The anti-parasitic drug Ivermectin came into prominence with the advent of Covid. It was like a little-known secret, yet it shouldn't have been. Ivermectin, discovered in the 1970s, has been a wonder drug for billions of people. In the Proceedings of the Japan Academy, Of Physical and Biological Sciences they state the following:
"Discovered in the late-1970s, the pioneering drug ivermectin, a dihydro derivative of avermectin—originating solely from a single microorganism isolated at the Kitasato Intitute, Tokyo, Japan from Japanese soil—has had an immeasurably beneficial impact in improving the live and welfare of billions of people throughout the world."
The big revelation since COVID-19 is that it also has antiviral properties; now, we also know it has anti-cancer properties. Yet, so many still ridicule this drug, as Pierre Kory describes in his book, The War On Ivermectin. It's so preposterous. Suppose you try to import it into Australia. In that case, it may be stopped at the border as a counterfeit good and customs will say it poses a serious health risk. This is our government looking after us. They obviously haven't gotten the memo that the drug won a Nobel Prize, has never killed anyone, saved millions and is being trialled in cancer therapy.
Dr William Makis is one of those oncologists who has been trialling using Ivermectin with cancer patients, and there is documented evidence that people are having positive responses with Ivermectin and another anti-parasitic, Fenbendazole. The fact that Makis is being persecuted in Canada for speaking out on the damage caused by the COVID-19 'vaccines' and being lambasted for using Ivermectin in cancer treatment speaks volumes as to the dark, fascistic road that Canada has embarked on.
For cancer patients in an advanced stage of the disease, rather than taking the attitude, "What have you got to lose?", it's all hands on deck with the same failed narrative. It's not an either-or choice, but treatment should include many choicesand safety considerations have to be given in that choice. Ivermectin may well prove the naysayers wrong in cancer care.
So why has the medical establishment opposed this established drug? Part of it lies in Pfizer et al.'s enormous vaccine profits. Suppose you acknowledge that you have something less drastic that works. In that case, there is no rationale for following along with radical ideas.
The concerted medical approach to denying Ivermectin is much more than simple denial. It is malfeasance, plain and simple.
perhaps cancer can be viewed as a parasite?