A new review of ivermectin and mebendazole research identifies 37 distinct classes of potential anticancer mechanisms across 25 human cancer types, according to Nicolas Hulscher, MPH, who reported the findings on October 20.
The 44-page paper, produced by researchers affiliated with the McCullough Foundation and The Wellness Company, synthesizes evidence from more than 100 studies.
What the review found
According to Hulscher, the review identifies 29 anticancer mechanisms associated with ivermectin and 26 associated with mebendazole, with overlapping pathways consolidated into 37 mechanism classes across both drugs.
The reported mechanisms span cancer-cell growth and division, programmed cell death, tumor blood-vessel formation, energy production, immune regulation and resistance to treatment.
The authors also describe activity in research involving 25 cancer types, including breast, colorectal, lung, prostate, pancreatic and ovarian cancers, as well as brain and blood malignancies.
Ivermectin and mebendazole act through different molecular pathways, the review argues, potentially making their effects complementary. Yet the authors acknowledge that no published preclinical study has directly tested the two-drug combination.
Clinical evidence remains limited
The review also discusses a randomized study involving 40 patients with metastatic colorectal cancer that investigated mebendazole alongside conventional treatment. The reported tumor response rate was 65% in the mebendazole group, compared with 10% among controls, while median progression-free survival was 9.25 months versus three months.
Those results concern mebendazole added to conventional treatment, not proof that ivermectin and mebendazole work together. Larger studies are needed to establish whether the findings can be replicated.
Hulscher also cites an earlier observational study of 197 cancer patients prescribed the drug combination, in which 122 completed six-month follow-up and reported outcomes were used to calculate an 84.4% clinical-benefit rate. That study was subsequently retracted, according to its PubMed record.
Researchers call for further trials
The review’s central contribution is its synthesis of possible mechanisms and research directions. The authors argue that randomized clinical trials should determine whether the laboratory findings translate into meaningful improvements in survival, tumor response or quality of life.
