Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

Barbara O’Neill’s bold take on fighting cancer: Cut out all sugar and even fruit for 6 weeks. Focus on vegetables, nuts, seeds, and herbs like garlic and olive leaf extract. Starve the cancer of glucose, kill it with natural compounds, and restore balance with fermented foods and microbiome support....

newstart_2024's profile picture

Camus

461,460 subscribers

310,015 views • 1 month ago •via X (Twitter)

Health & Wellness
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

Barbara O’Neill shared the story of Elizabeth Kott, who allegedly conquered cancer naturally. After doctors told her she had fast-growing tumors and needed chemo immediately, she went on a no-sugar diet, took herbs, probiotics, and alkalizing green drinks. Three months later, her cancer markers dropped and the doctor told her to keep doing what she was doing. O’Neill attributes it to removing sugar and chemicals while boosting beneficial bacteria. While reducing sugar and improving gut health can support overall wellness, there is no robust clinical evidence that diet and supplements alone can cure cancer. The Warburg effect shows cancer cells prefer glucose, but human trials of low-sugar diets as standalone treatments have not shown consistent curative results. Conventional treatments remain the standard of care.
1:49

Barbara O’Neill shared the story of Elizabeth Kott, who allegedly conquered cancer naturally. After doctors told her she had fast-growing tumors and needed chemo immediately, she went on a no-sugar diet, took herbs, probiotics, and alkalizing green drinks. Three months later, her cancer markers dropped and the doctor told her to keep doing what she was doing. O’Neill attributes it to removing sugar and chemicals while boosting beneficial bacteria. While reducing sugar and improving gut health can support overall wellness, there is no robust clinical evidence that diet and supplements alone can cure cancer. The Warburg effect shows cancer cells prefer glucose, but human trials of low-sugar diets as standalone treatments have not shown consistent curative results. Conventional treatments remain the standard of care.

Camus

27,913 views • 1 month ago

🚨 A HARVARD TRAINED MD JUST EXPLAINED WHY IVERMECTIN IS BEING STUDIED IN CANCER RESEARCH AGAIN And the internet is paying VERY close attention. Dr. Shintani says researchers have explored how Ivermectin may interact with cancer cells in laboratory and preclinical studies involving: • Breast cancer • Prostate cancer • Colon cancer • Lung cancer • Leukemia • Liver cancer • Stomach cancer Why scientists are interested: ✅ Studies suggest Ivermectin may trigger apoptosis, also known as programmed cancer cell death ✅ Researchers are investigating how it may affect tumor growth pathways and cancer stem-like cells ✅ Some preclinical studies are exploring Ivermectin alongside chemotherapy in laboratory models And THAT is why repurposed medicine conversations have exploded across podcasts, TikTok, X, and cancer forums worldwide. Not because the science is settled. Because people are shocked that a low-cost anti-parasitic drug is even being discussed in cancer research at all. But whether critics like it or not… The public conversation around repurposed drugs is getting impossible to ignore.
0:59

🚨 A HARVARD TRAINED MD JUST EXPLAINED WHY IVERMECTIN IS BEING STUDIED IN CANCER RESEARCH AGAIN And the internet is paying VERY close attention. Dr. Shintani says researchers have explored how Ivermectin may interact with cancer cells in laboratory and preclinical studies involving: • Breast cancer • Prostate cancer • Colon cancer • Lung cancer • Leukemia • Liver cancer • Stomach cancer Why scientists are interested: ✅ Studies suggest Ivermectin may trigger apoptosis, also known as programmed cancer cell death ✅ Researchers are investigating how it may affect tumor growth pathways and cancer stem-like cells ✅ Some preclinical studies are exploring Ivermectin alongside chemotherapy in laboratory models And THAT is why repurposed medicine conversations have exploded across podcasts, TikTok, X, and cancer forums worldwide. Not because the science is settled. Because people are shocked that a low-cost anti-parasitic drug is even being discussed in cancer research at all. But whether critics like it or not… The public conversation around repurposed drugs is getting impossible to ignore.

Joe Tippens

10,621 views • 2 months ago

Sugar and carbohydrates DON’T cause a cancer recurrence Annabelle Croft was a guest on Gabby Logan podcast where she shared information about her husband’s colon cancer diagnosis. Annabelle had been led to believe that sugar and carbohydrates feed cancer cells, and her husband followed a ketogenic diet based on protein with a small amount of fat Annabelle was given the wrong advice There is NO evidence that sugar makes cancer come back Cancer cells are sneaky. They will use anything for fuel - sugar, carbs, protein or fat. They don’t care. And every carb is broken down to sugar - veg, fruit, nuts and seeds. The @wcrfuk recommends that every cancer patient follows a plant-based diet to ensure you get the vitamins, minerals and fibre that your body needs. Double check any claim you see online with sensible resources like Cancer Research UK And if you want a deeper dive into sugar and cancer, read my new book - The Cancer Roadmap
1:29

Sugar and carbohydrates DON’T cause a cancer recurrence Annabelle Croft was a guest on Gabby Logan podcast where she shared information about her husband’s colon cancer diagnosis. Annabelle had been led to believe that sugar and carbohydrates feed cancer cells, and her husband followed a ketogenic diet based on protein with a small amount of fat Annabelle was given the wrong advice There is NO evidence that sugar makes cancer come back Cancer cells are sneaky. They will use anything for fuel - sugar, carbs, protein or fat. They don’t care. And every carb is broken down to sugar - veg, fruit, nuts and seeds. The @wcrfuk recommends that every cancer patient follows a plant-based diet to ensure you get the vitamins, minerals and fibre that your body needs. Double check any claim you see online with sensible resources like Cancer Research UK And if you want a deeper dive into sugar and cancer, read my new book - The Cancer Roadmap

Dr Liz O'Riordan

24,020 views • 1 year ago

Dr. Mark Hyman on cancer and diet. Sugar and starch fuel cancer cells, they can only use glucose. A ketogenic diet may help shut them down by starving them of their preferred fuel. Americans eat about 152 pounds of sugar and 133 pounds of flour per year, almost three-quarters of a pound a day. This drives insulin resistance, obesity, diabetes, and cancers like pancreatic, colon, breast, uterine, and prostate. High sugar and refined carb intake is linked to increased cancer risk through chronic hyperinsulinemia, inflammation, and obesity. Studies show ketogenic diets can reduce tumor growth in some cancers by limiting glucose availability, but results vary and more research is needed. A powerful link between what we eat and disease risk.
1:16

Dr. Mark Hyman on cancer and diet. Sugar and starch fuel cancer cells, they can only use glucose. A ketogenic diet may help shut them down by starving them of their preferred fuel. Americans eat about 152 pounds of sugar and 133 pounds of flour per year, almost three-quarters of a pound a day. This drives insulin resistance, obesity, diabetes, and cancers like pancreatic, colon, breast, uterine, and prostate. High sugar and refined carb intake is linked to increased cancer risk through chronic hyperinsulinemia, inflammation, and obesity. Studies show ketogenic diets can reduce tumor growth in some cancers by limiting glucose availability, but results vary and more research is needed. A powerful link between what we eat and disease risk.

