Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Health

Mel Gibson Drops Two Medical Bombshells on the Joe Rogan Podcast

Published

9 minute read

From The Vigilant Fox

Being familiar with alternative cancer therapies, Rogan concluded Gibson was talking about antiparasitic drugs Ivermectin and Fenbendazole, which Gibson confirmed with a nod.

In the final hour of episode #2254 of The Joe Rogan Experience, actor Mel Gibson shared two shocking medical experiences that defy mainstream knowledge.

It all started the moment Anthony Fauci’s name lept out of Gibson’s mouth.

“I don’t know why Fauci’s still walking around… or at least free,” Gibson remarked before revealing that he had “road rage” after listening to RFK Jr.’s book about Anthony Fauci.

Piling on, Joe Rogan quickly dismantled any doubts about the book’s accuracy, arguing that if it were full of lies, RFK Jr. would have been sued into the ground and publicly humiliated.

“First of all, people that don’t believe it. How come RFK Jr. didn’t get sued? How come there’s no lawsuits? If there were lies, there would be lawsuits. You’d be publicly humiliated,” Rogan pointed out.

“That book is an accurate depiction of what Anthony Fauci did during the AIDS crisis, which probably was an AZT crisis. It wasn’t an AIDS crisis.”

The first bombshell dropped when Gibson shared that he “couldn’t walk for three months” after taking Fauci’s pet drug for COVID.

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

“Remdesivir is so lethal it got nicknamed ‘Run Death Is Near’ after it started killing thousands of COVID patients in the hospital,” Stella Paul wrote in a previous report.

“The experts claimed that remdesivir would stop COVID; instead, it stopped kidney function, then blasted the liver and other organs.”

Unfortunately, Gibson’s gardener wasn’t as fortunate. After reportedly receiving the kidney-toxic treatment, he tragically passed away.

“I knew the guy for 20 years, and we both went to the same hospital, and he died, and I didn’t,” Gibson lamented. “I think we both got remdesivir, which is not good.”

While you’re here, please take a few seconds to subscribe for more

reports like this one.

The most jaw-dropping moment happened when Gibson made a statement that could threaten the entire cancer industry.

Gibson revealed that he has three friends who had “stage four cancer,” and now “all three of them don’t have cancer right now at all.”

“And they had some serious stuff going on,” Gibson added.

Rogan asked, “What did they take?”—to which Gibson hesitantly replied, “They took what you’ve heard they’ve taken.”

Being familiar with alternative cancer therapies, Rogan concluded Gibson was talking about antiparasitic drugs Ivermectin and Fenbendazole, which Gibson confirmed with a nod.

Corroborating what Gibson reported to Rogan, cancer surgeon Dr. Kathleen Ruddy revealed to The Epoch Times last year that she has seen several late-stage cancer patients make dramatic recoveries after taking Ivermectin.

One patient had a grim future, and then something remarkable happened. This man had stage four prostate cancer and tried all the conventional protocols before doctors told him that there was nothing they could do.

Then, he started taking ivermectin…

Within six months, the metastatic lesions began to disappear, and in less than a year, “he was out dancing for four hours” three nights per week, according to Dr. Ruddy.

A similar scenario unfolded for another man named Eddie. He was also in bad shape.

Eddie was diagnosed with two unresectable esophageal tumors that surgeons wouldn’t go near. He was a smoker, couldn’t swallow, and had lost 40 pounds in a year and a half.

“Within a couple of weeks, he sounded stronger. He could swallow. He had gained six pounds. His voice was better,” reported Dr. Ruddy.

Several weeks later, Dr. Ruddy said to Eddie, “You need to get a scan.”

Guess what happened?

“We got the scan. No tumors. Gone. Gone. The problem was that he had sold his fishing boat. That was the biggest problem. He was getting better. His tumor was gone. Now he’s got to buy another fishing boat … I was like, ‘Well, now, that’s interesting.’”

Recently, anecdotal reports have also praised Fenbendazole as a potentially miraculous anti-cancer drug.

It reportedly works by destabilizing microtubules, the structures that help cancer cells divide and grow.

By disrupting this process, Fenbendazole is believed to effectively halt cancer cell division and slow or stop tumor growth.

case series published in 2020 documented three cancer patients who experienced complete remission after taking Fenbendazole.

“FBZ (Fenbendazole) appears to be a potentially safe and effective antineoplastic agent that can be repurposed for human use in treating genitourinary malignancies.’”

Adding to the growing evidence in support of Fendendazole’s use case against cancer, an Oklahoma man credited his miraculous cancer recovery to the pet med after overcoming terminal small cell lung cancer, defying a less than 1% survival rate and leaving doctors baffled.

KOKO 5 News reported in 2019:

EDMOND, Okla. — When you tell someone a medicine for dogs cured your cancer, you better be ready for some skeptics, but Joe Tippens says it saved his life, and the lives of others.

Now, even cancer researchers are open to the possibility it might be true.

My stomach, my neck, my liver, my pancreas, my bladder, my bones — it was everywhere,” Tippens said.

Tippens said he was told to go home, call hospice and say his goodbyes two years ago.

The doctors were unanimous, he was going to die of small cell lung cancer.

“Once that kind of cancer goes that far afield, the odds of survival are less than 1 percent, and median life expectancy is three months,” Tippens said.

Tippens said he went from 220 pounds to 110.

“I was a skeleton with skin hanging off of it,” he said. “It was difficult.”

But that was January of 2017. Today, Tippens is very much alive and what he credits for his survival has doctors scratching their heads, and the rest of us raising eyebrows.

“About half the people think I’m just crazy,” he said. “And about half the people want to know more and dig deeper.”

Tippens said he received a tip from a veterinarian, of all people. And in his desperation, he turned from people medicine to dog medicine.

