A peer-reviewed study published in the International Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine shows that ivermectin, mebendazole, and fenbendazole are effective treatments for cancer.

Natural News

<h2>Introduction</h2>
<p>A recent article published on October 16, 2024, claims that a peer-reviewed study in the International Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine shows that ivermectin, mebendazole, and fenbendazole are effective treatments for cancer. This claim has garnered significant attention, particularly in the context of alternative medicine and the COVID-19 pandemic.</p>
<h2>The Claim</h2>
<p>The article asserts that Drs. William Makis, Paul Marik, Ilyes Baghli, and other scientists from the Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) have conducted a study demonstrating the anticancer benefits of these three deworming drugs. The study suggests that these drugs could be a viable alternative to conventional cancer treatments like chemotherapy and radiation.</p>
<h2>Analysis of the Claim</h2>
<p>The study published in the International Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine is indeed peer-reviewed, which lends some credibility to the claim. However, it is important to note that a single study, even if peer-reviewed, does not constitute definitive proof of a treatment's effectiveness. Further research and replication of the study's findings are necessary to establish the drugs' efficacy as cancer treatments.</p>
<p>Ivermectin, mebendazole, and fenbendazole are primarily used as antiparasitic medications. While there is some preliminary evidence suggesting that these drugs may have anticancer properties, the mechanisms by which they might work against cancer are not fully understood. More research is needed to determine the safety and efficacy of these drugs in cancer treatment.</p>
<p>The article also mentions the concept of 'turbo cancer,' which is not a widely recognized medical term. The claim that COVID-19 vaccines are linked to an increase in cancer cases is not supported by scientific evidence and should be approached with caution.</p>
<h2>Conclusion</h2>
<p>While the study published in the International Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine is a promising development, it is too early to conclude that ivermectin, mebendazole, and fenbendazole are effective cancer treatments. More research is needed to validate these findings and to understand the potential risks and benefits of using these drugs in cancer therapy. Patients should consult with their healthcare providers before considering any alternative treatments.</p>
<h2>References</h2>
<ul>
  <li><a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32942671/">Ivermectin as a Broad-Spectrum Host-Directed Antiviral: The Real Deal?</a>&nbsp;</li>
  <li><a href="https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6769799/">Mebendazole as a Repurposed Agent in Cancer Therapy</a>&nbsp;</li>
  <li><a href="https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7458798/">Fenbendazole: A Broad-Spectrum Anthelmintic Drug with Potential Anticancer Activity</a>&nbsp;</li>
</ul>

Claim Review: Effectiveness of Ivermectin, Mebendazole, and Fenbendazole as Cancer Treatments

<h2>Introduction</h2>
<p>A recent article published on October 16, 2024, claims that a peer-reviewed study in the International Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine shows that ivermectin, mebendazole, and fenbendazole are effective treatments for cancer. This claim has garnered significant attention, particularly in the context of alternative medicine and the COVID-19 pandemic.</p>
<h2>The Claim</h2>
<p>The article states that Drs. William Makis, Paul Marik, Ilyes Baghli, and other scientists from the Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) conducted a study demonstrating the anticancer benefits of these three deworming drugs. The study was published on September 19, 2024, and suggests that these drugs could be a breakthrough in cancer treatment, potentially replacing conventional treatments like chemotherapy and radiation.</p>
<h2>Analysis of the Claim</h2>
<p>The International Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine is a reputable source, and the study was peer-reviewed, which adds credibility to the claim. However, it is important to note that a single study, even if peer-reviewed, does not constitute definitive proof. Further research and clinical trials are necessary to validate these findings and determine the safety and efficacy of these drugs for cancer treatment.</p>
<p>Ivermectin, mebendazole, and fenbendazole are primarily used as antiparasitic drugs. While there is some preliminary evidence suggesting their potential anticancer properties, the mechanisms by which they might work against cancer are not fully understood. More studies are needed to explore these mechanisms and to assess the long-term effects of these drugs on cancer patients.</p>
<h2>Related Studies and Evidence</h2>
<p>Several studies have explored the potential of ivermectin and other antiparasitic drugs in cancer treatment. For example, a study published in the journal <a href="https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/pharmacology/articles/10.3389/fphar.2021.717529/full">Frontiers in Pharmacology </a>suggests that ivermectin m ay have anticancer effects by inhibiting certain cellular pathways. Similarly, a review in the journal <a href="https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4096024/">Cancers</a> &nbsp;discusses the potential of mebendazole as an anticancer agent.</p>
<p>However, these studies are preliminary, and more extensive clinical trials are needed to confirm the efficacy and safety of these drugs in cancer treatment.</p>
<h2>Conclusion</h2>
<p>While the claim that ivermectin, mebendazole, and fenbendazole are effective cancer treatments is based on a peer-reviewed study, it is premature to conclude that these drugs are a definitive solution for cancer. Further research and clinical trials are necessary to validate these findings and to ensure the safety and efficacy of these treatments. Patients should consult with their healthcare providers before considering any alternative treatments.</p>

