When the Invaders Outnumber the Army

In the past three years, we’ve had upwards of eight million people slip into our country, both detected and undetected. We are being invaded, and our government is failing to do anything about it.

by Chuck Owen for American Greatness

According to the website Statista, the United States has the third largest standing “Army” in the world. The website says that we have 1.3 million soldiers under arms. By “soldiers,” they’re referring to all of our armed forces—Army, Marines, Navy, Air Force, and Space Force. Third largest in the world. Not bad, if you’re into measuring things. China and India are the only countries with larger militaries. Russia has one about the same size as us, as does North Korea.

In addition to our active force, Statista says we have over 760,000 reservists attached to our armed forces. For those unfamiliar, a reservist is also a soldier (generic term) who can theoretically be called into duty to do things the active forces do. They’re called reservists because they are the first line of replenishment for the active force. Reservists serve in various capacities in all of the branches of the US military. They train once a month with their unit and have a two-week annual training event where they go to an installation and ensure their skills are ready for wartime. Some call them weekend warriors. I call them heroes—many or most have other jobs and serve our great country because they want to serve. Of key importance is that all of these service members are federally authorized and work at the direction of the president.

We also have over 325,000 National Guardsmen in the United States of America. These people serve in all 50 states and hail from over 2,500 separate communities in our great republic. Their lives are very similar to those of reservists. The Guard is a dual-hat organization that works in peacetime primarily for the governor of each state and can be called into national service at the direction of the president. Our guardsmen are especially visible in times of crisis at home, most prominently during times of disaster. Their units are also frequently involved in overseas contingency operations in support of national commitments, like in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East right now. Once a guardsman goes on federal orders, he or she works for the president. When they’re in their home state, they generally work for their governor.

When you add these numbers up, we look pretty good on paper. We have about 2.3 million people serving in the armed forces in our country. Sounds like we’re set.

As a rule, the mission of our armed forces is to defend our country and national interests. At the outset of our country’s founding, our Army protected us. That’s kind of changed, in that we use our military primarily as an overseas arm of American policies—to defend our values and to help our friends. So, two million people who have the capacity to defend really aren’t here for us in the real sense of defending our country. Our Guard is here for that, but the mission of the Guard is a bit obscure in this day and age. We ostensibly have the Border Patrol and Homeland Security to protect our sovereign land. The federal Border Patrol is part of Homeland Security and is a 22,000 agent-strong unit. The Department of Homeland Security has roughly 260,000 people on its payroll.

But, hey, we have 2.3 million people in uniform and about 260,000 Homeland Security personnel. We have our own state and local police forces who are here for public safety. We’re all good, right? Our minds should be at ease.

Until you realize that in the past three years, we’ve had upwards of eight million people slip into our country, both detected and undetected. The Biden administration’s Border Patrol has caught and released into America a reported 2.3 million foreign nationals since 2021. There are informed estimates that as many as six million others have filtered in illegally during the same period. The thought of so many unaccounted-for and unvetted people sneaking into our country is a great concern. In December 2023 alone, more than 300,000 people have shown up at our border trying to get into the United States.

What a person knows about this topic is a function of the news they watch—or don’t watch. Many who zero in on left-wing media barely know this problem exists. CNN and MSNBC barely talk about the subject. Why they ignore it is mystifying. Fox News covers it, as does Newsmax. The Big Three networks cover it, but only when they’re covering something in an attempt to make Republicans or conservatives look like ogres.

In truth, we don’t know where most of these estimated eight million people have gone. Many or most appear to be military-age men. We don’t know where these people are from. Some are stopped by curious media, and most of those tell where they’re from. Migrants from Latin America make sense. They can walk here. Belize and Bolivia are on this side of the world. It’s a long walk, but it’s a walk. But what on earth are migrants from Southwest Asia doing walking across our southern border? How did an indigent person from Bulgaria, Pakistan, or India get here? How did a supposedly poor person from Senegal, Albania, or China get here, and who carted them to the border of America and Mexico?

A recent in-person report by news outlet Muckraker chronicled the trip from South America to here. The reporter documented the aid stations created by the United Nations along the route. He documented supplies from American organizations. The reporter even documented Chinese aid facilities created for Chinese nationals who are making the trek into our country. It’s all on tape. The young reporter almost lost his life on this trip, but it’s now there for all to see.

While Congress and the White House wrestle over this, the invasion continues.

What appears to be the case is that the Biden administration is happy to try to make Texas absorb the entire cost of this influx. Every time Texas tries to do something to protect its citizenry, the Biden administration brings up ambiguous terms about things like “comprehensive immigration reform.” Team Biden and the blue states apparently expect all these people to just come and settle in Texas.

