Almost 17 years in the past, Dr. Mark Hoofnagle coined a time period, crank magnetism, to explain how believers in a single type of pseudoscience, quackery, and conspiracy principle nearly inevitably begin believing in a number of types of pseudoscience, quackery, and conspiracy theories. On the time, he was discussing how creationists have been interested in the arguments of HIV/AIDS denier Peter Duesberg as a result of they thought that these arguments one way or the other additionally undermined evolution as nicely. Again across the identical time, impressed by Dr. Hoofnagle’s time period, I observed so many extra examples. I’ll cite a number of, not a lot as a result of readers is perhaps accustomed to them (though some longtime readers may), however simply to indicate that crank magnetism, as new as it would appears to so lots of my colleagues who had by no means observed it earlier than, is, the truth is nothing new:
For instance, Phillip Johnson, one of many “luminaries” of the “clever design” creationism motion can also be a full-blown HIV denialist who doesn’t settle for the science that demonstrates that HIV causes AIDS. One other instance is Dr. Lorraine Day, who’s closely into doubtful different most cancers therapies and can also be a conspiracy theorist and Holocaust denier. Extra just lately a creationist, Johannes Lerle, was jailed as a Holocaust denier in Germany, and crank supreme Larry Fafarman proudly claims himself to be a “Darwin doubter” and a “Holocaust revisionist.”In the same vein, antivaccinationist Pat Sullivan, Jr. can also be a “Darwin doubter,” whereas common contributor at Invoice Dembski’s dwelling for ID sycophants Dave Springer (a.okay.a. DaveScot) not solely rejects the science of evolution in favor of the pseudoscience of ID, however can also be a international warming denialist crank and encourages unsupervised experimentation with an unproven anticancer agent by determined most cancers sufferers.
Sound acquainted? (As an apart, I additionally be aware that, till I began trying out all these hyperlinks to ensure they have been nonetheless stay or to substitute Archive.org or extra up-to-date hyperlinks, I hadn’t recognized that Dr. Day had handed away final November.)
A selected subset of crank magnetism applies to quacks and the antivaccine motion, examples of which I’ve mentioned pretty just lately in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic antivaccine motion, which has embraced “repurposed” medicine like hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, and fenbendazole as supposedly extremely efficient remedies for COVID-19. (They aren’t.) Particularly, I’m referring to the way by which more and more believers in these medicine have “found” that they will use them to deal with all method of illnesses, together with most cancers. For instance, a 12 months in the past I observed Dr. Tess Lawrie, a founding father of the British Ivermectin Advice Improvement (BIRD) Group, a gaggle that had teamed up with the US group the COVID Frontline COVID-19 Important Care Alliance (FLCCC) to vigorously promote ivermectin as a extremely efficient therapy for COVID-19 regardless of all proof on the contrary (together with primary pharmacokinetics), beginning to make the false declare that ivermectin may remedy superior most cancers; that’s, earlier than she went on to embrace homeopathy for COVID-19 and lengthy COVID. It didn’t take me lengthy to quip that ivermectin was turning into the brand new Miracle Mineral Resolution, a.okay.a. MMS, provided that quacks quickly began treating autistic youngsters with it, utilizing it as yet one more little bit of quackery of their “autism biomed” toolkit.
The purpose, apart from my oft-repeated mantra that “all the things outdated is new once more,” is that inevitably the embrace of 1 quackery will result in the embrace of others, however the corollary to this that I need to discuss now’s how there may be at all times an “indication creep” for quackery. As soon as quacks “uncover,” for example, that ivermectin “treats COVID-19,” it’s by no means lengthy earlier than they begin “discovering” that it could possibly deal with all method of illnesses till it turns into a cure-all. This can be a phenomenon that has accelerated with a vengeance for fenbendazole, which I first noticed popping up not that way back in ivermectin-like tales of “cures” for COVID-19 however is now a full-blown quack “most cancers remedy” being promoted in every single place. Particularly the odious blogger 2nd Smartest Man within the World (2SGitW) has been utilizing his Substack to persuade his readers that fenbendazole is a miracle remedy for superior most cancers, full with “miracle remedy” testimonials. Sadly, although, he isn’t alone.
Let’s begin with the article that caught my consideration over the weekend, Triple-Adverse Breast Most cancers Eradicated by Fenbendazole, by which 2SGitW brags, “Fenbendazole kills the most cancers cells liable for killing most cancers sufferers.” As I realized, it’s a followup to a most cancers remedy testimonial revealed every week earlier on the Substack by which 2SGitW massively exaggerated the the importance of some promising preclinical and lab research suggesting that fenbendazole might need anticancer exercise towards triple-negative breast most cancers written by somebody going below the ‘nym of BenFen, who claims to be a “retired College scientist who occurred throughout fenbendazole when a beloved one developed terminal most cancers” and runs a Substack that publishes most cancers remedy testimonials as a consequence of fenbendazole.
