RFK Jr. NIH Funds Ivermectin Cancer Study: Experts Call It “Absurd”
▼ Summary
– The National Cancer Institute (NCI) is using federal funds to conduct preclinical studies on ivermectin’s potential to kill cancer cells, despite a lack of scientific evidence supporting its use for cancer.
– Ivermectin is a cheap, off-patent anti-parasitic drug that was falsely promoted by fringe groups as a COVID-19 treatment and is now being touted as a cure-all.
– The NCI’s director, Anthony Letai, stated the institute is taking the investigation seriously due to reported interest, but he tempered expectations by noting it is “not going to be a cure-all for cancer.”
– Letai indicated that even if preclinical studies show anti-cancer signals, they are not particularly strong, and results from these studies are expected in a few months.
– This research push occurs under an administration influenced by medical fringe figures, including Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has promoted unproven medical claims.
The National Cancer Institute has allocated federal funding to investigate the potential use of ivermectin as a cancer treatment, a move drawing sharp criticism from many in the scientific community. This decision comes under a new administration that has elevated figures known for promoting unproven medical claims, raising concerns about the prioritization of research resources. Ivermectin is a widely available anti-parasitic medication that gained notoriety during the COVID-19 pandemic due to unfounded claims about its efficacy, which were later debunked by large-scale clinical trials. There exists no established scientific basis to suggest the drug can combat cancer, making this new study a controversial departure from conventional research pathways.
During a public event titled “Reclaiming Science: The People’s NIH,” NCI Director Anthony Letai confirmed the institute’s engagement with the topic. He stated that due to persistent reports and interest, the NCI initiated a more rigorous preclinical study to evaluate ivermectin’s properties and its ability to destroy cancer cells. Letai carefully noted that results from these laboratory tests would be available in a few months. He simultaneously attempted to manage expectations, explicitly stating, “It’s not going to be a cure-all for cancer,” and later added that any observed anti-cancer signals in the studies were not particularly strong.
The event was hosted by the MAHA Institute, an organization aligned with the current administration’s health policy direction. Letai’s comments, first reported by KFF Health News and observed by Ars Technica, reflect a delicate balancing act, acknowledging the examination of a fringe hypothesis while attempting to preemptively counter the grandiose claims often associated with the drug. This scenario underscores a significant shift in federal health leadership, where individuals who have championed disproven treatments now influence the allocation of research dollars for serious diseases like cancer.
Experts across oncology and infectious disease have labeled the study as scientifically unjustified and a misallocation of precious research funds. They argue that robust evidence should guide federal investment, not anecdotal reports or political pressure from groups that have historically spread medical misinformation. The pursuit of this study, against a backdrop of established scientific consensus, highlights the ongoing tensions between evidence-based medicine and ideological influences within public health institutions.
(Source: Ars Technica)
