• Home
  • Health Care and Health Freedom

A Cancer Cure Has Gotten Out Of Control And Has Spread Beyond The Confines Of Modern Medicine


By Bill Sardi
LewRockwell.com

While Wall Street awaits the entry of over 1,813 new cancer drugs into human clinical trials representing billions of dollars of investment capital, the announcement of a bona fide cure for cancer comes from an outsider – patient Joe Tippens.

An astounding report of Mr. Tippens’ cancer cure is circulating the internet now.  First diagnosed with small cell lung cancer in 2016 and with tumors popping up on scans in virtually every organ in his body, in desperation Joe Tippens began using a dog de-worming agent at the suggestion of a veterinarian.

He was told this cancer cure “was batting 1,000 in killing different cancers.”  He heard one of the scientists involved in the research was cured.  He had no time to dither.  He was weeks away from dying.

Treatment began in the third week of January 2017.  Three months later at MD Anderson Cancer Hospital in Houston, Tippens anxiously awaited the report of his oncologist who had no idea Tippens started taking the dog deworming medication.

The doctor is reported to have walked up to Mr. Tippens and said: “I am going to have to ask you to leave this hospital, because we only

Within just 3 months his cancer vanished.  His insurance company spent $1.2 million before Tippens switched to a $5 a week medicine that saved his life.  Daily vitamins and CBD oil were also an essential part of his curative regimen.  Here’s the video report.

Don’t think Big Pharma isn’t involved here.  Merck Animal Health division makes the de-worming drug that has gone up in price since the report of Tippens’ cure spread in the news media.

Joe Tippens now reports at his own “My Cancer Story Rocks” blog site that is bustling with visitors.

He now says around 40 otherwise hopeless cancer patients have reported similar cures.

He continues to take the anti-worming medication and dietary supplements as prevention.

His dietary supplement regimen that he still adheres to is as follows:

  • Vitamin E complex (tocotrienols, tocopherols)
  • Curcumin (turmeric extract 600 mg/day
  • CBD oil


The history of this cure

The anti-tumor therapy involves an anti-worming agent used for horses and dogs. It has been deemed to be safe by the Food & Drug Administration.  Published studies involving this canine drug, fenbendazole, date back a couple of decades.  There has been a lot of foot dragging over fenbendazole since it was unexpectedly reported to exhibit potent anti-cancer properties when combined with a vitamin regimen in laboratory animals in a study published in 2008.

Researchers reported that fenbendazole alone or vitamins alone did not alter the size or growth of implanted tumors in laboratory mice.  But their combination produced a striking increase in activity of one type of white blood cell, neutrophils, resulting in a no-growth effect.  There also was strong inhibition of a protein (hypoxia inducing factor) that induces hypoxia (absence of oxygen) which forces cancer cells to utilize sugar for energy rather than oxygen.

In the laboratory this drug/vitamin combo overcame treatment resistance as well.

Researchers were initially investigating fenbendazole because it was interfering with anti-tumor studies with other drugs.

Given that pinworms are a common problem in laboratories where mice are employed in pre-clinical testing of anti-cancer drugs, use of fenbendazole to clear these animals of parasites is standard practice.

Unexpectedly, fenbendazole halted the growth of implanted human lymphoma cells in rodents.

To prevent animal infection during the testing period the chow fed to these lab animals is sterilized and then vitamins and minerals (vitamin A, D, E, K and B) are added back to eliminate variance in nutrient intake.  But the chow for these lab animals in question was not sterilized and therefore more nutrients were delivered to these animals than normal.

Whereas implanted tumors take hold and grow 80-100% of the time, in this experiment none of the implanted tumors grew among 40 animals over a 30-day period!  This was striking.

Continue Reading

  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

Video: The Corbett Report - Rockefeller Medicine


As Americans fret about Obamacare and wonder how the country became enslaved to the highest healthcare costs in the world, we turn back the pages to look at how the modern medical paradigm came together in the early 20th century, courtesy of the Rockefeller Foundation and their cronies. Learn the real history of modern healthcare and the real motivations behind the family that brought it to you.

 

 
 
 
  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

Video: Bombshell: Gov Official Confirms Link Between Vaccines and Autism

Big Pharma working to discredit scientist’s vaccine-autism connection


A medical expert working for the government found a causal link between vaccines and autism, but federal lawmakers influenced by the powerful pharmaceutical lobby helped bury that info. In an episode of award-winning journalist Sharyl Attkisson’s program Full Measure, she breaks down how a scientist relied on by the government to debunk vaccine-autism claims was silenced after reporting there was indeed a link between the neurological disease and vaccines.

