Since Richard Nixon declared war on cancer in 1971, the National Cancer Institute has spent nearly $160 billion on research and treatment for this deadly disease. In addition to this, the convoluted Medicare, Medicaid, and insurance systems collectively pay out hundreds of billions annually for the same treatments, perpetuating the status quo. Despite spending far more than any other country, we are not seeing better results. Cancer rates are skyrocketing, including among young adults. With promising, cheaper alternatives available, why aren’t major medical journals and the government giving them the attention they deserve? Maybe the question answers itself. Deep down, we all understand why chronic illnesses seem to be rising alongside the use of costly treatments that don’t offer long-term solutions. A handful of heroic doctors who led the way on innovative COVID treatments have now published a peer-reviewed paper proposing a promising protocol for aggressive cancers. This protocol, published in the Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine, combines several antiparasitic drugs that are much safer and cheaper than typical cancer treatments: ivermectin, fenbendazole, and mebendazole. These same antiparasitic agents, which showed promise against COVID, also seem effective against many cancers by targeting the mitochondrial-stem cell connection, believed to be a key factor in the aggressive growth of cancer. Dr. William Makis, a Canadian oncologist and one of the lead authors, announced the publication on social media earlier this month. “The future of cancer treatment starts NOW,” Makis excitedly shared on behalf of the 15 authors from six countries. “My thanks to lead authors Ilyes Baghli and Pierrick Martinez for their incredibly inspired work, FLCCC’s Dr. Paul Marik for his extensive research on repurposed drugs, and every co-author who worked hard to bring this paper to life.” While obviously everyone undergoing cancer treatment must do their own research and speak to medical professionals they trust, here is the core of the Makis-Marik protocol in the paper: Ivermectin Low-grade cancers: Dose of 0.5 mg/kg, 3x per week (Guzzo, et al., 2002). Intermediate-grade cancers: Dose of 1 mg/kg, 3x per week (Guzzo, et al., 2002). High-grade cancers: Dose from 1 mg/kg/day (de Castro, et al., 2020) to 2 mg/kg/day (Guzzo, et al., 2002). All these doses have been established as tolerable for humans (Guzzo, et al., 2002). Benzimidazoles and DON Low-grade cancers: Mebendazole: Dose of 200 mg/day (Dobrosotskaya, et al., 2011). Intermediate-grade cancers: Mebendazole: Dose of 400 mg/day (Chai, et al., 2021). High-grade cancers: Mebendazole dose of 1,500 mg/day (Son, et al., 2020) or fenbendazole dose of 1,000 mg 3x per week (Chiang, et al., 2021). The protocol recommends these drugs alongside intravenous vitamin C, high-dose vitamin D, zinc, a ketogenic diet, fasting, and other lifestyle changes. Several studies support the use of ivermectin in treating cancer for helping cancer cells to die. It has shown promising results, especially in very deadly cancers like pancreatic cancer. Although the doses for cancer treatment (0.5 to 1 milligram per kilogram of body weight) are higher than those used for COVID, doctors point to studies that show these doses are safe for cancer patients. In one study, patients took one milligram per kilogram daily for 180 days without any harmful side effects. Mebendazole, along with its animal-use counterpart, fenbendazole, is another antiparasitic drug. It induces apoptosis in cancer cells by blocking microtubule formation and starving their growth by inhibiting glucose metabolism. The doctors mention several studies in which patients went into complete remission after following this regimen for several weeks. Between 2020 and 2022, 59% of peer reviewers received at least one payment from the pharmaceutical industry. So why aren’t the government, major pharmaceutical companies, and prestigious medical journals seizing this opportunity? These breakthroughs are often dismissed as being too new or lacking large sample sizes. Fine. Then why not fund a placebo-controlled clinical trial? We’re willing to spend billions on expensive therapies that often have extreme, life-altering side effects. These drugs, by contrast, are much cheaper and cause no harm. If even a 1% chance exists that this protocol could treat more cancers, why has this effort been left to a handful of independent doctors and low-profile medical journals? The questions, once again, answer themselves. A new research letter, surprisingly published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, revealed that between 2020 and 2022 (during the pandemic), 59% of peer reviewers received at least one payment from the pharmaceutical industry. Among 1,155 supposedly impartial reviewers, the total payments amounted to $1.06 billion — lining their pockets and potentially influencing their research. Now, consider competing products on the market for various ailments like Parkinson’s, cancer, diabetes, and heart disease. On one side, you have potential treatments from cheap repurposed drugs; on the other, expensive new drugs that ravage the body with side effects but enrich the pharmaceutical industry. These expensive drugs create a cycle of chronic illness, failed treatments, and side effects, each reinforcing the need for more drugs. Given this conflict of interest, which treatment do you think will make it past the gatekeepers in major medical journals?Deep down, we all understand why chronic illnesses seem to be rising alongside the use of costly treatments that don’t offer long-term solutions. In 2022, Yale researchers analyzed the association between cancer care expenditures and age-standardized cancer mortality rates across 22 wealthy Western countries in 2020. Their findings, published in JAMA, showed that despite America spending $584 per capita on cancer care — more than any other nation and double the median spending of the other 21 countries — “cancer care spending was not associated with age-standardized cancer mortality rates.” Cancer rates are now skyrocketing in America and other Western countries, including aggressive, hard-to-treat cancers in young adults. From 2019 to 2023, cancers have surged among individuals ages 15-44 in the following categories: uterine cancer (up 37%), colorectal cancer (up 17%), liver cancer (up 8%), and unspecified metastatic cancer (up 14%). Earlier this year, the American Cancer Society noted that in the late 1990s, colorectal cancer was the fourth-leading cause of cancer deaths among men and women younger than 50. Today, it has become the No. 1 killer of men under 50. In Great Britain, cancer rates hit a record high in 2022, with prostate cancer being the most diagnosed and particularly deadly. Why aren’t alarm bells sounding in the oncology field, recognizing that current approaches clearly aren’t working? We don’t yet know how broadly successful an ivermectin/mebendazole-based cancer treatment protocol could be for the general population. The trouble is we may never find out. If such a protocol were to emerge from the gatekeeping medical journals, the very entities funding those journals would stand to lose billions in revenue. That moral hazard is one humanity cannot afford to ignore.

