Latest / Intellectual Medicine / Beyond the Hype: Why Ivermectin Isn’t the Answer — and What Might Be

Transcript

Beyond the Hype: Why Ivermectin Isn’t the Answer — and What Might Be · Intellectual Medicine

• 0:00
  So when it comes to albendazole, when it comes to ivermectin, the
• 0:04
  real thing to reflect upon is not these two particular drugs,
• 0:08
  but rather the goal to be achieved.
• 0:11
  And the goal to be achieved is maintaining your vitality and
• 0:14
  your health with the highest level possible and bringing to
• 0:17
  bear the things that are most valuable in that battle.
• 0:24
  OK, I'm going to say it out loud.
• 0:26
  It might be. It might be my death knell.
• 0:29
  It was at one point at least the third rail of social media
• 0:35
  medical conversations, and that is ivermectin.
• 0:41
  I said it, that word, that drug, it's a lightning rod.
• 0:46
  And right away you're probably having some reaction either Oh
• 0:50
  my goodness, he's going to talk about that, or thank goodness
• 0:54
  he's finally talking about that. So we'll talk about ivermectin
• 0:59
  and we're going to talk about thenbendazole in particular, but
• 1:02
  more generally the benzamides, the class of drugs.
• 1:06
  Why are we broaching this topic? It's because people have a need
• 1:11
  to address problems that aren't being solved by conventional
• 1:15
  medicine. And when it comes to the
• 1:17
  ivermectin and fembendazole pathways, if you will, it is
• 1:22
  looking for something to help them with cancer.
• 1:26
  You know, we've been at this war on cancer forever and they've
• 1:29
  had some little pockets of success, but it's been by and
• 1:32
  large a colossal disappointment. Nobody out there would say that
• 1:38
  what we've achieved for our trillions of dollars spent has
• 1:42
  been defined as success. The problem in part is that it's
• 1:48
  a painstakingly slow process that has been Co opted with
• 1:53
  profit as a significant element of motivation, if not the
• 1:58
  primary. There's nothing wrong with
• 2:00
  profit. I like profit.
• 2:01
  Everything's got to have a profit or else it goes away.
• 2:03
  I get that. But the process has become so
• 2:08
  petrified that the FDA approval pipeline is excluding many
• 2:14
  opportunities to intervene in a positive way because the drugs
• 2:18
  you and I are talking about, or I'm talking about, they're
• 2:21
  orphans, they're generics, they're natural substances.
• 2:26
  Nobody is ever going to spend the money needed to really
• 2:29
  figure them out. Well, that's where we come in.
• 2:32
  That's where doctors like, like, like I come in.
• 2:35
  Me, I, it's like where I come in and you come in.
• 2:39
  It's a collaboration between a willing patient and a
• 2:42
  knowledgeable physician or nurse practitioner who can guide a
• 2:46
  patient through the maze. And it is a maze out there.
• 2:51
  So the couple things we want to be careful about, right?
• 2:53
  One of them is not to reject something just because it seems
• 2:57
  odd or off the beaten trail, and the other is not to embrace
• 3:01
  everything that trickles down the pipeline.
• 3:05
  The one hit wonder the eye cured cancer with rhubarb pathway.
• 3:11
  OK, that is of noteworthy data, but not necessarily and
• 3:17
  certainly not proof of of outcome.
• 3:20
  So we've got to be careful. The other thing that I don't
• 3:22
  want you guys to do is displace something more valuable for
• 3:28
  something more speculative. Now, one of the problems is that
• 3:33
  we and IA lot of us, we don't fully trust the authoritative
• 3:37
  sources. Many of them have disappointed
• 3:40
  us. We were told in the past, like
• 3:43
  what you're thinking, what you're talking about is not
• 3:46
  legitimate, but ivermectin has no value.
• 3:49
  Well, we, we know that these drugs have at least in vitro
• 3:52
  evidence. So let's get to the core of the
• 3:53
  matter. Can ivermectin help fight
• 3:56
  cancer? How about the benzidamols?
• 3:59
  How about thenbendazole or the other drugs in that class?
• 4:06
  Are they worth taking if you have cancer?
