The social media waves surrounding ivermectin surged last week with the announcement that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) was beginning preclinical research into ivermectin as a repurposed oncology medication.
When it comes to waves, there are few therapies in integrative oncology that measure bigger than ivermectin. As the wave formed, the rush to catch the latest ivermectin wave was on. The next few posts will be a journey through my evidence-based perspective on ivermectin as a repurposed medication in oncology.
Ivermectin. I am not sure that there is a more controversial drug, let alone word, that exists today. This repurposed medication serves as the sentinel focus on both sides of the “alternative” debate in oncology. On the conventional side, standard of care, ivermectin is the lead example of misinformation and disinformation, with no therapeutic value. On the “alternative” side, ivermectin is touted as the savior cure. What if the evidence points to both being wrong and polarized? As is always the case, the truth, the evidence, lies somewhere in the middle.
Every day is a battle for the narrative, a struggle for control over who controls thought. This issue dominates the medical field, with doctors front and center, as much as it dominates the culture and political arenas. I hope this discussion will provide some scientific perspective on this polarizing topic.
Ivermectin is frequently promoted as a “cure” on social media today. It is essential to begin by stating that “cure” is not a valid scientific measure. To be clear, we must wade into what is and what is not scientifically valid in all matters. The reason, in part, we are in this hyperpolarized position with ivermectin and other therapies is that patients don’t trust doctors, and conventional oncology has turned its back on patients regarding repurposed medications and many other deemed “alternative” therapies. This crisis of trust is the product of medicine’s own making.
There are evidence-based therapies to support most lanes of cancer care that patients may choose to travel for, and physicians may provide for patients. Valid survival-based measures include overall survival, progression-free survival, disease-free survival, event-free survival, and time to progression. Tumor response measures include objective response rates, disease control rates, the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), and the same criteria for immunotherapy, iRECIST. There are other categories, i.e., patient-reported outcome measures, molecular measures, and functional and health outcome measures.
Many posts on social media platforms share anecdotal stories of incredible success with ivermectin against all odds. Of course, these types of successes in patients with cancer should be celebrated. Some of these stories are quite real. I had the honor of sitting on the stage with one stage IV prostate cancer patient in remission in 2023. These are published personal stories, not science. Great stories, not science. I have watched this progress over the many months. It seemed to accelerate to a fever pitch with the Mel Gibson exchange on the Joe Rogan show. But again, that was anecdotal.
Now, why have I mentioned it anecdotally twice? “Anecdotal” originates from the 17th-century French word “anecdote,” meaning “secret or private stories.” These anecdotes are private stories shared with the world through social media.
I have even seen social media posts that present and cloud these publications as “articles.” The social media articles create the imagery that these articles are published scientific studies. Whether the use of the word “articles” was intentional or not, I believe it has created confusion. And physicians have not adequately and correctly spoken into this space with patients, leaving the responsibility to others to fill the void.
I want to engage in this debate with an analytical perspective and draw on published scientific research. I aim to present my conclusions on these three, both individually and in combination.
Whenever there is such a hyperpolarized topic, history is always the place to begin. Evidence stacked on history then provides the proper context for a scientific debate on the topic.
First, I am a strong advocate for repurposed medications in oncology. I have been using repurposed medications in oncology since 2015. I started using ivermectin late in 2017 as a repurposed medication in oncology, and first used mebendazole in 2018. Repurposed medications are a pillar of integrative oncology. I have written, published, and spoken worldwide on the power of evidence-based, precision utilization of repurposed medications in cancer treatment. Moreover, I have interviewed and formed friendships with other worldwide experts on the topic. Repurposed medications, here ivermectin, work best in combination with other therapies, not as a standalone. To be honest, no therapy in the treatment of cancer, especially advanced cancer, works as a standalone strategy.
References
Pradhan, R. (2026, February 10). US cancer institute studying ivermectin’s “ability to kill cancer cells.” KFF Health News. https://kffhealthnews.org/news/article/ivermectin-cancer-treatment-nih-study-dewormer-offlabel-drug/
Perlis, R. H., Ognyanova, K., Uslu, A., Trujillo, K. L., Santillana, M., Druckman, J. N., Baum, M. A., & Lazer, D. (2024). Trust in physicians and hospitals during the COVID-19 pandemic in a 50-state survey of US adults. JAMA Network Open, 7(7), e2424984. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.24984