I first heard that ivermectin (IVM) has significant potential to treat cancer in an Epoch Times video interview featuring Dr. Kathleen Ruddy, who has partnered with the FLCCC (Front Line Covid-19 Critical Care Alliance) to research it. Recall that IVM is the same “horse dewormer” the FDA and others in the medical industrial complex went to great lengths to discourage as a Covid-19 treatment. In the video, Dr. Ruddy suggested why so little research is being done on it: “…the pharmaceutical industries were not going to invest in a $0.10 pill. If the pharmaceutical industries were not willing to do that, no one else was going to do it, because pharma funds everyone that is doing research.”
As a prostate cancer survivor, I was especially drawn to her first example of Paul Mann who was perfectly healthy with no family history of cancer and suddenly diagnosed with stage 4 prostate cancer. He went through all the known cancer treatments with no success so his status was terminal with his cancer metastasizing to 11 bones. Paul’s PSA (Prostrate-Specific Antigen Test) was off the charts between 700 and 800. To put Paul’s PSA number in perspective, when mine spiked past 12, my urologist gave me only two options, either schedule surgery or start radiation.
It was very obvious that Paul was totally out of options and by chance he had a friend who was acquainted with Dr. Ruddy and knew of her cancer research. He connected the two. They discussed his past treatments and symptoms at length telephonically and in one of those consultations Dr. Ruddy asked; “Paul, I don’t know if this [IVM] is going to help you, but I know it’s not going to hurt you.” He agreed to try it and two months later his PSA number was down to 1.3, meaning he was in biochemical remission. However, he still had the bone metastasis. Nine months later, he gets a head-to-toe scan that found three bone cancers were totally gone and the rest could be treated with radiation. Now he is back to work and doing well.
Getting a prescription for IVM in 2022 was difficult. Paul had to go to Tennessee because it was available
similar encouraging evidence:
“Abstract: “Ivermectin has powerful antitumor effects, including the inhibition of proliferation, metastasis, and angiogenic activity, in a variety of cancer cells. This may be related to the regulation of multiple signaling pathways by ivermectin through PAK1 kinase. On the other hand, ivermectin promotes programmed cancer cell death, including apoptosis, autophagy and pyroptosis. Ivermectin induces apoptosis and autophagy is mutually regulated. Interestingly, ivermectin can also inhibit tumor stem cells and reverse multidrug resistance and exerts the optimal effect when used in combination with other chemotherapy drugs.”
Cancer types where IVM was tested and found to be effective:
2.1 Breast cancer
2.2 Digestive system cancer
2.3 Urinary system [including prostate] cancer
2.4 Hematological [leukemia] cancer
2.5 Reproductive system cancer
2.6 Brain glioma
2.7 Respiratory system cancer
2.8 Melanoma
Even earlier in June 2019, the Journal of Experimental & Clinical Cancer Research had also published similar positive news about IVM and cancer. “Thus, ivermectin, a FDA-approved antiparasitic drug, could potentially be used in combination with chemotherapeutic agents to treat cancers and in particular, the drug-resistant cancers.”
After learning of these multiple breakthrough findings, I could not help but wonder why so little about this discovery has been mentioned in the legacy media. Apparently, I am not alone in suspecting the news is being suppressed. However, the influential Associated Press furnished an answer in Feb. 2023 in its half-truth assessment:
“CLAIM: Searches on the National Institutes of Health website show that ivermectin is a cure for cancer but it is being suppressed.
AP’S ASSESSMENT: False. The website shows that some studies have explored the use of ivermectin in relation to cancer. There are no studies demonstrating the drug cures cancer in humans, experts say, but some are researching the use of ivermectin in combination with other therapies to treat breast cancer.”
Is the AP’s negative assessment a sign that there will be resistance preventing IVM from being used as a cancer treatment? After all, there are conflicts of interest. (1) If IVM is approved and proves to be an effective cancer cure it could cut into healthcare industry profits. (2) From the patient’s perspective, IVM could save millions of lives or at a minimum it could reduce the lengthy, painful, and extremely expensive cancer treatments. And those downstream cost savings for the patient will likely benefit taxpayer funded Medicaid/Medicare and private health insurance providers as well.
For now, nothing will change immediately for most cancer patients because the FDA drug approval process is lengthy and subject to pressure from lobbyists. However, as many as 28 states are considering legislation to get around the FDA similar to the Tennessee law, according to Becker’s Hospital Review, a newsletter catering to healthcare professionals. However, the article regrettably did not list the states. Of interest, some of the reader comments in their newsletter were a mixed bag, including some very hostile to IVM and the FLCCC.
Regardless, we should thank God there are still conscientious medical personnel like those in the FLCCC and similar organizations with the courage to independently do the necessary cancer research on IVM despite the lack of grant money from either big pharma or the government.
Image: Bundesministerium für Finanzen
Comments are closed.