How the Medical Establishment Lies About Joe Tippins Fenbendazole Cancer Protocol

Executive Summary

• Joe Tippins had great success with a Fenbendazole cancer protocol or the Fenben protocol.
• The medical establishment decided to misrepresent this success story.

Introduction

Fenbendazole is part of the Joe Tippins, the best-known Fenbendazole cancer protocol or the Fenben protocol. Joe Tippins’ success with Fendenazole put the spotlight on this drug that other people can use to fight cancer. This is also known as Fenben and cancer.

What Happened With the Joe Tippins Fenbendazole Cancer Protocol?

This quote is from the article How cancer patients get fake cancer information: From TV to YouTube, a qualitative study focusing on the fenbendazole scandal.

False Claim #1: Fenben and Cancer of the Fenben Protocol: There Was a Fenbendazole Scandal in South Korea?

The “fenbendazole scandal” is associated with bitter memories in Korean society as official health communicators could not control or filter false cancer information. As the information was revealed to be wrong after a long controversy that lasted more than a year, the need for a national-level response has been raised.

Hence, this scandal was considered a representative example of the problem of using complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) for cancer patients during the 2020 parliamentary audit of the Ministry of Health and Welfare.

I had never heard of this scandal regarding Fenbendazole, and as I will cover, this has been concocted by the medical establishment primarily in the article that this quote is from.

False Claim #2: Fenben and Cancer or The Fenben Protocol: A Scandal That Only One Source Calls a Scandal?

The fenbendazole scandal was an incident wherein false information

There was no false information, at least that we know of. Instead, what was provided was information that the medical establishment preferred if people did not know. They did not want people to know Joe Tippins’s success with Fenbendazole. How can something be a scandal if the only source on the Internet declaring it a scandal is this one source? This search results in Google Yourself for Fenbendazole Scandal. Notice that while there are multiple results, if you read the results, only one references a Fenbendazole scandal. This seems unethical to me. A single article cannot create a “scandal” unless this is the first article breaking the story (and then others were to follow). However, the article in question was written in October of 2022. When are other articles going also to declare this a scandal?

False Claim #3: Drugs Used by Dogs Are Therefore Only Used by Dogs?

wherein false information that fenbendazole, an anthelmintic used to treat various parasites in dogs, cured terminal lung cancer spread among patients.

This is identical to the claims by the media that Joe Rogan was using Ivermectin, which was only a horse dewormer, leaving out that Ivermectin has been prescribed billions of times for humans.

CNN Using the False and Now Retracted Study

This video goes over the tactic that is used by this article, which I am analyzing, and what CNN did by confusing the public that no veterinary drugs are used both for humans and animals. The claim is made that the drug is used for some animals while leaving out that it is commonly used for humans — defaming the person as illogical. The information provided intends to make their audience think the drug is only used for that one veterinary purpose. 

The idea that Joe Tippins Protocol worked for him, as Fenbendazole is a “dog dewormer,” seems very surprising — however, it should not be. This is because it has been known for decades that antiparasitic drugs work against cancer, and the mechanisms by which it works are also well documented.

False Claim #4: The Amazing Improvement to Cancer Free Status of Joe Tippins Was Due to Kitruda and Not Fenbendazole?

It started with the claim of American cancer patient, Joe Tippens, but rather became sensational in South Korea. It caused national confusion and led to fenbendazole being sold out at pharmacies across the country in South Korea. Contrary to what the people know, however, Joe Tippens was a participant in the Kitruda clinical trial at the MD Anderson Cancer Center, and his improvement was likely to be the effect of immuno-cancer drugs.

This is completely false, as I am just about to show. However, this claim is repeated later in the article.

Additionally, few people knew that Joe Tippens, who first claimed the effect of fenbendazole, was undergoing other treatments. If patients tried to find more information through YouTube and did not access the original data, the obtained information was fragmented and incomplete as processed by other media channels.

Here is a quote from Joe Tippins on this exact topic of the other treatment that Joe Tippins was taking.

