WATCH: Touching moment as wounded vet and family see new home donated by Gary Sinise Foundation



When a wounded Army Ranger received a well-deserved thank you for his service last week, there wasn't a dry eye in the house — literally.

Emotional footage shows the moment retired U.S. Army Sergeant Joshua Hargis and his family first step into their brand new, mortgage-free home in Nolensville, Tennessee — a gift from the Gary Sinise Foundation.

'There is not another man like him that I would trust my life with.'

"This is insane," says one of two young sons Hargis shares with wife Taylor before breaking down in tears.

Hargis, who served as K-9 handler with the 75th Ranger Regiment, describes seeing the house for the first time as "absolutely overwhelming."

During Hargis' fourth deployment in Afghanistan, his team was ambushed while conducting routine operations. Four members of his unit were killed along with his K-9 companion, Jany. Hargis lost both his legs while running into danger to assist a fellow Ranger in a minefield.

“During a night raid, we were drawn into an area that was littered with buried IED's (improvised explosive devices), and our targets had donned explosive vests that were concealed under their clothing,” Hargis explains.

Hargis had learned that his wife was pregnant with their first child just a week before. After his life-changing injuries, his joy at becoming a father turned to apprehension.

“I was so intent on getting back to my wife and unborn child, but I was afraid of facing my wife in broken form," Hargis said.

That apprehension vanished the moment they were reunited.

"My fears and insecurities were washed away when she raced to be by my side as the ambulance doors opened. There was never a moment that she wasn’t by my side fighting for me when I couldn’t.”

Hargis' friend, U.S. Army Ranger Spencer Cox, says he wasn't surprised by his fellow Ranger's courage.

"That’s the kind of person Joshua is. He is the most selfless individual I have ever had the privilege of working with.

"His tireless work ethic, spirit, soul, and love for his family are truly remarkable," Cox continued. "There is not another man like him that I would trust my life with. I know that Joshua can manage and succeed in any environment, no matter what is thrown at him."

The family's new, custom-built residence will provide a more accessible environment for the Purple Heart recipient than their previous split-level home.

Hargis says the added independence the house affords him will make him a better husband and father.

"For our family it means so much more, it’s mental, it’s emotional, it’s freedom to be able to interact as a family a little bit better. All of the small details in that house that are going to make not only my day to day easier, but my wife’s day to day easier raising two boys, it’s a huge blessing."

The Gary Sinise Foundation teamed up with a number of partners to construct the home, among them Sunbelt Rentals, Owens Corning, Kaishan Compressor USA, and LP Building Solutions for Professionals.

“We want them to know we never forget,” says actor and musician Sinise, who started the foundation in 2011 to help veterans, first responders, and their families. “I’m a grateful American and I want them to know it, and I want to be somebody who can rally support from around the country.”

You can watch the touching video of the Hargis family seeing their new home for the first time here.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here.

Doctors push for cheaper cancer cures, but Big Pharma stands firm



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.

Harris And Biden Don’t Value American Lives, So Neither Should Be President

Government-sanctioned disregard for life should trouble us all.

BUYER BEWARE: Cancer screening is ‘diagnosing cancer that isn’t cancer’



Around the country, Americans have begun waking up to the possibility that the health care system is more interested in your wallet than it is in your cure.

Which is why extra caution should be taken when it comes to earth-shattering diagnoses like cancer.

“The ridiculous cancer screening programs that are designed to bring in customers to medical centers are diagnosing cancer that isn’t cancer,” Dr. Pam Popper, an internationally recognized expert on nutrition, medicine, and health and the founder and executive director of Wellness Forum Health tells Liz Wheeler of the “The Liz Wheeler Show.”

“In other words, ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is not cancer, it’s a risk factor for breast cancer,” she continues. “A lot of people are being treated for cancer because they have risk factors, which is great for the industry, not so great for the patient.”

A major factor in preventing and/or curing cancer is diet, which conventional cancer doctors often don’t focus on.

