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:
No comments:
Post a Comment