Quark, MD

@amyklobuchar How come you didn’t protect the billions stolen from us by your Somali friends?

I voted until 5 a.m. today to block Trump's $1.8 billion slush fund. Your tax dollars should not be going to Jan. 6th rioters who went after officers. And why give MORE money to ICE when they’re already bigger than the FBI? The extra 70B could instead fund yrs of health care!

@NicHulscher Mic drop

@NicHulscher Not a controlled trial. No way to know if standard of care or the ivermectin/mebendazole is doing it. Horrible study. Stop giving people false hope.

BREAKING: Largest Human Cancer Study of Ivermectin + Mebendazole Is Now PEER-REVIEWED and PUBLISHED in a MAJOR Cancer Journal 84.4% of cancer patients taking ivermectin + mebendazole for 6 months declared either CANCER DISAPPEARANCE, TUMOR REGRESSION, or CANCER STABILIZATION. Our study, “Real-world Clinical Outcomes of Ivermectin and Mebendazole in Cancer Patients: Results from a Prospective Observational Cohort,” is now peer-reviewed and published in Anticancer Research—a major international oncology journal of the International Institute of Anticancer Research (IIAR), established in 1995. The results represent one of the most compelling clinical signals ever documented for repurposed anti-parasitic therapies in oncology. A diverse population of cancer patients (n=197) was prescribed compounded ivermectin–mebendazole through a U.S. telemedicine platform, with each capsule containing 25 mg ivermectin and 250 mg mebendazole. Participants were followed for approximately six months using standardized digital surveys assessing cancer outcomes, medication adherence, and tolerability. At approximately six months post-treatment initiation, we observed an 84.4% Clinical Benefit Ratio (CBR)—meaning more than four out of five patients reported either: No evidence of disease (32.8%) Tumor regression (15.6%) or Cancer stabilization (36.1%) Importantly, adherence was remarkably high, with 86.9% completing the initial prescription and 66.4% remaining on therapy at six months. Side effects were predominantly mild and manageable, reported in 25.4% of patients (primarily gastrointestinal), with 93.6% of those experiencing side effects continuing treatment after minor dosing adjustments. This groundbreaking peer-reviewed publication was made possible through a unique collaboration between The Wellness Company, the McCullough Foundation, and the Chairman of the President’s Cancer Panel—uniting real-world clinical data, frontline medical experience, and epidemiologic expertise to evaluate inexpensive, repurposed therapies with major translational potential. With these extraordinarily promising results, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials are now required. In the meantime, many cancer patients are exercising their right to try. @twc_health @McCulloughFund @IIAR_Journals @P_McCulloughMD @DrHarveyRisch @DrKellyVictory @jathorpmfm @drdrew @PeterGillooly @FosterCoulson

@currentburden @FelixMitosinka @NicHulscher @grok So fascinating, why are there no anti-parasitics on this plot?

@currentburden @FelixMitosinka @NicHulscher @grok

@FEMA_Camp_X @RdLessTrvled @girlcantossiron @NicHulscher I don’t see any ivermectin or fenbendazole on this plot

@FEMA_Camp_X @RdLessTrvled @girlcantossiron @NicHulscher

@latimes lol we all know that dems cheat…

Why a loss for Steve Hilton would be a win for Trump. Though President Trump endorsed Hilton, a loss for him may be just what Trump wants — more fuel to fire up his MAGA base with false claims of rigged elections, writes Times columnist Anita Chabria. #p=chabria-why-a-loss-for-hilton-would-be-a-win-for-trump" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">latimes.com/california/liv…

@joerussotweets Awesome, you just helped Pratt get to the runoff! Thanks so much sir! Gonna be a Pratt summer!!!

Fuck Spencer Pratt.

To my fellow Angelenos who want change, and are considering voting for Nithya Raman, I can assure you, she is not fit for the job, and she has no path to victory. A vote for Nithya is a vote for Karen Bass. I am ready to earn your vote and make LA feel safe for all.

If you bothered to look at any of the other comments, I’ve been railing against the Covid regime for years. Yes I was suckered into taking the first two doses, but no more boosters since. And I am fully willing to admit that. I can change my mind when I see good evidence, which I don’t see here.

@OompaMantis11 @NicHulscher Who said anything about 2020 dipshit. Boosters melted your brain

Believe it or not, not all doctors pushed the Covid narrative. Also, there was very little data to go off of early on during Covid, it needed to play out over months to years for most people to realize what was happening. But of course I wouldn’t expect a low information angry shit poster to understand that. Cancer drugs, that undergo many years of extensive efficacy and safety testing are not in the same category as Covid.