I don’t know what you call a three-year influx of millions of people, but it sure seems like an invasion to me. If the Biden administration cared about this country, they would close the border. And yes, they have the authority and means to do just that. Right now. The president simply has to direct the closure.

The sad truth is that if there was ever a time to protect this country with our purported third largest army in the world, it would be now. Before someone soils themselves over posse comitatus, I refer anyone reading this to the War of 1812. We are being invaded, and our government is failing to do a single thing about it. Article IV, Section 4, of the United States Constitution states, “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion;..” The Biden Administration is not fulfilling this obligation to the States.

And for the record, I have every faith in our local and state law enforcement. Their jobs are already tough enough, dealing with the influx of people who have come here over decades and other festering criminal and social ills. Putting this on their backs is not fair. For the record, I am not anti-immigration. People ought to be able to come here—but under our terms. The people of the United States ought to be the ones deciding who comes here—via the laws we pass through our elected representatives. Waves of foreign invaders do not get to determine if they come into our country. What concerns me most is how we, as a country, can manage literal human waves coming from who knows where. This is going to strain every element of our society.

For those who wish to claim that immigration is not an invasion, let me remind you that legal immigration is not an invasion–illegal immigration, on the other hand, is an attack on every American’s health, prosperity, and well-being. Ask any legal immigrant how they feel after having gone through all the difficult things required to become a legal citizen, only to see someone who paid a criminal to smuggle them across the border being treated as honored guests at their expense. You might be surprised by their answer.

How this all ends is anyone’s guess. It is my hope that law and order prevail. It is my hope that Congress will hold the line and not give the federal government a single dime to do anything until this invasion is halted. Congress has the power of the purse. The good folks at Statista like to compile numbers; I hope they’re compiling the numbers of people who have illegally crossed here and then start compiling numbers on how this is managed. I also hope that if you have a family member who is unaware of these facts, you’ll share this article with them. Many are deeply concerned. I hope you are too.

On the Fringe, Red Pill News, and more- March 23

 

There’s A Deadly Race War Raging In America

posted by Vince Coyner at American Thinker 

Sometimes it’s hard to know what exactly to write. I don’t mean in general staring off into space or watching the clouds in your coffee kind of stuff, I mean when you see something so extraordinarily evil that you’re left speechless.

That happened to me last week when I saw the video of a white female student being brutally beaten by a black female student in Missouri. As you’ve no doubt seen, the black girl beats the white girl into unconsciousness and repeatedly slams her head into the concrete. The victim went into convulsions and, as of this writing, is in critical condition in the hospital.

There are two primary questions I had after watching this video. The first was why does no one try and stop the attacker when there are a dozen people around the fight, including at least one person recording a video? The second was what kind of an upbringing compelled them to act this way? These two unanswerable questions melded into a third, which was, why do we see so many videos of blacks acting violently? Beating white people. Beating other black people. Attacking restaurant employees. Attacking cops. Pushing people in front of subway trains. And the list goes on. And on. And on.

On the day I saw this video, I happened to be reading a book called Empire by Niall Ferguson. I was at the point where he compared the actions of the British—which is the empire to which the title refers—and the Japanese in their early 20th-century empire. In particular, he discusses the Rape of Nanking, one of the most brutal and disgusting displays of savagery ever chronicled.

Ferguson doesn’t pretend the British were never brutal. In fact, they were and he discusses it. But he makes the distinction between the British killing opponents during battles—sometimes including unarmed women and children who were peacefully protesting—or the deaths of prisoners from incompetent logistics management and the Japanese brutal, intentional infliction of pain and torture on civilians and POWs alike. There were literally contests to see who could kill more people or do so more quickly or brutally.

Such abuse was never limited to the Japanese, of course. The Germans were equally as evil during WWII. Like the Japanese, their killing beyond the battlefield was often a mix of cruelty, sadism, depravity, and systemized murder. Such evil has been endemic throughout much of human history.

Image by Vince Coyner using AI.

One of the reasons the Spanish were able to so easily subdue the great Aztec empire was because so many of its neighbors were enthusiastic about ridding themselves of the cruel, murderous empire where captured enemies would frequently die horrifying, brutal deaths. More recently, the Rwandan genocide, ISIS’s brutality, the execution of thousands of Nigerian Christians by Muslims, and Hamas’s October 7th attacks demonstrate that man can be a savage instrument of evil.

Since the moment Cain slew Abel, history is full of violence. But what we’re seeing among many American blacks seems to be different. Not different in that it’s unique in history, but that it’s unique in American history. What I mean by that is that it’s a perfect storm of Democrat malevolence.

