———————————————————
A C&C Special Edition: heroic covid docs publish first peer-reviewed study that brings new hope for actually curing cancer instead of piling money into Moonshot rockets and launching them into space.
MAY 30READ IN APP
Good morning, C&C, it’s Saturday! Today we have a C&C Special Edition roundup—the first published, peer-reviewed ivermectin-mebendazole cancer study suggesting a broad beneficial effect from cheap, repurposed drugs across a wide range of cancer types and stages. In other words, it’s Big Pharma’s worst nightmare.
🌍🇺🇸 ESSENTIAL NEWS AND COMMENTARY 🇺🇸🌍
💊💊💊
I often quip about “covid miracles”— the occasional unexpected and often surprising blessings flowing from the pandemic. This might be the biggest covid miracle of them all. Some of our heroic pandemic docs have managed to publish a peer-reviewed study in a mainstream journal suggesting a potentially staggering 85% benefit for cancer patients taking a combination of two cheap, safe anti-parasitic drugs: ivermectin and mebendazole. The study’s title: “Real-world Clinical Outcomes of Ivermectin and Mebendazole in Cancer Patients: Results from a Prospective Observational Cohort.”
Let’s start with the disclaimers. This was nota “gold standard” clinical trial. The 122 participants were telemedicine patients who self-reported their status during the study period. No placebos, randomization, or double-blinding were used. The results can’t be compared to a control group that didn’t take the ivermectin combo.
The participants were health-motivated, self-selected cancer victims who were also trying various other things at the same time, like supplements, chemo, radiation, keto diets, fasting, etc. They were all at different stages of their oncology; some with new-onset disease, some having survived 5+ years.
Finally, the same firm —The Wellness Company— that both funded the study and was its principal author also sells ivermectin and mebendazole on its website, so critics could claim bias or self-interest. (We’ll return to the lack of outside funding in a moment, because it cuts both ways.)
So the results can’t be taken —weren’t meant to be taken— as any kind of conclusion. But still.
With the disclaimers out of the way, let’s get to the good stuff.
💊 The study was published in the long-established, mid-tier oncology journal Anticancer Research and, as I mentioned, passed peer review. The 12 authors included names familiar to alert readers, such as Nicolas Hulscher, Kelly Victory, James Thorp, Drew Pinsky, Peter McCullough, and Harvey Risch.
Despite its shortcomings, the study passed peer review because the authors honestly and repeatedly labeled their findings “hypothesis‑generating,” and called for further “rigorous randomized, double blind, placebo‑controlled trials” to establish safety and efficacy.
It would be one thing if the study patients had reported a minor benefit. But the magnitude and consistency of the self‑reported “clinical benefit” signal was so large that, even through heavy noise and bias, it still plausibly indicates a real underlying effect worth taking very seriously and testing rigorously.
At six months, fully a third (33%) of respondents remarkably reported “no current evidence of disease” (NED). 16% reported regression, and another third (36%) reported stabilized disease, for a combined and stunning “clinical benefit ratio” (CBR) of 84% (with a 95% confidence interval of 77‑90%).
Nearly half of the patients (48%) reported the strongest outcomes (NED or regression), which is far higher than typical ‘acceptable’ outcome rates in traditional treatments for metastatic tumors.
The study group included a wide mix of cancer types and stages, including prostate, breast, lung, colon, liver, skin, kidney, oropharyngeal, and other miscellaneous malignancies. Half were within 12 months of initial diagnosis, and 20% had been managing their disease for five years or more.
73 participants (38%) reported receiving one or more doses of the covid ‘vaccine.’ 37% reported active cancer progression, and many had already received standard therapies (surgery 42%, chemotherapy 32%, radiation 29%, immunotherapy 17%, etc.), yet the high benefit ratio appeared acrossthis wide horizon of cancers, histories, and stages, rather than being confined to any narrow, cherry‑picked niche.