Camus

31,642 views • 1 month ago

Mr. Annamalai is a great politician, however, his claims suggesting that 24-hour or 7-day fasting can "kill all cancer cells" are scientifically inaccurate and potentially harmful to patients. 1. The Warburg Effect: It is true that many cancer cells consume more glucose than normal cells. However, they are highly adaptable. Simply "starving" them through fasting does not consistently kill them, as they can often find alternative ways to survive. 2. Fasting is not a Standalone Cure: While research (like that of Dr. Valter Longo) explores how fasting-mimicking diets can assist chemotherapy by protecting healthy cells, it is not a replacement for medical treatment. A 24-hour fast is not a "kill switch" for cancer. 3. The Danger of Misinformation: Claiming a 7-day fast can eliminate "all cancer" is a dangerous overreach. For many patients, prolonged fasting can lead to severe muscle loss (cachexia) and weakened immunity, which are leading causes of death in cancer patients. Conclusion: Nutrition plays a vital role in cancer care, but medical advice should come from oncologists and registered dietitians. Cultural practices like fasting have spiritual value but should not be mistaken for a medical cure for a complex disease like cancer. (Source of video: Sun News)
2:14

Mr. Annamalai is a great politician, however, his claims suggesting that 24-hour or 7-day fasting can "kill all cancer cells" are scientifically inaccurate and potentially harmful to patients. 1. The Warburg Effect: It is true that many cancer cells consume more glucose than normal cells. However, they are highly adaptable. Simply "starving" them through fasting does not consistently kill them, as they can often find alternative ways to survive. 2. Fasting is not a Standalone Cure: While research (like that of Dr. Valter Longo) explores how fasting-mimicking diets can assist chemotherapy by protecting healthy cells, it is not a replacement for medical treatment. A 24-hour fast is not a "kill switch" for cancer. 3. The Danger of Misinformation: Claiming a 7-day fast can eliminate "all cancer" is a dangerous overreach. For many patients, prolonged fasting can lead to severe muscle loss (cachexia) and weakened immunity, which are leading causes of death in cancer patients. Conclusion: Nutrition plays a vital role in cancer care, but medical advice should come from oncologists and registered dietitians. Cultural practices like fasting have spiritual value but should not be mistaken for a medical cure for a complex disease like cancer. (Source of video: Sun News)

Dr Sudhir Kumar MD DM

57,744 views • 7 months ago

Cancer’s fuel is glucose + glutamine. Starve both → tumors choke and die. Thomas Seyfried: “We have not found a single tumor that can survive without glucose and glutamine. Put the body into nutritional ketosis (low sugar, high ketones/fatty acids) and the cancer cells get hammered. Metabolic therapy should be first-line for every patient.” At the end, maybe a small touch of radiation/chemo/immunotherapy to mop up stragglers—but the foundation is metabolic. Tumor cells are metabolically inflexible. Normal cells thrive on ketones; cancer cells cannot. Transition the body’s fuel source → cancer suffocates. If metabolic therapy (ketogenic diet + glutamine targeting) is this powerful, why isn’t it standard protocol? What’s your take—would you push for metabolic therapy first if diagnosed? Or have you seen / tried keto in cancer contexts? Your thoughts 👇
0:59

Cancer’s fuel is glucose + glutamine. Starve both → tumors choke and die. Thomas Seyfried: “We have not found a single tumor that can survive without glucose and glutamine. Put the body into nutritional ketosis (low sugar, high ketones/fatty acids) and the cancer cells get hammered. Metabolic therapy should be first-line for every patient.” At the end, maybe a small touch of radiation/chemo/immunotherapy to mop up stragglers—but the foundation is metabolic. Tumor cells are metabolically inflexible. Normal cells thrive on ketones; cancer cells cannot. Transition the body’s fuel source → cancer suffocates. If metabolic therapy (ketogenic diet + glutamine targeting) is this powerful, why isn’t it standard protocol? What’s your take—would you push for metabolic therapy first if diagnosed? Or have you seen / tried keto in cancer contexts? Your thoughts 👇

Camus

325,004 views • 5 months ago

Dr. Thomas Seyfried drops a bombshell: "Cancer is very preventable... we're doing everything we possibly can to induce it in our diet & lifestyle." He flips the script: Cancer isn't primarily genetic—it's a metabolic disease rooted in damaged mitochondria forcing cells to ferment glucose and glutamine for energy. Key points from the clip: - Higher blood sugar = faster tumor growth (his early research showed this clearly). - Cancer cells rely on glucose + glutamine (they have faulty mitochondria). - Solution? Restrict both fuels via low-carb/ketogenic diet + fasting → enter nutritional ketosis. - Healthy cells thrive on ketone bodies; tumors starve slowly, lose blood supply, and get dissolved by the body. Non-toxic management potential: Target metabolism instead of (or alongside) traditional treatments. (Backed by his decades of work, including case studies & animal models on restricted ketogenic approaches—though mainstream oncology debates it as adjunct, not cure-all.) Mind-blowing rethink: What if prevention starts with blood sugar control and ditching high-carb lifestyles? Have you explored keto/fasting for health reasons? Seen any personal changes—or know someone who's tried metabolic approaches? Share experiences respectfully below!
0:56

Dr. Thomas Seyfried drops a bombshell: "Cancer is very preventable... we're doing everything we possibly can to induce it in our diet & lifestyle." He flips the script: Cancer isn't primarily genetic—it's a metabolic disease rooted in damaged mitochondria forcing cells to ferment glucose and glutamine for energy. Key points from the clip: - Higher blood sugar = faster tumor growth (his early research showed this clearly). - Cancer cells rely on glucose + glutamine (they have faulty mitochondria). - Solution? Restrict both fuels via low-carb/ketogenic diet + fasting → enter nutritional ketosis. - Healthy cells thrive on ketone bodies; tumors starve slowly, lose blood supply, and get dissolved by the body. Non-toxic management potential: Target metabolism instead of (or alongside) traditional treatments. (Backed by his decades of work, including case studies & animal models on restricted ketogenic approaches—though mainstream oncology debates it as adjunct, not cure-all.) Mind-blowing rethink: What if prevention starts with blood sugar control and ditching high-carb lifestyles? Have you explored keto/fasting for health reasons? Seen any personal changes—or know someone who's tried metabolic approaches? Share experiences respectfully below!