That storm has three components. The first is what seems to have become the primary plank of the Democrat party; namely, alleged white racism. Before Barack Obama, America’s race relations had been largely improving for 40 years. With his “the police acted stupidly” comment, things got off on the wrong foot, and after the deaths of Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown, things went south quickly.

Then, George Floyd’s death in 2020 sent race relations into a tailspin. With the riots and the shilling for BLM by everyone from the NFL to Microsoft to congressional Democrats, things took a decidedly bad turn. Suddenly, we were told systemic racism was to be found everywhere, from law enforcement to math to punctuality to proper English.

At the same time, we had the Pentagon, the White House, and practically every news organization in the country telling us that white nationalism is the single biggest threat to the country and that blacks were in constant danger. The left has done to whites what the Nazis did to the Jews, what the Japanese did to the Chinese, and what the Hutu did to the Tutsi… dehumanize them, make them into the Other, the ones towards whom no humanity need be shown. Once that mindset is absorbed, there are no limitations on what can be done to members of the target group.

The second component is that black Americans have been told by Democrats that they cannot succeed. Regardless of what they do, they are incapable of success in America because of white oppression. As such, the rules need to be changed for them—most critically, the elimination of consequences for crimes. Essentially, the argument is that given that blacks cannot find success when they behave properly, society can’t punish them for behaving improperly.

The third component is the collapse of the black family. Today, more than 70%of black babies are born to unwed mothers.  That leaves a single mother, often on welfare, to raise the children. And children in fatherless homes are far more likely to be criminals.

The outcome of this perfect storm is that a significant proportion of the black population hates white people, has little belief that blacks have a vested interest in civilized society, and comes from homes in which no one teaches them right from wrong. With little reason to have self-respect and even less reason to respect others, too many black Americans are simply acting out as a child would, with no filters, no self-control, no empathy, and no real remorse. That’s a recipe for disaster for society.

If America is coming apart at the seams, it’s not because of any “systemic racism” but, rather, because Democrats have seen fit to weaponize blacks, and not just against whites, but against the very fabric of America. This plays itself out in major cities across the country where most black Americans live and dominate politics.

Indeed, black mayors (most of whom are Democrats) run almost every one of America’s largest and most important cities, Washington DC, Atlanta, Philadelphia, New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Dallas, St. Louis, Chicago, Baltimore, Kansas City, Milwaukee, and New Orleans among others. Virtually every one of them is like living in a relative war zone compared to much of the rest of the country. The ironic thing about all of this is that the biggest victims of this black despondency and disconnection from civilized society are fellow blacks because the animating factors of alienation and desolation know no bounds, color or otherwise.

This is not a sustainable model. A nation divided by race cannot survive. Americans fought a war (started by Democrats) and then passed civil rights laws a century later (which Democrats opposed) to stop systematized racial divisions. But here we are with a significant portion of America’s population looking into life’s kaleidoscope and seeing nothing but a fatalistic cacophony where they have no agency, nothing matters, and, thus, nothing has any value, including their lives and those of others.

What we saw in that video is the epitome of the race war Charles Manson tried to launch. He failed then, but, sadly for Americans of all hues, half a century later, the Democrats are making his dream a reality.

Censorship Is a Dead-End Road

posted by J.B. Shurk at American Thinker 

During oral arguments before the Supreme Court in Murthy v. Missouri — a dispute that Senator Rand Paul rightly calls “the most consequential free speech case in U.S. history” — Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson expressed concern that the First Amendment is “hamstringing the government in significant ways, in the most important time periods.”  As with so much of the U.S. Constitution — and specifically the Bill of Rights — that has gotten in the way of the federal government’s march toward absolute power, a foundational American right is now in jeopardy.  A member of the highest court in the land would rather destroy what’s left of the people’s withering protections against tyranny than admit that the government’s authority has limits.  If the questioning from other members of the Court signaled anything, it is that a majority of the justices will likely find a way to validate the government’s coercive relationship with social media companies and its viewpoint-based censorship of the American people.  The White House, the FBI, the CDC, and the broader Intelligence Community, it seems, must be allowed to silence dissent and control public conversation.

It is “in the most important time periods,” of course, when the First Amendment’s protections for free speech are indisputably vital.  Reserving free expression and vigorous public debate for times of civil peace and relative social unity is like protecting a person’s Second Amendment right to own a gun only when his life is not threatened.  As with the firearms we possess, the words we speak and write matter most during times of emergency!  It is precisely when the government is certain in its point of view and committed to its plan of action that contradictory voices and public dissent are necessary.  If the First Amendment stands for anything, it is that the government’s speech is never more important than the people’s.  And the louder the government’s voice rises over any issue, the louder the people’s voice must be able to rise to help filter out truth from the mind-numbing spectacle of official propaganda.