In other words, it wasn’t one or two cancer types where benefits appeared. It showed up in nearly all of them. If this preliminary study had been about a brand-new pharma drug in early trials with a ™ after its name and a billion-dollar research budget, corporate media would have headlined it from Zimbabwe to Zurich.
💊 While the patients’ various other treatments and lifestyle changes undoubtedly confounded the interpretation, those same factors equally confound mainstream studies of traditional chemo or ‘real‑world’ oncology. The fact that the reported CBR shot far past typical benchmarks —despite the confounders— suggests the signal can’t just be waved off as a random “combination of standard care.”
Next, these study results didn’t just suddenly appear out of the blue. In other words, it isn’t an outlier. Ivermectin and mebendazole each have extensive early literature showing multi‑target anticancer effects, cancer stem‑cell targeting, and published results both in-vitro (lab cells) and in-vivo (real patients), plus prior small‑scale clinical case reports suggesting potential beneficial activity for these and related antiparasitics.
“Ivermectin and mebendazole,” the authors wrote, “are two widely used antiparasitic agents that have demonstrated highly promising anti-cancer activity in preclinical models — over 14 distinct anti-cancer effects across more than 12 cancer types, and excellent safety in patients with cancer.”
Because both drugs are orally available, low‑toxicity, inexpensive, and already used in humans for other conditions, anynon‑zero chance that such a large real‑world signal reflects a true effect with outsized practical importance: even a modest survival or disease‑control benefit at low cost and low risk could be meaningful at population scale.
YOUTUBE: Dr. John Campbell reviews the study (24:20).
In short, this study establishes a minimal baseline confidence: given the drugs’ stellar safety record and well-known (mild) side-effects, it’s arguable that cancer patients facing serious diagnoses would be crazy notto try. The real question at this point is: why shouldn’t ivermectin-mebenzadole be at least considered for every cancer regimen, just in case? (Lawyer Note: not individual medical advice.)
Even granting generous allowances for selection bias, optimistic self‑reporting, and lack of clinical supervision, it is hard to explain an 84% disease‑control ratio and nearly 50% NED/regression rate purely by random noise, natural history, and conventional care, especially in a population where over a third reported progression at baseline and many had prior unsuccessful therapies.
If the system insists that no one should try this regimen outside “gold standard” RCT trials, but then quietly stacks the deck so that no meaningful trials ever happen, it’s not practicing evidence‑based medicine; it’s practicing evidence‑prevention— at the direct expense of dying patients without the luxury of time.
💊 This study is not about “this proves ivermectin + mebendazole works.” Rather, the size, internal consistency, and biological plausibility of the observed signal, in a relatively large and diverse real‑world study group, raise a credible possibility —if not probability— of true anticancer activity that justifies urgent, independent, randomized, controlled trials, and cannot be casually waved away.
Remember the so-called Biden “Cancer Moonshot,” the one that was going to unleash bold, disruptive science and “repurpose” cheap old drugs to save lives? (If only they’d launched Biden to the Moon instead of porkzilla.) Apparently, the rocket never made it to the launchpad where ivermectin and mebendazole were waiting, patiently waving a fat stack of preclinical anticancer papers and forty years of safety data.
Instead, the first structured real‑world look at this combo comes not from the NIH, the National Cancer Institute, or a gleaming Harvard cancer center, but from a telemedicine outfit selling compounded antiparasitics to cash‑pay patients over the internet.
Washington’s cancer pork somehow found billions for Big Pharma, slogans, and photo‑ops, but somehow there wasn’t enough money for a single randomized trial of off‑patent pills that cost less than a Starbucks Moccachino, and show an 84% self‑reported “clinical benefit” in a diverse cancer cohort. If this is what “all‑of‑government urgency” looks like, you almost hate to see what complacency would have done.
And, um, where are the Moonshot’s results? Exactly. Can we get a refund?
💊 Which brings us to the buried lede: the heroic efforts of The Wellness Company and Peter McCullough, who spent their own money and dashed onto the scorched scholastic battlefield to fund and publish an easily replicated, proof-of-concept study that should have been done ages ago using taxpayer money.
