There was a fascinating medical interview that was released about a week ago. It got some significant traffic on Twitter, but not enough. I wanted to spend a few minutes looking at it because, in addition to the outstanding news it could indicate, it also provides us with an object lesson about COVID, Big Pharma, medical institutions, and how those in authority destroyed their reputations in a span of just a couple of years.
That's a lot to go through, but let's start with the potentially good news. Earlier in May, Dr. Kathleen Ruddy sat down for an interview where she revealed some remarkable success she has seen with Ivermectin in treating cancer. (Full disclosure, she has talked about this previously in 2024, but I did not discover it until her most recent interview in May.)
Ruddy has a pretty remarkable story. Decades ago, after watching her mother beat breast cancer, she dedicated herself to a medical career, eventually becoming a breast surgeon where she has treated more than 6,000 patients, all wishing for a cure, at the Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center and other medical centers. She founded the Breast Service at Clara Maass Medical Center in New Jersey and the Breast Health and Healing Foundation. She has written books about breast cancer prevention and even created an app, Breast Health GPS, to help women find locations for mammograms.
Below is a short clip of her interview where, interestingly, it was not women or breast cancer that led her to an incredible discovery about cancer and Ivermectin, but two men, one with Stage 4 prostate cancer and one with two esophageal tumors. Ruddy describes how neither wanted traditional treatments and how Ivermectin helped them:
"We got the scan. No tumors. Gone. Gone."
— Jan Jekielek (@JanJekielek) May 23, 2024
When cancer surgeon Dr. Kathleen Ruddy first learned that ivermectin had potential in treating cancer, she was stunned.
But after observing a series of astonishing cases of cancer recovery, she decided she had to do a proper study. pic.twitter.com/93RXgkzBTg
Now, the first thing I thought was that this is just two patients, anecdotal evidence. In the full interview, Ruddy goes on to tell a similar tale of a woman with a tumor in her pelvis that had metastasized to her liver. After having surgery for her pelvic tumor, she refused chemotherapy and instead took Ivermectin. Not long after, an ultrasound revealed that her liver was clean.
Here is the complete, 50-minute interview. There is also a transcript in the link below if you want to read instead of watch.
This above👆 is a clip. Watch the full interview “The Surprising Potential of Ivermectin Against Cancer: Dr. Kathleen Ruddy” here👇https://t.co/IAG1lyGen6
— Jan Jekielek (@JanJekielek) May 23, 2024
After the third patient, Ruddy did not want to wait to see if a fourth would happen to cross her path. She knew she needed to conduct a study. An expensive study that she did not have the money to fund.
Instead, Ruddy and another oncologist, Dr. Paul Marik (who specializes in repurposing medications), have launched an observational study at multiple cancer centers across the country, focusing on patients with advanced cancer, which will reveal results more quickly, and on patients who do not want chemo or radiation. Of equal importance, as Ruddy is clear to point out, Ivermectin is almost as harmless as a sugar pill, except in some cases involving brain injuries. The patients in her observational study are not giving up one treatment to try another (which could be a serious ethical problem). But if they don't want traditional treatments, Ruddy notes that there is very little harm in them giving Ivermectin a try.
The results of the study are obviously not available yet. The data needs to come in, be reviewed by independent biostatisticians, undergo peer review, etc. So, why am I talking about this now, and not a couple of years from now? There are two reasons. First, even the anecdotal evidence suggests that Ivermectin could be a game-changer in cancer research and treatment. Time will tell, but the potential alone of an antiparasitic like Ivermectin to be beneficial in cancer treatment is enough to be very -- if cautiously -- excited about.
This brings me to the second reason to bring Ruddy's story up now, and this is the bad part.
In 2015, William C. Campbell and Satoshi Omura were awarded the Nobel Prize for their discovery of the uses of Ivermectin in treating parasitic diseases. The drug has been administered nearly 4 billion times in the past 30 years and has been called a 'miracle drug' both for its efficacy and safety.
During the height of COVID, the American media called it something else: horse paste.
We all remember the stories:
- The media made up stories about people taking animal Ivermectin (which IS a paste) and not human Ivermectin (generally a pill).
- They mocked people like Joe Rogan and others who demonstrated how Ivermectin helped them treat and recover from COVID.
- Perhaps most criminally of all, they ignored entire countries, like Peru, where Ivermectin was making a positive difference against COVID (the NIH eventually recognized Ivermectin's efficacy in such countries).
