Last Updated on July 13, 2022 by Shaun Snapp
- Ivermectin is proven to treat parasites and covid but is also a potential cancer treatment.
After researching Ivermectin for covid, it was surprising to learn that the drug is also effective for treating cancer. This is important as the health authorities, and even the original Ivermectin (Merck) have done everything to undermine faith in the drug because it is off-patent.
Our References for This Article
If you want to see our references for this article and related Brightwork articles, visit this link.
The 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…
…medication. However, it is only approved for its original submission to the FDA, which is as an anti-parasitic. This is why it is frequently critiqued as only a “horse dewormer” by the establishment media even though it has been approved for human use since 1987.
Recent History of Ivermectin
- Recently Ivermectin began to be used to treat the coronavirus.
- At first, glance, repurposing an anti-parasite drug to treat a virus seems strange, but it turns out there is a long history of anti-parasite medications being used for this purpose.
We will get to Ivermectin’s effectiveness against cancer in just a moment, but it is crucial to understand the battle waged by the medical system against Ivermectin for use against covid to understand why Ivermectin is so deliberately minimized in emphasis for use against cancer.
Ivermectin’s Effectiveness Against Covid
Ivermectin not only has been proven (as you will see below) to be effective against coronavirus, but it has a history of being used against other types of viruses. This is explained in the following quotation.
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. Several studies reported antiviral effects of ivermectin on RNA viruses such as Zika, dengue, yellow fever, West Nile, Hendra, Newcastle, Venezuelan equine encephalitis, chikungunya, Semliki Forest, Sindbis, Avian influenza A, Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome, Human immunodeficiency virus type 1, and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. Furthermore, there are some studies showing antiviral effects of ivermectin against DNA viruses such as Equine herpes type 1, BK polyomavirus, pseudorabies, porcine circovirus 2, and bovine herpesvirus 1. Ivermectin plays a role in several biological mechanisms, therefore it could serve as a potential candidate in the treatment of a wide range of viruses including COVID-19 as well as other types of positive-sense single-stranded RNA viruses. 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. – NIH
Understanding the Chasm Between Published Research at the NIH Website and NIH Policy
Remember, this is a study published at the NIH at what is called 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 right at this Library, yet, it is not part of NIH or other US health authority policies.
The NIH has a peculiar situation where its stated health policy contradicts the published scientific studies in its National Library of Medicine. I like to say that the NIH won’t let the scientific literature interfere with their policy decisions. 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 that they better not critique the NIH or never get any NIH funding. This happened to Dr. Duesberg, who illustrated that no matter how prominent you are as a research scientist, the NIH will end your research career if you cross swords with them, which would only mean questioning their policies.
I can critique the NIH in public because I am not a scientist looking for funding from the NIH. And that is the amazing thing, those outside of the medical system have freedom of speech, while those inside the system do not.
When people say “follow the science,” they usually mean to follow the NIH/FDA/CDC administrations’ directives and ignore the studies. Take a guess what percentage of the population reads clinical trials. These entities rely upon the inability to read as well as disuading the public from reading the original documents and for the scientists and MDs to fall in line with whatever these health authorities say.
Ivermectin is far more effective than the NIH’s chosen drug, Remdesivir. Remdesivir is weak versus covid, but the far bigger issue is that it kills a significant percentage of those who receive it as a treatment. We call it “Dr. Fauci’s Death Potion.”
- 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. At that price and profits Gilead Science can offer a lot of payoffs to US health officials, 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 has been doing what they can to undermine Ivermectin.
Establishment media produced a fake story on Ivermectin.
Pillorying Ivermectin Users
As CNN and other mainstream outlets get so much money from Big Pharma, they needed to undermine Joe Rogan, who used Ivermectin against covid. Mainstream outlets should be viewed as PR for whoever is paying them. Pfizer, the Pentagon, whatever their revenue source, will hold that line as they are in the business of profit maximization, not providing accurate information on any topic.
See this list if you want to see who the establishment media are.