• 4:10
  Well, maybe, and that's a big maybe.
• 4:14
  Where do they come from? What's the evidence supporting
• 4:17
  their possible value with regard to ivermectin?
• 4:20
  The drug was FDA approved in 1978.
• 4:24
  It's an anti helmetic. It's a deworming agent.
• 4:28
  As such, it's a fantastic drug. The inventor of it received a
• 4:32
  Nobel Prize at one point for the pioneering work that was done.
• 4:37
  It has a mechanism of action where it interferes with
• 4:40
  signaling pathways of cancer cells in a way that can help
• 4:45
  potentially to kill them. It also can interfere with stem
• 4:49
  cells, which are the mother cells that make baby cancer
• 4:52
  cells. It has enhances cellular
• 4:56
  apoptosis or cell death. Now this research is in vitro,
• 5:01
  folks, we're talking bench lab stuff, right?
• 5:04
  Cancer cells in a Petri dish, if you will, seeing how the
• 5:08
  ivermectin effects them. There's not a heck of a lot out
• 5:11
  there that is in vivo or in humans.
• 5:14
  There are a few things out there and then there are sort of case
• 5:18
  reports and case studies. The evidence is a low grade.
• 5:24
  So when I look at what I'm going to recommend for my patients,
• 5:27
  whether it's prostate cancer or any other treatment, any other
• 5:31
  disease state, there's got to be evidence of mechanism of action.
• 5:36
  There's got to be in vitro at least, right?
• 5:38
  Cellular evidence. The next level, it's animal
• 5:41
  evidence, xenografts, where they take a cancer, a human cancer.
• 5:45
  You put it in a mouse and you see how it works in the
• 5:48
  Organism. The next level is human
• 5:51
  experience, not just an anecdote, online Facebook
• 5:55
  moment, whatever, but rather collective studies of small
• 5:59
  clusters, pilot studies, and then the ultimate level are
• 6:03
  placebo-controlled studies. When it comes to ivermectin,
• 6:08
  we've got pretty much cellular evidence of theoretical benefit
• 6:12
  regarding some cancers. That doesn't exclude it from
• 6:16
  consideration, but it's just to put it in perspective.
• 6:19
  There are people out there that'll say I took ivermectin
• 6:24
  and it cured my cancer. Well, maybe nobody is out there
• 6:29
  using that in a vacuum. Nobody.
• 6:32
  They're using it in combination with other things.
• 6:35
  Whether or not you should consider it will depend on a few
• 6:37
  variables. 1 You know what kind of cancer are you fighting and
• 6:42
  what degree of malignancy possesses you?
• 6:46
  If there's a treatment that has more evidence, more validated
• 6:50
  outcomes, and perhaps is even less expensive, it's worthy of
• 6:55
  putting in front of the ivermectins of the world.
• 6:58
  So in my practice, ivermectin is a late stage consideration for
• 7:04
  people with cancers that either have no or little potential for
• 7:09
  conventional cure and have a high degree of progression,
• 7:13
  where in particular other therapies that have more
• 7:17
  evidence of benefit have been put to work and have not panned
• 7:22
  out. So we've spoken in prior podcast
• 7:25
  other repurposed drugs, metformin, naltrexone,
• 7:29
  serilimus, doxycycline, even atorvastatin.
• 7:35
  These are agents that have abundant evidence of benefit and
• 7:40
  incredible safety profiles Ivermectin not quite at that
• 7:45
  level. Subcutaneous mistletoe visca
• 7:48
  Molly. Another foundational element
• 7:51
  that we utilize for the purpose of helping people fight their
• 7:55
  cancer. Ivermectin is problem regarding
• 8:00
  dose. How often, how much?
• 8:03
  The drug as used in humans is A1 and done agent.
• 8:08
  They take it once. Maybe in some cases they'll take
• 8:11
  it weekly for a few weeks, depending on what kind of a
• 8:14
  parasite is being targeted. But I know of people that are
• 8:18
  taking it twice a day for weeks and even months.
• 8:21
  That's a problem. Liver toxicity, other
• 8:25
  complications in addition to spending way more money than you
• 8:29
  need to be to get a clinical effect.
