0:00

Politics without the soap

0:02

opera with unfiltered constitutional

0:04

conservative truth

0:06

the conservative review And

0:09

welcome back fellow American patriots

0:11

and Minutemen standing at the ready to fight

0:13

anew for our life our liberty and

0:16

our Property here at this end

0:18

of week Friday July 14th, and boy

0:21

is it busy I like have one eye on

0:23

the screen with the family leader Summit

0:26

in Iowa with Tucker Interviewing the

0:28

candidates then I got the other eye on C-SPAN

0:30

with the house debating all the amendments on

0:33

the NDAA We

0:35

had so much going on live fire

0:38

But then I had a special show today prepared

0:41

which is not an easy topic a very

0:43

heavy topic Something that affects millions

0:46

upon millions of lives cancer treatment

0:49

little little different change of pace

0:51

today

0:52

Are we being lied to

0:53

about the cause and the treatment and approach

0:56

to cancer and

0:58

How just like with kovat

1:01

you could have at least partial solutions

1:03

right in front of your eyes that are cheaper less

1:06

painful More available

1:09

and they are stifled by the

1:11

medical system propped up by government So

1:14

we're gonna have dr. Paul Merrick on to

1:16

do a special show and you know We're

1:18

gonna do this a little bit more on Friday is kind of zooming

1:20

out into what we can do to take our own health Into

1:23

our own hands different things like that But

1:26

it happens to be there's so much political stuff going

1:28

on But the truth is a lot of it is very unsettled

1:30

the NDAA votes are still going

1:32

on the candidate interviews are going on So

1:35

we'll comment on that on Monday,

1:38

but I do want to give a little

1:39

bit of an overview of this

1:42

Before we we you know

1:44

get started with our main course a with

1:46

dr. Merrick first We're sponsored by

1:49

our friends at Bambi You

1:51

did not start a business in order

1:53

to basically be a steward for

1:55

government social engineering

1:57

with HR practices anti-discrimination

1:59

law lawsuits and all that stuff.

2:02

An HR manager typically costs $80,000, which

2:05

is obviously something a small business really

2:08

does not have. Bambi, what

2:10

they do is they will dedicate

2:13

an official person attached to

2:15

your

2:16

company for 99 bucks

2:19

a month. So you'll get your own dedicated HR

2:22

manager available by phone, email,

2:24

chat, you name it. And

2:26

with Bambi's HR autopilot, you'll

2:29

automate important HR practices like

2:31

setting policies, training, feedback.

2:34

And look, again, it's US-based,

2:36

so obviously you'll be able to understand the guy. And

2:40

it's risk-free. You could schedule your

2:42

free conversation today to see how much Bambi

2:45

can take off your plate. Go to bambi.com

2:48

right now and type in conservative

2:51

review under the podcast. They ask you how you

2:53

heard about it. Again, you did

2:55

not go into business in order

2:58

to be an HR schlepper for government.

3:00

Go to bam to the B, B-A-M-B-E-E

3:03

dot com, type in conservative review.

3:06

So just a quick rundown of

3:08

the NDAA. So

3:11

first, the good and the bad. So the

3:13

good news is we're getting votes

3:15

on pretty much that full list of

3:18

amendments. And kudos to Scott Perry, the

3:21

chairman of the Freedom Caucus, for asserting

3:23

his will

3:24

and holding up must-pass bills, and I think this

3:26

is progress. Now, what about the

3:28

outcome of them? Well, it

3:30

looks like

3:32

when it comes to the wokeness, the defunding

3:34

the transgenderism,

3:36

the

3:37

DEI stuff, the racism,

3:40

it is passing. And

3:42

I just saw even Chip's climate change

3:44

stuff that the DOD

3:46

cannot implement Biden's climate change

3:48

stuff passed by one vote. Some of them

3:50

are very close, but pretty much party

3:52

line.

3:55

You know,

3:56

Chip Roy's amendment on the chief diversity

3:59

officers. getting canceled. You

4:01

know that that passed chips amendment

4:04

on critical race theory passed. And

4:07

again, all this stuff funding this other obviously

4:10

defunding abortions passed to Ronnie Jackson

4:12

of Texas.

4:14

And that's all good. The

4:16

COVID amendments have not come up yet.

4:19

It's

4:19

gonna come up any minute. So I don't have information

4:22

on that.

4:23

But then you see this dichotomy

4:25

when it comes to Ukraine. When

4:28

it comes to Ukraine, it's astounding.

4:30

So the Matt Gaetz amendment to categorically

4:33

cut off funding for Ukraine,

4:35

only 70 Republicans voted

4:37

for it less than a third

4:40

of all Republicans. So Tucker, don't

4:42

tell me that Trump has changed

4:44

the party. No, it hasn't. Because

4:47

the Senate, it's almost all Republican

4:49

senators are part of the grift. And

4:51

among the house, it's more than two thirds,

4:54

even the more, you

4:56

know, modest ones.

4:58

Like, for example,

5:02

cutting off cluster bombs, there's only 98 Republicans,

5:06

another one to strike just 300 million from Marjorie

5:08

Taylor Greene, 89 Republicans again, you

5:10

know, like a little bit more than a third. And

5:13

then even something is,

5:15

is just common sense is,

5:17

and

5:18

I felt was a good middle ground if you

5:20

want to compromise, not that we should compromise

5:23

on something like this after 500 days

5:25

of fraud in Ukraine. But Warren

5:28

Davidson had an amendment that

5:30

would simply require Biden in

5:33

order to continue aid.

5:35

You have to in

5:37

other words, it doesn't cut off aid. There's

5:40

no hard trigger. It just says you in

5:43

order to get it, you have to submit a report.