The paramount lesson of the COVID apartheid State — in which Western governments flagrantly abused their legal powers to criminally punish, isolate, and harass opponents of rank totalitarianism disguised as health care — is that dissent matters!  Permitting the free flow of scientific information matters.  Public debate matters.  Holding public officials’ feet to the fire is the only method of reining in the government’s perverse predilection for demagoguery, medical experimentation, unethical mandates, religious discrimination, thuggish enforcement of arbitrary rules, and brutal suppression of contrary points of view.

How many elderly nursing home patients were murdered by Democrat governors who recklessly transformed vulnerable facilities into drop zones for COVID patients while silencing the outcries of family members forced to watch their loved ones fall ill and die?  How many young and healthy people have experienced heart damage and other “vaccine”-related injuries because government health tsars falsely described the virus as a threat to all ages, hid the availability of alternative treatments, and censored evidence of the expanding litany of harms connected to the experimental “vaccines”?  How many small businesses went bankrupt because despotic bureaucrats deemed them inessential?  How many students suffered lifetime learning loss because government fear-mongering outweighed parents’ pleas that their children receive a proper education?  How many families ate through their life savings because government “experts” decided that only some workers should be permitted to earn a living?  These and other serious questions will haunt every community victimized by the government’s COVID authoritarianism and coercive censorship regime.

In the most important time periods, it is crucial that the public be empowered to “hamstring” foolish government before it can do the most harm.  That is the lesson of COVID demagoguery and apartheid — that the bigger the perceived emergency, the more likely that agents of the government will take the opportunity to diminish rights, destroy liberty, and orchestrate incalculable damage.  Any government that believes that the Constitution and Bill of Rights must be shredded in order for the nation to survive is a government willing to demolish the nation in order for the government to survive.  No emergency is ever worth that cost.

Free and unfettered speech is the last exit ramp from a dead-end road leading to social strife and political violence.  Once the government claims a monopoly on determining what can be said out loud, factions of society will do whatever it takes to claim that privilege.  Today’s tyrants believe — as have all tyrants throughout history — that the exercise of raw power to silence their critics is a foolproof strategy for eliminating criticism.  Criticism, however, does not dissipate just because it is unseen.  Its pressure grows under the surface of society much like sulfuric gases trapped under volcanic rock, and when its latent fury can no longer be contained, it explodes in the same way.  Empowering the government to censor the public can never lead to long-term peace.  It will, instead, ensure a catastrophic eruption from an uncontrollable American volcano.  If the Supreme Court lacks the wisdom and moral strength to protect the people from their government, then it guarantees a future in which the government cannot be protected from the people.

That last sentence is not a threat, but rather a tragic certainty borne across the pages of history.  The leftists who have taken control of the American educational system have done their best to rewrite America’s foundations in liberty as despoiled by the institution of slavery.  If the Founding Fathers can be “canceled” because some owned slaves, then the Enlightenment ideals that formed the bedrock of American freedom can be bulldozed into the kind of rubble more conducive to the World Economic Forum’s Marxist globalism.  It’s a twisted assault on history.  Leftists decry those who once owned plantations while simultaneously shoving Americans onto communism’s oppressive plantation.

In their rush to destroy America’s historic protections for human freedom, though, leftists also discard the voluminous written record documenting the Founding Fathers’ case for limited government.  Their preference for personal freedom came not only from a moral belief that each individual should exercise sovereignty over the trajectory of his life, but also from a practical understanding that strong, centralized governments lead inextricably to their own undoing.  They were just as familiar with the reasons for the Roman Republic’s demise as they were with the causes of the several English civil wars that had pitted their ancestors against one another in the previous century.  Wherever and whenever the exercise of power becomes a zero-sum game, the quest for power destroys political stability.

Constructing an American government that divides power among mutually competing branches and between federal and state governments, while reserving inherent rights for the people, had a twofold purpose: (1) to protect individual liberty and (2) to promote long-term political peace.  The U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights are not merely unprecedented guarantees of human freedom against excessive government, but also the linchpin in a system meant to minimize political violence.  Where vast, centralized powers are allowed to amalgamate unchecked, costly social divisions and horrific civil wars are sure to follow.  Respect for personal freedom is the least craggy path toward peace.

Highlighting Her Alignment, Ronna McDaniel Joins MSNBC

Oh, there’s no UniParty silly….  No, none at all.  lolol 

We are past the point where it’s worth talking to anyone who doesn’t accept the nature of the UniParty opposition we are facing.