Why Drug Companies Want to Sunset Generic Drugs
And Ivermectin is now a generic. This means that pharmaceutical companies do not want people to use Ivermectin, as it would then replace other drugs still on patent. This means that drug companies try to get MDs to stop prescribing a promising medication that falls off the patent and replaces 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.
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 real difference between the FDA being part of the government (which it technically is) or simply being part of the pharmaceutical industry. This was not always true, the FDA was a highly principled and effective regulatory body when it began in 1906, but the FDA has declined continuously since roughly the mid-1980s.
Let us again refer to the history of Ivermectin and how it has been used, which is found in the following quotation.
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. – NIH
Notice the term “astonishingly safe.” We will address this safety history in more detail; however, observe that the establishment media and many other articles on Ivermectin discuss how Ivermectin is not safe. This illustrates enormous dishonesty in the establishment media and health authorities. It also shows that drug safety seems to change 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 non 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 from 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?
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
Which Cancers Has Ivermectin Been Demonstrated to Treat?
In earlier versions of this article, we were asked which cancers or organs Ivermectin was found to be effective.
Here is the list. It is not necessarily comprehensive, as we add to the list over time.
- Lung Cancer
- Gastric Cancer
- Breast Cancer
- Digestive Cancer
- Urinary Cancer
- Hematological Cancer
- Reproductive Cancer – Ovarian Cancer
- Brain Glioma Cancer
- Respiratory System Cancer
- Melanoma Cancers
We cover more details on this in the article The Cancers That Ivermectin Has Been Demonstrated to be Effective.
Why Were None of the Studies Funded Out of the US?
Notice that none of these studies into the effectiveness of Ivermectin against these cancers were performed in the US. The US has by far the most significant national medical research budget in the world. So if the US is not conducting studies, this is not only a negative but tells us something peculiar about what the NIH is deciding not to fund in the area of 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.
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.
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)
Stroke – Komen
How about a drug supporting cancer prevention with close to no side effects?
If there weren’t real health consequences, it would be amusing how the health authorities and so 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 bottom line is that keeping the public from using Ivermectin and other anti-parasite drugs seems quite likely to increase the number of people diagnosed with cancer. This is elementary analysis, and it takes a lot of redirection and deliberate obscuration to hide this fact from the public.
What is the problem here in connecting the dots? Many studies are showing 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 an increasingly long list of preventative benefits.
Even if the Ivermectin were to do nothing for cancer, each person that took it would benefit from all the other things it prevents, and they would be out very little money. Because of this, there is a need to engage in scare tactics, as we have witnessed with major establishment media entities.
Now let’s see the standard critique against Ivermectin.
The Status Quo Arguments Against Ivermectin by the Establishment
The following is a similar presentation of these risks. These are risks listed for taking Ivermectin for covid, but these same arguments will be used if Ivermectin becomes popular for treating cancer. It is not yet; therefore, we have not yet seen articles that seek to undermine Ivermectin for treating and preventing cancer. However, if that time does come, then this article will be repurposed to make the same arguments, but against cancer rather than against covid.
In the grand scheme of drug discoverdy and validation, in vitro studies play an enormous role. But many, many more steps — from preclinical studies to clinical trials — are needed before a drug that worked well in a test tube can actually be considered safe and effective in people. – Houston Methodist
Many drugs are approved by the FDA that show minimal benefit and have significant side effects. Furthermore, the NIH has no ongoing studies and has no pharmaceutical company plans to pay to perform clinical trials on Ivermectin for treating cancer as its a generic, and pharmaceutical companies don’t pay to put generic drugs through the FDA. A good parallel to this is how the FDA restricts baby formula from European manufacturers. This has nothing to do with formula quality but is designed to protect the three US baby formula manufacturers.
This is explained in the following quotation.
FDA labeling rules — not ingredient issues — keep imports out of U.S.
FDA regulations for baby formula make it nearly impossible for parents in the U.S. to buy infant formula produced outside the country.
The rules are so stringent that most baby formula produced in Europe is considered illegal in the U.S. due to labeling requirement technicalities.
