought three years ago we would have been suggesting ivameactive to treat cancer but you know what there's good science and I think you just keep an open mind is we don't know. Yeah, >> there's a lot of talk. I'm sure Dave, you've gotten videos. I probably get 10 or 15 a day of the naysayers. Some of which are they talk about polyorbate 80 in there and they talk about >> I could I could name them. Yes, I do get them. >> Nanotech. I've talked to ph my compounding pharmacists who said no, that's not a thing. But now the new hype is Ivormectin causing infertility, which I I I disagree with. recycling >> ongoing. >> I've even brought that up. They were dosing rats at 14.5 mg per kilogram of body weight and destroying their bodies with it. That's an insane dose. 14.5 milligrams. >> So, this is Michael Yeden. For some reason, >> this is what he's been perpetuating. But just remember, Michael Eden doesn't believe that SARS virus exists. So, um that that's how out of space he is. So, um we've looked at it. You know, it's been used in millions of people and billions of doses. There's seem to be a lot of Africans running around Africa. It doesn't seem >> quite a few. >> There does not seem to be a fertility issue. you know, almost everyone in central Africa has been exposed in one way or the other. So, we don't think it's a major issue. Um, and >> well, they're taking it prophylactically as well. It's not just a treatment all the time in some. >> Yes. And so, I suppose also if you think of it, if you're dying of cancer, you your first thought shouldn't be, oh, I'm going to be m I'm going to be infertile. That's a That doesn't seem to be a logical um thought process. >> Right. Right. >> Yeah. >> Before Before we lose the time, we did talk about this pre-recording. >> Yeah. >> The the metabolic information, but going further than that to the, you know, the prophylactic steps in food. You brought up glucose obviously and the ketogenic diet, but things people can be thinking about to not wind up in this position hopefully. >> Yeah. So actually you ask an interesting question because you know if you read the standard literature they say about 40% of cancers you can prevent and the things they talk about are um glucose control insulin resistance metabolic syndrome vitamin D smoking alcohol but they don't really talk about pesticides on our food. And so I read a paper like three days ago which shows that the pesticides they spray on our food causes a whole range of cancers. >> Yeah. >> And so we don't even think about it. You go to the store and you buy food, you don't know what it's being sprayed with. And so many of these pesticides have known carcinogenic properties. So, um I think it makes a case for organic food. I don't know what else to say as best you can. The problem is is that of course it's always the impoverished to get hit the worst because they can't really afford you know um organic food. But I think what it does do mean is that you know the new department of health and human services needs to look very closely at the pesticides that they spray on the crops and what we are ingesting you know because there's certain things like Wi-Fi you know and and 5G which you know and the air you have to breathe the air but you can control the food you eat and what the food is sprayed with. Um, so I think that's another important area that that we should look at. You know, it's we need to get more back to basics and it's not all about making money. It's about making healthier food. >> Yeah, >> I would agree with that. And I encourage people to grow their own food as often as possible. Um, I raise most of my own meat and my diet is very meat heavy. Not a lot of vegetables. A little more sugar than I care to admit. Sometimes I have a a thing for donuts occasionally, but moving away from the food system, but like you said, it's often the impoverished that are sort of stuck in that that repeat performance of pulling things off the grocery store shelves because that's what's available. >> Yep. >> Right. Well, glyphosate for sure. And then of course the elephant in the room which is the vaccines and not just covid vaccines but all vaccines that I mean we've seen a huge I've seen a huge increase in cancer patients with the onset of the covid vaccine. Not all of them actually received the covid vaccine. I'd say 80% of my patients who are coming to me with cancer did. Um so that there's we talked about this there's going to be just this huge I think it's going to be higher deaths. >> Yeah. >> It's going to be a tsunami of cancer. So what's interesting is there was a paper in Lancet looking at the increase in cancers prior to um 2020. So there was I think something like 16 different cancers were already increasing in young people for reasons that we're not sure. Maybe it has to do with environmental things. But then starting in 21, there's been a massive surge in the risk of cancers. And these are aggressive cancers, early cancers, unusual cancers. And these seem to be very closely linked with the um co vaccines. And this is where the problem is because you know some of the