Multi-compound protocols
Also called: stacks, off-label protocols, repurposed drug protocols.
Last reviewed 2026-09-16. How this works.
Treating cancer Grade D
No human evidence of benefit, or none that survived testing.
Taking several of these things together has never been tested as a combination, so nobody knows what it does.
The combination has no evidence of its own at all.
The claim
The claim is that a set of repurposed drugs and supplements taken together does what none of them does alone. Protocols are usually named after a person and shared as a list.
What it does
There is no mechanism for a protocol, because a protocol is not a thing that has one. Each compound has its own entry in this register and its own grade. Putting them in a list does not create evidence for the list.
The evidence
The largest study the field has produced followed 197 people prescribed ivermectin and mebendazole off-label through a telemedicine service, of whom 122 completed surveys. A self-reported clinical benefit ratio of 84.4 percent was reported.1
Four things about it matter more than that number. The outcomes were reported by patients rather than assessed on centrally reviewed scans. And 28 percent were receiving chemotherapy at the same time, 21 percent radiotherapy, 20 percent surgery and 49 percent supplements, which makes it impossible by construction to say what produced any change.1
The journal has published an Expression of Concern about it, recording that serious concerns were raised by the international medical community regarding the verifiability and statistical reliability of the dataset and its ethical oversight, and that the study was published purely as hypothesis-generating.2
Several authors, including the senior author, are reported to be affiliated with the telemedicine company that sells the product studied. That is the reading-a-source question from this book applied to the single largest study in the field: does the source sell what it recommends.3
The studies this rests on
The harm
What has not been looked at
Nobody has studied what these compounds do to a person when taken together, alongside cancer treatment. The safety of a combination is not the sum of the safety of its parts.
Scope: any combination of these compounds.
Established by trial scope, checked 2026-09-16. Result: no study in this record examined the safety of the combination.1
What is absent
No study has compared people taking a protocol against comparable people not taking one. The largest study had no comparison group at all, and most of the people in it were receiving conventional treatment at the same time.
Scope: any protocol, any tumour type.
Established by trial scope, checked 2026-09-16. Result: the only study in this record is an uncontrolled observational cohort with concurrent conventional treatment in a large share of participants.1
What to ask
If I am taking several things at once, which of them would you most want to know about?
The dish-to-person gap
A protocol is a combination of compounds rather than one compound, so no single pharmacokinetic profile applies, and the combination has never been characterised in a person.
When to call your team — no warning signs are recorded
Whatever you are taking or thinking of taking, the people treating you can only weigh it if they know about it. That is true when nothing has been written down here, and it is most true then.
The register records no warning signs specific to protocols, because there is no fixed protocol to describe. The individual compounds have their own entries, and some of those carry warning signs.
Interactions
A combination of several compounds taken alongside cancer treatment has an interaction profile that nobody has measured, because the combination itself has never been studied. The more compounds, the less anyone can say.
Nobody having looked is not the same as nothing being there. That is what this line says and all it says.
The whole interaction list, and how to turn it into a pharmacy review request.
Find a trial instead
There is no trial of a multi-compound protocol to find. Trials test one variable at a time, which is the difficulty this entry is about.
References
Hulscher N, Victory K, Thorp JA, Pinsky D, Diaz-Villalobos A, Gillooly P, Coulson F, Annazone M, Radesi C, Brooks J, McCullough PA, Risch H. Real-world clinical outcomes of ivermectin and mebendazole in cancer patients: results from a prospective observational cohort. Anticancer Research 2026;46(6):3243-3255.
How this was reached: transcribed from chapter note, via docs/CHAPTER-NOTES.json, chapter 15 note 1.
Held against this source and not confirmed:
the breakdown of 32.8 percent no evidence of disease, 15.6 percent regression, 36.1 percent stable disease and 15.6 percent progression
The chapter note records that this breakdown is drawn from secondary summaries of the paper and should be confirmed against the article. It is not used in the prose on this page.
Expression of Concern. Anticancer Research 2026 Jun 9;46(6):e3243.
doi:10.21873/anticanres.18276 · PubMed 42300708
How this was reached: transcribed from chapter note, via docs/CHAPTER-NOTES.json, chapter 15 note 2.
Secondary coverage reporting the affiliation of several authors, including the senior author, with the telemedicine company prescribing the product under study.
No persistent identifier recorded.
How this was reached: transcribed from chapter note, via docs/CHAPTER-NOTES.json, chapter 15 note 3.