← Back to Blog

What if some of the most effective — and affordable — tools against cancer had been quietly reclassified, dismissed, and buried not because they didn't work, but precisely because they did? This is not a conspiracy theory. It is a documented pattern, traceable through FDA regulatory history, peer-reviewed oncology journals, and the careers of physicians who paid a heavy professional price for following the evidence.

The Parasite–Cancer Connection

The relationship between parasitic infection and cancer is not new science — it is old science that has been systematically marginalised. In the 1950s, German physician Dr. Alfons Weber documented the efficacy of anthelmintic (anti-parasitic) compounds against tumours. In the 1980s, Dr. Hulda Regehr Clark built on this work, publishing research proposing that parasites — specifically intestinal worms and their associated pathogens — play a causative or promotional role in cancer development.

Both were ridiculed. Clark's work in particular was aggressively dismissed by mainstream oncology — her books banned, her findings labelled quackery. The question worth asking, decades later, is not whether their methods were perfect. It is why the hypothesis was never seriously investigated by the institutions with the resources to do so.

What the Biology Actually Suggests

The parasite-cancer hypothesis has a coherent biological basis. Chronic parasitic infection creates persistent inflammation — and chronic inflammation is one of the most well-established drivers of cellular mutation and tumour development. Parasites also suppress immune surveillance, the mechanism by which the immune system identifies and destroys aberrant cells before they become cancerous.

Additionally, certain parasites and helminths share biochemical pathways with rapidly dividing cells — including cancer cells. This is precisely why compounds designed to disrupt parasite reproduction also appear to interfere with tumour cell proliferation. The mechanism is not metaphorical. It is molecular.

The World Health Organization already acknowledges that certain parasites are classified as Group 1 carcinogens — Helicobacter pylori (stomach cancer), liver flukes (cholangiocarcinoma), and schistosomes (bladder cancer) among them. The leap from "parasites can cause cancer" to "anti-parasitic drugs may help treat it" is not a large one. It has simply been an inconvenient one.

The Reclassification: A Question Worth Asking

In the 1970s, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration undertook a regulatory reclassification of certain anti-parasitic drugs that had been prescribed to humans, redesignating them as veterinary-only compounds — suitable for dogs, horses, and livestock, but no longer for people.

Among those reclassified: fenbendazole — a benzimidazole compound widely used as a dog dewormer. Ivermectin, though technically approved for some human use in parasitic conditions, was progressively marginalised from mainstream medical prescribing in wealthy nations where pharmaceutical revenues were highest, even as it continued to be used extensively in developing world public health programmes.

The Revenue Question

Chemotherapy and radiation treatment constitute one of the most profitable sectors in global medicine. The global oncology drugs market was valued at over $200 billion in 2023 and is projected to exceed $500 billion by the early 2030s. A single course of chemotherapy can cost tens of thousands of dollars.

Fenbendazole costs approximately $5 for a course. Ivermectin, even at brand-name pricing, is a fraction of the cost of a single chemotherapy infusion. Neither can be patented in their generic forms — meaning no pharmaceutical company can hold exclusive rights to profit from them.

This is not an accusation. It is a financial reality. And it is the context within which the regulatory history of these compounds must be read. The question — was the reclassification of cheap, effective anti-parasitic drugs a deliberate act to protect multi-trillion dollar chemotherapy revenues? — is not a hysterical one. It is the obvious one.

The Three Drugs at the Centre of the Conversation

Ivermectin

Originally developed as an anti-parasitic, ivermectin's anti-cancer mechanisms have been documented in over 70 peer-reviewed studies. It inhibits the P-glycoprotein drug efflux pump (which cancer cells use to expel chemotherapy), disrupts cancer cell mitosis, activates programmed cell death (apoptosis), and modulates the tumour microenvironment to reduce immune evasion. Dr. William Makis has documented numerous cases of cancer regression — including stage 4 cancers — in patients using ivermectin as part of a repurposed drug protocol.

Fenbendazole

The compound at the centre of the Joe Tippens story — perhaps the most famous anti-cancer anecdote in the repurposed drug movement. Tippens was given three months to live with stage 4 small cell lung cancer that had metastasised throughout his body. He began taking fenbendazole (a dog dewormer) alongside vitamin E succinate. Within three months, his cancer was gone. His oncologists called it a "spontaneous remission." The mechanism — disruption of tubulin polymerisation, inhibition of glucose uptake in cancer cells, and induction of apoptosis — is well-documented in cell and animal studies.