Fenben and Cancer of the Fenben Protocol: The Details of the Joe Tippins Story and His Fenbendazole Cancer Protocol

At the 2:00 minute mark of the video, it states Tippins explains that of the 1100 patients in the clinical trial he was participating in, he was the only one cleared of cancer. Therefore, this does not match the claim that it was Keytruda who cured Joe Tippins in fact, it is the opposite. The previous quote also fails to mention that Joe Tippins stopped taking Keytruda for months but did not tell his doctors at MD Anderson. Keytruda is a type of immunotherapy, that has never had the effect of what Tippins claimed on cancer in any case. 

This means that Tippins had in effect dropped out of the trial. This means that Keytruda cannot be given the benefits against cancer claimed by the author of the article in question.

I found several instances of this mis-explanation of the Joe Tippins case. The following quote is a comment on the article Joe Tippen Cancer Story-Recently Shared With Me-For Your Consideration.

The same Joe tippen given months to live with the non existent stage IV Small cell Lung Cancer?

First, how does this commenter know that Joe Tippins’s lung cancer was non-existent cancer?

From his description of his experience, Joe Tippins sure seemed to be describing the scenario of a person with small cell lung cancer and has many details about his treatment.

This commenter goes on to state.

Or the Joe tippen that after it came out he participated in a Keytruda trial he claimed to be the only survivor. Wonder if he knows there are survivors still alive from Keynote 001 today. That trial had 655 participants and started in 2011 well before tippen started treatment at MD Anderson.

However, Joe never asserted that he was the only person from the Keytruda study to survive. He stated that he was the only one declared to be cancer-free.

That is a big difference. This commenter then accuses Joe Tippins of lying by claiming that Tippins said something he never said.

Here is the evidence that this comment is mistaken.

Joe Tippins Quotes

See the following quotes from the Joe Tippins website to see how inaccurate these claims about his statements are.

He told me a story of a scientist at Merck Animal Health (veterinary side of Merck) that had performed cancer research on mice by injecting different types of cancers into different mice body parts. And this scientist stumbled (trial and error) across a product in their canine product line that was batting 1.000 in killing these different cancers.

The schedule I am on is to go in to Houston quarterly. I have a PET scan done on Monday and then meet with my thoracic oncologist on Tuesday. In my regular quarterly PET scan in the first week of May, 2017, my Tuesday meeting was my first sign that the positive thinking, the prayer posse, the humor, the supplements and, yes, the canine dewormer all combined “might just” be working.

My oncologist was literally stupefied. My PET was “all clear”. No residual or recurrent tumor is demonstrated. No apparent metastasis.

“Are you kidding me?” 3 months earlier, In January, my PET lit up like a Christmas tree. There was cancer in my body from head to toe. And it was a terrifyingly dangerous metastasis that leaves virtually 100% of its victims dead within 3 months. Here I was 3 months later and the PET scan was completely dark……void of any light…..anywhere.

The clinical trial ended in September 2017 and, therefore, I couldn’t possibly be kicked off of it 🙂

So when my PET scan in September also turned up “all clear” (meaning I had most likely been all clear for 6 months), I decided it was time to “come clean” with my trusted oncologist (who I like and trust very much by the way).

But before disclosing everything to him, I decided I need to do a little “set up” first.

After he very excitedly told me the continued good news of being “all clear” for a second consecutive quarter, I asked him a “very loaded” question.

I asked, “Doc, what is really going on here? Can you disclose to me how I am doing versus all of the other patients on the clinical trial with the exact same condition”?

His answer was what I already suspected. He said,

“Joe we can’t explain it, but you are kind of a sole data outlier right now” Meaning with hundreds of like kind patients, I was the only one with a cure. I knew then my other alternative regimen was largely responsible, but I decided to come clean anyway.

