yes, the 2 pts i’ve seen respond the best to IVM and MBZ are bladder ca pt’s, one w/ a 12 cm tumor only T1 at surg and a young healthy man w/ presumed met to liver (no bx’s done) both shriking on IVM and MBZ, thanks for sharing!
Your way of thinking gives me such hope, Dr. Marik. Thank you for your words of wisdom.
Are you familiar with the Laetrile story? Because of the lies on the internet, I was petrified to eat my first bitter apricot seed, but I can honestly say I positively love them. I have more energy, I am sleepy better, and some aging spots are even less pronounced! Believe me, I will be eating them the rest of my life! ♥️
Wow, have you heard of Rick Hill, alive and well, but he was told that he only had months to live back in 1974. Instead, he left the Mayo Clinic and went to Mexico and was treated by Dr. Contreras, using Laetrile and changing his diet.
Plus, I was petrified to eat my first apricot seed because of the lies on the internet, but I haven’t had any problems. I did proceed VERY slowly, though. In fact, I only added one more each month! I am now up to 10 apricot seeds per day. I take 5 after breakfast and then 5 more after lunch or dinner, whenever I remember.
Oh, how I wish someone had told me about apricot seeds before my first bout of cancer in 2002 or even 2014, my second bout of breast cancer! Surprisingly, I learned about amygdalin or Vitamin B17 simply by clicking on a Naomi Wolf video here on Substack (September 5, 2024). That video has changed my life in a very positive way and I find myself wanting to tell the world!
If you go to my profile, I think you’ll be able to find that Naomi Wolf video (September 5, 2024).
Have you heard of John Richardson, Jr? His father, John Richardson, MD, was a doctor in the 70’s helping people with cancer, but he was harassed, jailed, and eventually lost his medical license! Just like you, none of his patients complained, but they took his medical license away anyway! How is this possible!?! Years ago I listened to Steve Kirsch interview you about how they took your medical license away … it makes me tear up just thinking about that interview! You simply wanted to help your patients, but because of MONEY, they crushed you and took your medical license. SO WRONG!
Oh, wow, I am looking forward to reading your post! I hope I don’t miss your post! But, I honestly am baffled by your comment, ‘It is not what you think it is.’ ???
What about the work of Dr. Harold Manner from the 1970’s … John Richardson, Jr often mentions this doctor’s work with 15 breast cancer patients (I think) … Chicago area (maybe). This doctor even wrote a book! I would love to read his book, but his book is unavailable now.
Have you read Alive and Well by Dr. Philip Binzel? He gives many specific success stories of patients responding well to Vitamin B17.
Thank you for joining Substack … what a perfect way for you to shine.
How positively ridiculous that the medical complex took your medical license from you, just as they did the same thing to John Richardson’s dad back in the 1970’s. Years ago I watched the video of Steve Kirsch interviewing you … it was heart-wrenching! I am so sorry that you had to endure all that. I am going to try to find the link and post it here.
The arrogance of dismissing an event because of its "one-offness" is frustrating. This enables people to wave away relevant information, because it fits neatly into the "isolated data point" box. The follow-up that anedotes plural is not data is farcical. Anecdotes plural are indeeed data--albeit as samples not a complete population. That does not demote anecdotes to irrelevance and dismissal. Quite the opposite: it becomes a conundrum to reconcile with the body of accepted data and the subsequent "scientific" theories that evolve from it.
Sure, an anecdote, once investigated, may have a correlation that was found to be understandably in error, but the investigation would reveal this. Anecdotes dismissed don't get studied. That's the whole reason to call them anecdotes in the first place--forcibly ignore them.
A purist would want nothing but perfectly clean data coming out of an experiment. If a data point arose that marred a heretofore beautiful mosaic that told a sweet (profitable) story, the investigator would be disgruntled and put off that the story was facing interference on the way to clean closure.
An ethical purist would alarm at its presence and set about to challenge its validity. Subsequently unable to prove error, it must be accepted. Once accepted, it now requires the story to be edited. What explains this?
