See which claims are backed by experiments, exact reported results, and linked sources β not summaries.Know what the science actually supports before you trust the answer.
Press Enter β΅ to find evidence
Explore by Goal
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself β and you are the easiest person to fool."
- Richard Feynman
Quick Explanation
Copied
The evidence supports ivermectin as a preclinical anticancer candidate, not as an established cancer treatment. Cell and mouse studies report cytotoxicity and improved delivery, but the supplied clinical evidence contains no randomized trial demonstrating tumor response, survival benefit, or an effective cancer dose in humans; the 2025 review itself concludes that controlled trials are still needed.
Long Explanation
What supports the hypothesis
Cell models: Ivermectin produced low-micromolar cytotoxicity in several cancer-cell lines. In breast-cancer models, reported effects involved extracellular ATP, P2X4/P2X7/Pannexin-1 signaling, calcium and reactive oxygen species, caspase activation, autophagy, and mixed apoptotic/necrotic death. At 32 ΞΌM for 4 hours, over 90% of 4T1.2 cells were 7-AAD-positive; however, this was entirely in vitro, with no human participants and important inhibitor-specificity and pyroptosis-confirmation limitations.
Animal delivery study: Platelet-membrane-coated ivermectin nanocrystals improved tumor localization 2.3-fold and reduced growth more than uncoated formulations in an orthotopic 4T1 mouse model. The study used 20 mice for antitumor efficacy, five per group, so it supports a formulation-development hypothesis rather than ordinary oral ivermectin treatment in humans.
Medicinal-chemistry lead: An ivermectinβartesunate conjugate showed GI50 18.0 Β± 6.0 ΞΌM against HL-60 cells and a reported selectivity ratio of 46.2, but the work used only three independent in-vitro experiments and provided no pharmacokinetic, animal, or clinical validation.
What does not yet support treatment
The repurposing review describes ivermectin mechanisms including AKT/mTOR, Wnt/TCF, PAK1, YAP1, multidrug-resistance transporters, and cancer-stem-cell markers, but it is a narrative synthesis of heterogeneous studies rather than proof of clinical benefit. It explicitly identifies the need for large, well-controlled trials addressing efficacy, dosing, safety, and drug interactions.
Bottom line: The strongest defensible claim is βbiologically plausible and experimentally active in selected models.β The evidence does not justify the stronger claim that ivermectin treats cancer in people. A decisive change in confidence would require prospective, adequately powered, randomized human trials reporting tumor response, progression-free survival, overall survival, dose exposure, interactions, and harms.
We'll email you the results when your analysis is finished.
Hypothesis Graveyard
βIvermectin is clinically proven to treat cancerβ is unsupported by the supplied evidence because no randomized cancer-efficacy trial is reported.
βIn-vitro micromolar cytotoxicity establishes a usable human doseβ is not justified because the cited studies do not provide human tumor exposure or pharmacokinetic bridging.
Quick Explanation
Long Explanation
Top Data Sources
ExportMCP
Hypothesis Graveyard
Potential Experiments
Discussion
Explore by Goal
Ask a Follow-Up
Key Insight
Keep Exploring