On these 'repurposed' drugs used for cancer...

[AJMD429]

.
Gotta admit, I'm impressed...

Information on the new use of old drugs, added to enhance cancer treatment.

This is information I think should be shared with patients who either have cancer, have had cancer, or are at high enough risk for a particular cancer to consider a prophylactic regimen.

One of my favorite classes in Pharmacy School was Pharmacognosy – the study of the medicinal uses of plants or plant extracts. In today’s environment, this sounds antiquated, however most people are unaware that the majority of MODERN pharmaceuticals are still derived from plants. The only difference is that once the beneficial molecule is identified, it is usually easier to synthesize it (less impurities, more control over the strength), and if some changes to the molecule can be made to enhance the benefits or reduce the side effects, that is even better – and patentable.

Unfortunately the cost of engaging the regulatory system are great enough that once a drug is patented, the price skyrockets, then of course any competing product, including other drugs with expired patents, has to be stifled.

Keep in mind that molecules are like tools – they may be first discovered to have one use, but then later a completely different use may be discovered. A screwdriver can also pry off a lid, or be sharpened into a chisel, and the more complex the tool (or molecule) is, the more likely additional uses will be discovered. I bought my Leatherman Wave mostly for the plain knife and pliers, but soon realized I used the phillips screwdriver and fine file more often than the knife part. I hardly ever use my 3/4" 'breaker bar' for a socket, but I use it all the time (because the hole in the non-wrench end of the handle is the perfect size) to bend the wire of steer panels to make things.

In the past few years, several old drugs have been found to have potential benefit in slowing or stopping cancers of various types, even in cases where the cancer is advanced and/or metastatic.

When such a claim is made, of course you first have to look at whether the source has reason to mislead (profits, headline-seeking, malice), and then if there is some correlation, you have to determine if there is possible causation, versus coincidence. It helps if there is a plausible mechanism of action consistent with pharmacology and physiology. Even then, you have to look at whether or not the medication in question has proof of safety, and whether it shows any interactions with other medications the patient may be on.

Of course our ‘baseline’ with cancer treatment is the modern chemotherapy drugs, and they are indeed promoted by those with high profits as a motivator, and often even studies they fund show causation versus coincidence when it comes to benefits, but when it comes to advanced cancers, their benefits are expressed in ‘additional months of life expectancy’ versus ‘cure’, and as with most potent cancer medications, the side effect profiles include potential for severe and serious organ damage, as well as further immune suppression, plus all the unknowns associated with drugs we’ve only created within the past few years.

To be intellectually honest, we must compare this with the ‘repurposed’ older drugs, where virtually nobody is going to make big bucks selling them, as they are off-patent, and typically the people promoting their use are not even involved in the pharmaceutical industry. Older drugs tend to have far better established side-effect profiles, and in the case of the ones currently being examined for cancer, have less side-effects than the average course of antibiotics. Finally, in terms of their drug interactions, their metabolic pathways don’t appear to include major changes in the enzymes causing drug interactions, nor do their suspected mechanisms of action pose any interference with the standard-of-care chemotherapy or radiation or surgery regimens.

It would be one thing if the proponents of these repurposed drugs were saying “don’t do the standard-of-care – our treatment is better; just do it”, but nearly all the medical and pharmacologic literature supporting this recent crop of repurposed drugs is advocating ADDING them to existing regimens, NOT substituting them instead.

Now if a cancer is early and not aggressive, and the current standard-of-care has a 95% long-term cure rate, that ‘only’ means you have a 5% chance it will kill you, and that may not even happen for several years. In that case, deciding to add ‘something else’ to the regimen might be frightening, because you’d not want to have MORE side effects, or risk the added medication interfering with your standard-of-care regimen. But on the other hand, if you’re facing a metastatic or aggressive cancer, mostly hoping to delay the inevitable, the addition of an adjunctive medication to the regimen might be more appealing, especially if we’re dealing with low-side-effect medications that have been used for other conditions in many people for many years, without issues. If there is even a slight chance of dramatic success, it would certainly be worth considering.

Anyway, since most doctors probably don’t read much outside the medical journals (which are almost all sponsored by Big Pharma), and the conferences, and even specialty societies themselves, are often heavily influenced by Big Pharma, there is little reason to expect them to take the time out of an already-too-short visit to discuss something as unknown and theoretical as adjunct medications. As long as they follow the approved institutional protocol, the insurance companies will be kind to them, and their reputation will be fine.