WASHINGTON DC – Ronna McDaniel, who stepped down as chair of the Republican National Committee earlier this month, will join NBC News as a political analyst starting Sunday.

McDaniel is expected to contribute to both NBC and MSNBC. Her first appearance will be on Sunday on “Meet the Press,” where she will give her first interview since stepping down from the RNC.

[…] “It couldn’t be a more important moment to have a voice like Ronna’s on the team,” Carrie Budoff Brown, who leads political coverage at NBC, wrote in a memo shared with The New York Times. 

[…] McDaniel joins other Republican contributors at the network including Marc Short, former chief of staff to Vice President Mike Pence, and Brendan Buck, former counselor to Republican House Speaker Paul Ryan. (read more)

In order for professional Republicans to continue hoodwinking gullible masses, they must pretend not to know things.

Tucker Carlson Interviews Ron Paul

posted by Sundance at Conservative Treehouse 

From the mailroom: …”Given the confluence of events and your foresight in pointing directly to the financial mechanisms now seemingly in the spotlight [BlackRock etc], how would it be if your audience was the only one prepared for what was coming?”…

Me:  Like most things in life, when it comes to our protective instinct, I only care about the position of those I love.  This small corner of the internet, our community, is the only one that ultimately matters.  Convincing is an endless quest, that’s why CTH doesn’t exhaust that energy.  The key to preparation is brutally honest information that gives people the opportunity to make decisions.

Many people are noticing the arc of the storyline behind “what is our reality” is starting to shift.  The awakening is moving beyond the body politic and into the world actors and institutions who determine political action.  This awakening phase needs to continue.   It is not coincidental to spend the past two years in the matrix of global finance and the schemes of those who triggered the “western sanctions” against Russia (ultimately having nothing to do with targeting the Russian economy), and then see Tucker Carlson interviewing Ron Paul.  WATCH:

[Full Interview on TuckerCarlson.Com]

Opposition to presidential candidate Donald Trump does not originate from a baseline of domestic ideology, or social stuff.  The epicenter of opposition to Donald Trump, all of it, stems from the background understanding “there are trillions at stake.”

The people deep inside the global banking and financial system are the originating opposition to Donald Trump.  Controlled Lawfare, purchased politicians (both sides), weaponized institutions of government, the intelligence community, corporate media, big tech, all of it, and all the controlled/purchased people within it… are the weapons in the arsenal of those who control banking and finance; the aforementioned are their army.

Who is the army in opposition to them?  YOU, plus the hundreds of millions of global rebels and freedom fighters who will not back down from supporting President Trump.

Right now, the most consequential battle front is in the fields and valleys of information warfare. They deplatform, we rebuild. They demonetize, we subscribe.  They label, we ignore.  Small tech inside the freedom alliance is feverously creating new weapons; messengers (information content providers) immediately adopt them; users reequip themselves and head back to the front to engage.  As history has so eloquently outlined for millennia, there are more of us than them – they just control the institutions.

The awakening continues, and the apoplexy created in the minds of our opposition has caused them to become increasingly visible.  Pretenses are being dropped quickly.

2022 – NEW YORK, March 24 (Reuters) – BlackRock Inc’s (BLK.N) chief executive, Larry Fink, said on Thursday that the Russia-Ukraine war could end up accelerating digital currencies as a tool to settle international transactions, as the conflict upends the globalization drive of the last three decades.

In a letter to the shareholders of the world’s largest asset manager, Fink said the war will push countries to reassess currency dependencies, and that BlackRock was studying digital currencies and stablecoins due to increased client interest.

“A global digital payment system, thoughtfully designed, can enhance the settlement of international transactions while reducing the risk of money laundering and corruption”, he said.

 

Why Candace Owens Was REALLY Fired by The Daily Wire

Blinken Completely Beclowns Himself in Israel, Netanyahu Tells Him to Jump in a Lake

Bonchie reporting for RedState 

U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken wrapped up a trip to Israel on Friday, having failed to convince Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu and the rest of the leadership there to essentially surrender to Hamas. 

Members of the Biden administration suffered embarrassment earlier in the morning after their "ceasefire" resolution went down in the flames at the UN. They are such amateurs that they can't even throw Israel under the bus without screwing it up. 

Blinken continued to try, though, meeting with Netanyahu and lecturing him on the finer points of combating Hamas. You know, because if anyone knows about defeating terrorists, it's the guy who helped lead the disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan and has more recently overseen the resurgence of the Islamic State. 

Here's a bit of what transpired behind closed doors.

Behind the scenes: Blinken told Netanyahu and the war cabinet that he came to Israel as a friend who spent the past five months defending Israel around the world.

