Firsthand Experience with Fenbendazole, Ivermectin, Lactoferrin?

I've posted these before...but, may be time to drag them out again...

Tips to be your own best researcher, https://ancan.org/helpful-tips-to-be-your-own-best-medical-researcher/

Anecdotal Evidence - information that has been observed by the person reporting but not verified. Be skeptical of anecdotal evidence such as personal stories. It is not scientifically reliable. Focus on information supported by scientific evidence and clinical studies.

The quality levels of evidence from highest to lowest for medical data are:

Systematic reviews: collect and evaluate all available data/evidence within the researchers’ criteria. An example is the “Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews”. Meta studies are a systematic review.

Randomized controlled trials: participants are randomly assigned to experimental and control arms. The double-blind trial is the gold-standard of medical research where neither the participants nor the researchers know the placebo or medication/treatment is given. This is to prevent bias and to ensure the validity and reliability of the study.

Cohort observational study: participants with common traits or exposure to the proposed medications or treatments are followed over a long period of time.

Case study or report: a detailed report of result after treatment of an individual. This is formalized and reviewed anecdotal evidence.

Phases of medical trial studies cited by published medical papers:

Pre-clinical studies: laboratory experiments using cell cultures, animal or computer models. In vitro means tested In Vitro – literally ‘in glass’ means testing outside a living organism, in a test tube or petri dish, In Vivo – literally in life -means testing in a living organism, often mice. Then studies move on to humans…

Phase I trials: assess safety, dosage and side effects of the proposed medications or treatment.

Phase II trials: expand P 1 to evaluate efficacy of the proposed medications or treatment – how well it works..

Phase III trials: confirm efficacy, safety, dosage and to evaluate side effects of the proposed medications or treatment in much larger samples. This is often where randomized blind and double blind design is used. Blind means the patient does not know what they are getting; double blind means neither the patient nor the clinician know what is being dosed.

Phase IV trials: monitor long term effectiveness and safety of the medication or treatment.

Some terms regarding statistical data cited in medical journals are explained as follows:
N = number of participants: be wary of studies with a very low N.
HR = hazard ratio: HR=1 – there is no change in the proposed medication/treatment compared to control baseline. HR< 1 – there is a reduction of risks with the proposed medication/treatment. HR>1 – there is an increase risk with the proposed medication/treatment.
CI = Confidence Interval: A trial shows that a particular drug has a 20% effect within a certain time frame with 95% CI. This shows that the study, if repeated many times, it will be 95% confident that the 20% reduction will be consistently observed.
P-value = Probability Value: This measures how strong the evidence is that the hypothesis, or effect being tested, is correct, rather than the result being random, or incorrect (null hypothesis). We seek a P-value that is < =0.05 meaning that there is a 95% or better likelihood the result is attributable to what is being tested.

I'm here 12+ years after diagnosis in part because I've stuck with the science.

That's not just my PCa, Afib, TIA, DVT and PE..

Kevin

@deccakid Thank you for sharing your 'first hand' experience.

6.6 or 6.7 was the second and last PSA test that I was allowed, and that was like in August of 2025. It had climbed within a months' time from my first PSA test of 6.2. I decided taking a 'chance' was worth it to me, so I took FenBen and IVR prior to my RARP on 4/9/26. I wasn't allowed another PSA test prior to surgery, even though I requested one several times, so I have no idea where my PSA level was. I'm currently taking another 'chance' month of FenBen and IVR. It's not harming me in any way. I am taking additional supplements to support my liver, and I'm extremely healthy, other than the prostate cancer, which pathology results indicate was 100% contained within my prostate and all margines were clear.

Only the oncologist / radiologist I consulted with suggested radiation and ADT (testosterone blocker meds). Go figure... Everyone else I consulted with said surgery was my only viable option, (due to the cancer being present throughout my entire prostate), and that ADT would be horrible for me.

Zero medications have been prescribed to me. Just surgery. Taking FenBen and IVR at least allows me to feel like I'm being proactive on my end, even IF it's not doing anything productive for me.

At the very least, I know I'm parasite free.

@cxracer
Hmmm...We have different degrees...6.2 is above the 1.0>4.0 threshold...not necessarily super scary, and some say that...depending on your age that would still be considered normal.

Yep, I did the 'Fenben' for about 3 months. It didn't help, but it didn't hurt...worm-free...that's me!!
LOL

I'm not a doctor, but extremely involved in the progression of this disease (it can be extremely aggressive). I chose external radiation (6 weeks, 5X per week). The PSA went down, scans showed clear then PSA went up and scans showed metastasis to the spine and one lymph gland. I then moved to Chemotherapy (Taxotere). Scans showed clear... then, most recently, scans showed further metastasis (spine and the prostate itself.) I was then a candidate for Pluvicto and have had one treatment so far...

