Unconventional Treatment

What’s the problem?

Chemotherapy treatment, in my case, is a palliative treatment, meaning we’re not curing anything. We’re simply buying time. This is the case when cancer is at stage IV, and several oncologists handling my case have confirmed it.

Chemotherapy mainly attacks fast-dividing cells, which are the cancerous ones. But cancer also involves slow-dividing cells, and chemotherapy doesn’t reach those. It also doesn’t attack cancer stem cells, which can cause future metastases, cancer recurrence, etc.

In some patients, there is a chance that chemotherapy treatment reduces the tumor mass enough to allow for surgical removal of the affected areas. However, given how widespread it is in my case, that option is quite unlikely. We could remove it from the colon, but what about the liver? What about the lungs?...

Gaining a few months is not enough for me.

Alternatives

After a lot of research, I’ve found only one treatment that could ā€œcureā€ or at least greatly support conventional chemotherapy treatment.

These are medications not approved for human use, but which have been used to treat multiple diseases.

Specifically, Fenbendazole (or Mebendazole) and Ivermectin.

About Mebendazole (Fenbendazole)

Mebendazole and Fenbendazole are antiparasitic drugs from the benzimidazole group, commonly used to treat intestinal parasite infections such as worms. Although they are mainly intended for veterinary (Fenbendazole) or human (Mebendazole) use, in recent years they have drawn attention for their potential anticancer effects, although this area is still under research and not approved for oncological treatment.

Preclinical studies (in lab or animals) have shown that these compounds can:

Inhibit the formation of microtubules (essential structures for cell division), preventing cancer cells from multiplying.

Induce apoptosis (programmed cell death) in tumor cells.

Interfere with metabolic pathways related to tumor growth.

Reduce angiogenesis (formation of new blood vessels), making it harder for the tumor to obtain nutrients.

Most of the positive evidence comes from in vitro studies (in lab cells) or animal models.

Some anecdotal cases have been reported in humans, but there are no large, controlled clinical trials that support its use as a safe and effective cancer treatment.

It is not approved by regulatory agencies like the FDA or EMA for cancer treatment.

There may be side effects if used off-label.

It may interact with other medications.

It should not be considered a substitute for conventional treatments like chemotherapy, immunotherapy, or radiotherapy without medical supervision.

About Ivermectin

Ivermectin has been administered to humans 3.7 billion times over the last 30 years. It is completely safe and has been called a ā€œmiracle drug.ā€ Its creators won the Nobel Prize in Medicine for inventing it, and the WHO includes it on its list of ā€œessential medicinesā€ for any country.

This medication, which is an antiparasitic, became quite controversial a few years ago because it was used to prevent or cure COVID-19, sparking a lot of controversy. Governments rushed to deny its effectiveness (perhaps rightly so) and even released a slogan to discourage its use:

"You are not a horse, you are not a cow. Seriously, y’all, stop it." "No eres un caballo, no eres una vaca. En serio, dĆ©jenlo ya."

In any case, I’m not going to get into that controversy...

The fact is, there are studies and success stories regarding the use of Ivermectin in cancer treatment. Could it all be a hoax? It could be, but I don’t think so. I don’t think so because of the people spreading this information. Specifically, Dr. John Campbell, whom I’ve been following since before COVID. Besides being a renowned virologist, his integrity is beyond question, and if he’s giving credit to this treatment, he has my trust.

In any case, what’s my alternative? Wait?

Why aren’t there clinical trials in humans?

Here we enter the realm of conspiracy theories, but the truth is that Ivermectin has been off-patent since 1996, so there’s no way for pharmaceutical companies to profit from it. That may explain the lack of interest in thoroughly studying this medication for cancer treatment.

On the other hand, there are hundreds of preclinical studies. I’ve also found thousands of testimonials claiming it worked for them.

Risks

Even though it is considered one of the safest medicines, even safer than aspirin (15 times fewer deaths), at the doses I’m going to take, it will affect the liver, since it has to process it.

Under normal circumstances, this wouldn’t be a problem, but I also have liver damage from the cancer, and we’re already putting a lot of strain on it with the chemotherapy toxins.

So I’ll need to get continuous blood tests to monitor transaminase levels and make sure they don’t spike too much.

If the liver fails, that would be another immediate Game Over.

Conclusion

What do I have to lose?

Back to main page