“When you think about it, an average adult puts a ton of food through their body every year,” Popper says. “How could you say that doesn’t have an effect?”

“You’re blowing my mind here,” Wheeler responds, adding, “this idea that there are people who are told by their doctors after testing that they have cancer and you say, ‘Well no, actually, that’s a risk factor for cancer but not actually cancer.’”

“How do these patients tell? I mean, we’re not trained as doctors, we don’t know what tests are run,” she adds.

Popper believes that receiving a cancer diagnosis should be treated like any service, in that you should always investigate and get a second opinion.

“Don’t do anything until you have a chance to calm down, think about it, and start investigating,” Popper explains. “The consumer has to take responsibility. I’m all about consumer empowerment and consumer responsibility.”

“Everybody thinks, 'Well, the government has to change. Somebody has to go fix this for me.' You have to start by fixing it for yourself. Then you start by helping other people around you,” she continues, noting that her philosophy on health has served her well.

“I’m 68 years old. I weigh what I weighed when I graduated from high school,” Popper says. “I don’t take any drugs. There’s nothing wrong with me.”


Want more from Liz Wheeler?

To enjoy more of Liz’s based commentary, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Study reveals cell phones are killing face cells and might be doing a whole lot more



A study recently published in the peer-reviewed Elsevier journal Environmental Research revealed that cell phone radiation can do a whole lot more than simply warm users' faces.

Background

Mobile phones emit radiation in the radiofrequency region of the electromagnetic spectrum.

According to the National Cancer Institute, second through fourth-generation cell phones emit radio waves in the frequency range of 0.7-2.7 gigahertz; however, fifth-generation phones are anticipated to use a spectrum of up to 80 GHz.

Supposedly, such "energy is too low to damage DNA. By contrast, ionizing radiation, which includes x-rays, radon, and cosmic rays, is high frequency and high energy. Energy from ionizing radiation can damage DNA."

DNA-damaging radiation is particularly concerning because that could lead to genetic changes that might significantly increase the risk of cancer. New York University radiology professor Christopher Collins told Forbes earlier this year that electromagnetic radiation only starts to ionize and threaten DNA at around 3 million GHz.

The NCI suggested that beside heating, there "are no other clearly established dangerous health effects on the human body from radiofrequency radiation."

Recognizing that the absence of proof of a causal link between cell phone radiation and cancer is not proof of an absence of such a link, various health organizations have expressed concern as well as the need for caution.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer, for instance, maintains that the electromagnetic fields produced by cell phones are possibly carcinogenic to humans.

A study published last year in the journal Reviews on Environmental Health indicated that specific low frequency magnetic fields generated by power lines and various electrical appliances "can increase the risk of developing leukemia in children, probably acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Prolonged exposure to electric appliances that generate magnetic fields higher than 0.4 µT like electric blankets is associated with a greater risk of childhood leukemia."

The European Commission's directorate-general for health and food safety has acknowledged a possible link "between long term mobile phone use with acoustic neuroma, a benign tumor of the auditory nerve."

The California Department of Public Health indicated in a 2017 alert:

Although the science is still evolving, some laboratory experiments and human health studies have suggested the possibility that long-term, high use of cell phones may be linked to certain types of cancer and other health effects, including: brain cancer and tumors of the acoustic nerve (needed for hearing and maintaining balance) and salivary glands[;] lower sperm counts and inactive or less mobile sperm[; and] headaches and effects on learning and memory, hearing, behavior, and sleep.

Damning new study

A team of Austrian researchers recently executed the first human intervention trial under controlled conditions, examining the possible cell-killing and DNA-damaging effects of mobile phone radiation.

Participants in the study were exposed to low and high doses of a Universal Mobile Telecommunications System signal via headsets for two hours on five consecutive days. Both before and weeks after their exposure, buccal cells — cells found on the inside of the cheek — were collected from the 41 subjects and closely examined.