Mebendazole

A human-approved anthelmintic (used for pinworm, roundworm, and other parasitic infections) that shares fenbendazole's benzimidazole structure and mechanism. Multiple peer-reviewed studies — including from Johns Hopkins — have investigated mebendazole's anti-tumour activity in brain cancer, colon cancer, and other malignancies. It is the most academically studied of the three, precisely because it was never fully removed from human prescribing, making trials easier to conduct.

The Mechanism They Share

All three compounds disrupt microtubule formation — the cellular scaffolding that both parasites and rapidly dividing cells (including cancer cells) require to replicate. They also impair glucose metabolism in cancer cells (which rely heavily on glycolysis — the Warburg effect), and trigger apoptotic pathways. The overlap between anti-parasitic and anti-cancer activity is not coincidental. It is mechanistic.

📹 Video Reference

Dr. Kathleen Ruddy (breast surgeon) and colleagues on the safety and efficacy of ivermectin in cancer treatment — video to be embedded here when located.

The Physicians Who Paid the Price

The history of anthelmintic cancer treatment is inseparable from the history of professional persecution. The physicians who have most actively investigated and applied these compounds have, without exception, faced institutional retaliation:

Dr. Alfons Weber

Germany · 1950s

Documented anthelmintic efficacy against tumours in the 1950s. His work was largely suppressed and never entered mainstream oncological literature despite his clinical observations.

Dr. Hulda Regehr Clark

USA · 1980s–2000s

Published extensive research on the parasite-cancer connection. Her books were banned in the US, her clinic shut down, and she was prosecuted. She continued her work in Mexico until her death in 2009.

Dr. William Makis

Canada · Present

Nuclear medicine physician and oncologist. Documents ivermectin and fenbendazole cancer reversal cases extensively on Substack. Has faced sustained professional attacks, licence investigations, and institutional pressure for publishing his findings publicly.

Dr. Kathleen Ruddy

USA · Present

Breast surgeon and vocal advocate for ivermectin's anti-cancer potential. Has publicly stated that ivermectin is safe and effective, and has called for proper clinical investigation of repurposed antiparasitic drugs in oncology.

Joe Tippens

USA · 2016–Present

Not a physician — a patient. His stage 4 lung cancer reversal using fenbendazole (the "My Cancer Story Rocks" blog) triggered a global wave of self-experimentation and research interest that academic oncology has never formally acknowledged.

Multiple Oncologists

Globally · Ongoing

Numerous oncologists worldwide have quietly incorporated repurposed antiparasitic drugs into treatment protocols. Most do so without publishing, for obvious professional self-preservation reasons. Their patients' outcomes remain undocumented in the official literature.

Nature's Anti-Parasitic Foods — and Their Anti-Cancer Properties

Here is where the evidence becomes particularly compelling — and particularly inconvenient for those who would dismiss the parasite-cancer connection as fringe. The foods that science has identified as the most potent natural dewormers are, almost without exception, also among the most documented anti-cancer foods. This is not coincidence. It is mechanism.

Garlic Black Walnut Pumpkin Seeds Cloves Oregano Wormwood Papaya Seeds Turmeric

Garlic (Allium sativum)

Allicin — garlic's primary bioactive compound — has documented antiparasitic, antifungal, antibacterial, and anti-tumour properties. Multiple studies confirm its ability to inhibit cancer cell proliferation, induce apoptosis, and reduce tumour angiogenesis (the formation of new blood vessels that feed tumours). It is simultaneously one of the oldest known dewormers and one of the most extensively studied anti-cancer foods.

Black Walnut (Juglans nigra)

Juglone — the active compound in black walnut hull — has demonstrated antiparasitic activity against intestinal helminths and protozoa, and has shown cytotoxic activity against cancer cell lines including breast, lung, and colon cancer in laboratory studies. Traditionally used by Indigenous North American healers as both a dewormer and a treatment for skin tumours.

Pumpkin Seeds (Cucurbita pepo)

Cucurbitacin — found in pumpkin seeds — paralyses parasitic worms, facilitating their expulsion. The same compound has demonstrated anti-proliferative effects in cancer cell studies, inhibiting cell migration and invasion. Rich in zinc, which is critical for immune surveillance and DNA repair — both key in cancer prevention.