problems with the vaccine, the autoimmune things manifest kind of early on. um we don't know how long these effects because we know the spike protein hangs along around a long time and it may integrate into your DNA. So there was a study out of I think it was Yale where where they looked at um people who had been vaccinated and persistence of the spike protein. So in that study what they reported there was a page patient who had circulating spikes 700 days after the vaccine. But in fact there was another patient who they excluded cuz they didn't want to make that even worse who had circulating spike for 1,400 days. So think about what they said to us that you get injected in the arm, it stays in the arm and two days it goes away. This poor patient who is still profoundly vaccine injured has circulating spike in her blood, 1400 days after the vaccine. She's the longest known person with circulating spike. >> Figure at that point her body is making it. >> Well, her body is making it. That's the problem. That's the problem is the only way to explain it is that the RNA has now reverse transcribed into the DNA and which is kind of what they wanted to do but they thought the RNA would go away but now it must be in the DNA and her body is just making spike protein. >> Yeah. And how do you shut that off? I mean there's spike protein detox protocols. you've I I've follow I followed your FLCCCC protocol for my CO patients and I have to thank you because thousands of patients were saved because of your heroic measures to get that available to people. So, thank you so much. And then the spike protein detox protocol that you guys have on there that I follow as well. And I don't know if there's an answer for these patients because it really is I don't know how long you've got to be on these and maybe forever because if you're now making it >> so the problem is it's not very effective you know we can you use nattokynise which breaks down the extracellular spike protein but now this is in the cell in the nucleus >> it may be impossible >> and so what the new NIH needs to do there are a few things they need to do. But one of the most important things they need to do is they need to study the vaccine injured. They need to study why these people are continuing to shed spike protein and they need to investigate methods that we can somehow get rid of the spike protein if integrated. It's an absolute medical priority to kind of figure out what's going on. Why why is the body continuing to make spike protein? >> Yeah. >> Well, like you said, reverse transcription. It it's part of the body's instructions to itself now. >> Yeah. And then if that's what's happening, you know, I'm not a I'm not a biologist or an immunologist or nucleiologist, but it would have to be some kind of really fancy technique to actually excise the the in the inserted RNA or DNA out of the nucleus. How you would actually do that? But >> and it's in all the cells. I mean, it's in every cell. >> Yes. So that but but you know what you need we need to look into that. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> That probably gets into more editing. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. It's much like video editing. You you know how how we do it. I don't know. But it's it's certainly something the NIH should be looking at. Sir, >> I can't think of a more urgent priority than to study the effects, the long-term effects of these vaccines and why people are have circulating spike for so long, where it's being made and what we can do. >> Yeah, >> I think starters we could stop putting it in more people. Oh, >> of course. I mean obviously the first thing is to stop is to stop putting it in. >> Yeah. >> Sure. >> Sure. Let's talk about that. >> That's research that needs to be done. Oh, so we did we did bring that up prior to recording as well that there are now two fasttracked mRNA vaccines. One is the Gates Arc Taurus bird flu self amplifying. And then last week I saw one that blew my mind. They're fasttracking an mRNA vaccine for chlamydia. >> Yeah. So, you know what you would imagine with everything that's happened, I mean, it's impossible to deny the fact that there are millions of vacine injured patients following these mRNA jabs. >> Yeah, >> you can't deny it. So if we were a responsible society, we would at least put this on hold until we have a better idea. There should be a moratorum on messenger RNA vaccines. And honestly, I don't think they have a place at all. You know, it's not like civilization has been deficient in mRNA vaccines for tens of thousands of years and suddenly we need them for the survival of humanity. we don't need them and I think we have to be very careful with what we messing with um you know because we may not be able to go back again you know as as we've just spoken you know once it gets into your DNA you may be done for so we need to stop we need a moratorum on these vaccines until we know exactly what's happening >> I would agree with that and I think we need actual evidence even in placebocont controlled trials that I I don't see it as being possible