- Ivermectin is proven to treat parasites and covid but Ivermectin is useful also to prevent and treat cancer treatment.
This article covers how it is that Ivermectin is helpful against cancer. We cover some of the history of Ivermectin, the other items for which Ivermectin is effective, and why the medical establishment has made a significant effort to keep the reality of Ivermectin hidden from public view.
This article addresses dosage questions for Ivermectin related to different cancer types.
About the Brightwork Research Treatment Database
A bit about us -- we have a subscription website that provides people with everything they need to know about using Ivermectin for several diseases. Cancer is just one of our most researched areas.
- Open this link to see just one example Ivermectin article index.
- Open this link to see the full article index.
After researching Ivermectin for covid, it was surprising to learn that it is also effective for treating cancer. This is important as the health authorities and even the original Ivermectin (Merck) have undermined faith in the drug because it is off-patent.
A Brief History of Ivermectin
- Ivermectin was initially developed in 1975 and was introduced in 1981 to treat parasite infestations.
- Ivermectin eventually won the Nobel Prize for its inventors.
This video shows the history of Ivermectin.
This video shows that Ivermectin was developed from a natural source and has proven to be remarkably useful.
Ivermectin is an…
The following quote on the history of Ivermectin is from this Wikipedia article.
Ivermectin has been used safely by hundreds of millions of people to treat river blindness and lymphatic filariasis. Merck began marketing ivermectin as a veterinary antiparasitic in 1981. By 1986, ivermectin was registered for use in 46 countries and was administered massively to cattle, sheep and other animals.
By the late 1980s, ivermectin was the bestselling veterinary medicine in the world. Following its blockbuster success as a veterinary antiparasitic, another Merck scientist, Mohamed Aziz, collaborated with the World Health Organization to test the safety and efficacy of ivermectin against onchocerciasis in humans. They found it to be highly safe and effective, triggering Merck to register ivermectin for human use as “Mectizan” in France in 1987.
However, it is only approved for its original submission to the FDA as an anti-parasitic. Although — as I cover at our subscription site, whether the FDA approves a drug has little to do with whether it is safe or effective.
Just a Horse Dewormer?
As Ivermectin is a threat to much more expensive treatments, it is frequently critiqued as only a “horse dewormer” by the establishment media, even though it has been approved for human use and has been highly effective in treating many ailments since 1987.
What is humorous about this is that Ivermectin is a broad-spectrum antiparasitic for veterinary use (so many animals) and for humans and has been for decades. So this claim of being only a horse dewormer or a bizarrely narrow description of the drug, even within its anti-parasitic usage.
The History of Ivermectin Since Covid – A Major Change Occurs In 2020
The medical establishment favored Ivermectin, with primarily positive articles about it. This positive coverage regarding Ivermectin took place since the drug was first introduced in the 1970s and continued for decades. That changed with the covid pandemic when Ivermectin was found to be a competitor to the much more expensive and less effective treatments the medical establishment wanted to force on the public. Pfizer and Moderna could never have gotten Emergency Use Authorization for their vaccines if Ivermectin had been recognized for its effectiveness versus covid. Therefore, they had to suppress this effectiveness — which they also did against hydroxychloroquine.
How Ivermectin is Useful Against Covid, Microbes, and Cancer
Ivermectin has been proven (as you will see below) to be effective against coronavirus and has a history of being used against other types of viruses.
This is explained in the following quotation from an article published on the website of the NIH
Ivermectin proposes many potentials effects to treat a range of diseases, with its antimicrobial, antiviral, and anti-cancer properties as a wonder drug. It is highly effective against many microorganisms including some viruses. In this comprehensive systematic review, antiviral effects of ivermectin are summarized including in vitro and in vivo studies over the past 50 years. Ivermectin has been used for several years to treat many infectious diseases in mammals. It has a good safety profile with low adverse effects when orally prescribed.
