Thank you, Dr. McCullough!!! Just posted your latest with this support on Facebook:
𝗢𝗩𝗘𝗥𝗔𝗟𝗟 𝗔𝗖𝗖𝗨𝗥𝗔𝗖𝗬 (verifiable claims only): 84%
The preclinical signal is genuine. The call for RCTs is warranted and acknowledged. The post presents the 84% figure as a treatment result; the study itself describes that figure as hypothesis-generating and notes most participants were on concurrent treatments.
The broader picture is shifting, slowly — and still represents a small fraction of the research investment that has historically gone to patented therapies developed and marketed for profit.
𝗔𝗖𝗖𝗨𝗥𝗔𝗧𝗘
𝗦𝘁𝘂𝗱𝘆 𝗽𝘂𝗯𝗹𝗶𝘀𝗵𝗲𝗱 𝗶𝗻 𝗔𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲𝗿 𝗥𝗲𝘀𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗰𝗵, 𝗝𝘂𝗻𝗲 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟲: The paper (Hulscher et al., Anticancer Res. 46(6):3243–3255, PMID 42203321) exists, is PubMed-indexed, and was published as stated. 99%
𝟴𝟰% 𝗖𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗕𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗳𝗶𝘁 𝗥𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼: The 84.4% CBR (95% CI: 77.0–89.8%) is the figure reported in the published study, based on self-reported outcomes at 6-month follow-up in 122 of 197 enrolled patients. 99%
𝗡𝗘𝗗 + 𝗥𝗲𝗴𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝟰𝟴.𝟰%: Matches published data (32.8% NED + 15.6% regression). 99%
𝟭𝟱.𝟲% 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗴𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻: Matches published data. 99%
𝗣𝗿𝗲𝗰𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗮𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲𝗿 𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗯𝗼𝘁𝗵 𝗱𝗿𝘂𝗴𝘀: Multiple published laboratory studies document ivermectin and mebendazole inhibiting proliferation, inducing apoptosis, and disrupting microtubule function in cancer cell models. 95%
𝗔𝗹𝗹 𝗮𝘂𝘁𝗵𝗼𝗿𝘀 𝗮𝗳𝗳𝗶𝗹𝗶𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗪𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗻𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗖𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗮𝗻𝘆: Disclosed in the paper's conflict of interest statement. TWC operates the telemedicine platform through which subjects were prescribed and dispensed the drugs under study. 99%
𝟮𝟱.𝟰% 𝗿𝗲𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝘀𝗶𝗱𝗲 𝗲𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗰𝘁𝘀, 𝗽𝗿𝗶𝗺𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗹𝘆 𝗚𝗜: Matches published safety data (31 of 122 follow-up completers). 99%
𝗠𝗰𝗖𝘂𝗹𝗹𝗼𝘂𝗴𝗵 𝗶𝘀 𝗖𝗦𝗢 𝗼𝗳 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗪𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗻𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗖𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗮𝗻𝘆: Confirmed by TWC and the paper's author affiliations. 99%
𝗦𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗮𝗹 𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗻𝘃𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗶𝗻 𝗼𝗳𝗳-𝗽𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱𝘀: Documented across oncology literature. The absence of commercial return is an acknowledged driver of the research gap between patented and generic therapies. 95%
𝗠𝗜𝗫𝗘𝗗
𝗙𝗶𝗿𝘀𝘁 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗿 𝘀𝘁𝘂𝗱𝘆 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗯𝗶𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻: The Hulscher et al. paper is the largest structured prospective cohort of this specific combination published to date. A 2024 protocol paper in the Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine also examined this combination. "First ever" is partly supported; "largest prospective cohort" is accurate as stated. 72%
𝟴𝟰% 𝗖𝗕𝗥 𝗳𝗿𝗮𝗺𝗲𝗱 𝗮𝘀 𝗮 𝗱𝗿𝘂𝗴 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘂𝗹𝘁: The post's framing problem, not the study's. The study is transparent about its limitations. The post strips those qualifications and presents the number as a standalone treatment result. 65%
𝗦𝗧𝗨𝗗𝗬 𝗟𝗜𝗠𝗜𝗧𝗔𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡𝗦 (authors' own, per PubMed)
No control group. Outcomes self-reported; diagnoses not independently verified. Raw data held by The Wellness Company. The 38.1% of enrolled patients who did not complete follow-up are not accounted for in the CBR calculation. Authors call findings hypothesis-generating and call for RCTs.