<h2>Introduction</h2>
<p>A recent article from The People's Voice claims that a Lancet review of 325 autopsies found that 74% of deaths were linked to COVID-19 vaccines. The article also states that the journal removed the study after only 24 hours. This claim review will examine the validity of these statements.</p>
<h2>The Claim</h2>
<p>The claim suggests that a significant number of deaths were directly caused by COVID-19 vaccines, as indicated by an autopsy study published in the Lancet. The study was allegedly removed due to its conclusions not being supported by the methodology.</p>
<h2>Analysis</h2>
<p>The study in question was a pre-print awaiting peer-review, authored by Dr. Peter McCullough, Dr. Harvey Risch, and their colleagues. Pre-prints are preliminary reports that have not undergone the rigorous peer-review process necessary for publication in reputable journals. The Lancet removed the study, stating that the conclusions were not supported by the study methodology.</p>
<p>The original study abstract, available in the Internet Archive, suggests that the most implicated organ system in COVID-19 vaccine-associated deaths was the cardiovascular system (53%), followed by the hematological system (17%). The study concluded that there is a high likelihood of a causal link between COVID-19 vaccines and death in most cases.</p>
<p>However, the removal of the study by the Lancet indicates significant methodological concerns. Pre-prints are often removed if they fail to meet basic screening criteria or if the methodology is deemed flawed. The fact that the study was removed so quickly suggests that it did not meet the necessary standards for further review.</p>
<p>Dr. Clare Craig, a pathologist, acknowledged that while the approach taken in the study is sound, there may be a bias towards reporting autopsies where there was evidence of causation. This bias could exaggerate the likelihood of causation. She also emphasized the importance of open scientific critique over censorship.</p>
<h2>Scientific Evidence</h2>
<p>To date, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has not acknowledged a single death being caused by COVID-19 vaccines. The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) is designed to alert to potential harms but is not the best way of measuring the extent of those harms. Quantifying the impact of deaths can be done by looking at overall mortality rates in a country, but this method is also imperfect.</p>
<p>A study published in the <a href="https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2104840">New England Journal of Medicine</a> found no evidence of increased mortality rates among vaccinated individuals compared to unvaccinated individuals. Another study in the <a href="https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(23)00207-4/fulltext">Lancet</a> &nbsp;concluded that COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective, with rare adverse events.</p>
<h2>Conclusion</h2>
<p>The claim that a Lancet review found 74% of deaths linked to COVID-19 vaccines is based on a pre-print study that was removed due to methodological concerns. The removal of the study indicates that the conclusions were not supported by the methodology. The claim is not substantiated by peer-reviewed evidence, and the available scientific literature does not support the assertion that COVID-19 vaccines are causing a significant number of deaths.</p>
<p>It is crucial to rely on peer-reviewed studies and open scientific critique to assess the safety and efficacy of vaccines. Censorship of flawed studies is a necessary part of maintaining scientific integrity.</p>

Claim Review: Lancet Removes Autopsy Study Linking 74% of Deaths to COVID-19 Vaccines