The C19Early Clinical Trial Comparison Website
The C19early.com website tracks clinical trials. It is the best source of information on the studies of the effectiveness based upon clinical trials of different treatments for covid. However, it is more than this - as it is a model for how clinical trials should be communicated to the public so the corrupt medical establishment does not control the information. This is the website the medical establishment does not want you to see because they want to provide false information to the public to suppress the drug they don't make enough profit from. They want to be able to hide the actual results of the clinical trials from the public but then also say they are "following the science."
Even though this website does not track cancer clinical trials, I will use it to demonstrate how the medical establishment suppresses cost-effective treatments. They do this in all areas of medicine, so cancer treatments are not unique.
What The C19Early Website Shows
The website C19Early overturns their arguments on the effectiveness of the medical establishment's recommended treatments. It shows the effectiveness and low cost of treatments they try to hide from the public. This naturally shows them as the pharmaceutical company propagandists they are.
How This Example from Covid Generalizes for Cancer Treatments
Observe the comparative effectiveness of their favored treatments versus those they actively suppress. This example is taken from COVID-19 -- however, the medical authorities work the same way in terms of suppressing low-cost, effective treatments for cancer while promoting the most expensive and least effective -- and, in many cases, utterly ineffective cancer treatments.
Cost Per Life Saved for Covid
Notice that the top treatments per life saved ranked by cost are all-natural items.
- The reason is simple. Most people are deficient in Melatonin, Vitamin D, Vitamin C, and Zinc. These items address these deficiencies and allow the immune system to function correctly.
- Ivermectin is listed as the subsequent most cost-effective treatment. Then HCQ or hydroxychloroquine is next after that. However, remember that the establishment media told us the HCQ was not effective against covid -- the primary reason they provided was that Trump said it was probably effective and that he took it and felt better.
Because the first four items (non-drugs) are much less expensive than Ivermectin or HCQ, they are more effective per dollar than the top four items. Every one of these treatments was suppressed by the medical establishment in favor of drugs like Molnupiravir, Paxlovid, and Remdesivir (the last being part of the official CDC protocol for COVID) -- even though these drugs are highly ineffective and far less safe than the items that scored the highest. Look at the cost per life saved versus the first items on the list.
This is clear evidence that the medical establishment pushes people towards the most expensive and often far less effective treatments that are profit-maximizing for drug companies. Notice that the drug that was part of the covid protocol was Remdesivir -- as you can see at the end of the list -- has a cost of nearly $1.5 million per life saved. Why is this the recommended drug by the NIH and CDC? It should be obvious.
The more expensive the treatment, the more likely the drug companies and medical establishment will want people to take that treatment -- and for very obvious reasons - the medical establishment is optimizing around the most expensive treatments.
I cover this topic with a specific case study in How Merck Falsified the Clinical Trails of Molnupiravir to Replace Ivermectin.
Is There a C19Early Type Website for Cancer Treatments?
Unfortunately, there is no website like C19Early for cancer treatments. If one existed, it would be highly damaging to the claims of the cancer establishment. It would also show roughly the same thing -- with the medical establishment and cancer centers optimizing around the most expensive cancer treatments and not offering any of the lowest cost, most effective treatments.
Ivermectin and Cancer
In addition to covid, Ivermectin also works against cancer. I cover the specific mechanisms by which it works at the subscription site.
Understanding the Chasm Between Published Research at the NIH Website and NIH Policy
Remember, this is a study published at the NIH at their National Library of Medicine; it is not a statement by the NIH.
The NIH maintains a peer-reviewed publication journal. This is hosted at the NIH URL https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/. So it is on the NIH’s website. I can find all the evidence to support Ivermectin for cancer at this library, yet it is not part of NIH or other US health authority policies.
The NIH’s Real Goals Versus Their Stated Goals
The NIH pretends to work for the public but, in reality, works for the interests of powerful companies that enrich the top executives at the NIH. The NIH has a peculiar situation where its stated health policy contradicts the published scientific studies in its National Library of Medicine. The NIH won’t let scientific literature interfere with their policy decisions and continually misrepresents the scientific literature to the public. Leaders of the NIH and other US health authorities make statements that directly contradict studies published right on their websites.