Camus

65,965 views • 6 months ago

Can people in power/ authority kindly stop with this absolute BS on "fasting killing cancer cells" and citing religious nonsense to appeal to peoples emotions? Fasting is really quite dangerous for cancer patients in real life. Let me explain and bury this myth once and for all, especially for science illiterates like this guy. [1] The most common argument is that fasting "starves" cancer by cutting off its sugar (glucose) supply. While it is true that cancer cells consume vast amounts of glucose, they are biologically aggressive survivalists. If you stop eating, your body eventually switches to burning fat and breaking down muscle for energy. Cancer cells are highly adaptable; when glucose is low, many types of cancer can mutate to feed on other fuel sources, such as lactate, amino acids (from your muscles), or fatty acids. You cannot simply "starve" a tumor without starving the patient first. [2] Fasting is dangerous for cancer patients because of cancer cachexia - a wasting syndrome where the body loses muscle and fat rapidly. Cachexia is responsible for up to 30% of cancer deaths. Cancer puts the body in a hyper-metabolic state (burning energy fast). If a patient fasts, they risk accelerating muscle loss and weakening their immune system. A weak body cannot tolerate life-saving treatments like chemotherapy or radiation, nor can it fight off infections. [3] Most claims about fasting curing cancer come from studies on mice or cells in a petri dish. In a dish: You can kill cancer cells with almost anything (lemon juice, bleach, starvation, even shooting a bullet at it at close point or using a grenade to destroy the entire lab) because they have no immune system or body to protect them. In a human: The biology is infinitely more complex. Human metabolism, hormonal fluctuations, and tumor micro-environments mean that what shrinks a tumor in a mouse often fails completely in human trials. [4] Proponents often cite "autophagy" (the body's cellular recycling process triggered by fasting) as the cure. They claim it cleans out cancerous cells. Science shows that autophagy is a double-edged sword. -In all people, autophagy is a normal physiological process - whether fasting or not, which help in cleaning up damaged cells. -But in patients with cancer, once a tumor exists, cancer cells can actually hijack autophagy to survive stress (like chemotherapy) and repair themselves. In this context, fasting could theoretically help the cancer survive the treatment intended to kill it. [5] "Cancer" is not one disease; it is over 200 different diseases characterized by uncontrolled cell growth. Some cancers are driven by hormones, some by genetic mutations, and some by viruses. A fasting protocol that slows down one specific type of breast cancer might have zero effect on pancreatic cancer, or worse, accelerate a different type. The most lethal aspect of this misinformation is the delay in treatment. Cancer is a time-sensitive disease. While a patient spends months trying to fast the cancer away based on religious or alternative advice, the cancer often metastasizes (spreads) to other organs. Once cancer spreads, it often moves from being curable to being terminal. Relying solely on fasting wastes the critical window where medical intervention could have saved a life. Suggesting a single "ancient cure" for 200 complex genetic diseases is scientifically illogical... ...and generally stupid, as this video proves.
1:47

Can people in power/ authority kindly stop with this absolute BS on "fasting killing cancer cells" and citing religious nonsense to appeal to peoples emotions? Fasting is really quite dangerous for cancer patients in real life. Let me explain and bury this myth once and for all, especially for science illiterates like this guy. [1] The most common argument is that fasting "starves" cancer by cutting off its sugar (glucose) supply. While it is true that cancer cells consume vast amounts of glucose, they are biologically aggressive survivalists. If you stop eating, your body eventually switches to burning fat and breaking down muscle for energy. Cancer cells are highly adaptable; when glucose is low, many types of cancer can mutate to feed on other fuel sources, such as lactate, amino acids (from your muscles), or fatty acids. You cannot simply "starve" a tumor without starving the patient first. [2] Fasting is dangerous for cancer patients because of cancer cachexia - a wasting syndrome where the body loses muscle and fat rapidly. Cachexia is responsible for up to 30% of cancer deaths. Cancer puts the body in a hyper-metabolic state (burning energy fast). If a patient fasts, they risk accelerating muscle loss and weakening their immune system. A weak body cannot tolerate life-saving treatments like chemotherapy or radiation, nor can it fight off infections. [3] Most claims about fasting curing cancer come from studies on mice or cells in a petri dish. In a dish: You can kill cancer cells with almost anything (lemon juice, bleach, starvation, even shooting a bullet at it at close point or using a grenade to destroy the entire lab) because they have no immune system or body to protect them. In a human: The biology is infinitely more complex. Human metabolism, hormonal fluctuations, and tumor micro-environments mean that what shrinks a tumor in a mouse often fails completely in human trials. [4] Proponents often cite "autophagy" (the body's cellular recycling process triggered by fasting) as the cure. They claim it cleans out cancerous cells. Science shows that autophagy is a double-edged sword. -In all people, autophagy is a normal physiological process - whether fasting or not, which help in cleaning up damaged cells. -But in patients with cancer, once a tumor exists, cancer cells can actually hijack autophagy to survive stress (like chemotherapy) and repair themselves. In this context, fasting could theoretically help the cancer survive the treatment intended to kill it. [5] "Cancer" is not one disease; it is over 200 different diseases characterized by uncontrolled cell growth. Some cancers are driven by hormones, some by genetic mutations, and some by viruses. A fasting protocol that slows down one specific type of breast cancer might have zero effect on pancreatic cancer, or worse, accelerate a different type. The most lethal aspect of this misinformation is the delay in treatment. Cancer is a time-sensitive disease. While a patient spends months trying to fast the cancer away based on religious or alternative advice, the cancer often metastasizes (spreads) to other organs. Once cancer spreads, it often moves from being curable to being terminal. Relying solely on fasting wastes the critical window where medical intervention could have saved a life. Suggesting a single "ancient cure" for 200 complex genetic diseases is scientifically illogical... ...and generally stupid, as this video proves.

