Dr. Huber has concerns about liver toxicity and quality of Fenbendazole
I think it’s pretty clear that Fenbendazole has anti-cancer effect. That doesn’t mean it is the best substance to take however. Since I’ve written a few articles that included Fenbendazole, I’ll note her concerns.
Because this is being sold by third party vendors on the internet, who are fenbendazole’s biggest cheerleaders, it is your guess as to what exactly is in the capsules you receive, and at what concentration, after exactly what kind of quality control.
I agree that quality is critical and you need to know exactly what you are taking. Part of the solution to all disease, as I have stated, is to simply know the chemical composition and concentrations of every herb that has medicinal effects, then regress disease symtoms against those chemical compounds to understand what the curing mechanism is. I must point out to Dr. Huber that the same concerns exist regarding the quality of Ivermectin. Ivermectin is widely produced all over the place. Some of it is much better quality that others. Some of it even has heavy metals in it. You have to get purchase medicine from labs that publish their chemcial compositions. Test results have to be confirmed from reputable and independent labs. I don’t know what else to say. Buyer beware. Test.
As for this statement:
Fenbendazole, known on the street as “dog de-wormer for cancer” has been very effectively advertised for anti-cancer effect. Social media has let this urban legend loose to the point where it gained high hopes and very high profile attention.
I can’t concur. The story of Tippins is too compelling to me. You can say it hasn’t been tested adequately. You can say there are quality concerns with manufacturing. You can say their are concerns about liver damage. But you can’t call it an “urban legend.” I think Joe Tippens was telling the truth. You might not understand the effective mechanism of Fenbendazole, Dr. Huber, but that is no reason to say it doesn’t work. Listen to him yourself. Actually I don’t think Tippen knows how it works either, because he hasn’t mentioned the role of killing bacteria. It seems to me like all of the pathways that people mention work AFTER YOU KILL THE BACTERIA, a’ight?
You know, one thing that I don’t like about both Dr. Huber and 2nd Smartest Guy, neither one of them actually link to Joe Tippens that I’ve seen. It’s scientific this, scientific that. I think it’s maybe because I was schooled in Economics that I actually listen to individuals reporting new things. Economists look for things that don’t fit the old models. When they find them, if they can explain them, that’s how they win their Nobel Prizes. If observations in life don’t fit their old models, they don’t say the models are right and their human observations are wrong. Economists say they have to improve their model.
If a doctor’s home was burning down, and they were holding a peer-reviewed scientific paper that says it wasn’t, I think many of would just sit there and burn up.
So listen to Joe Tippens for a few minutes before you listen to the scientists.
As for liver damage, Noted.
The other problem we have seen is that fenbendazole has not had good effect on the liver. There are reports in the medical literature of people damaging their livers with this drug, driving the liver enzymes ALT and AST into the several hundred range, but then reversing the alarming liver blood labs on discontinuation of the drug. [3] Alanine transaminase (ALT) and Aspartate aminotransferase (AST) are each supposed to be less than 40, and around the teens or 20 or so would be nice. This new liver toxicity may have potential to even begin new cancer in the liver. [4] The liver toxicity of another hepatotoxicant, acetaminophen, is increased when fenbendazole is added. [5] Besides liver damage, this study of fenbendazole use with pigeons showed multiple organ damage. [6]
By the way, Dr. Richard Urso has used Fenbendazole. Then he swapped to Ivermectin, then to Hydroxychloroquine and fenofibrate. Confused? Yeah, so are they. Doctors, the ones who actually make an effort, don’t know how to approach the problem of Medicine other than trial and error, I guess. Which in a way is what I propose, but a far more sophisticated and effective trial and effort statistically. Data mining with regressions. Serendipity on tap is what I call it.
Below is the Serendipity Woodpecker. The cameraman had his camera set up to shoot the bird in the foreground, then the Woodpecker flew through the shot at the exact split second he took the picture. “Chance favors the prepared mind.” You find new things using correct method and recording of observations.
Dr. Huber says there are other better candidates than Fenbendazole.
There are many effective substances against cancer, various routes to defeat it. Here are over 700 peer-reviewed studies on natural substances with effect against each of the major cancers.
Why not consider those treatments primarily that do not have a toxic profile, before considering ones that have little confirmed effect and are known to have a concerning toxic profile?
Again, while I still object to her use of peer-reviewed science (a criminal industry that intentionally creates cancer) as a standard over human observation, I think there may be all kinds of natural compounds that work better than Fenbendazole. I completely agree with that.
What do we need? Data. Like I keep saying, volunteers can take whatever the hell they want, then record their results. Record the adverse effects as well. Then move to the substances that work best. And keep moving til it’s done. Team Ivermectin versus Team Fenbendazole versus Team Whatever. Go. Maybe the best thing is Centipede goo? No one dies from cancer in Manipur, apparently.
One of the most interesting cures is where you take a huge centipede, and drop it into a bucket of rice wine. You leave it there till it almost drowns, and in the process of drowning it ejects some liquid into the wine. You can take out the centipede before it actually expires. You then get the person with cancer to drink a cup of the mixture for a week. At the end of the week the person's cancer is gone. Unless the cancer is extremely late stage where it has destroyed internal organs to the point death is inevitable, it's a sure-fire, guaranteed cure.
Well alrighty then. Turns out that centipedes get all their poisons from bacteria and fungi. Not surprised. Ivermectin is a poisonous excretion from a bacteria that kills other bacteria. And again, the method of action I propose to kill cancer is to kill the bacteria laced in with the cancerous cells, then the body’s anti-cancer mechanisms can work. And yeah, there’s some centipede anti-cancer papers on NIH.
I don’t know what’s best. You don’t know. I suspect that various substances will sork best on various types of cancer, especially when you consider the role of hormones and genders. One thing for sure, the Medical establishment does not test things that work. They test poisons that cause disease, then they lie and say that they work. They are presently pushing mRNA cancer “vaccines” after causing massive amounts of cancer with their last round of poison. If you want to cure diseases like cancer, start doing so and record your results. They can’t stop that. Data data data. With some money I could get it done pretty quickly I think. Hell even if I couldn’t, we’d have the data. I would like to see Ivermectin + Lactoferrin and Artemisia + Lactoferrin in test groups myself. But whatever. Debate away. This, that, the other thing. Anything but data and correct statistical method TO ACTUALLY KNOW THE FUCKING ANSWER. Talk is so cheap that it’s worthless when it comes to this type of thing, and the people we have trusted to do this type of research are criminals. Understand one thing: if we do not cure cancer, it will not get done. It can be done easily, cheaply, and quickly. If the stuff you think works, IT WORKS. If it doesn’t, it doesn’t. Get on with it.
Charles Wright
On bacteria and cancer, I am reading up on one of the Rockefeller's first cancer man, Peyton Rous, who won the Nobel Prize for Medicine in 1966. His Prize was for "his discovery of tumour-inducing viruses.” I'm not so sure about the role of viruses in inducing viruses. I think they are associated with viruses, but correlation is not causation. It's unclear to me.
In any case, Peyton Rous did mention bacteria during his Nobel Lecture, December 13, 1966, which he titled: "The Challenge to Man of the Neoplastic Cell." Here's the part about bacteria:
"An exceedingly important trait of most neoplastic cells is their unnatural excitability which sometimes renders them extremely active on what seems slight encouragement. Infection with inflammatory bacteria often has this effect."
Link to the Lecture from Nobel: https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/medicine/1966/rous/lecture/
I read recently that the elevated liver markers were due theoretically to the flushing of toxic cancer debris and associated bodily responses, which returned to normal levels after treatment: More study needed.