What if the Cure Isn’t Profitable?

There’s a fascinating—and deeply frustrating—video from Dr John Campbell making the rounds right now. It dives into emerging research on repurposed drugs—specifically ivermectin and mebendazole—and their potential role in cancer treatment.

Before anyone jumps to conclusions, let’s be clear: this is not settled science. But it is a signal. And it’s a signal that deserves attention.

What the Study Found

The video walks through a prospective observational study involving nearly 200 cancer patients using a combination of ivermectin and mebendazole.

The headline number?

• 84% clinical benefit rate — meaning patients experienced tumour regression, stability, or no evidence of disease.

That’s not trivial. Not even close.

Even more interesting:

• The treatment appeared to work across a wide range of cancers

• Side effects were mild and generally well tolerated

• Lower doses worked just as well as higher ones

• The drugs are cheap—very cheap

We’re not talking about cutting-edge, billion-dollar biotech here. These are long-established, generic medications.

Why This Matters

Here’s where things get uncomfortable.

Traditional cancer treatments can cost upwards of $100,000 per year.

By contrast, this protocol—if proven effective—could cost a fraction of that.

So the obvious question is:

Why aren’t we seeing large-scale, gold-standard clinical trials?

The Repurposing Problem

This isn’t new. It’s the dirty little secret of modern medicine.

Repurposing existing drugs—especially generics—faces a brutal reality:

• No patent = no profit

• No profit = no incentive

• No incentive = no large trials

Pharmaceutical companies fund most large randomised controlled trials. That’s not a criticism—it’s just the system we’ve built.

But that system has a blind spot.

If a drug is:

• cheap

• widely available

• off-patent

…then there is no financial upside in proving it works for a new indication.

So the studies don’t get done.

Not because the idea is wrong.
Not because the science is impossible.

But because the business model doesn’t support it.

A Signal, Not a Conclusion

To be fair—and this matters—the study discussed is:

• observational

• partly based on self-reported outcomes

• not randomised or controlled

Even the authors say this is hypothesis-generating, not definitive.

In other words:
“This looks promising. Now we need proper trials.”

And that’s exactly the point.

So Who Should Step In?

If the private sector won’t fund it, the obvious candidates are:

• Governments

• Universities

• Independent research bodies

Because if even a fraction of this holds up under rigorous testing, we are talking about:

• cheaper treatments

• wider global access

• potentially better outcomes

Especially in parts of the world where $100,000 therapies are simply not an option.

The Bigger Question

This isn’t really about ivermectin or mebendazole.

It’s about a system that is incredibly good at developing profitable drugs…
…but not nearly as good at exploring unprofitable ones.

And that should concern all of us.

Because the question isn’t:

“Do these drugs work?”

The real question is:

“Are we even willing to find out?”

Watch the Full Video

If you want to hear the full breakdown and judge for yourself, watch the video here:

Weekly Roundup - Top Articles and Commentary from Week 17 of 2026

 

Here are links to some selected articles of interest and our posts from this week.

• The RFK Panic vs The Reality of Results
  
• The Welfare State: Compassion or Quiet Damage
  
• Are Europe's Leaders Undermining the West
  
• Trial by Media: The Troubling Optics Of The Roberts-Smith Case
  
• Another AI video featuring Trump singing a spoof on "Bohemian Rhapsody" 
• What If The Cure Is Not Profitable?
  

We welcome all feedback; please feel free to submit your comments or contact me via email at grappysb@gmail.com or on X at @grappysb

Trial by Media? The Troubling Optics of the Roberts-Smith Arrest

Seventeen Years Later… Why Now?

Seventeen years.

That’s how long after the alleged events in Afghanistan it has taken to bring criminal charges against Ben Roberts-Smith—Australia’s most decorated living soldier.

Seventeen years in which:

• Memories fade

• Evidence degrades

• Witnesses disappear or become inaccessible

• And Afghanistan itself has fallen back into the hands of the very forces we were fighting

At some point, justice delayed risks becoming justice distorted.