Extra curiously, it seems that fenbendazole repurposing has been a favourite “different most cancers remedy” since not less than 2017, if not earlier, however the rise of ivermectin and different dewormers as “cures” for COVID-19 resurrected fenbendazole as probably the most favored unproven medicine being bought as cures for most cancers within the age of the pandemic.
Fenbendazole versus triple unfavourable breast most cancers?
This explicit article caught my consideration as a result of I’ve lengthy been writing about how different most cancers remedy testimonials mislead, however much more so as a result of it includes my space of surgical specialty and analysis curiosity, breast most cancers. Earlier than I focus on the testimonial, let me simply evaluation what “triple unfavourable” breast most cancers is and the way it’s usually handled, as a way to see the distinction and maybe spot the frequent deceptive a part of this explicit testimonial.
After we characterize breast most cancers clinically, pathologists have a look at three totally different markers that information systemic drug remedy utilized in mixture with surgical procedure and radiation remedy to deal with it. The next is considerably simplified (however hopefully not an excessive amount of so). The primary two are the hormone receptor proteins for estrogen and progesterone, which roughly two-thirds of breast cancers make, rendering them responsive to those hormones for development. Extra importantly, the presence of those receptors signifies that the tumor may be handled with focused endocrine remedy that blocks estrogen utilizing medicine reminiscent of selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs) like tamoxifen or medicine that block the manufacturing of estrogen, reminiscent of aromatase inhibitors. The third marker is HER2, an oncogene that’s amplified in a subset of cancers. When a most cancers is HER2-positive, it may be successfully handled with medicine that concentrate on HER2, reminiscent of trastuzumab (Herceptin®), normally additionally with chemotherapy.
What makes triple unfavourable most cancers so problematic is that it lacks any of those three markers, which signifies that focused remedy isn’t doable. Furthermore, triple unfavourable breast most cancers (TNBC) tends to be extra aggressive, metastasize to bone, mind, lung, and liver, and recur earlier after therapy than hormone receptor-positive varieties. Usually, earlier than about 4 years in the past, the one systemic therapy that was efficient towards TNBC was normal cytotoxic chemotherapy with a routine referred to as ACT (Adriamycin-Cytoxan-Taxol). Nevertheless, after the KEYNOTE-522 trial was revealed in 2020, the usual of look after TNBC quickly modified to incorporate not simply chemotherapy however immunotherapy with pembrolizumab (Keytruda®). In short, the usual of care for many “curable” TNBCs (e.g., TNBC that has not unfold to distant organs) is the KEYNOTE-522 routine; i.e. neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy, normally with Taxol or one other taxane with carboplatin, plus pembrolizumab, with the pembrolizumab being continued after surgical procedure for a complete of a 12 months. It’s a routine that has pushed pathologic full response (pCR) charges to nicely over 60%, and pCR correlates with improved survival. (A pCR happens when there aren’t any detectable viable tumor cells within the resected specimen.) In short, the KEYNOTE-522 routine is essentially the most vital enchancment to the therapy of ladies with TNBC that I can recall since I began my profession as a breast most cancers surgeon within the Nineties.
With that background on how TNBC is often handled in 2024, let’s have a look at the anecdote, which was additionally revealed earlier on BenFen’s Substack, Fenbendazole can remedy most cancers. First, although, I’m going to level out that the blurb after the title is a touch:
No Chemotherapy or Radiation; Fenbendazole Solely = Full Remission
See the place that is going? As soon as once more, that is an instance of how these testimonials usually miss essential data. Let’s have a look, the place BenFen begins out with principally correct data earlier than the deceptive narrative takes off:
This Case Report is from a forty five 12 months outdated girl with metastatic Stage III triple-negative breast most cancers that had unfold to close by lymph nodes. Based on the Cleveland Clinic, triple-negative breast most cancers (TNBC) is an particularly harmful type of invasive breast most cancers, accounting for 15% of all invasive breast most cancers circumstances. In contrast to most breast cancers, triple-negative breast most cancers cells don’t have receptors for estrogen and progesterone. As a result of the sort of breast most cancers doesn’t have the hormone receptors utilized by the present medicine to assault most breast cancers, the prognosis may be very poor utilizing conventional remedies like chemotherapy. Recall that receptors are molecules on cells’ surfaces that decide what substances can connect to cells and have an effect on what the cells do. Triple-negative breast most cancers cells don’t have these receptors, so the standard chemotherapies used to focus on breast most cancers cells by their hormone receptors don’t work. So there’s a dire want to search out remedies that truly work.