Specifically, something you give your dog when it has worms.

“The truth is stranger than fiction, you know?” Tippens said, laughing.

Just three months later, Tippens says, his cancer was gone.

Thanks for reading! If you enjoyed this post, please do me a quick favor and follow this page (@VigilantFox) for more reports like this one.

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

COVID-19

FDA requires new warning on mRNA COVID shots due to heart damage in young men

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Doug Mainwaring

Pfizer and Moderna’s mRNA COVID shots must now include warnings that they cause ‘extremely high risk’ of heart inflammation and irreversible damage in males up to age 24.

The Trump administration’s Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced it will now require updated safety warnings on mRNA COVID-19 shots to include the “extremely high risk” of myocarditis/pericarditis and the likelihood of  long-term, irreversible heart damage for teen boys and young men up to age 24.

The required safety updates apply to Comirnaty, the mRNA COVID shot manufactured by Pfizer Inc., and Spikevax, the mRNA COVID shot manufactured ModernaTX, Inc.

According to a press release, the FDA now requires each of those manufacturers to update the warning about the risks of myocarditis and pericarditis to include information about:

  1. the estimated unadjusted incidence of myocarditis and/or pericarditis following administration of the 2023-2024 Formula of mRNA COVID-19 shots and
  2. the results of a study that collected information on cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (cardiac MRI) in people who developed myocarditis after receiving an mRNA COVID-19 injection.

The FDA has also required the manufacturers to describe the new safety information in the adverse reactions section of the prescribing information and in the information for recipients and caregivers.

Additionally, the fact sheets for healthcare providers and for recipients and caregivers for Moderna COVID-19 shot and Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 shot, which are authorized for emergency use in individuals 6 months through 11 years of age, have also been updated to include the new safety information in alignment with the Comirnaty and Spikevax prescribing information and information for recipients and caregivers.

In a video published on social media, Dr. Vinay Prasad, director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation & Research Chief Medical and Scientific Officer, explained the alarming reasons for the warning updates.

While heart problems arose in approximately 8 out of 1 million persons ages 6 months to 64 years following reception of the cited shots, that number more than triples to 27 per million for males ages 12 to 24.

Prasad noted that multiple studies have arrived at similar findings.

Continue Reading

Business

National dental program likely more costly than advertised

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Matthew Lau

At the beginning of June, the Canadian Dental Care Plan expanded to include all eligible adults. To be eligible, you must: not have access to dental insurance, have filed your 2024 tax return in Canada, have an adjusted family net income under $90,000, and be a Canadian resident for tax purposes.

As a result, millions more Canadians will be able to access certain dental services at reduced—or no—out-of-pocket costs, as government shoves the costs onto the backs of taxpayers. The first half of the proposition, accessing services at reduced or no out-of-pocket costs, is always popular; the second half, paying higher taxes, is less so.

A Leger poll conducted in 2022 found 72 per cent of Canadians supported a national dental program for Canadians with family incomes up to $90,000—but when asked whether they would support the program if it’s paid for by an increase in the sales tax, support fell to 42 per cent. The taxpayer burden is considerable; when first announced two years ago, the estimated price tag was $13 billion over five years, and then $4.4 billion ongoing.

Already, there are signs the final cost to taxpayers will far exceed these estimates. Dr. Maneesh Jain, the immediate past-president of the Ontario Dental Association, has pointed out that according to Health Canada the average patient saved more than $850 in out-of-pocket costs in the program’s first year. However, the Trudeau government’s initial projections in the 2023 federal budget amounted to $280 per eligible Canadian per year.

Not all eligible Canadians will necessarily access dental services every year, but the massive gap between $850 and $280 suggests the initial price tag may well have understated taxpayer costs—a habit of the federal government, which over the past decade has routinely spent above its initial projections and consistently revises its spending estimates higher with each fiscal update.

To make matters worse there are also significant administrative costs. According to a story in Canadian Affairs, “Dental associations across Canada are flagging concerns with the plan’s structure and sustainability. They say the Canadian Dental Care Plan imposes significant administrative burdens on dentists, and that the majority of eligible patients are being denied care for complex dental treatments.”

Determining eligibility and coverage is a huge burden. Canadians must first apply through the government portal, then wait weeks for Sun Life (the insurer selected by the federal government) to confirm their eligibility and coverage. Unless dentists refuse to provide treatment until they have that confirmation, they or their staff must sometimes chase down patients after the fact for any co-pay or fees not covered.

Moreover, family income determines coverage eligibility, but even if patients are enrolled in the government program, dentists may not be able to access this information quickly. This leaves dentists in what Dr. Hans Herchen, president of the Alberta Dental Association, describes as the “very awkward spot” of having to verify their patients’ family income.

Dentists must also try to explain the program, which features high rejection rates, to patients. According to Dr. Anita Gartner, president of the British Columbia Dental Association, more than half of applications for complex treatment are rejected without explanation. This reduces trust in the government program.

Finally, the program creates “moral hazard” where people are encouraged to take riskier behaviour because they do not bear the full costs. For example, while we can significantly curtail tooth decay by diligent toothbrushing and flossing, people might be encouraged to neglect these activities if their dental services are paid by taxpayers instead of out-of-pocket. It’s a principle of basic economics that socializing costs will encourage people to incur higher costs than is really appropriate (see Canada’s health-care system).

At a projected ongoing cost of $4.4 billion to taxpayers, the newly expanded national dental program is already not cheap. Alas, not only may the true taxpayer cost be much higher than this initial projection, but like many other government initiatives, the dental program already seems to be more costly than initially advertised.

Matthew Lau

Adjunct Scholar, Fraser Institute
Continue Reading

Trending

X