Even supporters of the prosecution must confront a basic question:
If the case was strong, why did it take nearly two decades?

From Hero to Villain—Which Was the Mistake?

Australia awarded Roberts-Smith the Victoria Cross—the nation’s highest military honour.

That’s not handed out lightly.

So which is it?

• Did the nation get it wrong then?

• Or is it getting it wrong now?

You can’t have it both ways.

Either due diligence failed when the medal was awarded—or the system is now retroactively rewriting history.

The Arrest: Justice or Theatre?

The way the arrest was carried out raises serious concerns.

A public airport arrest.
Filmed.
Media tipped off—particularly outlets that had pursued the story for years.

This wasn’t a quiet legal process. It looked like a production.

And that matters, because:

• It risks prejudicing a jury pool

• It creates a narrative before a trial begins

• It shifts the perception from “accused” to “guilty in the public eye”

Justice should be blind—not broadcast.

Why Sydney? Choosing the Jury

Another uncomfortable question: why was the arrest made in Sydney?

Not Perth, where the alleged events relate.
Not Brisbane, where Roberts-Smith has lived.

Sydney.

There are suggestions this was about accessing a “broader” or more favourable jury pool.

If true, that’s not justice.
That’s strategy.

And it cuts to the heart of public confidence in the system.

Civilian Courts Judging War

Here’s the deeper issue.

War is not a courtroom.

In Afghanistan, soldiers operated in:

• Split-second decision environments

• Situations where friend and foe were indistinguishable

• Conditions where hesitation could mean death

Yet now, years later, civilians—far removed from that reality—are asked to judge those decisions.

Even allies like the United States generally try their military within military systems, recognising the unique context of combat.

Australia, through international commitments, has moved toward civilian prosecution.

But the question remains:

Can civilian standards truly account for the chaos and ambiguity of war?

Commanders Walk Free—Soldiers Face Trial

Another troubling imbalance.

Investigations following the Afghanistan campaign have largely focused on rank-and-file soldiers—while senior command has avoided accountability.

That raises a fundamental fairness issue:

• Who sets the rules of engagement?

• Who oversees operations?

• Who bears ultimate responsibility?

If failures occurred, they were not created at the corporal level alone.

The Evidence Problem

This case faces extraordinary hurdles:

• No bodies

• No forensic evidence

• Conflicting testimony

• National security constraints limiting what can be disclosed in open court

And yet the burden is beyond reasonable doubt.

That’s not commentary—it’s reality.

The Bigger Question

Let’s be clear.

If crimes were committed, they should be prosecuted.

A moral military matters.

But so does fairness.

So does context.

And so does the message we send to those we ask to fight on our behalf.

We train them to:

• Close with the enemy

• Make life-and-death decisions instantly

• Operate in moral grey zones

Then, years later, we judge those decisions in black-and-white terms.

Final Thought

This case is now before the courts.

It will run its course.

But one question will linger long after the verdict:

Have we pursued justice… or created a precedent that will make future soldiers hesitate when it matters most?

Because in war, hesitation isn’t just a legal issue.

It can be fatal.

___________________________________________________________________________________

This post draws on a recent (paywalled) column by Peta Credlin in The Australian:

“Should Ben Roberts-Smith case ever have been brought?”
(You can find it here: https://www.theaustralian.com.au/commentary/should-ben-robertssmith-case-ever-have-been-brought/news-story/ef796b10ecba054bc09e779de9…)

Are Europe’s Leaders Undermining the West?

There’s a growing argument — uncomfortable, controversial, and increasingly hard to ignore — that the biggest threat to the West isn’t coming from outside… but from within.

A recent piece from the Gatestone Institute makes that case bluntly: many Western European leaders are not defending Western civilisation — they are actively undermining it.

That’s a serious charge. So what’s behind it?

A Crisis of Confidence — or a Collapse of Will?

The claim is that Europe’s political class has lost confidence in its own values.