TheLiverDoc™

193,453 views • 7 months ago

In an interview, Dr. Kathleen Ruddy, a distinguished breast cancer surgeon, author, and inventor, shared groundbreaking insights on repurposed drugs for cancer treatment. She discussed how medications like ivermectin, mebendazole, sildenafil, metformin, aspirin, doxycycline, and vitamin C show promise in targeting cancer stem cells, the drivers of tumor regrowth. “Cancer stem cells are the real bad boys,” Dr. Ruddy stated, explaining that chemotherapy and radiation often fail to eliminate them, leading to cancer recurrence. Preclinical studies show combinations like doxycycline and vitamin C can eradicate over 90% of cancer stem cells, with doxycycline, azithromycin, and vitamin C proving equally effective. These affordable, FDA-approved drugs could halt tumors without harming patients. Dr. Ruddy praised Dr. Paul Marik’s Cancer Care monograph as a must-read for its analysis of repurposed drugs. Her mission is to cure cancer, not manage it as a chronic disease. “Patients want to live without cancer,” she emphasized. Through her work, she’s studying these therapies’ impact on cancers like breast, prostate, and lung. “Kill the cancer, or the cancer will kill you,” Dr. Ruddy urged. Could repurposed drugs transform cancer care?
3:41

In an interview, Dr. Kathleen Ruddy, a distinguished breast cancer surgeon, author, and inventor, shared groundbreaking insights on repurposed drugs for cancer treatment. She discussed how medications like ivermectin, mebendazole, sildenafil, metformin, aspirin, doxycycline, and vitamin C show promise in targeting cancer stem cells, the drivers of tumor regrowth. “Cancer stem cells are the real bad boys,” Dr. Ruddy stated, explaining that chemotherapy and radiation often fail to eliminate them, leading to cancer recurrence. Preclinical studies show combinations like doxycycline and vitamin C can eradicate over 90% of cancer stem cells, with doxycycline, azithromycin, and vitamin C proving equally effective. These affordable, FDA-approved drugs could halt tumors without harming patients. Dr. Ruddy praised Dr. Paul Marik’s Cancer Care monograph as a must-read for its analysis of repurposed drugs. Her mission is to cure cancer, not manage it as a chronic disease. “Patients want to live without cancer,” she emphasized. Through her work, she’s studying these therapies’ impact on cancers like breast, prostate, and lung. “Kill the cancer, or the cancer will kill you,” Dr. Ruddy urged. Could repurposed drugs transform cancer care?

Camus

117,774 views • 1 year ago

🚨Did you know that fructose can fuel cancer by hijacking your liver? (🔗 at end) 1/5) It sounds dramatic, but new research - published in nature has uncovered a chilling new connection between fructose and cancer growth. And it’s not just about sugar making us gain weight; the effects are far deeper and more direct. 🧵Let me break it down. But first, background… High fructose diets are already associated with increased risks of certain cancer, like pancreatic cancer. And there are many known mechanisms whereby fructose can support cancer growth and survival. 🤨But I particularly like these new data, because they reveal just how sneaky cancer can be, effectively hijacking the liver for its own purposes
0:32

🚨Did you know that fructose can fuel cancer by hijacking your liver? (🔗 at end) 1/5) It sounds dramatic, but new research - published in nature has uncovered a chilling new connection between fructose and cancer growth. And it’s not just about sugar making us gain weight; the effects are far deeper and more direct. 🧵Let me break it down. But first, background… High fructose diets are already associated with increased risks of certain cancer, like pancreatic cancer. And there are many known mechanisms whereby fructose can support cancer growth and survival. 🤨But I particularly like these new data, because they reveal just how sneaky cancer can be, effectively hijacking the liver for its own purposes

Nick Norwitz MD PhD

49,038 views • 1 year ago

Dr. Robert Lustig dropped some pretty heavy truth on Steven Bartlett’s podcast: Sugar isn’t just bad for your waistline — it’s directly linked to cancer. Here’s why, in plain terms: Anything that spikes insulin acts like a growth factor for cancer cells. Fructose messes with your mitochondria, basically feeding the cancer and telling cells to divide faster. Some cancers even have an enzyme that turns fructose into glucose right inside the tumor. So when we give cancer patients drinks like Ensure — loaded with sugar — we might actually be feeding the disease. Multiple studies (including large meta-analyses) show hyperinsulinemia and elevated IGF-1 significantly increase cancer risk. Fructose is metabolized almost entirely in the liver and promotes de novo lipogenesis and oxidative stress more aggressively than glucose. We’ve known sugar causes a lot of problems, but this connection to cancer feels especially urgent. The mechanisms are becoming clearer every year. Many of us are starting to realize that constantly feeding our bodies sugar might be doing way more long-term damage than we thought. What about you — has learning about sugar’s effects on cancer changed how you think about your own diet, or do you still see it as mostly a weight issue?
1:45

Dr. Robert Lustig dropped some pretty heavy truth on Steven Bartlett’s podcast: Sugar isn’t just bad for your waistline — it’s directly linked to cancer. Here’s why, in plain terms: Anything that spikes insulin acts like a growth factor for cancer cells. Fructose messes with your mitochondria, basically feeding the cancer and telling cells to divide faster. Some cancers even have an enzyme that turns fructose into glucose right inside the tumor. So when we give cancer patients drinks like Ensure — loaded with sugar — we might actually be feeding the disease. Multiple studies (including large meta-analyses) show hyperinsulinemia and elevated IGF-1 significantly increase cancer risk. Fructose is metabolized almost entirely in the liver and promotes de novo lipogenesis and oxidative stress more aggressively than glucose. We’ve known sugar causes a lot of problems, but this connection to cancer feels especially urgent. The mechanisms are becoming clearer every year. Many of us are starting to realize that constantly feeding our bodies sugar might be doing way more long-term damage than we thought. What about you — has learning about sugar’s effects on cancer changed how you think about your own diet, or do you still see it as mostly a weight issue?

