Please read this @Jane_Williamson I doubt your oncologist have this on their list but some have had outstanding results using it with, rather than instead of the other treatments.
Except that not licensed for human use in France I believe.
Or in the UK either but others have used it and its been a very good outcome. Big pharma cannot make any new money as its out of patent now, so not it seems interested in re purposing it. Sadly big business and humanity are getting rarer.
1 Like
it was an interesting read… but, unless I’ve lost the plot, the report does say that there is still work to be done to improve the Fenbendazole before considering it suitable for humans.
I’m in favour of anything which gives cancer patients a better chance… and hope this does so, eventually.
1 Like
Ah yes the slight tweeking of the formula so they can re patent it and charge 10x the amount for it, call me an old cynic but that was also the words of a research doctor as well.
Similar situation with Ivermectin
A post was merged into an existing topic: Any cheerful news today? (Nothing negative please! 
) (Part 2)
Thank you for this, but my cancer is hormone related, it comes from my liver and only shows up in my lungs.
It is extremely slow growing and asymptomatic, I must have had it for at least twenty years.
1 Like
This is a misunderstanding of what the pharma industry do - any agent promising enough will have it’s action analyzed to death and a new varient which can be patented will be cooked up.
There are a huge number of drugs who do something in a Petri dish but diddly squat in patients.
3 Likes
I wish you a long and happy life 
1 Like
I really hope so Billy, with the huge cost of running RCT’s and even pilot schemes if there isnt enough profit would they. A drug out of patent even if re licenced for something dofferent is still a drug out of patent?
Where doctors are already expressing they are using certain drugs because they have nothing else in their armoury in some cases of cancer patients told to go home or into palative care because treatment isnt working who subsequently self administer their own protocols and recover with no sign of tumours. Ok maybe placebo and not everything works for every case. Such is the tricky subject of medicine.
A good example here is Thalidomide - which I’m sure everyone of our generation will know about in terms of its original purpose and the (rightful) scandal surrounding its introduction.
It has been re-purposed, very successfully, as a treatment for multiple myeloma and spawned second generation drugs such as Lenalidomide and Pomalidomide (got to keep those profits up).
So he rendered his participation in the trial null and void, took several other confounding drugs as well as the trial agent and the Fenbendazole and no-one else has demonstrated such spectacular results.
This is not “compelling”, it is not data, it is barely even anecdote.
3 Likes
Thank you Billy, its going to take a few weeks to go through all of the papers in your (3) link to papers.
I browsed through briefly but stopped to open one. As luck would have it I read the cut and pasted part of your response, a case I was already familiar with but by no means as the numerous papers in your link showed whether they will show good or poor outcomes remains to be seen but I snatched a paragraph or two as well.
Studies attribute the anti-cancer mechanisms of fenbendazole
to increasing p53 activation, inhibiting the GLUT1 transporter
and hexokinase, and reducing glucose uptake in cancer cells
(4). Enhanced glycolysis is a crucial signal of tumor
progression (13-15). Under anaerobic conditions, glycolysis
produces lactate, which increases acidification in the tumor
microenvironment and leads to drug resistance (16).
Metabolic disturbances, such as glutamine overuse, further
enhance glycolysis, creating a feedback loop for tumor
growth (15, 17). Fenbendazole has been found to inhibit
glucose uptake, resulting in reduced lactate levels (4). Thus,
fenbendazole can serve as a viable treatment for drug-
resistant cancer cells.
Certainly not an open and shut case.
@JohnH nothing wrong with liking a comment but I doubt you studied the links in Billy’s post so maybe dont like something quite so quickly, as with more of the medical papers I read comes the errors and bad research before we add the bias and funding sources.
A bit sensitive tonight? As someone who is heartily sick of quack cures for cancer I’m happy to like anything which treats them how they should be treated.
8 Likes
Oh dear Corona - you might have outed yourself as not having properly read the paper that you yourself referenced in post 830 - I merely quoted from that paper, in doing so picking up a link to its list of references 
Yes, just one injection every 28 days for me.
No John not really, Billy included a lot of information. I totally agree about quack cures, during my cancer I came across dozens, so many American doctors could cure it, simply because the dead cant sue? Two of them went to prison for holding clinics etc. Louis Theroux interviewed them in his brillant style. However as I see documented information on how some treatments could work I find it interesting.
Yes could well have done but the references make good reading never the less. Certainly not immediately dismissive of the possibilties.
I see P53 making an appearance so I am sure that will be studied at length.
I sincerely do wish you well. What jumped out to me in Billy’s post was
Visit a vet!
It rather suggests Mr Tippens was predisposed to seek Fenbendazole, can’t say I have a high opinion of the vet who, lacking any qualification in human medicine, was still apparently willing to supply a drug not licensed for human consumption.
Perhaps (s)he was told it was for the dog 
As an aside did you know it is illegal to treat animals if you are not a vet, but any idiot can offer treatment to humans (in the UK, anyway).
But, really, if you have cancer - see an oncologist.
3 Likes
Billy dont get me wrong, I am very grateful for the chemo treatment I received and likewise my wife drug that shrunk the tumour by 1.6mm in aprox 4 weeks before it was removed. Within the vetenary community they have been using Femben to treat animals with cancer so its only a natural progression to try it, its an experiment, generally how we lab rats are practiced upon (that was a joke 
). Thank you for the clarity that Mr Tippens was also on a trial at the time. I did ask my wifes oncologist, they did not know of the drug, they were instantly dismissive of it athough previously mentioned not knowing of it. Stated you should just stick to the chemo and not swap to simething else where I had mentioned it as an adjuvant to conventional therapy. I know they are bound by guidelines but this was a totally ended conversation.
During my chemo, I had very bad oral thrush with lots of mouth ulcers. The staff gave me a bottle of mouth wash they apparently do not hand out to everyone due to the cost of the product. They explicitly told me not to use over the counter mouth wash as it contains alcohol and would make the situation worse. What did this expensive bottle contain? Alcohol and sugar! Feeding a yeast infection with sugar is just bloody stupid. I defaulted to bicarbonate of soda mouth washes. It cleared up over the weekend as confirmed by my oncologist who was amazed and added to my notes that I was a maverick. A french friend in France, going through the same issue was prescribed bicarbonate of soda as a mouthwash. Sometimes I just wonder.