Instead of defending Western traditions — democracy, free speech, cultural identity — leaders are portrayed as increasingly willing to dilute them in pursuit of political convenience. This isn’t accidental. It’s driven by a mix of ideology and electoral calculation.

And that brings us to the most contentious issue.

Immigration, Identity, and Political Reality

Large-scale immigration into Western Europe — particularly from Muslim-majority countries — has created deep cultural and political tensions.

More controversially:

• Many newcomers have not assimilated

• Anti-Israel and anti-Jewish sentiment has increased

• Political leaders are reluctant to confront these issues for fear of losing votes

In short, leaders are prioritising short-term political survival over long-term social cohesion. (Gatestone Institute)

It is a difficult argument to dismiss.

Israel: The Fault Line

It is exemplified by Europe’s stance toward Israel.

So while Israel remains one of the West’s most reliable allies, many European leaders treat it with hostility or contempt. This reflects a broader moral confusion within Western leadership.

This highlights a deeper question: has the West lost clarity about who its allies are, and why?

A Civilisation Unsure of Itself

Perhaps the most striking theme is the idea that Europe is suffering from what one commentator calls a “political and sociological death wish.” (Gatestone Institute)

That may sound dramatic — but the underlying point is simple:

Civilisations don’t usually collapse because they are conquered.
They collapse because they stop believing in themselves.

Europe today risks exactly that — a slow erosion of identity, confidence, and purpose.

So Where Does That Leave Us?

This isn’t a neat, black-and-white issue.

There are legitimate debates here:

• How should immigration be managed?

• What does integration actually mean?

• How should Western nations balance tolerance with cultural cohesion?

• And how should they deal with allies and adversaries in a rapidly changing world?

But one thing is clear: these are no longer fringe questions.

They’re central.

And they’re becoming unavoidable.

Final Thought

The real question isn’t whether Europe is being “betrayed.”

It’s whether its leaders still believe in the civilisation they are supposed to lead.

Because if they don’t — history suggests the outcome is already written.

The Welfare State: Compassion or Quiet Damage?

We’re constantly told a familiar story: poverty is rampant, the system is failing, and the only answer is… more welfare.

It sounds compassionate. It feels right.

But what if the real problem isn’t too little welfare — it’s too much of the wrong kind?

That’s the argument put forward in a short, sharp 5-minute video by PragerU titled “The Real Tragedy of the Welfare State.”

The Core Argument — And It’s Uncomfortable

The video makes one central claim:

The welfare system hasn’t failed because it hasn’t reduced poverty — it has failed because it has reduced incentives to work and grow.

According to the argument, the way poverty is measured doesn’t even fully count the vast array of government benefits people receive. When those are included, the picture changes dramatically — suggesting far fewer people are truly lacking basic needs.

But that’s not the real issue.

The real issue is what happens over time.

Dependency vs Opportunity

The video argues that decades of welfare expansion have created a system where, for many, not working makes as much financial sense as working.

And when that happens, something deeper is lost.

Not just income — but:

• motivation

• purpose

• independence

• the drive to improve one’s situation

As the video puts it, people may survive… but they don’t thrive.

The Real Tragedy

This isn’t about denying help to those in genuine need.

It’s about asking a harder question:

Are we helping people up — or holding them in place?

The claim is stark:
A system designed to fight poverty may, in fact, be quietly entrenching it — by removing the very incentives that lead people out of it.

That’s the “tragedy.”

Watch It — Then Decide

It’s only five minutes, but it challenges a lot of deeply held assumptions.

👉 Watch the full video here:
https://www.prageru.com/videos/the-real-tragedy-of-the-welfare-state

Agree or disagree, it’s worth hearing the argument in full.

Final Thought

Real compassion isn’t just about support.

It’s about outcomes.

And if a system keeps people dependent rather than helping them rise, then maybe it’s time we ask —
who is it really serving?

https://www.prageru.com/videos/the-real-tragedy-of-the-welfare-state