The manuscript is now available as a preprint on the Zenodo research repository, operated by the European Organization for Nuclear Research, while undergoing peer review at leading oncology journals: "Real-World Clinical Outcomes of Ivermectin and Mebendazole in Cancer Patients: Results from a Prospective Observational Cohort."
In this real-world prospective clinical program evaluation, a diverse population of cancer patients (n=197) were prescribed compounded ivermectin-mebendazole, with each capsule containing 25 mg ivermectin and 250 mg mebendazole.
At approximately six months post-treatment initiation, we observed an 84.4% Clinical Benefit Ratio (CBR), with nearly half of cancer patients (48.4%) reporting either no evidence of disease (32.8%) or tumor regression (15.6%). An additional 36.1% reported disease stabilization. This means more than four out of five patients reported either improvement or stabilization of their cancer.
These results indicate that the inexpensive and safe off-label applications of these medications could be an important complement in the treatment of cancer.
The groundbreaking analysis was made possible through a unique collaboration between The Wellness Company, the McCullough Foundation, and the Chairman of the President's Cancer Panel — uniting real-world clinical data, frontline medical experience, and high-level epidemiologic expertise to deliver urgently needed insights in oncology.
This work was conducted by Nicolas Hulscher, MPH (myself); Kelly Victory, MD; James A. Thorp, MD; Drew Pinsky, MD; Alejandro Diaz-Villalobos, MD; Peter Gillooly, MSc; Foster Coulson; Melissa Annazone; Chloe Radesi; Jessica Brooks; Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH; and Harvey Risch, MD, PhD (Chairman of the President's Cancer Panel).
The paper can be accessed here: https://zenodo.org/records/19455636
A full breakdown of the analysis is below:
Each capsule contained 25 mg ivermectin and 250 mg mebendazole, with dosing individualized by clinicians — most commonly 1-2 capsules per day, though a subset of patients used higher daily dosing or cyclic regimens depending on disease status and tolerance.
Importantly, this was a prospective, structured clinical program evaluation, capturing longitudinal patient-reported outcomes rather than retrospective recall alone — strengthening the internal consistency of the findings.
Our cohort represents a broad and clinically meaningful cross-section of cancer patients, including prostate (27.9%), breast (18.3%), lung (8.6%), colon (5.1%), and a wide range of additional malignancies.
This was not a population limited to early-stage or low-risk disease. At baseline:
- 37.1% of patients reported actively progressing cancer
- Nearly half were within one year of diagnosis, while others had long-standing disease
- Many had already undergone standard therapies:
- Chemotherapy (31.5%)
- Radiation (28.9%)
- Surgery (42.1%)
Primary Outcomes
At approximately six months, outcomes were distributed as follows:
- No Evidence of Disease (NED): 32.8% (95% CI: 25.1-41.5%)
- Tumor Regression: 15.6% (95% CI: 10.2-23.0%)
- Stable Disease: 36.1% (95% CI: 28.1-44.9%)
- Progression: 15.6% (95% CI: 10.2-23.0%)
Critically, the 48.4% rate of NED + regression (95% CI: 39.7-57.1%) represents the strongest signal — indicating that a substantial proportion of patients did not merely stabilize, but reported meaningful reversal of disease burden.
Adherence and real-world feasibility
Treatment adherence was notably high:
- 86.9% completed the full initial 90-capsule protocol
- 66.4% remained on therapy at six months
Thus, the striking cancer outcomes were observed in real-world clinical conditions, where patients are often managed with multi-modality approaches rather than isolated monotherapy. The consistent signal of benefit in this setting supports the role of ivermectin and mebendazole as adjunctive therapies, capable of being integrated alongside standard-of-care treatments.
Safety profile: Low toxicity, high continuation
Safety outcomes further support feasibility:
- 25.4% reported side effects, predominantly mild (e.g., gastrointestinal symptoms)
- 93.6% of individuals with side effects continued treatment with minor adjustments
Conclusion
This first-ever real-world analysis of a ivermectin-mebendazole protocol in human cancer patients provides a compelling signal that demands serious attention. While these findings should be interpreted appropriately as hypothesis-generating evidence from a real-world clinical evaluation, the magnitude, internal consistency, and broad distribution of the observed effects cannot be ignored. We are not observing marginal changes or isolated responses — we are observing widespread self-reported disease control across a diverse cancer population, a substantial proportion of patients reporting complete disappearance of detectable cancer, and sustained adherence with favorable tolerability over time.
