Connect
← Return to Prostate Cancer Testing
Discussion
Comment receiving replies
If what you’re saying is true then why does somebody not do some real test on it? There’s so much information on the Internet, including some for medical doctors claiming if it won’t cure it it will help it. There’s also testimonies over and over again. I’d really like to say what I think the problem is, but if I did I would kicked off of the site
Replies to "If what you’re saying is true then why does somebody not do some real test on..."
@viperron, yes, researchers are studying ivermectin to see if it may be used as an anti-cancer drug and early studies show promise. Please note that this research is in the early stages (mice studies) and has not yet been tested in human trials. Ivermectin is not a proven standard treatment for prostate cancer.
Ivermectin combined with other chemotherapy drugs or targeted drugs is being studied in early clinical trials and shows promise in patients for whom conventional chemotherapy has not worked in some cancer types. It may be effective against drug-resistant cancer cells.
– Ivermectin, a potential anticancer drug derived from an antiparasitic drug https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7505114/
Often when early research shows promise, news headlines can be misleading leaving readers to believe a cure or potential benefit has arrived. These headlines make their way to social media and the part about the research being in early stages gets lost. Early research in mice can fail before testing on humans or if successful often takes time (years) before the true benefits are proven and available. But you can be assured that research is being done.
Important
It is NOT safe to take ivermectin used in veterinary medicine. Please talk to your doctor before taking any over-the-counter medications or supplements that claim to fight or cure cancer.
Connect
There is research underway — there's no top-secret international conspiracy to keep a legimate treatment out of our hands — but it takes time, and there hasn't been a slam-dunk finding yet.
The raw volume of information on the Internet is meaningless, because it's as easy to echo misinformation as it is to repeat legitimate information (perhaps even more so).
And finally, an individual doctor's claim isn't worth much unless backed up by extensive peer-reviewed findings. I have a doctorate in a non-medical field, and something in my area of expertise isn't true just because I say it's true in a YouTube video — I have to show the evidence, and have it validated by others in the same field (most individual studies, even honest, well-intentioned ones, don't turn out to be repeatable).