That's why people who utter the word "anecdote" in serious discussion should be shamed and humiliated for attempting to badger away proper discourse in pursuit of truth.
So, another way to reframe the dicussion when the "anecdote" grenade is tossed is to state that all data is data, and it must be answered for. In short, one must include the mechanism in the disease theory by which the anecdotal outcome is produced.
If you want a wormhole pathway to truth, then induction tells a good story.
When covid hit and medicine was standing around with the look of utter fear in the face of what was desrcibed as unattributable ARDS, then the general lay population was struck with terror. Trump set industry in motion to produce face shields and ventilators because modern medicine identified those as the first and last line of defense.
In other words, there was NOTHING in the arsenal.
Then HCQ pops up out of the ether. Instead of being hailed in March '20 as the ender of the pandemic, it was reviled and subsequent testing by reputable entities produced trial results that belied its efficacy. Except, the trials ran counter to the methods which begat apparent efficacy.
The rat smelled so horribly that you knew it was in the room; you didn't have to see it.
That rat had knowledge. Subsequent discovery proved it, but widespread, organized suppression and propaganda campaigns muddied truths thereafter.
So, knowing that the rat KNEW, why would the rat betray humanity instead of aiding it? Could be any number of reasons. The point is only that curative reality existed, and it was hidden.
Fast forward to cancer and Ivermectin. Amazingly, it is given the cold shoulder by the same community that claims to be healers. Without a stemwinder to walk the induction path here, it may nevertheless be quite obvious that the rat knows the cancer story, too.
In other words, your treasure chest detector as you walk past this point is screaming shrilly to "dig here."
Let's put it this way. After covid, there is no more valid policing of IVM.
Your argument worked pre-2020. After witnessing the completely and utterly criminal acts against IVM and HCQ and the patients demanding them, the widespread homicide, and having direct experience with both IVM and Marik's protocol, the jury is in: IVM has validity.
Now, it's up to the post-2025 research community to usher in new findings about what exactly IVM brings to the table. Doubtless, researchers will be hampered by anti-IVM holdouts. No one wants BS results; everyone should want truth, so research should be serious but also open to receiving signals.
Marik's protocol put 5 critical care physicians on their asses with dumfounded embarrassment when it pulled their moribund patient out of a terminal dive and made them all stupid as to what the hell just happened to the "miracle" patient. Yes, the nurses adopted him as a miracle. Fastest recovery from max O2 to walking out the door they had ever witnessed. Anecdote. 5 yrs additional life... You'd have gone with the 5 doctors, so you are consigned to perfect methodology and bad outcomes until the perfect (?) methodology is perfectly reviewed to be determined imperfect and then methodically perfected--all subject to human manipulation in accepted ways.
Anecdotes are signals, not proof. They lack controls, are vulnerable to multiple biases, and cannot establish counterfactual outcomes. Their proper role is to generate hypotheses, which must then be tested under rigorous experimental conditions before any causal claims are justified.
- Observational studies (eg cohort or case-control with controls).
- Randomised controlled trials to establish causality.
So far all there is for IVM are some reports of in vitro efficacy and hypothetical mechanisms of action. But the in vitro IC50 for IVM is far above the human Cmax. That implies no realistic therapeutic window without toxic dosing.
There is no valid clinical evidence.
I’m not saying IVM is not effective for treating cancers; I’m saying the evidence for it doesn’t exist.
Marik has form on “manipulating” clinical studies on Covid. We need to see not only valid observational and RCT evidence, we need to have independent verification too.
Critics will (rightly) point out the ony tales recounted are those where the patient survived or seemingly improved. We never get to hear of those whose disease progresses or accelerates. We never have independent external “audits” to determine the outcome of all of the patients.
Along this vein: gravity is a working theory now. So, when an object begins in freefall to approach the ground from an elevated starting point, science knows the eventual outcome.
When the object suddenly alters the predicted course and assumes directional travel opposite that predicted by the working theory, one doesn't just get to stand there and say "anecdote--it's a fluke; gravity still works!", because that explains nothing of the phenomenon just encountered.