Wormwood (Artemisia absinthia)

Artemisinin — derived from Artemisia annua, a close relative of wormwood — is the compound for which Tu Youyou won the 2015 Nobel Prize in Medicine for its anti-malarial properties. Artemisinin has also shown remarkable selective cytotoxicity against cancer cells, exploiting their high iron content to generate free radicals internally. Currently under serious investigation as an anti-cancer agent in multiple research centres globally.

Cloves (Syzygium aromaticum)

Eugenol — cloves' primary compound — has documented anthelmintic properties and has demonstrated anti-cancer activity including inhibition of tumour cell proliferation, induction of apoptosis, and suppression of inflammatory pathways. Cloves also contain the highest known antioxidant concentration of any food, providing systemic oxidative stress reduction.

Oregano (Origanum vulgare)

Carvacrol and thymol — oregano's primary bioactives — have demonstrated antiparasitic activity against Giardia, Blastocystis, and other common gut parasites. Both compounds have shown anti-tumour properties in cell studies, with carvacrol in particular demonstrating the ability to induce apoptosis in breast, lung, and liver cancer cell lines.

The convergence point: When the same natural compounds that eliminate parasites also demonstrably inhibit cancer cell growth — and when the synthetic drugs designed to do the same job also show anti-tumour activity — the hypothesis that parasites and cancer share biological vulnerability is not a fringe idea. It is the most parsimonious explanation of the evidence.

A Timeline of Suppression

The history of anthelmintic cancer research is also a history of institutional resistance. Key moments:

The Insulin Connection: Why Metabolic Health Matters

One further dimension deserves attention — and it connects directly to the previous post on legs, glucose, and longevity. Cancer cells are obligate glucose consumers. They rely almost exclusively on glycolysis — the fermentation of glucose — for energy, even in the presence of oxygen. This is the Warburg effect, described by Otto Warburg in 1924 and for which he won the Nobel Prize in 1931.

Insulin resistance and chronically elevated blood glucose create the precise metabolic environment that cancer cells thrive in — an abundance of their preferred fuel, combined with the chronic inflammation that insulin resistance generates. This is why the epidemiological link between type 2 diabetes, obesity, and cancer risk is so strong and so consistent across cancer types.

The practical implication: Avoiding insulin resistance is not just a metabolic health goal — it is a cancer prevention strategy. A diet low in processed carbohydrates, regular lower-limb exercise to clear glucose efficiently, and maintaining healthy body composition are among the most evidence-supported anti-cancer lifestyle interventions available. They cost nothing. They have no side effects. And they are almost never discussed in oncology consultations.

The Question That Needs to Be Asked

This post does not claim that ivermectin or fenbendazole cure cancer. The clinical trial evidence at scale does not yet exist — in large part because no pharmaceutical company has a financial incentive to fund trials for compounds they cannot patent, and because the physicians who have attempted to document their use have faced systematic professional consequences for doing so.

What this post does claim is that the evidence trail — from the 1950s to the present, from cell studies to Nobel Prize-winning mechanisms to documented patient cases — is substantial enough to demand serious, independent investigation. The fact that this investigation has not happened, despite decades of suggestive evidence, is itself a story. And it is a story about money, not science.

The foods that deworm also protect against cancer. The drugs that kill parasites also appear to kill tumour cells. The physicians who acted on this evidence were persecuted. The compounds were reclassified. And a multi-trillion dollar industry continued uninterrupted.

Draw your own conclusions. But draw them from the evidence.

For Informational Purposes

Nothing in this post constitutes medical advice. The information presented here is shared for educational and informational purposes — consistent with the right of individuals to access published research and documented clinical observations and draw their own informed conclusions.

If you or someone you care for is managing a cancer diagnosis, please work with a qualified medical team. The approaches discussed here — particularly the repurposed drug protocols — are being used by naturopathic physicians and some oncologists globally, but are not yet part of standard care guidelines. Anyone considering these approaches should do so in full consultation with their healthcare provider, with awareness of potential drug interactions and individual contraindications.

The suppression of promising research is a documented phenomenon. So is the harm caused by unvalidated self-treatment. Both truths can be held simultaneously.

Healthy Habits With You  ·  healthyhabitswithyou.com