Discover how the phrase “metastatic” is used. Right here, BenFen is clearly attempting to indicate that that is an incurable most cancers. Nevertheless, by definition stage III is not incurable; somewhat, it’s thought of domestically superior and due to this fact probably nonetheless curable. Furthermore, whereas it’s true that “conventional chemotherapies used to focus on breast most cancers cells by their hormone receptors” don’t work towards TNBC, the way in which this assertion is phrased is deceptive. We usually don’t name such remedies “chemotherapy.” Slightly, we name them “endocrine” or “hormonal” remedy, as what’s being mentioned on this sentence are medicine like tamoxifen or aromatase inhibitors. I understand that pedants may attempt to counter that, sure, endocrine remedy is certainly a subset of chemotherapy should you imply the extra common definition of “chemotherapy” by which it refers to any chemical/pharmaceutical remedy, however the usage of the phrase on this method was clearly intentional and meant to indicate that chemotherapy doesn’t work. Whereas the KEYNOTE-522 routine is a serious enchancment within the therapy of TNBC, the chemotherapy routine used earlier than this research did work. It’s simply that TNBC, by its nature, tended to develop resistance and recur; nevertheless, we nonetheless managed to “remedy” giant numbers of ladies with TNBC utilizing the “outdated” routine courting again many years.
Now, let’s have a look at the precise testimonial:
I used to be recognized with Stage III*, Triple Adverse Breast Most cancers in October of 2022 after noticing some modifications on the pores and skin of my breast and a few ache within the space. Mammogram, CT scan and biopsy confirmed that it was breast most cancers….triple-negative breast most cancers. I had stage 3 triple unfavourable breast most cancers involving my lymph nodes, the worst one to get, and it (fenbendazole) labored for me.
The most cancers had unfold to the close by lymph nodes and was inflicting the pores and skin on my breast to discolor. I took Protected-Guard (fenbendazole [2SG: PetDazole is 3rd party tested pharmaceutical grade fenbendazole that is offered at a less expensive price-point]) for 14 weeks, began the three days on, 4 days off protocol that I examine for in regards to the first 7 weeks. Then elevated from 1 field every week (every field has 3 packets), to a field and a half (about 5 packets of 222 mg every) per week.
The very first thing I observed was my pores and skin clearing up, the small spots on my breast disappeared at about 11 weeks after beginning fenbendazole. This was the 222mg dose. No unwanted side effects in any respect.
My recommendation, take fenben, and don’t cease. At the least not till it’s gone. I’ve been cancer-free for nearly 16 months. Better of needs to all of you!
L. Ok. T., Tucson AZ, December 5, 2023
I be aware that the “*” did result in an admission that this was not stage IV most cancers tacked onto the very finish of the publish:
*Stage III: At this stage, the most cancers has unfold past the purpose of origin. It could have invaded close by tissue and lymph nodes, nevertheless it hasn’t unfold to distant organs. Healthcare suppliers could use the time period “domestically superior breast most cancers” to explain Stage III most cancers.
Now, let’s have a look at this in a bit extra element. Discover how LKT doesn’t point out in any respect whether or not she had surgical procedure or not, however BenFen pointedly states “no chemotherapy or radiation” (emphasis mine). Absolutely, if the lady had not had surgical procedure, BenFen would have included it within the blurb, given how advocates of unproven most cancers therapies at all times like to emphasise the standard remedies not used. I additionally observed somewhat rapidly that surgical procedure was neglected of the complete anecdote as nicely, which led me to marvel: What type did this “biopsy” take? Was it a core needle biopsy, which is essentially the most generally used type of biopsy for breast most cancers now? A core needle biopsy, usually guided by ultrasound or mammography, makes use of a big needle to take tissue cores from the tumor, leaving the tumor intact. In distinction, an excision biopsy removes the entire mass and may in some circumstances be healing by itself as a result of the mass is eliminated. (Critically, I’m getting acid flashbacks to my very early days discussing “most cancers remedy” testimonials practically twenty years in the past.) In any case, most probably this ladies underwent surgical procedure of some kind, refused chemotherapy and radiation remedy, after which attributed her luck to the fenbendazole somewhat than the standard therapy. We will’t know, although, as a result of the anecdote leaves out key data that might enable an inexpensive evaluation.
I needed to search out out extra; so I began doing a little Googling. I failed to search out extra on this ladies’s story, though there’s a closed Fb group that I encountered (Triple Adverse Breast Most cancers Fenbendazole) that is perhaps hers, though most likely not provided that it seems to have been impressed by a 2016 story that confirmed me that the “repurposing” of fenbendazole for most cancers goes again not less than to 2017. So I perused a few of the different testimonials on FenBen’s Substack. One latest testimonial jogged my memory very a lot of Chris Wark of Chris Beast Most cancers fame, by which a stage III colorectal most cancers was cured with surgical procedure alone however the individual making the testimonial attributed his luck to the quackery chosen, on this case fenbendazole. One other testimonial got here from a girl with colon most cancers metastatic to the liver. After all, any surgical oncologist can inform you that it’s doable to resect some liver metastases for colorectal most cancers and produce long-term survival, and that’s what this girl seems to have undergone. She additionally underwent further chemotherapy and surgical procedure, with the tumors reportedly “returning,” though it isn’t stated how they have been recognized or whether or not they have been ever biopsy-confirmed.