that they're actually useful for something. I don't think they could prove they're not dangerous, but I don't think they can prove they're useful either. >> Yeah. No, I agree with you. I mean, the whole question of vaccinology, the benefits to humanity is is is now become an open question. And just and an additional layer is the mRNAs. And I think we we you know we need we need to stop using them you know and particularly in children. So this move by Kennedy of trying to get the COVID vaccine off the childhood schedule is is is the right first step to do. >> We should not be giving these to children. >> Right. Well, and we were just talking also earlier about uh having, you know, doing testing. No, no vaccine out there right now h has been tried against a placebo. So, start then we we talked about this. The new vaccines coming out need to be tested, tried before they get it out there, which is going to be a big move. But what about all these other ones that are quite >> So, that's not quite true. is that the FISA um mRNA vaccine was a placebo trial. The problem is that FISA cheated. They manipulated the data. They fraudulently changed the data. So what's the point in doing a randomized control trial where you fraudulently changed the data? We know there were more deaths in the FISA arm than in the placebo arm. We know that. >> So, but they won't talk about it. So what's what's the point? So the whole system needs to be changed where where their third party people who overseeing. So if you think about it, FISA designs the study so it's positive. They they execute the study so it's positive. They collect and manipulate the data so that it's positive. They then write up the paper using ghost riders so that it's positive. It's completely a bogus system that gives the drug company complete control over their bogus data. >> I should think third party trial with no accountability but public. >> Yes. >> I don't want the government in on it either because they'll do the same thing. They'll lie for >> the release the data. >> You want professional trial companies who that's what they do. who are held accountable because if you have FISA deciding is this an adverse event or not it obviously it will sway in their benefit. So these should be done and they should only break the the code at the end of the study. So the way that clinical trials are done needs to be completely revamped. >> Sure. What about liability? So, if they're not going to go back and test these, how about we start making these vaccine companies liable for any kind of vaccine injury? Once that was put in place, the the number of childhood vaccines rose exponentially and no no liability, no accountability, that that has to change. >> Yes, I agree with you 100%. As soon as liability becomes involved and the bottom dollar becomes involved, they will be much more cautious and will it has to happen. There's no other product that consumer project that doesn't have some kind of liability. How can you make give them liability protection? It'll allow people to make cars that fall apart or explode. So you you you you have to you you can't give them protection. They need that their products need to be safe as advertised and they need to be, you know, be open to litigation if they lie, >> right? We'll see if this happens. Hopefully that's the new push. >> Hopefully it's the direction we're moving in. I I I'm always skeptical that, you know, even if everybody was on the same team moving in the right direction, I'm always skeptical that four years is enough to get that kind of work done because of who you're working against. Even working in a vacuum, four years is not a lot of time to change the system. But when the system is pushing back against you, four years is not but a day. >> Yes. No, I agree with you. So um a lot has to happen in four years and it could be quickly reversed >> if the election went the other way in four years time and um this has been going on for 40 50 60 years. So there's a lot that needs to be done that needs to be undone. But I think also there needs to be a lot of, you know, there's been so much propaganda and misinformation perpetuated by the the media that don't give you the truth that we really do need the population to understand what's actually happened, >> right? >> And I think >> I think that's a desperate part of the social media game. And in spite of constantly saying I don't want to keep doing this, I keep doing it anyway. Like if I can reach one person a week or one person a month that changes their outlook and they start paying attention then I feel like the time investment is worth it. >> Yeah. So I think it it's changing. You would imagine the data is so clearcut. You would imagine it would be changing at a much more rapid rate. Um because it's not it's not subtle. But there's still there's still people that believe the earth is flat and vaccines are safe and effective. >> Yeah, they're lining up. >> And all cancer is parasites. >> And all cancer is parasites. Yeah. >> Yeah. Well, we know parasites cause a lot of problems, but not that. Um, okay. So, we I I I know that