 

 
 

 
 
 
 

Video: John Stossel - Single-Payer Healthcare


By Scarlett Madison
NOQReport.com

There’s all kinds of buzz lately about how single-payer healthcare is the wave of the future for America. Politicians like Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) have been pushing a Medicare-for-All concept that would cost Americans $32 trillion over a decade to implement.

The argument is that people should not have to go without healthcare, but here’s the question that none of them are answering. Is it really a problem that needs fixing in this manner or is it a solution in search of a problem? Obamacare is broken, but making an even more obtuse centralized, government-controlled healthcare system doesn’t seem to be a very good solution, especially with the price tag that’s attached.

One of the biggest fears outside of the tremendous cost is that those with single-payer healthcare or different variations on the theme seem to have deteriorating healthcare systems overall. Yes, people are “covered” for their healthcare needs, but are those needs being met properly? Invariably, the answer is “no.”

In this video, John Stossel probes the question and tackles some of the common talking points associated with Medicare-for-All. Does it work? Can it give everyone healthcare without making that healthcare worse?

In a prime example of “be careful what you wish for,” so many proponents of Medicare-for-All have been saying we need single-payer healthcare to fix our problems. But what problems will arise if they get their wish? We should all fear those prospects.

 

 
 
 
  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

The Legal Gymnastics Behind Obamacare


By Gary Galles
Mises.org

 

On December 14, U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor ruled Obamacare unconstitutional because its individual mandate requiring people to have health insurance “can no longer be sustained as an exercise of Congress’s tax power,” since the tax that enforced it is now gone. Progressive leaning critics quickly called it bad jurisprudence and assured people that Obamacare remained constitutional.

However, Judge O’Connor’s ruling just saw through the hocus pocus by which Obamacare was first found constitutional. Remember how the penalties for not having insurance under the ACA plan arose? It was repeatedly and emphatically asserted to not be a tax, but a regulation (so that its costs would not be counted in ACA’s fiscal scoring). But Chief Justice Roberts’ 5-4 majority decision found the ACA constitutional only because it really was a tax, which Congress has the power to impose, when a regulation mandating that Americans purchase health insurance would have been unconstitutional.

Beyond that convenient but mutually inconsistent weasel-wording, two months ago, Democrats showed no concern about violating the Constitution when it suited their policy agenda. President Trump issued an executive order stopping ACA subsidy payments to 6 million people. 18 states quickly sued to reverse the order as illegal. But the attackers’ case hinged on ignoring the Constitution.

Continue Reading

7 Reasons It Is Deeply Misleading To Claim Americans Support Roe v. Wade


 
Can answers to a poll question like ‘Do you support Roe v. Wade?’ demonstrate that the public supports the abortion policy Roe requires? Not at all.
 
By Charles C. Camosy

We’ve heard it a million times since Justice Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement. We’ll hear it a hundred million more between now and the end of confirmation hearings for whomever is designated to fill the vacant spot on the Supreme Court: “Americans support Roe v. Wade.”

The poll numbers seem to bear this out, at least if one refuses to do any critical analysis of what the poll question and its answer actually reveals. The reason such a poll question is being cited, of course, is to put the new SCOTUS nominee—someone many believe may put Roe in serious danger of being overturned—in the context of a hostile public who wouldn’t approve of such a development.

But can answers to a poll question like “Do you support Roe v. Wade?” demonstrate that the public supports the abortion policy Roe requires? Not at all. Here are seven reasons it is deeply misleading to claim Americans support Roe v. Wade.

1. Many Americans Know Little About Roe

A high percentage of Americans don’t know much about what Roe says or does. In a Pew Forum study done on the fortieth anniversary of Roe, we learned that 38 percent of Americans think Roe is a decision about something other than abortion. For those younger than 30 years old, this number rises to a shocking 56 percent.

Furthermore, of those who know that Roe was about abortion, many don’t know even the most basic details of the case. Many wrongly believe, for instance, that overturning Roe would make abortion flatly illegal instead of merely returning the issue to a legislative process for states to decide.

2. Many Abortion Activists Don’t Like Roe

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, speaking at the University of Chicago, said Roe was a disappointment because it focused on privacy rather than on advancing women’s rights. Linda Greenhouse, an abortion-rights activist journalist who covered the Supreme Court for The New York Times, claims of Roe that “the seven middle-aged to elderly men in the majority certainly didn’t think they were making a statement about women’s rights.” Rather, she said, authentically female concerns were “nearly absent from the opinion.”

Justice Harry Blackmun, writing for the majority in the Roe decision, was a former lawyer for the Mayo Clinic. Greenhouse says he wrote his decision with a focus on the concerns of male physicians.