Although the researchers found no evidence for induction of chromosomal damage by 3G cellphone radiation and of "nuclear buds which are caused by gene amplifications," they did observe a "significant increase of binucleated cells which are formed as a consequence of disturbed cell divisions, and of karyolitic cells, which are indicative for cell death."

These effects were not observed on the sides of the subjects' faces that were not exposed to the UMTS signals.

'These processes may possibly lead to formation of neoplastic cells.'

The researchers indicated that they had "found clear evidence for disturbance of the cell cycle and cytotoxicity. These effects may play a causal role in the induction of adverse long term health effects in humans."

"It is possible that these effects cause inflammatory responses and/or release of ROS, which were seen in a number of laboratory studies," wrote the researchers. "These processes may possibly lead to formation of neoplastic cells."

Tumors, also called neoplasms, are made up of neoplastic cells.

"Evidence is accumulating that exposure to HF-EMF [between 100 kilohertz and 300 GHz] is associated with specific brain tumors," wrote the researchers. "The results of the present investigation indicate that molecular mechanisms other than chromosomal damage may cause neoplastic transformation of the cells as a consequence of exposure to mobile phone specific HF-EMF."

Dr. Rob Brown, a diagnostic radiologist who serves as vice president of scientific research and clinical affairs for Environmental Health Trust, told the Defender that the Austrian study "is significant and should be looked at with great concern."

"Most research to date exploring the biological effects of electromagnetic fields and radiofrequency radiation has been performed on in-vitro cell cultures, plants and animal models," said Brown. "Because of this, they have been easier to discount by industry and policymakers."

Brown suggested the study also provided "strong evidence that at least some frequencies emitted by the cellular phone passed through the entire thickness of the cheek's soft tissue (typically 1 centimeter in thickness or more) to affect the sampled cells" — a revelation that points at the possibility that such penetration could be "expected in all parts of the body in which a cellphone may make contact."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

WHO’s New Tobacco Guidelines Prioritize Ideology Over Public Health

By ignoring the benefit of non-combustible nicotine products in helping smokers quit, the WHO is jeopardizing public health.

This Game Show Legend Will Be Honored With A New Postage Stamp

[rebelmouse-proxy-image https://thefederalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/Screenshot-2024-07-18-at-6.46.08 AM-1200x675.png crop_info="%7B%22image%22%3A%20%22https%3A//thefederalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/Screenshot-2024-07-18-at-6.46.08%5Cu202fAM-1200x675.png%22%7D" expand=1]Who is longtime 'Jeopardy!' host Alex Trebek?

Shannen Doherty, star of 'Beverly Hills, 90210' and 'Charmed,' dead at 53



Shannen Doherty – star of "Beverly Hills, 90210" and "Charmed " – is dead at age 53.

Doherty died on Saturday following a long battle with cancer.

“It is with a heavy heart that I confirm the passing of actress, Shannen Doherty. On Saturday, July 13, she lost her battle with cancer after many years of fighting the disease. The devoted daughter, sister, aunt, and friend was surrounded by her loved ones as well as her dog, Bowie. The family asks for their privacy at this time so they can grieve in peace," Doherty’s publicist Leslie Sloane said of the celebrity's death in a statement.

Doherty was diagnosed with breast cancer in February 2015. The cancer went into remission in 2017. However, the cancer returned in 2019 and began to spread throughout her body. In February 2020, she revealed that the breast cancer had metastasized to Stage 4. The cancer spread to her bones and her brain in 2023.

Doherty told "Good Morning America" in 2020, "I don't think I've processed it. It's a bitter pill to swallow in a lot of ways. I definitely have days where I say, 'Why me?' And then I go, 'Well, why not me? Who else? Who else besides me deserves this?' None of us do. But I would say that my first reaction is always concern about how – how am I going to tell my mom, my husband."

Doherty began her Hollywood career as a child actor at age 10 in 1981 by appearing in "Father Murphy," a Western drama created by Michael Landon. She went on to appear on popular TV shows such as "Little House on the Prairie," "Our House," "Magnum, P.I.," "Airwolf," "Highway to Heaven," and "21 Jump Street."