So, the rational response is to say, "explain it."
Explanations would be unobserved impact with another object, the object is a compound one with another attached component elsewhere, the object has internal propulsion mechanisms, etc.
Thank You Dr. Marik. A friend of mine who recently died from something else, at 77 years, had widely metastatic and presumably terminal breast cancer, not responding to treatment, about 20 years ago. She gave up on allopathic medicine, though it was a world she had lived in as the wife of the artificial-heart inventor.
She had an Oriental Medicine practitioner, meditated, walked, ate organic, and her cancer went away, never to return.
Her life and perspective changed.
We may come upon these stories in life, where helping the whole person works, after killing the cancer has failed.
I agree with you that medicine often starts with observation. Every oncologist who has practiced long enough has seen cases that don’t follow the expected course, and those moments raise important scientific questions. In fact I just wrote about this today on my Substack.
Where I think we have to be careful with these cases is attribution.
In the case you described, for example, the patient had already received therapies that are well known to produce meaningful responses in metastatic urothelial cancer, including Enfortumab vedotin and Pembrolizumab. With immunotherapy in particular, complete responses are not uncommon. We see cancers continue to shrink months after treatment begins, and sometimes even after treatment has stopped. That pattern is part of how immune mediated responses work.
Because of that biology, when someone improves after addition of complementary therapies over time it becomes very hard to know which intervention actually drove the response. What looks like a dramatic effect from a new approach can sometimes fall within the range of responses we already see with the prior treatment.
I don’t think most oncologists dismiss observation. Quite the opposite. Observation is how hypotheses start. But the next step has to be careful documentation and putting those observations in front of people who start with skepticism.
Peer review is not about sharing findings with people who already believe the same thing. It is about asking others to look closely at the timeline, the treatments, the scans, and the expected biology and see if the explanation holds up.
If there truly are hundreds of patients whose outcomes are consistently better than what we would expect from standard therapies, that would be incredibly important. Game changing. The strongest thing anyone could do for those patients would be to collect the cases carefully and present them for independent review and bring them to scientific meetings.
Stories can start the conversation. But if we want something to actually change how patients are treated, the data have to be strong enough that people who begin unconvinced come away persuaded. That process is not meant to shut ideas down. It is how new ideas become real medicine.
Thanks I agree with you completely. Unfortunately as I can personally attest main stream journals WILL NOT publish a paper that contradicts main stream (Pharmaceutical) protocols. If they do the paper gets retracted very quickly… as I can personally attest. The medical journals are controlled by the Pharmaceutical -Industrial complex. The previous Editor of NEJM, Marcia Angel, has written extensively on this.
Really? That’s not been my experience. Integrative studies are some of the most popular presentations at ASCO and San Antonio Breast etc. I’ve seen lots of high quality integrative studies published and personally have published on repurposed agents and presented posters at multiple scientific conferences. Is this recent? Did they share the rationale behind retracted papers? Retractions are usually due to serious methodology concerns or not reporting conflicts of interest. I’m currently an editor for an oncology journal and we publish plenty of non pharma studies.
Can I assume immunotherapy was stopped because of side effects before the addition of ivermectin and fenbendazole (later mebendazole). Were these the only two additions?
I did check with the provider. All he took was the ivermectin and mebendazole (at ordinary low doses) and a strict keto diet. We should chat about this some patients respond to one or to repurposed drugs while other either need 13 or more. I suppose different tumor biology and perhaps previous exposure to chemo.
So who/where do you go to? I have a good friend who is 2 years into surgeries/chemo treatments for stage 4 ovarian cancer, and apparently out of options. Thank you for your reports and work.
There are some practitioners advocating for much higher doses (e.g. 1mg/kg of Ivermectin, and 800-1000mg of mebendazole/febendazole daily). It would be interesting to understand what complications (if any) have been seen in patients taking much higher daily doses, and if effectiveness is enhanced with such doses.