• 8:32
  You know, in the world of oncology, chemotherapy isn't
• 8:35
  given every single day and non-stop they do it
• 8:37
  intermittently. When you're killing cancer
• 8:39
  cells, you don't need to necessarily kill them every
• 8:44
  single time. The different repurposed drugs
• 8:47
  have different mechanisms. The cerolimus is once a week,
• 8:51
  the subcutaneous mistletoe is once a week, Metformin is
• 8:54
  everyday. Changing the environment.
• 8:57
  So the ivermectin in my practice as a repurposed drug when it
• 9:02
  comes to prostate cancer, this is a phase two intervention.
• 9:06
  Phase 2 means phase one has been applied and there's evidence of
• 9:11
  progression or there's an evidence of a high level of
• 9:16
  pathology at the outset. The there are biomarkers that
• 9:20
  will track and then their imaging studies.
• 9:23
  So in prostate cancer world, we hold it in reserve.
• 9:27
  You may not need it, and there are other things of higher
• 9:30
  benefit, and the same holds true for many other malignancies,
• 9:34
  even stage 4 cancer. So I've got patients in my
• 9:37
  practice, stage 4 breast cancer, advanced cases of pancreatic and
• 9:41
  liver cancer. They don't all need it.
• 9:44
  They're all in many cases doing just fine.
• 9:47
  Which means you could be in stage 4 and stay there for years
• 9:50
  and years and years. That's the goal.
• 9:52
  Have you feel good? Live well.
• 9:55
  Whatever you do, folks, if you're fighting cancer, it's got
• 9:59
  to be a long term sustainable pathway because that cancer has
• 10:05
  a tendency to come back the minute you take your foot off
• 10:09
  the gas. And by all means, by no means
• 10:13
  perhaps I do not advocate going to regional cancer treatment
• 10:17
  centers. I'm going to go to Mexico and
• 10:19
  immerse myself in a month of an array of treatments.
• 10:24
  Each treatment may have its own merit, but collectively you
• 10:27
  can't keep that up unless you plan on living in Mexico at the
• 10:31
  treatment center. You know, every time I see it,
• 10:34
  every single time I've seen it happen, patient comes back and
• 10:39
  the cancer comes back with them unless they plug into a chronic
• 10:43
  suppressive therapy. This cancer is a tough, tough
• 10:47
  animal, and it goes into remission, but it almost never
• 10:51
  fully, completely goes away. The rate of delayed relapse is
• 10:54
  compelling, so we need a plan that's going to be long term
• 10:58
  sustainable, safe, affordable and effective.
• 11:03
  So you do not fly to the country and expect your cancer to be
• 11:07
  cured and zip back and then say that's it, I'm all done.
• 11:11
  Can I vermectin be a part of that?
• 11:13
  You must have a doctor nurse practitioner guiding you.
• 11:16
  You've got to check liver functions.
• 11:18
  Do not do this off the Internet and do not take a random dose
• 11:22
  based upon a Reddit thread that you read.
• 11:26
  It's like the guy at the gym just shoot up steroids because
• 11:29
  the guy next to him looks pretty big without regard to the total
• 11:32
  consequence. Now, even if your doctor is not
• 11:36
  on board with prescribing or guiding you, if they're how to
• 11:42
  put it, if they're empathic and if they're concerned about your
• 11:46
  health, they will at least monitor it with you.
• 11:48
  That's totally ethical. Any doctor can do that.
• 11:51
  They don't have to agree with what you're doing, but they can
• 11:54
  help you enhance safety. And that goes true for the
• 11:57
  other, the other character in our story tonight, Fenn
• 12:01
  Bendazole. It's got a cute nickname, right?
• 12:03
  Fenn Ben. I love it.
• 12:05
  It's catchy but the drug itself, it's a deworming drug for dogs
• 12:11
  or animals, not approved for human use.
• 12:15
  The research on it there is cellular in vitro evidence of
• 12:19
  benefit. The benzid and moles, that class
• 12:22
  of drugs all have a similar mechanism of action.