Gone are the days when blue cities volunteer to be sanctuaries for immigrants. Gone are the days of Kamala Harris saying she wants to decriminalize illegal border crossings (although she probably still believes in it). At this point, everyone is in agreement that the open border is one of America’s most glaring problems. Even DEI-loving, unigender-dressing Mark Cuban thinks the border under the Biden-Harris administration has been problematic, but his reasoning for why it got that way is where Cuban, once again, becomes a laughingstock. Dave Rubin plays the clip of Cuban telling CNN’s Erin Burnett why border crossing got out of hand under the Biden administration and why Kamala will be better for the border than Donald Trump. “So when it comes to criminalizing and not criminalizing crossing the border, I mean, that is just so stark, but you view that as an evolution?” said Burnett. “Here’s my opinion … I thought their hearts were too big when Joe came into office,” Cuban began. “They didn't know how many people would cross the border, and it got away from them, but they figured it out; they learned.” “[Biden] put together an executive order and now the number of border crossings is down to where they were in the Trump [administration], maybe a little lower. [Harris] says she's going to sign the border bill, which is very clear where she stands now,” he continued. Already, his answer is absurd. But then, as is the norm with Democrats, he pointed the finger at Donald Trump. “But let me tell you the most important thing that has not been discussed – Donald Trump and Kamala both have said when it comes to illegals that are in the country that have violated the law, that are criminals, they're going to deport them. Donald Trump hasn't said what he's going to do to deport anybody else,” said Cuban. Dave points out that Cuban’s answer is the perfect example of “the modern liberal mind.” Co-host Elizabeth Pipko adds, “To reach [Cuban’s] success level you have to be smart, so he probably knows as well as I do that no politician on that level suffers from a heart that's just too darn big. That just doesn’t happen.” Want more from Dave Rubin?To enjoy more honest conversations, free speech, and big ideas with Dave Rubin, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

