Background

The abstract of one study published: on Nature.com in August of 2018, notes that fenbendazole is a safe and inexpensive drug. The researchers concluded in this study, in conjunction with earlier data, that fenbendazole as a potential cancer therapeutic agent because of its effect on multiple cellular pathways leading to effective elimination of cancer cells. Specifically, fenbendazole:

• Efficiently prohibits spread
• Has a potent growth-inhibitory activity partially attributed to impairing proteasomal function
• Demonstrates moderate affinity for mammalian tubulin
• Exerts cytotoxicity on human cancer cells at minute, micromolar concentrations
• Effectively inhibits glucose uptake that most cancer cells thrive on
• It blocks the growth of human xenografts in nu/nu mice model when mice were fed with the drug orally.

Another article in 2022 by researchers at the Miller School of Medicine at the University of Miami noted that:

"In August 2016, fenbendazole garnered global attention as a potential anti-cancer therapy following the complete recovery success story of Joe Tippens, who was diagnosed with small-cell lung cancer. At the time, Tippens was undergoing a clinical trial for a novel anti-cancer drug. Meanwhile, under the guidance of a veterinarian, Tippens began self-administering 222 mg fenbendazole orally, along with vitamin E supplements, CBD oil, and bioavailable curcumin. After three months of self-administration, a PET scan revealed no detectable cancer cells in his body. Notably, Tippens was the only patient cured of cancer among the 1,100 clinical trial participants (3).

The anti-cancer activity of fenbendazole has been studied across many cell lines, demonstrating anti-tumor effects against multiple cancer types (Table I) (4-7).

Reports from Patients

The bulk of this commentary is based on a survey of 86 South Koreans by pharmacological researchers in that country.

My Observations

The repurposed drugs are very safe

These drugs that the survey participants took have been developed under the same rigor as chemotherapeutics. The U.S. FDA has reviewed them, found to be safe, and approved them for over-the-counter, unsupervised use. In my opinion that makes them safer than prescription drugs which must be taken under supervision.

Patient Experience is Overwhelmingly Favorable

• The overwhelming majority of respondents (73%) had advanced-Stage III and IV cancers, the overwhelming majority of participants (73.3%) had no adverse effects, and the overwhelming majority (79%) had favorable results:

  • 79%—favorable
  • 7%—-no effect
  • 9.3%—worsened
  • 3.7%—not reported

• The positive results cited were that physical conditions were improved (52%); the spread of their cancer was reduced (35%) and a few, 3.5%, had a decrease in the number of cancerous masses.

• Some commentators and researchers state that these kinds of drugs can cause liver damage, in reality few patients experience this. Just 3.5% experienced liver abnormalities (not damage). and another 3.5% hematological effects (simply put, their blood work changed; no negative effect state).

• In terms of the frequencies of occurrence of adverse effects, 12.8% of the participants answered “more than three times.” When asked about the onset of adverse effects, 11.6% of participants answered “after a month,” and 7.0% answered “within a month.” When surveyed about the severity of the adverse effects, 10.5% of the participants answered “a bit uncomfortable,” while 9.3% answered “uncomfortable but endurable.” When asked about measures taken to relieve the adverse effects, 12.8% of the participants answered “discontinued anthelmintic course,” and 9.3% answered “continued to take the same anthelmintic despite the adverse effects.”

• Fenbendazole and related drugs have a very high benefit-risk ratio: overwhelmingly favorable benefits were seen with very low risk and seem a good candidate to

  Researchers Disconnected Conclusions from the Survey Results

  Researchers focused solely on the need for better communications with patients (by doctors) and the public (by the government). This was done by offering no conclusions on the bulk of the positive evidence that respondents found these medications to be very beneficial.Researchers focus on minor findings, magnify risks, make statements not based on the evidence presented.
  Much is made of the possibility of developing side effects from long-term intake without noting that this occurs in a extreme minority of patients.

Remember that the respondents:

• Overwhelmingly had Stage III and IV cancer
• Overwhelmingly had favorable results
• Overwhelmingly suffered no side effects

  Ignore the Bulk of the Evidence

  The bulk of what the respondents had to say didn't make it into the conclusions. Stated in the Discussion section but ignored in the conclusions:

• Researchers are concerned that patients might overdose an over-the-counter medication rather than patients might miss out on this low-cost, very beneficial treatment.
• Researchers warn that some severe cases were caused by the prolonged use of high doses of albendazole or praziquantel in patients with poor liver function without quantifying it. The study referenced for this concludes for a couple of the medications used by respondents that these, "are generally safe drugs, but they must be used with caution in people with poor liver function or those being co-medicated for gastroesophageal reflux disease." The researchers don't tell us if they asked about preexisting conditions. Given that this is a known issue, bad science.
• Researchers' conclusions ignore their own fact-based statements like "Low incidence of adverse effects agrees with previous studies show that [fenbendazole-type] medications, including ivermectin, and praziquantel, are generally safe as demonstrated by the prolonged use of these medications.
• While researchers say that communications must enhanced to prevent minor side effects experienced by a few participants, **no mention is made of the overwhelmingly positive reports.