5:45

What's the report? Basically laying

5:47

out what what's your strategy? What

5:50

you know, the long term and short term projected

5:52

costs of the war. And

5:55

even that only

5:57

got zero Democrats and 100%

5:59

129 Republicans so got more than half

6:02

but still 90 Republicans

6:04

who did know and This

6:07

came hours after Biden

6:09

announced

6:09

he is calling up 3,000 reserves in court Including

6:14

a well not reserves 3,000 total He

6:16

doesn't say where he gets most of them from 450 are

6:18

from the IRR which means semi retired

6:21

troops getting pulled back in So

6:23

first of all you see we don't even have enough troops Even if

6:25

you believe in this mission that he has to pull

6:27

people out of semi retirement, which is really

6:29

raunchy

6:31

but moreover

6:34

This is getting serious they

6:36

give cluster bombs endless aid

6:39

then I Don't

6:42

know if you guys saw at the Vilna NATO

6:44

conference

6:46

Biden announces the Israeli

6:48

model of sort of military

6:51

aid relationships with Ukraine

6:55

now

6:55

what whatever you whether you agree or disagree

6:58

with with the Israeli aid or whatever is

7:01

besides the point But

7:03

everyone knows what that means that

7:06

is a decades long relationship

7:09

Now with Israel to

7:11

compare Ukraine to Israel is absurd Ukraine

7:14

is a third world unstable corrupt,

7:17

you know, there's just no stability there even if you support

7:20

it and

7:21

number two is you're

7:23

not engaging in a long-term

7:25

relationship with a country pitted

7:28

against a

7:29

Nuclear power right

7:31

Hamas Hezbollah They

7:34

don't have nuclear weapons

7:36

Russia does

7:39

So what in the world so

7:41

he's announcing a long-term thing you

7:43

have this Ukrainian counter offensive with with

7:45

all of our money We shelled out more to them than we

7:47

did Afghanistan and yet

7:49

nothing Nothing

7:54

They have nothing to show for it meaning even if you

7:56

believe in them winning

7:58

which whatever that means them winning Crimea

8:00

and dumb but donuts I mean

8:02

your Russian Controlled areas

8:04

Russian ethnic areas. It's never

8:07

gonna be sustainable

8:08

But even if you believe in it despite everything we've

8:11

given them they haven't taken back more

8:13

ground So what is your plan

8:16

and again? I just caught the beginning of Tucker's

8:18

first interview with the first

8:20

candidate Tim Scott and he's like yeah

8:22

I don't support boots on the ground, but then

8:24

he supports continuing this entire heist,

8:26

but If you

8:28

are up against Russia, and you

8:31

do everything you blow up

8:33

their pipeline you dump in

8:35

you have an embargo you you Dump

8:38

in more money than we've ever dumped before

8:40

in a in a proxy war in such a short period

8:43

of time

8:44

There's no way that doesn't lead to boots on the ground

8:46

and we all know there's special forces on the

8:48

ground and that Absolutely is boots on the ground

8:51

and then and then Biden announces this

8:54

So again the Republican

8:56

Party

8:56

has not fundamentally changed

8:58

on this And

9:01

it just shows two things

9:03

Rhetorically Republicans will agree with us on

9:06

most things like the DEI and the critical race theory

9:09

The question is will they stand behind the

9:11

NDAA on? these

9:13

issues

9:15

Meaning not agree because the

9:18

Democrats and the Senate are gonna balk and the White House

9:20

is gonna balk at it And they need to do

9:22

this with the budget bills appropriation bills, too. We

9:24

will stand behind them, and that's it We'll

9:26

talk about that more next week But

9:28

when it comes to Ukraine and vaccine

9:31

safety those are things they won't

9:33

even broach and

9:35

That's really the deciding issue one

9:37

other thing. I just want to touch on there's

9:39

more evidence at the border

9:42

that

9:44

DHS the CBP the

9:46

border patrol they're actively trying

9:49

to disarm

9:51

negate Texas's

9:53

border security their their wires

9:55

they put up these barriers in the Rio Grande River. They're

9:58

actively aiding in abetting Now,

10:01

I know we talk about in the abstract that we need

10:03

to retaliate against the left and start

10:06

having red jurisdictions

10:08

indict Democrats for different

10:10

crimes. This is actually a very

10:12

specific thing. Texas law

10:14

enforcement, this is something we need to work on. They

10:17

need to indict Mallorca and the

10:19

CBP commissioner on

10:21

human trafficking. They are directly,

10:24

or you could have other Texas

10:26

state-based laws on

10:29

destruction of property and

10:31

their defenses. This

10:33

is something we really need to do. But

10:36

it lends credence to what I've been saying since

10:38

really the Trump wave of illegal immigration

10:40

in 2018. We would be better off

10:42

without a border patrol. They are now, the way

10:44

it is constructed, they are

10:46

now working

10:49

with the illegals and the cartels to

10:51

negate

10:52

state-based enforcement. And

10:55

that is certainly something that needs to be dealt with in

10:57

the DHS appropriation bill and again, they

10:59

need to stand behind it. But I do want to get to our

11:01

main issue today, the ultimate

11:04

life. We're being bombarded

11:07

with so many diseases,

11:08

blocked

11:09

and lied to and gaslit about treatments.

11:13

We're exposed to so many toxins, our food, our

11:15

air. What is going on with cancer?

11:18

Very appropriately, our interview today is sponsored

11:21

by Jace Medical, talking

11:24

about taking your own health in your own hands.

11:27

Jace Medical offers

11:30

Jace Daily. So when you

11:32

have a scenario where you have shortages

11:35

and supplies or

11:37

purposely cut off your medications,

11:39

a lot of people rely on blood pressure

11:42

meds, mental health, diabetes,

11:44

you name it. People back up as many

11:47

perpetual prescriptions that you have with

11:50

a 12-month backup supply. So you

11:52

go to JaceMedical.com, by the way, that's with an

11:54

S, not a C, J-A-S-E, Medical.com.

11:57

Enter code review at checkout for a discount. They

12:00

give about 10 minutes of information because they have to make

12:02

sure you're not contraindicated. This is a legal

12:04

prescription. So it's not just a pharmacy,

12:07

they have doctors attached to it, and

12:09

it will give you the peace of mind of

12:11

having, you know, you don't have to deal with insurance. It

12:14

will cost you, obviously, but one

12:16

listener said she got five annual scripts for a

12:18

total of 256 bucks. It's annual.

12:21

No dealing with a stupid doctor that

12:24

second guesses you. No dealing with the,

12:26

you know,

12:29

ridiculous pharmacist that second guess

12:31

a lot of the prescriptions and then the insurance

12:33

companies. So this is really the way to

12:35

do it. JaceMedical.com, enter code

12:38

REVIEW. So folks, as I mentioned before,

12:40

I wanted to do something special to end the week

12:42

off, and we're gonna do this more often, not every

12:44

Friday, but a lot of Fridays. And

12:47

honestly, if not for a lot of the news of the day, I would

12:49

have done the show exclusively on this

12:51

so we would basically

12:54

extirpate all politics

12:56

from today's show, because I really want

12:58

you to be able to pass this on to your friends and

13:00

relatives of all political persuasions,

13:02

because this is something that really

13:05

is the ultimate equal opportunity adversary,

13:09

and that's cancer. And

13:11

I'm not even talking about so

13:13

much the turbocharged cancers and the concern

13:15

about several mechanisms of action

13:18

of the COVID shots, either causing

13:20

more pervasive cancers, more advanced cancers,

13:23

more unusual cancers. Putting that

13:25

aside,

13:26

we've all seen that

13:29

the last number of years, really

13:31

certainly this last generation, progressively

13:33

cancers are getting more pervasive, they're getting

13:36

younger, everyone's getting cancer. I got

13:38

it all over my extended family. It's out

13:40

of control. But

13:43

then there's the other half of this, that I

13:45

would have never thought

13:47

before the last couple years that

13:50

you could possibly have the most vexing challenge

13:53

of humanity,

13:54

and you could have answers

13:56

to it right under a rock,

13:58

and you wouldn't look. under that rock. And

14:00

in fact, there would be a concerted effort

14:03

to

14:04

block you from doing that. I would never believe

14:06

that.

14:07

But then we live through COVID. And

14:10

even as laymen, you and I together,

14:13

we embarked on this journey. I never imagined spending

14:15

two years

14:16

of a political show on this. But

14:18

we saw how something affected an entire

14:21

planet,

14:22

a gain of function, really bioweapon

14:24

disease that was designed to screw

14:26

people up, a blood

14:29

disorder that kind of was disguised as

14:31

a pulmonary disorder.

