THE IVERMECTIN GRAPHIC ALSO CONTAINS PRACTICAL DETAILS

The ivermectin portion of the supplied graphic contains several additional points that should not be overlooked.

It states that within the framework Makis discusses:

1 mg/kg/day is presented as the starting point for many patients

Ivermectin is discussed as being taken with food, ideally a fatty meal, for absorption

One schedule shown is six days on and one day off

Long-term use extending for months is contemplated

Ivermectin is sometimes discussed alongside fenbendazole or mebendazole

Makis points to reported PSA reductions, CA19-9 reductions and tumor shrinkage on scans among the real-world examples he discusses

Those points expand the conversation beyond a single cancer marker or single case report. Makis is presenting a broader hypothesis that multiple repurposed antiparasitic medications may warrant systematic investigation across different cancer types.

THE BIGGER ISSUE ISN’T ONLY IVERMECTIN

Perhaps the most important argument in the supplied material is actually larger than the ivermectin controversy itself.

Makis questions why inexpensive, off-patent compounds with laboratory research and reported clinical signals do not receive the same scale of investigation routinely devoted to newer proprietary therapies.

His explanation centers partly on economics.

Because ivermectin is an old generic medicine without the same patent-driven commercial upside available to manufacturers of new oncology products, Makis argues that the financial incentive to finance enormous cancer trials is correspondingly weaker.

That argument does not prove ivermectin works against cancer.

It raises a separate question:

What level of evidence should be enough to trigger serious, well-designed clinical investigation of a cheap repurposed medicine?

That is arguably where the real significance of the Makis presentation lies.

The cases he cites may ultimately be confirmed, qualified or contradicted by future controlled research. But his challenge is clear: potentially useful repurposed drugs should be investigated on their scientific merits rather than ignored simply because they are old, inexpensive and difficult to monetize.

ONE GRAPH, MULTIPLE CASES — AND A QUESTION THAT REMAINS OPEN

It combines four ivermectin dosing tiers, four fenbendazole tiers, reported ovarian, prostate and gallbladder cancer cases, multiple tumor-marker changes, long-term-use observations and a broader argument about the economics of repurposed-drug research.

The numbers are what make the presentation difficult to dismiss without further investigation:

CA125: 288 → 22.

PSA: 89.1 → 10.9.

A reported Stage 4 gallbladder cancer case in which the presentation says the cancer disappeared.

And at the center of Makis’ proposed framework:

1 mg/kg/day.

None of those reported cases substitutes for controlled clinical trials.

But that is also precisely Makis’ larger point.

If inexpensive repurposed drugs continue generating laboratory findings, published case material and measurable clinical signals, the next question should not simply be whether the drugs are controversial.

The question should be whether they deserve larger, properly designed cancer trials capable of producing definitive answers.

For Makis, the answer is clearly yes.

And his graph is designed to make the case impossible to overlook.

WATCH THE FULL PRESENTATION BELOW. [VIDEO]

BREAKING MEDICAL NEWS: Dr. William Makis Unveils His Most Important IVERMECTIN and FENBENDAZOLE Dosing Graph Yet [VIDEO]

BREAKING: Dr. William Makis details ivermectin and fenbendazole cancer frameworks, highlighting 1 mg/kg/day, dramatic reported tumor-marker drops and cases he says demand larger clinical trials.

A detailed cancer-treatment framework attributed to Dr. William Makis is putting renewed attention on a question that has increasingly followed the debate over repurposed medicines: what happens when inexpensive, off-patent drugs generate enough laboratory findings, published reports and clinical anecdotes to warrant deeper investigation — but still remain outside mainstream oncology protocols?

At the center of the material is ivermectin, alongside a separate fenbendazole framework, with Makis presenting a tiered approach ranging from lower-dose use to substantially higher levels discussed in connection with aggressive or metastatic disease.

The number Makis repeatedly emphasizes is 1 mg/kg/day.