Humility and curiosity—the two things most missing in modern oncology. Dr. Marik’s approach to patient stories as 'clinical signals' rather than mere anecdotes is exactly why this movement is growing so fast. We aren't just fighting cancer; we are reclaiming the art of clinical observation. Thank you for this report 👍
“Rather than escalating toxicity, we began something far simpler: a metabolic approach using repurposed medications with long safety records, including ivermectin and fenbendazole, later transitioned to mebendazole.”
I understand that bio-availability and solubility of fenbendazole are greater than that of mebendazole. In this context, was there a specific rationale for transitioning from one to the other?
Yes. Fenbendazole is approved for animals only. Very little research in humans. Its metabolism is different. See upcoming post. We have seen numerous cases of liver toxicity with higher doses of Fenbendazole than suggested by Tippens e.g a recent case of 444 mg/day caused severe toxicity… and must be given for 3 days then break for 4 days. Mebendazole seems to be safer. A physician can loose his/her license if he/she prescribes medication only approved for animals.
Thank you earnestly, for this answer as well as all your courageous and technically impressive work. I hope you find it possible to include a general comparison of the properties of the other more common benzimidazoles.
yes, the 2 pts i’ve seen respond the best to IVM and MBZ are bladder ca pt’s, one w/ a 12 cm tumor only T1 at surg and a young healthy man w/ presumed met to liver (no bx’s done) both shriking on IVM and MBZ, thanks for sharing!
Have been following you and the other good docs since covid mess. Thank you. Have your book.
Thanks…
Your way of thinking gives me such hope, Dr. Marik. Thank you for your words of wisdom.
Are you familiar with the Laetrile story? Because of the lies on the internet, I was petrified to eat my first bitter apricot seed, but I can honestly say I positively love them. I have more energy, I am sleepy better, and some aging spots are even less pronounced! Believe me, I will be eating them the rest of my life! ♥️
I have no vested interest in any product… I follow the scientific truth.
Wow, have you heard of Rick Hill, alive and well, but he was told that he only had months to live back in 1974. Instead, he left the Mayo Clinic and went to Mexico and was treated by Dr. Contreras, using Laetrile and changing his diet.
Plus, I was petrified to eat my first apricot seed because of the lies on the internet, but I haven’t had any problems. I did proceed VERY slowly, though. In fact, I only added one more each month! I am now up to 10 apricot seeds per day. I take 5 after breakfast and then 5 more after lunch or dinner, whenever I remember.
Oh, how I wish someone had told me about apricot seeds before my first bout of cancer in 2002 or even 2014, my second bout of breast cancer! Surprisingly, I learned about amygdalin or Vitamin B17 simply by clicking on a Naomi Wolf video here on Substack (September 5, 2024). That video has changed my life in a very positive way and I find myself wanting to tell the world!
If you go to my profile, I think you’ll be able to find that Naomi Wolf video (September 5, 2024).
Have you heard of John Richardson, Jr? His father, John Richardson, MD, was a doctor in the 70’s helping people with cancer, but he was harassed, jailed, and eventually lost his medical license! Just like you, none of his patients complained, but they took his medical license away anyway! How is this possible!?! Years ago I listened to Steve Kirsch interview you about how they took your medical license away … it makes me tear up just thinking about that interview! You simply wanted to help your patients, but because of MONEY, they crushed you and took your medical license. SO WRONG!
Yes thank you. I have studied Laetrile in detail. It is not what you think it is. I have a post on this coming at a later time.
Oh, wow, I am looking forward to reading your post! I hope I don’t miss your post! But, I honestly am baffled by your comment, ‘It is not what you think it is.’ ???
Thanks. Its a very controversial topic.
Sorry. It results in cyanide posing with no human studies showing any benefit.. despite all the conspiracy stories
What about the work of Dr. Harold Manner from the 1970’s … John Richardson, Jr often mentions this doctor’s work with 15 breast cancer patients (I think) … Chicago area (maybe). This doctor even wrote a book! I would love to read his book, but his book is unavailable now.
Have you read Alive and Well by Dr. Philip Binzel? He gives many specific success stories of patients responding well to Vitamin B17.
