As a general policy I wouldn’t recommend following Bots on Twitter/X for health information, especially when they are quoting videos from Epoch Times and other extremely biased sources. Follow good scientists without obvious political biases. The strongly biased info providers are more interested in attention (with exagerated and unproven claims), and engagement than scientific accuracy. Clinicians that use anecdotal references without clinical study perspectives, are trying to persuade you, not provide good and balanced information.
Please don’t post things like this (which I consider “Junk Science”) here on this site. We’re focused on deep science discussions, not clickbait social media “doctors” with strong biases. It’s like the junk that Dr. Oz promotes - also “junk science” in my opinion. See: Medical claims on The Dr. Oz Show - Wikipedia
Here is an evaluation from CGPT5.1:
Here’s a claim-by-claim read on that post.
1. “Ivermectin is SAFER than a sugar pill… You’d have to take a lot to make yourself sick.”
Verdict:
- Directionally: ivermectin is generally very safe at approved doses.
- Scientifically: the “safer than a sugar pill” line is hyperbolic and misleading.
What the data actually show
Large-scale mass drug administration (MDA) programs for onchocerciasis and other neglected tropical diseases have given ivermectin to hundreds of millions of people with very low serious-adverse-event rates. Reviews and MDA safety analyses consistently describe it as “astonishingly safe” with a wide therapeutic index at standard doses.
However:
- Systematic reviews of high-dose ivermectin (up to 10× typical doses) conclude that safety appears comparable to standard doses but that the evidence is limited and does not justify routine use above approved doses.
- Serious adverse reactions are documented, including neurotoxicity and severe skin reactions. Pharmacovigilance analyses have found increased reporting of encephalopathies and confusional states compared with some other anthelmintics.
- In people heavily infected with Loa loa, ivermectin can precipitate life-threatening encephalopathy, which is why WHO has special precautions in co-endemic areas.
A sugar pill (placebo) is pharmacologically inert; its main risks are allergy to excipients or aspiration—not systemic toxicity.
Bottom line:
At approved doses ivermectin has an excellent safety record, but it is not meaningfully “safer than a sugar pill,” and you do not need absurd doses to get into trouble in all contexts (e.g., Loa loa, drug interactions, overdoses). The statement overshoots the evidence.
2. “Dr. Kathleen Ruddy has observed multiple late-stage cancer patients make dramatic recoveries after taking ivermectin.”
Verdict:
- Anecdotal and hypothesis-generating at best.
- Not evidence that ivermectin is an effective cancer treatment.
What the evidence says about ivermectin and cancer
- Preclinical work (cell lines, mice) shows a range of anticancer effects: apoptosis induction, interference with Wnt/β-catenin, PI3K/Akt/mTOR, and other pathways, plus immunomodulatory effects.
- Reviews highlight ivermectin as a promising repurposing candidate , but repeatedly emphasize that clinical evidence in humans is limited and no large randomized trials have shown benefit .
- Early-phase or exploratory trials (e.g., combinations with checkpoint inhibitors in triple-negative breast cancer, NCT05318469) are ongoing, but results sufficient to change practice are not available.
An oncologist’s observation of “dramatic recoveries” in late-stage patients is inherently subject to:
- selection bias;
- concurrent treatments (chemo, immunotherapy, surgery, radiation);
- misclassification of prognosis;
- regression to the mean and pure coincidence.
Without controlled data, this is not credible evidence of efficacy.
Bottom line:
Her anecdotes might motivate clinical trials, but they do not justify promoting ivermectin as a cancer therapy. Presenting them as implicit proof is scientifically unsound.
3. “Ivermectin is also: A Nobel Prize-winning discovery (2015)”
Verdict:
- Substantively true but phrased imprecisely.
In 2015, the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine was awarded to William C. Campbell and Satoshi Ōmura for the discovery of avermectins, whose derivative ivermectin dramatically reduced the burden of river blindness and lymphatic filariasis.
The prize was technically for the discoveries leading to these drugs, not “for ivermectin itself,” but in casual terms it is reasonable to say ivermectin is part of a Nobel-Prize-winning discovery.
4. “Recognized, 2nd to penicillin, for having the greatest impact on human health”
Verdict:
- This is rhetorical, not a formally established scientific ranking.
There are authoritative sources calling ivermectin:
- “one of the most extraordinary drugs ever discovered for the treatment and control of parasitic diseases,” from a widely cited review linked by the American Chemical Society’s historical landmark on ivermectin/Mectizan.
But:
- I find no formal, widely accepted quantitative ranking placing ivermectin “second only to penicillin” in impact on human health. The “2nd to penicillin” wording appears in social media, talks, and advocacy pieces, not in consensus WHO/CDC/major-journal evaluations.
