- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
2
Posted on 3/10/26 at 1:01 pm to Rip Torner
quote:Which ironically it's not relevant to the studies we're talking about. Those studies used killed parasite preparations, not anti-parasitic agents.
anti parasitic medications aren’t a viable treatment for cancer.
Posted on 3/10/26 at 1:02 pm to AlterEd
quote:
I get what you're saying here, but I wonder how that would work for a drug like ivermectin
Ed, this isn’t aimed at you but is just a convenient place to insert this info from a Rad-Onc I asked about this thread…
quote:
Medical Oncologist are paid physician fees for the dosing, delivery, and monitoring that is needed while someone gets chemo, which is different drug to drug, and much more complicated than a rx to a pharmacy. Think room full of armchairs and IV’s going w/ potential for cardiac arrest and seizures from the drugs ongoing. That is akin to cardiologist getting paid for the followup appointments and billing for EKGs etc. I dont know about the ONLY part. They are not restricted to discuss other treatments at all. But ivermectim/febendazole is the bane of our lives these days. There is zero real data that is does anything. And simply put, whoever was making money or benefiting politically/etc from recommending it for covid patients just pivoted to desperate cancer patients when the covid well dried up. (That history should be suspicious enough). Despite that, people still pay the internet thousands for it when they have curable cancers, and then they show up in hospital having seizures bc their curable cancer spread to their brain on ivermectin and they beg to go back to what we offered at stage 1. We couldnt even talk XXXX out of taking it. Made her so sick she had to stop her other proven treatments, and subsequently as you know has bone metastasis. I have this convo weekly at least.
quote:
It simply does not work but snake oil salesmen have generated internet anecdotes and fabricated research that is crap. Not one oncologist has seen a patient w improvements on them alone. And the ones that take it alongside their real treatments then just give all the credit to ivermectin, just like rogan did for his covid, while also taking steroids etc and improving over time.
Posted on 3/10/26 at 1:02 pm to NC_Tigah
Correct, they are very difficult on your liver. Even taking Lamisil for toe fungus can be very dangerous for people with liver issues and has led to numerous lawsuits
Posted on 3/10/26 at 1:05 pm to Penrod
Correct, and it may be effective in combination with other drugs but I would question the competency of an oncologist that had anyone solely on ivermectin or any singular treatment outside of surgery
Posted on 3/10/26 at 1:07 pm to NC_Tigah
Ok, so I stand corrected here. Thank you.
But in any event, the work was quickly abandoned and now it's finally being studied again. Thankfully.
But in any event, the work was quickly abandoned and now it's finally being studied again. Thankfully.
Posted on 3/10/26 at 1:07 pm to Rip Torner
quote:Right, but Lamisil is not an anti-parasitic drug. Anyway, the damage referenced in those studies was from killed parasite preparations. Not from a drug per se.
Correct, they are very difficult on your liver. Even taking Lamisil for toe fungus can be very dangerous for people with liver issues and has led to numerous lawsuits
Posted on 3/10/26 at 1:09 pm to AlterEd
quote:hopefully it will show fruitful results.
the work was quickly abandoned and now it's finally being studied again. Thankfully.
Posted on 3/10/26 at 1:10 pm to Rip Torner
quote:
Correct, they are very difficult on your liver.
Fenbendazole certainly is and it needs to be taken with Tudca. My wife was on fenbendazole for about 8 or 9 months all told and we knew to pay attention to her liver functioning in her labs. The fenbendazole never hurt her liver because we were sure to keep taking Tudca along with the fenbendazole.
The dangers are known and can be mitigated.
Posted on 3/10/26 at 1:10 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Replication attempts produced weak or inconsistent results, i.e.,
No significant tumor regression
Effects only in specific transplanted mouse tumors
Results that could not be reproduced consistently
Toxicity problems appeared in animals
Further testing showed that KR extracts could produce serious systemic toxicity, including damage to liver, spleen, and kidneys. The KR preparation of deactivated Trypanosoma cruzi extract contained powerful endotoxin-like inflammatory compounds which proved highly toxic, not just to the tumor, but to the host
Great find.That actually fits the pattern pretty well - early mouse results get attention, then replication and toxicity issues show up once people try to push it further. Threads like this are a good reminder of why replication and follow-up work matter so much in biomedical research.