Yet one more anecdote concerned a affected person including fenbendazole to chemotherapy and radiation for esophageal most cancers after which attributing the disappearance of the tumor to—you guessed it!—the fenbendazole, even going as far as to refuse the really helpful surgical procedure (esophagectomy) after which explicitly saying so:
Q: Do you suppose the chemo/radiation did the trick or was it the mix of chemo/radiation + fenbendazole?
A: I assume a mixture however lean closely towards the fenbendazole. Right here’s why. The medical doctors have been fairly shocked (after the most cancers was gone from their remedies). They needed to do surgical procedure after their chemo/radiation remedies to take away the esophagus and a part of his abdomen as a result of they didn’t consider the chemo/radiation would get all of the most cancers. We refused the surgical procedure. Esophageal most cancers may be very aggressive, I consider it didn’t unfold past the one lymph node as a result of we caught it early with fenbendazole.
Let’s put it this manner. A pathologic full response (pCR) as a consequence of neoadjuvant chemoradiation for squamous cell esphogeal most cancers is far from unprecedented, notably for a tumor of the sort described within the anecdote, particularly, with unfold to a single regional lymph node. For instance, this collection quotes a pCR charge of over 40% for multimodality neoadjuvant remedy of squamous cell carcinomas of the esophagus. Principally, it was the chemoradiation that cured this affected person, not the fenbendazole added to the routine, however, as is typical, the affected person attributed her luck to not the standard remedy however to the unproven therapy chosen, conceding that, at most, it might need been the “mixture” of the fenbendazole plus the standard neoadjuvant remedy. I additionally be aware that for many cancers, attaining a pCR is related to a a lot better prognosis. I additional be aware that oncologists and surgeons are actively investigating whether or not sufferers who obtain what seems like a pCR after neoadjuvant remedy can safely forego surgical procedure, and, if that’s the case, which sufferers.
Why are testimonials so convincing?
Principally, there are various the explanation why different most cancers remedy testimonials are convincing. Certainly, let’s evaluation a number of frequent options of other most cancers remedy testimonials—hat tip to a longtime reader—that make them unreliable as proof that the remedies tried had any impact:
- Misunderstanding of the pure historical past of most cancers and survivorship bias. Some cancers, together with colon most cancers, can have a extremely variable pure historical past. Keep in mind that median survival means nothing greater than that half of sufferers die earlier than the median and half after. One instance that I prefer to level out is a 1962 research of survival in ladies with untreated breast most cancers at Middlesex Hospital in England from 1805-1933 that reported a median survival of two.7 years, however an extended “tail,” with a handful of survivors out so far as 15 years. Many occasions in these testimonials, the prognosis given (or heard) is way too pessimistic (e.g., “I used to be despatched dwelling to die”) and didn’t take into consideration the pure variability of most cancers. Within the circumstances of colon and breast most cancers, for example, our most cancers institute has sufferers who’ve survived a number of years and are doing nicely. There’s a critical survivorship bias in these testimonials as a result of, as I prefer to say, lifeless sufferers don’t give testimonials. Additionally, after they say the “physician was amazed,” generally that’s extra of a sign of a physician that’s inexperienced with most cancers than with an consequence far exterior of the realm of the anticipated.
- Complicated adjuvant remedy for definitive remedy and misattributing their survival to quackery. There’s an entire subgenre of other most cancers remedy testimonials by which the affected person giving the testimonial have undergone surgical procedure for a stable tumor—once more, generally breast or colorectal—underwent healing surgical procedure for the most cancers however then refused adjuvant remedy, be it chemotherapy, endocrine remedy, immunotherapy, or radiation remedy in favor of no matter quackery they selected. (Examples embody Chris Wark, Suzanne Somers, and plenty of others.) Inevitably, in the event that they survive they attribute their luck to the quackery, to not the definitive surgical procedure that cured them, forgetting that the adjuvant remedy solely decreases the possibility of relapse after surgical procedure and that surgical procedure was what cured them. Typically, as Chris Wark did, they acknowledge this argument however then discover a motive to say that “surgical procedure by no means cures sufferers like me.”
- Misdiagnosis by quacks. Plenty of different most cancers testimonials characteristic failure to really diagnose most cancers by accepted methodology, substituting as a substitute diagnoses by quacks utilizing unscientific methodology that doesn’t embody an precise tissue analysis from a pathologist.
- Basic vagueness. One factor. that I’ve realized coping with different most cancers remedy testimonials like these is that I’ve been deconstructing fort twenty years is that the testimonials are practically at all times frustratingly imprecise from an oncological standpoint in a method that makes it very troublesome to inform precisely what the affected person had, how the tumor was handled, what the true stage really was, and extra. I’ve used my coaching as a surgical oncologist and most cancers surgeon to deduce from these testimonials what the true scenario most likely was, however one can by no means be certain.
- Outdated testimonials. Though happily this isn’t the case (but) for any of those sufferers, usually the final word consequence of those sufferers is demise. Nevertheless, testimonials usually have an afterlife and stay on, promoted by quacks lengthy after the affected person has died and not using a point out that the affected person did in the end die of most cancers.