14:33

And people were dying left

14:36

and right.

14:37

And the government working with the medical

14:39

establishment establishment would literally tell

14:42

you,

14:43

do not try the things that seem

14:45

to be working, but absolutely

14:48

try the things that we know don't work and cause

14:50

pain. So kind of the whole remdesivir

14:53

versus ivermectin and all these broad

14:56

spectrum anti inflammatory is that it's

14:58

like, well, wait a minute,

14:59

you're pulling your hair out, looking

15:02

for a solution, you

15:03

don't have no answers.

15:05

And at worst, this stuff is nothing.

15:08

It doesn't harm you, it doesn't cause pain, doesn't

15:11

have side effects. At best, it works. And

15:13

you're willing to try painful things that

15:16

already have been proven

15:17

to not work and cause problems.

15:19

I'm

15:20

like, I would have never believed that but but we

15:22

lived it.

15:23

And then I said to myself, wait a minute, this

15:26

can't be the first time we've

15:28

been lied to,

15:29

that for money, power and greed,

15:32

they would literally block

15:34

safer broad spectrum

15:37

wonder drugs,

15:38

and just, you know, broadly speaking, other approaches

15:42

in favor of things that just don't make sense

15:44

in terms of a cost benefit analysis.

15:47

And that's what I promised and I promise you guys,

15:49

we get into cancer more because

15:52

it is such a big problem. And,

15:55

you know, what we're basically seeing is cancers

15:57

are getting more and more pervasive younger and younger.

16:01

And yes, surgeries have definitely, surgical

16:03

technology has definitely gotten better.

16:05

But when it comes to treatment, it's kind

16:08

of the same old chemo radiation. It's

16:11

barbaric, questionable

16:13

and elusive efficacy,

16:15

depending on the cancer.

16:18

And then the more I research, I

16:20

find all these off-label

16:23

drugs where there's a lot of research on it. And

16:25

I'm like, I don't know where it's holding, but

16:27

I know it won't harm you.

16:30

So why will you crush someone's

16:32

body at the drop of a hat?

16:34

Because maybe 1% chance it will work,

16:37

but you will never try things that

16:39

for sure won't destroy your

16:41

quality of living,

16:43

and it might even work.

16:45

So Dr. Paul Merrick is perhaps

16:48

the best suited

16:50

to really embark on this endeavor

16:52

because he lived exactly what I'm talking about. He's the

16:54

co-founder, chief scientific officer of Frontline

16:57

COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance,

16:59

the FLCCC we've talked about so much

17:02

the last few years. He's one of the most published

17:04

and cited ICU doctors

17:06

in the world, board certified

17:08

in internal medicine, critical

17:11

care medicine, neurocritical care

17:13

and nutrition science. And

17:15

he lived this. He was punished by his former

17:17

employer for essentially

17:20

keeping too many people alive and

17:22

not using the death protocols.

17:24

So it's not surprising that a man like

17:27

this, also with a background in nutrition, is

17:30

now venturing into, he's retired from that

17:32

and is doing research

17:34

with

17:36

cancer. And I figured I gotta get him on.

17:39

So with no further ado, it's

17:41

been way too long, but Dr. Merrick, thanks

17:43

so much for joining us today and

17:46

coming back on Blaze Media to enlighten us on this

17:48

important topic.

17:49

Well, thanks Daniel for

17:52

inviting me. And everything you've obviously said

17:54

is 100% true. They

17:57

lied to us about COVID. And

17:59

so, know Covid shone a bright light

18:01

on to the corruption,

18:04

deception and fraud in medicine and

18:06

cancer really is no different.

18:09

You know that the standard narrative

18:12

is largely ineffective

18:15

and there are many, many, many

18:18

repurposed drugs and what we call metabolic

18:20

therapies that are highly effective,

18:23

highly effective for a whole host of cancers

18:26

and these have been proven in peer-reviewed

18:30

publications that are out there to be seen

18:32

but as you said they've been hidden under a rock

18:35

and most oncologists deny

18:37

their presence. Indeed

18:40

this last weekend oncologist told a

18:42

patient that eat whatever

18:44

you want to eat, eat ice cream,

18:46

eat smoothies because nutrition

18:49

has nothing to do with cancer outcome

18:52

and that is so irresponsible

18:55

it's just truly astonishing because their

18:57

own published data, the

19:01

oncologist's own published data

19:03

show without any question

19:05

of doubt that nutritional interventions

19:08

have a profound effect on the

19:10

outcome of cancer and just

19:13

to round it off we know

19:17

probably one of the most important causes

19:19

of people developing cancer is

19:23

the metabolic syndrome insulin resistance,

19:25

hypoglycemia is

19:27

probably the leading cause of

19:30

cancer. It's the processed

19:32

foods we eat, it's the sugary

19:34

drinks, it's the pure fruit juice,

19:37

it's these processed foods

19:39

which are being directly linked

19:42

to cancer. Now of course there

19:44

are environmental factors you know pollution

19:47

and smog and which

19:49

play a role but you know the individual

19:51

person has less control over that

19:54

they have absolute control of

19:56

their diet and their lifestyle.

19:59

And importantly, what you say, and I just wanna

20:02

give a shout out, you can go online, there's 146

20:04

page document and just look

20:06

up FLCCC Cancer

20:09

Care. And I'm so glad that you guys

20:11

now that COVID is winding down moving

20:14

into this area.

20:17

And it's a long document, but it's actually very consumable

20:20

for laymen. Some of it you get into the mechanisms

20:22

of action, which are important, but it's very,

20:25

very comprehensive for those of you who

20:27

yourselves are battling cancer, your

20:29

loved ones are. There's just so

20:32

much information there that really is

20:34

not being put out. So at its

20:36

core, you call it a metabolic

20:38

disorder. Now, I've

20:41

heard that a lot in it. And

20:43

my question to you is,

20:46

is it not a coincidence that it seems

20:48

like there actually is a lot of overlap

20:51

with treating

20:53

viruses and treating cancers

20:56

and how that ties into your metabolic health

20:58

and immune system? Can

21:00

you just give us a brief overview of that nexus?

21:02

Yeah, so the current theory

21:05

of cancer is that cancers

21:07

arise because of a genetic mutation.

21:10

So this is a chromosomal

21:12

disease and indeed all the

21:14

therapy is based on this theory,

21:17

which is likely not correct.

21:20

So this theory is not correct and

21:22

the treatment is based on a theory, which

21:24

is not correct. So it makes sense that

21:26

the traditional treatment

21:28

is not going to work. In fact,

21:32

James Watson, who is

21:35

famous from Watson and Crick, he discovered

21:38

DNA, he's a discoverer. He

21:41

wrote in an op-ed that cancer is really not

21:43

related to

21:46

genetic mutations, but

21:48

is a metabolic disease. So

21:51

this was written by, if anybody

21:53

knows anything about genes and chromosomes

21:56

and mutations, it's James Watson. And

21:58

that's what he is written. So

22:01

it seems that, you know, that

22:04

now obviously genes are important,

22:06

there's a strong piece. Some people have

22:08

a strong genetic predisposition,

22:12

but it's not the primary cause. The genes

22:14

result in metabolic dysfunction

22:16

which changes mitochondrial

22:19

function which leads to the cancer.