A Ring doorbell video is going viral on social media after an unhinged woman was captured screaming profanities outside a home over the family's pro-Trump lawn signs. 'You are voting for the devil, don't you know that?!' The unidentified woman accosted the residents of the house and berated them for posting the lawn signs before walking away. "I'd like to know how you can vote for!" she yelled at the door. "Are you the one that always walks by here screaming at people?" the homeowner responded via the camera. "Because a lot of people walk by and scream." "You are voting for the devil, don't you know that?" she asked emphatically. "Why are you voting for him?" "Because I believe he is the moral candidate," the homeowner responded. "Oh, my God, f*** you for that one!" the woman yelled. "That's moral?!" "That's how your side acts," the homeowner said. "Oh, my God! He is the most immoral person. Oh, wow!" the woman replied. "Oh, f*** you, yeah!" she added while stomping away. "I'm sorry! Have a nice day!" the homeowner said. "F*** you!" she shouted back. The video was posted to social media by the popular Libs of TikTok account, where it quickly garnered over 3.8 million views. Many of the responses mocked and ridiculed the bizarre interaction. "That is a mentally disturbed person egged on by a deceptive, immoral media. They have been programmed by deceit. They’ll never be normal again," read one response. A recent poll found that 70% of Americans were concerned that violence may erupt after the election, and over half said they were worried that the election may signal the end of democracy. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

The most complex kinds of games are MMOs. You can’t really change anything in an MMO without reaping huge, unexpected issues, all of which need to be accounted for and dealt with every time. Throne and Liberty is currently experiencing one of those kinds of issues, as its upcoming Halloween-themed update has been delayed at the last minute thanks to a “critical” problem. Continue reading Throne and Liberty uncovers “critical” issue, immediately delays major update MORE FROM PCGAMESN: Best MMORPGs, Throne and Liberty codes, Throne and Liberty weapons

We're Gonna Need a Bunch of Padded Rooms, 'Cause Lefties Are Not Gonna Cope Well If Trump Wins (WATCH)

SUUUURE! Keir Starmer, Who Jails People for Memes, Says It's Normal for U.K. to Meddle in U.S. Elections

Illustration by Laura Normand / The Verge Three industry groups are suing to prevent the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) from enforcing its new “Click to Cancel” rule that requires companies to make it easy to cancel subscriptions, according to Reuters. And yes, it’s exactly who you’d expect. Click to cancel expands the Negative Option Rule to forbid businesses from making customers cancel services using a method that differs from how they signed up. So, if you sign up online, you must be allowed to cancel online, rather than needing to call a support line, write a letter, or show up in person. Most aspects of the rule, assuming it isn’t blocked, will go into effect 180 days from its entry into the Federal Register. That’s “arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion,” the... Continue reading…

Around 5,500 years ago, a large settlement of farmers, artisans and miners who traded around Asia along the proto-Silk Road sprang up in what is now Tajikistan. For some reason we may never know, the oldest and most advanced city in that part of the world collapsed about 1,600 years later, leaving remnants of a sophisticated community that was first unearthed in the 1970s. The ruins of that community we now call Sarazm. It came to light in 1970 when a resident of a nearby village found a small bronze ax-adze while digging. He waited six years to inform an archaeologist in nearby Panjakent, after which excavations began. Precious Ancient Fabrics from the ‘Israeli Silk Road’ Found in a Trash Heap Ajina-Tepa, Tajikistan – Abandoned Buddhist Cloister on the Famous Silk Road Sarazm Culture: Not Far Behind Sumer and Harappa When Sarazm was established, the first civilized states of Harappa in India and Sumer in Mesopotamia were already thriving. But Sarazm was not far behind. It was a pivotal city between hunting and gathering, and civilization. Read moreSection: NewsHistory & ArchaeologyAncient PlacesAsiaRead Later 

The United States will provide $20 billion in loans to Ukraine, with the money to be backed by interest earned from Russian sovereign assets that have been immobilized after its invasion, President Joe Biden announced Wednesday.

Vice President Kamala Harris will make her final case to the American public in a speech on the National Mall next Tuesday, just one week before Election Day.