Antivax cancer quacks go “orthomolecular”

Over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, there’s been a definite progression among purveyors of misinformation and disinformation about public health and COVID-19 itself. Early on, there was the contingent that minimized the disease, brushing it aside as “just a cold,” promoting the social Darwinist message that it was only a significant danger to the elderly and those with chronic diseases, who were at higher risk for severe disease, hospitalization, and death. Among this contingent, ironically enough, were quacks who promoted unproven repurposed medications (like the Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance, or FLCCC), such as hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, often coupled with a number of supplements (such as zinc) as cures and preventatives for the disease long after actual clinical trial evidence had determined that they do not work. When COVID-19 vaccines rolled around, these quacks predictably became antivax, given that a safe and effective vaccine endangered their grift promoting supplements to treat COVID-19, although the vaccine did open up lucrative new grift treating “vaccine injury” due to the spike protein. This background brings us to a particularly odious Substack quack who deems himself “The 2nd Smartest Guy in the World,” or, as I like to call him, 2ndSGitW, with an emphasis on the “git” in the middle, who is now touting a paper that combines new COVID-age cancer quackery involving ivermectin and fenbendazole with very old quackery, namely orthomolecular medicine.

You might recall that earlier this year I referred to this particular combination as the “new laetrile,” given its popularity as a quack treatment for cancer of all varieties, complete with a new generation of alternative cancer cure testimonials to go along with it, such as that of Kevin Hennings. I like to say that in the age of the pandemic, everything old is new again, although when I first started saying that I was referring to antivax tropes and misinformation. It turns out that in cancer quackery everything old is also new again, including the use of testimonials over solid evidence, as well as the merging of the new with the old and the use of dubious science to promote quackery. In this case, 2ndSGitW is selling and promoting cancer quackery and bad science—what a surprise, I know—in the form of articles touting JOE ROGAN SALE: BigPharma Fears Fenbendazole because it has at Least 12 Proven Anti-Cancer Mechanisms in Vitro and In Vivo and BREAKING NEWS: First-in-the-World Ivermectin, Mebendazole and Fenbendazole Protocol in Cancer has been peer-reviewed and published Sep.19, 2024! The future of Cancer Treatment starts now. Apparently Joe Rogan has started pushing cancer quackery. (Again, what a surprise…) Also apparently, I missed it, given my month or two of having been…distracted. I’m back, though (I think, at least for the most part or until something new happens), and so let’s dig in.

Orthomolecular medicine promoted by Joe Rogan?

First, 2ndSGitW touts this post on X, the hellsite formerly known as Twitter:

The Overlooked Miracle Drug for Cancer? Why Big Pharma Fears Fenbendazole

"Fenbendazole has at least 12 proven anti-cancer mechanisms in vitro and in vivo," wrote cancer researcher Dr. William Makis. pic.twitter.com/WbKVPFo1wB

— healthbot (@thehealthb0t) October 23, 2024

Predictably, anonymous X users have chimed in touting the supposed benefits with vague and unconvincing anecdotes like this:

I used a combination of Fenben, IVM, Mebendazole, HCQ, Quercitin, IV Vit C, and other supplements to treat my wife's Glioblastoma. Going on 18 months completely free of any cancer.

— Bellisa2022 (@bellisa2022) October 23, 2024

2ndSGitW then claims:

And the following may very well be the ‘holy grail’ cancer cure in plain sight:

New & Improved Synergistic Joe Tippens Protocol

• Tocotrienol and Tocopherol forms (all 8) of Vitamin E (400-800mg per day, 7 days a week). A product called Gamma E by Life Extension or Perfect E are both great.
• Bio-Available Curcumin (600mg per day, 2 pills per day 7 days a week). A product called Theracurmin HP by Integrative Therapeutics is bioavailable.
• Vitamin D (62.5 mcg [2500 IU] seven days a week).
• CBD oil (1-2 droppers full [equal to 167 to 334 mg per day] under the tongue, 7 days a week)  CBD-X: The most potent full spectrum organic CBD oil, with 5,000 milligrams of activated cannabinoids and hemp compounds CBD, CBN & CBG per serving.
• Fenbendazole (300mg, 6 days a week) or in the case of severe turbo cancers up to 1 gram
• Ivermectin (24mg, 7 days a week) or in the case of severe turbo cancers up to 1mg/kg/day
• VIR-X immune support (2 capsules per day)