There are extra options along with these, however when inspecting any different most cancers remedy testimonial, listed here are a number of helpful questions:
- Was the most cancers nonetheless current when the choice remedy was began? (Once more, usually surgical procedure eradicated the most cancers, and the affected person is complicated remedy with adjuvant remedy designed to lower the chance of relapse.)
- Had been all remedies disclosed? I forgot to say above that usually not all typical remedies are described in these testimonials. Typically, I solely discover out {that a} affected person had surgical procedure by doing a deep Google dive to search out all of the appearances and interviews that I can, and even then I solely discover it talked about in passing on social media posts by the affected person.
- Was there ever a biopsy proving the existence of most cancers? Had been there dependable scans proving metastasis? You’d be shocked at how usually the reply to at least one or each of those questions is not any.
You’ll find many of those components and questions in just about each fenbendazole testimonial introduced, together with one which hasn’t proven up on FenBen’s Substack (not less than not so far as I’ve been capable of inform) however did go viral earlier this 12 months as a result of it was featured on the podcast of comic Jim Breuer.
However what in regards to the science?
As is commonly the case with unproven remedies for most cancers, advocates like to attempt to persuade you that there’s a number of scientific proof to assist them and make the “miracle remedy” testimonials extra believable. BenFen is not any exception and apparently has used his background to attempt to summarize the proof for fenbendazole as an anticancer agent. That is my territory too, as I’ve spent a variety of years investigating whether or not the repurposing of an FDA-approved drug for one more indication can lead to efficient remedies for breast most cancers, and right here’s what I can pretty say. There’s preclinical proof within the type of cell tradition research and animal tumor research that counsel that fenbendazole may have anticancer exercise in people. What I may also pretty say is that there’s nothing within the preclinical proof introduced to counsel that, even when fenbendazole does have vital anticancer exercise, it may ever be moderately anticipated to provide the kinds of “miracle cures” described on his Substack.
FenBen begins out by summarizing a bit about what is understood about most cancers stem cells after which goes on to wildly over interpret the preclinical proof for fenbendazole towards breast most cancers:
A latest 2022 research within the scientific journal Breast Most cancers Analysis discovered that mebendazole (fenbendazole)1, a protected, available, cheap, side-effect free drugs that has had many years of favorable security and efficacy information, prevents and eradicates triple-negative breast most cancers and in addition prevents the event of metastases by decreasing the probability of Most cancers Stem Cells growing in distant areas.
Do you know that every one most cancers cells aren’t created equal? There’s a course of whereby most cancers cells change, both as a consequence of remedies supposed to assist, genetics, and/or the passage of time (most probably an interplay of a number of above-named components, and different components but to be recognized), whereby most cancers cells turn into extra deadly (Brash, 2019 for instance). Based on Greaves & Maley (2012) most cancers chemotherapy kills some tumor cells, however usually creates chemotherapy resistant clones. Most cancers Stem Cellsare of explicit concern as a result of these cells carry out most cancers initiating and propagating capabilities which might be traits of metastatic unfold from one location to a different (Greaves & Maley, 2019). Most most cancers deaths are brought on by these spawned cells, therapeutically resistant to standard remedies, that then colonize and disrupt the functioning of distant organs.
The half about most cancers stem cells is correct sufficient, so far as it goes, though I might level out that not everybody is totally down with the concept of “most cancers stem cells,” preferring to view them extra as a renaming of the lengthy recognized heterogeneity of most cancers cells, particularly the subpopulations that produce metastasis and resistance. Don’t get me incorrect. The controversy about most cancers stem cells and their function in most cancers development and resistance is extremely technical and sophisticated, and I don’t need to oversimplify. I simply point out it to level out that BenFen is overselling his level, which he continues to do with this paragraph:
A chic collection of experiments from the Riggin’s lab at Johns Hopkins College has demonstrated that physiological doses of mebendazole (fenbendazole) eradicated varied types of breast most cancers, together with triple-negative breast most cancers, and, most vital to this explicit Substack article, mebendazole additionally was efficient in decreasing or eliminating distant organ metastases (Joe et al., 2022).
Let’s simply say that the phrase “eradicated” is doing quite a lot of heavy lifting right here, however let’s have a look at the particular reference, Joe et al, as a result of it’s the one which BenFen cites most extensively. Let’s put it this manner. Sure, the paper does present that mebendazole seems to have antitumor results towards TNBC in preclinical fashions, nevertheless it removed from demonstrates that the drug “eradicates” TNBC, characterised by BenFen within the conclusion thusly:
There’s a lot to unpack right here however let’s not get off the primary path: it definitely seems that there’s overwhelming proof that mebendazole (fenbendazole) eradicates most cancers.