The sources of this information vary – from obscure pharmacologic journals speculating on and identifying possible mechanisms-of-action (they are already past the point of ‘does it work’ but are at the point of ‘how does it work’), to secondary journal literature summarizing the primary journal literature findings, and podcasts by both physicians and laypersons who are trying to open up discussion of taboo topics (off-patent, and thus low-profit, drugs).

It doesn’t help matters any that one of the medications happens to be ivermectin, which the ‘news’ media thoroughly demonized during covid. Suffice to say that as a physician and pharmacist I found that ivermectin was indeed lifesaving during covid, and the pharmacologic mechanisms of action were consistent with the often rapid and impressive responses seen. The fact that the medical community at large mostly allowed politicians and bureaucrats and hospital administrators to dismiss and even prohibit its use, in order to blatantly seek profits and outright bonuses for using unknown, (and later determined to be ineffective, and unsafe) alternatives, AND kept doing so even after the evidence was clear they were harming and killing patients, is a stain on the integrity of physicians that should not be forgotten.

At this point, instead of considering any new or old drug from a rational, scientific, and pharmacologic viewpoint, most people just ‘pick a side’ – and if they are on the proper politically-correct side, they will follow every recommendation of the bureaucracy without question, so no point in sending them out this kind of information – but some do dare to think ‘outside the box’, and it is not right to deny them the information just because the rest might find it upsetting. I watched too many people die during covid because of things like pharmacists claiming that ivermectin wasn’t FDA-approved (a lie) or wasn’t for humans (a lie) or they didn’t feel it was appropriate for covid (that determination is the job of the physician).

Anyway, here are some things to read/listen to if you are facing cancer, and even if you decide not to try anything other than the standard regimen, at least you got the opportunity to decide. Those who would deny you that by censoring discussion, especially medical information, are far more dangerous to society than any ‘danger’ they allege medications like ivermectin (on the world’s top twenty medications used in humans list for many years) pose.

1. Fenben for cancer? - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Q5QjEPGNNg
(podcast by John Campbell – he has never been ‘fringe’ but started realizing that ‘mainstream’ medicine was ignoring clearly safe, sensible, and effective treatments for covid, and since then has been more apt to challenge others to read and think instead of just following institutional/insurance protocols)

2. Ivermectin, a potential anticancer drug derived from an antiparasitic drug - PMC - https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7505114/
(pharmacology journal article exploring the mechanisms of action of ivermectin)

3. Case Report: Metastatic Breast Cancer, 83 female - Fenbendazole resource - https://www.fenbendazole.org/case-repor ... -female-2/
(case report from a fenbendazole-advocacy group – some would say it is an ‘isolated instance’, but there seem to be quite a few ‘isolated instances’ cropping up like this, a plausible mechanism of action, and no real profit motive - unlike Big Pharma with their ‘alternatives’ to distort things)

4. Cancer, ivermectin thalidomide and vit D - YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9405FgR2Kik
(more discussion on several adjunctive medications that can impact cancer treatment – as Dr Dalgleish notes – they have already become ‘recognized’ by several other nations and added to treatment protocols)

5. Case Report: Triple-Negative Breast Cancer Stage III - https://www.fenbendazole.org/triple-neg ... st-cancer/
(another very encouraging case-report, along with subsequent analysis that indicates the effect might be mediated by suppression of ITGβ4 – here’s the journal article supporting that conclusion - https://breast-cancer-research.biomedce ... 22-01591-3)

6. Cancer care in jeopardy - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ItJKbrbzGD8
(interesting on several topics, but one is a derivative of an old tuberculosis treatment, which years ago was noted to stimulate the immune system in positive ways – potentially against cancers)

7. Fenbendazole Enhancing Anti-Tumor Effect: A Case Series - https://www.scitechnol.com/peer-review/ ... s-P3SV.pdf
(even three years ago case reports turning up provoking interest in fenbendazole)

8. Fenbendazole and Cancer - 12 Anti-Cancer Mechanisms of Action - Dr William Makis (2024) - https://www.onedaymd.com/2023/10/fenben ... st-12.html
(a list of a dozen articles on the topic of adjunctive medications that have evidence of boosting response to cancer treatment)

Personally, I think if I had any type of cancer, I’d ask the oncologist what they knew about such adjunctive treatments, and unless they assured me they were familiar with them, AND that they had clear reason to think the risk outweighed any potential benefit, I’d insist on adding whichever appeared to be the best supported, and most available/affordable.