The Joe Tippens Protocol? Not this nonsense again! I’ll get to why it’s nonsense later in this post, but, first, what’s the evidence touted by 2ndSGitW. He references a post from a week and a half ago touting a study two of whose authors should be very familiar to you: Drs. William “Turbo Cancer” Makis and Paul “Superman” Marik. Makis, you will recall, is probably the most aggressive and well-known promoter of the antivax lie that COVID-19 vaccines are responsible for a wave of “turbo cancer,” cancers in younger people supposedly so nasty and fast-growing that nothing can stop them. Naturally, he sells quackery to treat these vaccine-induced “turbo cancers.” Marik is a founding member of the FLCCC who has turned cancer quack and likes to sell swag with images of himself in a superhero outfit (as does FLCCC cofounder Dr. Pierre Kory), complete with body suit and cape, much like that of Superman.

Here’s the first page:

Woo boy! The Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine? That’s a serious quack journal. You might remember that super duper high dose vitamin C (ascorbate), originally touted by Nobel Laureate Linus Pauling in yet another demonstration of Nobel Disease, as a treatment for cancer is an example of “orthomolecular” cancer treatments. So, what is “orthomolecular medicine”? If you go to the orthomolecular medicine website, it claims:

Orthomolecular is a term that comes from ortho, which is Greek for “correct” or “right,” and “molecule,” which is the simplest structure that displays the characteristics of a compound. So it literally means the “right molecule.”

Two-time Nobel Prize winner, and molecular biologist, Linus Pauling, Ph.D., coined the term “Orthomolecular” in his 1968 article “Orthomolecular Psychiatry” in the journal “Science.” 

Orthomolecular medicine describes the practice of preventing and treating disease by providing the body with optimal amounts of substances which are natural to the body.

In practice, as I’ve discussed a number of times, orthomolecular medicine tends to involve massive doses of vitamins, minerals, and other supplements to correct exaggerated (or even nonexistent) “deficiencies.” The central dogma of orthomolecular medicine seems to be that if some nutrient is good, megadoses of that nutrient are much better and can cure anything. Orthomolecular medicine has also been “integrated” into the quackery known as functional medicine. It’s depressing to think that Linus Pauling actually coined the term, but apparently he did.

Ivermectin and fenbendazole: Targeting cancer stem cells? I think not

So let’s first look at the supposed rationale for this study. The authors note that one of the hallmarks of cancer is basically the Warburg effect (discussed here many times over nearly 20 years), in which cancer cells preferentially shift their metabolism from an oxidative metabolism, namely the oxygen-requiring process known as oxidative phosphorylation, to a process that doesn’t require oxygen, or anaerobic metabolism. Normal cells can do this too (e.g., muscle cells undergoing prolonged exercise), but the problem with anaerobic metabolism is (and the reason why we can’t exist without adequate oxygen) is that oxidative metabolism generates far more energy per molecular of glucose than anaerobic metabolism, and normal cells can’t function for long without oxygen. Cancer cells, however, can function indefinitely in conditions of low oxygen. One reason why it is thought that they evolved to be able to do so is because they frequently outgrow their blood supply and have to be able to live in conditions of very low oxygen tension, at least for normal cells.

The Warburg effect is a real thing and very important, so much so that Otto Warburg won the 1931 Nobel Prize in Medicine for his discovery. Examples of its importance abound. For example, because anaerobic metabolism requires a lot more glucose, given how much less energy per molecule of glucose it produces, the Warburg effect is why PET scans work. Cancer cells tend to preferentially take up lots of glucose. Unfortunately, quacks love the Warburg effect and have been abusing it for years to claim that metabolism, not genetics, is the cause of cancer and that diet alone (e.g., the “ketogenic diet“) can alter cancer cell metabolism to cure it. It’s also the origin of the myth that sugar “feeds” cancer. In the 21st century, there has been renewed importance in understanding the changes in metabolism in tumor cells as potential new targets to treat and/or prevent cancer. However, cancer is complicated. It’s not just genetics. It’s not just metabolism, It’s a whole lot of things. There are multiple hallmarks of cancer described by Douglas Hanahan and Robert Weinberg in 2000 and updated in 2011.

Here’s a figure taken from the 2011 version of the article:

But back to the orthomolecular “rationale” for treating cancer, as described in the introduction of the paper:

Many theories exist regarding the origin of cancer, namely the metabolic theory (Seyfried & Chinopoulos, 2021), the somatic mutation theory (SMT) (Hanahan & Weinberg, 2000), the cancer stem cell theory (Capp, 2019), and the tissue organization theory (Soto & Sonnenschein, 2011). In a recently published study, a new concept was introduced the mitochondrial-stem cell connection (MSCC) (Martinez, et al., 2024). This concept combines the cancer stem cell theory and the metabolic theory. The MSCC theory suggests that cancer arises from impaired oxidative phosphorylation (OxPhos) in one or more stem cells, potentially leading to the formation of cancer stem cells (CSCs) and, consequently, tumorigenesis. This connection between CSCs and mitochondria appears to be crucial at all stages of cancer (Martinez, et al., 2024). The MSCC aligns with the metabolic theory of cancer but specifically focuses on the crucial role of CSCs in every stage of the disease. However, the MSCC differs from the CSCs theory, which typically presents cancer as a genetic disease. Thus, many standard cancer therapies are based on the SMT and generally target the DNA of cancer cells (van den Boogaard, et al., 2022; Sia, et al., 2020). These therapies do not restore OxPhos and sometimes even alter it (Averbeck & Rodriguez-Lafrasse, 2021; Gorini, et al., 2018). Furthermore, standard therapies only target bulk cells but cannot target CSCs (Lytle, et al., 2018), whereas it is CSCs that have the strongest tumorigenic potential (Adams & Strasser, 2008) and are involved in metastasis. This information could partially explain the outcomes observed with the new anticancer therapies. Indeed, Ladanie et al. showed that over the past fifteen years, new therapies have led to an overall survival improvement of 2.4 months (Ladanie, et al., 2020), while Del Paggio et al. reported an improvement of 3.4 months over the past thirty years (Del Paggio, et al., 2021).

Thus, after reviewing the literature on various therapies capable of targeting the MSCC, we selected, based on in vitro and in vivo studies, several orthomolecules, drugs, and additional therapies that have demonstrated an ability to enhance OxPhos, reduce fermentable fuels, and target CSCs and metastasis. Furthermore, when supported by scientific literature, we included case studies of cures using monotherapy in humans. From this combination, we developed a hybrid orthomolecular protocol, which is proposed as a new therapeutic strategy for cancer.

Notice how the authors mention the “metabolic theory” first, citing Thomas Seyfried. You might recall that I wrote about Seyfried ten years ago in order to deconstruct his massively overblown claim that his “ketogenic diet” was more effective than chemotherapy in treating cancer, an unconvincing case report being touted as evidence notwithstanding. It would appear that earlier this year, Seyfried decided to combine his massive overhyping of the Warburg Effect as The One True Cause of Cancer and The One True Target for Cancer Therapy with the idea that cancer stem cells are the real culprit to be targeted for cancer, because of course he has. He’s just a couple of decades late, as “cancer stem cells” have represented a somewhat controversial theory for along time now, although the controversy might be more about the name (“stem cells”) rather than the actual concept

As I wrote elsewhere a long time ago, there appear to exist within a given cancer a population of cells that behave like stem cells. They are self-regenerating and each is capable of dividing indefinitely and recapitulating a tumor, while the vast majority of tumor cells have only limited replicative potential. The population of cells that can actually produce new tumors may be very small, much less than 1% of the cells in any given tumor. Under the stem cell model of cancer, these stem cells are highly resistant to chemotherapy, which wipes out all the non-stem tumor cells but leaves a few cancer stem cells, which can rapidly grow and recapitulate the tumor, even from a single cell. In essence, the stem cell model postulates a hierarchy among tumor cells, compared to a more stochastic model in which all or most cancer cells can recapitulate a tumor. To boil the concept down, in the stochastic model, any given cell in a tumor could be viewed as having, for example, a 1% chance of being able to form a new tumor if transplanted, while in the stem cell model only 1% of the cells of a given tumor can form new tumors, but they do so with very high efficiency. Moreover, these cancer stem cells have various protein and genetic markers that distinguish them from other cells in the same cancer.

Personally, I’ve long viewed the term “cancer stem cell” as a poor descriptor of this cell mainly for semantic reasons. The term “stem cell” implies unlimited ability to produce different tissue types, which is not what this model is about at all. It’s long been known that tumors are made up of different populations of cells with different characteristics, and it’s not such a stretch to accept that many tumors might have a subpopulation of cells that are the most responsible for tumor growth, with most of the other cells remaining quiescent or only dividing slowly. Moreover, it appears that some cancers follow more of a “stem cell” model, while others follow a more stochastic model. (Again, cancer is complicated, and different cancers are, well, different from each other, sometimes very different.) In any case, there’s no doubt that targeting cancer stem cells in cancers that appear to follow the stem cell model has been a hot topic of research for at least 15 years.

The next part of the “orthomolecular” take on cancer goes as follows:

Key Points of the MSCC:

• An alteration of OxPhos may initiate tumorigenesis in one or more normal stem cells, leading to the formation of CSCs (Martinez, et al., 2024).
• The degree of malignancy could be directly correlated with significantly lower mitochondria and lower total respiratory capacity in tumor cells (Elliott, et al., 2012; Pedersen, 1978; Seyfried, et al. 2020).
• In order to grow and survive, cancer cells require the primary fuels glucose and glutamine to compensate for OxPhos insufficiency. The respiratory impairment induces overexpression of oncogenes and inactivation of tumor-suppressor genes, which contribute to abnormal energy metabolism in cancer. To date, no evidence has demonstrated the growth of any tumor cells, including CSCs, occurs with the deprivation of fermentable fuels (glucose, pyruvate, or glutamine) (Lee, et al., 2024; Liao, et al., 2017; Holm, et al., 1995; Mathews, et al., 2014; Pastò, et al., 2014).
• The tumor microenvironment (a consequence of mitochondrial impairment) is characterized by low pH (acidic), hypoxia, entropy, pressure and deformation, increased temperature, stroma, altered rotation of cytoplasmic water, and damped bioelectricity or electromagnetic field (Martinez, et al., 2024).
• Metastasis remains the leading cause of cancer mortality. According to MSCC, it occurs due to fusion hybridization between CSCs and macrophages (Martinez, et al., 2024; Seyfried & Huysentruyt, 2013).

Let’s take a look. I like how they cite Seyfried’s paper to support this. Can alterations in oxidative phosphorylation do this? First of all, while the processes that produce normal stem cells and cancer stem cells share many characteristics and it is true that mitochondrial function is altered in cancer stem cells, I was at a loss to find good evidence cited by Martinez et al to suggest that alternating oxidative phosphorylation in normal stem cells will transform them into cancer. Moreover, Martinez et al fall prey to the “chicken or the egg” question: Are metabolism and mitochondrial function altered in cancer cells because of the underlying abnormalities that made them cancer cells in the first places, or is it vice-versa and alterations in metabolism is the cause of cancer? This is a problem at the heart of all research into cancer cell metabolism, and there are arguments on both sides of the question. These orthomolecular quacks completely ignore this and just assume that it’s metabolism über alles.

Based on this and a whole lot of cherry picked studies, the authors came up with this “everything but the kitchen sink” protocol:

Based on our review of the scientific literature, the following protocol combining orthomolecules, drugs and additional therapies for targeting the MSCC in cancer treatment is proposed:

1. Intravenous Vitamin C: Intermediate- and high-grade cancers: Dose of 1.5g/kg/day, 2-3x per week (Fan, et al., 2023). Established as a non-toxic dose for cancer patients (Wang, F., et al., 2019).
2. Oral Vitamin D: All cancer grades: Dose of 50,000 IU/day for patients with a blood level ≤ 30ng/mL; 25,000 IU/day for levels 30-60ng/mL; and 5000 IU/day for levels 60-80ng/mL. Established as a non-toxic dose (Cannon, et al., 2016; Ghanaati, et al., 2020; McCullough, et al., 2019). It is necessary to reach a blood level of 80 ng/mL of vitamin D (25-hydroxyvitamine D (25(OH) D) (Kennel, et al., 2010; Mohr, et al., 2014; Mohr, et al., 2015). This level is non-toxic (Holick, et al., 2011). Once this level is reached it must be maintained with a reduced daily dosage of ≈ 2000 IU/day (Ekwaru, et al., 2014). The vitamin D blood concentration should be measured every two weeks for high doses and monthly for lower doses.
3. Zinc: All cancer grades: Dose of 1 mg/kg/day is established as a non-toxic dose for cancer patients (Hoppe, et al., 2021; Lin, et al., 2006). The reference range for serum zinc concentration is 80 to 120 μg/dL (Mashhadi, et al., 2016; Yokokawa, et al., 2020). Once this level is reached it must be maintained with a reduced daily dosage of 5mg/day (Li, et al., 2022). The zinc blood concentration should be measured monthly.
4. Ivermectin: Low-grade cancers: Dose of 0.5mg/kg, 3x per week (Guzzo, et al., 2002). Intermediate-grade cancers: Dose of 1mg/kg, 3x per week (Guzzo, et al., 2002). High-grade cancers: Dose from 1 mg/kg/day (de Castro, et al., 2020) to 2 mg/kg/day (Guzzo, et al., 2002). All these doses have been established as tolerable for humans (Guzzo, et al., 2002).
5. Benzimidazoles and DON: Low-grade cancers: Mebendazole: Dose of 200 mg/day (Dobrosotskaya, et al., 2011). Intermediate-grade cancers: Mebendazole: Dose of 400 mg/day (Chai, et al., 2021). High-grade cancers: Mebendazole dose of 1,500 mg/day (Son, et al., 2020) or Fenbendazole 1,000 mg 3x per week (Chiang, et al., 2021). All these doses have been established as tolerable for humans (Chai, et al., 2021; Chiang, et al., 2021; Son, et al., 2020). Benzimidazoles can be replaced or combined with DON, administered without toxicity; intravenously or intramuscularly: 0.2 to 0.6 mg/kg once daily; or orally: 0.2 to 1.1 mg/kg once daily (Lemberg, et al., 2018; Rais, et al., 2022). Benzimidazoles are much easier to obtain than DON. However, for metastatic cancers, which rely heavily on glutamine (Seyfried, et al., 2020), a combination of DON and Benzimidazoles should be considered (Mukherjee, et al., 2023).
6. Dietary Interventions: All cancer grades: Ketogenic diet (low carbohydrate-high fat diet, 900 to 1500 kcal/day) (Weber, et al., 2020). Ketone metabolic therapy consists of approximately 60-80% fat, 15-25% protein and 5-10% fibrous carbohydrates. Adequate hydration and single-ingredient whole food ketogenic meals are necessary to achieve a glucose ketone index (GKI) score of 2.0 or below (Meidenbauer, et al., 2015; Seyfried, Shivane, et al., 2021). GKI should be measured 2–3 hours postprandial, twice a day if possible (Meidenbauer, et al., 2015; Seyfried, Shivane, et al., 2021). Intermediate- and high-grade cancers: The ketogenic diet should be coupled with a water fast for 3 to 7 consecutive days in advanced cancers (Phillips, et al., 2022; Arora, et al., 2023). The water fast should be repeated several times (≈ every 3-4 weeks) throughout the treatment (Nencioni, et al., 2018), but fasting needs to be undertaken cautiously in individuals using certain drugs and those with < 20 BMI, to prevent loss of lean body mass. For patients who can not fast, the Fasting-Mimicking Diet (300 to 1,100 kcal/day of broths, soups, juices, nut bars, and herbal teas) can be used (Nencioni, et al., 2018).
7. Additional Therapeutics: All cancer grades: Moderate physical activity, 3x per week. Increased heart and respiratory rate for a period of 45 to 75 minutes (Bull, et al., 2020) with activities such as cycling, running, swimming, etc. Intermediate- and high-grade cancers or individuals who are unable to engage in physical activity: Hyperbaric oxygen therapy, 1.5 to 2.5 ATA for 45 to 60 minutes 2-3x per week (Gonzalez, et al., 2018; Poff, et al., 2015).

Why? What is the clinical evidence that any of this works? Guess what? There is none, except for physical activity. As for the rest? Other than cherry picked in vitro cell culture studies and animal studies, there is none. As for the ketogenic diet, I looked around to see if there was any evidence since 2017 that was any more convincing to me than what I saw the last time I wrote about Seyfried’s ketogenic diet protocol in 2017. I think you know the answer to that question: No. There are no randomized controlled trials presented and no

None of that stops the authors from confidently proclaiming that the protocol “should be followed for an average duration of 12 weeks, regardless of cancer type” and that their “analysis of the interactions between each of the molecules revealed no contraindications to the combination of these substances,” not to mention an even less evidence-based suggestion that an “adaptation of the protocol to include additional molecules to restore health, could be considered by the physician,” including vitamin K2, vitamin E, coenzyme Q10, methylene blue, niacinamide, riboflavin, Artemisinin + 5-aminolevulinic acid (to cause porphyrin accumulation), melatonin, NADH, and magnesium” as examples of things that can be added to the protocol, again, based on cherry picked in vitro and animal studies, with some dietary studies for prevention sprinkled in.

Nor does it stop them from proclaiming at the end of their article:

This additive and synergistic effect of this combination of orthomolecules, drugs, and additional therapies targets the MSCC by increasing OxPhos activity in healthy mitochondria, offering protective action for these cells. However, in cancer cells, both CSCs and non-CSCs, the pro-oxidant effect of the combination induces apoptosis. Additionally, this protocol specifically targets fermentable fuels, CSCs and macrophages, and thus metastases. In brief, the key points of the MSCC. Therefore, comparative studies need to be conducted in both animals and humans to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of this hybrid protocol against standard therapies.

Comparative studies between standard therapies and these quacks’ “hybrid” orthomolecular protocol? You can do those studies all you want in cell culture, but if I were on an IACUC (Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee) and a protocol doing that were assigned to me to review, I’d nix it because it would be a a waste of lab mice or other lab animals, and one of the key principles in the ethical use of animals in medical research is not to waste them in pointless experiments and to use as few as possible even in legitimate scientific research. I also know that, should any orthomolecular medicine fan see this, they’ll misrepresent it as my being opposed to researching their quackery. No, I’m opposed to unnecessarily harming research animals.

But what about the Joe Tippens protocol?

2ndSGitW touts the concoction advocated in this article in a quack orthomolecular journal as a “modified Joe Tippens” protocol, even a “new and improved” Joe Tippens approach:

This paper is the FIRST peer-reviewed and Published paper in the world to propose a Cancer Treatment Protocol based on the incredible properties of IVERMECTIN, MEBENDAZOLE (edit 2SG: this is the more expensive patented version that may in fact be inferior to Fenbendazole, totally needless, and simply represents BigPharma’s attempt to fleece sick patients) and FENBENDAZOLE.

This was truly a labor of love.

I like how, even in praising this paper, 2ndSGitW couldn’t resist conspiracy mongering about mebendazole, drug closely related to fenbendazole, both belonging to a drug class known as the benzimidazoles. The real reason, of course, is that mebendazole is FDA-approved in humans, while fenbendazole is not; it’s a veterinary drug used to treat parasites in animals, such as roundworm, hookworm, lungworm, whipworm, and certain types of tapeworm. It really is likely that simple. If you’re a woo-friendly physician, it’s easier to justify to yourself using a drug that is FDA-approved for humans, as ivermectin (and mebendazole) are.

So who is Joe Tippens? Before the pandemic, Tippens developed small cell lung cancer. Apparently, while he was undergoing conventional treatment for his cancer, his esophagus was damaged, at which point he decided to “embark on a new path” based on a veterinarian’s anecdote about an “unconventional cancer treatment.” Yes, the portrayal of mebendazole and fenbendazole as “miracle” cures for cancer dates back to before the pandemic and before the anti-helminthic drug ivermectin was touted as a cure for ivermectin—and then later cancer. Since ivermectin has become a favorite miracle cure among cancer quacks, the Joe Tippens protocol has dominated the cancer cures promoted by COVID-19 antivaxxers and quacks.

One article describes Tippens’ story:

In August 2016, fenbendazole garnered global attention as a potential anti-cancer therapy following the complete recovery success story of Joe Tippens, who was diagnosed with small-cell lung cancer. At the time, Tippens was undergoing a clinical trial for a novel anti-cancer drug. Meanwhile, under the guidance of a veterinarian, Tippens began self-administering 222 mg fenbendazole orally, along with vitamin E supplements, CBD oil, and bioavailable curcumin. After three months of self-administration, a PET scan revealed no detectable cancer cells in his body.

This part is almost always left out of the anecdotes touting Tippens’ story touting his anecdote. Also left out in the biased retelling above was whether or not Tippens had detectable cancer in his body when he started his protocol. In addition:

The fenbendazole scandal was an incident wherein false information that fenbendazole, an anthelmintic used to treat various parasites in dogs, cured terminal lung cancer spread among patients. It started with the claim of American cancer patient, Joe Tippens, but rather became sensational in South Korea. It caused national confusion and led to fenbendazole being sold out at pharmacies across the country in South Korea. Contrary to what the people know, however, Joe Tippens was a participant in the Kitruda clinical trial at the MD Anderson Cancer Center, and his improvement was likely to be the effect of immuno-cancer drugs.

Moreover, I note that it’s not straightforward to discover this information about Joe Tippens at all; I’ve only found a couple of sources thus far, and it took considerable Googling. Interestingly, Tippens claims that he was the only patient out of 1,100 on the clinical trial cured of cancer, but I am unable to find any corroboration. Even if he’s correct, he is still one anecdote.

T,he Joe Tippens protocol of course, has basically no good evidence to support its being superior to existing therapies for any cancer, much less that it is any sort of “miracle cure” for advanced cancer. Moreover, quacks gonna quack, and of course “new school” cancer quacks attracted to ivermectin would also be attracted to a different drug targeting parasitic worms that cause disease, such as fenbendazole and mebendazole. No wonder “new school” COVID-era cancer quacks like Makis and Marik teamed up with the rogues’ gallery of “alternative” cancer practitioners at various quack clinics who make up the other co-authors of the paper. Grift recognizes grift, and grift is attracted to grift. In the meantime, Joe Rogan and 2ndGitW are just the useful idiots used to promote the grift.