Thank you for joining Substack … what a perfect way for you to shine.
How positively ridiculous that the medical complex took your medical license from you, just as they did the same thing to John Richardson’s dad back in the 1970’s. Years ago I watched the video of Steve Kirsch interviewing you … it was heart-wrenching! I am so sorry that you had to endure all that. I am going to try to find the link and post it here.
Here is the hear-wrenching link,
https://rumble.com/v1lg05d-paul-marik-speaks-about-the-silencing-doctors-who-want-to-speak-out-about-t.html
https://rumble.com/v4lnk1x-second-opinion-laetrile-at-sloan-kettering.html
I found this documentary riveting!
Inspiring and hopeful, thank you for sharing!
Says the critic, "anecdote".
Reply, "Then explain it."
Thanks. Good explanation
Good point. That is exactly what Pierre and myself are doing. We have a series of about 250 patients. We will report the outcome of ALL the patients.
Thanks..
Agree.. then explain it.
The arrogance of dismissing an event because of its "one-offness" is frustrating. This enables people to wave away relevant information, because it fits neatly into the "isolated data point" box. The follow-up that anedotes plural is not data is farcical. Anecdotes plural are indeeed data--albeit as samples not a complete population. That does not demote anecdotes to irrelevance and dismissal. Quite the opposite: it becomes a conundrum to reconcile with the body of accepted data and the subsequent "scientific" theories that evolve from it.
Sure, an anecdote, once investigated, may have a correlation that was found to be understandably in error, but the investigation would reveal this. Anecdotes dismissed don't get studied. That's the whole reason to call them anecdotes in the first place--forcibly ignore them.
A purist would want nothing but perfectly clean data coming out of an experiment. If a data point arose that marred a heretofore beautiful mosaic that told a sweet (profitable) story, the investigator would be disgruntled and put off that the story was facing interference on the way to clean closure.
An ethical purist would alarm at its presence and set about to challenge its validity. Subsequently unable to prove error, it must be accepted. Once accepted, it now requires the story to be edited. What explains this?
That's why people who utter the word "anecdote" in serious discussion should be shamed and humiliated for attempting to badger away proper discourse in pursuit of truth.
So, another way to reframe the dicussion when the "anecdote" grenade is tossed is to state that all data is data, and it must be answered for. In short, one must include the mechanism in the disease theory by which the anecdotal outcome is produced.
Anything short of that is retreat from truth.
If you want a wormhole pathway to truth, then induction tells a good story.
When covid hit and medicine was standing around with the look of utter fear in the face of what was desrcibed as unattributable ARDS, then the general lay population was struck with terror. Trump set industry in motion to produce face shields and ventilators because modern medicine identified those as the first and last line of defense.
In other words, there was NOTHING in the arsenal.
Then HCQ pops up out of the ether. Instead of being hailed in March '20 as the ender of the pandemic, it was reviled and subsequent testing by reputable entities produced trial results that belied its efficacy. Except, the trials ran counter to the methods which begat apparent efficacy.
The rat smelled so horribly that you knew it was in the room; you didn't have to see it.
That rat had knowledge. Subsequent discovery proved it, but widespread, organized suppression and propaganda campaigns muddied truths thereafter.
So, knowing that the rat KNEW, why would the rat betray humanity instead of aiding it? Could be any number of reasons. The point is only that curative reality existed, and it was hidden.
Fast forward to cancer and Ivermectin. Amazingly, it is given the cold shoulder by the same community that claims to be healers. Without a stemwinder to walk the induction path here, it may nevertheless be quite obvious that the rat knows the cancer story, too.
In other words, your treasure chest detector as you walk past this point is screaming shrilly to "dig here."
Let's put it this way. After covid, there is no more valid policing of IVM.
Your argument worked pre-2020. After witnessing the completely and utterly criminal acts against IVM and HCQ and the patients demanding them, the widespread homicide, and having direct experience with both IVM and Marik's protocol, the jury is in: IVM has validity.