Bottom line:
The spirit—“ivermectin has had a huge global health impact”—is correct. The specific “2nd to penicillin” claim is a highly debatable slogan, not an established scientific fact.
5. “Credited for bringing river blindness to the brink of elimination”
Verdict:
- Broadly accurate, with important nuance.
Ivermectin (Mectizan), donated by Merck since 1987, has been central to onchocerciasis control and elimination programs:
- WHO and partner programs use annual or biannual ivermectin MDA as the main tool for onchocerciasis elimination.
- Several countries (e.g., Colombia, Ecuador, Mexico) have been verified free of onchocerciasis as a public-health problem after long-term ivermectin programs.
That said, “brink of elimination” is region-specific: transmission has been interrupted in some countries, but onchocerciasis remains endemic in others and progress is uneven.
Bottom line:
It is fair to say ivermectin has been a primary driver of river blindness control and elimination in many countries, but the disease is not yet globally eradicated.
6. “Used globally in HUMANS, with over 3.7 billion doses administered.”
Verdict:
- Directionally correct; the number is actually probably an underestimate today.
A 2019 research/advocacy article from ISGlobal noted that more than 3.7 billion doses of ivermectin had already been donated by Merck for neglected tropical disease control alone.
Since that figure predates several additional years of MDA campaigns, the cumulative human dose count by 2025 is likely higher.
Bottom line:
The order of magnitude (billions of human doses) is correct; “>3.7 billion doses” is reasonable, though now probably conservative.
Synthesis: what the post gets right and what it distorts
Accurate or mostly accurate elements
- Ivermectin’s discovery is part of a 2015 Nobel Prize and is on the WHO Essential Medicines list.
- It has had enormous impact on parasitic diseases, especially river blindness and lymphatic filariasis.
- Billions of doses have been administered to humans, with a generally favorable safety profile at approved doses.
Misleading / overstated elements
- “Safer than a sugar pill” ignores real (if rare) serious adverse events, known high-risk situations (e.g., Loa loa), and the basic pharmacological reality that ivermectin is an active drug with toxicity at sufficient exposure.
- Anecdotal late-stage cancer “dramatic recoveries” are not scientific evidence. Human data for ivermectin as a cancer therapy are still preclinical or early-phase; no robust RCT evidence yet supports its use as an anticancer drug.
- “2nd only to penicillin” is promotional rhetoric, not a consensus ranking.
Net assessment
The post mixes solid facts about ivermectin’s antiparasitic achievements with:
- overhyped safety language , and
- unsupported implications about its role in cancer treatment .
Scientifically, ivermectin is:
- a major, Nobel-linked advance in infectious-disease and NTD control;
- generally very safe at standard human doses, but not risk-free;
- still unproven as a cancer therapy, with ongoing research but no clinical proof of benefit.
Google Gemini Evaluates The Epoch Times as an Information Source:
The Epoch Times is consistently analyzed by media watchdog organizations and investigative journalists as having a Strong Right/Ultraconservative political bias and, in many cases, is characterized by low or mixed reliability due to its promotion of conspiracy theories and partisan content.1
The biases and related characteristics of The Epoch Times can be categorized into three main areas: Political, Ideological/Foundational, and Reliability Concerns.
1. 
Political and Partisan Bias
-
Pro-Trump/American Far-Right:2 Since 2016, the publication has been noted for its very favorable coverage of the Trump administration and its alignment with the American conservative and far-right movements.3
- It has been reported to have spent millions of dollars on social media advertising promoting Donald Trump and his political positions.4
- Anti-Democrat/Conspiracy Focus: The paper has emphasized negative coverage of Democratic politicians, often promoting conspiracy theories alleging a “labyrinthian, global conspiracy” against President Donald Trump and conservative figures.
2. 
Ideological and Foundational Bias
- Affiliation with Falun Gong:5 The publication was founded by Chinese Americans affiliated with the Falun Gong new religious movement, which is heavily persecuted by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).6
- Strong Anti-CCP Stance: This foundational tie results in an ardent and often extreme anti-Chinese Communist Party (CCP) bias .7 This is the core mission, and reporting on China focuses heavily on the CCP’s abuses and corruption.8
- Ultraconservative Social Views: The paper has been noted for adopting ultraconservative social views in line with the Falun Gong movement’s teachings.
3. 
Reliability and Disinformation Concerns
Media analysts and investigative reports often cite the following issues regarding reliability:
-
Promotion of Conspiracy Theories: The Epoch Times and its affiliated media channels (like NTD Television) have been prominent purveyors of widely debunked conspiracy theories, including:9
- Misinformation and false claims about the COVID-19 pandemic (e.g., anti-vaccine misinformation, unfounded claims about the virus’s origin).10
- False claims of fraud in the 2020 United States presidential election .11
- Promotion of the QAnon conspiracy theory and others like “Spygate.”
