You have said you would not recommend fenbendazole for treating or preventing cancer, but would support use of ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine. Dr. Andreas Kalcker promotes treatment of cancer using Chlorine Dioxide Solution to first reach a clinical redox plateau, then introduces albendazole/fenbendazole to impose mitotic stress, and then adds ivermectin to quiet excitatory signaling. In this scenario, the fenbendazole is used to block glucose handling by cancer cells to limit energy availability, and destabilize microtubules to hinder cell division. Is his theory sound? Is his timed sequence a more elegant way to utilize fenbendazole effectively to derive benefit?

His is a nice theory, but he is over-interpreting these particular properties as contributing something meaningful to the spectrum of the effects that can bring about a resolution of cancer in some individuals with these treatments. So he is following the science up to a point, taking the known biochemical properties of these substances and what has been observed about their effects in vitro and assuming that is all there is to the story. And the logical interplay of having several points of attack provides a clear descriptive hypothesis about why they can be a successful answer for countering the effects of malignancy. But being partly in alignment logically does not mean the effects are reproducible and contributing greatly to benefits in vivo in a given instance, just because they are theoretically plausible. In this case, there are hitherto unexplored and undocumented benefits in addition to the basic discussion he has worked out regarding the energetics of cell growth, differentiation, and proliferation, and how these agents might intervene. We stand by our prior skepticism about the value of fenbendazole beyond its utility as an antiparasitic agent, and would not recommend its use in humans for cancer therapy.