Discover one thing? BenFen retains conflating mebendazole and fenbendazole as if they have been the identical drug. Though associated, they aren’t the identical drug; so BenFen’s citing a research about mebendazole as if its outcomes would additionally apply to fenbenedazole is profoundly misleading. Even different most cancers remedy advocates level this out:
For a few years, scientists have been researching the anti-cancer advantages of benzimidazole anthelminthics, like mebendazole. The exercise towards gliomas was initially found by accident when scientists observed that mice, that have been being handled with fenbendazole for pinworm infections, confirmed a resistance to the glioma grafts they got. In different phrases, when the mice have been taking fenbendazole, their our bodies rejected the tumors that have been injected into them! As astounding as that is, subsequent analysis confirmed a lot better efficiency with mebendazole and albendazole. Shortly after, two totally different research confirmed prolonged survival in GBM animal fashions, as much as a 63% improve within the common survival time.
Compared, survival was not considerably elevated within the animals handled with fenbendazole. That is most likely as a consequence of low bioavailability and the truth that it doesn’t cross the blood mind barrier nicely and due to this fact, cytotoxic doses don’t accumulate close to the most cancers cells.
Earlier cell research present mebendazole inhibits glioma cells by way of disrupting microtubule formation. The drug binds to tubulin and prevents mitosis within the most cancers cells. Subsequent animal and human research have corroborated this. We do NOT have the identical supporting information with fenbendazole!!
On the finish of his publish, after having cited all kinds of research of mebendazole and easily equating it with fenbendazole, BenFen even admits:
Fenbendazole vs. Mebendazole vs. Albendazole vs. Flubendazole: The benzimidazoles are very comparable chemically they usually have very comparable mechanisms of motion with respect to disrupting microtubule operate, particularly outlined as binding to the colchicine-sensitive web site of the beta subunit of helminithic (parasite) tubulin thereby disrupting binding of that beta unit with the alpha unit of tubulin which blocks intracellular transport and glucose absorption (Guerini et al., 2019). If somebody asks you ways fenbendazole kills the most cancers cells, the reply is in italics within the earlier sentence.
The category of medication generally known as benzimidazoles contains fenbendazole, mebendazole, albendazole and flubendazole. Mebendazole is the shape that’s permitted for human use whereas fenbendazole is permitted for veterinary use. The principle distinction is the price. Mebendazole is pricey ~$555 per 100 mg capsule, whereas fenbendazole is cheap ~48 cents per 222 mg free powder dose (Williams, 2019). As it’s possible you’ll recall, albendazole is the shape used to deal with intestinal parasites in India and these value 2 cents per capsule. FYI, as an instance how People are screwed by Large Pharma, two capsules of mebendazole value simply $4 within the UK, 27 cents per 100 mg capsule in India and $555 per 100 mg capsule within the US.
Whereas a lot of the pre-clinical analysis makes use of mebendazole, most likely as a result of it’s the FDA-approved-for-humans type of fenbendazole, just about the entire self-treating scientific studies contain the usage of fenbendazole. As a result of the preclinical most cancers research use mebendazole (mockingly the human type of fenbendazole) and people self-treat their cancers with fenbendazole (the animal type of mebendazole) it is rather affordable to imagine that mebendazole and fenbendazole are practical equivalents with respect to most cancers. It might be useful if future investigations merely used fenbendazole as a sensible matter. For the needs of this Substack, fenbendazole, mebendazole and albendazole are used interchangably.
No, you possibly can’t simply assume {that a} associated drug might be as efficient because the drug you’re speaking about. You simply can’t. Positive, it’s not unreasonable to imagine that fenbendazole most likely has comparable results as mebendazole, however so many issues may impression that primarily based on the pharmacology of the person medicine, together with absorption, serum half-life, maximal achievable concentrations within the serum, toxicity profile, and so many different issues. Heck, the investigators who revealed the research cited by BenFen used a supply system that blended the mebendazole with a particular sesame oil provider blended with a excessive fats eating regimen. They even speculated that elevated bioavailability and absorption of the drug, due to this provider, was why their outcomes had been higher than beforehand revealed outcomes by one other group.
None of this stops BenFen from proclaiming on the finish of his publish:
Now we have a remedy for most cancers. What’s missing is the braveness and political will to use that information in an altruistic method to assist those that desperately can’t wait.
In any occasion, nothing cited by BenFen about mebendazole really demonstrates this. Antitumor exercise towards the cell strains examined? Sure. “Eradicating” TNBC? Not a lot. A “remedy for most cancers”? Positively not.
Check out what I imply in Determine 1. It’s OK; you don’t want to know all of it, simply a few of it:
I’m accustomed to all of those cell strains and have extensively used the MDA-MB-231 cell line, a continuously used mannequin for TNBC. The favorable discovering within the determine above (panel A) is that mebendazole has an IC50 (the focus that inhibits the expansion of the cells by 50%) that’s lower than 1.0 micromolar (μM). That’s fairly good and inside an appropriate vary for additional investigation. Panel B exhibits that solely a proportion of the cells get well after a 48 hr therapy with mebendazole at varied concentrations. One curious factor about Panel D that I observed is that this: Why did they miss the 0.1 μM dose and go straight from 0.05 to 1 μM? That struck me as a bit odd, however no matter. Extra outcomes proven in Figures 2 and three are that the drug decreases cell migration, inhibits cell cycle development, and induces programmed cell demise, all fascinating traits for any anticancer drug.