• But he warned that on the current trajectory, without a clear plan for the day after the war, Israel will be left with a major insurgency it can't handle.
• "You need a coherent plan, or either you're going to be stuck in Gaza," Blinken said, according to the source. 

This is like a high-school drop-out telling a post-grad how to study. Blinken's record is one of abject failure. Everything he has touched has turned to rubble, and his only "achievement" has been to empower Iran as a major force in the Middle East. To mouth off to Israel about having a "coherent plan" is laughable. They have a coherent plan. It's called defeating Hamas in the physical battlespace that exists, which means going into Rafah.

What happens after that? That's not Israel's problem, is it? Hamas, which is supported by the vast majority of Palestinians, chose to attack on October 7th. They brought this on themselves, and Israel is not going to stop its mission simply because there's uncertainty on the horizon. Perhaps the "international community" I'm always hearing about can handle the relief work.

Besides, the idea that Hamas should be left in place lest there be a "major insurgency" is nonsensical. Was what was in Gaza before the war somehow safer? Less violent? Less prone to carry out murderous rampages? Sometimes there is no perfect answer to every concern, and victory is the only path to pursue. If there's an insurgency, then there's an insurgency. That's preferable to having an openly hostile terrorist government operating next door with impunity.

No matter, though. Blinken wants everyone to know that he believes Hamas should be defeated but that defeating Hamas isn't the right way to do it. Wait, what?

Perhaps if Israel squints really hard and stares at Hamas long enough, they'll just magically disappear. What is Blinken even trying to say? You can't kill terrorists without executing a military operation to kill terrorists. Not entering Rafah means allowing Hamas to survive and rebuild. There is no other path to taking them out, which is exactly why the secretary of state doesn't actually offer an alternative. He doesn't have one.

Regardless, Netanyahu wasn't buying Blinken's "expertise."

In the end, I think Blinken knows the Israelis aren't going to listen to his dollar store foreign policy demands. He's just playing for the cameras, trying to make Iran and the pro-Hamas contingent in the United States feel better. It's gross but predictable.

Ivermectin Could Be a ‘Powerful Drug’ for Fighting Cancer, Here’s Why

 

https://www.theepochtimes.com/health/ivermectin-could-be-a-powerful-drug-for-fighting-cancer-heres-why-5585682?&utm_source=MB_article_paid_new&utm_campaign=MB_article_2024-03-23-ca&utm_medium=email&est=l19IhZ0YudYEAwAESB%2FAbf6kAPuiZIuNLryX1hnr9%2BSO1SUqwj6Rd5Zx8T6IC%2BpCLPpR&utm_content=top-news-1

Different from many conventional cancer therapies, ivermectin kills cancer cells by enhancing immune response.

Rick Alderson was a retired sawmill worker who was diagnosed with terminal colon cancer in November 2020.

He experienced excruciating pain in his bowels for months; then, a gastroenterologist found a large tumor in his rectum and told him and his wife he only had six months to live.

Rick Alderson and his wife, Eve Alderson, after Mr. Alderson developed colon cancer. (Courtesy of Joshua Treadway)

 

To the oncologist, Mr. Alderson “was a dead man walking,” Mr. Alderson’s wife, Eve Alderson, told The Epoch Times.

Doctors were against starting him on treatment due to Mr. Alderson’s age and the severity of his cancer, but Mr. and Mrs. Alderson determined that their fate was in God’s hands and decided to do whatever they could.

Mr. Alderson got started with 10 rounds of radiation therapy. Initially, his carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), a marker for tumor activity, was significantly elevated at 480 nanograms per milliliter (ng/mL). A month later, he started chemotherapy. By then, his CEA levels had risen to 1,498 ng/mL.

By the time Mr. Alderson started treatment, his colon cancer had metastasized and spread to his liver, where he had 25 tumors.

“I was off their charts,” Mr. Alderson said in an interview with The Cancer Box, a cancer diagnosis blog.

Due to concerns about COVID-19 and the ongoing pandemic, Mr. Alderson started looking into preventative medication and found ivermectin.

Further research showed that the drug could likely enhance the effectiveness of his chemotherapy and radiation therapy and was relatively safe. In February 2021, he began taking ivermectin.

Ten days later, his CEA levels had dropped to 184 ng/mL.

Come March, the number was 47.9 ng/mL. By April 7, it was 20.7; by April 21, it had dropped to 13.9 ng/mL. By midsummer, it had fallen into the normal range. Of the 25 tumors in his liver, only three remained.

 

Mr. Alderson went on to live another two years before succumbing to liver failure due to the progression of his three remaining liver tumors.