we got to probably wrap it up, but I'm so grateful, Paul, for you being here. And I Dave and I every time we're like, we're so excited that you're coming on and we get to pick your brain and ask you questions. So, we want to we definitely want to do this again. Um, I'm excited to have your research and have your documents that I could implement in my practice and my I you know I have so many I have a a patient who has uh colon cancer mets to the liver and just gave me his numbers and they're just they're almost non-existent. You know, I've got breast cancer patients who had large masses that are no longer palpable. um you know it's just it brain cancer patients whose scans are now negative and it's you know those are the good days. Not everybody responds to this like we want it to but when you have a win it's it just makes everything so much so much better. So it's your knowledge and your expertise and your time because you're putting in so much time to then give this to everybody to be able to utilize and use in their practice. So I really >> you know what I think every win is a win and you know if patients are on chemotherapy they need to we're not saying stop all chemotherapy but maybe you know think twice about the dosage that is used you know to cause complete neutropenia doesn't make a lot of sense. >> Many of these repurposed drugs work together with what's called metronomic chemotherapy. So, you know, it would be nice if the oncologist weren't basically their prime interest was making money. Um, you know, because the old adage was, you know, you stopped giving chemo once the patient was in the coffin. And in fact, it seems like that's the truth is they just want to give chemotherapy. And so if they were more interested in the patients health and well-being then and they can work together with us. This should should be a synergistic you know effort. The bottom line is what's what's best for the patient. >> I wonder if they've become to large degree and this is giving credit where it might not be due but desensitized when the outcome is almost always the same. >> Yes. All we're doing is prolonging your life. You're going to die in a couple months. >> Yes. >> Or you you may make it you may make it another year. We can give you another six months. Whatever it is that they're desensitized to the fact that the process that we're undergoing is definitely going to result in failure and your family is going to be broke. >> Yes. >> Well, they don't. This is what they're trained to do as well. and they don't know or want to hear anything outside that box. So, I have oncologists telling my patients, um, it doesn't matter what you eat. Sugar doesn't increase your risk. They go to their chemotherapy infusion centers and there's cookies and there's donuts and there's just crap for all these patients to eat. And you're right, the highdosese uh chemotherapy and they'll tell all my patients, you need to be completely off any neutrauticals. You can't take anything that's going to help boost your immune system. Our job right now is to kill everything. There are some hospitals. I have one patient right now at a hospital in Scottsdale and Vita. And it was fascinating. She's on four different chemo drugs. She's got metastatic breast cancer, but it's very, very microscopic doses. They make her fast for three hours and then they give her insulin to drop her glucose to 40. And then they do this very low dose chemotherapy. They rotate it. And so when they give it to her, it's only 10 minutes. And these then and they mix it with sugar. And so these cancer cells who are now starved of sugar and depleted of sugar then will suck in the chemotherapy mixed with the sugar. And she said it's very like no she feels great. And then the next week they will uh mix the cancer the chemotherapy with her PRP. We know PRP will travel to the site of inflammation. So again, they make her hypoglycemic and then they infuse her with this chemo and PRP and a little bit of glucose and she's she has no more cancer in her liver. She's also taking Ivormectin. They're very they're very active in that. She's taking Meendazol, IV curcumin, um hyperaric, ozone, red light, I mean everything. And it's it's amazing. Not everybody gets that result, but the way that she explained it to me, I'm like, that's genius. >> Yes, >> that's awesome. >> Yeah. I think we have to change the traditional oncology paradigm because it's clearly not working. >> Yeah. Yeah. Awesome. Well, thank you so much. Thank you, Dave. You guys, as always, this is so much fun. Let's do this again. >> It is always good to see you, Paul. Thank you so much. >> Yeah. Thank you. So you know we have some new documents that are evolving as we understand. So they are available on our website. Um it used to be FLCCCC it's now independent medical association uh IMA and uh you can download these documents they are evolving um but uh they are available for free. >> So what's the name of the second book Paul? It has an interesting title. The second edition. >> Yeah. >> Great. That'll make it really easy for me. >> Yeah. >> All right. Wonderful.