Camus

22,078 views • 3 months ago

Oncologist Dr. William Makis: "Johns Hopkins quietly secured a patent in 2021 on mebendazole for treatment in cancer...[and is] running, quietly, several clinical trials with mebendazole in cancer...So this is not fringe... There's... real science behind it, patents behind it." "For the past year and a half, I've been working with antiparasitics that are being repurposed for cancer. This is ivermectin, mebendazole and fenbendazole. And the reason is because there's a big body of research. There are over 400 published papers on ivermectin in cancer. There are over 240 published papers on mebendazole in cancer. "In fact, Johns Hopkins quietly secured a patent in 2021 on mebendazole for treatment in cancer, specifically the most aggressive cancer, which is glioblastoma, brain cancer, extremely aggressive cancer. Johns Hopkins has the patent. They are also running quietly several clinical trials with mebendazole in cancer. There's colon cancer, gastric cancer and brain cancer, including children, children with brain cancers as well. So this is not fringe, this is not, something that is far out. There's actually real science behind it, patents behind it. Dr. Sulack Pete "And when you search a lot of the AIs, for example Perplexity AI and you ask what are the most promising repurposed drugs for terminally ill cancer patients today, it will give you in its search, in the top three, you will get ivermectin as number one, mebendazole and fenbendazole, there's other antiparasitics like hydroxychloroquine will be in the top 10, you will have curcumin in the top 10, you will have EGCG, which is from green tea extract in the top 10, resveratrol in the top 10, metformin, which is a diabetes drug but also has anti-cancer activity in the top 10 as well. "And what I have found working with these antiparasitics, is that there is a benefit to patients in at least 75% of the cases." Follow me for more Bombshell. #Fenbendazole #Ivermectin #Cancercure
3:49

Oncologist Dr. William Makis: "Johns Hopkins quietly secured a patent in 2021 on mebendazole for treatment in cancer...[and is] running, quietly, several clinical trials with mebendazole in cancer...So this is not fringe... There's... real science behind it, patents behind it." "For the past year and a half, I've been working with antiparasitics that are being repurposed for cancer. This is ivermectin, mebendazole and fenbendazole. And the reason is because there's a big body of research. There are over 400 published papers on ivermectin in cancer. There are over 240 published papers on mebendazole in cancer. "In fact, Johns Hopkins quietly secured a patent in 2021 on mebendazole for treatment in cancer, specifically the most aggressive cancer, which is glioblastoma, brain cancer, extremely aggressive cancer. Johns Hopkins has the patent. They are also running quietly several clinical trials with mebendazole in cancer. There's colon cancer, gastric cancer and brain cancer, including children, children with brain cancers as well. So this is not fringe, this is not, something that is far out. There's actually real science behind it, patents behind it. Dr. Sulack Pete "And when you search a lot of the AIs, for example Perplexity AI and you ask what are the most promising repurposed drugs for terminally ill cancer patients today, it will give you in its search, in the top three, you will get ivermectin as number one, mebendazole and fenbendazole, there's other antiparasitics like hydroxychloroquine will be in the top 10, you will have curcumin in the top 10, you will have EGCG, which is from green tea extract in the top 10, resveratrol in the top 10, metformin, which is a diabetes drug but also has anti-cancer activity in the top 10 as well. "And what I have found working with these antiparasitics, is that there is a benefit to patients in at least 75% of the cases." Follow me for more Bombshell. #Fenbendazole #Ivermectin #Cancercure

Dr. Zakaria MD

46,717 views • 1 month ago

🚨🚨🚨🇮🇹 Dr. Tullio Simoncini is an Italian oncologist who has proposed a hypothesis regarding the cause and treatment of cancer : •According to his hypothesis, cancer is not a result of genetic mutations or uncontrolled cell growth, but rather a fungal infection caused primarily by the fungus Candida albicans. •Dr. Simoncini believes that cancer cells are actually fungal cells that have adapted to the body's internal environment. •His proposed treatment for cancer involves the use of sodium bicarbonate, also known as baking soda (Nahcolite), which he claims can effectively neutralize the acidic environment in which cancer cells thrive. •By raising the pH level of the tumor environment, Dr. Simoncini suggests that sodium bicarbonate can effectively kill the fungus and halt the progression of cancer. •Some studies have shown that sodium bicarbonate can have anti-cancer effects in certain in vitro and animal models. “Dr. Simoncini treat his patients with Sodium Bicarbonate” Can Cancer be treated with Baking Soda? What does that tell us about cancer? #Cancer #BakingSoda
2:39

🚨🚨🚨🇮🇹 Dr. Tullio Simoncini is an Italian oncologist who has proposed a hypothesis regarding the cause and treatment of cancer : •According to his hypothesis, cancer is not a result of genetic mutations or uncontrolled cell growth, but rather a fungal infection caused primarily by the fungus Candida albicans. •Dr. Simoncini believes that cancer cells are actually fungal cells that have adapted to the body's internal environment. •His proposed treatment for cancer involves the use of sodium bicarbonate, also known as baking soda (Nahcolite), which he claims can effectively neutralize the acidic environment in which cancer cells thrive. •By raising the pH level of the tumor environment, Dr. Simoncini suggests that sodium bicarbonate can effectively kill the fungus and halt the progression of cancer. •Some studies have shown that sodium bicarbonate can have anti-cancer effects in certain in vitro and animal models. “Dr. Simoncini treat his patients with Sodium Bicarbonate” Can Cancer be treated with Baking Soda? What does that tell us about cancer? #Cancer #BakingSoda

Kevin - WE THE PEOPLE🦁

836,350 views • 2 years ago

Oncologist Dr. William Makis: "Johns Hopkins quietly secured a patent in 2021 on mebendazole for treatment in cancer...[and is] running, quietly, several clinical trials with mebendazole in cancer...So this is not fringe... There's... real science behind it, patents behind it." This clip of Dr. Makis (William Makis), a radiologist, oncologist, and cancer researcher, is taken from an interview with Seth Holehouse () posted to Rumble on November 21, 2025. ----------------Partial transcription of clip--------------- "For the past year and a half, I've been working with antiparasitics that are being repurposed for cancer. This is ivermectin, mebendazole and fenbendazole. And the reason is because there's a big body of research. There are over 400 published papers on ivermectin in cancer. There are over 240 published papers on mebendazole in cancer. "In fact, Johns Hopkins quietly secured a patent in 2021 on mebendazole for treatment in cancer, specifically the most aggressive cancer, which is glioblastoma, brain cancer, extremely aggressive cancer. Johns Hopkins has the patent. They are also running quietly several clinical trials with mebendazole in cancer. There's colon cancer, gastric cancer and brain cancer, including children, children with brain cancers as well. So this is not fringe, this is not, something that is far out. There's actually real science behind it, patents behind it. "And when you search a lot of the AIs, for example Perplexity AI and you ask what are the most promising repurposed drugs for terminally ill cancer patients today, it will give you in its search, in the top three, you will get ivermectin as number one, mebendazole and fenbendazole, there's other antiparasitics like hydroxychloroquine will be in the top 10, you will have curcumin in the top 10, you will have EGCG, which is from green tea extract in the top 10, resveratrol in the top 10, metformin, which is a diabetes drug but also has anti-cancer activity in the top 10 as well. "And what I have found working with these antiparasitics, is that there is a benefit to patients in at least 75% of the cases."
1:59