“His life was definitely extended,” Mrs. Alderson said, reflecting on Mr. Alderson’s cancer journey.

She attributes Mr. Alderson’s survival beyond his prognosis to his success with ivermectin and the chemotherapy drug fluorouracil. “Ivermectin was instrumental,” she said.

Multiple Anti-Cancer Effects

“There are at least nine perfectly defined cancer targets affected by ivermectin,” Dr. Alfonso Dueñas-González, an oncologist and senior researcher at the National Autonomous University of Mexico, told The Epoch Times.

 

The first reports of ivermectin’s anti-cancer properties came in 1995. Two French researchers found that ivermectin—a Nobel Prize-winning anti-parasite drug—could reverse multidrug resistance in tumors. The drug targets tumor stem cells—a driver of cancer tumors and relapses—and promotes cancer death.

Ivermectin also enhances the effects of chemo and radiation therapy. It has a broad impact on the immune system, increasing immune offense against cancers.

It also inhibits cancer cell cycles, helping prevent the formation of new cancer cells. The drug promotes the killing of cancer cells by inducing mitochondrial stress and prevents cancer survival by preventing new blood vessels, which transport energy and fuel to cancers, from forming near cancer cells.

Ivermectin won the 2015 Nobel Prize for its anti-parasitic benefits. (HJBC, Jarun Ontakrai/Shutterstock)

While many studies have found that ivermectin has impressive potential as an anti-cancer drug, there are few clinical studies of ivermectin use for cancer. One study followed three children with acute myeloid leukemia, an aggressive cancer that progresses quickly if not treated. After conventional chemo failed, all three children were put on a combination therapy with ivermectin. While all patients eventually succumbed to the disease, two children saw temporary improvement in their symptoms, which was noteworthy given the cancer’s rapid progression. The third patient had no response to ivermectin.

Another Japanese study followed three patients with different cancers—breast, bone, and lung—who were on a combination of ivermectin and other drugs, including an anti-cancer hormonal therapy.

For two patients, ivermectin was added last in the therapeutic combination, with doctors observing significant improvements in symptoms. Soon after ivermectin was added, “all the symptoms were relieved,” the authors noted about one patient.

The other patient was prescribed ivermectin alongside other drugs. After one treatment cycle, he could come to the clinic “on foot by himself.”

An Immune Booster

Dr. Peter P. Lee, chair of immuno-oncology at the City of Hope, is a leading researcher in the United States on ivermectin as an immunotherapeutic drug for cancer.

Conventional anti-cancer therapeutics such as chemotherapy and radiation therapy focus on damaging the DNA of cancer cells and killing them. At the same time, the treatments also kill immune cells and suppress the immune system.

“Ivermectin can kill cancer cells in a way that drives the host immune response—what we call immunogenic cell death (ICD),” Dr. Lee said.

Dr. Lee’s research found that when mice with breast cancer received ivermectin, immune cells would begin to appear in tumors that previously had none. This process is known as turning “cold” tumors “hot.”

“Genuinely speaking, patients with hot tumors have better clinical outcomes with a lower risk for recurrence and live longer, so there’s a lot of interest in what regulates whether tumors are hot or cold,” Dr. Lee said

However, tumors continued to grow in mice given ivermectin alone, meaning the drug is not enough by itself. Dr. Lee reasoned that ivermectin could synergize with immune checkpoint inhibitor anti-PD1, an immunotherapy drug. Immunotherapy is a relatively new form of anti-cancer therapy that strengthens the body’s immune system to fight cancer. While some immunotherapies have broad immune-strengthening effects, the most commonly used ones target only a specific subset of the immune system.

After they were once again injected with cancer cells, the mice whose tumors were cleared after this combination therapy no longer formed new tumors.

Immune cells CD4+ (green), CD8+ T-cells (yellow), and cancer cells (red) shown via staining. (Courtesy of NPJ Breast Cancer)

However, only ivermectin and pembrolizumab together could completely clear out metastasis.

“Ivermectin has a lot of promise for cancer, but probably not as a stand-alone treatment,” Dr. Lee said.

Professor of urologic sciences at the University of British Columbia Dr. Martin Gleave previously tested ivermectin for its ability to inhibit HSP27, a “stress” protein that gets released after chemotherapy and radiation therapy. High levels of this protein prevent the body from responding to and recovering from cancer treatments. Ivermectin successfully reduced their activities in an animal model.

However, the researchers ultimately decided against pursuing clinical trials, as there were concerns of potential neurotoxicity since mice were given a dose of 10 milligrams per kilogram, which was way higher than the dose prescribed for parasitic diseases.

New Therapeutic Reality?

