During a recent podcast episode, actor Mel Gibson disclosed an unusual cancer treatment involving his friends and anti-parasitic drugs, stirring widespread discussions and skepticism.
According to the Daily Mail, Mel Gibson's assertion that three of his friends achieved remission from stage four cancer using ivermectin and fenbendazole prompted both interest and doubt in the medical community.
In an engaging session on the Joe Rogan Experience, Gibson described how his friends, suffering from advanced cancer, turned to ivermectin and fenbendazole, drugs generally used for parasitic infections in animals. According to him, these friends are now cancer-free.
The claim immediately attracted attention, partly due to the controversial nature of ivermectin, especially its promotion during the COVID-19 pandemic without solid backing from clinical studies in humans.
Joe Rogan supported Gibson's claim on his show, emphasizing the efficacy of these treatments and questioning why people do not more widely accept them. Rogan suggested that profitability might influence their lack of mainstream acceptance.
This assertion aligns with previous controversies surrounding ivermectin, particularly during the COVID-19 crisis when some endorsed it as a treatment option, despite official health guidelines advising against its use outside of trials.
While some preliminary research suggests ivermectin and fenbendazole may have anti-cancer properties, credible data from controlled human trials remains absent. The scientific community continues to urge caution and highlights the need for more comprehensive research before endorsing these treatments for cancer.
The City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center once embarked on a study to explore ivermectin's effectiveness in treating tumors in mice, combined with an anti-body treatment known as anti-PD1. However, the related clinical trial was later withdrawn, casting further doubt on the drug's efficacy against cancer.
Alongside these developments, fenbendazole has been seen to exhibit potential anti-cancer effects in certain studies. However, risks are significant, with side effects such as intestinal necrosis and, in some cases, exacerbation of cancer conditions, reflecting the drug's double-edged nature.
Dr. Susanne Arnold, an oncologist, spoke out about the current state of research, noting, "I know of no reports of clinical trials that yielded successful results in humans with cancer." This underscores the gap between anecdotal success stories and proven scientific evidence.
The cost of these drugs adds another layer to the debate. Ivermectin costs about $90 for 20 tablets without insurance in the U.S., while fenbendazole can be purchased for approximately $9 for a week's supply. This pricing, especially when compared to the typically high costs of traditional cancer treatments, makes them attractive alternatives to some individuals.
However, a tragic case in the UK, where a 45-year-old man died from liver failure after using fenbendazole based on its purported anti-cancer properties, casts a shadow on the safety of self-medication and the misuse of veterinary drugs for human conditions.
The controversy has not deterred individuals like Joe Rogan from advocating for these treatments. Rogan criticized the medical establishment for not promoting what he believed to be effective solutions, suggesting financial interest might influence these decisions.
Dr. Jason Williams, commenting on fenbendazole's applications, warned that while the drug could be useful under specific circumstances, it also carries significant risks. "In some cases, it could even promote cancer growth if not applied appropriately," he explained, highlighting the complexities involved in cancer treatment.
Experts like Dr. Peter P. Lee have specifically pointed out that ivermectin is not an effective treatment for breast cancer on its own, urging the public to wait for more robust scientific validation before adopting such therapies.
With Gibson and Rogan's claims circulating widely, the discussion underscores a broader debate about alternative cancer therapies, the role of pharmaceutical profitability in treatment adoption, and the need for rigorous scientific validation before mainstream acceptance. As this conversation unfolds, it leaves the medical community and the public pondering the balance between hope, evidence, and safety in the search for new cancer treatments.
