Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

COVID-19

Mel Gibson tells Joe Rogan about alternative cancer treatments, dangers of Remdesivir

Published

4 months ago

5 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Stephen Kokx

In the wide-ranging interview, Mel Gibson told Joe Rogan about his experience with Remdesivir, the pharmaceutical industry and alternative treatments for cancer.

Mel Gibson discussed a wide range of issues with podcaster Joe Rogan this week, almost all of them eliciting strong reactions on social media, especially his comments on cancer and the medical establishment.  

Gibson contracted COVID-19 in April 2020. During a week-long hospital stay, he was administered the dangerous drug Remdesivir, which, despite having been known to have a mortality rate of over 50 percent in trials, was approved by Dr. Anthony Fauci for use in hospitals during the pandemic. 

Gibson told Rogan that the experimental treatment nearly ended his life. 

“[Remdesivir] kills you. I found that afterward. And that’s why I wonder about Fauci,” Gibson said.  

 

Hospitals were incentivized to use Remdesivir, which has been shown to cause kidney failure, after the U.S. government approved a 20 percent reimbursement bonus for its use. Medical facilities also  obtained money from the government for classifying deaths as being due to COVID-19. Critics allege that those policies enticed medical professionals to use the risky treatment in order to kill patients as a way to unethically boost profits. 

Gibson told Rogan that he acquired COVID from his gardener, who he had known for twenty years, but that he did not survive his illness. 

“We both went to the same hospital, and he died, and I didn’t … I think we both got Remdesivir, which is not good,” he explained.  

“I don’t know why Fauci’s still walking around… or at least free,” he further remarked. 

Gibson and Rogan also talked about cancer and Big Pharma. Gibson revealed that he knows people who have been healed from the illness due to alternative treatments.  

“I have three friends. All three of them had stage 4 cancer. All three of whom don’t have cancer right now at all. And they had some serious stuff going on,” Gibson said. 

“And what did they take?” Rogan asked. 

“They took …what you’ve heard they’ve taken,” he replied. 

“Ivermectin, Fenbendazole,” Rogan said. “I’m hearing that a lot.” 

“They drank hydrochloride something or other … people drinking methylene blue,” Gibson said.  

“There’s a lot of stuff that does work, which is very strange,” Rogan remarked. “Because, again, it’s profit, when you hear about things that are demonized and they turn out to be effective, you always wonder: ‘what is going on here?’ How is [sic] our medical institutions, how have they failed us so that things that do cure you are not promoted because they’re not profitable? They can’t control it. They don’t have a patent on it. Whether it’s Vitamin D, K2, Magnesium, Zinc. I do all that stuff.” 

On Friday morning, an X-approved post titled “Mel Gibson’s Cancer Cure Claim Sparks Medical Debate” was published on the trending section. Some users piggybacked on Gibson’s remarks by stating that they too have used or know people who are using treatments similar to the ones Gibson’s friends did and that “cancer research” is a racket. 

 

 

 

Others were unconvinced and re-iterated the media narrative that ivermectin is a simply a “dewormer.”

 

Elsewhere in their conversation, Gibson defended the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin and the historical reality of the resurrection of Christ, a topic Rogan has seemingly taken a heightened interest in recently given that he discussed the matter in depth on his show with a Protestant guest less than two weeks ago.  

Related Topics:

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

More from this author
Agriculture / 3 mins ago

Liberal win puts Canada’s farmers and food supply at risk

International / 2 hours ago

Nigeria, 3 other African countries are deadliest for Christians: report

Alberta / 2 hours ago

Alberta’s future in Canada depends on Carney’s greatest fear: Trump or Climate Change

COVID-19

Study finds Pfizer COVID vaccine poses 37% greater mortality risk than Moderna

Published on May 1, 2025

By

From LifeSiteNews

By Nicolas Hulscher, MPH

A study of 1.47 million Florida adults by MIT’s Retsef Levi and Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo finds significantly higher all-cause mortality after Pfizer vaccination compared to Moderna

A new study of 1.47 million Florida adults by MIT’s Retsef Levi and Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo finds significantly higher all-cause, cardiovascular, and COVID-19 mortality after Pfizer vaccination.

The study titled “Twelve-Month All-Cause Mortality after Initial COVID-19 Vaccination with Pfizer-BioNTech or mRNA-1273 among Adults Living in Florida” was just uploaded to the MedRxiv preprint server. This study was headed by MIT Professor Retsef Levi, with Florida Surgeon General Dr. Joseph Ladapo serving as senior author:

Study Overview

  • Population: 1,470,100 noninstitutionalized Florida adults (735,050 Pfizer recipients and 735,050 Moderna recipients).
  • Intervention: Two doses of either:
    • BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech)
    • mRNA-1273 (Moderna)
  • Follow-up Duration: 12 months after second dose.
  • Comparison: Head-to-head between Pfizer vs. Moderna recipients.
  • Main Outcomes:
    • All-cause mortality
    • Cardiovascular mortality
    • COVID-19 mortality
    • Non-COVID-19 mortality

All-cause mortality

Pfizer recipients had a significantly higher 12-month all-cause death rate than Moderna recipients — about 37% higher risk.

  • Pfizer Risk: 847.2 deaths per 100,000 people
  • Moderna Risk: 617.9 deaths per 100,000 people
  • Risk Difference:
    ➔ +229.2 deaths per 100,000 (Pfizer excess)
  • Risk Ratio (RR):
    ➔ 1.37 (i.e., 37% higher mortality risk with Pfizer)
  • Odds Ratio (Adjusted):
    ➔ 1.384 (95% CI: 1.331–1.439)

Cardiovascular mortality

Pfizer recipients had a 53% higher risk of dying from cardiovascular causes compared to Moderna recipients.