𝗘𝗗𝗜𝗧𝗢𝗥𝗜𝗔𝗟 𝗟𝗔𝗡𝗚𝗨𝗔𝗚𝗘: "Greed and poisons" reflects the author's characterization of a documented structural reality: patented therapies developed and marketed for profit, with FDA-mandated labeling documenting organ damage, secondary cancers, cardiac toxicity, nerve damage, immune suppression, and death as required disclosures on standard-of-care oncology drugs. "Groundbreaking" applied to a study the authors themselves describe as hypothesis-generating.
𝗢𝗩𝗘𝗥𝗔𝗟𝗟 𝗔𝗖𝗖𝗨𝗥𝗔𝗖𝗬: 84%
(Anticancer Research, PubMed, Lead Stories, Science-Based Medicine, Medical Dialogues, NewsGuard Reality Check, UCLA/Dr. Otto Yang statement, ASCO 2025 abstracts, FDA package insert requirements)
If the medical institutions would focus more on what causes cancer versus treating it, we could literally cure this condition. Fortunately, there are plenty of information on cancer, what causes it, and also fortunately, this information is relatively seamless. Unfortunately however, this information is not mainstream or alternative, so it is very unorthodox and controversial, (e.g., stop getting screened for cancer) but I imagine -- especially after the last few years -- as long as information is truthful, it should be explored: https://unorthodoxy.substack.com/p/cancer-your-bodys-desperate-attempt
I've written on Ivermectin before and while yes, it does have positive effects -- and should be used when needed, it is an older product by MERCK and I argue that if we can prevent cancer from occurring in the first place, we may alleviate the use of this and other petrochemicals: https://unorthodoxy.substack.com/p/reimagining-medicine
Thank you, Dr. McCullough!!! Just posted your latest with this support on Facebook:
𝗢𝗩𝗘𝗥𝗔𝗟𝗟 𝗔𝗖𝗖𝗨𝗥𝗔𝗖𝗬 (verifiable claims only): 84%
The preclinical signal is genuine. The call for RCTs is warranted and acknowledged. The post presents the 84% figure as a treatment result; the study itself describes that figure as hypothesis-generating and notes most participants were on concurrent treatments.
The broader picture is shifting, slowly — and still represents a small fraction of the research investment that has historically gone to patented therapies developed and marketed for profit.
𝗔𝗖𝗖𝗨𝗥𝗔𝗧𝗘
𝗦𝘁𝘂𝗱𝘆 𝗽𝘂𝗯𝗹𝗶𝘀𝗵𝗲𝗱 𝗶𝗻 𝗔𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲𝗿 𝗥𝗲𝘀𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗰𝗵, 𝗝𝘂𝗻𝗲 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟲: The paper (Hulscher et al., Anticancer Res. 46(6):3243–3255, PMID 42203321) exists, is PubMed-indexed, and was published as stated. 99%
𝟴𝟰% 𝗖𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗕𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗳𝗶𝘁 𝗥𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼: The 84.4% CBR (95% CI: 77.0–89.8%) is the figure reported in the published study, based on self-reported outcomes at 6-month follow-up in 122 of 197 enrolled patients. 99%
𝗡𝗘𝗗 + 𝗥𝗲𝗴𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝟰𝟴.𝟰%: Matches published data (32.8% NED + 15.6% regression). 99%
𝟭𝟱.𝟲% 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗴𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻: Matches published data. 99%
𝗣𝗿𝗲𝗰𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗮𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲𝗿 𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗯𝗼𝘁𝗵 𝗱𝗿𝘂𝗴𝘀: Multiple published laboratory studies document ivermectin and mebendazole inhibiting proliferation, inducing apoptosis, and disrupting microtubule function in cancer cell models. 95%
𝗔𝗹𝗹 𝗮𝘂𝘁𝗵𝗼𝗿𝘀 𝗮𝗳𝗳𝗶𝗹𝗶𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗪𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗻𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗖𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗮𝗻𝘆: Disclosed in the paper's conflict of interest statement. TWC operates the telemedicine platform through which subjects were prescribed and dispensed the drugs under study. 99%
