After just 6 months, 48.4% of cancer patients taking ivermectin and mebendazole reported no evidence of disease (32.8%) or tumor regression (15.6%), while 36.1% reported disease stabilization.
Very encouraging and very similar to what we found over a longer time period. Makis, W., Baghli, I., & Martinez, P. (2025). Fenbendazole as an Anticancer Agent? A Case Series of Self-Administration in Three Patients. Case reports in oncology, 18(1), 856–863. https://doi.org/10.1159/000546362.
“….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?”
Please collaborate, to get a larger study population, with oncologist William Makis, who now resides in Florida,. He has helped thousands of cancer patients by recommending Ivermectin and Fenbendazole during the last couple of years.
If it is possible to prove Big Pharma was actively suppressing these treatments to protect their chemotherapy profits, that sounds like criminal negligence causing death on an industrial scale.
The evidence of that, indirectly, was when they went bonkers over Ivermectin during COVID. Yes, they were protecting the "need for the vaccine", but they undoubtably knew the benefits in cancer, and were petrified they were going to be brought to light, unless it remained a "horse paste".
Great work and great news!!! Congratulations on your bravery and intellectual honesty while staying the course when it comes to scientific enquiry. Unfortunately, the scientific process can be thwarted when politics are involved as they are currently. Many of us understand and deeply appreciate the challenge you have accepted: the pursuit of Truth and the affirmation of Life. You could have had easier lives going along with the Powers That Be.
I sincerely appreciate the personal sacrifice and courage required when taking a position that could appear to threaten well funded politically powerful vested interests! Focal Points represents an amazingly wise, life affirming, and courageous team of individuals!
God bless you all.
May the archangel Michael continue to guard and keep you.
KUDOS to all of the Collaborators and especially to some of my COURAGEOUS, SACRIFICIAL, COMPASSIONATE, BRILLIANT FAVES: Nicolas Hulscher, Dr. McCullough, Dr. Thorp and Dr. Risch.
Thoughts of the horrible disease of cancer have haunted me for three decades after witnessing my Mom endure chemotherapy, radiation therapy and then try to heal/recover from a "morbid" surgery in efforts to save her life. Her oncologist called her a "stoic" woman and did his best but she endured all of that for 6 years then died after it recurred.
This EXCELLENT analysis gives me hope for "low-toxicity therapeutic approaches" in the future.
I recently read anecdotal evidence that this combination was helpful in treatment of cancer in animals, including several dogs with mast cell tumors.
Our dog has had many of these tumors, the first 3 required surgery and chemotherapy. After changing his diet, he had 4 more 1-2 years later and each one was low grade, only requiring removal.
He recently got 2 more, fairly small. If I can convince my wife, I will skip the removal and just start off on ivermectin and fenben or mebendazol.
I strongly urge everyone in this field to make their scientific papers published on these kind of things as methodically sounds and statistically solid as possible, because these will be subjected to the most brutal forms of assault possible by the medical-industrial complex that not only benefits from cancer, but is also MOSTLY THE ONE CAUSING CANCER.
They will fight papers like these tooth & nail, they have unlimited funding to do so, and they are not above destroying careers, doing character assassinations, blackmail, or simply outright murder.
You can be absolutely sure their well-paid debunkers will try to tear this paper to shreds, like they do with all other papers that don't make their masters enough money.
From the first look it is a very good, outstanding result. However:
-Sample size is large enough to make the paper relevant. But it should be a lot more, I would seriously consider doing a follow-up on this paper with 500 to 1000 patients.
"self-reported cancer outcomes" - this is VERY WEAK and will come under severe attack. The least that could have been done for example is to show PSA results before & after on the prostate cancer group, which is the largest subgroup in the paper and one of the easiest tests to do. Breast cancer has similar biochemical markers which could have been tracked.
-Not including a control group will come under severe attack. Undoubtedly because the authors considered it highly unethical to withhold a life-saving treatment to any control group, nevertheless, you will see them being viciously attacked for it.
"including chemotherapy (27.9%), radiation therapy (21.3%), and
surgery (19.7%)" - these are confounding factors, and should have been more adequately addressed. Lack of a control group is going to bite you in the ass on this one.
Before Fen-Ben treatment, 1 in 3 was reporting regression, with Fen-Ben that increases to 2 in 3. But not adequately addressing previous treatment effects means that debunkers will pin that increase on delayed effects of the previous treatments. Remember: if doubt CAN be shed on a single point, IT WILL BE DONE RELENTLESSLY. Ad nauseam.
In short:
- get to a sample size of 500 to 1000 patients, strong enough to factor in confounding factors. 122 full reports is nowhere near large enough sample size.
- include results of before & after biochemical markers of cancer
A nice bit work that the cancer industry would like to bury or retract I'm sure. After what they did to Makis and his patients it's pretty obvious how threatening this kind of knowledge is to their business model and bottom line.
Word is getting out thanks to Nick and others. Thank God for these people, putting themselves on the line, giving hope to the hopeless. Cancer is all around and the world needs this more than ever.
It would be very interesting to see a long term comparison of this treatment protocol vs classic oncologic therapy, particularly in adherence and tumor recurrence/metastases. Is the 38% dropout/LTF rate similar to classic treatment?
Nicolas, I shared this article with someone who has a family history of three family members dieing from pancreatic cancer. The article has given him hope that he will "live to meet his great-grandchildren." Thank you for all your work!
Very encouraging and very similar to what we found over a longer time period. Makis, W., Baghli, I., & Martinez, P. (2025). Fenbendazole as an Anticancer Agent? A Case Series of Self-Administration in Three Patients. Case reports in oncology, 18(1), 856–863. https://doi.org/10.1159/000546362.
Encouraging? It's a joke - But not as bad as that already retracted turd you linked to. A three-case series, courtesy of Billy Mac.
