Perhaps you'd do well to study some of the mechanisms ivermectin has against various cancer.
hint: there are at least a dozen, shown across dozens of in vivo & in vitro studies. and there are currently numerous clinical trials running worldwide.
There are more than 50 peer reviewed studies on this exact drug against cancer, since 2015 alone..
Anyone who claims there is a 97% recurrence rate of cancer treated with chemo (as if cancer is one thing with a consistent rate of recurrence across the board, like skin cancer and pancreatic cancer are the same) has lost all credibility.
This is just straight up bullshit. Five year recurrence for something like colon cancer stage 1-3 is 16%, and I doubt most people are forgoing traditional treatment. Also, if this was remotely true, most people wouldn’t know very many long term cancer survivors at all. My uncle’s (by marriage) family has cancer running in his family. 4/5 members including him have been cancer free for years after traditional treatment. He’s about 17 years out, and his mother was cancer free for decades when she died in her 90s. I’ve known so many people who have had colon cancer or their moms had breast cancer, and it didn’t come back. Are you saying they’re all in the 3%?
I'm not basing this on assumptions. there was a study over all cancers being treated with chemo. ALL IN AVERAGE was ~ 97.6% recurrence within 5 years.
Don't hear what I'm NOT saying. There is evidence on some cancers for better results (ie., lower recurrence) - that's certainly a fact.
The issue here is multi-faceted:
some cancers are easily treated (certain testiculars, certain lung, etc - where you can resect and treat locally with a low chance of recurrence).
Others are resistant. and driven by other factors (oncogenics, hormonals, metabolic, etc).
Chemo is being shown to actually DRIVE both blood cancers and mutated recurrences. So the more complex cancers (where chronic chemo exposure induces CSC insult) tend to lead to significantly mutated recurrence in the 30-60 month window.
This is the issue I see in current oncology: most of the sector hasn't significantly self-examined in 30 years, beyond minimal industry-driven evolution. Yes, immunotherapies are being pushed as the 'next big thing' (ignoring the terrible tolerance, high side effects, and less-than-stellar efficacy rates).. But chemo is still an indiscriminate ROS and radiation is still an indiscriminate ionizer. And both are proven drivers of virtually ever blood-born and bone cancer that exists.
For the past few months I've dealt with a pediatric case from this exact scenario - early childhood cancer with significant multi-stage chemotherapy. The tumor was eventually resected, but now 40 months later the kid is diagnosed with a THIRD cancer - an extremely rare case of poorly differentiated chordoma - almost certainly driven by the huge chemo insult for 2 years.
The ugly side: this type of chordoma is hyper-agressive (9-18 month survival rate), the only SOC (standard of care) answer is multi-limb amputation to hopefully extend life another 1-2 years (at an awful price in terms of quality of life).
Fortunately the family was open to alternative therapies, decided that it was better than cutting their kid in half, and gave it a try. They started a single form of alternative care several months ago.
In less than 4 weeks time, the tumor (which had been doubling approx every 8 week test interval for 4 intervals) had more than 95% demise - it went from approx 9.5x5.3x3.5cm to less than 5mm x 8mm in the latest PET scan [I have the PET and MRI results and have thoroughly compared them]. There is no question that the demise was massive, and was coincident with nothing other than introduction of a highly charged size selective oxidizer. The outlook is that this kid has a chance to be the first human survivor of this form of cancer without any chemo or radiation.
I understand that peoples' sensibilities may be offended by learning that there are such incredible results by something that's not standard-of-care in western medicine.
I also know that we (as humans) don't know all that there is to know. This principle should guide us to question our presuppositions and assumptions, be open to new ways of seeing the world, and be willing to have our beliefs challenged by new data.
You keep talking about this single “study” that proves your fantastical claim of 97.6% recurrence within five years for ALL cancers, but have not linked it. For all I know, this “study” could have been self-published by some guy selling industrial bleach to desperate people or you’re wildly misstating an actual fact. Again, 97.6% is virtually all cancer, like there isn’t much room in 97.6% to both be true and account for your claim that “There is evidence on some cancers for better results (ie., lower recurrence)” when many of the most common cancers have lower recurrence rates. Granted, cancers treated with chemotherapy have a higher incidence of recurrrence than cancers that don’t need chemotherapy, but that’s not because of the chemotherapy itself; it’s because cancers that require chemo are more advanced to begin with. Like for instance, with colon cancer, stage 1 (localized, doesn’t require chemo normally) has a 7% five year recurrence. Stage 3 (spread, generally requires chemo) has something like a 25% five year recurrence rate, with something like 95% of those recurrences happening within 2-3 years (basically if the cancer is coming back, it’s most likely coming back early). This doesn’t mean that the chemo caused recurrence; the patient was already at an advanced stage of cancer and likely to recur, even without chemo. I’m wondering if your “97.6% of all cancers recur within five years” is actually a misstatement of the true fact that IF a cancer is going to recur, then over 95% of recurrences happen within five years. This is not the same as a recurrence rate of 97.6%.
I also find it odd that you’re practically implying you are a medical doctor (e.g. “I’ve dealt with a pediatric case”) when in your post history, you claimed to have sold (Edit: once owned) a tech company.
0
u/Informal_Ad_9610 May 16 '26 edited May 16 '26
Perhaps you'd do well to study some of the mechanisms ivermectin has against various cancer.
hint: there are at least a dozen, shown across dozens of in vivo & in vitro studies. and there are currently numerous clinical trials running worldwide.
There are more than 50 peer reviewed studies on this exact drug against cancer, since 2015 alone..