Like some have said, do your research, ask a LOT of questions. There are advantages and disadvantages to any type treatment. It is good for you that your cancer is localized. I'm sure your doctors know that this is the time to treat before it metastasizes...which is common in about 30% of men...

Radical surgery (prostatectomy), your being localized, is indeed an option. My advice, again, is research, explore ALL options and make a decision soon...Don't delay!!

Blessings in your endevours!!

@kujhawk1978 I also researched and pursued radiation + ADT and RP surgery, and following multiple consultations I ultimately had RP surgery within 5 months of being diagnosed with Gleason 3+4=7 prostate cancer. So I believe it's fair to say that to date, I've stuck with the science as well, even though I've implemented FenBen and IVR along the way. I realize that any personal feedback I could ever provide about my personal experience with them would be considered purely as colloquial evidence, and I'm okay with that. It was and is still my personal decision to take that 'chance'. If I get to a point where salvage radiation + ADT is recommended, I will assess my life at the time and make that decision, but I will more than likely stick with the science then as well. Also, if at any point in time I experience adverse side effects from FenBen and IVR, and/or they would interfere with other prescribed meds, (e.g. ADT), I will immediately stop taking them.

I also pray to my lord and savior Jesus Christ a lot about all of this.

None of this makes me anti-science in any way, so I hope that's not what's being implied here, but if it is, I'm okay with that too.

@cxracer

Understand, thanx.

I think we need to be cautious in bringing off "science" topics into play as I have seen folks latch on to "hope" in simplistic solutions.

I think keeping one's medical team informed so if there are drug interactions or you start experiencing side effects, they can advise, is sound practice.

TMI is generally not a thing for me when consulting one's medical team.

I guess my question is how does one separate the impact of things you describe versus treatment based on science, whether you take them together, after completing treatment...

For example, after I completed triplet therapy, I experienced a five year PFS period. Now if I was taking the things you describe during that treatment or PFS period, how do you distinguish if they had any impact...!?

You can't and that's my point.

Too often I see folks in this forum and others posting that these drugs have "controlled" their PCa.

I call BS, they haven't controlled the variables so no way to attribute any cause and effect.

It's like I say when I make a treatment decision, I can't run separate and parallel studies in two different universes of me so we'll never know if I'd done something different, would it have changed the outcome!?

Kevin

I've posted these before...but, may be time to drag them out again...

Tips to be your own best researcher, https://ancan.org/helpful-tips-to-be-your-own-best-medical-researcher/

Anecdotal Evidence - information that has been observed by the person reporting but not verified. Be skeptical of anecdotal evidence such as personal stories. It is not scientifically reliable. Focus on information supported by scientific evidence and clinical studies.

The quality levels of evidence from highest to lowest for medical data are:

Systematic reviews: collect and evaluate all available data/evidence within the researchers’ criteria. An example is the “Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews”. Meta studies are a systematic review.

Randomized controlled trials: participants are randomly assigned to experimental and control arms. The double-blind trial is the gold-standard of medical research where neither the participants nor the researchers know the placebo or medication/treatment is given. This is to prevent bias and to ensure the validity and reliability of the study.

Cohort observational study: participants with common traits or exposure to the proposed medications or treatments are followed over a long period of time.

Case study or report: a detailed report of result after treatment of an individual. This is formalized and reviewed anecdotal evidence.

Phases of medical trial studies cited by published medical papers:

Pre-clinical studies: laboratory experiments using cell cultures, animal or computer models. In vitro means tested In Vitro – literally ‘in glass’ means testing outside a living organism, in a test tube or petri dish, In Vivo – literally in life -means testing in a living organism, often mice. Then studies move on to humans…

Phase I trials: assess safety, dosage and side effects of the proposed medications or treatment.

Phase II trials: expand P 1 to evaluate efficacy of the proposed medications or treatment – how well it works..

Phase III trials: confirm efficacy, safety, dosage and to evaluate side effects of the proposed medications or treatment in much larger samples. This is often where randomized blind and double blind design is used. Blind means the patient does not know what they are getting; double blind means neither the patient nor the clinician know what is being dosed.

Phase IV trials: monitor long term effectiveness and safety of the medication or treatment.

Some terms regarding statistical data cited in medical journals are explained as follows:
N = number of participants: be wary of studies with a very low N.
HR = hazard ratio: HR=1 – there is no change in the proposed medication/treatment compared to control baseline. HR< 1 – there is a reduction of risks with the proposed medication/treatment. HR>1 – there is an increase risk with the proposed medication/treatment.
CI = Confidence Interval: A trial shows that a particular drug has a 20% effect within a certain time frame with 95% CI. This shows that the study, if repeated many times, it will be 95% confident that the 20% reduction will be consistently observed.
P-value = Probability Value: This measures how strong the evidence is that the hypothesis, or effect being tested, is correct, rather than the result being random, or incorrect (null hypothesis). We seek a P-value that is < =0.05 meaning that there is a 95% or better likelihood the result is attributable to what is being tested.