• 12:27
  Fembendazole is for dogs, Mebendazole is for humans,
• 12:31
  Albbendazole is for humans. They all have a similar
• 12:35
  mechanism of action. As a licensed physician, it is
• 12:40
  within the scope of my privilege to use drugs off label.
• 12:46
  So I can, with proper consultation, I can prescribe
• 12:50
  albendazole or mebendazole for an off label use, but I can't
• 12:56
  prescribe thenbendazole. Nor can any Doctor Who cares
• 13:00
  about their legal status and their license.
• 13:03
  We can monitor for safety, but you #1 make sure if you are
• 13:11
  tempted to purchase Feb Bendazole on the economy, tell
• 13:16
  your doc. Get it monitored.
• 13:19
  It's not intended for everyday daily use and the dosages are
• 13:23
  unknown. It's an animal drug.
• 13:25
  You can't even begin to speculate like you could look at
• 13:28
  other people. Maybe they've done it.
• 13:30
  There's one case in particular. Joe Tippin is a gentleman,
• 13:36
  pretty intelligent guy. He had by all, by all objective
• 13:40
  views, right? He had or has or had he had
• 13:45
  small cell lung cancer. Now small cell lung cancer is
• 13:49
  not curable and almost uniformly fatal in a relatively short
• 13:53
  period of time. He was involved in a treatment
• 13:56
  protocol and in addition to the conventional treatment protocol
• 14:02
  that he was registered in, he did his own research and started
• 14:06
  taking Febbendazole 3 days on, four days off.
• 14:10
  And it was three months later that his cancer was not visible
• 14:14
  and it's been gone for years now.
• 14:18
  So that became the Joe Tibben protocol.
• 14:21
  Now bear in mind a few distinguishing elements to this.
• 14:24
  Number one, he was in a conventional treatment protocol.
• 14:28
  So we're not quite sure if Febbendazole was a component of
• 14:32
  that or not. If the if the chemotherapeutic
• 14:35
  regimen had to be there to facilitate the effect of then
• 14:39
  bendazole, that's an unknown. The other variable is he had a
• 14:44
  terminal cancer that nobody survives.
• 14:47
  It's a different game when you're facing that versus let's
• 14:52
  say, let's say you had a stage 1 breast cancer.
• 14:56
  You know, it's a high rate of success, not only with some
• 14:59
  conventional treatments, with a lot of the repurposed drugs that
• 15:02
  we bring to bear, keeping that cancer in remission.
• 15:07
  It's certainly in the world of prostate cancer, it's not worth
• 15:10
  the risk because we don't know the proper dose.
• 15:13
  The drug can't have neurotoxicity, seizures, ataxia,
• 15:18
  headache. It can cause hemorrhaging in the
• 15:21
  cornea, affecting vision, ocular pain.
• 15:24
  It can cause liver function abnormalities.
• 15:29
  Taking it every day is probably not a good thing.
• 15:32
  We don't know the dose. Hard to guide people.
• 15:35
  Now I get it. If you're knocking on heaven's
• 15:38
  door and you've got that incurable cancer, nothing has
• 15:41
  worked. You're tempted, At least share
• 15:44
  that with your doc. Let them help guide you.
• 15:46
  Another nuance with febbendazole.
• 15:48
  It's a very poorly absorbed drug.
• 15:51
  It's really hard to get it at a therapeutic level even if we
• 15:54
  knew what that was. So within that class, there are
• 15:58
  options that are much safer and we have a lot better idea about
• 16:02
  how to dose them. But one that I prefer is
• 16:05
  albendazole. Mebendazole has some nice
• 16:08
  research regarding its efficacy, but my goodness, it's $1000 a
• 16:12
  week, right? So it, it fails the Pedriti
• 16:16
  protocol criteria of practical affordability.
• 16:21
  Now Albendazole, it's not inexpensive, but you're looking
• 16:25
  at for the protocol that we've developed approximately 500 a
• 16:29
  month. Bear in mind it's not the first
• 16:32
  card we're going to play. This is held in reserve for all
• 16:36
  of the same reasons, mechanism of action, it has that cellular
• 16:41
  evidence, yes. And at least in the case of
• 16:45
  albendazole, there's one study, a phase two study just looking
• 16:50
  at safety and it cleared the bar regarding safety in a small
• 16:54
  study, well, that's comforting. We have a human experience study
• 16:59
  looking at a safety parameter. What we don't have is ideal
• 17:04
  dosing. So that required some reflective
• 17:08
  thought and input and it becomes a once a week regimen.