The issue is this: FDA rules bar formula imports from Europe if the product does not have FDA-compliant nutritional labels. The formula may be perfectly safe and produced in accordance with European standards that are at least as stringent as U.S. health and safety requirements, but it can’t be imported because the FDA has not reviewed and approved what is printed on the package — a costly and time-consuming process for producers.
Today’s announcement signals the FDA will prioritize the review and approval of imports, as part of Biden’s strategy to address the shortage.
“FDA will prioritize review of applications that are most likely to be successful and will get the most formula to U.S. shelves as quickly as possible,” White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said at the White House briefing. – Children’s Health Defense
When the 2022 baby formula shortage became a political hot potato, the FDA announced they would approve European formula products, further proving that the FDA was banning these formulas for political reasons and not for nutrition or safety reasons.
The FDA only approves drugs invested in by pharmaceutical companies that can receive a patent; how is the fact that a drug has not been approved by the FDA a fair statement about the drug? Merck invested the time and money to get Ivermectin approved as an antiparasitic; however, as time passed, the patent expired, and anyone could make Ivermectin. Merck has zero incentive to invest in clinical trials to get FDA approval for other uses of Ivermectin, as it cannot be re-patented. Whenever a drug company invests for a repurposed drug use, it is for a drug still on patent.
However, this quote above and others that critique Ivermectin leaves this important context regarding how the FDA and the US patent medicine system work.
This is also why Merck has begun to deemphasize their drug (which they previously aggressively supported when they held the patent) and make up fake claims of safety issues. Drug companies need to denigrate their drugs — but only after coming off of patent. Merck has created a new patent drug called Molinupur, which is far less effective, much more expensive, and far less safe than Ivermectin. That is the drug Merck, and their army of compensated MDs recommend you take.
The FDA States There is a Need for Far Stronger Opioids?
The FDA approved a new opioid that is 10x stronger than the present opioids. But again, the approval is not for the drug, but the submitter is a pharmaceutical company called AcelRX Pharmaceuticals, which checked the FDA’s boxes. It is doubtful that the FDA even read this study or that the side effects were completely hidden from the study. This drug was developed by the Pentagon for battlefield injuries, which the FDA believes is appropriate for civilian use. (Read more about the opioids the FDA is irresponsibly approving the article How The FDA Supercharged the Opioid Epidemic by Approving Battlefield Painkiller Dsuvia.
The reality is that drugs are not so much approved on their merits, as we cover in the article How FDA Approval is More About the Submitting Company than the Drug Itself.
The quote from the Houston Methodist continues.
There are FDA-approved uses of ivermectin, but preventing and treating COVID-19 isn’t one of them. – Houston Methodist
As should be obvious at this point, the FDA is not a good judge of what is safe or effective. If the FDA insulated itself from pharmaceutical influence, the FDA might be a reliable source. However, the FDA makes zero attempts to reduce the influence and control of the pharmaceutical industry over the agency. After their disastrous approval of the ineffective covid vaccines, combined with their approval of opioids, how does the FDA have any credibility at this point? Here is a question. Why does the FDA allow pharmaceutical companies to perform clinical trials? They have an enormous conflict of interest. Why doesn’t the FDA itself perform the clinical trials? Also, does the FDA see all of the data from the clinical trials? No. The pharma companies hide whatever they like from the FDA. Therefore, each clinical trial is a type of beauty pageant, where all negative information from the clinical trial is removed.
Now let’s get to the false claims used by the establishment media against Ivermectin.
First, taking large doses of ivermectin can result in dangerous side effects. – Houston Methodist
Who said anything about taking large dosages of Ivermectin? Taking large doses of FDA-approved drugs can also “result in dangerous side effects.” This would be like saying a particular car is dangerous “if driven at 120 miles per hour – could result in a car crash.” Right, but what does that have to do with driving the car normally? I have been taking Ivermectin for over four months and have somehow managed not to take large doses.
And now Houston Methodist talks about the risk of cross-reactions.
And even approved dosages can result in harmful cross-reactions with other medications you may be taking, such as blood thinners to manage heart disease.– Houston Methodist
Does the Houston Methodist realize what the side effects of blood thinners are? They are enormously higher than Ivermectin. If one were to follow this advice, then Ivermectin would be removed from usage in cases where a person is taking a single other medication. How about those people that are on another medication — might that medication have a harmful cross-reaction with blood thinners?