22:22

And the fact that the metabolic

22:24

syndrome is so tightly

22:26

linked to the development of cancer just

22:30

is, you know, supports this concept.

22:32

And you are right, there are things called

22:34

oncogenic viruses. So there are

22:36

viruses such as EBV

22:39

and SARS-CoV-2 and

22:41

papilloma virus that increase

22:45

the risk of cancer, but all

22:47

of these oncogenic viruses

22:50

actually damage the mitochondrion. So

22:52

we actually think that it's mitochondrial

22:54

damage which leads to cancer and

22:56

leads to the genetic changes rather

22:59

than the other way around. And

23:02

if you understand this concept, it

23:05

revolutionizes the way you

23:07

think of cancer. And so this is not

23:10

a new phenomenon. Not a Warburg

23:12

who developed

23:14

what's called the Warburg theory. In 1924,

23:18

he noted that all cancer cells, and

23:21

when I say all, I mean all

23:23

cancer cells are highly dependent on glucose.

23:26

They cannot use oxygen efficiently

23:29

in the mitochondrion and undergo

23:31

anaerobic glycolysis because

23:34

they have a defect in their metabolism.

23:37

And this is a universal finding

23:39

in every single cancer cell.

23:42

So one of the obvious ways of treating

23:45

this is to start the cancer

23:47

of glucose because the cancer

23:49

cell is highly dependent

23:51

on glucose. And if

23:53

you have a high glucose diet and you

23:56

have which then stimulates insulin

23:58

and insulin causes

23:59

the cancer to grow even more rapidly.

24:02

And so this is

24:04

not controversial. This has been really

24:06

well established. For many, many years.

24:09

So isn't it clear that the

24:12

glucose is kind of the fuel for cancer?

24:14

So certainly if someone's diagnosed with it, you

24:16

know, we're not saying that's the only thing you need to do,

24:19

but it's a given. I mean, you

24:21

know, you just stay away from the sugar, but most

24:23

oncologists, again, they'll prescribe

24:26

things with very dubious efficacy

24:28

data, and they'll destroy your body, increase

24:31

the risk of heart ailments, bone issues,

24:34

all sorts of things down the road, but

24:36

they won't simply just say, hey, as a starter, lay

24:38

off the sugar.

24:40

Yeah. So, so, you know, what we recommend

24:43

is a ketogenic diet, you know,

24:45

so which big, you know, I think the health

24:47

benefits of the ketogenic diet or a

24:50

low carb diet, you know, humans

24:52

can survive with no carbohydrates. I

24:54

don't eat carbohydrates and humans can survive

24:57

perfectly well without carbohydrates. However,

25:00

you need fats and you need

25:02

protein. So we do recommend,

25:04

particularly for those people who have cancer,

25:07

you know, this is a serious disorder and there's,

25:10

there's overwhelming data. I mean,

25:12

this is not, you know, this is not

25:14

hidden under a rock. There's overwhelming data

25:17

that limiting glucose, a ketogenic

25:19

diet in of itself is beneficial

25:22

and it acts together with other repurposed

25:25

drugs. Yeah. Is it profound

25:27

synergy? And in fact, it also works with chemotherapy.

25:30

So that, you know, it doesn't mean that it's

25:33

a one or all thing that sure,

25:35

there may be a role, there may be a role

25:37

for chemo, but you want to use low dose.

25:40

You don't want to, you don't want to kill the patient

25:42

with a chemotherapy,

25:44

you know, because the problem is, is

25:46

patient start from the beginning with that. I didn't

25:48

mean to cut you off there. I just kind of want to move it along

25:50

because we have so much to cover. So we covered the metabolic

25:53

it's preventative, you know, very good for preventative to

25:55

always be on that diet. And certainly obviously if you're diagnosed.

25:58

So, so chemo. I'm really struggling

26:01

with it, watching family members and different

26:03

things. On the one hand, you see

26:06

times that it's clearly a scam. It's

26:08

clearly, oh, they're like, oh, it stopped

26:11

working, but really it never worked, because

26:13

they give you the expectation that it would immediately

26:15

grow to a certain amount, but your body does

26:18

naturally fight it off for a certain period of time.

26:21

And if it does, it's a very mutagenic and often

26:23

comes back. But you do also, it does

26:26

seem like there are more stories

26:29

of

26:30

people where they do go through the traditional therapy

26:33

and it bangs away at it and they wind up

26:35

surviving. So could you give like a brief

26:37

overview of, does

26:39

it depend on the type of cancer? When

26:42

is it appropriate? Because

26:45

it doesn't seem like it's, for example,

26:47

Remdesivir,

26:49

what I think you have stated, and we've seen

26:51

it certainly at a hospital level where it's at the inflammatory

26:53

stage, it is all pain

26:56

and no gain. There is no purpose

26:58

to use that with COVID. But would

27:01

you say that with chemo? There are some naturopathic

27:03

ones that do that.

27:05

Yeah, so let me say, if you are a hammer, the

27:08

world looks like a nail. So what oncologists

27:11

do is they prescribe chemotherapy,

27:13

whether it benefits the patient or not.

27:16

And the big pharma's attitude is

27:18

we're not here, and this is a direct quote,

27:21

we're not here to cure patients, we're here to sell

27:23

drugs and make money. So what

27:26

people don't know, and this is

27:28

outlined clearly in our book, is that

27:30

there are some cancers that are

27:32

curable with chemotherapy. But

27:35

these are specific cancers, and they make

27:37

up about 5% of all cancers.

27:40

Can you give some examples?

27:42

Yeah, so if you have a cancer,

27:45

a chemotherapy curable disease,

27:47

you wanna get chemo. And we're talking about, and

27:50

I'll list them, a disease called chorocarcinoma.

27:53

If you have acute lymphatic leukemia,

27:56

if you have testicular cancer, much

27:58

like what lands Armstrong. head. If

28:00

you have an ovarian germ

28:02

cell tumor, if you have Hodgkin's

28:05

lymphoma. So these are all

28:07

non-solid tumors.

28:10

These are mainly hematological

28:12

malignancies and they

28:15

do respond to chemo. Where

28:17

that breast cancer? Yes. So

28:19

then, yeah, it's not a curable. You

28:23

cannot cure breast cancer

28:25

with chemotherapy. What chemotherapy

28:28

will do for breast cancer is it can

28:31

prolong survival somewhat. But

28:33

then it's the cost of

28:36

the

28:39

downsides of profound chemotherapy,

28:42

the neutropenia, the profound

28:44

toxicity. So what we would

28:47

say, there are some cancers which include

28:49

breast cancer, thyroid cancer,

28:51

lung cancer, that chemo

28:54

improves survival but it doesn't

28:56

cure the cancer. So what you should do in

28:58

those instances is use a lower dose

29:01

so that the treatment doesn't kill the patient.

29:04

And at the same time, you

29:06

want to use repurposed drugs and metabolic

29:09

therapy. And this

29:11

should be a patient decision. The oncologist

29:14

should be absolutely honest

29:18

and talk about what is the

29:21

response rate? What is the five-year survival

29:23

with chemotherapy? And

29:25

they have to be honest but

29:28

it's not in their financial benefit

29:30

to be honest. And there are certain

29:33

cancers such as colorectal cancer,

29:35

pancreatic cancer, esophageal

29:37

cancer, liver cancer, kidney

29:40

cancer, not small

29:43

cell cancer, brain

29:45

cancer, head and neck cancer that

29:48

really do not respond to chemo. And

29:50

all the chemo does in these patients is

29:52

kills the patient and not the tumor.

29:55

So it has to be individualized

29:58

by the type of cancer by

30:01

how extensive the disease

30:03

is by the breast

30:09

cancer. So if you're lucky, I mean

30:12

not lucky in the lucky term, but if you

30:14

have breast cancer and it's localized

30:16

to the breast and you have a complete excision

30:20

of the tumor, your survival is really

30:22

good. Your five-year survival is like 99%.

30:25

And so surgery has a role

30:27

but only when it's you

30:30

know it's it's a stage

30:32

one cancer that's confined to

30:34

the organ involved and you can remove the

30:36

entire cancer. The

30:38

reality is most patients you know

30:40

who have cancer have you know

30:42

breast cancer, colorectal cancer,

30:45

prosthetic cancer and once it's metastatic,

30:48

the benefits of chemotherapy

30:51

are highly questionable. And

30:53

the other thing is that metabolic

30:56

therapy and repurposed drugs act synergistically

31:00

together with these with chemotherapy.

31:02

So you know you should patients should be

31:05

offered all options or

31:07

options. They shouldn't be treated with

31:10

a hammer because that's what the oncologist

31:12

uses. And so we do

31:14

know that 50% of

31:17

patients with cancer will try

31:19

alternative therapies and what we're saying

31:21

is okay if you use alternative

31:23

therapies why don't you use those that have

31:26

been proven to be

31:28

a benefit rather than those

31:30

that are of unproven or questionable

31:32

benefit. And so that's why you know

31:35

I think we need to empower patients and

31:37

empower the general

31:39

publics that you know they should not much

31:41

like in COVID where

31:43

they would you know they were told what

31:46

should be and what shouldn't be and this is the

31:48

narrative and you can't question it. You know

31:50

cancers no different. Patients

31:53

need to be empowered. They need to take control.

31:56

They need to have a discussion with their

31:59

primary care physician. and oncologist.

32:01

If oncologist won't talk to them about

32:03

it,

32:04

they need to get a new doctor. It's a simple event.

32:07

What I'm hearing, I started to go through some of your

32:09

documents there, and again, I encourage everyone to

32:11

download it, the cancer care from

32:13

the FLCCC. And

32:16

what I'm finding is kind of, again, and

32:19

I'm still trying to understand it fully, but

32:21

I understand from COVID, it really tied in. Again,

32:24

the nexus of metabolic health,

32:27

inflammation, and

32:28

then immunomodulator. So

32:31

the immune system, I

32:33

didn't even know until Dr. Ryan

32:35

Cole taught me this with all the COVID stuff

32:37

of how you have anti-tumor surveillance

32:40

throughout your body, and usually it works.

32:42

Absolutely. Pinged by cancer all the time. And you

32:45

want to go and harness

32:47

and strengthen, find drugs that will strengthen

32:50

that, and chemo obviously does the opposite, destroys

32:52

your immune system. So what are some

32:54

of these drugs that are anti-inflammatories,

32:57

immunomodulators that work? Yes, so probably

32:59

the most important, and you will

33:01

be stunned because the data

33:03

is absolutely astonishing,

33:05

overwhelming, is vitamin D. So

33:08

there is a very strong correlation

33:10

between vitamin D deficiency and

33:13

cancer. And we know as you

33:15

go further north or further south in terms

33:18

of latitude, your risk

33:20

of cancer goes up

33:22

directly, your risk of Alzheimer's goes

33:24

up and directly related to vitamin

33:26

D levels. Let me just,

33:28

I got to ask you this because you're making an assertion

33:31

there, and I know people are going to want to know this. So

33:33

would that mean that near the equator there's

33:35

less cancer?

33:37

You know, yes, yes.

33:40

The answer is absolutely yes. As

33:42

you go from the equator more north,

33:45

your risk of cancer goes up, and

33:48

it's related to vitamin D deficiency.

33:50

And you know, this was actually published, this

33:52

is not hidden, this was published in

33:54

the New England Journal of Medicine in 2002. There was

33:56

a review article on vitamin D deficiency. vitamin

34:00

D and its role in preventing

34:02

cancer. So even in

34:04

mainstream journals, this has

34:06

been published, but nobody wants to talk

34:09

about it. And the reason that I

34:11

want to talk about it is unless you

34:13

can patent a drug and make money from

34:15

a drug, no one is interested.

34:18

So you can't patent vitamin D,

34:20

so you can't make money from vitamin D.

34:22

So no one's interested in promoting vitamin

34:25

D. So the N-FACT is a

34:27

very good randomized double-blind

34:29

placebo-controlled study, you know, just

34:31

the way that I've retired once

34:34

that looked at three simple interventions

34:37

to prevent cancer, low-dose

34:39

vitamin D, low-dose

34:41

omega-3, and a home exercise

34:43

program. And if you did all

34:45

three of those very simple things,

34:47

you would reduce your risk of cancer, you're

34:50

not going to believe it, by 60%.

34:54

Now

34:56

who would not want to reduce their

34:58

risk of getting cancer by 60%? So

35:02

this is prophylactic. This

35:04

is, in general, before you're diagnosed,

35:07

just the vitamin D, omega-3 exercise,

35:09

getting sleep, good metabolic health,

35:11

staying away from the carbs. Now

35:14

in terms of the actual, let's say you

35:16

get cancer, I see again

35:18

there's a lot of different things you have on

35:21

the list. I've noticed

35:24

from your paper and then a lot of the research

35:26

that I've done on my own and listening to

35:28

some of the other kind of doctors that have been allies

35:31

of yours throughout the COVID fight, it

35:33

seems

35:34

like a lot of anti-parasitic

35:36

antifungals

35:38

have action against cancer. Why?

35:41

Yeah, so you know, so there's

35:44

a drug called mapendazole, which

35:46

was made famous by a gentleman,

35:48

Mr. Tippins, who developed metastatic

35:51

lung cancer and his veterinarian

35:55

told him to take Simbendazole, which is

35:57

the animal version of mapendazole.

36:01

and he was cured

36:03

and he has been disease free. So,

36:06

mabendazole, which is what we recommend

36:09

on our list, is a very interesting drug

36:11

because it interferes with glucose

36:13

metabolism, so it starts

36:15

the cell, it interferes with

36:18

glutamine metabolism. So some tumors

36:21

need glutamine and the brain tumors

36:23

or glioblastoma is one of them. In

36:26

addition, mabendazole paralyzes

36:29

or prevents the cell dividing.