According to the written material accompanying the presentation, Makis describes that level as the starting point he favors for many cancers within the framework he discusses. The central argument is not built around a newly patented chemotherapy compound or a newly launched immunotherapy, but around the potential repurposing of existing medicines that he believes deserve much more rigorous scientific attention.

THE IVERMECTIN FRAMEWORK: FOUR DISTINCT TIERS

Rather than presenting ivermectin as a single fixed-dose concept, the Makis material divides the discussion into four separate dose categories, each tied to a different clinical context in the chart.

• LOW DOSE — ≤0.5 mg/kg
  The graphic associates this tier with cancers in remission, strong family history, genetic predisposition, prevention or prophylaxis, and maintenance-style use. The accompanying material also points to lower-dose published case reports as part of the rationale for continuing to investigate this range.
• MEDIUM DOSE — 1.0 mg/kg once daily
  This is presented as the starting dose for most cancers in Makis’ framework and is the number around which much of his discussion revolves.
• HIGH DOSE — 2.0 mg/kg once daily
  The chart associates this tier with particularly aggressive cancers, including pancreatic cancer, leukemia and brain cancers.
• VERY HIGH DOSE — ≥2.5 mg/kg once daily
  Makis discusses this range in selected cases involving extensive metastatic disease or extremely poor prognosis. The material also notes reported temporary visual disturbances at higher exposures.

The written briefing says Makis believes the potential anticancer effect may be dose dependent, meaning that higher exposure could potentially produce stronger biological effects, while also acknowledging that more clinical research is needed.

That distinction matters. The framework is not presented in the supplied material as proof that a particular dose cures cancer. It is presented as Makis’ interpretation of the available laboratory work, studies and reported cases and as a basis for further investigation.

WHY 1 MG/KG/DAY SITS AT THE CENTER OF THE DISCUSSION

The number 1 mg/kg/day appears repeatedly in the material because Makis identifies it as the level he believes deserves particular attention as a starting point within his framework.

The briefing says he arrived at that view after reviewing laboratory research, published studies and numerous case reports.

The cancers specifically mentioned in the supplied material include:

Breast cancer

Colon cancer

Lung cancer

Pancreatic cancer

Renal cell cancer

Gastric cancer

Leukemia

Makis identifies lymphoma as an important exception, according to the briefing, saying he has found comparatively little published ivermectin research involving that disease.

The significance of that distinction is straightforward: within his argument, an absence of substantial published evidence should not automatically be interpreted as evidence of either effectiveness or ineffectiveness. Instead, it identifies an area where the evidence base remains limited.

THE OVARIAN CANCER CASE: CA125 REPORTEDLY FALLS FROM 288 TO 22

One of the strongest numerical examples appearing across the supplied material involves an ovarian cancer case associated with Dr. Tess Lawrie.

The presentation identifies the patient as having Stage 3 ovarian cancer and says she had been treated with chemotherapy while also receiving 12 mg of ivermectin per day.

Makis characterizes that exposure as approximately 0.2 mg/kg/day, placing it inside his LOW DOSE category. According to the material:

CA125 before: 288

CA125 after approximately two months: 22

The presentation additionally states that the tumor vanished

Makis uses the case as part of his argument that possible anticancer activity may appear even at considerably lower exposure levels.

At the same time, his broader thesis remains that the effect may be dose dependent, which is why the 1 mg/kg/day level receives so much attention in his framework.

ANOTHER CASE IN THE PRESENTATION: PSA 89.1 TO 10.9

The video presentation contains another specific example that deserves inclusion because it was not fully captured in the original written summary.

In the MEDIUM DOSE column, Makis references a case attributed to Dr. Shankara Chetty involving a 70-year-old prostate cancer patient.

According to the slide shown in the supplied video:

The patient’s PSA was 89.1

The patient was reportedly placed on 45 mg of ivermectin per day

After approximately two months, PSA reportedly fell to 10.9

The slide states that ivermectin was given in combination with lactoferrin

This is particularly important journalistically because it adds another measurable laboratory marker to the case material Makis presents rather than relying solely on broad anecdotal descriptions.