Here are some other articles on various anti-cancer supplements which seem to show potential.

Iodine shows some potential to reduce risk for, or even treat, breast cancer - https://jeffreydachmd.com/iodine-treats-breast-cancer/
Magnesium shows potential reduction in cancer risk - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8FhKbsGhWU
Turkeytail mushroom shows potential benefit for cancer treatment -https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4890100/
Another Turkeytail article - https://www.mdanderson.org/cancerwise/c ... 60056.html
Intermittent Fasting helps the body use apoptosis to kill cancer cells - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQjlsemLlxE&t=2340s
Intermittent Fasting may have specific benefits for Women - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqMO1zeGltY

I hope this information is helpful.

AS ALWAYS - since I don't know your past deeds and consequences (health history), haven't seen you naked (examined you), and am not your physician - you should NOT act on these bits of information alone - consult YOUR physician (and if yours isn't open to such things, consider finding another)...

[Grizz]

It's a good article Doc, thanks for posting it.

[Paladin]

Thanks for the additional info. I have two of the studies and I am being treated for one of the cancers now. I am lucky enough to have a Naval Flight Surgeon (who used to be my SF Medic) who writes my subscriptions for the Ivermectin. He gave me a script for Ivermectin during COVID-19 which made me recover in two days. In the 90 days of my use of the cancer dosage, it has lowered my PSA count by 1/3.

[gcs]

The docs with the FLCCC alliance have been adamant about the efficacy of Ivermectin and vit D among other add ons, to the point they've been threatened with loss of license.
I read about fenbendazole several years ago and the good results using it against cancer, I'm sure there are older protocols that work, or assist treatments but there's no money in it.

I hate to sound like a conspiracy nut, but I don't think the big medical industry is that interested in curing cancer because of the massive profits from current treatments... they claim to, so why attack other doctors who are thinking out of the box...???

[earlmck]

Whoo boy, thanks for all those links Doc. A good friend of mine is just starting chemo for a sudden-onset turbo lymphoma (fully vaxed and boosted wouldn't you know). I had given him the John Campbell FenBen link but he (or more likely the retired-RN wife) was not impressed. Maybe all this additional material will persuade him to add in a little extra to the chemo.

If there are any MD's in this area who would prescribe anything not blessed and approved by the hospital administrators they are keeping a low profile. In the case of Ivermectin and Fenbendazole they are available at the local feed store in handy syringe-looking dispensers for horse de-worming that are easy to adjust to squeeze out a people-sized dose from. That's how I did my Ivermectin for the Covid and also laid in some FenBen in case I get the "Big C" diagnosis sometime. The things we gotta' do when the family doc isn't copacetic.

[ollogger]

Thank you Doc,!! Been taking 9mg, of iver, 2 X a day for a month, yep colin cancer found out 3 weeks ago, surgery in 2 weeks, they are sure they can get it with 5 in. removed, ive noticed
the stool looks alot better with the iver. its a head banger trying to figure this out
BrightWork has some good reading also,

[1972RedNeck]

A little research into the "Warburg Effect" and ketosis may be worthwhile for anyone concerned about cancer.

[COSteve]

Thanks doc. I forwarded your article to a friend who's mother has lung cancer.

[AJMD429]

A little research into the "Warburg Effect" and ketosis may be worthwhile for anyone concerned about cancer.

Yep. I'm reading Thomas Seyfried's book now ("Cancer as a Metabolic Disease - on the Origin, Menagement, and PRevention of Cancer"0, and so far not finding any credibility issues at all. Wish I'd read it when first published...!

As an example of the BS that we see in the 'mainstream' medical journals, it will be reported that "Vitamin D fails to show a benefit in reducing cancer" - yet the so-called 'studies' should not have even made it past the editorial board...! The 'control' group will be given either nothing, or placebo, and the 'treatment' group will be given somewhere between 400 units and 2,000 units of D3 daily. Most of the time there is NO MENTION of the attained blood levels, or they are mentioned, but results not stratified by level - just by dose.