I said, “Doc, I’m glad you told me that about my results within the trial, because I have something to share with you”. I proceeded to tell him all about the canine dewormer as I watched his jaw drop 🙂

His next words I’ll never forget (and remember for context he and I had become good friends by this time). He said, “you little shit, I knew there was something up with you…..and….I’ve had some weird days here at MD Anderson, but this one probably tops them all”

His next sentence almost floored me. He said, “You know, we’ve known for decades that these anthelmintic class of drugs (meaning to destroy parasites in the intestines) could have possible efficacy against cancer, and in fact in the 80’s and 90’s there was a drug called Levamisole that was used on colon cancer and it is an anthelmintic drug”.

I said, “Doc, if you have known for decades why hasn’t more work been done on it?” His answer was honest. He said, “probably because of money…all of these drugs are far off-patent and nobody is going to spend a gazillion dollars to repurpose them for cancer…..only to have generic competition the next day.”

I knew he was right.

And he knew I was onto something incredible for me and my story.

One has to wonder if the person making this comment cares what Joe Tippins said or is searching for ways to discredit Tippins. I could not find any evidence in the previous comment that successfully contradicted Joe Tippins’ claim, as the commenter is setting up a straw man argument by changing what Tippins said about his case.

Something else that the medical establishment does not like is that Joe Tippins sure has a lot of details about his cancer treatment for someone who they claim is making their story up.

The quote above makes several things clear.

1. Joe Tippins (according to Tippins) was considered an “outlier” of the clinical trial. No doubt his oncologist was looking forward to reporting him as a success due to Keytruda — that is, after all, what the manufacturer of Keytruda was paying MD Anderson to show a benefit from. Secondly, Tippins oncologist did not have an explanation for Tippins as to why there was this improvement.
2. Joe Tippins claims he was called a “little shit” by his oncologist. The news that Tippins had stopped taking Keytruda is not what his oncologist wanted to hear. MD Anderson wanted to report to Keytruda’s manufacturer that they had a success.
3. His oncologist then states that he is aware of the potential benefits of the drug category of which Fenbendazole is a part.
4. His oncologist then admits there is no financial incentive to fund a clinical trial into Fenbendazole.

At this point I have already caught multiple misrepresentations of Joe Tippins’ story in the article How cancer patients get fake cancer information: From TV to YouTube, a qualitative study focusing on the fenbendazole scandal.

But there are more. These misrepresentations are essential to understand as they serve as the basis for the medical establishment’s claims against Joe Tippins. Let us go back to quotes from that article.

Tippins then, in the same article, comes to his conclusions about the issue of Fenbendazole and cancer.

I believe some serious change needs to occur in our drug regulatory system. For example, Fenbendazole is a decades old “off patent” formulation, meaning it is a generic that anyone can make and sell. But it is unique in that:

(i) it has already gone through human clinical trials (decades ago) as an anthelmentic (de-wormer), meaning all of the clinical trial work related to toxicity have already been done and it has, for many years, been deemed “safe for human consumption.

In order to repurpose the drug as an anti-cancer protocol would require all new and very expensive clinical trials.

(iv) No company is going to spend millions of dollars in the required regulatory work to repurpose the drug for cancer WITHOUT any proprietary protection from competition. It would be suicidal to do the heavy lifting in approval costs, only to have a generic manufacturer ride those coattails and compete the next day (And the synthesis of the fenbendazole molecule is very easy and cheap to do)

Now that I have used the actual quotes from Tippins to contradict the made-up ones, let us move back to the first article.

False Claim #5: What Are the Fenbendazole Side Effects to be Concerned About?

So, at the beginning of the issue, health authorities and experts in South Korea warned about side effects through press releases on September 23, 2019, but cancer patients ignored them. Instead, people were interested in a celebrity, a famous comedian in Korea, taking fenbendazole.

The problem with this statement is there aren’t any significant side effects from Fenbendazole.

Everyone at Brightwork has been taking Fenbendazole since mid-2023 without any issues.

False Claim #6: YouTube is Independent?

