How Ivermectin Is Useful for Treating Cancer
Last Updated on January 5, 2023 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 undermined faith in the drug because it is off-patent.
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 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 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. Still, 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 has not only 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
Interested in More?
Would you like to get access to 100% independent medical information?
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 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 they better not critique the NIH or 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 publicly critique the NIH because I am not a scientist looking for funding from the NIH. And that is the amazing thing that outside the medical system have freedom of speech, while those inside the system do not.