CLIP: Dr. McCullough explains study and its results (1:34).
That is the covid miracle. The pandemic yanked Dr. Peter McCullough out of his cushy place in the medical establishment. Before covid, he was a heavily published academic cardiologist with dual appointments at major Texas hospitals, multiple board certifications, federal grants, editorial roles, and a standing invitation to the cardiology conference circuit— his name trailed by a small alphabet of degrees and credentials.
Then the ivory tower kicked him off the balcony. One by one, his academic titles disappeared, professional societies distanced themselves, and the American Board of Internal Medicine ultimately revoked his internal‑medicine and cardiology certifications— all after he began publicly challenging the official line on covid treatment and vaccines.
But McCullough did not slink away into retirement. Today, he still sees patients through a private cardiology and telemedicine practice based in Texas, serves as chief scientific officer for a Florida‑based telehealth outfit, and has resumed publishing peer‑reviewed papers on covid, vaccine injuries, and post‑pandemic syndromes— much to the continued irritation of the institutions that once showcased him as a model academic.
Now, his telemedicine company is not just hawking supplements and covid solutions. He’s also using the money he’s making to fund private studies and pay doctors like the solemn Nicolas Hulscher to be everywhere on social media these days.
In other words, pharma created its own worst nightmare. Support TWC if you can.
💊 Whatever one thinks of the study’s results, the most compelling point is how boringly replicable it is. Any academic center or pharma group could cheaply and easily enroll a few hundred cancer patients, use the same 25 mg/250 mg capsules, and see within a year whether they get anything like an 84% clinical benefit ratio, or whether the numbers just collapse back to statistical background noise.
The fact that this has not already been done —not by Biden’s Cancer Moonshot, not by NIH, not by NCI, not by any of the giant cancer centers endlessly seeking donors for their ‘cutting‑edge research’— tells us something important.
Either they are supremely confident that the signal is fake and not worth falsifying, or they are obstinately refusing to run the one kind of trial that might make a cheap, off‑patent, low‑toxicity regimen competitive with their billion‑dollar pipelines.
Well, maybe there is some progress. The glacier that has long buried cheap, repurposed cancer treatments is slowly melting.
In a twist that would have gotten you banned from Twitter two years ago, Florida’s official state cancer program now openlyencourages research on off‑patent antiparasitics. Through the Casey DeSantis Cancer Research Program’s Cancer Innovation Fund, the state has put $60 million on the table for short‑run cancer trials that prioritize nutrition, including $2 million for the repurposing of generic drugs “such as ivermectin” and mebendazole— precisely the sort of low‑cost, low‑toxicity combinations now being reported in The Wellness Company’s study.
If they haven’t already, TWC and Dr. McCullough should apply for a research grant under the DeSantis program.
The bottom line is that we finally have a published, peer-reviewed study to send to desperate cancer victims who might be on the fence because their doctors are still sneering at ivermectin and calling it horse paste. And we have Dr. McCullough and The Wellness Center to thank for it.
And maybe most of all, we can thank the pandemic itself, for surfacing this solution along with all the covid problems. If antiparastics work anywhere near what this study suggests, it could end cancer as we know it and stop the new oncological epidemic in its tracks.
Have a wonderful weekend! C&C News will be back on Monday, with even more essential news and caffeinated commentary.
Don’t race off! We cannot do it alone. Consider joining up with C&C to help move the nation’s needle and change minds. I could sure use your help getting the truth out and spreading optimism and hope, if you can: ☕ Learn How to Get Involved 🦠
How to Donate to Coffee & Covid
Twitter: jchilders98.
Truth Social: jchilders98.
MeWe: mewe.com/i/coffee_and_covid.
Telegram: t.me/coffeecovidnews
C&C Swag! www.shopcoffeeandcovid.com
© 2022, Jeff Childers, all rights reservedLIKECOMMENTRESTACK
© 2026 Jeff Childers
2135-B NW 40th Terrace, Gainesville, FL 32605
Unsubscribe
Rose Rambles... 