Most Cancer Channels Claim Science | They're Wrong

We don't

want you to hope.

Hope is great, but it's not what we want for you.

We want you to have efficacy.

We want you to have good results.

Not good results for one person out of 80,000, but good results for 80% of people.

Nothing is a guarantee in this life, but clinical data will show what works for most people.

Unfortunately, when it comes to lab studies in particular, it's not that they're not meaningful.

You've just got to be really, really careful with them because in the words of Richard Feynman, a Nobel laureate physicist, the first thing is to not fool yourself because you're the easiest person to fool.

People love to do what we call cherry picking.

They'll go out and they'll find one study that seems to suggest the thing that they want to hear and they'll latch onto that and just go with it.

and they'll ignore tons of other data.

And that's how you get people believing in one little niche story that doesn't fit with the larger treatment space.

If I ever bring you studies, things that are not clinical data, I will be talking about whether this makes sense, whether the cell line model makes sense, whether the animal model makes sense, whether it fits together with the biology that we know, because one paper by itself doesn't mean anything in the world of scientific publication twenty years ago it might have but with the rise of pay to publish services and poorly reviewed open access journals people can publish anything and so it's a little odd Folks on the internet have it backwards.

They think that you can't trust clinical trials, but they trust little one-off papers by random groups that paid to publish and there's been no review whatsoever.

And there's no reason to actually trust or believe that thing.

unless it weaves in perfectly with a huge amount of other data.

So again, I will always try and produce for you clinical trial data because it's the most meaningful.

And the bigger the clinical trial is, the more meaningful it becomes.

If it's a lab study, I'm always going to be looking at, does it make sense in the greater context? Does the study that they did actually match up with the biology of the systems? Are these things actually meaningful? Again, with ivermectin, if you look at the cell line studies, they look great until you notice that the doses are absolutely enormous and massively toxic.

So does that scientific study mean anything? No, it actually doesn't in the proper context.

And that's the gap that I think a lot of people struggle with because if you don't know to look at, does the dose match? How are you going to figure that out? If you don't know that this animal model doesn't make sense because they're putting human cell lines into a mouse, and of course the mouse is going to reject the cell line, then you don't know to disclude that information or at least treat it with a large amount of suspicion.

I treat all cell lines and animal studies with suspicion.

I know how easily they can be jerry-rigged to look like whatever you want them to look like.

So one in isolation means nothing to me.