36:32

So it's toxic to parasites,

36:35

but it just so happens that it is

36:37

toxic to cancer cells. So

36:40

who cares if it, you know, what

36:42

it was originally designed for. It's

36:45

FDA approved for the use of parasitic

36:48

infections,

36:49

but mabendazole, which is what we suggest,

36:52

is very effective against cancer, particularly

36:54

brain cancer. So

36:57

you gotta be kidding me. If you have

36:59

brain cancer, why wouldn't you

37:01

not want to take something like mabendazole,

37:05

you know? And that's like an antifungal,

37:07

right?

37:08

So mabendazole isn't any

37:10

parasitic. There are some antifungals

37:12

such as itroconazole, which does

37:14

have cancer activity. But you know,

37:16

we recommend things like vitamin

37:18

D, you know, in terms of if

37:21

it prevents cancer, it's likely

37:24

to also be effective in treating cancer.

37:26

And so there's really good data that high

37:28

dose vitamin D. And the reason

37:31

is exactly as you say, vitamin

37:33

D is really more of a hormone than a

37:35

vitamin. It improves the immune

37:37

system. So the immune system

37:40

is highly dependent on vitamin

37:42

D. And as you said, what you

37:44

wanna do is improve your T cells

37:46

and your natural killer cells that will

37:48

kill the damn cancer. You

37:51

don't wanna use drugs which impair

37:53

your, or paralyze your immune

37:55

system. And so vitamin D

37:58

is a potent stimulus of... the immune

38:00

system and it helps the body kill the

38:02

cancer cells. So,

38:05

we don't recommend one drug alone. A

38:08

combination of vitamin

38:10

D, curcumin, which is highly

38:12

effective, nubendazole, omega-3

38:15

fatty acids, these all used

38:17

in combination. And

38:20

then of course, such simple thing

38:22

is exercise

38:24

and is really

38:26

important. It sounds

38:29

simplistic, but it's been shown

38:31

that people who have cancer, who have an exercise

38:35

program that it

38:37

improves their outcome. But

38:40

it rarely gets off the ground. If you're doing

38:42

heavy dose chemotherapy, then

38:44

you're bedridden and it

38:47

negates all this. I'm looking and folks, you

38:49

can go again. This is a 146 page document. There's

38:52

a list of just the summary

38:54

of some of these regimens

38:56

on page 38.

38:58

And I'm looking at this and thinking if

39:00

I'm faced with a choice of being

39:03

deathly ill from chemo,

39:05

look, I'll pop as many of these pills

39:08

as I need, as daunting as that sounds

39:11

relative to the chemo. One

39:14

of the things our listeners are definitely going to want to know

39:16

because this was on your COVID protocol.

39:19

So if you just do a search for

39:21

ivermectin or nidazoxanide,

39:24

which were two of the big star players with

39:27

COVID treatments recommended at various stages

39:29

in your protocol for COVID,

39:32

you research that in cancer.

39:35

And you'll see all these fascinating papers

39:37

on the mechanisms of action. I've seen nidazoxanide

39:40

how some time somehow antagonizes

39:42

the

39:43

gene in colorectal

39:45

cancer that's resistant to chemo

39:48

and several other mechanisms there.

39:51

Has that ever been taken

39:53

past the goal line? Do

39:56

we have more studies on that?

39:58

So you absolutely correct. So

40:00

what we did is we listed the top 10

40:02

and then the top 20 based

40:05

on, I reviewed over 1200 peer reviewed

40:07

papers and

40:09

stratified them according to the clinical

40:12

benefit. And you are right that

40:14

there's data on either

40:17

Mectin in terms of cancer. Unfortunately,

40:20

the strength is not as good as for

40:22

the Mendozal or Curcumin, but

40:25

certainly it does

40:28

have any cancer activity. And

40:30

what we need instead of focusing

40:33

on these toxic, highly

40:35

toxic chemotherapy drugs, we

40:37

need to start doing clinical trials and

40:40

these are not placebo. I think it's

40:42

unethical to give a patient with a severe

40:45

disease placebo. We need

40:47

to focus on doing longitudinal studies

40:50

with these repurposed drugs. And

40:52

we need to focus

40:55

on these safe, effective, cheap

40:57

drugs rather

40:59

than what we've been forced down

41:01

our throats is this expensive

41:04

therapy. And so probably the most ridiculous

41:06

is there's a therapy called CAR T

41:09

therapy, which is highly

41:11

complicated. They take your T cells

41:13

and they raise them against your cancer.

41:15

It costs about $500,000 per patient, half a million

41:18

dollars. So

41:22

that's just not

41:24

a practical solution to this disease

41:27

where you can get many of these things

41:30

over the counter.

41:31

I bought myself,

41:33

yes. And that's over the counter?

41:36

Yes, I bought high dose vitamin D from

41:38

an online store

41:42

that we all know about. It costs for

41:44

a year, supply cost me $12, $12. So

41:49

these are cheap, safe and effective

41:51

drugs that are highly effective against cancer.

41:54

And yet we throwing patients toxic

41:56

drugs that are highly. So

41:59

you know what? the world has gone mad. It

42:01

just doesn't make sense. Wow.

42:03

No, I mean, this is very eye-opening.

42:06

And again, in each one of these lists,

42:08

you go through the mechanism of action. And once

42:10

you understand how it works, the

42:12

metabolic pathways of what fuels

42:15

the cancer, and obviously the way

42:17

it ties in with your immune system and immune

42:20

health, a lot of this makes sense.

42:22

One thing I don't see on your list, and I'm curious

42:25

what you think about it for certain cancers

42:27

like, perhaps ovarian

42:30

or pancreatic,

42:31

low-dose naltrexone,

42:34

a lot of people talk about that. Yes.

42:37

So people have criticized me for

42:40

not being on our first top 20.

42:43

So the good news is that

42:45

this is a living document

42:48

that it's growing and evolving. And

42:50

so what I'm gonna do is we have the top 20, I'm

42:52

gonna extend it to the top 40, which

42:55

will include low-dose naltrexone.

42:58

So low-dose naltrexone has

43:00

any inflammatory and immune-modulating

43:01

properties. But if

43:04

you actually look at clinical data, there

43:06

just is not sufficient clinical data

43:09

to make a strong recommendation. Because

43:13

you can have a compound that works in the test

43:15

tube or in a petri dish, but

43:17

you know what? It may not work in the patient. And

43:20

we interested in patient outcomes.

43:22

And so, you know, a good- But here's the problem. And

43:25

this is where we are, that none

43:27

of this will ever become a semi-mainstream.

43:30

Like we talk about all these papers I read about

43:32

the mechanisms of action, sometimes animal

43:34

test tube, like you're saying in vitro.

43:38

Until you have large-scale

43:40

human clinical trials,

43:43

they won't go mainstream, but no

43:45

one has the funding to do that who

43:47

has a motivation to do this. How

43:49

do we break that?