Oncologist Dr. William Makis: "Johns Hopkins quietly secured a patent in 2021 on mebendazole for treatment in cancer...[and is] running, quietly, several clinical trials with mebendazole in cancer...So this is not fringe... There's... real science behind it, patents behind it." This clip of Dr. Makis (William Makis), a radiologist, oncologist, and cancer researcher, is taken from an interview with Seth Holehouse () posted to Rumble on November 21, 2025. ----------------Partial transcription of clip--------------- "For the past year and a half, I've been working with antiparasitics that are being repurposed for cancer. This is ivermectin, mebendazole and fenbendazole. And the reason is because there's a big body of research. There are over 400 published papers on ivermectin in cancer. There are over 240 published papers on mebendazole in cancer. "In fact, Johns Hopkins quietly secured a patent in 2021 on mebendazole for treatment in cancer, specifically the most aggressive cancer, which is glioblastoma, brain cancer, extremely aggressive cancer. Johns Hopkins has the patent. They are also running quietly several clinical trials with mebendazole in cancer. There's colon cancer, gastric cancer and brain cancer, including children, children with brain cancers as well. So this is not fringe, this is not, something that is far out. There's actually real science behind it, patents behind it. "And when you search a lot of the AIs, for example Perplexity AI and you ask what are the most promising repurposed drugs for terminally ill cancer patients today, it will give you in its search, in the top three, you will get ivermectin as number one, mebendazole and fenbendazole, there's other antiparasitics like hydroxychloroquine will be in the top 10, you will have curcumin in the top 10, you will have EGCG, which is from green tea extract in the top 10, resveratrol in the top 10, metformin, which is a diabetes drug but also has anti-cancer activity in the top 10 as well. "And what I have found working with these antiparasitics, is that there is a benefit to patients in at least 75% of the cases."

Sense Receptor

228,297 views • 9 months ago

The Dangerous Cult of 'Fasting' Influencers. Fasting has its anecdotal benefits, yes. But it is overrated. And water fasting is highly overrated. But this video featuring a Cardiologist is amusingly nonsense. There is no study from Boston (from a "University?" - how vague!) that says 7-days water fasting reduces risk of cancer (what cancer?) by 70%. And there is no proof that fasting kills cancer cells in humans. Here is what fasting does to cancers in humans. Nothing. Fasting is now become a sort of religion-like cult for wellness influencers to rake in views and engagement. From a scientific standpoint, there are no realistically good human studies to prove anything from fasting that benefits cancers. I know, I know, "autophagy" and all that. Autophagy: Autophagy is the natural, conserved degradation of the cell that removes unnecessary or dysfunctional components. Yes, its a legit term and all. But in the context of cancer reduction and fasting in humans, it sounds like "immunity boosting," another wellness fraud term. The effects of fasting on cancer cells are all based on MOUSE studies, and none explicitly translated to humans. See this paper: everything is based on cells and tissues and small animal experiments: "While research on the subject is tantalizing, there’s little clinical evidence involving humans to substantiate the claims. Studies on the potential impacts on cancer treatment from various forms of fasting or calorie restriction, including the possibility that they reduce side effects, have been limited." "Fasting may not be appropriate for malnourished individuals or those with cancer cachexia, which results in a continuing loss of skeletal muscle mass, or for people with chronic diseases. Those with diabetes need to be very careful, because of the risk of hypoglycemia." "Based on our systematic review and meta-analysis, there is currently no evidence supporting the superiority of therapeutic fasting over non-fasting in preventing chemotherapy toxicity." - see here: Even intermittent fasting (IF) is overrated in cancer. "IF may be considered in adults seeking cancer-prevention benefits through means of weight management, butwhether IF itself affects cancer-related metabolic and molecular pathways remains unanswered. See here: Also this: "Fasting for short periods does not have any beneficial effect on the quality of life of cancer patients during treatment. Evidence on fasting regimes reducing side effects and toxicities of chemotherapy is missing." See here: The whole aspect of "fasting reducing cancer incidence" in the real world is just due to weight loss. Obesity is associated with at least 13 types of cancers and reversing obesity reduces risk of cancer - nothing to do with fasting killing off cancers cells in the body. And one can lose weight even without fasting. See here: Everything from prevention of adverse events of cancer, to reduction in side effects from chemotherapy, to slowing cancer growth by reducing glucose levels, to promoting cell regeneration by affecting autophagy is all LAB BASED MOLECULAR LEVEL HYPOTHESIS that has not been proven conclusively in humans. See here: Cancer patients must not starve. They must remain hydrated and they must eat a well balanced diet because cancer condition is highly demanding. And dont water fast for 7 days. Easy for people to make reels on it, but in real life, it may prove disastrous. Water fast does make you lose weight (because of starvation) but it is not at all a healthy way to lose weight. Stop with this fasting and cancer madness already.
0:21