• 17:12
  Again, these anti helmetics, they kill and then you don't
• 17:18
  have to stay on them. And by doing it once a week,
• 17:21
  you're balanced. I'm balancing safety against
• 17:24
  theoretical efficacy and incorporating affordability.
• 17:29
  It blocks sugar uptake for the cancer cells, it can interfere
• 17:33
  with stem cells, and it disrupts microtubules.
• 17:36
  These are the structural elements inside the cancer cell
• 17:40
  and when you disrupt those, a cancer cell can fall apart.
• 17:44
  That's pretty exciting. Where does it fit then, in the
• 17:47
  spectrum? That's a question worth
• 17:49
  reflecting upon. The cool thing about the
• 17:52
  albendazole, unlike febenazole, doctors can prescribe it.
• 17:57
  Now, that's not the only reason to like it.
• 17:59
  It is the same class of drug as febenazole, it has wider safety
• 18:05
  parameters, and it has the similar, if not the same,
• 18:10
  mechanism of action. So for all of those reasons,
• 18:13
  it's got a nice profile. So who might be a candidate for
• 18:17
  this level of treatment? It is your Hail Mary pass when
• 18:23
  you have a malignancy that is a notoriously bad prognosis.
• 18:29
  And those are the type that I deal with all the time.
• 18:33
  People don't come to me because their cancer is fully in hand in
• 18:36
  most cases, although they probably should for secondary
• 18:39
  prevention, but rather when they're up against the wall.
• 18:44
  All of my followers with prostate issues and prostate
• 18:48
  cancer, by now you know how I feel about conventional
• 18:52
  medicine. There are conventional approach,
• 18:54
  biopsy, surgery, radiation, bad, bad and bad.
• 18:59
  This drug, the albendazole, we hold that in reserve.
• 19:02
  Phase one treatment, everything's going great.
• 19:06
  You stay there as long as things are smooth and copacetic.
• 19:10
  I've had people in phase one treatment for eight years, nine
• 19:13
  years. No need to advance as long as
• 19:16
  it's working. But you do have other cards to
• 19:19
  play if things progress, an opportunity to intervene in a
• 19:24
  way that can slow down cancer, potentially in a way that
• 19:28
  doesn't compromise your health. Think about how ironic it would
• 19:32
  be if you took a drug because you're trying to fight cancer
• 19:36
  and the consequence of taking the drug cleanse in the hospital
• 19:38
  with an illness that's happened. So finbenazole, the mechanisms
• 19:44
  are fascinating. The research is underway, but
• 19:46
  the problem you and I can't wait for research results all the
• 19:50
  time. Look, I do anti aging medicine.
• 19:53
  I don't have 20 years to wait and see how it comes out.
• 19:56
  I have to take the evidence at hand and apply it right now.
• 20:00
  The same thing for you all. If you're battling A prostatic
• 20:05
  cancer or the risk of it, what can you do right now?
• 20:10
  That's going to have value. We know it takes 20 years to
• 20:12
  watch for an outcome. We know in many conventional
• 20:15
  pathways we've been waiting forever for the brilliant
• 20:20
  breakthrough. I'll give you a little vignette
• 20:22
  that reflects a little bit about why we need to stay connected,
• 20:26
  why you need to do your own homework.
• 20:28
  And thank goodness for the Internet, artificial
• 20:32
  intelligence. You can really do some primary
• 20:36
  research and collaborating with an open minded physician who's
• 20:40
  knowledgeable. You can have a parallel
• 20:43
  universe. I never want to disregard the
• 20:46
  value of the oncological profession and what they have to
• 20:50
  offer. You know, we need to process
• 20:53
  that and when it is appropriate. Incorporated.
• 20:57
  On the other hand, do not expect them to know anything about
• 21:02
  functional or alternative therapies.