43:51

Yeah, so you're absolutely right. And this

43:53

is the terrible catch-22 situation that

43:58

what the FDA- ones and the agencies

44:01

want is large randomized double blind

44:03

studies. The only people who can afford to

44:06

sponsor large randomized double

44:08

blind studies are big pharma who

44:11

manipulate the results. So the

44:13

only solution is that our health

44:15

agencies, which should be

44:17

interested in health, you know, that's why

44:19

they're called health agencies, the

44:22

federal government, they should be the

44:24

ones who are sponsoring

44:26

and subsidizing these studies

44:29

of repurposed drugs. Because

44:31

if you think about it, the, you

44:34

know, we spend billions

44:37

of not trillions of dollars on

44:39

on on on health care. Cancer

44:42

itself is a $200 billion business. We

44:45

could save the health care, you

44:48

know, the spending on health care

44:50

enormously. If we could use these

44:52

cheap repurposed drugs, this

44:55

is what the FDA should be doing. This

44:57

is what the NIH should be doing.

44:59

This is what the CDC should be doing.

45:02

They should be looking at cheap repurposed

45:04

drugs that would could have a profound

45:07

effect. But unfortunately,

45:09

they so be taken to big

45:11

pharma, you know, they controlled by big

45:13

pharma. So this is the only

45:16

solution is that the health agencies,

45:19

which should be focusing on our health

45:21

should do what they supposed to do focus

45:24

on our health should be independent

45:26

of big pharma. And they have

45:28

the resources to honestly,

45:31

you know, do these studies

45:34

and they should not be placebo controlled.

45:36

There's no need for placebo. It's

45:39

unethical. You know, you could take 100 patients

45:41

with glioblastoma and

45:44

give them a combination of a benzoyl,

45:47

curcumin, vitamin D and

45:49

just follow these patients prospectively

45:52

because we know what the natural history

45:54

is.

45:54

And then if I get

45:56

what you're saying correct, what you're saying is that

46:00

There's nothing novel here. We understand

46:03

for the most part at least how cancer is fueled

46:06

and how and what can antagonize it

46:09

and what mechanisms and machinery in your body

46:11

it works off of and then we have

46:13

a bunch of these between Supplements

46:16

and natural things and then you know drugs

46:18

that have been around for a while again a lot

46:20

of these broad-spectrum immunomodulators

46:22

and Inverteries that we see

46:25

and

46:26

there's a whole list of them That

46:28

there's no doubt in your mind that

46:30

the answers lie in Whatever

46:33

list you want to put it could be a hundred of them And

46:36

if we only had a government agency that

46:38

took a fraction of the funding that

46:40

we go into hey here develop another chemo Drug

46:43

if you just because we need to know which

46:46

blend you know what sort of dosage

46:48

For

46:51

which cancers to target a little better because you

46:53

know we're kind of doing what we did with kovat And I think

46:55

you would readily admit that you don't have those resources

46:58

so we're taking what we could the limited

47:00

research we see and What

47:03

is no risk because you know you want to start

47:05

out with things we know are safe and? Look,

47:07

you know you're staring death at death's

47:09

doorstep here are things that make sense

47:13

But obviously if we had the money we'd really

47:15

hone in on it more specifically

47:18

And yeah, absolutely yeah, you know

47:20

we could do studies comparing three drugs

47:23

versus five drugs We could do

47:25

studies using a hundred milligrams

47:27

versus 200 milligrams of same a

47:29

bender's off So you know I think it's

47:31

it's immoral To give

47:33

patients placebo, but we can

47:35

do these prospective studies that can be

47:38

large enough that we can study the

47:40

patients We can measure their biomarkers

47:42

that we can get an idea of what's working

47:45

and what's not working You absolutely correct.

47:47

You know we've had to do what we did with kovat

47:49

is develop a patchwork of evidence

47:52

There's no reason why we can't

47:55

study this more vigorously and

47:57

rigorously which should be done

47:59

And it's criminal.

48:02

It's literally a replication

48:04

of COVID. See, this is, I would have never

48:06

believed anything you're saying three years

48:09

ago, because I'd say, this is vexing the

48:11

whole world. What? You sit and have all these answers

48:13

and no one else knows about it. But then we lived

48:15

through COVID where they would literally,

48:17

and you are at ground zero, they'd

48:20

look you in the eye, and we saw this

48:22

with some of the lawsuits,

48:23

and they would say, well, someone's

48:26

on a ventilator and they're going to die, and

48:28

they want to pull the plug and like, hey, can we try a vermectin?

48:31

No, it's going to cause problems. Like,

48:33

no, you got to be kidding me. But it's the same

48:35

thing. I mean, I have an aunt with terminal colorectal

48:38

cancer. And I went to

48:40

Dr. Richard Urso and I

48:42

asked him, and

48:43

he like sends me back. Here's my colorectal

48:45

cancer protocol. Like, whoa, I

48:47

never heard of that. And it had Fenbendizol, low-dose

48:50

naltrexone, a couple other things on there. And

48:52

look, obviously, it's not my direct family, so I don't have

48:54

control. But it's something that I

48:57

can't live with thinking, how

49:00

could you not at a minimum

49:03

overturn that stone and

49:05

it doesn't cost you anything? Like, it does.

49:07

Like you said, it doesn't negate any

49:09

other treatments if you want to do the traditional

49:12

route of radiotherapy, chemotherapy

49:15

and other things. But I

49:17

mean, Dr. Merrick, isn't it true that at

49:19

a minimum,

49:21

it will actually boost your immune system

49:23

and make you healthier to go

49:25

through the chemo?

49:27

Yeah, absolutely. I mean, you're right. The

49:29

word criminal is what describes

49:31

this. So I think at a minimum, if

49:34

patients are getting chemo, they should be at

49:36

least be offered some of these adjunctive

49:38

therapies, which are completely

49:41

safe, unlike chemotherapy, have

49:44

minimal side effects or over-the-counter

49:47

or exceedingly cheap. So there's

49:49

no downside. If you think of it, there's

49:51

absolutely no downside except that

49:54

the patients may get better and

49:56

you may cure their cancer.

49:58

Wow.

49:59

I want to make it very clear to people. I

50:02

don't think you're suggesting that

50:04

there's a hundred percent cure for a hundred

50:06

percent of Cancers, but if we

50:08

had a way You know

50:10

like like I mean I know and I know I could say this

50:12

publicly I mean Dr. Ryan Cole has said this that

50:15

he has kept people alive going

50:17

on five years on things like low-dose naltrexone with

50:20

pancreatic cancer and if

50:22

you take

50:23

20 more cancers and extend

50:26

life for five to ten more years

50:28

and Extending it by the way with

50:30

a quality of life that is is

50:32

not like when you undergo all these chemotherapies

50:36

That in itself is a huge win.

50:38

It's all gain and no pain So

50:41

you know if you cure a lot of them mitigate

50:44

some of them You know

50:46

extend the the the quality of life

50:48

and the length of life on others

50:51

It would have shocked me that you wouldn't

50:53

claw the ground For every

50:56

one of these things on the market and

50:58

just you have you absolutely right.

