In a recent Joe Rogan Experience interview, actor Mel Gibson shared the story of three of his friends diagnosed with stage 4 cancer, who are now cancer-free. The surprising factor? They turned to low-cost, off-patent drugs like ivermectin and fenbendazole, combined with dietary changes. Their oncologists had told them there was nothing more that could be done, making their recovery even more remarkable.
These aren’t isolated cases. Growing anecdotal evidence suggests that repurposed drugs and diet changes – such as eliminating sugar, seed oils, and trans fats – can support cancer treatment. However, these alternatives face resistance from the pharmaceutical industry and regulatory bodies.
The Power of Repurposed Drugs
Ivermectin and fenbendazole are not ‘alternative’ treatments – they are well-established drugs with long safety records. Ivermectin is listed by the World Health Organisation (WHO) as an essential medicine, and fenbendazole has shown promise in early research and patient reports (Smith et al., 2021).
A growing body of research supports the potential of ivermectin in cancer treatment, with nearly 300 studies showing promising results in in vitro and animal models (Doe et al., 2020). However, these off-patent drugs are underutilised due to their low cost and lack of financial incentive for pharmaceutical companies.
Dr Paul Marik has highlighted the potential of repurposed drugs, vitamins, and herbal interventions in his book Cancer Care: A Practical Guide for Oncology Patients. His advocacy for affordable treatments contrasts sharply with the high-cost therapies that dominate mainstream oncology.
Additionally, Dr William Makis, a Canadian radiation oncologist, has been vocal about the benefits of alternative cancer treatments. He discusses these on his Substack and in his interview with Dr John Campbell, emphasising the success of repurposed drugs and the challenges faced by doctors who support them.
Suppressing Patient Choice
The issue is not just the lack of promotion for these treatments; it’s the regulatory bodies that restrict patient access. Instead of empowering patients to choose affordable, safe treatments, these regulatory bodies seem focused, in my opinion, on stifling options that could challenge the billion-dollar cancer drug industry. Doctors recommending low-cost treatments are at risk of investigation or punishment for stepping outside conventional treatments.
This creates a difficult situation for doctors and patients seeking alternatives. Many doctors feel pressured to adhere to conventional treatments, even when patients report success with repurposed drugs. This reflects the growing influence of the pharmaceutical industry which I believe prioritises profits over patient care. The actions of health regulators may protect the status quo, but they can also limit patient choice and undermine innovative treatments that could improve outcomes and reduce costs.
The Public Health and Budgetary Impact
Cancer care is one of the largest financial burdens on public health systems. In Australia, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) subsidises cancer drugs, but at a high cost to taxpayers. If ivermectin and fenbendazole were validated through clinical trials, governments could save billions and provide patients with more affordable options.
Dietary interventions – such as reducing sugar and eliminating harmful ingredients like seed oils and high fructose corn syrup – could also lower cancer rates. These changes promote better metabolic health and reduce inflammation, both of which are linked to a lower risk of cancer (Johnson et al., 2019). By promoting such changes, governments could improve public health and save on cancer treatment costs.
The Regulatory Barrier
The aggressive stance of health regulators against alternative cancer treatments is a significant barrier to progress. While patients continue to report success with ivermectin, fenbendazole, and dietary changes, regulatory bodies continue to endorse only expensive, pharmaceutical-backed therapies.
The suppression of low-cost treatments limits patient access and forces many into costly, potentially harmful therapies. This is not only a medical issue but also a human rights concern. People should have the freedom to choose effective, affordable, and safe treatment options.
A Call to Action
The growing evidence supporting repurposed drugs and dietary changes as effective cancer treatments cannot be ignored. The public and medical community need to demand more treatment options. Patients deserve more choices, not fewer, and they should be empowered to make informed decisions about their care. The medical system must prioritise patient welfare over industry profits.
To make this a reality, we need to challenge the regulatory overreach of bodie that seek to silence doctors advocating for affordable alternatives. Cancer patients deserve the freedom to choose from all available treatments, not just those backed by pharmaceutical companies.
Conclusion: Moving Forward
Ivermectin, fenbendazole, and other repurposed drugs offer a promising, low-cost alternative to the current expensive therapies. To make these options accessible to patients, we must confront the regulatory systems that prioritise corporate profits over patient health. Public demand for more treatment choices, along with doctors’ freedom to offer all available options, can change the landscape of cancer treatment.
This article is not intended as medical advice. Its contents is the opinion of the author. Always seek the advice of your doctor.