Why isn’t this called out and made more publicly known? Scientists know they better not critique the NIH or get any NIH funding.
This also means that universities that rely on NIH funding will never explain how the system works — as they, too, will see their funding reduced. Universities have pressured tenured professors — like Dr. Deusberg at Berkeley to leave the university once they published research that contradicted the NIH’s official position.
I can publicly critique the NIH because I am not a scientist looking for NIH funding; they don’t control my writing. However, most medical researchers cannot speak out as they would be targeted by the top administrators of the NIH and have their careers negatively impacted or even ended. Those outside the medical system have freedom of speech, while those inside the system do not.
The Medical Establishment Follows the Science?
When people say “follow the science,” they usually mean following the NIH/FDA/CDC administrations’ directives and ignoring the studies.
Take a guess what percentage of the population reads clinical trials. These corrupt entities rely upon the general lack of understanding of how the system works, the inability or (lack of interest) to read and dissuade the public from reading the original documents, and for the scientists and MDs to follow whatever these health authorities say.
Comparing the Safety and Effectiveness of Ivermectin Versus Remdesivir
Ivermectin is far more effective than the NIH’s chosen drug, Remdesivir. Remdesivir is weak versus covid and is overall a useless, dangerous drug that should be removed from the market — but the bigger issue is that it kills a significant percentage of those who receive it as a treatment.
I refer to it as “Dr. Fauci’s Death Potion #2,” with the first Fauci Death Potion being AZT for AIDS.
- The safety problems with Remdesivir are covered in the article How Safe Are the Covid Vaccines VS Ivermectin and Remdesivir?
- It was only pushed through the FDA because of corruption, as is explained in the article How Gilead Brought Off the NIH’s Support of Remdesivir.
- Remdesivir is part of the treatment protocol because it costs $3120 per dose. Gilead Science can offer a lot of payoffs to US health officials at that price and profits, as is covered in the article The Disgusting and Demented Logic and Lies on the Pricing of Remdesivir.
The following video is just one of many examples of the establishment media doing what they can to undermine Ivermectin.
Fake Overdoses Manufactured by the Medical Establishment to Satisfy Pharmaceutical Advertisers
Establishment media produced a fake story on Ivermectin. Shills like Rachel Maddow promoted this fake story — which please pharmaceutical advertisers.
The Necessity of Critiquing Ivermectin Users for Pharmaceutical Advertisers
As CNN and other mainstream outlets get so much money from Big Pharma, they needed to undermine Joe Rogan, who used Ivermectin against covid. The fear is that Ivermectin is so inexpensive and effective that it undermines other profitable lines of business, as is apparent from the breathless coverage of covid by the establishment media — the function as marketing front ends for Big Pharma and the overall medical establishment. This is why pharmaceutical advertising was illegal before Bill Clinton changed the rule. Only two countries worldwide, New Zealand and the US, allow direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical advertising.
Mainstream outlets should be viewed as PR for whoever is paying them. Pfizer, the Pentagon, and whatever their revenue source will hold that line as they are in profit maximization and are not providing accurate information on any topic.
See this list if you want to see who the establishment media are.
“Evergreening Drugs”: Why Drug Companies Want to Sunset Generic Drugs in Favor of Drugs Which Are Still On Patent
Ivermectin is now generic, and not much money can be made on manufacturing and selling it. Nothing is close to how much money can be made on it versus the new drugs Big Pharma wants to sell to the public.
This means that pharmaceutical companies do not want people to use Ivermectin, as it would replace other drugs still on patent. This means drug companies try to get MDs to stop prescribing a promising medication that falls off the patent and replace the prescription with a copycat drug with a new patent. This was famously done with Nexium, which was designed and copied from Prilosec to replace Prilosec.
This is called “evergreening,” a drug.
Understanding How the Drug Companies View the Drug Lifecycle as a Treadmill
The drug lifecycle can be viewed as a treadmill. Once drugs come off patent, the drug companies attempt to discredit the previous effective drug, pay doctors to stop prescribing it, and transition patients to the new copycat drug.
