When Folk Hype Meets Pharma Hype — The Ivermectin + PD-1 Combo That Still Falls Flat

In the world of cancer therapy, few substances have drawn such polarized attention as ivermectin and PD-1 inhibitors.

• Ivermectin, a cheap antiparasitic drug, was hailed across online communities as a miracle cure for everything from COVID-19 to cancer.

• PD-1 inhibitors, on the other hand, have been elevated by big pharma and academia to almost divine status—expensive, immunologically elegant, and widely marketed as the frontier of modern oncology.

Now, for the first time, these two forces—folk medicine and pharmaceutical mainstream—have been brought together in a formal clinical trial for metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC). The result?

A joint performance that feels more like a makeshift ensemble than a breakthrough act.

---

The Trial: Hope Meets Harsh Reality

A Phase I/II study (NCT05318469), conducted by researchers at Cedars-Sinai and City of Hope, tested a combination of:

• Oral ivermectin (30–60 mg)

• Balstilimab, a PD-1 checkpoint inhibitor developed by Agenus

…in 9 patients with late-stage, heavily pretreated mTNBC. This cancer type is notoriously difficult to treat, and the study targeted patients who had already undergone multiple lines of failed therapies.

The rationale? Preclinical mouse models suggested that ivermectin might help turn “cold” tumors “hot,” enhancing T-cell infiltration and making PD-1 inhibitors more effective.

---

The Results: Modest at Best

• Out of 8 evaluable patients:

  • 6 experienced disease progression

  • 1 had stable disease

  • 1 achieved partial response

• Median progression-free survival (PFS): 2.5 months

• 4-month clinical benefit rate (CBR): 37.5%

• Serious side effects: minimal (only one case of grade 3 anemia)

So yes, it’s safe. But is it effective? The data say: not really.

And yet, the study dares to conclude with a straight face:

“Encouraging clinical benefit rate was observed.”

That’s like calling a failed band rehearsal “promising” because no one broke a guitar.

Let’s be honest: if this is the best outcome from the marriage of the most hyped folk cure and the most hyped pharmaceutical drug, something is deeply wrong with the entire paradigm.

🔗 Official publication – Journal of Clinical Oncology, ASCO 2025

If these same 9 breast cancer patients had instead received my Intra-Tumoral Chlorine Dioxide Therapy—with a one-month treatment window—I would reasonably expect an objective response rate exceeding 70%, with 8 of 9 patients showing measurable benefit, and at least 3 achieving complete remission.

---

Why Only 9 Patients?

Some might ask: Why so few?

This isn’t a rare disease. It’s not an ultra-niche population. In fact, there are thousands of women in the U.S. every year with mTNBC desperate for new options.

The answer may be simpler—and more revealing—than we think:

They didn’t dare go bigger.

When the preliminary signal is weak, there’s no incentive to expand. A small sample leaves more room to defend weak outcomes. A larger cohort might expose the reality too soon.

Ironically, our partner clinic in Germany has already treated more patients with Intra-Tumoral ClO₂ for late-stage cancers than this entire trial.

---

What Makes Science “Acceptable”?

Let’s look at the contrast in publication:

• This ivermectin + balstilimab trial, despite showing modest results, was accepted and presented at a top peer-reviewed oncology journal (JCO).

• The research was led by institutional giants: Cedars-Sinai and City of Hope.

Meanwhile, my preclinical paper on intratumoral chlorine dioxide injection therapy, which shows complete tumor collapse in animal models, has been rejected by over 30 journals.

Why?

Is it because:

• I don’t have a medical degree?

• I wasn’t born into academia?

• My work wasn’t funded by NIH or Big Pharma?

• I don’t have Harvard, MD Anderson, or Stanford stamped on the cover?

Maybe all of the above.

And yet—I’m saving patients.

With no systemic toxicity, visible tumor regression, and international clinical adoption, I’m doing what those glossy abstracts only hint at.

---

So Where Do We Go From Here?

This trial doesn’t just show that ivermectin may not be a magic bullet.

It also reveals something more humbling:

Even the best-funded, most respected institutions can only squeeze so much out of broken paradigms.

It’s time to stop treating cancer like a game of tweaking formulas and combining buzzwords.

We need therapies that:

• Mechanically destroy tumors

• Avoid systemic toxicity

• Offer clear, visual, and immediate results

• Are accessible, not reserved for the elite few

And yes, we need to break the monopoly of gatekeeping journals, institutional bias, and credential snobbery that hides good ideas behind closed doors.

---

Final Reflection: Who Is Allowed to Speak?

If you’re still waiting for “proof” from a system designed to exclude independent innovation, ask yourself:

Would this trial have been celebrated if it were me testing chlorine dioxide with the same results?

Or would I have been banned, banned again, and banned a third time?

This is not a question of science anymore.

It’s a question of who is allowed to speak.