Focus on Minor Findings, Magnifying Risk

• Researchers focus the minor chance of unwanted effects. They stress the need for better communications between patients and doctors about the risks of non-prescribed non-prescription medication. Also, invoking the "public-private" partnership, they state that governments need to raise awareness of a low risk outcome. In the common vernacular, fear mongering.
• Words like, "adverse," "severe," and "harmful" are used to qualify unwanted effects rather than the more benign "side effects" used when doctors prescribe drugs and companies sell them; More fear mongering.
• Researchers say, "[These] medications can cause severe health issues." but they don't say these were not reported by the respondents. A definite minority reported any side effects at all and those reported were, at most, uncomfortable but bearable, not severe, A referenced study did report side effects in a small number of patients. Severe effects occurred only in those with preexisting liver damage and taking medication for acid reflux.
• Researchers cite, "one case report [that] described a patient who developed psychosis after combined use of albendazole and ivermectin." Not one survey respondent reported psychosis, though these were the two most popular medications taken. Data was not presented on the specific combinations that patients used.

  Make Statements not Based on the Evidence Presented

  The researchers make statements disconnected from the facts. At one point in the discussion, they state:

Third, the most patients (48.8%)^[1] responded that they took anthelmintics during their courses of chemotherapy. This result^[2] suggests that^[3] drug–drug interactions may be induced^[4] when anthelmintics are used in combination with chemotherapy.

1. Forty-nine percent is not "most." It's "almost half." Not a major issue but it shows the bias of the researchers.
2. This is not a result, but a fact reported by respondents.
3. The fact alone that patients took these medications while on chemo is not enough information to make a conclusion. Appropriate here is a question, "Were drug-to-drug interactions induced?" There is no evidence presented about interactions with chemo drugs, it would be more reasonable to recommend it as a matter for further study.

Fifth, despite the occurrence of adverse effects^[1] some patients (9.3%) continued to take the same anthelmintics. These results suggest the necessity of clinician guidance regarding the safety^[1] of anthelmintic use to prevent harmful^[1] effects.

1. The side effects noted by 9.3% of respondents were "uncomfortable but endurable," hardly unsafe or harmful. These were the worst side effects mentioned.

Ask no questions

Many good questions come to mind while reading through this report that these medical researchers don't ask.

• For those reporting side effects, how many were or chemotherapy at the same time?
• It would be appropriate to recommend further study of these low-risk effective, inexpensive medications that promise to greatly benefit patients.
• They don't recommend further research into a very promising, low cost set of treatments.
• Finally, no comparisons are made to the benefits and risks of chemotherapuetics.

Safety first

Even though these drugs are acknowledged by the FDA to be safe enough for unsupervised use, and even though no liver damage was reported in the study, it would be a good idea to have appropriate blood work to monitor organs and systems that any drug used is known to affect.

Also, at least one combination used by survey respondents has caused two documented cases of psychosis, one in a 10-year old and one in a "older person," leading to the conclusion that sugch cases are s

Detailed abstracts and study results are not freely available to the public.

One study found that Both ADZ and PZQT are safe, but not recommended for children <2 years or for women in the first trimester of pregnancy. Serious adverse events occur following high dose and prolonged administration of these drugs for treatment of tape worms especially in patients with poor liver function. The adverse events may be induced by the drugs, or by the dead worms themselves.

In Conclusion

Weigh the risks and benefits

In any decision, the risks and benefits of all options should be considered. Patients using fenbendazole and the dozen or so related medications:

• Overwhelmingly had Stage III and IV cancer (73%)
• Overwhelmingly had favorable results (79%)
• Overwhelmingly suffered no side effects (73%)

Compare that with the results of clinical trials for the chemo drug your doctor recommends.

Proceed with Care

In any medical treatment caution is advised.

• Work with a medical doctor, if you can find one that's informed, honest, and courageous.
• Get relevant blood work done before, during and after treatment. Independent labs will do this for you without prescription.
• Be as informed as you can be. Get the full facts on any procedure, what harm it causes, what other risks are (from highest to lowest) as well as the benefit and prognosis for you—should you take the treatment. Have your doctor provide copies of the research and read past the abstract. Have you doctor explain what you don't understand. If he or she won't, they are demanding compliance, not informed consent.
• Finally, your doctor gets paid regardless of of whether he or she is right. You die if they're wrong and the death certificate will say, "Cause of death: cancer" not "Assisted suicide by chemo,"

Primary Source: Bomi Song 1, Kwang Joon Kim 2,, Sung Hwan Ki 1,3,, Experience with and perceptions of non-prescription anthelmintics for cancer treatments among cancer patients in South Korea: A cross-sectional survey; Editor: Sai-Ching Jim Yeung4; PMCID: PMC9531786  PMID: 36194607

Resources

1. Dr. John Campbell. Repurposed Drugs (video interview with Dr. Wlliam Makis)
2. Dr. William Makis: A Hero in the Race Against Turbo Cancer
3. https://rumble.com/v6wc7k0-dr.-william-makis-fenbendazole-and-mebendazole-as-treatments-for-turbo-canc.html?e9s=src_v1_s%2Csrc_v1_s_o
4. https://substack.com/@makismd
5. Worldwide Supplier For Fenbendazole USP Grade (>99% purity) Capsules And Powder: https://www.sacredpurity.com/fenbendazole.html
6. Worldwide Supplier For Mebendazole USP Grade Pills, Capsules And Powder:https://www.sacredpurity.com/mebendazole.html
7. Original Video Source - https://makismd.substack.com/p/new-podcast-15-minutes-with-drmakis-380