Print
Taking Charge of Your Own Cancer Care
A growing number of cancer patients are exploring unconventional options outside the traditional medical system—specifically repurposed drugs like ivermectin, fenbendazole, and mebendazole.
These anti-parasitic medications, though originally developed for infections and veterinary use, are gaining attention due to anecdotal success stories and their low-cost, low-toxicity profiles. But are they effective in cancer care? And how do they fit into a broader healing framework?
This short article unpacks the core insights from a recent in-depth conversation between physicians, advocates, and survivors who are reimagining what comprehensive cancer treatment can look like.
Why Patients Are Exploring Repurposed Drugs
Distrust in the medical establishment is growing. Many patients have lost hope standard in cancer treatments such as chemotherapy and radiation, which can be toxic and ineffective for some. The experience of being offered little beyond “take it or leave it” options has fueled a grassroots movement of research-savvy patients searching for alternative or adjunct therapies. For some, it’s desperation; for others, it’s determination to survive on their own terms.
More and more cancer survivors attribute their recovery to a protocol involving fenbendazole, vitamin E, CBD, and liposomal curcumin, has inspired many to investigate these drugs.
One prominent advocate, Jane McLelland, has championed the use of multiple repurposed drugs—including ivermectin, dipyridamole, doxycycline, metformin, and statins—as part of a strategic “stacking” approach aimed at targeting multiple cancer survival mechanisms at once.
Understanding Cancer’s Complexity
Cancer isn’t just a lump of rogue cells—it’s a multifaceted biological condition with at least 14 known hallmarks. These include immune evasion, unchecked growth, genetic instability, and reprogrammed metabolism.
Unlike healthy cells that eventually die off, cancer cells often bypass this natural death process, creating immortal cell lines like the famous HeLa cells from Henrietta Lacks.
Because of this complexity, no single treatment is likely to succeed in isolation. Effective cancer therapy must address both the hallmarks of cancer and the “terrain”—the overall state of the body’s systems that allowed cancer to take hold in the first place.
Terrain-based care looks at inflammation, immune function, hormonal balance, blood sugar, detox pathways, stress, trauma, and even emotional resilience. Without addressing these foundational issues, even promising drugs may fall short.
What the Research Says About Ivermectin
Ivermectin is a well-known anti-parasitic medication approved for both human and animal use. It’s used to treat lice, scabies, and certain inflammatory skin conditions.
But over 300 preclinical studies suggest it may also impact cancer by reducing inflammation, limiting blood vessel growth to tumors, interfering with glucose metabolism in cancer cells, altering the microbiome, and promoting programmed cell death (apoptosis).
While early data is promising, especially in lab studies, there is a major gap: human clinical trials are still scarce. One study is currently exploring ivermectin in combination with a PD-1 checkpoint inhibitor, but results are pending.
Fenbendazole and Mebendazole: The “Dog Dewormers” in Cancer Care
Both fenbendazole and mebendazole belong to the benzimidazole class of anti-parasitic drugs. Mebendazole is FDA-approved for human use, while fenbendazole is approved only for animals. Their mechanism of action involves disrupting microtubules—cellular scaffolding essential for cancer growth.
There are key differences between the two. Fenbendazole has a longer half-life, meaning it stays in the body longer. Mebendazole, which is more rapidly cleared, has been used in small-scale studies showing mixed outcomes.
One phase 2 trial in patients with advanced gastrointestinal cancer reported that some patients experienced tumor hyper-progression, raising safety questions that still lack clear answers.
The safety profiles for these drugs are generally favorable at standard doses, but when taken in higher amounts or over long durations—as in many self-guided cancer protocols—risks increase. One warning: These drugs should not be combined with Flagyl (metronidazole), as the risk of Stevens-Johnson syndrome, a life-threatening allergic reaction, increases significantly.
Integrating Repurposed Drugs into a Terrain-Based Approach
Advocates emphasize that these drugs should never replace foundational health measures. Using ivermectin or mebendazole without addressing terrain factors is like putting out a fire while ignoring the dry brush that caused it. A more intelligent approach involves testing (such as liver panels and blood counts), assessing personal risk factors, and addressing root causes—nutrient deficiencies, toxic exposures, chronic stress, and trauma.
One physician, helping her husband through rectal cancer, was led to reevaluate the literature with new urgency. They added mebendazole to his protocol after reviewing preclinical data and found empowerment in making informed, collaborative choices—outside the confines of standard care.
Survivor Insight: A Will to Live
For cancer coach Chris, who went through chemo without success, reclaiming agency was essential.
He now sees surviving as the minimum bar—his goal is thriving. “I’m three and a half years out from my last scan. I have zero symptoms,” he said. His protocol included not just supplements and off-label drugs, but emotional support, therapy, detoxification, and a purpose-driven mindset.
He emphasizes the importance of belief, resilience, and self-care. “Early on, I thought I was going to die thousands of times,” he recalls. “I surrounded myself with people who believed for me when I couldn’t.”
The Limits of the System and the Power of Curiosity
Mainstream medicine often demands randomized clinical trials before endorsing new treatments. But the economic model driving research for Big Pharma doesn’t support testing old, off-patent drugs. That leaves patients to rely on anecdotes, preclinical studies, and their own critical thinking.
While medicine is ideally a science in pursuit of truth, it often lags behind. Aspirin wasn’t adopted into standard heart attack care until 14 years after evidence showed it halved mortality. The same may prove true for ivermectin and its peers—if researchers and institutions are willing to investigate them without bias.
Defining Your Own Success
Ultimately, success in cancer care must be defined by the patient—not just in terms of survival time, but in terms of quality of life, clarity of mind, and alignment with personal values. Whether or not one uses repurposed drugs, it’s the sense of agency—of being informed, supported, and engaged—that many find most healing.
This movement isn’t about magic bullets. It’s about reclaiming the right to ask hard questions, weigh options, and participate in one’s healing journey with eyes wide open.
As the conversation around ivermectin and fenbendazole evolves, so too must the paradigm of care—toward one that respects real data, honors lived experience, and never underestimates the will to fight a good fight and live.
Ask your cancer doctor if off-label drugs could be right for you.