Peter Singer, perhaps the world’s most influential living philosopher, is well-known for being a pro-choice activist—not only for abortion, but also infanticide. But Singer has argued that abortion advancement would be better served in the United States if Roe were overturned and a legislative process unfolded along the lines of what has happened in most other developed countries.

3. Roe Is No Longer Roe. It Is Planned Parenthood v. Casey

From a certain point of view, Roe has already been overturned. Even pro-choice legal scholars find it difficult to defend Roe as legal reasoning. Led by Kennedy and Sandra Day O’Connor (both Republican appointees), a pro-choice SCOTUS majority tried to save itself from Roe in 1992 by offering a substantially different defense of abortion rights.

Caitlin W. Bormann argued in the William and Mary Journal of Women and the Law that Casey “established a new, less protective, constitutional standard for abortion restrictions.” It focused, not on defending privacy as Roe did, but on insisting abortion restrictions didn’t impose an “undue burden” on women.

This standard, Bormann says, “immediately enabled states to invade women’s privacy in new ways.” So a poll asking about Roe is actually asking the wrong question. A new SCOTUS justice might overturn the Kennedy-O’Connor compromise in Casey, but he or she wouldn’t be overturning Roe.

4. Americans Support Abortion Restrictions Roe Banned

Most Americans support gestational abortion restrictions that Roe and Casey have made unconstitutional. In striking down an Indiana abortion law, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals articulated the legal standard after Roe/Casey. Indiana’s law, they said, violated “well-established Supreme Court precedent holding that a woman may terminate her pregnancy prior to viability [24 weeks], and that the State may not prohibit a woman from exercising that right for any reason.”

But most Americans want abortion restricted well before viability. More than six in ten Americans, for instance, want abortion banned after 20 weeks. Last month Gallup asked Americans about their abortion views based on trimester, and found that only 28 percent wanted abortion to be legal during the second three months of pregnancy. Interestingly, this mirrors the policies of most European countries, which ban abortion after the early part of the second trimester.

The views of the American people on when in pregnancy abortion should be illegal are dramatically out of step with what Roe and Casey require.

5. Coat-Hanger Abortion Stories Are Mostly Fables

Horrific stories about blood in the streets from coat-hanger abortions are not borne out by the evidence. Sure as death and taxes, as soon as public discussion moves toward overturning Roe, a story about women dying from illegal abortions is not far behind. Many who claim to support Roe have this as a central and genuine concern, but, happily, the actual facts should make them feel more comfortable.

By the late 1950s, social scientists and public health officials had determined that illegal abortions in the United States were not more dangerous than legal abortions. Improvements in medical technology, plus the fact that most illegal abortions were done by licensed physicians in a clinic (not in a back alley), were found to be the main reasons.

Comparisons of a possible post-Roe/Casey United States to the results of banning abortion in a developing country with poor medical technology are either ignorant or disingenuous. Indeed, developed countries like Ireland and Chile, which have banned almost all abortions, have better health outcomes for women than do similar but abortion-permissive countries. Chile actually saw health outcomes for women improve when they dramatically restricted abortion.

When women in the United States are denied abortions because of gestational age limits, the overwhelming majority don’t get illegal abortions or go elsewhere for abortions. Indeed, a recent study found that about 80 percent of them bring their pregnancies to term and only 5 percent end up regretting not having the abortion.

In his book “Aborting America,” former NARAL founder Bernard Nathanson admitted that the early abortion rights movement simply fabricated the numbers of women dying from illegal abortion to further their political goals. Little has changed with the contemporary abortion rights movement.

6. Many Pro-Lifers Support Exceptions for Hard Cases

Pro-lifers want abortion to be legal to save the mother’s life and in cases when the pregnancy is the result of sexual violence. We often hear of women being left to die from problematic pregnancies and victims of sexual violence being forced to carry their rapist’s child. Would this be the result of abortion policy going back to the states? It’s highly unlikely.

Even if pro-lifers would be crafting public policy all by themselves (also highly unlikely), Gallup found than seven in ten want abortion legal to save the mother’s life and six in ten want abortion to be legal when the pregnancy is a result of rape. Even in states where abortion is likely to be “illegal” after an overturn of Roe/Casey, they will almost certainly have these important exceptions.

People who know these exceptions are likely to be in place are far more likely to be more comfortable with much higher abortion restrictions. Interestingly, the same Gallup poll found that 52 percent of people who identify as pro-abortion want abortion to be illegal by the second trimester.

7. Americans Don’t Like Abortion of Disabled Children

Americans are deeply uncomfortable with the kinds of abortions, currently protected by Roe and Casey, that target the disabled. About seven in ten prenatal children thought to have Down syndrome are killed via abortion, even though people with Down’s are happier than folks without it.

