Cancer patients are choosing ivermectin over chemo, and doctors are concerned
5 days ago by TryingToBeGood to c/politics
from the study itself:
Among patients with cancer, prescribing rates were over 2.5 times higher from January 1, 2025, to July 31, 2025, compared with January 1, 2024, to July 31, 2024
I'm so sorry about your mom
Not to sound insensitive, but if she was actively choosing to not go through chemo, what are the other options? It seems like the only options as you presented them were to go through chemo a second time, take this medication that may it may not work, or get her affairs in order and enjoy the last days of her life.
I've seen other cancer treatments that aren't chemo make it clear that the treatment isn't chemo to accelerate adoption.
That's what they were saying. It was humiliating and painful to watch their mother deliberately make choices that could not help, only to also be there for the fallout when none of it worked. On top of the guilt for the relief when it was over.
They knew there was nothing that could be done; their mother made those choices. And all this person could to was stand by and watch.
In principle, there were many options: surgery, radiotherapy, chemo, immunotherapy and combinations. Depending on the type and size of the cancer chances for recovery are excellent.
My mother had breast cancer a few years before which was treated with chemo. Of course she wasn’t looking forward to repeating that nasty experience. She thought it was her only option, so she downplayed it, delayed tests, was super subsceptible to misinformation and waved her family’s concern away.
So effectively the only option was to watch her rapidly deteriorate down the path to certain death, telling us how Ivermectin’s effect on cancer was scientifically proven and that Jesus will save her.
Sometimes I ask myself if it was just the cancer, or was it also misinformation and fake news that killed her. And how many lives is it taking?
was it also misinformation and fake news that killed her
Yes. And the people spreading those lies are no better than murderers.
or get her affairs in order and enjoy the last days of her life
You generally don't get to enjoy those days if you have metastatic cancer. That's not an option. It's a horrible way to leave this world. The choices are to have a short, miserable life (whether with or without ivermectin), or a longer miserable life with chemo, with a remote chance of remission and and even more remote chance of cure.
Source: I've lost friends and family to cancer. Of them all, one got a virulent form of breast cancer, did mastectomies followed by chemo, and has been six years cancer-free. It aged her and weakened her, but she's still here. The rest, no.
In a better world the people promoting this stuff would be in jail as they're exploiting people's fear for their own profit.
How much money did Joe Rogan get paid to guide all of these people to commit a round about way of suicide? How cheap is the price of a life going for these days? $10?
While i agree I do place some blame on doctors and pharmaceutical companies. The distrust of medicine and doctors didn't happen in a vacuum. Doctors often get perks or straight up cash from pharmaceutical reps to push medications or medical devices that arent needed, straight up dont work, or cause permanent injury.
Doctors whored us out to the Sackler family and helped cause the opioid crisis. I can't really fault someone for having a lack of trust
And very few MDs pushing opiods had any repercussions.
Unfortunately very true. Over a decade ago I worked on a project that built a database of every MD in North America and most of Europe. That then got hooked up to a couple different systems that maintained a track on them (employer, title, etc) but also heavily focused on if they did any research. This part was its own data store because it was like a four dimensional record of what MD's were specialized into what, ranked them by what line they were on as a paper's authors list, and a progression in their specialty. Pharmaceuticals reps already had the raw data but no one had put together.
The primary customers of this were obviously pharmaceuticals who found an exploit. Reps would have to document exactly what they gave MD's to ensure there was proof they hadn't tried to bribe the MD in any form. Now the exploit was something like. "Hey Dr. Specialist, we would like to fund your research!" Completely legal and I believe under a completely different set of regulations.
Quacks deserve long sentences.
Natural selection learned that we have cheated the "survival of the fittest" thanks to medicine and is now trying "survival of the least dumb"
Most cancer deaths are of people well past reproductive age, so natural selection isn't really involved.
Indirectly, if you start purging the dumbest, they won't transmit their dumb ideas to younger people. These younger people won't have dumb people telling them dumb ideas and, hopefully, won't grow a taste for ivermectin and others.
You don't need intergenerational transmission to spread bullshit (though it might help a bit).
Youre advocating for population control, fuck off
You might want to turn off your device, go out and wait until your brain is a bit more developed in order to be able to understand that sometimes adults make jokes using something called dark humor.
Its just natural selection finding a way.
Unless it kills all their offspring, it isn't natural selection.
Thin the herd
People who are afraid and desperate will do anything to save themselves, even if it's an unproven treatment.
Fear does things to our brains, things that override good sense, perception, and logic. This is exacerbated if we've been primed to react to a problem by someone in authority whom we've mistrusted.
No one is immune to being afraid and making bad decisions because of their fear, especially people who have been deliberately kept in a permanent state of fear like Conservatives.
Remember. This is a weakness in the skull of every member of our species. You are not immune to it, and neither am I. No one is, no matter how much we might wish we were.
Right, but I think that OPs statement still stands. The people who are the easiest to induce that fear in are literally being thinned from the herd. Hopefully over time, humans evolve to have less fear bases, non-logical thinking because of it.
I mean... I'm not doing anything, it's just happening.
Try telling them some truth: "It doesn't work, and you will die sooner if you use it instead of chemo."
And of course, if the AMA were actually anything but an enforcement mechanism for the doctors' cartel, they could strip credentials from the quacks who are prescribing this useless crap.
AMA is a lobbying group, they have no power to grant or remove doctors' licenses or credentials. That power lies with state medical licensing boards, or specialty boards like ABIM and ABFM. That being said, state medical boards should be revoking licenses for those quack doctors.
Yeah, I slipped an acronym, you're correct.
No, it has nothing to do with what they are, it's about who they choose to be. It's not Eugenics, it's Eupraxis.
Malpraxis.
Here I thought my aunt not going to the doctor until it's too late was bad, these people are actively self sabotaging. Honestly I'd feel a lot worse if it wasn't self inflicted.
That's sad. Doctors prescribing dewormer for cancer should lose their license to practice medicine.
and doctors are concerned
And well, hell, they ought to be!
@lemmy.world
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
go to feed...
@lemmy.world
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
go to feed...
Last year my mother was diagnosed with lung cancer. It took her a while to admit it, but she was taking ivermectin and herbal teas. We got into arguments, but she would do anything but go through chemo again. She had tests scheduled and agreed to get normal treatment then if necessary.
When she had the tests she found out that the cancer had metastasized and taken hold of her backbone. She had weeks to live.
When she passed, I was almost relieved. Watching someone you love commit themself to a painful death because of misinformation is really, really difficult.
save