Now, it's up to the post-2025 research community to usher in new findings about what exactly IVM brings to the table. Doubtless, researchers will be hampered by anti-IVM holdouts. No one wants BS results; everyone should want truth, so research should be serious but also open to receiving signals.
Marik's protocol put 5 critical care physicians on their asses with dumfounded embarrassment when it pulled their moribund patient out of a terminal dive and made them all stupid as to what the hell just happened to the "miracle" patient. Yes, the nurses adopted him as a miracle. Fastest recovery from max O2 to walking out the door they had ever witnessed. Anecdote. 5 yrs additional life... You'd have gone with the 5 doctors, so you are consigned to perfect methodology and bad outcomes until the perfect (?) methodology is perfectly reviewed to be determined imperfect and then methodically perfected--all subject to human manipulation in accepted ways.
Anecdotes are signals, not proof. They lack controls, are vulnerable to multiple biases, and cannot establish counterfactual outcomes. Their proper role is to generate hypotheses, which must then be tested under rigorous experimental conditions before any causal claims are justified.
Moving from anecdote to evidence requires :
- Preclinical plausibility (mechanism, dose-response).
- Observational studies (eg cohort or case-control with controls).
- Randomised controlled trials to establish causality.
So far all there is for IVM are some reports of in vitro efficacy and hypothetical mechanisms of action. But the in vitro IC50 for IVM is far above the human Cmax. That implies no realistic therapeutic window without toxic dosing.
There is no valid clinical evidence.
I’m not saying IVM is not effective for treating cancers; I’m saying the evidence for it doesn’t exist.
Marik has form on “manipulating” clinical studies on Covid. We need to see not only valid observational and RCT evidence, we need to have independent verification too.
Critics will (rightly) point out the ony tales recounted are those where the patient survived or seemingly improved. We never get to hear of those whose disease progresses or accelerates. We never have independent external “audits” to determine the outcome of all of the patients.
Along this vein: gravity is a working theory now. So, when an object begins in freefall to approach the ground from an elevated starting point, science knows the eventual outcome.
When the object suddenly alters the predicted course and assumes directional travel opposite that predicted by the working theory, one doesn't just get to stand there and say "anecdote--it's a fluke; gravity still works!", because that explains nothing of the phenomenon just encountered.
So, the rational response is to say, "explain it."
Explanations would be unobserved impact with another object, the object is a compound one with another attached component elsewhere, the object has internal propulsion mechanisms, etc.
That's the point.
Remarkable narrative told with humility and authenticity. Paul Marik embodies brilliance and goodness.
Thanks my friend
Thank You Dr. Marik. A friend of mine who recently died from something else, at 77 years, had widely metastatic and presumably terminal breast cancer, not responding to treatment, about 20 years ago. She gave up on allopathic medicine, though it was a world she had lived in as the wife of the artificial-heart inventor.
She had an Oriental Medicine practitioner, meditated, walked, ate organic, and her cancer went away, never to return.
Her life and perspective changed.
We may come upon these stories in life, where helping the whole person works, after killing the cancer has failed.
I agree with you that medicine often starts with observation. Every oncologist who has practiced long enough has seen cases that don’t follow the expected course, and those moments raise important scientific questions. In fact I just wrote about this today on my Substack.
https://dfloramd.substack.com/p/exceptional-responders-in-cancer?r=11bw2f&utm_medium=ios
Where I think we have to be careful with these cases is attribution.
In the case you described, for example, the patient had already received therapies that are well known to produce meaningful responses in metastatic urothelial cancer, including Enfortumab vedotin and Pembrolizumab. With immunotherapy in particular, complete responses are not uncommon. We see cancers continue to shrink months after treatment begins, and sometimes even after treatment has stopped. That pattern is part of how immune mediated responses work.
Because of that biology, when someone improves after addition of complementary therapies over time it becomes very hard to know which intervention actually drove the response. What looks like a dramatic effect from a new approach can sometimes fall within the range of responses we already see with the prior treatment.