-
Rating by Media Watchdogs:
- Ad Fontes Media has rated The Epoch Times in the “Skews Right” or “Strong Right” category of bias, with a reliability score that places it in the “Mixed Reliability: Opinion or Wide Variation” or lower categories.12
- Other organizations have similarly rated it as “Right” or “Lean Right” and flagged it for low reliability.13
- Non-Disclosure and Deception: The publication has faced criticism for using sophisticated marketing and advertising tactics (which led to a ban on advertising on Facebook) to obscure its political agenda, and for promoting the related Shen Yun performing arts group without adequate conflict-of-interest disclosure.14
In summary, the core biases of The Epoch Times are its intense opposition to the Chinese Communist Party and its strong alignment with the American political right, which has frequently resulted in the publication of hyper-partisan content and conspiracy theories, leading media analysts to rate its reliability as problematic.
GROK on Dr. Kaathleen Ruddy as an information source, and her biases:
My Prompt:
Does Dr. Kathleen Ruddy seem to have any significant biases in her statements related to medical treatments?
Response:
Yes, Dr. Kathleen Ruddy appears to exhibit significant biases in her statements on medical treatments, particularly toward non-mainstream, unproven approaches for breast cancer and other cancers. These biases are evident in her strong advocacy for viral etiologies and repurposed drugs like ivermectin, often framed with anecdotal evidence, institutional criticism, and ties to groups associated with misinformation.
Background on Dr. Ruddy
Dr. Ruddy is a board-certified breast surgeon trained at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, with over 35 years of experience. She founded the Breast Health & Healing Foundation in 2008 to promote breast cancer awareness and research. Her work includes authoring The End of Breast Cancer: A Virus and the Hope for a Vaccine (2017), where she argues that viruses contribute to 40–94% of human breast cancers. While she has contributed to mainstream discussions on breast cancer disparities and survivorship, her recent statements increasingly focus on fringe theories and alternative therapies.
Key Areas of Bias
-
Viral Causation of Breast Cancer (MMTV/HMTV Hypothesis):
- Ruddy claims a mouse mammary tumor virus (MMTV)-like virus, dubbed the “pink virus,” causes up to 75% of human breast cancers, transmitted similarly to how MMTV spreads in mice (e.g., via breast milk). She argues this was overlooked in her medical training and calls for urgent vaccine development, criticizing the National Cancer Institute (NCI) for underfunding research despite breast cancer’s prevalence (1 in 8 women lifetime risk).
- Bias Indicators: This hypothesis is highly controversial. While some studies detect MMTV-like sequences in 14–74% of breast tumors, many attribute positives to lab contamination, and meta-analyses show no consistent causal link. Ruddy presents it as “settled science” needing only final proof, ignoring consensus that multifactorial causes (genetics, hormones, environment) dominate. Her NCI critiques imply conspiracy-like neglect, a pattern in advocacy for under-researched ideas.
-
Promotion of Repurposed Drugs like Ivermectin for Cancer:
- Ruddy reports “dramatic recoveries” in late-stage cancer patients (e.g., stage 4 breast, prostate, lung) after ivermectin use, describing three spontaneous remissions in 30 years of practice—attributed solely to the drug. She calls ivermectin “safer than a sugar pill” (with over 3.7 billion human doses globally) and plans an observational study with the FLCCC Alliance to track survival rates using repurposed drugs.
- Bias Indicators: These claims rely on uncontrolled observations of ~50 patients, ignoring selection bias, placebo effects, or concurrent standard treatments. No randomized trials support ivermectin for cancer; preclinical data shows anti-tumor effects in labs, but human evidence is anecdotal. Her FLCCC collaboration links her to COVID-19 misinformation promoters (e.g., Dr. Paul Marik), and she’s labeled a “hardcore antivaxxer” for endorsing unvaccinated blood registries. Oncologists warn such promotions fuel a “disinformation epidemic,” delaying proven therapies like surgery, chemo, and targeted drugs.
Broader Context and Implications
Ruddy’s biases align with a pattern of elevating unproven ideas over evidence-based oncology, potentially influenced by her foundation’s focus and personal anecdotes (e.g., her mother’s 35-year survivorship). While passionate advocacy can drive research, her statements risk misleading patients toward risky delays in care—e.g., a court case denied a patient’s bid for ivermectin at a hospital, citing threats to medical standards. Mainstream bodies like the American Cancer Society emphasize proven treatments, and experts urge caution on viral theories without causal proof.
In summary, while Ruddy’s expertise is legitimate, her treatment statements show a clear tilt toward speculative, low-evidence options, substantiated by associations with controversial networks and oversimplifications of complex science. Patients should consult oncologists for personalized, evidence-based advice.