I'm here 12+ years after diagnosis in part because I've stuck with the science.

That's not just my PCa, Afib, TIA, DVT and PE..

Kevin

@kujhawk1978 "For example, after I completed triplet therapy, I experienced a five year PFS period. Now if I was taking the things you describe during that treatment or PFS period, how do you distinguish if they had any impact...!?"

IF I had been granted another 3rd PSA test prior to surgery, and my level had significantly dropped, I could have (and probably would have) drawn the colloquial conclusion that FenBen and IVR had contributed to or caused the drop. (Either that or answered prayers.) Because this was the ONLY change implemented in my life. (IF this occurred, I'm wise enough to know that I'd be wasting my time trying to convince anyone of how I achieved my personal results, so I'd share my story and leave it at that.)

My life isn't a clinical study, and I don't have to follow strict guidelines when making personal decisions. Outside of my radiation + ADT and prostatectomy surgical options, the medical community provided me with zero possible cancer combating protocols, medications, vitamins, or supplements, etc. I read enough colloquial evidence about these meds to seek them out. They are safe if not taken in mass quantities. They are also relatively inexpensive and obtainable. So, I implemented them, have zero regrets, and I'd do it again.

@cxracer "... the medical community provided me with zero possible cancer combating protocols, medications, vitamins, or supplements, etc."

Maybe there's a reason for that.

Years ago, I had a hyperactive thyroid, so my endocrinologist killed it with radioactive iodine. A month later, a couple long -time friends told me that I was slightly slurring my words. I normally speak quickly when excited & thought they were imagining it. Then my parents noticed it.

My next endocrinologist visit confirmed that my thyroid level had dropped to zero & prescribed a thyroid supplement.

My point is, patients are the worst observers of their own medical conditions. It's not only the patients, but professional caregivers like nurses, doctors, etc. are not the best observers either. In normal "blind" studies, a patient doesn't know whether he/she is getting a trial treatment or a placebo. However, if his/her professional caregivers DO know, there is still a bias in evaluating the patient's condition.

This is why "double-blind" studies are the gold standard. Maybe the medical community understands that.

I'm reminded of the case of Steve McQueen:

From Google: "McQueen underwent a controversial program developed by William Donald Kelley, a former orthodontist who had his license revoked in 1976."

https://www.mesothelioma.com/blog/steve-mcqueen-and-mesothelioma-an-actor-and-veterans-last-battle/ -- Quotes:

"Many scientists regarded Dr. Kelly’s methods as quackery. Dr. Kelly’s spin on Gerson Therapy was based on the belief that all cancers stem from a lack of a pancreatic enzyme. This method of treatment centered around unorthodox methods, including: ...

"The treatment also included a daily dose of laetrile, a cancer drug created from the pits of apricots. The drug was never approved by the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA). The National Cancer Institute (NCI) described its use as ineffective and dangerous. In later studies, it was shown this type of therapy actually worsened the patient’s quality of life. As McQueen sought out this controversial treatment in Mexico, ...

"McQueen’s supposed recovery was short-lived. Although his American doctors previously warned McQueen that his heart wasn’t strong enough for surgery, his new doctors operated anyway. The surgery itself went smoothly. The doctors removed some tumors from his neck. But, McQueen died from cardiac arrest the next day. He was 50 years old."

To quote a very old saying, "The patient died, but the operation was a success."

@readandlearn "Maybe there's a reason for that."

Maybe, but if I have an option to be proactive on my end, I usually pursue it. Even if it's experimental. (I analyze the crud out of risk vs reward and ROI of protocols before implementation.)

As a lifelong competitive athlete and senior analyst, I'm extremely intuned with my body and mind. If something slips by my observational skills, I've got live-in loved ones who are quick to point it out.

Oh, I haven't mentioned this yet, but the pressurized air intubation during prostatectomy surgery popped my left lung like a balloon, (and probably came close to popping the right one as well.) The surgical staff assured me that my extreme heavy chest and high-pitched voice were normal and would dissipate shortly, so I didn't even stay overnight. Symptoms worsened by the next morning and I had a ton of air bubbles under the skin of my chest and neck. My urologist nurse recommended I go to the ER. My surgeon called me separately and reiterated that it was normal, but that I 'could' go to the ER if I wanted to. Collapsed lung! Lung tube inserted and a three-day stint in the hospital. I know, I know, these things happen, but this reinforces my opinion of the medical community. They don't know everything, and I'm silly if I don't act as my own best advocate and perform my own research. I trust but verify.