Posted on 3/10/26 at 1:12 pm to bbvdd
quote:
I'm not totally sure that I could point to a single positive thing the CIA has done for this country in the last 30 years.
The entire point of the organization is for you not to know about them or their activities. You won't hear about any good things they happen to do until decades later, if at all.
Posted on 3/10/26 at 1:15 pm to Indefatigable
quote:Osama bin Laden agrees
The entire point of the organization is for you not to know about them or their activities. You won't hear about any good things they happen to do until decades later, if at all.
Posted on 3/10/26 at 1:15 pm to Penrod
quote:
I suspect you are correct, but I wish you would elaborate.
His whole fictional schemata regarding how drugs get into patients hands makes no sense. It’s not like physicians “sell pills” at the end of their visit. Prescriptions are written, drugs are dispensed. The contention that somehow oncologists are the one group who operate under a different system is quite fantastical.
Posted on 3/10/26 at 1:22 pm to Penrod
quote:
There is money in the cure. Plus there is fame, Nobel Prizes, going down in history. These people who think cures are being withheld are nuts.
Correct. It’s the folly of thinking of “big Pharma” like some united monolith. Sure, would a company (or division of a company) that makes nothing but insulin shots love diabetes being cured for their bottoms line? Probably not
But I’m sure the horse and carriage lobby wasn’t particularly excited about the model T either. If there’s a market for something, innovation will always be attempted. And my goodness, I couldn’t imagine many bigger markets than for the cure for cancer.
Posted on 3/10/26 at 1:28 pm to Rip Torner
quote:
I will spell it out plainly, anti parasitic medications aren’t a viable treatment for cancer.
I've presented more than enough evidence to prove this wrong already in this thread, but here's another.
quote:
Mebendazole is an anthelmintic drug introduced for human use in 1971 that extends survival in preclinical models of glioblastoma and other brain cancers.
NIH
quote:
Conclusion
Mebendazole at doses up to 200 mg/kg demonstrated long-term safety and acceptable toxicity.
This post was edited on 3/10/26 at 1:33 pm
Posted on 3/10/26 at 1:34 pm to AlterEd
quote:
preclinical
Posted on 3/10/26 at 1:36 pm to onmymedicalgrind
quote:
preclinical
quote:
Twenty-four patients (18 glioblastoma and 6 anaplastic glioma) were enrolled with a median age of 49.8 years. Four patients (at 200 mg/kg) developed elevated grade 3 alanine aminotransferase (ALT) and/or aspartate transaminase (AST) after 1 month, which reversed with lower dosing or discontinuation. Plasma levels of mebendazole were variable but generally increased with dose
quote:
onclusion
Mebendazole at doses up to 200 mg/kg demonstrated long-term safety and acceptable toxicity. Further studies are needed to determine mebendazole’s efficacy in patients with malignant glioma.
They're effective and they can be administered safely. As I said, the risks are known and can be mitigated.
Saying they aren't viable options is simply inaccurate and you know it.
Posted on 3/10/26 at 1:37 pm to AlterEd
quote:
Conclusion Mebendazole at doses up to 200 mg/kg demonstrated long-term safety and acceptable toxicity.
Ahh this is clever. Why not include the entire conclusion from the abstract! It’s only two sentences. Here, I’ll help you out. I’m sure it was just an honest mistake on your part:
quote:
Conclusion Mebendazole at doses up to 200 mg/kg demonstrated long-term safety and acceptable toxicity. Further studies are needed to determine mebendazole’s efficacy in patients with malignant glioma.
Posted on 3/10/26 at 1:38 pm to onmymedicalgrind
quote:
Why not include the entire conclusion from the abstract! It’s only two sentences.
Because the question was whether or not they are viable options. My job is to show that they are effective and can be administered safely. Both of which are true and blows the idea that they aren't "viable" out of the water. Which was what I took contention with. That's why.
Posted on 3/10/26 at 1:39 pm to AlterEd
quote:
They're effective
Hmmm
quote:
Further studies are needed to determine mebendazole’s efficacy in patients with malignant glioma.
Seems like we haven’t even gotten to efficacious, yet alone “effective.”
Page 12 of 16
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News