@OompaMantis11 @FelixMitosinka @NicHulscher @grok Oh so it’s Just Ike the experimental covid vaccine that you all injected into 80% of our population? Super proven and safe right? No motherfucker, we watched as most doctors sold their patients out without any proof. Your credibility is destroyed. You kill for profit.

Again genius, I am not saying that anti-parasitics should not be investigated more. My claim was that these headlines are misleading. None of these studies have good data. Actually, I really hope that a cooperative cancer group will take on a large trial so we can finally put this matter to rest.

@RdLessTrvled @OompaMantis11 @girlcantossiron @NicHulscher I posted more. You have to actually ASK Google AI for POSITIVE research and articles on ivermectin etc and cancers to get them to come up. I've pulled article after article over the years, and the list keeps changing as to what pops up when I ask. Also ask for other countries 😎

@PTreersen @NicHulscher Anti-parasitic at the high doses recommended in these studies actually do have side effects and I have seen it firsthand in practice.

@OompaMantis11 @NicHulscher I’m a moron not to trust a robot, driven by algorithms made by specific people with specific opinions. Hmmm - maybe you shouldn’t you the word moron. This discussion is about you being unwilling to try cheap products with no side effects - even after positive studies.

@alpha7079 @Frances11574099 @NicHulscher Of course, it occurs to me, look at all the other comments. But just how I reject the Covid vaccine for poor data, I am rejecting anti-parasitics in cancer. Give me good data and I can change my mind. You can’t have it both ways.

So when you dismiss inconclusive peer reviewed, observational published studies, and insist the only information you will consider is a Phase 3 RCT that can cost $100 million or more, has it occurred to you the very same forces responsible for the COVID vaccine scam, could intentionally avoid allowing a study proving a cure for some cancers, using cheap generic drugs, to take place? If they don’t look for it, they won’t find it. And if they don’t look for it, many will be on the internet insisting there is no proof it works. See how that works?

@alpha7079 @Frances11574099 @NicHulscher 💯 fauci needs to be locked up and the covid vaccines pulled off the market for young folks. And China held accountable

@OompaMantis11 @Frances11574099 @NicHulscher So you acknowledge the medical industrial complex, to include Big Pharma, Fauci and our healthcare agencies, lied to us about COVID vaccines in what you describe as a COVID psy op?

@friendship_cat @FelixMitosinka @NicHulscher @grok Standard of care now is based on many years of data in hundreds or thousands of patients. Not bloodletting voodoo… you really have no understanding of oncology.

@OompaMantis11 @FelixMitosinka @NicHulscher @grok Long ago "standard care" was bloodletting. Just because its "standard" doesn't mean it's proven or good, just "accepted", and since Dr's accepted the vaxx, and pushed untested cell therapy on their patients, FOR MAX PROFIT, id say trusting them is quick way to die.

You don’t understand what anecdotal means? That’s not how the world works. We need to know how a drug works across the entire population. Again, a drug might cure 5% of people but not 95%. And the harms may outweigh the benefits. That is why we don’t approve drugs based on weak evidence.

@OompaMantis11 @chrismwc @ShogrenKri17261 @GVik11 @NicHulscher Anecdotal is what? People experiencing and sharing their experience with others. Isn't that how medicine started? People discovering things by accident. When I get a bad headache, I take 750mg activated charcoal. Why does the headache go away?

What? Half cocked? Call this a paper? You must be a bot. It’s a trash study. And I went to a top med school, thank you very much. Yes it calls for controlled trial, but look at all of this guy’s headlines. Just trying to sell ivermectin through the wellness company and get rich, like you accuse me of doing.

@OompaMantis11 @NicHulscher I would be the one who read the paper, you would be the one that went off half-cocked. IDK where you went to medical school--- mine would call this a paper--- that calls for a study= "randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials are now required".

@olgloryandgrace @tembofly @NicHulscher Your oncologist must be the actual QuaCk…

@OompaMantis11 @tembofly @NicHulscher Funny my heme oncologist is not so scared.

@olgloryandgrace @tembofly @NicHulscher You heard me. Please keep asking grok to help you generate posts.

@OompaMantis11 @tembofly @NicHulscher Excuse me? Cope.