• 21:04
  It's not their niche. They cannot tell you it's OK.
• 21:08
  It's almost illegal. Not illegal, but it's highly
• 21:12
  frowned upon for conventional oncologists say, yeah, by all
• 21:15
  means, go do that, mistletoe. Go do that.
• 21:17
  Pedro protocol. Yeah, I'm on board with that.
• 21:20
  Some of them may be enlightened enough to say that, yeah, I
• 21:23
  don't see harm there, and that's a ringing endorsement.
• 21:26
  But bringing all these factors to bear makes sense.
• 21:31
  If there's something out there that has evidence of benefit,
• 21:33
  you're fighting for your life and there's a safety parameter
• 21:38
  and it's affordable to you, and you have a clinician that can
• 21:43
  guide you, why wouldn't you incorporate that?
• 21:46
  Don't worry about upsetting your oncologist.
• 21:48
  If they don't like what you do, and if you have a good basis for
• 21:51
  it and you have another clinician, someone like me, who
• 21:55
  can guide you, then go for it. It's your life, it's your
• 21:58
  prerogative. There was a study done on high
• 22:02
  dose intravenous vitamin C in regard to pancreatic cancer and
• 22:04
  it was a traditional placebo-controlled study and it
• 22:09
  showed an extension of life in the individuals who received the
• 22:13
  infusions. We in the functional medicine
• 22:16
  community, we're very excited. We're looking at something that
• 22:19
  is benign, natural and can extend life in this miserable
• 22:23
  cancer. Awesome.
• 22:25
  So they were ready to do another study and the funding got
• 22:27
  cancelled because at about the same time a new FDA approved big
• 22:33
  pharma drug came to market and they no longer felt the need to
• 22:37
  invest money in vitamin C. So that's the story.
• 22:41
  Whenever what I do in functional medicine or what you choose to
• 22:46
  pursue gets criticized for not having adequate study, it is a
• 22:51
  false criticism. There never will be enough money
• 22:54
  to get through studies that will satisfy the skepticism of people
• 22:59
  who start out with a negative opinion.
• 23:01
  So when it comes to albandazole, when it comes to ivermectin, the
• 23:06
  real thing to reflect upon is not these two particular drugs,
• 23:10
  but rather the goal to be achieved.
• 23:14
  And the goal to be achieved is maintaining your vitality and
• 23:17
  your health with the highest level possible and bringing to
• 23:20
  bear the things that are most valuable in that battle and
• 23:25
  avoiding the the wormhole of Internet based.
• 23:31
  Follow the breadcrumb. The next thing you know, you're
• 23:33
  on 82 supplements, 92 juices and a fistful of repurposed drugs.
• 23:39
  Perhaps. So with that, my friends, be
• 23:43
  cautious, be skeptical, do your homework, but take an action
• 23:48
  right? We all don't have indefinite
• 23:50
  time to reflect and contemplate. You take the action, you can
• 23:55
  always redirect and the action you should be taking is
• 23:59
  depending on the circumstance that you face.
• 24:03
  You need to have guidance through that.
• 24:05
  And when it comes to ivermectin and fenbenazole in particular,
• 24:10
  be cautious. The dosing out there.
• 24:13
  In my experience, what I've seen people taking is way too much
• 24:16
  with a high risk. Get your liver functions
• 24:19
  monitored. At least do that and let the
• 24:22
  docs know what you're up to. Well folks, those two agents
• 24:26
  will be topics will approach at other times in regard to other
• 24:29
  disease states. You notice I didn't mention
• 24:32
  COVID with ivermectin, didn't you?
• 24:34
  Look, I may be done, but I'm not stupid.
• 24:37
  I'm not going to get shot in the head opening that one.
• 24:39
  Hey, you know what we've learned about COVID?
• 24:42
  The best treatment just might be chicken soup.
• 24:44
  I mean, The thing is a flu. And for most of y'all, it gets
• 24:48
  better. All right.
• 24:49
  And having kicked that can, we're going to move along, maybe
• 24:52
  pick that topic up another time. Thanks for your time.
• 24:56
  Look forward to our next conversation.