- 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
re: CIA Kept Soviet Cancer Research Classified for 64 Years
Posted on 3/9/26 at 3:22 pm to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 3/9/26 at 3:22 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
You just hit step 3
I never said it was a frickin cure, dipshit. I brought the article over because it contains interesting information.
You lie like most people frickin breathe. It's literally all you ever do.
Posted on 3/9/26 at 3:25 pm to Swazla
quote:
Not onlu Fenbendazole but Ivermectin.
I'll just put it this way. After having been through this myself with my wife, if I ever come down with cancer I know what my plan will be. Both ivermectin and fenbendazole. I will not go with radiation or chemotherapy.
This post was edited on 3/9/26 at 3:31 pm
Posted on 3/9/26 at 3:27 pm to AlterEd
quote:
There are lots of them out there at this point.
Exactly. Very, very many.
How should researchers choose which to pursue most aggressively?
Posted on 3/9/26 at 3:31 pm to TigerDoc
quote:
How should researchers choose which to pursue most aggressively?
By which ones work. You're a doctor. Presumably you've read the studies. Can you clear it up for the class? Do fenbendazole and ivermectin fight cancer?
Posted on 3/9/26 at 3:37 pm to AlterEd
Short answer: there’s no good evidence they treat cancer in terms of matching or beating standards of care. The reason you see lots of papers exploring ideas like that is because cancer research throws a huge number of hypotheses into the pipeline. Most of them look interesting early on but only a tiny fraction actually survive clinical trials and beat existing treatments.
Posted on 3/9/26 at 3:42 pm to TigerDoc
quote:
Short answer: there’s no good evidence they treat cancer in terms of matching or beating standards of care
This doesn't answer the question. The claim that I've been arguing against for 4 pages now is that they don't work against cancer - period. Is that true or not? Because I can find you about 30 more links that says they do.
Now, as far as the rest of it goes, they obviously need to do more studies on this. More robust studies. This idea is still just a few years old. Once the process is complete it is my opinion that they will prove much better than the current standards of care, but we can't know that just yet.
And anecdotally, I also know a guy who was diagnosed with terminal stomach cancer and given 6 months to live over 10 years ago. Still going strong and he keeps it at bay solely with fenbendazole. It was actually his story that convinced my wife to try fenbendazole.
This post was edited on 3/9/26 at 3:45 pm
Posted on 3/9/26 at 3:47 pm to AlterEd
The honest answer is that there’s no good clinical evidence right now that they treat cancer in people.
That’s different from saying nobody has ever found interesting signals in lab or animal studies. You can find papers like that for thousands of compounds - cancer cells are actually very easy to kill in a dish.
The real test is whether something makes it through clinical trials and beats the current standard of care in patients, and that’s where most promising ideas fail.
So when someone says “they don’t work”, what they usually mean is they haven’t been shown to work in clinical trials yet, which is the bar medicine uses to recommend treatments to people like your wife.
That’s different from saying nobody has ever found interesting signals in lab or animal studies. You can find papers like that for thousands of compounds - cancer cells are actually very easy to kill in a dish.
The real test is whether something makes it through clinical trials and beats the current standard of care in patients, and that’s where most promising ideas fail.
So when someone says “they don’t work”, what they usually mean is they haven’t been shown to work in clinical trials yet, which is the bar medicine uses to recommend treatments to people like your wife.
Posted on 3/9/26 at 3:53 pm to TigerDoc
quote:
The honest answer is that there’s no good clinical evidence right now that they treat cancer in people.
False.
quote:
This report highlights 3 cases of patients with advanced cancer – including breast, prostate, and melanoma. Two patients achieved complete remission, and one achieved near-complete remission after incorporating FBZ into their treatment regimens alongside other therapies (excluding chemotherapy). All three patients tolerated FBZ without any reported adverse effects, and remission was sustained during follow-up periods ranging from 11 months to nearly 3 years.
quote:
FBZ demonstrates potential as a novel promising therapeutic option for repurposing in oncology. Its ability to contribute to tumor regression and achieve disease remission warrants further clinical research to establish its efficacy and optimize its use.
National Institute of Health
It's one thing to say we need more robust studies, but it is dishonest to say there isn't evidence that it works in humans.
Posted on 3/9/26 at 3:58 pm to AlterEd
Can Ivermectin be used for prostate cancer treatment????
Posted on 3/9/26 at 3:59 pm to TigerDoc
quote:
Short answer: there’s no good evidence they treat cancer in terms of matching or beating standards of care.
How about for Covid???? Seems that was an issue years ago...
Posted on 3/9/26 at 4:00 pm to AlterEd
Yeah, that's fair. Case reports are near the starting point of the funnel we were talking about earlier. Doctors notice something unusual in a few patients and publish it so researchers can look into it further. But by themselves they can’t tell you whether the drug caused the remission or whether something else did. That’s why treatments only become standard after controlled trials show they actually improve outcomes compared with existing therapies. An oncologist wouldn't generally recommend a drug at that stage of development for a cancer that has decent treatment outcomes at extending life/quality of life.
Posted on 3/9/26 at 4:00 pm to dafif
Go pull some data on that and we can learn together.
Posted on 3/9/26 at 4:06 pm to dafif
quote:
Can Ivermectin be used for prostate cancer treatment????
I don't see how it could hurt. It is a safe drug to take. It is now sold over the counter here in Arkansas and other places. It can be taken alongside traditional therapies as well. As can fenbendazole. If someone were to take fenbendazole though, like I said earlier, we discovered that the biggest drawback to fenbendazole is that it's harsh on the liver and should be taken with Tudca.
I would also recommend listening to an oncologist and not just abandoning traditional therapies. I only spoke earlier about what I would do if I came down with cancer.
Also, there is a support group on Facebook called something like "fenbendazole support group." I would recommend someone finding that group and getting in touch with those people as they have people there who have been treating people with these things for awhile now. You can find regimens to follow. Different vitamins and nutrients and things. It's worth doing the research.
This post was edited on 3/9/26 at 4:08 pm
Posted on 3/9/26 at 4:18 pm to AlterEd
Did Russia proceed with this research and if so what was the outcome?
Posted on 3/9/26 at 4:22 pm to Cosmo
quote:
They dont work on cancer
There are studies on ivermectin for anti-cancer properties including metastatic triple negative breast cancer that killed my SIL…
quote:
Recent findings: Preclinical studies (in vitro and animal studies) demonstrate Ivermectin's anticancer effects, including inhibition of cancer cell proliferation, induction of apoptosis, and modulation of signaling pathways (e.g., Wnt/ß-catenin, Akt/mTOR) across various cancers. However, clinical evidence in humans is limited, with no large-scale randomized controlled trials (RCTs) confirming therapeutic benefits.
Posted on 3/9/26 at 4:27 pm to doubleb
quote:
Did Russia proceed with this research and if so what was the outcome?
No. Not significantly. And you'll never believe why. frickin Stalin had the people that were conducting this research shut down and put them on trial for cooperating with the Americans.
Posted on 3/9/26 at 4:30 pm to AlterEd
quote:
No. Not significantly. And you'll never believe why. frickin Stalin had the people that were conducting this research shut down and put them on trial for cooperating with the Americans.
Another example as to why you should never rely on government. Two governments, two opposing systems, and neither took the ball and ran with it.
Posted on 3/9/26 at 4:34 pm to doubleb
quote:
Another example as to why you should never rely on government. Two governments, two opposing systems, and neither took the ball and ran with it.
Exactly. It's almost as if there is a nefarious agenda behind it.
Popular
Back to top


0