Given these facts, it is no surprise that Americans hate abortion that targets people with Down syndrome. Indeed, while 84 percent of pro-lifers think aborting a child with Down’s is morally wrong, nearly half of people who identity as pro-choice feel the same way. Why wouldn’t they? In any other context, violently singling out disabled people would be a federal hate crime.

Yet an Indiana law specifically designed to protect this vulnerable population from discrimination was struck down, as we saw above, precisely because Roe/Casey requires abortion to be unrestricted before viability. Once again, this puts Roe/Casey far afield from the views of the American people.

If we want an honest accounting of what the American people think about U.S. abortion policy in the debate over the new SCOTUS nominee, the coming weeks and months should see media and others in public discourse doing much better than lazily citing a poll showing support for Roe v. Wade. They must instead dive into the facts about what Americans believe about abortion, and how they compare with what Roe/Casey has done to U.S. abortion policy.

An honest accounting will find that the Supreme Court has given the United states one of the most extreme abortion policies in the world, and that the American people are ready to have policies that actually reflect what they believe about abortion.

  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

Mind Control and the “Flu Virus”


By Jon Rappoport

Yesterday, I exposed the fact that most “flu” is not the flu.

For example, here is a quite suggestive quote from Peter Doshi’s report, “Are US flu death figures more PR than science?” (BMJ 2005; 331:1412):

“[According to CDC statistics], ‘influenza and pneumonia’ took 62,034 lives in 2001—61,777 of which were attributable to pneumonia and 257 to flu, and in only 18 cases was the flu virus positively identified.”

OOPS.

Today, I want to look at the mind control aspect of this insanity.

If someone says, “You have the flu,” he means you have one thing and other people who have the flu have the same thing.

It is caused by a virus, and everyone who has the flu has that virus.

If you say, “No, the so-called flu could be caused by many different things,” people might appear to agree with you, but they’re still thinking, “The flu is one thing.”

They won’t let go. That’s called mind control.

Person A has a cough, fatigue, headache, and fever. Why? A combination of stress, exposure to cold weather, and contaminated indoor air.

Person B also has cough, fatigue, headache and fever. Why? A combination of junk food, nutritional deficits, and a toxic pain reliever.

Do persons A and B have the same thing?

No, they don’t. If they did, the causes would be the same. And they aren’t.

Now take 10,000 people who have the above list of symptoms. But none of them has the flu virus. Do any of them have the flu? No. Do they all have the same thing? No, because the combination of causes and the precise nature of each cause are not the same from person to person.

If 10,000 people have the flu virus, do they all have the flu? No. People with strong immune systems don’t get sick. People with weak immune systems do get sick. The determining factor is the condition of the immune system, not the presence of the virus. Therefore, the tight equation, “flu virus equals flu,” is false.

Understanding all these factors rearranges the thought process vis-à-vis “the flu.”

“Flu outbreak across America” is a generality. It doesn’t hold together. Once you take it apart, you see something different.

You’re no longer in a state of hypnosis about “the virus.”

“Yes, but all these people getting sick…showing up at hospitals…they must all have the same thing…”

No. They might have similar symptoms, but that doesn’t mean “they have the same thing.”

If you want one factor, which combined with other immune-suppressing factors, might be at work, why not start with the freezing weather across America? That could be a clue. But it’s far from the whole story.

Person C has cough, fatigue, headache, and fever. In his case, it’s caused by a combination of freezing weather, five toxic medicines on his night table at the nursing home, and a forced change of diet that increases the load of empty calories.

Person D has cough, fatigue, headache, and fever. In her case, it’s caused by grief over the loss of a loved one, a bad reaction to the flu vaccine, and a power outage that cut off heat in her home for two days.

And so forth, on and on.

Casually blaming “the virus” is a response dictated by the stimulus of news and government propaganda about “the flu.”

And the propaganda ignores the most important factor: the condition of a person’s own immune system. THAT is a non-medical situation; and increasing the power of one’s own immune response requires something the medical system refuses to recognize—all the actions a person could take under the general banner of “natural health.”

From which the medical system makes zero money.

This is called a clue.

“Let’s see. We can tell people that when they get sick with ‘flu symptoms,’ they have the flu, and it’s all about the virus. Then we can sell flu vaccines and drugs like crazy. OR we can tell them these so-called flu symptoms come from different combinations of causes, which in many cases are environmental and should be identified—and most importantly, we can tell them they need to strengthen their immune systems through ‘natural’ methods—and then we make no money and go out of business and end up pumping gas in Death Valley. Hmm. Which choice do we make? Let’s take a vote…”

 

Related Story:

Massive flu outbreak? Here’s the real story the media won’t touch. The lies, the hoax, the scandal.

  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)