The Houston Methodist conveniently leaves out that Ivermectin is one of the safest drugs that we have. The comparison of Ivermectin, which is safer than aspirin – and is available for anyone to buy, is genuinely a reach to all of the many side effects drugs that we have. Furthermore, Ivermectin is beneficial for many different things, not just covid and cancer treatment and prevention. What is curious is that the health establishment does nothing but minimize adverse drug reactions — (The FDA, CDC, and NIH Do Not Want Adverse Drug Reactions Counted) and How Adverse Drug Deaths Are Covered Up By Hospitals And The FDA. Counting deaths from different drugs I estimate that are certainly more than 400,000 adverse reaction drug deaths in the US alone, which must be added to the number of deaths from medical errors, which John Hopkins’ has estimated to be at 250,000 per year, which means it is much higher than that.
However, there is barely any discussion of adverse drug deaths and injuries by the medical establishment or establishment media — until that is, they have a generic that they want to keep people from taking. Then, they suddenly make a big deal out of the safety of drugs. And they tend to pillory the drugs with the best safety profiles. These entities operate under the assumption that the public will not review the actual data, and when they do, they critique those people because the actual data is “misleading.” (The Medical Establishment Resents the Calculation of Risk Using VAERS)
As Ivermectin is good for so many things, it makes sense to take Ivermectin and then benefit from the potential cancer-preventing capabilities. However, the medical establishment does not recommend doing things that help reduce cancer incidence, and they only focus on treating people after they have cancer, which is highly profitable. The American Cancer Society appears to think that the immune system is only loosely related to nutrition, as I cover in the article The American Cancer Society’s Skepticism of Nutrition Supplements.
This video is fantastic and should be viewed by everyone. It explains the incredible effectiveness of Ivermectin versus covid, hidden from the public.
Questions on Treatment
Regarding dosage and sourcing of Ivermectin, see the article On the Topic of Ivermectin Dosage and Sourcing.
We have gotten pushback from cancer patients that they just want to do what their doctors tell them, not question the standard treatments, and don’t want to consider Ivermectin. This seems not to consider the benefits of Ivermectin and assumes that there is some conflict between Ivermectin and chemotherapy drugs.
Furthermore, accepting the treatment of the first hospital one visits is not the right solution to the problem. And there are several reasons for this.
- Different doctors and hospitals prescribe different standard treatments.
- Doctors have also been found to switch to less effective chemotherapy drugs based on the margin offered by the pharmaceutical company.
- Chemotherapy does not have an excellent history — but it is highly profitable for the providers. We cover in the article How Dangerous Cancer Drugs Had Endpoints Changed by Pharmaceutical Companies for FDA Approval, that several chemotherapy drugs are on the market that should not be and were only approved due to financial ties between those that sat on the FDA approving board and the pharmaceutical company.
- The medical establishment censors the topics covered in this article because it competes with their pharmaceutical and radiological treatments.
It should be evident that Big Pharma will find a way to block the use of Ivermectin or other generic drugs for cancer in the same way they stopped them for covid treatment. At any time, Bill Gates’s foundation can fund a study designed to show the drug as ineffective, as was done by Bill Gates for hydroxychloroquine for covid.
Why Are Anti Parasitic Drugs Effective Against Cancer?
If you are interested in understanding why this class of drugs works against cancer, see the article The Mechanism of How Anti Parasitic Drugs Work to Mitigate Cancer.
Visit Our Subscription Website on Ivermectin and Other Medical Treatments
Ivermectin has many treatment applications outside of its approved use (as an antiparasitical. These treatments include cancer, covid, immunity, and more. And due to perverse financial incentives, many of these applications are suppressed.
We have created a subscription website that covers everything related to Ivermectin ranging from its many health improvement applications to dosages, and contrasting this with the inaccurate information presented on Ivermectin by medical authorities. And also other topics such as immunity and cancer. The site focuses on overall health improvement and specific treatment analysis.