The Dangerous Cult of 'Fasting' Influencers. Fasting has its anecdotal benefits, yes. But it is overrated. And water fasting is highly overrated. But this video featuring a Cardiologist is amusingly nonsense. There is no study from Boston (from a "University?" - how vague!) that says 7-days water fasting reduces risk of cancer (what cancer?) by 70%. And there is no proof that fasting kills cancer cells in humans. Here is what fasting does to cancers in humans. Nothing. Fasting is now become a sort of religion-like cult for wellness influencers to rake in views and engagement. From a scientific standpoint, there are no realistically good human studies to prove anything from fasting that benefits cancers. I know, I know, "autophagy" and all that. Autophagy: Autophagy is the natural, conserved degradation of the cell that removes unnecessary or dysfunctional components. Yes, its a legit term and all. But in the context of cancer reduction and fasting in humans, it sounds like "immunity boosting," another wellness fraud term. The effects of fasting on cancer cells are all based on MOUSE studies, and none explicitly translated to humans. See this paper: everything is based on cells and tissues and small animal experiments: "While research on the subject is tantalizing, there’s little clinical evidence involving humans to substantiate the claims. Studies on the potential impacts on cancer treatment from various forms of fasting or calorie restriction, including the possibility that they reduce side effects, have been limited." "Fasting may not be appropriate for malnourished individuals or those with cancer cachexia, which results in a continuing loss of skeletal muscle mass, or for people with chronic diseases. Those with diabetes need to be very careful, because of the risk of hypoglycemia." "Based on our systematic review and meta-analysis, there is currently no evidence supporting the superiority of therapeutic fasting over non-fasting in preventing chemotherapy toxicity." - see here: Even intermittent fasting (IF) is overrated in cancer. "IF may be considered in adults seeking cancer-prevention benefits through means of weight management, butwhether IF itself affects cancer-related metabolic and molecular pathways remains unanswered. See here: Also this: "Fasting for short periods does not have any beneficial effect on the quality of life of cancer patients during treatment. Evidence on fasting regimes reducing side effects and toxicities of chemotherapy is missing." See here: The whole aspect of "fasting reducing cancer incidence" in the real world is just due to weight loss. Obesity is associated with at least 13 types of cancers and reversing obesity reduces risk of cancer - nothing to do with fasting killing off cancers cells in the body. And one can lose weight even without fasting. See here: Everything from prevention of adverse events of cancer, to reduction in side effects from chemotherapy, to slowing cancer growth by reducing glucose levels, to promoting cell regeneration by affecting autophagy is all LAB BASED MOLECULAR LEVEL HYPOTHESIS that has not been proven conclusively in humans. See here: Cancer patients must not starve. They must remain hydrated and they must eat a well balanced diet because cancer condition is highly demanding. And dont water fast for 7 days. Easy for people to make reels on it, but in real life, it may prove disastrous. Water fast does make you lose weight (because of starvation) but it is not at all a healthy way to lose weight. Stop with this fasting and cancer madness already.

TheLiverDoc™

269,502 views • 2 years ago

Bee venom can kill aggressive breast cancer cells in just 60 minutes. UCLA research showed that honeybee venom and its main component, melittin, rapidly destroyed triple-negative and HER2-enriched breast cancer cells, some of the most aggressive types. It worked by interfering with key growth receptors (EGFR and HER2) on the cancer cell membrane. The 2020 study (and subsequent research) found melittin induced massive cell death within 60 minutes in lab-tested human breast cancer lines, while having minimal effect on healthy cells. Follow-up meta-analyses have confirmed its potent anti-cancer activity, especially against hard-to-treat subtypes. This is the kind of outside-the-box thinking we need, cheap, natural compounds that could one day offer accessible options alongside conventional treatments.
2:55

Bee venom can kill aggressive breast cancer cells in just 60 minutes. UCLA research showed that honeybee venom and its main component, melittin, rapidly destroyed triple-negative and HER2-enriched breast cancer cells, some of the most aggressive types. It worked by interfering with key growth receptors (EGFR and HER2) on the cancer cell membrane. The 2020 study (and subsequent research) found melittin induced massive cell death within 60 minutes in lab-tested human breast cancer lines, while having minimal effect on healthy cells. Follow-up meta-analyses have confirmed its potent anti-cancer activity, especially against hard-to-treat subtypes. This is the kind of outside-the-box thinking we need, cheap, natural compounds that could one day offer accessible options alongside conventional treatments.

Camus

23,224 views • 2 months ago

I am sorry but Dr Pal Manickam, the Gastroenterologist from California, is becoming not just a health misinformation menace, but also a subtle "hate-monger" with his divisive attitude towards dietary choices in India, also known as Bharat, a Union of States and marriage of [dietary] cultures and traditions. Claims: 1. Eating red meat (beef and pork) causes colon cancer 2. Nitrosamines (from nitrites/nitrates) in red meat causes colon cancer 3. Cancer screening in USA above age of 50, but not in India 4. Kerala has maximum number of colon cancers in India 5. Kerala has maximum number of colon cancers because Malayalees eat a lot of beef. A lot. Response: 1. Eating red meat does not cause colon cancer Higher red meat consumption was shown to have a correlation with increased risk for colon cancer, but the evidence for independent association was weak and remains weak Eating red meat does not increase risk of colon cancer. Excessive consumption of red meat/ processed meat (excessive not yet fully defined across populations) was confusingly correlated with increased risk of colon cancer 2. Studies have only looked at nitrites and nitrates [and hence nitrosamine formation] causing stomach cancer and not colon cancer. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) also focussed on nitrosamines and stomach cancer, but the potential role for dietary nitrate/nitrite in colon cancer is not conclusively proven. Meat-based diets (specifically processed meat, not fresh meat) have a well described higher risk for cancer, but it is not readily attributable to nitrite consistently in all studies. Most studies are on ground and well water and not meat. And the strongest study to show cancer link and nitrite consumption is in mice, not humans The biggest source of nitrate exposure is dietary consumption of certain types of vegetables that are naturally high in nitrate. This is a clear case of investigator bias, looking at any possible way to force the data into a specific conclusion (like Dr. Pal is doing in the video). The IARC maintains the tone of its conclusion, but only to reiterate its validity in a theoretical state, while acknowledging that the epidemiology does to support these conclusions. Nitrites are just one reason processed meats may contribute to bowel cancer, and their relative importance is uncertain. Other factors that may contribute include iron; PAHs (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons) which are formed in smoked meats; and HCAs (heterocyclic amines), which are created when meat is cooked over an open flame – and which also are tumour-promoting. So its not just red meat, but the cooking method signficantly affecting health outcomes. 3. India does not have a national level screening protocol because the proportion of colon cancer among all cancers in India is only 3% which would lead to wastage of medical resources on a low-incidence cancer detection protocol. But in the USA, colon cancer is the second most common cause of cancer death. Overall, the lifetime risk of developing colorectal cancer is about 1 in 23 for men and 1 in 26 for women - which is much much higher compared to India and that is why they have screening protocols in place - not because they eat more red meat than Indians. 4. Kerala has the highest crude incidence rate of all cancers followed by Mizoram. Not colon cancer. All cancers. Highest colon cancer rates and burden of colon cancer are observed in Goa and Orissa, not Kerala. & While the discussion on beef and colon cancer is ongoing in the video, a segment of the clip shows a news item "concerning increasing cases of colon cancer in Kerala" - this is that news piece - - and read what it says: it talks about only younger age group and colon cancer. "Experts opine that underlying factors leading to the rise in cases, especially at this age, could be lifestyle, environment and genetic factors" - they do not mention beef at all. The report also says: "Though we have no authentic records to show the statistics of rising cases, we have been observing a trend here. Our changing lifestyle is most likely to blame for the rise in colorectal cancer cases amongst younger people, though hereditary reasons are also a major cause." - again, no mention of beef eating. 5. Lakshwadeep is India's biggest meat eater followed by north-east states such as Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram, Nagaland and Manipur followed by Kerala. MEAT EATING. Not beef eating. Specifically looking at the largest beef consuming state - it is Meghalaya, where more than 80% of the population consumes this meat, not Kerala. Kerala is the largest beef consuming state in the context of male population only. [ 6. Oh by the way, about pork and colon cancer --> the risk was not increased consuming high amounts of pork: and there is only one study showing colon cancer risk in women in Japan, not India and that too who consumed pork >/= 3 times/week compared to </=1 time: Add-on: The risk for colon cancer is not red meat alone (with weak evidence), but more importantly (with stronger evidence), alcohol use, smoking, family history of cancer, presence of inflammatory bowel disease, obesity and polyps or adenoma of colon. These have been very conviniently ignored by the Gastroenterologist from California. Summary - red meat causing colon cancer is not convincingly proven. Increased intake of processed red meat more than higher intake of unprocessed red meat is weakly linked from evidence point of view to colon cancer risk. Nitrosamine in red meat as cancer causing in humans is not proven. Kerala does not have the largest burden of colon cancer in India, nor it is the largest consumer of beef. There is no realistic evidence that eating pork increases risk of colon cancer. These are actual facts. And I am not even a Gastroenterologist from California. I am a Hepatologist. From India.
0:28