Now let’s have a look at Determine 4:
Panels A-C present how a lot various doses of mebendazole blended with the mouse feed inhibited the expansion of MDA-MB-231 xenografts in NOD-SCID Gamma (NSG) immunodeficient mice. Figures G-J present how a lot the routine decreased metastases to liver and lung, notably liver, the place it was very efficient in stopping metastasis. (Determine 5 did mainly the identical experiments with 4T1, a mouse mammary tumor cell line that may be grown in immunocompetent mice.) Extra experiments present that the drug decreases the expression of genes related to the most cancers stem cell phenotype in addition to indicators of the phenotype itself. All of those outcomes counsel that repurposing the drug might be efficient in people, however not in the way in which the FenBen claims.
There’s only one drawback. The drug examined isn’t febendazole. Certainly, a more moderen research inspecting the impact of febendazole on breast most cancers cell strains discovered that the IC50 for the drug for the MDA-MB-231 cell line is 10.5 μM, or over 100-fold—sure, 100-fold!—higher than the IC50 for mebendazole towards this cell line within the research cited by BenFen. That may be a focus that might be very troublesome, if not not possible, to securely obtain in people.
The authors of the research put it this manner (BC=breast most cancers; MBZ=mebendazole):
TNBC is essentially the most difficult BC subtype to deal with and leads to larger mortality because of the excessive incidence of metastatic circumstances and paucity of therapy choices. Most sufferers with BC would survive their illness if metastasis might be prevented. Our preclinical outcomes confirmed that MBZ diminished metastasis with no unwanted side effects in mice, and it’s nicely tolerated in people even at larger doses and for longer durations than utilized in mice [27]. Given this security profile, MBZ is a candidate for long-term use and should have promise as adjuvant remedy following surgical resection to stop BC metastasis. Future research contemplating the addition of MBZ to the usual of care therapy are warranted with a view to advance MBZ in scientific trials for sufferers with breast most cancers.
That is the way in which most such medicine are examined and their utilization superior. Certainly, this podcast by BreastCancer.org that includes Brian Wojciechowski, MD discussing fenbendazole tells the story in an simply comprehensible style. Notably fascinating to me was how scientists famous the “sign” that the drug might need antitumor exercise:
What was taking place a pair years in the past, they did a research at Johns Hopkins. They’d these mice that have been fully immunosuppressed. They’d no immune system, so these mice could be inoculated with tumors. As a result of there was no immune system, the tumors would develop simply within the mice, after which the most cancers researchers may take a look at varied most cancers medicine towards these tumors. So have been they testing fenbendazole towards the tumors? No. Truly, the fenbendazole, as a result of it was an anti-parasitic, was really being given to the mice of their meals…
…they usually observed that those that acquired the fenbendazole, the tumors wouldn’t develop. So then they began testing, you understand, giving some mice fenbendazole, and a few mice didn’t get fenbenzadole, they usually discovered that there was an actual sign there. The fenbendazole appeared to be serving to to kill these tumors in these mice.
We additionally study that fenbendazole is an inhibitor of microtubules, which is analogous to a mechanism by which Taxol, for example, reveals anticancer exercise. Does that imply fenbendazole works? No. Nor does it imply that it doesn’t work both. There may be pretty promising preclinical proof for fenbendazole and associated medicine, however no good human proof, and anecdotes of the type promoted by BenFen don’t depend.
What I like is how Dr. Wojciechowski tackles the granddaddy of all anecdotes for these medicine, which are sometimes blended collectively in protocol popularized by a person named Joe Tippens and is also known as the Tippens protocol, which along with fenbendazole included curcumin and cannabidiol oil. Mr. Tippens had a nasty most cancers and survived, attributing his luck to his protocol. Right here’s what Dr. Wojciechowski says about it:
Yeah, so small-cell lung most cancers metastatic is a devastating illness, and on common folks stay solely about 9 to 12 months with that specific most cancers. However each oncologist has seen a small proportion of individuals, say perhaps 5%, who stay as much as 5 years with this illness. And there might be quite a lot of totally different causes for that. Even inside small-cell lung most cancers, everyone seems to be totally different, and everybody will reply to totally different remedies in numerous methods. So one chance, in fact, is that fenbendazole works. Okay? We will’t low cost that chance. The opposite chance is that the opposite chemo medicine that he was on, which even have antimicrotubular actions — for instance, Taxol, which has antimicrotubular actions identical to fenbendazole, so if he was on that drug you need to ask, perhaps it was the Taxol that did it, which has comparable properties. It’s arduous to know for certain. I’m not his physician, and I don’t know the small print of his case, however my sufferers ask me about these kind of issues on a regular basis. And I’m not going to face in anybody’s method. I’m not going to say you possibly can’t take X, Y, or Z remedy. However however, folks ask me for my recommendation primarily based on my expertise and experience. And when sufferers ask me about these items, it normally goes one thing like this: Effectively, it hasn’t been studied in human beings, so we don’t know if it helps. But it surely’s nearly as vital that we don’t know if it’s dangerous both. I might by no means need to suggest to my sufferers something that I used to be unsure about, particularly when there are different medicines and coverings which do have good research and we do have quite a lot of good information and data as as to whether or not it helps and what the unwanted side effects are.