The FDA fully supports this business model.
There is no difference between the FDA being part of the government (technically) or the pharmaceutical industry. This was not always true; the FDA was a highly principled and practical regulatory body when it began in 1906, but the FDA has declined continuously since roughly the mid-1980s.
The History of Ivermectin’s Usage
Let us again refer to the history of Ivermectin and its use, which is found in the following quotation from an article on the website of the NIH.
Ivermectin proved to be even more of a ‘Wonder drug’ in human health, improving the nutrition, general health and wellbeing of billions of people worldwide ever since it was first used to treat Onchocerciasis in humans in 1988. It proved ideal in many ways, being highly effective and broad-spectrum, safe, well tolerated and could be easily administered (a single, annual oral dose).
Ivermectin has continually proved to be astonishingly safe for human use. Indeed, it is such a safe drug, with minimal side effects, that it can be administered by non-medical staff and even illiterate individuals in remote rural communities, provided that they have had some very basic, appropriate training.
Above all, ivermectin has proved to be a medicine of choice for the world’s rural poor. In many underprivileged communities throughout the tropics, intestinal worms and parasitic skin diseases are extremely common and associated with significant morbidity.
Notice the term “astonishingly safe.” I will address this safety history in more detail; however, the establishment media and many other articles on Ivermectin discuss how Ivermectin is unsafe.
This illustrates enormous dishonesty in the establishment media and health authorities. It also shows that drug safety changes depending on the political need. The covid vaccine has been shown to have significant side effects, including death. Yet, the establishment media have critiqued people who have published articles based on the official government side effect databases.
The Effectiveness of Ivermectin Against Cancer
The problem with the war on Ivermectin by the medical establishment and the establishment media is that Ivermectin is not only effective against covid but several other illnesses.
With the FDA and the medical establishment restricting prescription for Ivermectin for covid, they keep Ivermectin from being used for other essential purposes, with cancer being one of them.
The following quotes explain the results of testing Ivermectin for cancer.
Ivermectin effectively suppresses the proliferation and metastasis of cancer cells and promotes cancer cell death at doses that are nontoxic to normal cells.
Ivermectin shows excellent efficacy against conventional chemotherapy drug-resistant cancer cells and reverses multidrug resistance.
Ivermectin combined with other chemotherapy drugs or targeted drugs has powerful effects on cancer. – ScienceDirect
However, will Ivermectin become part of the treatment protocol for cancer? Of course not.
More positive results are found in the following study.
In these studies, 40-60 percent of animals treated with the ivermectin plus anti-PD1 antibody combination completely eradicated their tumors. They were able to fight off the cancer again after it was reintroduced. It’s the two drugs working together that is the magic. Either drug alone has almost zero effect, but together they have a powerful synergistic effect.
Based on its novel dual mechanisms of action (anti-cancer and immunomodulatory) in cancer, ivermectin may also potentiate the anti-tumor activity of other FDA-approved ICIs. Ivermectin is safe and inexpensive at roughly $30 a dose, making it attainable for everyone including cancer patients in developing countries. – Oncology Times
Ivermectin is Useful For Which Cancers?
Here is the list of cancers for which Ivermectin is useful. In analyzing all of the cancer studies for Ivermectin, all of the studies have demonstrated Ivermectin is useful and effective.
- Lung Cancer
- Gastric Cancer
- Breast Cancer
- Digestive Cancer
- Urinary Cancer
- Hematological Cancer
- Reproductive Cancer – Ovarian Cancer
- Brain Glioma Cancer
- Respiratory System Cancer
- Melanoma Cancers
However, Ivermectin has not been tested for every cancer type, but it works the same way for all cancer types. Ivermectin is effective against every cancer for which it has been tested.
We cover more details in the article, which connects to specific articles for this and many more cancer types in The Cancers For Which Ivermectin Has Been Demonstrated to be Effective.
The field of oncology will not communicate any of these studies to the public, essentially pretending that they do not exist.