𝟮𝟱.𝟰% 𝗿𝗲𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝘀𝗶𝗱𝗲 𝗲𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗰𝘁𝘀, 𝗽𝗿𝗶𝗺𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗹𝘆 𝗚𝗜: Matches published safety data (31 of 122 follow-up completers). 99%
𝗠𝗰𝗖𝘂𝗹𝗹𝗼𝘂𝗴𝗵 𝗶𝘀 𝗖𝗦𝗢 𝗼𝗳 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗪𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗻𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗖𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗮𝗻𝘆: Confirmed by TWC and the paper's author affiliations. 99%
𝗦𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗮𝗹 𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗻𝘃𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗶𝗻 𝗼𝗳𝗳-𝗽𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱𝘀: Documented across oncology literature. The absence of commercial return is an acknowledged driver of the research gap between patented and generic therapies. 95%
𝗠𝗜𝗫𝗘𝗗
𝗙𝗶𝗿𝘀𝘁 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗿 𝘀𝘁𝘂𝗱𝘆 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗯𝗶𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻: The Hulscher et al. paper is the largest structured prospective cohort of this specific combination published to date. A 2024 protocol paper in the Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine also examined this combination. "First ever" is partly supported; "largest prospective cohort" is accurate as stated. 72%
𝟴𝟰% 𝗖𝗕𝗥 𝗳𝗿𝗮𝗺𝗲𝗱 𝗮𝘀 𝗮 𝗱𝗿𝘂𝗴 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘂𝗹𝘁: The post's framing problem, not the study's. The study is transparent about its limitations. The post strips those qualifications and presents the number as a standalone treatment result. 65%
𝗦𝗧𝗨𝗗𝗬 𝗟𝗜𝗠𝗜𝗧𝗔𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡𝗦 (authors' own, per PubMed)
No control group. Outcomes self-reported; diagnoses not independently verified. Raw data held by The Wellness Company. The 38.1% of enrolled patients who did not complete follow-up are not accounted for in the CBR calculation. Authors call findings hypothesis-generating and call for RCTs.
𝗘𝗗𝗜𝗧𝗢𝗥𝗜𝗔𝗟 𝗟𝗔𝗡𝗚𝗨𝗔𝗚𝗘: "Greed and poisons" reflects the author's characterization of a documented structural reality: patented therapies developed and marketed for profit, with FDA-mandated labeling documenting organ damage, secondary cancers, cardiac toxicity, nerve damage, immune suppression, and death as required disclosures on standard-of-care oncology drugs. "Groundbreaking" applied to a study the authors themselves describe as hypothesis-generating.
𝗢𝗩𝗘𝗥𝗔𝗟𝗟 𝗔𝗖𝗖𝗨𝗥𝗔𝗖𝗬: 84%
(Anticancer Research, PubMed, Lead Stories, Science-Based Medicine, Medical Dialogues, NewsGuard Reality Check, UCLA/Dr. Otto Yang statement, ASCO 2025 abstracts, FDA package insert requirements)
𝗝𝗮𝗻𝗲𝘁 𝗕𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗮𝗿𝗱 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗖𝗹𝗮𝘂𝗱𝗲 𝗔𝗜 (research and format) — 𝗝𝘂𝗻𝗲 𝟭𝟬, 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟲
If the medical institutions would focus more on what causes cancer versus treating it, we could literally cure this condition. Fortunately, there are plenty of information on cancer, what causes it, and also fortunately, this information is relatively seamless. Unfortunately however, this information is not mainstream or alternative, so it is very unorthodox and controversial, (e.g., stop getting screened for cancer) but I imagine -- especially after the last few years -- as long as information is truthful, it should be explored: https://unorthodoxy.substack.com/p/cancer-your-bodys-desperate-attempt
I've written on Ivermectin before and while yes, it does have positive effects -- and should be used when needed, it is an older product by MERCK and I argue that if we can prevent cancer from occurring in the first place, we may alleviate the use of this and other petrochemicals: https://unorthodoxy.substack.com/p/reimagining-medicine
Medicine should only be used for trauma situations. Anything aside from that can be managed without drugs: https://unorthodoxy.substack.com/p/emergency-medicine-works-but-chronic