- 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: Ivermectin for Cancer Study Peer Reviewed and Published
Posted on 7/25/26 at 5:34 pm to onmymedicalgrind
Posted on 7/25/26 at 5:34 pm to onmymedicalgrind
quote:
Why post on a message board if you are this afraid of discussion?
Because I think you personally are a piece of shite human being and I'm not interested in discussing anything with you. And that's as far as I got in your post.
1
Posted on 7/25/26 at 5:35 pm to BoarEd
I have had my 87 year old parents taking it weekly since Covid after I wouldn't let them get vaccinated. Neither ever got covid and so far cancer free....
Make fun all you want, I will keep taking it.
Make fun all you want, I will keep taking it.
Posted on 7/25/26 at 5:35 pm to W2NOMO
quote:
Every time I entered ivermectin in ChatGPT it reply’s with COVID BS
Regressive science.
We had a scabies outbreak at my work around 2014. Staff Doctor ordered every patient and employee, you guessed it.
Ivermectin
Posted on 7/25/26 at 5:35 pm to BoarEd
quote:
Right. As I said. Stopped reading there though as I'm not interested in the rest of your shill spin.
I'm surprised you were able to read any of it.
And you still haven't made any effort at all to say why you'd trust patient self-reporting to determine if a patient's cancer is cured, when you have contact with that patient's doctor.
"Well the oncologist says the cancer's still there, but the patient says they feel pretty good, so that's a win."
But it's pretty clear you're not just misguided, you're willfully stupid.
This post was edited on 7/25/26 at 5:36 pm
Posted on 7/25/26 at 5:36 pm to TigerIron
quote:
And you still haven't made any effort at all to say why you'd trust patient self-reporting to determine if a patient's cancer is cured, when you have contact with that patient's doctor.
But it's pretty clear you're not just misguided, you're willfully stupid.
Take it up with the journal.
It's an obvious shill tactic to attack the messenger.
This post was edited on 7/25/26 at 5:37 pm
Posted on 7/25/26 at 5:39 pm to BoarEd
Some problems (though there are many more):
Most of the patients received conventional cancer treatment. They didn’t receive the combination of ivermectin and mebendazole in place of conventional treatment. They also don’t disclose how many got conventional cancer treatment. They don’t disclose the number that got both chemo and radiation or surgery and radiation, or any other combo, just radiation plus experimental, chemo plus experimental, etc.
They do not mention if the patients that received conventional treatment got the experimental drugs during their conventional cancer treatment, after it, and if it was after, how long after.
They did not compare those that received the experimental drugs and conventional cancer treatment vs those that got conventional treatment alone.
Prostate cancer was nearly 30% of the cohort. Most prostate cancer is a cancer you can live with, die with, and not die from. Self reported remission or stable disease can easily be skewed by just the prostate cancer population let alone some of the others in terms of time frame of progression within the observed 6 month time period.
Why is it self reported remission/stable disease? Why isn’t it oncologist reported? Also the remission/stable disease rate is 68% (not great). When you break that down to remission alone, it’s 32% (40 out of 122).
122 cancer patients (and that’s not a specific cancer, that’s various cancer types) is an incredibly small study population. If it was 122 of a specific type of cancer, then you’re getting into better territory of a study population.
Here’s your debunking of a dogshit study. Until an ivermectin vs standard of care study, or at least ivermectin plus standard of care vs standard of care alone, there is no good evidence. I’d love to see that done, there’s lots of folks looking into various repurposed vitamins and drugs for head and neck cancer, but no one’s tried ivermectin yet as far as I know.
Let’s be honest. If you were diagnosed with cancer, and you were offered ivermectin by itself vs the standard of care, which would you choose? What if it was the person you loved the most? I know what you’ll type from your keyboard. But I also know what you’d do in real life.
Most of the patients received conventional cancer treatment. They didn’t receive the combination of ivermectin and mebendazole in place of conventional treatment. They also don’t disclose how many got conventional cancer treatment. They don’t disclose the number that got both chemo and radiation or surgery and radiation, or any other combo, just radiation plus experimental, chemo plus experimental, etc.
They do not mention if the patients that received conventional treatment got the experimental drugs during their conventional cancer treatment, after it, and if it was after, how long after.
They did not compare those that received the experimental drugs and conventional cancer treatment vs those that got conventional treatment alone.