I've been able to download these studies…but retracted is stamped over each one
Stamping retracted!!! Are these people so stupid they don’t know that will increase the readership?
I just downloaded the PDF and mine copy looks clean. No Retracted stamp...
Does this surprise you?
Nope…but at least they are readable
“….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?”
Tragically, far too many. 😢
Yet another crime against humanity.
Amen!
Please collaborate, to get a larger study population, with oncologist William Makis, who now resides in Florida,. He has helped thousands of cancer patients by recommending Ivermectin and Fenbendazole during the last couple of years.
Makis, not Maxis.
If it is possible to prove Big Pharma was actively suppressing these treatments to protect their chemotherapy profits, that sounds like criminal negligence causing death on an industrial scale.
The evidence of that, indirectly, was when they went bonkers over Ivermectin during COVID. Yes, they were protecting the "need for the vaccine", but they undoubtably knew the benefits in cancer, and were petrified they were going to be brought to light, unless it remained a "horse paste".
This is very good news.
Any plans to add a group that also includes fasting and/or ketogenic diet?
This is great news.
Great work and great news!!! Congratulations on your bravery and intellectual honesty while staying the course when it comes to scientific enquiry. Unfortunately, the scientific process can be thwarted when politics are involved as they are currently. Many of us understand and deeply appreciate the challenge you have accepted: the pursuit of Truth and the affirmation of Life. You could have had easier lives going along with the Powers That Be.
I sincerely appreciate the personal sacrifice and courage required when taking a position that could appear to threaten well funded politically powerful vested interests! Focal Points represents an amazingly wise, life affirming, and courageous team of individuals!
God bless you all.
May the archangel Michael continue to guard and keep you.
AGREED!
KUDOS to all of the Collaborators and especially to some of my COURAGEOUS, SACRIFICIAL, COMPASSIONATE, BRILLIANT FAVES: Nicolas Hulscher, Dr. McCullough, Dr. Thorp and Dr. Risch.
Thoughts of the horrible disease of cancer have haunted me for three decades after witnessing my Mom endure chemotherapy, radiation therapy and then try to heal/recover from a "morbid" surgery in efforts to save her life. Her oncologist called her a "stoic" woman and did his best but she endured all of that for 6 years then died after it recurred.
This EXCELLENT analysis gives me hope for "low-toxicity therapeutic approaches" in the future.
Thank you these remarks. It gives us all hope to continue even after suffering disappointments.
I recently read anecdotal evidence that this combination was helpful in treatment of cancer in animals, including several dogs with mast cell tumors.
Our dog has had many of these tumors, the first 3 required surgery and chemotherapy. After changing his diet, he had 4 more 1-2 years later and each one was low grade, only requiring removal.
He recently got 2 more, fairly small. If I can convince my wife, I will skip the removal and just start off on ivermectin and fenben or mebendazol.
There are a few important points to make:
I strongly urge everyone in this field to make their scientific papers published on these kind of things as methodically sounds and statistically solid as possible, because these will be subjected to the most brutal forms of assault possible by the medical-industrial complex that not only benefits from cancer, but is also MOSTLY THE ONE CAUSING CANCER.
They will fight papers like these tooth & nail, they have unlimited funding to do so, and they are not above destroying careers, doing character assassinations, blackmail, or simply outright murder.
You can be absolutely sure their well-paid debunkers will try to tear this paper to shreds, like they do with all other papers that don't make their masters enough money.
From the first look it is a very good, outstanding result. However:
-Sample size is large enough to make the paper relevant. But it should be a lot more, I would seriously consider doing a follow-up on this paper with 500 to 1000 patients.
"self-reported cancer outcomes" - this is VERY WEAK and will come under severe attack. The least that could have been done for example is to show PSA results before & after on the prostate cancer group, which is the largest subgroup in the paper and one of the easiest tests to do. Breast cancer has similar biochemical markers which could have been tracked.
-Not including a control group will come under severe attack. Undoubtedly because the authors considered it highly unethical to withhold a life-saving treatment to any control group, nevertheless, you will see them being viciously attacked for it.
"including chemotherapy (27.9%), radiation therapy (21.3%), and
surgery (19.7%)" - these are confounding factors, and should have been more adequately addressed. Lack of a control group is going to bite you in the ass on this one.
Before Fen-Ben treatment, 1 in 3 was reporting regression, with Fen-Ben that increases to 2 in 3. But not adequately addressing previous treatment effects means that debunkers will pin that increase on delayed effects of the previous treatments. Remember: if doubt CAN be shed on a single point, IT WILL BE DONE RELENTLESSLY. Ad nauseam.
In short:
- get to a sample size of 500 to 1000 patients, strong enough to factor in confounding factors. 122 full reports is nowhere near large enough sample size.
- include results of before & after biochemical markers of cancer
- ditch 'self-reported' for clinical evidence.
So poorly done that it's actually amusing. Like most of these vomit-comments.
A nice bit work that the cancer industry would like to bury or retract I'm sure. After what they did to Makis and his patients it's pretty obvious how threatening this kind of knowledge is to their business model and bottom line.
Word is getting out thanks to Nick and others. Thank God for these people, putting themselves on the line, giving hope to the hopeless. Cancer is all around and the world needs this more than ever.
Interesting Studies!
Great news.
It would be very interesting to see a long term comparison of this treatment protocol vs classic oncologic therapy, particularly in adherence and tumor recurrence/metastases. Is the 38% dropout/LTF rate similar to classic treatment?
Nicolas, I shared this article with someone who has a family history of three family members dieing from pancreatic cancer. The article has given him hope that he will "live to meet his great-grandchildren." Thank you for all your work!
Wouldn't it be advantageous to publish your study in the IMA's Journal of Independent Medicine?