This is a superb summation of the issues concerned in interpretation of anecdotes like this. As well as, I came upon one thing about Joe Tippens that I hadn’t heard earlier than:
The fenbendazole scandal was an incident whereby false data that fenbendazole, an anthelmintic used to deal with varied parasites in canine, cured terminal lung most cancers unfold amongst sufferers. It began with the declare of American most cancers affected person, Joe Tippens, however somewhat grew to become sensational in South Korea. It brought on nationwide confusion and led to fenbendazole being bought out at pharmacies throughout the nation in South Korea. Opposite to what the folks know, nevertheless, Joe Tippens was a participant within the Kitruda scientific trial on the MD Anderson Most cancers Middle, and his enchancment was more likely to be the impact of immuno-cancer medicine.
Sound acquainted? (Additionally, this is identical drug that was used within the KEYNOTE-522 protocol for TNBC.) Elsewhere:
There may be nonetheless no complete strategy. And J retains on going. It is very important be aware a number of issues. J is on Keytruda as nicely. His oncologist at MD Anderson is unwilling to commit that it’s the fenbendazole is making the distinction.
After all not. No accountable oncologist, a lot much less one employed at one of many premiere most cancers facilities on this planet, would conclude that fenbendazole is what “cured” Joe Tippens. Furthermore, I be aware that it’s not simple to find this details about Joe Tippens in any respect; I’ve solely discovered a few sources so far, and it took appreciable Googling. (Identical because it ever was.) Simply return to my part on the kinds of questions it is advisable to ask everytime you see an alternate drugs most cancers remedy testimonial.
Fenbendazole: The brand new laetrile?
As I wrote this, I assumed that perhaps I had been too harsh on fenbendazole. By that I don’t imply that I believe it may presumably produce the miracle remissions described within the anecdotes I’ve mentioned. What I do imply is that the drug does have some preclinical proof (e.g., this research revealed in November that confirmed exercise towards one form of lymphoma in mice however not one other and this research that confirmed exercise towards MDA-MB-231 cells) that implies that it is perhaps repurposed successfully to deal with some cancers; it’s simply that there isn’t any human scientific trial proof but that I’ve been capable of finding. Laetrile, however, had a a lot sketchier degree of preclinical proof, as I recall. Certainly, preclinical research failed to search out any proof of anticancer exercise attributable to laetrile in mice. After all, our good friend BenFen has a built-in excuse for why even the mebendazole research that he cited wasn’t much more spectacular:
(It is very important be aware that a number of of the experimental protocols used right here weren’t optimized to kill all of the TNBC cells, solely to impair their development or unfold for the needs of the particular experiment).
See? Scientists weren’t actually attempting, now, have been they? I imply, in the event that they have been, they’d purchase into BenFen’s hypothesis that the rationale most cancers charges in growing nations are decrease than in developed nations is as a result of so lots of them must take anthelminthic drugs as a consequence of how frequent worm infestations are there. It couldn’t presumably be as a result of the populations are youthful and die extra generally of illnesses not associated to getting old, like most cancers, may it?
Nonetheless, I don’t suppose that the comparability is fully unwarranted. Even when fenbendazole is discovered to have clinically helpful anticancer exercise in people, it received’t be as a single agent. As Dr. Wojciechowski associated, the following step in testing the drug could be so as to add it to recognized current regimens to find out if its addition can enhance outcomes; that’s, after cautious part I testing by which the utmost tolerated dose in most cancers sufferers is assessed. Additional research could be primarily based on current preclinical research and a cautious consideration of which take advantage of scientific sense so as to add the drug to.
Lastly, I can safely make a few predictions. First, no single drug is a miracle remedy for any most cancers, which signifies that even when fenbendazole is validated in scientific trials towards most cancers it is going to not be prescribed as a single agent. Second, if fenbendazole is validated as an efficient anticancer agent in scientific trials, its contribution to most cancers survival might be incremental, not miraculous. I like to recollect how within the Nineties, after I was however a wee graduate pupil and postdoc, angiogenesis inhibitors have been touted as a close to “remedy” for most cancers that might flip most cancers right into a continual and manageable illness. (Really, this was a heady time on this planet of most cancers analysis.) What occurred as a substitute is that Avastin (for instance) produced an incremental enchancment in outcomes for some cancers when added to current therapy regimens and didn’t work in any respect for others. That’s the finest {that a} science-based perspective would predict for fenbendazole; both that, or it doesn’t work in people. Time will inform, however within the meantime these most cancers remedy testimonials are doing what such testimonials at all times do: Produce false hope in most cancers sufferers.