Prostate cancer was nearly 30% of the cohort. Most prostate cancer is a cancer you can live with, die with, and not die from. Self reported remission or stable disease can easily be skewed by just the prostate cancer population let alone some of the others in terms of time frame of progression within the observed 6 month time period.
Why is it self reported remission/stable disease? Why isn’t it oncologist reported? Also the remission/stable disease rate is 68% (not great). When you break that down to remission alone, it’s 32% (40 out of 122).
122 cancer patients (and that’s not a specific cancer, that’s various cancer types) is an incredibly small study population. If it was 122 of a specific type of cancer, then you’re getting into better territory of a study population.
Here’s your debunking of a dogshit study. Until an ivermectin vs standard of care study, or at least ivermectin plus standard of care vs standard of care alone, there is no good evidence. I’d love to see that done, there’s lots of folks looking into various repurposed vitamins and drugs for head and neck cancer, but no one’s tried ivermectin yet as far as I know.
Let’s be honest. If you were diagnosed with cancer, and you were offered ivermectin by itself vs the standard of care, which would you choose? What if it was the person you loved the most? I know what you’ll type from your keyboard. But I also know what you’d do in real life.
Posted on 7/25/26 at 5:43 pm to DavidStHubbins
quote:
I know what you’ll type from your keyboard. But I also know what you’d do in real life.
No you don't. I've actually been there. And what would I do? I would do ivermectin + fenbendazole. I would do radiation if an oncologist thought it might help, but I would refuse chemotherapy and would vehemently opposed the idea of immunotherapy.
Posted on 7/25/26 at 5:43 pm to BoarEd
Can't ever listen to Casey DeSantis but the Ivermectin cancer "cure" has been known for a long time. She wants to start pushing it as her husband thinks about a 2028 POTUS run.
She is more of an opportunist than Hilary!!
She is more of an opportunist than Hilary!!
Posted on 7/25/26 at 5:44 pm to TigerIron
quote:
I'm surprised you were able to read any of it.
Boared can’t read TD posts, you think he can read an actual study? If he can even get through the words with multiple syllables…you think he can synthesize the information to form a reasonable opinion?
Dude’s a smooth brained simpleton with internet access.
Posted on 7/25/26 at 5:44 pm to BoarEd
quote:
Because I think you personally are a piece of shite human being and I'm not interested in discussing anything with you. And that's as far as I got in your post.
Oh you are perturbed, my guy!
Posted on 7/25/26 at 6:03 pm to BoarEd
quote:
but I would refuse chemotherapy
You wouldn’t treat cancer with chemicals but you would treat it with …. chemicals?
Posted on 7/25/26 at 6:08 pm to SammyTiger
Did you have trouble comprehending what I wrote or what? Someone asked me a question and I answered it.
Posted on 7/25/26 at 6:09 pm to BoarEd
I saw that study also. The has been a lot of advances allowed to happen in cancer research lately that wasn't allowed before.
The was recently a bacteria discovered in the gut of a tree frog that cured cancer in mice and when they were injected with it and after it cured them they gave the mice small cancer tumors and those would establish.
Still not to human research level yet. But this could be huge. LINK
Quite a few others studies that I don't have at my fingertips right now.
Fingers crossed.
The was recently a bacteria discovered in the gut of a tree frog that cured cancer in mice and when they were injected with it and after it cured them they gave the mice small cancer tumors and those would establish.
Still not to human research level yet. But this could be huge. LINK
Quite a few others studies that I don't have at my fingertips right now.
Fingers crossed.