Dr. Lee’s team has begun a clinical trial of ivermectin combined with immunotherapy for women with metastatic breast cancer. They have also found ivermectin to be effective against other types of cancer cells. Therefore, additional patients may be included in future trials.

The interaction of the two therapies is a highly complex process dependent on timing, dosage, and drug combinations.

Dr. Lee likened the process of using multiple drugs to boost immunity to coaching a football team. “You don’t just throw all the players together and say, ‘Just run.’ You have different people doing different things. You have different sequences to try to score.

“What we’re learning is that ivermectin is going to be a very powerful drug in the context of really carefully developed immunotherapy combinations,” he added.

Dr. Kathleen Ruddy, a Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center-trained breast cancer surgeon, also became interested in ivermectin after three patients she consulted with experienced a dramatic improvement in their condition after taking it with other adjunctive therapeutics.

The first of the three patients had stage 4 prostate cancer. It came on abruptly, and after exhausting all possible treatments within nine months, his doctors announced that he had three weeks left to live. The patient started taking ivermectin along with other nutraceuticals, and within two months, his prostate-specific antigen (PSA), a potential marker for prostate tumor, became negligible. Within six months, the metastatic lesions had begun to disappear, and in less than a year, “he was out dancing for four hours” three nights a week, Dr. Ruddy said.

The same scenario unfolded for two subsequent patients.

“I’ve been a cancer surgeon for over 30 years. I’ve never seen anything like this in one patient—let alone three in a row,” Dr. Ruddy said.

Dr. Ruddy is currently recruiting for an observational study on the effects of alternative cancer treatments. As it is an observational study, patients have complete control over the therapeutics they want to be on, and researchers will only follow them for the duration of their prognosis.

Some doctors have already been treating cancer using ivermectin—with some success.

Dr. Dueñas-González, based in Mexico, has prescribed ivermectin at his private clinic. Most of his patients also received chemotherapy treatments, and some saw reductions in their tumor marks after going on ivermectin.

Dr. Scott Rollins from the Integrative Medicine Center in Colorado has been treating cancer patients with alternative treatment protocols for decades. Since the COVID-19 pandemic, he has added ivermectin to this protocol after learning about its anti-cancer effects. However, since patients are given a combination of drugs, he is uncertain if patients’ improvements are due to ivermectin, the overall drug combination, or the other drugs in the protocol.

Responsive Cancer Types

Ivermectin has shown some degree of anti-cancer effect in every cancer type it has been tested on, Dr. Ruddy said.

Dr. Dueñas-González’s research has shown that at least 26 different cancer cell lines, including prostate, kidney, esophageal, breast, ovarian, lungs, glioblastoma, stomach, colon, liver, lymphoma, uterus, pancreas, and bladder, respond to ivermectin in laboratory studies.

Its use in some cancer types is more well-researched than others, though most of the research has not been conducted in humans but in human cell lines or animals.

Breast Cancer

Laboratory studies on breast cancer tissue have found ivermectin to be effective against all types of human breast cancer tissues, including triple-negative, the most resistant to treatment.

Animal and laboratory studies show that ivermectin induces autophagy in breast cancer cells. Autophagy is an anti-cancer process that starves and degrades useless cells while blocking cancer cell growth. Ivermectin also enhances chemotherapy effects in breast cancer treatment.

Leukemia

Studies of various chronic myeloid leukemia cell lines showed that ivermectin kills these lines by inducing mitochondrial dysfunction and the production of free radicals.

In mice with leukemia, ivermectin increases the influx of chloride ions in the cells, promoting cell death.

When ivermectin is combined with two chemotherapy drugs, free radical production is further increased. Ivermectin also reverses drug resistance in chemotherapy-resistant leukemia cells.

Ovarian Cancer

Laboratory studies of three different ovarian cancer cell lines showed that when only ivermectin was used, the drug modestly inhibited the growth of cancer cells. However, when it was combined with pitavastatin, a type of statin, the synergistic drug combination increased both drugs’ effects.

Ivermectin preferentially targets ovarian cancer stem cells, promoting their death by encouraging the formation of free radicals. Another study involving both a cell line and animal model that combined ivermectin with cisplatin, a type of chemotherapy drug, showed that ivermectin by itself stopped ovarian cell growth. However, when combined with cisplatin, it completely reversed cancer cell growth.

Colorectal Cancer

Laboratory research on colorectal cancer cell lines has shown that ivermectin inhibits cell growth. The drug also encourages the formation of free radicals, which can attack these cancer cells’ DNA and cellular components. With increasing doses of ivermectin, more free radicals were produced. Ivermectin also reverses chemotherapy resistance in colorectal cancer cells.