The Problem of Cancer Drugs that don’t make enough money
The National Library of Medicine (NLM) has historically faced pressure from pharmaceutical industries to limit access to certain research, particularly when it concerns low-cost drugs that could potentially disrupt the lucrative cancer treatment market
This pressure has manifested in various ways, including the suppression of studies on drugs like fenbendazole, ivermectin, mebendazole, and albendazole, which have shown promise in cancer treatment.
Fenbendazole, ivermectin, and mebendazole are antiparasitic drugs that have gained attention for their potential anticancer properties. These drugs have been studied in various contexts, showing efficacy against multiple cancer types, including breast, colon, lung, and hematologic malignancies ^1,2,3^.
For instance, pooled data from cancer patients receiving ivermectin for parasitic infections revealed 100% tolerance of standard antiparasitic doses, supporting further exploration of these drugs in cancer therapy ^1^.
Despite the promising results, robust prospective data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are often lacking, which can be attributed to the high cost and time required to conduct such trials.
Pharmaceutical companies, which often fund these trials, may have a vested interest in promoting more expensive treatments. As a result, clinicians are cautioned to prioritize trial enrollment for patients interested in these treatments ^1^.
The safety and efficacy of these drugs have been demonstrated in preclinical studies and case reports, but the lack of large-scale clinical trials means that their full potential in cancer treatment remains under-explored.
For example, a phase I/II trial evaluating ivermectin and balstilimab in metastatic triple-negative breast cancer reported encouraging clinical benefit rates, but until more data are available, caution is advised ^1,3^.
Moreover, the cost disparity between these drugs and conventional cancer treatments is significant. Mebendazole, for instance, is expensive, costing around $450 per pill, while fenbendazole is much more affordable, at approximately 48 cents per dose ^4^.
This price difference highlights the economic incentives at play, where pharmaceutical companies stand to lose substantial revenue if cheaper alternatives gain widespread acceptance.
The suppression of research on these drugs can also be seen in the limited availability of information on their mechanisms of action and clinical applications. While some studies have been published, the overall body of research is not as extensive as it could be, given the potential benefits these drugs offer ^5,6^.
In summary, the firewall erected by pharmaceutical industries at the National Library of Medicine has effectively shielded the public from accessing comprehensive research on low-cost drugs like fenbendazole, ivermectin, mebendazole, and albendazole, which have shown potential in cancer treatment.
This suppression is likely driven by economic interests, as these drugs pose a threat to the profitability of more expensive, patented cancer treatments.
See more here substack.com
Header image: European Pharmaceutical Review
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Tom
| #
Screw that. How about the cancer drugs that offer nothing much in the way of a cure? That’s about 98% of them no matter how much their prices are inflated.
Reply
Saeed Qureshi
| #
“These drugs have been studied in various contexts, showing efficacy against multiple cancer types, including breast, colon, lung, and hematologic malignancies.”
But one could see it differently: these drugs are not treating cancer at all, but rather infections—the very purpose for which they were originally developed and approved. In this sense, I have long argued that cancer is often a misdiagnosed or mislabeled condition. Its true nature may frequently be microbial infection, particularly parasitic, as suggested by the case of ivermectin treatment.
So please, doctors, do not relabel ivermectin as a “cancer drug.” Leave it as it is. If it works, use it for its intended purpose. There is no need for new clinical trials or further regulatory approval.
Unfortunately, many physicians are not trained to analyze such situations critically. They simply follow the latest fad: “Here comes cancer, let’s treat it with ivermectin.” Then comes the call for funding—money for research that they are neither trained nor qualified to conduct. Inevitably, this cycle leads to failed trials and wasted resources.
This misdiagnosis is not primarily the fault of industry or government authorities—who, after all, are largely influenced and run under physicians’ guidance—but of the physicians themselves. Too often, they pursue funding and fame under the banner of “scientific research,” despite lacking the necessary education, training, and scientific credentials. It should be noted that most medical training focuses on observing symptoms (with or without diagnostic tests) and writing prescriptions—nothing more in most cases.
Reply