- The CDC refused to list Ivermectin on its website as a possible therapeutic for COVID (and they don't answer any questions about why they list it now).
- People actually had to file lawsuits to get hospitals or pharmacies to allow them to receive Ivermectin.
- Tony Fauci went on CNN to warn people not to take Ivermectin. Let me say that again: he warned people against a drug that we now know is an effective therapeutic against COVID. He was far more complimentary of going on respirators and administering Remdesivir, both of which had some pretty horrible results.
In retrospect, this last point is nothing short of monstrous. But that is par for the course for Fauci over his career.
Here is the critical point: it's not that Fauci, the CDC, and the media were wrong. Even in their expert positions (in the media's case, I'll put 'expert' in quotation marks), they are allowed to be wrong.
It's that they were so arrogant and authoritarian in their wrongness.
There is a great scene in the movie Moneyball where Brad Pitt's character, Oakland A's general manager Billy Beane, is confronted by the team's head scout who tells him he is doing everything wrong and should trust the 'expert' scouts. Pitt matter-of-factly responds:
OK. My turn. You don't have a crystal ball ... I've sat at those kitchen tables with you and listened to you tell those parents, 'When I know, I know. And when it comes to your son, I know.'
And you don't. You ... don't.
(Then he fires the scout, which is what we all wish would've happened to Fauci.)
I think about that scene a lot when I remember the awful information the institutions were giving to the American people about Ivermectin during COVID. And how they were doing so with such self-assured sheer boastfulness that it only makes them look worse in retrospect.
Why couldn't they say those three words? 'We don't know.' And why didn't any of them look at the RESULTS of Ivermectin or, hell, even all of the success it had previously achieved in treating other diseases, not to mention the fact that it is nearly harmless? (Sure, you can overdose on Ivermectin, but you can overdose on aspirin too. We don't tell people not to take aspirin because of that ... or mock them when they do.)
Even if Fauci didn't believe in Ivermectin, why couldn't he say, 'I don't think it will help, we don't have enough information on that. But I could be wrong and there is very little harm in trying. And if people get positive results from taking it carefully, under supervision, that's great.'
That's what Dr. Ruddy told her cancer patients. In her exact words, she told one of the men, 'I don’t know if this is going to help you, but I know it’s not going to hurt you.'
Sadly, we know the answer to why Fauci, the CDC, or the media wouldn't say those things. It's an answer as simple as it is damning.
It's because they are owned by the pharmaceutical companies (as is much of Washington, D.C.). And there is no profit in generic Ivermectin, especially when the government is shoveling billions to those companies to produce 'vaccines.'
[Interesting and revealing side note: The first patient Ruddy talked about in her interview was vaccinated with the recommended two shots. While Ivermectin did help with his cancer, his vaccine injuries persisted after his cancer scans came back clean. You couldn't make that up if you tried.]
The way all of our institutions and 'experts' handled COVID is a horrible episode in U.S. history, and maybe one of the most disgraceful by our alleged leaders. As so many of us have said so many times over the past three years, we must continue to demand accountability.
I realize I am not telling Twitchy readers anything you don't already know. But here is my final point: Kathleen Ruddy's research into Ivermectin as a cancer treatment may turn out to be nothing. It may turn out to be yet another miracle from the 'miracle drug.' A third likelihood -- if I may be so bold -- is that it will land somewhere in between those ends of the spectrum (which would still be great news in its own right).
But those same institutions -- and corporations -- who didn't want Americans to turn anywhere else but to them during COVID are more than likely to do the same thing again if Ruddy's research shows any meaningful positive results. If her results are anywhere close to the miracle? They will try to destroy her. And Dr. Marik.
Because they don't want anyone to follow or trust science. They want us to follow and trust 'The Science.'
There is already good and bad news on this front. Ruddy's study was picked up early this year by the Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) and the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons has encouraged it. On the other hand, there is already at least one case of a hospital refusing to let a desperate patient participate and a court denying his appeal.
Cancer is a scourge. I have lost family and friends to it, and everyone I know has lost someone they loved to it. I am sure everyone reading this has as well. There are 20 million new cases per year worldwide and nearly 10 million deaths. And that number is only expected to increase over the next 50 years.
We should embrace ANY (responsible and ethical) research that might lead us to new treatments, or even -- hoping against hope -- that elusive pipe dream of a cure.
It is too important to leave any research in this area to 'The Science.' If we've learned nothing else from the debacle and disgrace that was COVID and Ivermectin, I hope we have at least learned that much.
