|
|
|
For more:
https://zenodo.org/records/19455636
Abstract
Background: Drug repurposing offers a pathway to identify accessible, low-toxicity cancer therapies. Ivermectin and mebendazole have demonstrated multi-target anti-cancer activity in preclinical models, including the inhibition of cancer cell proliferation and the targeting of cancer stem cells. This paper evaluates real-world patient-reported outcomes, safety, and adherence in a cohort of cancer patients utilizing this combination protocol.
Methods: We analyzed a prospective observational cohort of 197 cancer patients who were prescribed ivermectin and mebendazole off-label through a telemedicine platform by licensed U.S. healthcare providers. Participants received compounded oral capsules containing 25 mg ivermectin and 250 mg mebendazole. As part of a clinical program evaluation, data were collected via voluntary, standardized digital surveys at baseline and at approximately 6-month follow-up. Of the initial cohort (N = 197), baseline characteristics, including cancer type and disease status, were assessed. A total of 122 participants completed the follow-up survey (61.9% response rate) to evaluate self-reported cancer outcomes, medication adherence, and adverse events. 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for primary outcome measures using the Wilson score method. Dose-stratified analyses for outcomes and safety were conducted using Chi-square statistics.
Results: The cohort represented a diverse clinical profile of cancer patients, with mean age of 67 years and nearly balanced sex distribution (52.3% male, 47.7% female). Cancer types included prostate (27.9%), breast (18.3%), lung (8.6%), colon (5.1%), urologic (4.6%), pancreatic (3.0%), liver (2.5%), gynecologic (2.5%), and hematologic (2.5%) malignancies. At enrollment, participants had a median duration since initial diagnosis of 1.2 years, with 37.1% experiencing active disease progression. At 6-month follow-up, medication adherence was high with 86.9% of participants completing the full initial 90-capsule ivermectin-mebendazole prescription and 66.4% remaining on the protocol at 6 months. The Clinical Benefit Ratio (CBR) was 84.4% (95% CI: 77.0–89.8%). Notably, 48.4% (95% CI: 39.7–57.1%) of the cohort reported the strongest positive outcomes, consisting of regression (15.6%; 95% CI: 10.2–23.0%) or no current evidence of disease (NED, 32.8%; 95% CI: 25.1–41.5%). Disease stability was reported to be maintained in 36.1% (95% CI: 28.1–44.9%) of participants, while 15.6% (95% CI: 10.2–23.0%) reported disease progression. While 25.4% reported mild side effects (primarily gastrointestinal), 93.6% of those affected continued treatment through minor dose adjustments. Some participants reported concurrent conventional therapies, including chemotherapy (27.9%), radiation therapy (21.3%), and surgery (19.7%), as well as adjunctive interventions such as supplement use (49.2%), dietary modification (37.7%), and other integrative approaches.
Conclusions: In this prospective real-world cohort, the combination of ivermectin and mebendazole was associated with high rates of self-reported clinical benefit, with nearly half of participants reporting tumor regression or no current evidence of disease across a heterogeneous population of cancer patients. These findings provide a compelling clinical signal that these well-tolerated, repurposed agents may offer therapeutic benefit. However, given the observational design, reliance on self-reported outcomes, and potential for selection bias and uncontrolled confounding, these findings should be interpreted as hypothesis-generating. Urgent prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials are warranted to validate these observations and further define optimal dosing strategies. (Go to link for full-length study)
_____________
**Comment**
For a wonderful breakdown of the study: https://justusrhope.substack.com/p/1-in-3-cancer-free-ivermectin-trial? Excerpt:
Patients were prescribed the medications off-label through a telemedicine platform. They received compounded oral capsules containing:
The study noted that these were not strictly monotherapies. Many patients were undergoing concurrent conventional treatments, including chemotherapy (27.9%), radiation therapy (21.3%), and surgery (19.7%). Additionally, many used adjunctive interventions such as supplements (49.2%) and dietary modifications (37.7%).
Of the initial 197 patients, 75 patients failed to complete the study (meaning they did not complete the 6-month follow-up survey).
The authors reported an overall Clinical Benefit Ratio (CBR) of 84.4% among the 122 patients who completed the survey. The self-reported outcomes broke down as follows:
Within the article, Justuserhope asked AI to evaluate the benefit of adding one agent at a time from the RESET-5 Protocol (Mebendazole, ivermectin, sulforaphane, metformin, and aged garlic extract) to the Hulscher et. al study. The full RESET-5 reduces the likelihood of resistance development, enhances immune function, and depletes tumors of a critical survival tool – compensatory glutathione production.
The full RESET-5 Protocol boosts improvement even further by 30-40%.
_____________
**Comment**
For those of you studying this, 25 mg of ivermectin and 250mg of Mebendazole are considered pretty low dosages. Many patients are taking much more than that, so the fact they are getting such great improvement with such low dosages is fairly amazing. Lower dosages typically mean lower side-effects so this should be safe for nearly all to take. Share with your doctor and work together to get the best fit.