At age 19, Doherty became a major television star portraying Brenda Walsh on "Beverly Hills, 90210." In 1998, she starred as Prue Halliwell in the massively successful "Charmed" TV series.

The actress appeared in movies such as "Heathers," "Girls Just Want to Have Fun," "Mallrats," and "Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back."

Doherty continued her acting career during her cancer battle, most recently appearing in the "Darkness of Man" movie that debuted in May.

She also hosted her own podcast, “Let’s Be Clear with Shannen Doherty,” where she discussed her career and how breast cancer had impacted her life.

Doherty was married three times, including to actor George Hamilton's son Ashley Hamilton, poker player Rick Salomon, and photographer Kurt Iswarienko. Doherty filed for divorce from Iswarienko in April 2023 after 11 years of marriage.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Heart singer Ann Wilson announces removal of 'something that ... was cancerous,' says she will receive 'preventative chemotherapy'



Ann Wilson of Heart fame announced that she will receive preventative chemotherapy.

The renowned rocker said in a statement that she had undergone a procedure "to remove something," which turned out to be "cancerous."

'I've so much more to sing.'

"I recently underwent an operation to remove something that, as it turns out, was cancerous. The operation was successful & I'm feeling great but my doctors are now advising me to undergo a course of preventative chemotherapy & I've decided to do it," she said in a statement posted on social media.

She indicated that she plans to get back to performing again in the future.

"And so my doctors are instructing me to take the rest of the year away from the stage in order to fully recover. To the ticket buyers, I really do wish we could do these gigs. Please know that I absolutely plan to be back on stage in 2025. My team is getting those details sorted & we'll let you know the plan as soon as we can. Thanks for all the support. This is merely a pause. I've so much more to sing," she wrote. "Respectfully, this is the last public statement I'd like to make on the matter."

Heart is known for popular songs such as "Barracuda," "Crazy on You," and "Alone."

— (@)

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Cancer patients are younger than ever — and this doctor knows why



Cancer was once a disease that was mostly reserved for older populations, but that’s no longer the case. Diagnoses of the disease have skyrocketed among young people in the United States in the past 10 to 20 years.

Functional integrative physician and medical director of Cancer Center for Healing and Center for New Medicine Dr. Leigh Erin Connealy has the answer as to why that is.

“There’s a study that shows the increase in specifically colorectal cancer for young people,” Allie Beth Stuckey tells Connealy. “It used to be that was a type of cancer reserved for very old people, really, all types of cancer used to be more just an old-person problem. But that’s becoming less and less true.”

Connealy knows that much of the answer lies in what we consume.

“They’re not eating the right foods. They’re eating foods with lots of chemicals and toxins and seed oils, and you know, most of them are probably deficient in vitamins and minerals,” she explains.

But it’s not just seed oils and toxins.

“Parasites, all bugs, can contribute to the scenario of cancer,” Connealy explains. “And so, American doctors don’t think you can have parasites, because we have this clean, sterile, society, right?”

“But of course not,” she continues, explaining that commonly consumed food, like sushi, contains parasites.

“It’s something that, you know again, is one of the contributing causes to cancer. So, you know, cancer isn’t just one disturbance. It’s the perfect storm that’s creating this chaotic environment,” she says.

Unfortunately, doctors in the American medical system aren’t trained to address problems at the source.

“Doctors are taught a very indoctrinated version of medicine,” Connealy says. “In medical medical you’re taught how the body works, then the pharmacology that you use on the diagnosis you’re making, and then you may need surgery in some cases if it’s a diseased organ.”

While doctors aren’t taught to address the food patients are eating or the toxins they surround themselves with, they also aren’t taught to address stress levels.

“I’ve never met a patient where the doctor told the patient they need to change their eating and they need to address their stress,” she adds.


Want more from Allie Beth Stuckey?

To enjoy more of Allie’s upbeat and in-depth coverage of culture, news, and theology from a Christian, conservative perspective, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.