51:01

There's no downside We're not saying that this

51:03

is going to cure a hundred percent of patients It

51:05

will improve the quality of life which

51:08

ultimately I think most people are are

51:10

interested in You know it can get

51:13

the disease into remission or under control

51:15

in many cases and in some places

51:18

Cases it can cure them. So there's really

51:21

no downside. There's no opposite You know,

51:23

obviously there's no guarantee like there is

51:25

anything in life sure, but it can certainly

51:28

it's company You know, it's profoundly

51:30

less toxic than traditional chemotherapy

51:34

It sure it improves the patient's quality

51:36

of life

51:37

and

51:39

You know it may

51:41

extend their their disease

51:43

free survival. So

51:45

what what's the downside? It

51:47

is criminal that this isn't part

51:49

of the standard of care And so

51:51

what we didn't mention is that cancer

51:54

now is becoming the most important

51:56

cause of death in Western

51:59

nations, you know cardiovascular

52:01

disease, we've got under control.

52:04

So one in three people are gonna get cancer

52:07

and it's gonna be the commonest cause of death.

52:10

So this is a really important

52:12

subject and I think we

52:15

should be demanding that our healthcare agencies

52:18

focus more on healthcare

52:20

than

52:20

on being subservient

52:23

to big pharma.

52:25

Sick care, healthcare over sick care. I

52:27

mean, that's really what it is. And again,

52:30

this is life-saving stuff here. So folks,

52:32

go to the FLCC website, you could put in cancer

52:35

care, the role of repurposed drugs and

52:37

metabolic interventions in treating cancer. Dr.

52:40

Merrick, thanks so much. I know we only scraped the surface,

52:42

but I'd really love to have you back again and make

52:45

this a regular segment. Just superseding

52:47

anything political. This is just, it's

52:50

an equal opportunity. It affects everyone and

52:52

we all need solutions. And

52:55

certainly this is a no cost, no

52:58

risk solution. So why not?

53:01

Thanks for your courage on COVID and now keeping

53:03

that up with the next frontier. We really

53:05

look forward to your upcoming research.

53:08

Sure, thanks Daniel. Anytime, obviously,

53:11

it's pretty nuanced, but

53:16

we understand, I understand it a lot better

53:18

than I did before going down this journey.

53:21

And I think COVID has shone a bright

53:23

light on the false

53:26

medical narrative. And so there

53:28

is a lot to talk about and I'd be happy

53:30

to talk with you again. Great, good luck and

53:32

God bless, take care. So again, that was Dr. Paul

53:34

Merrick, a lot to digest there. Boy,

53:37

is there a lot to digest, wow.

53:39

I had to rush through it, it's just

53:41

there was so much, but I wanted to give a little bit of an outline

53:43

of what he feels the cause. And again, especially

53:46

on the cause side, it's not any one thing

53:48

is guaranteed. Obviously, there's plenty of healthy people.

53:50

Everyone's getting cancer, but certainly,

53:54

it helps for 50 million other reasons to

53:56

stay off the carbs. And we'll actually have

53:58

a guest on next week talking about... diet,

54:01

something I want to get into more. I'm not great about it myself,

54:04

but I need to get better at it. And we've learned

54:06

a lot from just the research on COVID.

54:09

As I think we've learned a lot about the

54:12

nexus between the immune system and inflammation

54:14

and the metabolic system. I know a

54:17

lot of people knew that for decades

54:19

already, but it's expanded

54:21

to some of us who are in the dark about

54:23

it. And again,

54:26

just download that document

54:28

there. Make sure it's

54:31

pretty easy to find FLCC, Cancer

54:33

Care. And

54:34

it's not a matter of any one

54:37

protocol or whatever, but the way he gives

54:39

over each mechanism,

54:41

the understanding of it, and it's stuff to

54:43

do further research for people who are really

54:46

in tough times. It's

54:50

shocking. And again, the biggest

54:52

thing I'd love to hear, I'd love to hear this

54:54

from presidential candidates, we spend billions

54:56

of dollars throwing money at these agencies. If

54:58

you took a fraction of the money, took the stuff

55:01

on the FLCC list and some other things,

55:03

and you just did a clinical trial

55:06

on different combinations of it, what would you find?

55:09

Remember,

55:10

unlike cancer, you don't really

55:12

have any risks associated with almost all of those things.

55:15

Each one of those things, I mean, I had a relative, it's

55:17

not just a chemo, but even like some of these monoclonal

55:20

antibodies they do with breast cancer, these

55:22

immunotherapies and these hormone

55:24

therapies, they have heart problems and

55:26

bone problems and this and that. Why

55:31

wouldn't you do I mean, we know why they don't do it. But

55:33

but that's this is this is ultimately,

55:36

as I said, being pro life is not just

55:38

about abortion. It's a much broader thing.

55:41

The regulatory capture has caused so much

55:44

death. I just want to end with this, you know, in a heartbreaking

55:46

conversation this week with

55:49

a long haul COVID patient

55:51

that I think was made worse by the fact that she got

55:53

the vaccine after two, and she

55:56

didn't know any better. So you got a double whammy of

55:58

spike got COVID really bad.

55:59

and

56:01

she could barely talk. She

56:03

emailed me and I called her on the phone. She

56:05

was looking for a doctor. She

56:07

could barely breathe. I mean, this is three years

56:09

later

56:10

and there's people really suffering and they

56:12

need help. And

56:15

a

56:16

couple things. Number one, a lot of

56:19

people think, oh,

56:21

is it COVID or the COVID vaccine? I

56:23

wanna make something very clear. Every

56:26

COVID death and injury is a vaccine

56:28

death and injury. And the reason is because

56:30

what is COVID? It's a bioweapon.

56:33

Why, where did it come from? Well, you say gain of function.

56:36

What is gain of function? Gain of function

56:39

is the relentless pursuit

56:41

of vaccines as an end to itself. So

56:43

they create this in order to create a vaccine.

56:46

No one could disagree with that. That is what happened.

56:49

So it is literally, it's

56:51

the vaccine industry created

56:53

COVID for the purpose of creating a vaccine.

56:56

So anyone you're like, oh no, they got hurt by

56:58

COVID, Daniel. That

57:01

is the vaccine in a strong

57:03

sense.

57:05

By the way, I was told by the pharmacist, seven cells, a lot

57:07

of people ask me, where are seven cells? A lot of you

57:10

got ivermectin, nixoxidilatin,

57:13

high dose vitamin D from there. They

57:16

actually have a couple of packages.

57:18

It's at earlytreatmentmeds.com.

57:22

And I forget the percentage, but it's a big discount

57:25

with promo code Daniel. They

57:28

were nice enough to leave it up, even though they're not a paid

57:30

advertiser, but back when we had them last year,

57:32

they said it's still working. He just texted me. So

57:34

why not use it? Earlytreatmentmeds.com,

57:37

promo code Daniel, if you

57:39

don't have a better place to get some

57:41

of these drugs from. And again, some of

57:44

them actually seem to work for cancer as well.

57:46

Let me know your questions for Dr. Merrick. I'll pass

57:48

them along. Daniel Horowitz at startmail.com

57:51

is the email. Boy, did we have a productive

57:53

week. We really covered the gambit

57:55

of issues, inflation, economy,

57:58

border, COVID. Cancer

58:01

Ukraine you name it You

58:04

know affirmative action. That's

58:06

what we seek to do forward-looking

58:09

We'll cover some of the fallout from the NDAA

58:11

just passed