NCI Investigates Ivermectin as Potential Cancer Treatment

The National Cancer Institute (NCI) is looking into ivermectin as a possible treatment for cancer, according to its director. This federal agency, crucial in the fight against cancer, has decided to conduct further studies on the well-known antiparasitic drug.

“We have enough interest and reports to warrant a more thorough preclinical examination of ivermectin’s characteristics and its capacity to eliminate cancer cells,” said Anthony Letai, who was appointed NCI director during the Trump administration.

Interestingly, Letai didn’t mention any new data that might have stimulated this research into the drug’s effectiveness against cancer. Originally intended for treating infections caused by parasites, ivermectin is a common dewormer for horses.

“We expect to have results in a few months,” Letai added, indicating that the agency is taking this inquiry seriously.

He shared this information at a January 30 event titled “Reclaiming Science: The People’s NIH,” along with NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya and other senior officials. The discussion was hosted by the MAHA Institute and aligned with the Make America Healthy Again initiative championed by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. The NCI is the largest of the 27 branches of the NIH.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, ivermectin gained popularity as some fringe medical groups promoted it as a treatment, despite numerous clinical trials indicating it does not work against the virus.

Ivermectin is now viewed as a beacon of resistance among MAHA supporters and some conservative groups. Various commentators have touted it—without scientific backing—as a miracle cure for many diseases, including cancer. Some Trump administration officials have pointed to NCI’s research on the drug as evidence that the government is open to exploring alternative treatments often dismissed by mainstream science.

“If many people believe in it and it’s affecting public health, we, as the NIH, must take it seriously,” Bhattacharya stated at the event. He also expressed a desire for the NIH to act as “the research arm of MAHA,” as reported by The Chronicle at Duke University.

The decision by the NCI to pursue research on ivermectin has raised concerns among certain scientists within the agency.

“I’m shocked and appalled,” remarked one anonymous NCI scientist. “We’re redirecting funds from fruitful research to explore something based on unfounded ideas. It seems absurd.”

Due to concerns about retaliation, KFF Health News allowed the scientist and other NCI employees to remain anonymous.

Neither HHS nor the NCI responded to inquiries regarding the funding of this study, who is conducting it, or if any new evidence triggered this investigation into ivermectin as a cancer treatment. An HHS spokesperson mentioned that the NIH is committed to “rigorous, gold-standard research.”

A preclinical study is an initial research phase where the utility and risks of a drug or treatment are assessed in a laboratory before it moves on to human clinical trials.

The scientist expressed doubts about whether there is enough preliminary evidence to justify NCI’s expenditure of taxpayer money on this research.

Ivermectin has been approved by the FDA for specific purposes in humans and animals, primarily to treat conditions caused by parasitic worms. In 2015, two scientists received the Nobel Prize linked to the drug’s efficacy against certain parasitic diseases.

However, the FDA has issued warnings about the dangers of taking large doses of ivermectin, including the potential for seizures, comas, or even death.

Supporters of the MAHA movement claim that ivermectin’s suppression by the government and pharmaceutical companies is driven by its low cost and lack of profitability for the industry.

“The FDA’s war on public health is ending,” Kennedy stated in a viral post on X last October. He criticized the agency for inhibiting various health advancements that cannot be patented.

Past laboratory research has suggested that ivermectin may have anticancer properties by inducing cell death and halting tumor growth. “It has been studied with NIH funds and outside those funds,” Letai said.

Nevertheless, there is no confirmed evidence that ivermectin is safe or effective as a cancer treatment for humans. Preliminary information from a small trial using ivermectin alongside immunotherapy in patients with a specific type of metastatic breast cancer revealed no notable benefits.

Some medical professionals worry that patients might delay or abandon effective cancer treatments based on misleading claims regarding ivermectin’s efficacy.

“Many things work in a test tube or even in animal models, but that doesn’t guarantee success in humans,” noted Jeffery Edenfield, executive medical director at Prisma Health Cancer Institute in South Carolina.

Edenfield mentioned that patients often inquire about ivermectin due to social media influence. He recalled convincing one patient to stop using it, while a colleague dealt with a case where a patient opted for ivermectin over reliable standard therapies.

“People often come to these discussions with firm opinions,” Edenfield said. “We’re in a tricky moment where mistrust in medicine is high.”

A June letter from clinicians at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center highlighted a case where an adolescent patient developed health issues linked to ivermectin after discovering its supposed benefits online.

“We call on the pediatric oncology community to support health policies that prioritize our patients’ welfare,” the letter emphasized.

Despite the lack of concrete evidence supporting ivermectin’s role in cancer treatment, it remains a point of interest among celebrities and online influencers. For instance, actor Mel Gibson claimed on Joe Rogan’s podcast that ivermectin helped three of his friends with stage 4 cancer, a claim that has garnered millions of views.

In certain states, legislation has made ivermectin available over the counter. Additionally, Florida has announced plans to fund research into the drug’s potential as a cancer treatment.

Letai, who previously worked as an oncologist at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, joined the NCI following significant upheaval from prior administration policies.

“What we’re witnessing at the NIH is an openness to explore ideas—even those that might initially seem implausible—while applying rigorous scientific methods,” Bhattacharya explained during the event.

Another anonymous NCI scientist criticized the notion that NIH wouldn’t be willing to examine the potential of off-label drugs for cancer treatments. “This isn’t a brand new concept,” the scientist stated.

Letai did not clarify whether internal NCI scientists are conducting the research or if funds are allocated to an external organization. Approximately 75% of NCI’s research funding goes to external scientists.

He also sought to manage expectations, saying that “on a population level, it’s unlikely to be a panacea for cancer.”