<p>An official report by a Slovak government commission investigating the COVID-19 pandemic recommended mRNA vaccines be banned after determining they are ‘dangerous.’ This claim has gained attention, especially as it was followed by a similar call from the town council of Port Hedland in Western Australia. However, a thorough examination of the available scientific evidence does not support this claim.</p>
<h3>Understanding mRNA Vaccines</h3>
<p>mRNA vaccines, such as those developed by Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna, work by instructing cells to produce a harmless piece of the ‘spike protein’ found on the surface of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. This triggers an immune response, preparing the body to fight the virus if exposed in the future. This technology has been studied for decades and has shown promising results in various applications, including cancer treatments and other infectious diseases.</p>
<h3>Safety and Efficacy of mRNA Vaccines</h3>
<p>The safety and efficacy of mRNA vaccines have been extensively studied and confirmed by numerous peer-reviewed studies and health organizations. For example, a study published in <a href="https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577">The New England Journal of Medicine</a> found that the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine was 95% effective in preventing COVID-19. Similarly, a study published in <a href="https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2035389">The New England Journal of Medicine</a> found that the Moderna vaccine was 94.1% effective.</p>
<p>Regarding safety, a study published in <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7002e3.htm">Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR)</a> by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found that serious adverse events after mRNA vaccination were rare. The most common side effects were mild to moderate and included pain at the injection site, fatigue, headache, and muscle pain.</p>
<h3>Addressing Concerns</h3>
<p>The Slovak government commission's report raises concerns about the safety of mRNA vaccines, but these concerns are not supported by the broader scientific community. The World Health Organization (WHO), the European Medicines Agency (EMA), and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have all reviewed the data on mRNA vaccines and concluded that they are safe and effective.</p>
<p>It is important to note that any medical intervention, including vaccines, can have side effects. However, the benefits of mRNA vaccines in preventing severe COVID-19, hospitalization, and death far outweigh the risks. The rare cases of serious adverse events, such as myocarditis and anaphylaxis, have been closely monitored and studied, and the overall risk remains very low.</p>
<h3>Conclusion</h3>
<p>The claim that mRNA vaccines are dangerous and should be banned is not supported by scientific evidence. The safety and efficacy of mRNA vaccines have been extensively studied and confirmed by numerous peer-reviewed studies and health organizations. While it is important to continue monitoring the safety of these vaccines, the available data strongly support their use in preventing COVID-19.</p>
<p>For high school students and the general public, it is crucial to rely on credible sources of information and to critically evaluate claims made in the media. Misinformation can spread quickly and have serious consequences for public health. Always seek information from reliable scientific sources and consult with healthcare professionals for medical advice.</p>

Claim Review: Slovak Government Report Calls for Ban of ‘Dangerous’ mRNA Vaccines

If you want to replace an existing title on a portal and you want the replaced title to be visible to you and your followers.

Move the mouse over the title and make a right click.

Select Remedia -> Alternate Title from the menu

In the pop-up window, enter a new title that you like.

The blue icon copies the existing title into the input field, so you don't have to type everything...

By pressing Submit, the title will be replaced, which will be visible to you and others who visit the pages.

(There is a possibility that you will have to reload the page for the changes to be visible)

You can contact one of the fact-checking organizations.

Claim rated as -> Choose from false to true

Add claimer -> Opens a pop-up window that allows you to search for existing people already registered in the system or to create a new profile of that person.

Claimed At -> Enter the link to the page where the claim was found. You can add more places and link more claim authors

Short description -> short content that is seen when sharing articles on social networks

Field for entering the content of the article.

After the article is published, it will be visible on the Remedia social network and to everyone who has the Remedia Chrome extension installed

And you can engage in debunking yourself.

CAUTION! Abusing the platform is not allowed, entering unverified, misleading or untrue content will result in the deletion of the entire account with all content

Canonical -> If you enter content that already exists somewhere (your property), you can enter a link and Remedia will try to enter the content in the provided fields.

Featured image -> Image that is displayed when you share an article on other social networks.

Write your title -> Enter the title of the article

The claim being reviewed -> Enter the claim here, but BEWARE! An assertion is not the entire statement someone has made, but something concise and unambiguous. Check the claim entry multiple times as each change will create a new claim in the system.

Claim made on -> date when someone published the claim.

After installing the Chrome extension, you can log in and use advanced functionalities. One of them is 'Dislike'.

By right-clicking on an article, the options provided by the Remedia extension are opened, by selecting Dislike, the article will become more transparent and less visible.

Your action will be visible to you and all people who follow you!

Alternate Title

1. Log in to the Remedia social network with a Google or Facebook account (link above right).

2. Install the Chrome extension (if you didn't)

4. Enter the email you used to open your Google or Facebook account. Submit.

5. After the input field appears, rewrite the code. Accept.

That's it! Now you can use the advanced functions of the Remedia Chrome extension.

Alternate Titles

Remedia's work so far:

Remedia, the best thing that happened to media!

On the Feed page, you can enter Status, Opinion and Claim Review

It is enough to enter the title, short description and content.

Below the fields for entering content, you will find fields for entering links. By entering page links in these fields, you 'show' the Chrome extension on which pages to display your content

Press Publish to publish your opinion. (It may be necessary to wait a moment while all links are generated)

Claim: "A peer-reviewed study published in the International Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine shows that ivermectin, mebendazole, and fenbendazole are effective treatments for cancer." is Half True

Has beed claimed by:

Articles reviewing this claim:

Content you might like: