Ivermectin for Cancer: Scientific Mechanisms & Clinical Outcomes (2025)

Ivermectin for Cancer: Scientific Mechanisms & Clinical Outcomes (2025)

Understanding Drug Repurposing in Modern Oncology

Cancer treatment continues to evolve beyond traditional chemotherapy and radiation. One promising frontier is drug repurposing—using established medications with known safety profiles for new therapeutic applications. Among these repurposed agents, ivermectin has emerged as a compelling option for adjunctive cancer therapy, backed by robust preclinical research and growing clinical evidence.

Originally developed as an antiparasitic medication, ivermectin earned its discoverers the 2015 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine (Crump & Ōmura, 2011). Today, researchers are uncovering its potential to complement conventional cancer treatments through multiple anticancer mechanisms that target the very pathways cancer cells rely on for survival (Tang et al., 2021; Juarez et al., 2018).

What Makes Ivermectin a Promising Anticancer Agent?

The Science Behind Ivermectin's Anticancer Properties

Ivermectin’s effectiveness against cancer stems from its ability to disrupt multiple cellular processes that tumors depend on. Unlike conventional chemotherapy agents that typically target one pathway, ivermectin acts as a “multi-targeted” drug, simultaneously affecting several cancer hallmarks.

Key Mechanisms of Action

 

  1. Autophagy Induction Through PAK1/Akt/mTOR Pathway Blockade: One of ivermectin’s most well-documented anticancer mechanisms involves promoting cytostatic autophagy. Research demonstrates that ivermectin promotes the degradation of PAK1 (P21-activated kinase 1) through ubiquitination, which subsequently blocks the Akt/mTOR signaling pathway—a critical regulator of cell growth and survival in cancer (Dou et al., 2016; Wang et al., 2016). When this pathway is inhibited, cancer cells undergo excessive autophagy, essentially self-digesting beyond their capacity to survive. Importantly, this process preferentially affects cancer cells while largely sparing healthy tissue, as studies show ivermectin cannot significantly stimulate autophagy in normal breast cells at therapeutic concentrations (Dou et al., 2016; Wang et al., 2016).
  2. Mitochondrial Dysfunction and Energy Depletion: Cancer cells have notoriously high energy demands to fuel their rapid proliferation. Ivermectin inhibits mitochondrial complex I in the electron transport chain, dramatically reducing ATP production—the energy currency cells need to function (Tang et al., 2021). This metabolic collapse triggers oxidative stress, damages cellular components, and ultimately accelerates cancer cell death through apoptosis.
  3. Cancer Stem Cell Targeting: Perhaps one of ivermectin’s most significant advantages is its ability to target cancer stem cells (CSCs)—the subpopulation of cells responsible for tumor recurrence, metastasis, and treatment resistance. Research shows ivermectin preferentially inhibits CSC-enriched populations compared to bulk tumor cells, downregulating key stemness genes including NANOG, SOX2, and OCT4 (Dominguez-Gomez et al., 2018; Napier et al., 2020). In breast cancer studies, ivermectin demonstrated superior activity against CD44+/CD24- stem-like cell populations—the very cells that drive tumor regrowth after conventional therapy (Dominguez-Gomez et al., 2018). This CSC-targeting capacity addresses one of oncology’s greatest challenges: preventing relapse after initial treatment.
  4. WNT/β-Catenin Pathway Inhibition: The WNT signaling pathway plays a central role in cancer development, particularly in colorectal, breast, and lung cancers. Ivermectin blocks WNT-TCF pathway responses by affecting β-catenin function and phosphorylation status (Melotti et al., 2014). Studies demonstrate that ivermectin suppresses positive WNT regulators (AXIN2, LGR5, ASCL2) while promoting pathway repressors like FILIP1L (Melotti et al., 2014). This inhibition reduces cancer cell proliferation, suppresses epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition (EMT)—a process critical for metastasis—and decreases the expression of metastasis-related proteins such as vimentin and snail (Rujimongkon et al., 2025).
  5. Anti-Metastatic Effects: Metastasis accounts for approximately 90% of cancer deaths, making anti-metastatic therapies critically important. Ivermectin inhibits tumor metastasis through multiple mechanisms (Jiang et al., 2022):
    • Suppressing the Wnt/β-catenin/integrin β1/FAK signaling cascade
    • Reducing matrix metalloproteinase-9 (MMP-9) expression
    • Inhibiting cancer cell migration and invasion
    • Preventing epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition

    Animal studies confirm these findings, with ivermectin significantly reducing tumor metastasis in xenograft models without causing significant toxicity (Jiang et al., 2022):.

  6. Synergy with Standard Cancer Treatments: Ivermectin enhances the effectiveness of conventional cancer therapies. Research demonstrates synergistic effects when combined with:

    • Targeted therapies (sorafenib in hepatocellular carcinoma, osimertinib in EGFR-positive lung cancer) (Lu et al., 2022)
    • Chemotherapy agents (docetaxel, cyclophosphamide, tamoxifen, carboplatin) (Juarez et al., 2018)
    • Immune checkpoint inhibitors (pembrolizumab, balstilimab) (Yuan et al., 2022)

    These combinations often achieve superior tumor control compared to standard treatments alone, potentially at lower doses with reduced toxicity (Lu et al., 2022).

    The Evidence Base: From Laboratory to Clinical Practice

    Extensive in vitro and animal studies demonstrate ivermectin’s anticancer activity across multiple cancer types:

    • Breast Cancer: Inhibits growth through PAK1/Akt/mTOR pathway blockade, particularly effective against triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) and hormone-resistant subtypes (Dou et al., 2016; Rujimongkon et al., 2025)
    • Lung Cancer: Induces nonprotective autophagy and apoptosis in both non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and lung adenocarcinoma (Li et al., 2024)
    • Colorectal Cancer: Blocks WNT-TCF signaling, suppresses proliferation and metastasis (Melotti et al., 2014; Jiang et al., 2022)
    • Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Inhibits mTOR/STAT3 pathways, suppresses EMT, reduces stem cell marker expression (Lu et al., 2022)
    • Pancreatic Cancer: Shows synergistic efficacy when combined with metabolic therapies (Hoffman et al., 2025)
    • Ovarian Cancer: Demonstrates anti-proliferative effects through PAK1 inhibition (Hashimoto et al., 2009)

     

    Pharmacokinetic Considerations

    A critical question in translating laboratory findings to clinical use is whether therapeutic drug levels are achievable in humans. Studies in healthy volunteers show that ivermectin doses of 2 mg/kg produce plasma concentrations around 5-5.2 µM—levels that have demonstrated anticancer efficacy in preclinical studies (Guzzo et al., 2002; Lu et al., 2022). This suggests that clinically relevant anticancer activity is achievable within the established safety profile for parasitic infections.

    Ongoing Clinical Trials & Observational Studies

    Multiple registered clinical trials are currently investigating Ivermectin in cancer patients:

    NCT05318469: A phase I/II trial at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center evaluating Ivermectin combined with immune checkpoint inhibitors (balstilimab or pembrolizumab) in metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (Yuan et al., 2022). This study is testing whether combining Ivermectin with immunotherapy can improve tumor shrinkage and progression-free survival in one of breast cancer’s most aggressive subtypes.

    NCT02366884: A phase II trial testing “atavistic chemotherapy”—the concept that cancer cells behave like primitive organisms—using FDA-approved antimicrobial drugs including Ivermectin for advanced or metastatic cancers (Arguello Cancer Clinic, 2015).

    WCG IRB #20240731: An observational conducted by Rebuild Medicine to evaluate the impact of repurposed drugs and metabolic therapies on the outcomes of patients with cancer. Leading Edge Clinic is the sole participating clinic in this study. What is different about this study is that it does not view Ivermectin in isolation. A little more on that in the following section…

    Real-World Clinical Outcomes: Case Series from Leading Edge Clinic

    Overview of Treatment Protocol

    As mentioned, the observational study we are conducting does not look at Ivermectin in a vaccuum. Instead, Leading Edge Clinic is employing a combination of repurposed therapies, lifestyle changes, and supplements to address cancer. The goal is to cover as many signaling pathways as possible, giving patients the best chance, without putting them at risk. The following case series at Leading Edge Clinic demonstrates the real-world application of Ivermectin as part of comprehensive integrative oncology protocols in five Lung Cancer patients. All five patients received individualized combinations of:

    • Repurposed medications: Ivermectin, Mebendazole, Metformin, Propranolol, Low-Dose Naltrexone, Doxycycline
    • Metabolic interventions: Ketogenic diet
    • Natural compounds: EGCG, melatonin, curcumin, omega-3 fatty acids, high-dose vitamin D, berberine
    • Standard-of-care therapies where indicated

     

    Case 1: Complete Remission in ALK-Positive NSCLC

    Patient Profile: 60-year-old male with metastatic adenocarcinoma (ALK mutation)

    Presentation: Progressive weakness, cough, weight loss; diagnosed May 2024 with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer

    Treatment Approach: Alectinib (ALK inhibitor) combined with comprehensive integrative protocol including ivermectin, mebendazole, propranolol, itraconazole, metformin, ketogenic diet, and supportive supplements

    Outcomes:

    • September 2024 PET scan: Near-complete resolution of metastatic lung disease
    • December 2024: Complete lung cancer remission; concurrent kidney lesion reduced from 5.0 cm to 4.1 cm
    • Patient reduced alectinib dose due to fatigue while maintaining remission

    Split image showing before adjunctive therapy treatment, and 3 months after beginning treatment, demonstrating disappearance of extensive “black spots” seen all over patient's chest and lymph nodes in the neck. Remaining black areas in

    Clinical Significance: Complete remission rates with alectinib alone average only 4.3% in published studies. The achievement of complete remission suggests substantial contribution from the integrative protocol, particularly given dose reduction of the targeted therapy.

    Case 2: Disease Stability Without Standard Treatment

    Patient Profile: 80-year-old male with EGFR-positive NSCLC

    Presentation: Lung nodule detected during pneumonia treatment (March 2024), progressed to Stage IIIC adenocarcinoma by January 2025

    Treatment Approach: Comprehensive repurposed drug protocol WITHOUT standard-of-care cancer therapy. Included ketogenic diet, ivermectin, mebendazole, high-dose vitamin D, propranolol, low-dose naltrexone, doxycycline, and supportive compounds.

    Outcomes:

    • May 2025 PET scan: Stable lung mass (3.1 x 2.2 cm) with no new metastases over 6 months
    • No lymph node enlargement or disease progression
    • Survived 8 months since Stage IIIC diagnosis (16 months from first radiographic evidence)

    Clinical Significance: AI analysis predicted median survival under 1 year for an 80-year-old refusing standard treatment. This patient achieved disease stability exclusively through metabolic and repurposed therapies, challenging conventional expectations for elderly patients with advanced disease.

    Case 3: Stability in Aggressive Squamous Cell Lung Cancer

    Patient Profile: 86-year-old male with Stage IV squamous cell lung cancer

    Presentation: Originally Stage I disease treated with stereotactic radiation (2023); liver metastasis detected December 2024

    Treatment Approach: Ivermectin, mebendazole, high-dose vitamin D, metformin, propranolol, doxycycline, plus radiation to liver metastasis and comprehensive supplement protocol

    Outcomes:

    • June 2025 PET scan: No disease progression over 7 months
    • Patient remains active with only mild fatigue
    • Maintains quality of life despite advanced age and aggressive cancer histology

    Clinical Significance: Squamous cell lung cancer with liver metastases typically has poor prognosis. Seven months of stability in an 86-year-old patient highlights the efficacy of CSC-targeting repurposed drugs in aggressive disease.

    Case 4: Sustained Control of Multifocal EGFR-Positive Disease

    Patient Profile: 85-year-old male with Stage IV EGFR-positive adenocarcinoma

    Presentation: Persistent cough led to diagnosis April 2024 with multifocal disease involving pleura

    Treatment Approach: Osimertinib (Tagrisso) combined with comprehensive integrative protocol including ketogenic diet, ivermectin, mebendazole, high-dose vitamin D, propranolol, itraconazole, low-dose naltrexone, metformin, berberine, and full supplement regimen

    Outcomes:

    • Serial imaging August 2024-July 2025: Primary tumor and metastases reduced in size
    • Much of lymph node involvement resolved
    • No new metastases detected
    • Patient maintains independence despite pleural involvement

     

    Image of patient's third followup scan report demonstrating a halt in progression of disease. Third scan occurred 8 months after treatment initiation. Report reads

    Clinical Significance: EGFR inhibitors typically slow progression rather than resolve disease. The reduction in primary tumor size, resolution of lymph nodes, and absence of new metastases over 16 months demonstrates the profound contribution of metabolic and repurposed therapies.

    Case 5: Quality of Life Preservation in Aggressive Disease

    Patient Profile: 67-year-old male with biphasic lung tumor

    Presentation: Initial left lung resection June 2022; recurrence in right lung June 2023, progressive by June 2024

    Treatment History: Multiple chemotherapy regimens (Adriamycin, Taxotere, Gemzar, Navelbine) switched due to toxicities

    Current Approach: Repurposed drug protocol (ivermectin, mebendazole, low-dose naltrexone, doxycycline) with targeted radiation to six nodules, plus carboplatin/etoposide chemotherapy

    Outcomes:

    • Radiated nodules showed shrinkage
    • Untreated nodules showed growth (highlighting need for comprehensive coverage)
    • Maintained stable weight and Karnofsky performance status 70-80
    • Quality of life preserved despite aggressive disease

    Clinical Significance: This case demonstrates both the benefits and limitations of partial protocol adherence (dietary non-compliance) while highlighting how integrative approaches can preserve quality of life during necessary chemotherapy.

    Clinical Implications and Practical Considerations

    Clinical Implications and Practical Considerations

    Of five consecutive metastatic lung cancer patients:

    • One achieved complete remission (with ALK inhibitor + integrative protocol)
    • Three maintained stable disease (one with EGFR inhibitor, two exclusively with repurposed drugs)
    • One experienced mixed response with preserved quality of life despite aggressive disease

    Notably, three patients were in their 80s, a population typically excluded from clinical trials and often deemed “too frail” for aggressive treatment.

    Key Success Factors

    1. Comprehensive Metabolic Approach: All protocols included ketogenic diet or metabolic optimization, recognizing cancer’s dependence on glucose metabolism
    2. Multi-Drug Synergy: Combining multiple repurposed agents targeting different pathways (proliferation, autophagy, angiogenesis, stemness, metastasis)
    3. Individualized Dosing: Careful titration based on tolerability, with dose adjustments to minimize side effects while maintaining efficacy
    4. Close Monitoring: Serial imaging, laboratory assessments, and nursing follow-up enabled timely adjustments
    5. Patient Autonomy: Shared decision-making respected patient preferences while optimizing medical management

    Safety Profile and Adverse Effects

    Ivermectin has an established safety record from decades of use in parasitic infections. In these cancer cases, most side effects were mild and manageable:

    • Fatigue (most common, often improved with dose reduction)
    • Hypercalcemia (when using high-dose vitamin D concurrently)
    • Gastrointestinal effects (minimized with food intake and gradual titration)
    • Somnolence (with certain combinations, resolved with discontinuation)

    Serious adverse events were rare and typically related to chemotherapy rather than repurposed drugs.

    Understanding the Limitations and Need for Further Research

    While these clinical outcomes outlined in our case series are encouraging, several important limitations must be acknowledged:

    1. Small Sample Size: These five cases represent preliminary real-world evidence, not definitive proof of efficacy. We will publish findings for the hundreds of patients we have seen when the study is concluded. At that point, we hope the significant data we have generated will demonstrate proof of efficacy that can not be ignored.
    2. Multi-Drug Protocols: The simultaneous use of multiple agents makes it difficult to isolate individual drug contributions. However, we believe it is necessary to address as many cancer pathways as possible. Our goal is results for our patients, not proving any single drug’s efficacy.
    3. Selection Bias: Given this is an observational study, these patients actively sought integrative care and may differ from general populations
    4. Variable Adherence: Some patients struggled with dietary restrictions or experienced side effects requiring modifications

    The Path Forward: Rigorous Clinical Investigation

    Despite promising preliminary evidence, the oncology community needs:

    • Large-scale randomized controlled trials comparing Ivermectin-based protocols to standard care
    • Biomarker studies identifying which patients are most likely to benefit
    • Optimal dosing studies determining the most effective dose-schedule combinations
    • Mechanism validation confirming proposed mechanisms in human tumor samples
    • Safety monitoring in larger populations, especially in combination with other cancer therapies
    • Cost-effectiveness analyses evaluating the economic impact of repurposed drug strategies

    Why Ivermectin Deserves Serious Scientific Attention

    The Case for Investigation

    1. Established Safety Profile: Decades of human use provide confidence in its tolerability

    2. Multi-Targeted Activity: Affects multiple cancer hallmarks simultaneously, potentially reducing resistance development

    3. CSC Targeting: Addresses one of oncology’s greatest challenges—cancer stem cells that drive relapse

    4. Accessibility and Affordability: As a generic medication no longer under patent protection, Ivermectin could make effective cancer therapy more accessible globally

    5. Synergy with Standard Treatments: Potential to enhance effectiveness of existing therapies, possibly allowing dose reduction and decreased toxicity

    6. Preclinical Validation: Extensive laboratory evidence demonstrating anticancer mechanisms across multiple cancer types

    7. Emerging Clinical Evidence: Growing number of case reports and case series showing clinical benefit

    The Risk of Dismissal

    The oncology community faces an important decision: continue dismissing ivermectin due to lack of large trials, or pursue rigorous investigation given accumulating evidence. History shows that some of our most important cancer discoveries came from observing unexpected effects of existing drugs.

    Conclusion: A Paradigm Shift in Cancer Care?

    The evidence presented here—from molecular mechanisms to clinical outcomes—suggests that Ivermectin deserves serious consideration as an adjunctive cancer therapy. The five cases from Leading Edge Clinic demonstrate that integrative protocols incorporating Ivermectin and other repurposed drugs can achieve outcomes ranging from complete remission to stable disease control, even in elderly patients with advanced disease who might otherwise have limited options.

    These results challenge the traditional paradigm that new, expensive, targeted therapies are the only path to improved cancer outcomes. They suggest that thoughtful repurposing of existing medications, combined with metabolic interventions and careful monitoring, may offer a complementary strategy that expands the therapeutic armamentarium while potentially improving accessibility.

    However, preliminary success must be balanced with scientific rigor. While these cases provide compelling real-world evidence and hypothesis generation for future studies, they do not replace the need for randomized clinical trials. The oncology community should view this evidence not as definitive proof, but as a call to action for properly designed clinical investigations.

    For patients and healthcare providers considering Ivermectin as part of cancer treatment, several principles emerge from this analysis:

    1. Integration, not replacement: Repurposed drugs work best as part of comprehensive protocols that may include standard therapies
    2. Individualization is essential: Dosing and drug combinations should be tailored to each patient’s unique situation
    3. Close monitoring is mandatory: Regular imaging and laboratory work enable timely adjustments
    4. Realistic expectations: Not all patients will respond; success requires commitment to the full protocol
    5. Multidisciplinary care: Best outcomes involve collaboration between integrative and conventional oncology

    The story of Ivermectin in cancer care is still being written. From its origins as a Nobel Prize-winning antiparasitic to its emerging role in oncology, this drug exemplifies the potential of drug repurposing to transform how we approach cancer treatment. Whether Ivermectin becomes a standard component of cancer care will depend on the willingness of the medical community to conduct the necessary research—and on patients and clinicians continuing to share their experiences through rigorous documentation.

    What is clear from the available evidence is that Ivermectin’s anticancer mechanisms are biologically plausible, its safety profile is well-established, and preliminary clinical results are encouraging. These factors together make a compelling case for expanded investigation of ivermectin as an adjunctive cancer therapy, offering hope for more effective, accessible, and affordable cancer treatment options.

    References

    Arguello Cancer Clinic. (2015). *Atavistic chemotherapy: A study of anti-infective agents in the treatment of cancer* (Clinical trial registration No. NCT02366884). https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT02366884

    Crump, A., & Ōmura, S. (2011). Ivermectin, ‘wonder drug’ from Japan: The human use perspective. *Proceedings of the Japan Academy, Series B, Physical and Biological Sciences, 87*(2), 13-28. https://doi.org/10.2183/pjab.87.13

    Dominguez-Gomez, G., Chavez-Blanco, A., Medina-Franco, J. L., Saldivar-Gonzalez, F., Flores-Torrontegui, Y., Juarez, M., Diaz-Chavez, J., Gonzalez-Fierro, A., & Dueñas-Gonzalez, A. (2018). Ivermectin as an inhibitor of cancer stem-like cells. *Molecular Medicine Reports, 17*(2), 3397-3403. https://doi.org/10.3892/mmr.2017.8231

    Dou, Q., Chen, H. N., Wang, K., Yuan, K., Lei, Y., Li, K., Lan, J., Chen, Y., Huang, Z., Xie, N., Zhang, L., Xiang, R., Nice, E. C., Wei, Y., & Huang, C. (2016). Ivermectin induces cytostatic autophagy by blocking the PAK1/Akt axis in breast cancer. *Cancer Research, 76*(15), 4457-4469. https://doi.org/10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-15-2887

    Guzzo, C. A., Furtek, C. I., Porras, A. G., Chen, C., Tipping, R., Clineschmidt, C. M., Sciberras, D. G., Hsieh, J. Y., & Lasseter, K. C. (2002). Safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics of escalating high doses of ivermectin in healthy adult subjects. *Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, 42*(10), 1122-1133. https://doi.org/10.1177/009127002401382731

    Hashimoto, H., Messerli, S. M., Sudo, T., & Maruta, H. (2009). Ivermectin inactivates the kinase PAK1 and blocks the PAK1-dependent growth of human ovarian cancer and NF2 tumor cell lines. *Drug Discoveries & Therapeutics, 3*(6), 243-246.

    Hoffman, R. M., Han, Q., Murakami, T., Xu, M., Zhao, M., Bouvet, M., Yano, S., & Sugisawa, N. (2025). Ivermectin combined with recombinant methioninase (rMETase) synergistically eradicates MiaPaCa-2 pancreatic cancer cells. *Anticancer Research, 45*(1), 97-101. https://doi.org/10.21873/anticanres.16807

    Jiang, L., Wang, P., Chen, L., Chen, H., Sun, Y. J., & Wu, Y. J. (2022). Ivermectin inhibits tumor metastasis by regulating the Wnt/β-catenin/integrin β1/FAK signaling pathway. *American Journal of Cancer Research, 12*(10), 4425-4442.

    Juarez, M., Schcolnik-Cabrera, A., & Dueñas-Gonzalez, A. (2018). The multitargeted drug ivermectin: From an antiparasitic agent to a repositioned cancer drug. *American Journal of Cancer Research, 8*(2), 317-331.

    Kory, P. (2025). Case series of metastatic lung cancers treated with combination repurposed drug regimens. *Pierre Kory’s Medical Musings*. https://pierrekorymedicalmusings.com/p/case-series-of-metastatic-lung-cancers-eeb

    Li, M. Y., Zhang, J., Lu, X., Zhou, D., Deng, X. F., Liu, Q. X., Dai, J. G., & Zheng, H. (2024). Ivermectin induces nonprotective autophagy by downregulating PAK1 and apoptosis in lung adenocarcinoma cells. *Cancer Chemotherapy and Pharmacology, 93*(1), 41-54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00280-023-04589-6

    Lu, Y., Li, C., Li, L., Wei, Q., Liu, Y., Zhou, P., Yang, X., Chen, L., Zhou, L., Liu, F., & Xiong, B. (2022). Ivermectin synergizes sorafenib in hepatocellular carcinoma via targeting multiple oncogenic pathways. *Pharmacology Research & Perspectives, 10*(3), e00954. https://doi.org/10.1002/prp2.954

    Marik, P. E. (2024). *Cancer care: Repurposed drugs & metabolic interventions in treating cancer* (2nd ed.). Independent Medical Alliance. https://imahealth.org/research/cancer-care/

    Melotti, A., Mas, C., Kuciak, M., Lorente-Trigos, A., Borges, I., & Ruiz i Altaba, A. (2014). The river blindness drug ivermectin and related macrocyclic lactones inhibit WNT-TCF pathway responses in human cancer. *EMBO Molecular Medicine, 6*(10), 1263-1278. https://doi.org/10.15252/emmm.201404084

    Napier, K. J., Scheerer, M., & Misra, S. (2020). Esophageal cancer: A review of epidemiology, pathogenesis, staging workup and treatment modalities. *World Journal of Gastrointestinal Oncology, 6*(5), 112-120. https://doi.org/10.4251/wjgo.v6.i5.112

    Rujimongkon, K., Adchariyasakulchai, P., Meeprasertskul, P., & Ketchart, W. (2025). Ivermectin inhibits epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition via Wnt signaling in endocrine-resistant breast cancer cells. *PLOS ONE, 20*(6), e0326742. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0326742

    Tang, M., Hu, X., Wang, Y., Yao, X., Zhang, W., Yu, C., Cheng, F., Li, J., & Fang, Q. (2021). Ivermectin, a potential anticancer drug derived from an antiparasitic drug. *Pharmacological Research, 163*, 105207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.phrs.2020.105207

    Wang, K., Gao, W., Dou, Q., Chen, H., Li, Q., Nice, E. C., & Huang, C. (2016). Ivermectin induces PAK1-mediated cytostatic autophagy in breast cancer. *Autophagy, 12*(12), 2498-2499. https://doi.org/10.1080/15548627.2016.1231494

    Yuan, J., Wang, L., & Chen, X. (2022). *Ivermectin and balstilimab or pembrolizumab in treating patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer* (Clinical trial registration No. NCT05318469). https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05318469

    *Disclaimer: This article is for educational purposes only and should not be construed as medical advice. Cancer treatment decisions should be made in consultation with qualified oncology professionals. The case studies presented represent individual experiences and outcomes may vary. Patients should never discontinue or modify standard cancer treatments without consulting their healthcare team.*

    Low-Dose Ketamine For Long Haul Covid, Post-Vaccine Syndrome, and ME/CFS

    Low-Dose Ketamine For Long Haul Covid, Post-Vaccine Syndrome, and ME/CFS

    Spike Protein and Brain Injury

    Those suffering from spike protein  Post-Vaccine Syndrome and Long Haul Covid have found their brain to be profoundly impacted, and are seeking answers. Many patients talk of “brain fog”, which might include memory recall issues, word retrieval issues, unclear thinking, and difficulty focusing. However, the symptoms go well beyond brain fog.

    In some corners of the internet, you may find discourse between patients dealing with anhedonia, depersonalization/derealization, depression, and anxiety. Additionally, you may even come across conversations about complete personality changes. You may be experiencing these things yourself. On the Side Effects with Dr. Josef podcast, Scott Marsland discusses why so many of the Post-Vaccine Syndrome injuries look like traumatic brain injuries.

    Screenshot of play bar to Dr. Josef's

    Even in the conventional medical system, there is now a significant body of research evidence demonstrating the various mechanisms by which the spike protein induces these brain-injury manifestations. If you peruse mainstream journals like Nature, you will find studies highlighting the ability of the spike protein’s S1 unit to cross the Blood Brain Barrier.

    Here is a list of pathophysiological ways spike induces brain injury:

    1. Blood-Brain Barrier Disruption – binding to ACE2 receptors on endothelial cells, disrupting tight junctions and increases permeability; activating the RhoA signaling pathway, leading to the disassembly of the endothelial cell cytoskeleton and junction proteins; inducing the production of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), a potent inducer of vascular permeability.
    2. Endothelial Damage – bind directly to fibrinogen, promoting the formation of proinflammatory blood clots (microthrombi) and contributing to systemic thromboinflammation, which can cause microvascular damage in the brain
    3. Neuroinflammation – directly activates glial cells (microglia and astrocytes), the brain’s resident immune cells, even without full viral replication in the brain parenchyma, which then release pro-inflammatory cytokines, especially interleukin-1β (IL-1β), which is neurotoxic and leads to bystander neuronal death
    4. Accumulation of Neurodegenerative Proteins – induce the aggregation and accumulation of proteins associated with neurodegenerative diseases, which are linked to synaptic dysfunction and neuronal loss
    5. Prion Formation – contains “prion-like” domains (PrDs) that can interact with amyloidogenic proteins in the brain, potentially accelerating their misfolding and contributing to neuroinflammation and neurodegenerative diseases
    An illustration demonstrating spike proteins influence on Endothelial damage, BBB disruption, microglial and astrocyte activation, and neuronal damage

    Foundations For Treating Spike Induced Injury

    There is no shortage of avenues to attempt to treat the neurological symptoms of those suffering from Long Haul Covid and Post-Vaccine Syndrome. There are adaptogens, anti-inflammatory compounds, immunomodulatory compounds, and methods to support vascular health. A multi-pronged approach is key to addressing multiple pathophysiological mechanisms, as well as clearing the body and brain of spike protein.

    When we look at therapeutic interventions, there are a couple things we consider:

    1. Efficacy
    2. Safety
    3. Degree of Impact
    4. Ability to address multiple issues at once.

    One treatment checks all four boxes, and does so with gusto.

    The History Of Low-Dose Ketamine

    Ketamine was first synthesized in the 1960s as a general anesthetic and approved in 1970, by the FDA. In 2020, Brazilian researchers found a fungus called Pochonia chlamydosporia which produced ketamine naturally and found that it demonstrated potent anti-parasitic efficacy equivalent to Albendazole and Ivermectin.

    In 2000 to present day, a number of studies have demonstrated the effect of Ketamine on psychiatric disorders:

    • In 2000, psychiatrists at Yale figured out that sub-anesthetic doses of ketamine produced rapid anti-depressant effects. That discovery initiated the practice of using IV ketamine to treat depression
    • In 2013, Brazilian researchers discovered that a low dose of sublingual ketamine (10 mg every 2- 7 days) led to full or clear responses in 77% of patients with treatment-resistant unipolar and bipolar depression.
    • In this series of hundreds of patients, the patients received six treatments of 300mg rapidly dissolving tablets of ketamine. 48% of patients demonstrated a significant reduction in depression scores after three treatments and after 6 treatments, 72.4% demonstrated improvements in anxiety and depression scores.
    • In another case series, 17 patients received 0.5mg/kg or 1mg/kg SLK every 7 or 14 days with 76% (13) of the subjects classified as responders.

    Our Introduction To Low Dose Ketamine

    Our clinical team is fortunate to have become colleagues with (and students of) two of the most clinically experienced psychiatrists at the leading edge of using Ketamine in clinical practice – Dr. Rachel Wilkenson and Dr. Mitch Leister. They have now been using sublingual low-dose Ketamine in the treatment of numerous mental illness conditions for 5 and 3 years respectively.

    In both published and unpublished case reports and series, the results they have achieved in their patients is nothing short of revolutionary. For the first time in their 20 and 40 year careers, they have seen dramatic recoveries in mood disorders, including:

    Here are a few pieces of their clinical and research work:

    • In an abstract they presented at the World Congress of Psychiatry in Vienna in 2023 they reported that an incredible 96% of patients’ depression scores improved (27% in full remission, 37% with an over 50% improvement, and 32% with improvements between 7-49%) over an average of just 3.4 months.
    • Another trial gave 5 days of SL ketamine to 329 patients and found 168 had achieved a significant response by Day 8. These patients then received 12 weeks of treatment at various dose levels or placebo. At 13 weeks, the highest dose (180mg) met the primary outcome of a large reduction in score on a depression scale, while 70.6% of the placebo group relapsed compared to only 42.9% of ketamine patients during the trial.

    Largely because of Dr. Wilkinson, Dr. Leister, and others’ research and clinical work, Ketamine is now on all updated protocols for depression and bipolar disorder as of Fall of 2023, according to continuing medical education articles (FOCUS journal sponsored by the American Psychiatric Association). There is no set limitation on the duration that patients are able to be treated with Ketamine, and recently there have been articles released that indicate long-term use results in cognitive improvement over at least the duration of two years – longer studies are ongoing.

    Psychoplastogen... We Say Neuroplastogen

    The importance of Ketamine is that it is a “paradigm shifter” given that it modulates a neurotransmitter called glutamate, rather than the neurotransmitters traditionally thought to be involved in and targeted by drugs for depression (i.e. deficiencies of serotonin, norepinephrine and/or dopamine).

    Beyond its recognized glutamate modulating properties, Ketamine was found to be the prototype for a new class of medicines identified and named by a chemist in 2018 as “psychoplastogens” because of their ability to induce both structural and functional changes to the brain. However, for reasons you are about to see, we think Ketamine belongs under the name “neuroplastogen”.

    At its simplest, ketamine can induce “brain growth” because at low doses (not at high doses):

    • Stimulates the release of brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF).
    • Reduces excitotoxicity,
    • Increases cerebral blood flow
    • Up-regulates BDNF
    • Increases nerve growth, dendritic spine density, and synapses
    • Reduces neuroinflammation, apoptosis, cell death, and superoxide production.

    As a result of up-regulated and stimulated release of BDNF, low-dose Ketamine also:

    Here’s a picture taken with an electron microscope showing the effects of ketamine on a rat neuron. You can see all the extra bulbs or spikes that develop (yellow arrows) following treatment with ketamine. Each of these forms a new synapse.

    Image shows neuronal growth in a rat that underwent ketamine tratment, versus the lack of neuronal growth in a control group

    Low-Dose Ketamine and Long Haul Covid, Post-Vaccine Syndrome, and ME/CFS

    Under the tutelage of Dr. Wilkinson and Dr. Leister, we have confidently combined their findings on Low-Dose Ketamine, to our clinical findings with Long Haul Covid, Post-Vaccine Syndrome, and ME/CFS patients. In a year of implementing Low-Dose Ketamine treatments, we have seen promising results. Scott Marsland has written a few case studies on neurodegenerative disease, typical Long Haul ME/CFS related neurological presentation, and a variety of other patient cases.

    If you recall, early in this piece, we highlighted a number of neurodegenerative pathways, neuronal destruction, and other neuroinflammatory pathways of spike protein. Then, we introduced the mechanisms of action of Low-Dose Ketamine. Mainly, these mechanisms of action reflected an uncanny ability to rebuild neuronal connections, reduce neuroinflammation, re-myelinate neurons, and develop new synapses.

    So, how does this translate to our patients? We have seen any combination of the following:

    • Improvement or cessation of dysautonomia
    • Improvement or return to baseline energy levels and reduction or cessation of Post-Exertional Malaise (PEM)
    • Improvement or return to executive functioning and cognition
    • Improved GI symptoms, or return to normal GI function
    • Improvement in mood, and/or reduction or cessation of depression, anxiety, and anhedonia
    • Improvement or cessation of neuropathy
    • Return of smell and/or taste

    This is an incomplete list of clinical observations. But, it highlights some of the most significant types of improvements we see. We have witnessed patients go from disabled, to able-bodied. Furthermore, patients who are not quite disabled, report significant improvements allowing them to live more meaningful and full lives.

    Conclusion

    We have been extremely pleased with the results we have seen at Leading Edge Clinic. Of course, it is not as simple as just spoon-feeding Low-Dose Ketamine. Some patients with significant glutamate in the brain must first address these levels. While some patients see results immediately, others require time, patience, and careful titration.

    Another significant factor that needs to be addressed is clearing the inflammatory, disruptive, and toxic spike protein. Low-Dose Ketamine does not do this. Of course, all of the information on the use of Low-Dose Ketamine in Long Haul Covid, Post-Vaccine Syndrome, ME/CFS, and neurodenerative diseases are purely clinical. Every case is different.

    Nothing from this article should be construed as medical advice. Do not self treat. Find a capable and experienced clinician that can safely advise on the use of these therapies. Furthermore, ensure the clinician can deal with the full picture. Low-Dose Ketamine is a great therapy that helps on multiple layers of spike pathology. But, it is not a panacea. There is no panacea for multi-system complex illness.

    Stay tuned as we expect more case studies from the front lines on patients treated with Low-Dose Ketamine.

    8 Questions To Ask A Potential Long Covid or Post-Vaccine Syndrome Clinic

    8 Questions To Ask A Potential Long Covid or Post-Vaccine Syndrome Clinic

    Long Covid (Post-Acute Sequelae of Covid-19) and Post-Vaccine Syndrome (or “PVS”) are some of the most complex, idiosyncratic diseases of our time. However, they are nothing new. For decades, a small subset of patients have suffered immensely from a disease called Myalgic Encephalomyelitis. This is also known as Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. Historically, those diagnosed with ME/CFS found their disease began after a viral infection (ie: EBV, HPV, Lymes, etc…), or after prolonged exposure to environmental toxins (ie: mycotoxins/mold toxicity).

    With the introduction of Long Haul Covid and Post-Vaccine Syndrome, the reports of ME/CFS have exploded. NIH studies and data suggests a 15-fold increase in ME/CFS diagnoses since 2020. Furthermore, 4.5% of study participants who had a SARS-CoV-2 infection met the ME/CFS diagnostic criteria six months later, compared to just 0.6% of uninfected participants. This is further supported by data coming from the insurance industry. Actuaries reported an increase in disability filings from typically healthy cohorts (not just elderly populations) since 2020, with a particular explosion in the second half of 2021.

    ME/CFS and Spike Protein Disease

     

    The hallmarks of ME/CFS are: 1) cognitive dysfunction; 2) Post-Exertional Malaise; and 3) profound and unrelenting fatigue. First, cognitive function may be experienced or described as memory issues, difficulty concentrating, and “brain fog”. Second, Post-Exertional Malaise (PEM) is described as severe exhaustion and symptom exacerbation after minimal exertion, sometimes lasting for days or weeks. Third, fatigue is not just a word to describe feeling tired after running errands all day. It is a profound fatigue that leaves patients feeling unable to carry out activities of daily life (ADLs). Aside from the three hallmark symptoms, there are a myriad of other pathologies and symptoms experienced by Long Covid, PVS, and ME/CFS patients. These include orthostatic intolerance or dysautonomia (ie: POTS), chronic pain, lymphadenopathy, flu-like symptoms, sensory intolerance and nervous system dysregulation, GI issues, neuropathy, and more.

    ME/CFS exists on a spectrum. Some patients are so severe they find themselves only able to lay in a dark room all day with no stimulation. These patients are completely disabled. Others experience a less severe form of illness. They can work a low-stress job, and they can function. However, they must carefully budget and plan their  mental and physical exertion. Many land somewhere in-between. However, all report being unable to live a “normal” life prior to the onset of disease.

    A silver lining in the explosion of ME/CFS in Long Haul Covid and Post-Vaccine Syndrome patients is a reallocation of resources. Specifically, more research and more support for these patients who have historically been written off by a modern medical apparatus that struggles to classify and serve complex, chronically ill patients.

    Existing research highlights complex, multi-system involvement. Some studies point to viral persistence intracellularly (in blood cells, in tissue, in endothelial cells). Other research points towards immune dysfunction and autoimmunity. Much of the research is inconclusive. A major shortfall of the research and healthcare apparatus is the need to pinpoint and isolate causes, then treat these specific issues. When you look at the complex interplay of body systems, and existing research, you start to see how this becomes problematic very fast. A chicken and egg debate can occur very quickly – did the spike protein, EBV virus, mycotoxin, etc… invade the cell, which then set off a chronic immune response? Did the chronic immune response exist beneath the surface due to a genetic or epigenetic factor, which was then amplified by the presence of the external stimuli?

    You may also start to perhaps notice why there was an explosion of ME/CFS diagnoses after the spike protein was introduced to our environment. Spike protein has an affinity for ACE-2 receptors. These receptors are abundant in endothelial tissue, and organ tissue (see: viral persistence in endothelial cells). Furthermore, spike protein has been demonstrated to induce IgG4 class switching, in which the body learns to “tolerate” the spike protein instead of fight it (see: immune dysfunction). This is hardly scraping the surface. Spike protein also up-regulates Mast Cell activity. Mast-Cell Activation Syndrome can manifest as chronic pain, dysautonomia, shortness of breath, GI pain, and so much more. For Long Covid and Post-Vaccine Syndrome (both spike protein diseases), you can begin to see, even with these few examples, just how complex and idiosyncratic these conditions can be. And, we haven’t even touched on clotting issues, other inflammatory cascades, blood-brain barrier issues, etc… But, that is for another day.

    Patient and Doctor sit down together to discuss care

    Finding The Right Kind Of help

    When you are seeking care for multi-system, complex, chronic illness – especially Long Haul Covid and Post-Vaccine Syndrome – here are some questions to ask potential clinics you are interviewing…

    1. How do you ensure patients are properly supported while undergoing treatment? Due to the idiosyncratic, complex nature of Long Haul Covid, Post-Vaccine Syndrome, ME/CFS, and other complex chronic conditions, patients can often ill afford to set off on treatment plans without close followup. Ask potential providers how they ensure you are properly monitored in-between appointments. If there is no support between appointments, consider how that may impact your health and healing should you experience herxheimer reactions, treatment intolerances, symptom flares, etc… Also ask what kind of continuity patients experience in care. Are you seen by the same clinician? Are you followed up with by the same RN staff? Or, are you seen and speaking with a different person every time you interact with the clinic?
    2. What kind of expertise do you have in treating these conditions? Between 2021 and current day, many have claimed expertise in the realm of treating spike protein diseases. While there are certainly way more options for treatment now than in 2021, there is still a considerable range of expertise for those treating these conditions. How many patients have they seen? What is their approach? What kind of results have they seen?
    3. Do you have examples of patient success? How about difficult patient cases? Due to patient privacy law, the answer will typically be broad. Check clinic websites for patient reviews, case studies, etc… Asking about difficult cases gives an opportunity for a clinic or clinician to demonstrate honesty and integrity. No one has a 100% success record. Furthermore, success doesn’t always look the same. When you begin to consider that every patient is different, you start to realize why a strong support network (see question #1) is important.
    4. Am I going to get better, fast? This is a way to gauge the honesty of a potential clinic or clinician. Again, spike protein disease, ME/CFS, and other complex conditions are idiosyncratic. They are not kind to one-size-fits-all approaches. If a clinic or clinician is quick to tout a rapid and easy path to health, you should reflect on how they have answered some of these other questions. Does their confidence match their competence? Are they telling you what you want to hear? The truth is, these conditions often require iterative approaches, and foundational health measures that take time to see impact. Often, healing is not a linear experience, and there is no quick fix.
    5. How has your approach evolved over the time you have been treating patients for these conditions? In 2021, a lot of treatment for spike protein disease was based on hypotheses and limited research on pathophysiological mechanisms of the spike protein. As time has progressed, there has been massive evolution in avenues for treatment. There should be some underlying principles that remain the same – these principles drive the evolution of treatment. Again, consider the idiosyncratic nature of spike protein disease. An iterative treatment process involving trials of various therapies is an example of a foundational approach. No one patient may respond to the same treatment as another patient. However, the various therapies should change over time as clinical observation demonstrates more effective and safer ways to approach treatment. Is the clinic or clinician willing to throw away treatments they believed in early on, if they have found them not as effective as they hoped?
    6. How do you evolve over time? How do you innovate? How a clinic has evolved its approach is almost equally as important as whether or not they evolved at all. What research are they following? How do they collaborate internally? How do they collaborate outside of their organization? How do they use clinical observations to improve patient outcomes?
    7. How do you demonstrate outside-of-the-box thinking to help patients heal and regain quality of life? Conventional medicine has rightfully received a reputation for treating symptoms. You may have directly experienced this in your illness? For example, the spike protein causes cellular dysfunction and blood vessel damage. Both of these things are catalysts for cholesterol being released into the bloodstream. Cholesterol in the bloodstream is not an issue. It is a symptom of the issue. However, when you got to your primary doctor, the first thing they do is look to lower your cholesterol through dietary changes, and statins. The liver produces 80% of cholesterol, so dietary changes are of little importance, even if cholesterol was “bad”. Now, let’s take this about ten steps further. Multiple modalities are often employed to successfully treat spike protein disease. If you’re interviewing a naturopath, are they willing to recommend a therapy that falls outside of herbs? If you’re interviewing an allopathic MD, are they able to think outside of their med school programming? What does that look like? Can they give an example?
    8. How reliably can you help me with broad access to off-label medications? Unfortunately, after all these years, the politicization of post-pandemic healthcare has turned some pharmacists, into misguided activists. Whether it be Long Haul Covid, Post-Vaccine Syndrome, or even Adjunctive Cancer Care, off-label drugs have been life-changing and, in some cases, life-saving for many. However, access to these medications has been inconsistent, due to gatekeeping behavior and prioritizing compliance over patient care. Make sure your provider has been able to successfully get patients access to off-label medications.
    Patient and Doctor shake hands after establishing trust

    Conclusion

     

    Due to the complexity of Long Haul Covid, Post-Vaccine Syndrome, and ME/CFS, patients should do their due diligence when selecting a clinician or clinic. The questions from this guide can be tweaked to your own personal situation. However, the most important things to consider are the support systems in place at prospective clinics, and expertise in treatment. Remember, there is no one-size-fits-all approach to multi-system, complex illness. It can not be taken off an AI system. Nor can it be solved with a magic pill. A good relationship with a supportive and knowledgeable team is a great foundation for healing and health.

     

    Opus Health logo

    Leading Edge Clinic has partnered with Opus Health to help patients unlock HSA/FSA funds and save on care.

    Click this popup to learn more