It remains, however, a reported case within Makis’ presentation rather than evidence from a large randomized cancer trial.

THE HIGH-DOSE DISCUSSION: AGGRESSIVE CANCERS

Makis’ framework becomes considerably more aggressive at the 2 mg/kg/day level.

The material specifically associates that dose range with cancers described as difficult or rapidly progressing, including:

Pancreatic cancer

Leukemia

Brain cancer

Makis also discusses ivermectin in connection with the blood-brain barrier, saying that it crosses that barrier but not particularly efficiently. Within his framework, that forms part of the rationale he offers for considering higher exposures in selected brain-cancer contexts.

One of the most striking cases shown in his presentation is attributed to Dr. Allan Landrito.

The slide describes a Stage 4 gallbladder cancer patient reportedly using approximately 2 mg/kg/day for 14 months.

According to the presentation, the cancer disappeared.

The written briefing supplied with the material also describes temporary visual effects in connection with this case, saying they resolved after several days.

Again, this is the outcome Makis reports from the case. It does not, by itself, establish that ivermectin caused the remission.

THE VERY HIGH DOSE CATEGORY

The final ivermectin tier reaches ≥2.5 mg/kg/day.

According to the material, Makis associates this category with situations involving:

Extensive metastatic disease

Extremely poor prognosis

Selected patients in whom very aggressive experimental approaches were being considered

Makis references Dr. Shankara Chetty in this context as well.

The presentation states that Chetty had a patient receiving approximately 2.5 mg/kg/day, with the slide reporting no side effects in that particular patient.

The broader written material is somewhat more cautious, noting that Makis has discussed temporary visual disturbances at very high doses in some reported cases.

That distinction is worth preserving: one cited patient was described as experiencing no adverse effects, while the broader body of cases discussed by Makis includes reports of temporary visual symptoms.

LONG-TERM USE IS ANOTHER MAJOR PART OF MAKIS’ ARGUMENT

Makis also spends considerable attention on duration.

According to the supplied material, he references a study involving children with leukemia who reportedly received ivermectin for six months without long-term side effects being identified in the account he discusses.

He additionally references anecdotal adult experiences involving daily use extending beyond one year.

The practical-points section of the supplied graphic similarly states that ivermectin can be used for months in the protocols being discussed and says some patients remain on it long term.

This is one of the reasons the Makis presentation is notable: his argument is not limited to a short experimental exposure. He is explicitly discussing prolonged use as part of the repurposed-drug conversation.

THE GRAPHIC ADDS ANOTHER IMPORTANT ELEMENT: FENBENDAZOLE

The supplied graphic goes well beyond ivermectin. A second full section outlines a fenbendazole framework, again divided into four tiers.

The graphic presents the ranges as follows:

• LOW DOSE — 222 mg/day
  Listed as 3 days on / 4 days off and associated with remission, prevention and family history. The notes identify this as a “Joe Tippens-style protocol.”
• MEDIUM DOSE — 222 mg/day
  Listed as 6 days per week and described as a starting point for many cancers, particularly those under approximately 200 pounds in the graphic.
• HIGH DOSE — 444 mg/day
  Listed as 6 days per week and associated with aggressive disease, Stage 4 cancer and what the graphic calls “turbo cancers.” The chart describes this as the level most commonly used for active cancer within the framework.
• VERY HIGH DOSE — 888–1,000 mg/day
  Listed as 6 days per week and associated with extensive metastatic disease. The chart describes this as the highest range Makis commonly recommends within the presented protocol.

The fenbendazole section also adds several practical observations to the framework.

According to the graphic, it is discussed as being taken with fatty food for absorption, is frequently combined with ivermectin, and may in some cases be alternated or combined with mebendazole, which the graphic identifies as the human-version alternative.

The image also states that doses may be adjusted according to body weight, cancer type and response.

Those are claims and protocol details presented in the supplied Makis material, not individualized treatment directions from AMG-News.