I am sorry but Dr Pal Manickam, the Gastroenterologist from California, is becoming not just a health misinformation menace, but also a subtle "hate-monger" with his divisive attitude towards dietary choices in India, also known as Bharat, a Union of States and marriage of [dietary] cultures and traditions. Claims: 1. Eating red meat (beef and pork) causes colon cancer 2. Nitrosamines (from nitrites/nitrates) in red meat causes colon cancer 3. Cancer screening in USA above age of 50, but not in India 4. Kerala has maximum number of colon cancers in India 5. Kerala has maximum number of colon cancers because Malayalees eat a lot of beef. A lot. Response: 1. Eating red meat does not cause colon cancer Higher red meat consumption was shown to have a correlation with increased risk for colon cancer, but the evidence for independent association was weak and remains weak Eating red meat does not increase risk of colon cancer. Excessive consumption of red meat/ processed meat (excessive not yet fully defined across populations) was confusingly correlated with increased risk of colon cancer 2. Studies have only looked at nitrites and nitrates [and hence nitrosamine formation] causing stomach cancer and not colon cancer. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) also focussed on nitrosamines and stomach cancer, but the potential role for dietary nitrate/nitrite in colon cancer is not conclusively proven. Meat-based diets (specifically processed meat, not fresh meat) have a well described higher risk for cancer, but it is not readily attributable to nitrite consistently in all studies. Most studies are on ground and well water and not meat. And the strongest study to show cancer link and nitrite consumption is in mice, not humans The biggest source of nitrate exposure is dietary consumption of certain types of vegetables that are naturally high in nitrate. This is a clear case of investigator bias, looking at any possible way to force the data into a specific conclusion (like Dr. Pal is doing in the video). The IARC maintains the tone of its conclusion, but only to reiterate its validity in a theoretical state, while acknowledging that the epidemiology does to support these conclusions. Nitrites are just one reason processed meats may contribute to bowel cancer, and their relative importance is uncertain. Other factors that may contribute include iron; PAHs (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons) which are formed in smoked meats; and HCAs (heterocyclic amines), which are created when meat is cooked over an open flame – and which also are tumour-promoting. So its not just red meat, but the cooking method signficantly affecting health outcomes. 3. India does not have a national level screening protocol because the proportion of colon cancer among all cancers in India is only 3% which would lead to wastage of medical resources on a low-incidence cancer detection protocol. But in the USA, colon cancer is the second most common cause of cancer death. Overall, the lifetime risk of developing colorectal cancer is about 1 in 23 for men and 1 in 26 for women - which is much much higher compared to India and that is why they have screening protocols in place - not because they eat more red meat than Indians. 4. Kerala has the highest crude incidence rate of all cancers followed by Mizoram. Not colon cancer. All cancers. Highest colon cancer rates and burden of colon cancer are observed in Goa and Orissa, not Kerala. & While the discussion on beef and colon cancer is ongoing in the video, a segment of the clip shows a news item "concerning increasing cases of colon cancer in Kerala" - this is that news piece - - and read what it says: it talks about only younger age group and colon cancer. "Experts opine that underlying factors leading to the rise in cases, especially at this age, could be lifestyle, environment and genetic factors" - they do not mention beef at all. The report also says: "Though we have no authentic records to show the statistics of rising cases, we have been observing a trend here. Our changing lifestyle is most likely to blame for the rise in colorectal cancer cases amongst younger people, though hereditary reasons are also a major cause." - again, no mention of beef eating. 5. Lakshwadeep is India's biggest meat eater followed by north-east states such as Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram, Nagaland and Manipur followed by Kerala. MEAT EATING. Not beef eating. Specifically looking at the largest beef consuming state - it is Meghalaya, where more than 80% of the population consumes this meat, not Kerala. Kerala is the largest beef consuming state in the context of male population only. [ 6. Oh by the way, about pork and colon cancer --> the risk was not increased consuming high amounts of pork: and there is only one study showing colon cancer risk in women in Japan, not India and that too who consumed pork >/= 3 times/week compared to </=1 time: Add-on: The risk for colon cancer is not red meat alone (with weak evidence), but more importantly (with stronger evidence), alcohol use, smoking, family history of cancer, presence of inflammatory bowel disease, obesity and polyps or adenoma of colon. These have been very conviniently ignored by the Gastroenterologist from California. Summary - red meat causing colon cancer is not convincingly proven. Increased intake of processed red meat more than higher intake of unprocessed red meat is weakly linked from evidence point of view to colon cancer risk. Nitrosamine in red meat as cancer causing in humans is not proven. Kerala does not have the largest burden of colon cancer in India, nor it is the largest consumer of beef. There is no realistic evidence that eating pork increases risk of colon cancer. These are actual facts. And I am not even a Gastroenterologist from California. I am a Hepatologist. From India.

TheLiverDoc™

1,923,707 views • 2 years ago