Posted on 7/25/26 at 6:09 pm to DavidStHubbins
These are good points. The editors also published this CYA:
quote:
Abstract
Regarding: Hulscher et al., “Real-world Clinical Outcomes of Ivermectin and Mebendazole in Cancer Patients: Results from a Prospective Observational Cohort,” Anticancer Research Vol. 46, No. 6, pp. 3243-3255, 2026. The Editorial Board of Anticancer Research is issuing an official Expression of Concern regarding the article cited above. The study was published purely as “hypothesis-generating", opening the discussion for repurposing of these substances, establishing the ground for future approved, randomized clinical trials. Following publication, serious scientific concerns were raised by the international medical community regarding the verifiability and statistical reliability, and ethical oversight of the underlying dataset. In formal correspondence to the journal dated June 4, 2026, the authors clarified that the study cohort was not drawn from an unverified consumer survey, but instead comprised “provider-screened cancer patients enrolled in a structured prospective cohort” managed via an internal clinical workflow and licensed provider consultations. While the Editorial Board acknowledges the authors' transparency regarding the text-level limitations of self-reported data, a study published in a peer-reviewed oncology journal that reports a “Clinical Benefit Ratio of 84.4%” and specific percentages of “tumor regression” must rest on a verifiably real clinical foundation and adhere to established ethical frameworks for human subject research to maintain its validity in the permanent scholarly record. Anticancer Research does not endorse or condone the unvalidated off-label use of medications for unapproved oncological indications. Disclosing limitations does not exempt a clinical dataset from the foundational scientific requirements of empirical verifiability and independent ethical oversight. Accordingly, based on the authors' confirmation of an established clinical provider-patient workflow, the journal is initiating a formal Post-Publication Data Integrity and Ethical Oversight Audit. This investigation will evaluate the mandatory Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval or exemption documentation, the de-identified, source-verified clinical records confirming the baseline cancer diagnoses of the 197 initial participants and the objective medical documentation supporting the reported anatomical regressions. This Expression of Concern will remain prominently appended to the publication record online and in all indexing databases while this formal data and ethical verification audit is underway.
Posted on 7/25/26 at 6:13 pm to BoarEd
For what kind of cancer? So you did choose ivermectin and fenbendazole, or you would? Because if you’re saying what you would do, that’s an easy thing to say from a keyboard. If you did do that, then I’ll have to take your word for it.
This also highlights the importance of what kind of cancer. Treatment for lymphoma is quite different from basal cell carcinoma. In one case I would absolutely undergo chemo. In the other, I would fire my doctor if that was the primary treatment (unless offering a hedgehog pathway inhibitor for metastatic or very advanced basal cell).
This study lumped a bunch of cancers together that have very different types of chemotherapy treatments, radiation treatments, surgical approaches, all with their own side effects, risks, benefits, etc. some of the cancers have very slow progression versus others that can be quite aggressive. It’s just a very poorly designed study.
I encourage them to keep trying. I can attest that there are many published studies in conventional journals that I think are very poorly done. We call them out too, they just aren’t talked about in mainstream media because they’re very niche.
This also highlights the importance of what kind of cancer. Treatment for lymphoma is quite different from basal cell carcinoma. In one case I would absolutely undergo chemo. In the other, I would fire my doctor if that was the primary treatment (unless offering a hedgehog pathway inhibitor for metastatic or very advanced basal cell).
This study lumped a bunch of cancers together that have very different types of chemotherapy treatments, radiation treatments, surgical approaches, all with their own side effects, risks, benefits, etc. some of the cancers have very slow progression versus others that can be quite aggressive. It’s just a very poorly designed study.
I encourage them to keep trying. I can attest that there are many published studies in conventional journals that I think are very poorly done. We call them out too, they just aren’t talked about in mainstream media because they’re very niche.
Posted on 7/25/26 at 6:15 pm to BoarEd
quote:
The LARGEST human ivermectin cancer study EVER done found 84.4% of patients declared their cancer had COMPLETELY DISAPPEARED, SHRUNK, or STOPPED PROGRESSING after 6 months.
This is very odd. Since when do studies only rely on what a cancer patient says about their cancer prognosis? It seems that the doctors treating the specific cancer would have been interviewed, with the data chronicled. And was there a link to the actual study? I may have missed it.
Posted on 7/25/26 at 6:17 pm to DavidStHubbins
quote:
For what kind of cancer?
I'll try to state this another way. If I were diagnosed with cancer tomorrow I would begin an anti-parasitic regimen and forego chemo and/or immunotherapy. If an oncologist thought radiation could help, I would do radiation. Other than that, I would stick with dietary changes and anti-parasitics. I don't know how to make it any more clear.
Posted on 7/25/26 at 6:21 pm to TigerDoc
As they stated themselves, they're publishing in order to help get the drug freed up for proper clinical trials. People can critique the study all they want, and that's fine, but at the end of the day it was still peer reviewed and published.
Posted on 7/25/26 at 6:27 pm to TigerDoc
quote:
This is the study: LINK You're right that self-reported outcomes isn't a usual methodology in cancer research. They usually use a well-accepted benchmark for measuring treatment response that includes biological paramaters for the relevant cancer.
The tweet in the OP is the definition of sensationalism meant to target the useful idiot. It clearly worked.
Page 3 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News