That would be the equivalent of doing a 'study' to see if home-delivered CPR improved myocardial infarct survival, and the 'treatment' group was simply mailed out a pamphlet on CPR, with no verification that they even read it, or understood it. ONLY the latter would be able to validate (or refute) the notion that home-delivered CPR had a potential to affect MI survival.

That, plus the fact that vitamin D exists in at least half a dozen forms, each with a different spectrum of effects, and all of them in the 'sterol' chemical family (choleSTEROL derivatives used as hormones - aldosterone, estradiol, estriol, estrone, progesterone, pregnenolone, testosterone, and many others), so they have the typical 'steroid' spectrum of overlapping effects at a multiplicity of sites in a multiplicity of tissues, means that even if we measure levels, it is difficult to compare patients physiologically even if their 25-OH-Vit D levels are identical. But at least that is a start. Then the cascade of forms that the Vitamin D moves through involves CYP2R1, CYP27A1, CYP27B1, and CYP24A1 enzymes which all are vulnerable to single nucleotide polymorphisms ('SNPs' are genetic variations that alter the function of enzymes or receptors slightly, or even majorly), so it is an area requiring much more than just passing out a subtherapeutic dose of 2,000 units to everyone and assuming that they are all now "ok".

I have patients who require 'horrific' doses of Vitamin D to get a level even remotely adequate, so of course none of them would 'benefit' from some arbitrary and too-low-for-them dosage.

I know the topic was repurposed microtubule-inhibitors ('horse paste') drugs, but I use the Vitamin D topic to illustrate just how lousy our medical journals are at 'investigating' anything.

[1972RedNeck]

A little research into the "Warburg Effect" and ketosis may be worthwhile for anyone concerned about cancer.

Yep. I'm reading Thomas Seyfried's book now ("Cancer as a Metabolic Disease - on the Origin, Menagement, and PRevention of Cancer"0, and so far not finding any credibility issues at all. Wish I'd read it when first published...!

As an example of the BS that we see in the 'mainstream' medical journals, it will be reported that "Vitamin D fails to show a benefit in reducing cancer" - yet the so-called 'studies' should not have even made it past the editorial board...! The 'control' group will be given either nothing, or placebo, and the 'treatment' group will be given somewhere between 400 units and 2,000 units of D3 daily. Most of the time there is NO MENTION of the attained blood levels, or they are mentioned, but results not stratified by level - just by dose.

That would be the equivalent of doing a 'study' to see if home-delivered CPR improved myocardial infarct survival, and the 'treatment' group was simply mailed out a pamphlet on CPR, with no verification that they even read it, or understood it. ONLY the latter would be able to validate (or refute) the notion that home-delivered CPR had a potential to affect MI survival.

That, plus the fact that vitamin D exists in at least half a dozen forms, each with a different spectrum of effects, and all of them in the 'sterol' chemical family (choleSTEROL derivatives used as hormones - aldosterone, estradiol, estriol, estrone, progesterone, pregnenolone, testosterone, and many others), so they have the typical 'steroid' spectrum of overlapping effects at a multiplicity of sites in a multiplicity of tissues, means that even if we measure levels, it is difficult to compare patients physiologically even if their 25-OH-Vit D levels are identical. But at least that is a start. Then the cascade of forms that the Vitamin D moves through involves CYP2R1, CYP27A1, CYP27B1, and CYP24A1 enzymes which all are vulnerable to single nucleotide polymorphisms ('SNPs' are genetic variations that alter the function of enzymes or receptors slightly, or even majorly), so it is an area requiring much more than just passing out a subtherapeutic dose of 2,000 units to everyone and assuming that they are all now "ok".

I have patients who require 'horrific' doses of Vitamin D to get a level even remotely adequate, so of course none of them would 'benefit' from some arbitrary and too-low-for-them dosage.

I know the topic was repurposed microtubule-inhibitors ('horse paste') drugs, but I use the Vitamin D topic to illustrate just how lousy our medical journals are at 'investigating' anything.

What are your thoughts about low density lipoprotein levels and heart disease? Or levels of all lipoproteins for that matter?