BBC Lies by Omission in Its Latest Attack on Ivermectin Cancer Treatment

Written by John O’Sullivan CEO Principia Scientific International on August 5, 2026. Posted in Current News

The BBC just published ‘an investigation’ into the sale of fenbendazole and ivermectin as unproven cancer treatments. They spin a clear narrative: unlicensed drugs, dangerous sellers, and vulnerable patients being misled. The problem? It is a classic case of BBC lying by omission.

What the BBC Got Right

To be fair, the BBC accurately reported the lack of human clinical trials. As the article notes, Macmillan Cancer Support stated there was “zero real-world clinical evidence” to back up claims about these drugs. Consultant oncologist Martin Rolles confirmed there were “no good human trials…for use against cancer”.

But as we skeptics know, we won’t soon see any ‘good human trials‘ because to fund them means the megabucks profits made from Big Pharma’s extortionate cancer treatments would be at risk if a cheap, repurposed drug had a better outcome.

The BBC also fairly highlighted legitimate risks from mis-adventurous self-dosing, e.g. documented severe drug-induced liver injury in a woman self-administering fenbendazole for a precancerous skin lesion, or the cirrhosis patient who took the drug based only on anecdotal reports. That’s fair.

These are important warnings. No serious scientist would recommend self-medicating with unregulated substances. But there is a growing international army of well-credentialed, medically-qualified licenced medical professionals to turn to for advice about using these drugs wisely. No mention of them at all.

Not a peep about the likes of Paul Marik, MD: highly cited expert in intensive care, nor about Peter McCullough, MD, MPH (photo, above): cardiologist who gained prominence as a COVID-19 contrarian, etc. Because to speak of them would open up a co-conspiracy can of worms the defenders and enablers of mass murder, population control and corporate crime cannot allow.

To even hint these esteemed dissenters exist would diminish the well-worn ‘ill-informed crank’ scenario the BBC usually sells.

The Omission That Changes Everything

But here’s where the BBC’s reporting becomes gravely misleading. The article mentions, almost dismissively:

 “While some trials exist into their anti-cancer properties”. It also acknowledges “some anti-cancer data from testing fenbendazole using mice”.

What it fails to clarify is just how promising this preclinical research has become.

The Research the BBC Ignored

In May 2025—just three months before the BBC article—a peer-reviewed study published in Molecules demonstrated that fenbendazole significantly suppressed tumor growth in cervical cancer models. The results were striking: 100% survival in fenbendazole-treated mice versus 0% in untreated controls. The drug induced G2/M cell cycle arrest and triggered apoptosis in both cancer cells and cancer stem cells—the very cells responsible for treatment resistance and recurrence.

This isn’t fringe science. This is published, peer-reviewed research in an established journal.

Similarly, a February 2025 study in Anticancer Research found that ivermectin combined with another agent showed 9.9-fold greater efficacy against breast cancer cells than ivermectin alone. The researchers concluded this combination is “a promising strategy for breast cancer requiring further preclinical and clinical evaluation”.

The Scientific Gray Area

The BBC presents a definitive narrative: these drugs are dangerous, unproven, and without merit. But the reality is more nuanced.

Fenbendazole’s mechanism—inhibiting microtubule polymerization—is actually similar to established chemotherapy drugs like vinca alkaloids and taxanes. This is why researchers are studying it. The drug has also shown activity against non-small cell lung cancer, breast cancer, colorectal cancer, hepatocellular carcinoma, melanoma, and leukemia in laboratory settings.

Ivermectin, meanwhile, is an FDA-approved human medication for parasitic infections with established safety profiles at approved doses. Its anticancer potential, while unproven in humans, is supported by legitimate preclinical research.

The Difference Between Omission and Lying

Is the BBC lying? No. It’s reporting facts (cherry-picked). By selectively presenting those facts, it creates a misleading impression for gullible fools who can’t see that Britain’s national broadcaster deals in propaganda.

By omitting the legitimate scientific research that gives these drugs credibility in the first place, the BBC fails to explain why patients are drawn to them—and dismisses the possibility that, under proper clinical supervision, these drugs might one day have a role in cancer treatment.

The Bottom Line

No one should self-medicate with veterinary drugs. The hepatotoxicity risks are real. But to report on this topic without honestly contextualizing the legitimate preclinical research is to mislead by omission.

Science progresses through gray areas. The BBC’s black-and-white narrative does a disservice to both patients seeking hope and scientists asking legitimate questions about drug repurposing.

original BBC story: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0m7wvpwjzeo [Paul Heaney and Sian Vivian, 4 August 2026]

About the author: John O’Sullivan is CEO and co-founder (with Dr Tim Ball among 45 scientists) of Principia Scientific International (PSI).  He is a seasoned science writer, retired teacher and legal analyst who assisted skeptic climatologist Dr Ball in defeating UN climate expert, Michael ‘hockey stick’ Mann in the multi-million-dollar ‘science trial of the century‘. From 2010 O’Sullivan led the original ‘Slayers’ group of scientists who compiled the book ‘Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory’ debunking alarmist lies about carbon dioxide plus their follow-up climate book. His most recent publication, ‘Slaying the Virus and Vaccine Dragon’ broadens PSI’s critiques of mainstream medical group think and junk science.