For more:
https://justusrhope.substack.com/p/a-new-ivermectinmebendazole-cocktail?
Article Excerpts:
Resistance to chemotherapy and radiation is a well-documented challenge in oncology. Clinicians have increasingly reported that resistance can also emerge even when core repurposed drug metabolic cocktails are added to standard treatment regimens.
The Care Oncology Clinic’s 4-Drug COC Protocol — comprising Doxycycline, Atorvastatin, Mebendazole, and Metformin — represents a strong foundational approach to metabolic cancer therapy. In the METRICS trial, adding this protocol to standard of care in Glioblastoma was associated with nearly a one-year increase in survival.
Despite these promising results, resistance to the COC Protocol has been reported as well. The core problem lies in the nature of Cancer Stem Cells (CSCs): these cells are remarkably adaptable. When placed under primarily metabolic pressure, CSCs exploit alternative fuel sources and, given enough time, appear to reliably escape any single-axis metabolic attack.
Building a more powerful, resistance-prevention protocol requires a broader strategy — one that targets far more than cancer’s metabolism alone.
The word “reset” profoundly captures what this protocol does compared to COC. While COC essentially attempts to starve the tumor, this protocol chemically resets the cancer’s mutated epigenome (via SFN), resets the gut microbiome (via AGE), and eradicates the root stem cells.
(See link for article and charts)
For more:
https://theplqn.substack.com/p/review-of-parasites-and-their-treatments?
Disclaimer: I am a physician for 25+ years, and I’ve worked on establishing clinical practice guidelines for numerous healthcare entities (insurers and hospitals) as part of my career. Having said that, I’m not your personal physician. I believe that each person deserves personalized care based on their symptoms, test results, presence or absence of risk factors associated with parasites, diet and lifestyle, personal & family history, etc. This post is to provide you with the necessary information about 2 types of parasites: protozoa and helminths (worms). Compared to many countries who have many risk factors, including their environment and contaminated food/water supplies, the US nearly does not have the number of parasitic infections than they do. However, recent surge of illnesses, rise in inflammatory bowel disease and auto-immune disorders, association of parasites with cancers, and the fact that COVID was treatable by anti-parasitic drugs, people are reevaluating whether ‘parasites’ are a real problem in the US as well. For this reason, the information provided below, should help one evaluate their own risk so that they can determine the need for treatment and/or a cleanse, with their physician’s guidance. Please keep in mind the following:
Parasites require a host to survive and spread. The adult forms of parasites live and feed from within the host (animals, humans). The eggs and larvae are what ‘spread’ through various means (food, water, flies, bugs and mosquitos). Most parasites, go undetected, and people are ‘asymptomatic’ because the parasite does not disturb the environment. Sometimes, there are slight symptomatic changes, but the person doesn’t think of them as worm related. For example, feeling more hungry, desiring more sweet foods, bloating or indigestion, abdominal discomfort or pain if you don’t eat, and general fatigue and malaise. These maybe signals sent by the parasite, so you take the actions that benefit them, i.e. survive, and have a constant source of food.
More information on natural prevention and treatments is provided later.
Parasites can be treated both naturally and with anti-parasitic medications. Natural herbs and supplements can help maintain an internal environment that prevents parasitic infections in the first place. Some herbs and supplements however, do directly reduce adult worms and egg count. But the effectiveness rate is not as high as anti-parasitic medications that have very targeted mechanism of action. More on natural treatments later.
You are likely to come across Ivermectin, Fenbendazole, Doxycycline and others drugs as treatments. Febendazole is a benzimidazole, and is just one of many other benzimidazoles available, such as albendazole, parbendazole, mebendazole, flubendazole, etc. It is a common practice for drug manufacturers to make different compounds under the same class of drugs, and those products are used in different markets and for different purposes such as animal vs. human use. Fenbendazole is used with animals and majority of data and studies on this drug are from animal studies. So while fenbendazole and albendazole are the same class of drugs, albendazole is a product recommended for use in humans but requires prescription, whereas fenbendazole is over the counter for animal use. What matters most is whether fenbendazole and albendazole have the same level of efficacy. Based on a review of many comparative studies, the efficacies vary based on parasite type. One was superior than the other in each study, but all were animal models. Efficacy studies on humans are available for albendazole, mebendazole, flubendazole, triclabendazole etc. Below, when discussing each parasite and treatment, you will notice that albendazole was recommended as ‘drug of choice’ for many parasites due to higher efficacy, compared to mebendazole, flubendazole and other benzimidazoles. Therefore, these drugs do not all work equally in terms of efficacy.
My review below is based on studied, recommended and approved drugs for the treatment of each parasite in humans. (See link for article)
______________
**Comment**
A wonderfully thorough article.
For more:
Madison Area Lyme Support Group 