Remember, nearly all new chemotherapy drugs are over $200,000 annually, and the average markup on chemotherapy drugs is 300%. (which I cover on our subscription site) Guess which drug the cancer centers would prefer you choose?
Why Were None of the Ivermectin Studies Funded Out of the US or by the US Government?
The US has the world’s most significant national medical research budget, but the NIH has no interest in funding these studies for obvious reasons. So, if the US is not conducting studies, this is not only a negative but tells us something peculiar about what the NIH decides not to fund in cancer research.
But the NIH must have begun some ongoing studies into Ivermectin and cancer, given the strength of these non-US studies, right? Well, you would be wrong in this assumption. You can find out why the NIH is not funding Ivermectin studies in the article Why the NIH Does Not Have Any Studies on Ivermectin for Treating Cancer.
Let us discuss what approved drugs are available for cancer prevention because Ivermectin is useful for cancer treatment and prevention. All of us at Brightwork have become sufficiently convinced of the benefits of Ivermectin that we all take it even though none of us currently have cancer. We also get all the other many benefits of Ivermectin, which are covered in the article Why is Ivermectin Effective for So Many Different Things?
What Are the FDA-Approved Cancer Prevention Drugs?
Tamoxifen and raloxifene are two drugs prescribed for breast cancer prevention.
However, look at the side effects of these drugs from the site Komen.
Irregular periods or spotting (uterine bleeding)
Vaginal dryness or itching
Blood clots in the large veins (deep venous thrombosis)
Blood clots in the lungs (pulmonary emboli)
Cancer of the uterus or endometrium (the lining of the uterus)
How about a drug supporting cancer prevention with close to no side effects? Those have existed for decades with both Ivermectin and Fenbendazole — which is included, along with several other items in our cancer protocol.
How the System Maximizes the Profits of Each Cancer Patient Through Providing False Information
If there weren’t real health consequences, it would be amusing how the health authorities and many websites would try to convince people of the dangers of Ivermectin, which has very low side effects, without acknowledging the far higher side effects of “FDA-approved” drugs.
The reality is that keeping the public from using Ivermectin and other anti-parasite drugs like fenbendazole/mebendazole (also covered at our site) that are known to be effective against cancer seems likely to increase the number of cancer patients and then once they get various cancers — places them in the sales funnel towards the most expensive treatments that are extraordinarily profitable for the medical establishment.
This is an obvious conclusion; it takes a lot of redirection and deliberate obscuration to hide this fact from the public. The role of the medical authorities (like the NIH, American Cancer Society, etc..) is to serve the interests of the cancer treatment providers and maximize the profit of each cancer patient. When you read an article at The Mayo Clinic, MD Anderson, or WebMD, you may think this is “the science,” but it isn’t.
Each of those entities is focused on profit maximization per cancer patient. You cannot profit maximize and prioritize evidence-based medicine while doing so.
What is the problem here in connecting the dots? Many studies show the benefits of ivermectin versus cancer. There are also multiple mechanisms for how Ivermectin fights cancer — which you can read more about at the end of this article.
The following is clear regarding Ivermectin for all uses.
- The drug is very low cost.
- The drug is very low in toxicity.
- The drug is very effective for treating an increasingly long list of ailments (including cancer) and has strong preventative benefits.
About Our Dosage Calculator and More Information on Ivermectin
The dosage calculators for both cancer and use against the health damage caused by the COVID-19 vaccines -- as well as Ivermectin sourcing, safety, and more (over 140 articles on Ivermectin the most information anywhere on Ivermectin, and 800 total articles on medical and health topics) -- is all accessible at our subscription site.
Our Recommended Source of Supply
- Our approved source for Ivermectin is Summit Products.
- They carry the Ivermectin we tested for bioequivalence
- (you can read about our testing here) for the active ingredient with the original Merck version but at a much lower price than the Merck version.
- This source makes Ivermectin much more accessible and has passed our testing.
Sharing This Article
Share this article with a friend or family member by copying this article link and pasting it into your email so they can read the same information.