I don’t think most oncologists dismiss observation. Quite the opposite. Observation is how hypotheses start. But the next step has to be careful documentation and putting those observations in front of people who start with skepticism.
Peer review is not about sharing findings with people who already believe the same thing. It is about asking others to look closely at the timeline, the treatments, the scans, and the expected biology and see if the explanation holds up.
If there truly are hundreds of patients whose outcomes are consistently better than what we would expect from standard therapies, that would be incredibly important. Game changing. The strongest thing anyone could do for those patients would be to collect the cases carefully and present them for independent review and bring them to scientific meetings.
Stories can start the conversation. But if we want something to actually change how patients are treated, the data have to be strong enough that people who begin unconvinced come away persuaded. That process is not meant to shut ideas down. It is how new ideas become real medicine.
Thanks I agree with you completely. Unfortunately as I can personally attest main stream journals WILL NOT publish a paper that contradicts main stream (Pharmaceutical) protocols. If they do the paper gets retracted very quickly… as I can personally attest. The medical journals are controlled by the Pharmaceutical -Industrial complex. The previous Editor of NEJM, Marcia Angel, has written extensively on this.
Really? That’s not been my experience. Integrative studies are some of the most popular presentations at ASCO and San Antonio Breast etc. I’ve seen lots of high quality integrative studies published and personally have published on repurposed agents and presented posters at multiple scientific conferences. Is this recent? Did they share the rationale behind retracted papers? Retractions are usually due to serious methodology concerns or not reporting conflicts of interest. I’m currently an editor for an oncology journal and we publish plenty of non pharma studies.
I'm forwarding this inspiring story to someone I'm helping who is treating his cancer metabolically. I'm sure it will increase his peace of mind.
Thanks good idea.
Can I assume immunotherapy was stopped because of side effects before the addition of ivermectin and fenbendazole (later mebendazole). Were these the only two additions?
I did check with the provider. All he took was the ivermectin and mebendazole (at ordinary low doses) and a strict keto diet. We should chat about this some patients respond to one or to repurposed drugs while other either need 13 or more. I suppose different tumor biology and perhaps previous exposure to chemo.
Yes Immunotherapy is toxic and was stopped .. causes terrible autoimmune disease. Yes.. surprisingly only Ivermectin and mebendazole.
She lives Severn, MD, south of Baltimore
So who/where do you go to? I have a good friend who is 2 years into surgeries/chemo treatments for stage 4 ovarian cancer, and apparently out of options. Thank you for your reports and work.
There are some practitioners advocating for much higher doses (e.g. 1mg/kg of Ivermectin, and 800-1000mg of mebendazole/febendazole daily). It would be interesting to understand what complications (if any) have been seen in patients taking much higher daily doses, and if effectiveness is enhanced with such doses.
Thanks. These are absurdly high doses. We have seen neurological problems with high dose ivermectin and liver failure with high dose fenbendazole.
Humility and curiosity—the two things most missing in modern oncology. Dr. Marik’s approach to patient stories as 'clinical signals' rather than mere anecdotes is exactly why this movement is growing so fast. We aren't just fighting cancer; we are reclaiming the art of clinical observation. Thank you for this report 👍
Thanks much for your comment.
Question on a small detail:
“Rather than escalating toxicity, we began something far simpler: a metabolic approach using repurposed medications with long safety records, including ivermectin and fenbendazole, later transitioned to mebendazole.”
I understand that bio-availability and solubility of fenbendazole are greater than that of mebendazole. In this context, was there a specific rationale for transitioning from one to the other?
Yes. Fenbendazole is approved for animals only. Very little research in humans. Its metabolism is different. See upcoming post. We have seen numerous cases of liver toxicity with higher doses of Fenbendazole than suggested by Tippens e.g a recent case of 444 mg/day caused severe toxicity… and must be given for 3 days then break for 4 days. Mebendazole seems to be safer. A physician can loose his/her license if he/she prescribes medication only approved for animals.
Thank you earnestly, for this answer as well as all your courageous and technically impressive work. I hope you find it possible to include a general comparison of the properties of the other more common benzimidazoles.