Taken together, these results challenge the long-standing assumption that meaningful cancer responses must come exclusively from high-cost, high-toxicity therapeutic approaches. A signal of this magnitude — approaching 50% regression or no evidence of disease in a real-world population — would typically trigger immediate large-scale clinical investment if it originated from a novel, patent-protected pharmaceutical agent. Instead, these findings involve repurposed, low-cost drugs that have existed for decades, raising a fundamental question: how many clinically meaningful signals have been overlooked, deprioritized, or never pursued because they fall outside the conventional commercial drug development model?
This analysis does not close the case — but it decisively opens it in a way that can no longer be dismissed. The implications are clear. Prospective, randomized controlled trials are urgently needed to validate these findings, define optimal treatment strategies, and determine the full clinical potential of this protocol. Given the strength of the signal observed here, advancing this line of investigation is no longer optional — it is necessary.
This is not the end. We will continue advancing this work with larger datasets to further define and validate the role of anti-parasitics in cancer outcomes.
Reader Comments
Brave AI: "The primary difference is that Mebendazole is FDA-approved for human use, while Fenbendazole is approved only for veterinary use."
Not even if you wish for it.
I've read about it off and on for cancer protocol for years. The idea of using it came from an oncologist at the University of Kansas if I am remembering correctly.
It was an off-hand suggestion to their friend. Due to many to most tumors relying on tubulin polymerization to grow and spread the oncologist thought it may help..
Fenbendazole kills parasites by disrupting tubulin polymerization.
In the article/ reports I read about the initial self administered trials, the man said he took so much that he felt like utter crap for a month, but it supposedly cured him of cancer. It even included pictures of his scans, but who knows if they were actually scans of the person in question. You know how the internet is.
If you look at the article here on SOTT, it appears as if the dosage of Mebendazole is much less due to the side effects being reported as mild.
The 250mg dose being cited here would only be maybe enough for around 100lbs of body weight. I think the successful coursed I was reading about was double that dose. Multiple times a day.
Anyways,, sorry for the drivel.
Cheers.
"[Link] Pfizer TicoVac save us all, a vaccination for Ticks and encephalitis.
Brave AI context: " Climate warming and rising temperatures are directly linked to the increased relevance of this vaccine by causing extended tick activity and an expanded geographical distribution of ticks , particularly in Northern European countries. This environmental shift has led to a rise in TBE prevalence and the emergence of new endemic areas, increasing the risk of human exposure during warmer spring and summer months."
Brave AI context: " Declassified government documents are linking U.S. bioweapons programs directly to the Lyme disease epidemic. The same government that told you it was a naturally occurring tick-borne illness was running secret programs releasing hundreds of thousands of radioactive ticks across Virginia and deploying infected insects against Cuban civilians. The origins trace back to Plum Island, just 13 miles from Lyme, Connecticut. And the lone star tick, now spreading a meat allergy called alpha-gal syndrome across the country, emanated from the same area. We need to start asking hard questions about whether this government is legitimate."
Here is a link with him doing an interview regarding virology. [Link]
"This is important stuff. The whole globalist plan is built around the idea of public health. The primary threat to global public health is viruses, we are told. The primary solution to that threat are vaccines (a virology product)."
"This issue, encompassing Virology, Immunology, and Vaccinology, is a matter of gatekeeping. The gatekeepers, both individuals and institutions, have proven themselves to be untrustworthy."
Quote: “In a very real way, a virus is what virologists say it is. It is a product of the way virologists talk about viruses—that is, the way facts about viruses are organized in their discourse. It can be said that virologists invent (and continually reinvent) the concept of a virus as part of the normal progress of their science.”
"The concept of falsifiability was introduced by scientific philosopher Karl Popper9 in 1935 in his book The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Essentially, what falsifiability means is that, in order for a hypothesis or theory to be scientific, it must have the ability to be disproven." And the corona "virus" was not. For example, " The concept of the asymptomatic carrier is an unfalsifiable concept as it allows for supposed disease-causing agents to be considered as such even when they are “found” not causing disease. "
I will highlight a few great presentations and documentaries for beginners.Dr. Jordan Grant's Science, Pseudoscience, and the Germ Theory of Disease Debunking the Nonsense The End of Germ Theory The End of Covid The Viral Delusion Virology's Unproven Assumptions
A link to a presentation on Energy medicine. [Link]
All done in the name of the oldest lie - that your body can ever work against you. If you actually pay attention to your body you will see over and over again that it only does one thing: heal