Despite the complex media environment, traditional or legacy media is an important channel to encounter information. YouTube is independent of other media as an “active” information-seeking channel.

YouTube may be independent of other media, but they are very much captured by the medical establishment, which frequently censor videos for a wide variety of reasons. But I think the claim being made here is that YouTube has many videos from independent channels. Interestingly, the article claims that legacy media is sort of a check on false information. However, that is not true. How accurate was the legacy media on covid? They served parrots for the medical establishment.

The Study Promotes More Censorship – But Without Specifically Advocating for It

Furthermore, if you check the local news segment on Joe Tippins embedded earlier in this article, you will find that the comments are disabled. However, why doesn’t YouTube want people to comment on this segment? The answer is obvious: more truth would come about about Fenbendazole, which Google does not want others to see or read. When comments are disabled on a video, the establishment does not wish to be subjected to an open forum. Therefore, YouTube is already censoring its platform very aggressively. Still, the study’s authors want for all independent media that provides any view different than that of the medical establishment to be removed from the platform. That is the proposal is that we need more corporate control of speech and more domination by the establishment media that pharmaceutical companies and the overall medical establishment control. However, why limit this top-down control to just the medical space? Why not simply have YouTube entirely controlled by corporate interests and the government? In fact, why have freedom of speech or any independent sources of information at all?

False Claim #7: A Lack of Clinical Research for Fenbendazole?

False information that fenbendazole is effective in curing terminal cancer shook the cancer information market, despite warnings from experts and the absence of clinical research.

That is incorrect. There is clinical research on Fenbendazole versus cancer, which we cover on this website. Our Fenbendazole cancer dosage calculators are based on it. Furthermore, those who gave warnings were not experts on Fenbendazole; they were medical individuals who knew very little about Fenbendazole and had a financial interest in promoting highly profitable conventional cancer treatments.

The Lack of Interest in Managed Health After Treatment

The article found the following interesting observations from those they interviewed in Korea.

Participants explained that the information on how to take care of themselves, especially after surgery or chemotherapy, when staying at home for self-care and boosting immunity is not sufficient (A-U).

T said, “The hospital provides treatment, but after that, most of us are at home. Doctors do not talk about how to manage at home and I cannot get reliable information through the media.”

B explained, “We know that cancer gets better or worse depending on how doctors treat it. But, how should I take care of my body so that it does not happen again? We need this information. I wish doctors or other hospital staff could teach me.”

Yes – the reason for this is simple. Cancer centers only want to focus on those things that they make their money on, which is cancer treatment. They don’t care much about other things and don’t discuss boosting immunity.

J said that it would be better if the doctor gave an example of the foods that are good for my body and which should be avoided rather than saying, “Eat well.” P said, “If you look on the Internet, some say you should eat red ginseng, and some say you should not. What should I do to boost my immunity? I need such information, and I hope the experts will tell me.”

Oncologists do not view this as their job. All of their incentives are to see as many patients as possible and deliver the most cancer treatments as possible. There is no time or interest in the things that these cancer patients say they want.

Who Funded This Study/Article?

The following quote is at the end of the article.

Funding

This study was supported by a Grant-in-Aid from the National Health Promotion Fund (grant number 2260010-1), Ministry of Health and Welfare, Republic of Korea. Funding bodies have no role in the study design, study setting, analysis, or writing of the manuscript.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

The Ministry of Health and Welfare is part of the medical establishment. And they would want an article like this to dissuade people from taking Fenbendazole. However, the authors declare that they have no commercial interest in the study’s outcome; however, the study’s funders contradict that claim.

Conclusion

Throughout the article, the authors made claims about Fenbendazole that they did not prove. It was easy to find claims misrepresenting what Joe Tippins said. The article imagines a scandal in South Korea regarding Fenbendazole that never occurred — and is more accurately described as..

“When people in South Korea listened to what was accurate information on Fenbendazole and cancer that the medical establishment did not like.”

The article that claimed to contradict false information about Fenben and cancer is filled with false information.