  • Pfizer Risk: 248.7 deaths per 100,000 people
  • Moderna Risk: 162.4 deaths per 100,000 people
  • Risk Difference:
    ➔ +86.3 deaths per 100,000 (Pfizer excess)
  • Risk Ratio (RR):
    ➔ 1.53 (i.e., 53% higher cardiovascular mortality risk)
  • Odds Ratio (Adjusted):
    ➔ 1.540 (95% CI: 1.431–1.657)

COVID-19 mortality

Pfizer recipients had nearly double the risk of COVID-19 death compared to Moderna recipients.

  • Pfizer Risk: 55.5 deaths per 100,000 people
  • Moderna Risk: 29.5 deaths per 100,000 people
  • Risk Difference:
    ➔ +26.0 deaths per 100,000 (Pfizer excess)
  • Risk Ratio (RR):
    ➔ 1.88 (i.e., 88% higher COVID-19 mortality risk)
  • Odds Ratio (Adjusted):
    ➔ 1.882 (95% CI: 1.596–2.220)

Non-COVID-19 mortality

Pfizer recipients faced a 35% higher risk of dying from non-COVID causes compared to Moderna recipients.

  • Pfizer Risk: 791.6 deaths per 100,000 people
  • Moderna Risk: 588.4 deaths per 100,000 people
  • Risk Difference:
    ➔ +203.3 deaths per 100,000 (Pfizer excess)
  • Risk Ratio (RR):
    ➔ 1.35 (i.e., 35% higher non-COVID mortality risk)
  • Odds Ratio (Adjusted):
    ➔ 1.356 (95% CI: 1.303–1.412)

Biological explanations

The findings of this study are surprising, given that Moderna’s mRNA-1273 vaccine contains approximately three times more mRNA (100 µg) than Pfizer’s BNT162b2 vaccine (30 µg). This suggests that the higher mortality observed among Pfizer recipients could potentially be related to higher levels of DNA contamination — an issue that has been consistently reported worldwide:

The paper hypothesizes differences between Pfizer and Moderna may be due to:

  • Different lipid nanoparticle compositions
  • Differences in manufacturing, biodistribution, or storage conditions

Final conclusion

Florida adults who received Pfizer’s BNT162b2 vaccine had higher 12-month risks of all-cause, cardiovascular, COVID-19, and non-COVID-19 mortality compared to Moderna’s mRNA-1273 vaccine recipients.

Unfortunately, without an unvaccinated group, the study cannot determine the absolute increase in mortality risk attributable to mRNA vaccination itself. However, based on the mountain of existing evidence, it is likely that an unvaccinated cohort would have experienced much lower mortality risks. It’s also important to remember that Moderna mRNA injections are still dangerous.

As the authors conclude:

These findings are suggestive of differential non-specific effects of the BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 COVID-19 vaccines, and potential concerning adverse effects on all-cause and cardiovascular mortality. They underscore the need to evaluate vaccines using clinical endpoints that extend beyond their targeted diseases.

Nicolas Hulscher, MPH

Epidemiologist and Foundation Administrator, McCullough Foundation

www.mcculloughfnd.org

Please consider following both the McCullough Foundation and my personal accounton X (formerly Twitter) for further content.

Reprinted with permission from Focal Points.

Continue Reading

COVID-19

Canada’s health department warns COVID vaccine injury payouts to exceed $75 million budget

Published on April 30, 2025

By

Fr0m LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

A Department of Health memo warns that Canada’s Vaccine Injury Support Program will exceed its $75 million budget due to high demand, with $16 million already paid out.

COVID vaccine injury payments are expected to go over budget, according to a Canadian Department of Health memo.

According to information published April 28 by Blacklock’s Reporter, the Department of Health will exceed their projected payouts for COVID vaccine injuries, despite already spending $16 million on compensating those harmed by the once-mandated experimental shots.

“A total $75 million in funding has been earmarked for the first five years of the program and $9 million on an ongoing basis,” the December memo read. “However the overall cost of the program is dependent on the volume of claims and compensation awarded over time, and that the demand remains at very high levels.”

“The purpose of this funding is to ensure people in Canada who experience a serious and permanent injury as a result of receiving a Health Canada authorized vaccine administered in Canada on or after December 8, 2020 have access to a fair and timely financial support mechanism,” it continued.

Canada’s Vaccine Injury Support Program (VISP) was launched in December 2020 after the Canadian government gave vaccine makers a shield from liability regarding COVID-19 jab-related injuries.

While Parliament originally budgeted $75 million, thousands of Canadians have filed claims after received the so-called “safe and effective” COVID shots. Of the 3,060 claims received to date, only 219 had been approved so far, with payouts totaling over $16 million.

Since the start of the COVID crisis, official data shows that the virus has been listed as the cause of death for less than 20 kids in Canada under age 15. This is out of six million children in the age group.

The COVID jabs approved in Canada have also been associated with severe side effects such as blood clots, rashes, miscarriages, and even heart attacks in young, healthy men.

Additionally, a recent study done by researchers with Canada-based Correlation Research in the Public Interest showed that 17 countries have found a “definite causal link” between peaks in all-cause mortality and the fast rollouts of the COVID shots as well as boosters.

Interestingly, while the Department of Health has spent $16 million on injury payouts, the Liberal government spent $54 million COVID propaganda promoting the vaccine to young Canadians.

The Public Health Agency of Canada especially targeted young Canadians ages 18-24 because they “may play down the seriousness of the situation.”

The campaign took place despite the fact that the Liberal government knew about COVID vaccine injuries, according to a secret memo.

Continue Reading

Trending

X