Exploring Dr. William Makis’ Hybrid Orthomolecular Cancer Protocol: Focus on Ivermectin and Mebendazole/Fenbendazole

*Disclaimer: This article is for educational purposes and does not constitute medical advice. Always seek professional guidance. This protocol and use is not FDA-approved, not standard of care, and that ASCO and the American Cancer Society advise against it outside a clinical trial.

In the evolving landscape of cancer research, Dr. William Makis, a Canadian radiologist, oncologist, and researcher with over 100 peer-reviewed publications, has proposed an innovative “hybrid orthomolecular” protocol that repurposes antiparasitic medications such as ivermectin and mebendazole/fenbendazole. This approach draws on preclinical (in-vitro and animal studies) evidence suggesting these drugs may exhibit anticancer properties, including the induction of apoptosis, disruption of mitochondrial function, and targeting of cancer stem cells (CSCs). While promising, it remains experimental and lacks large-scale clinical validation. This article provides an educational overview of the protocol, including its scientific rationale, detailed regimens, supporting evidence, and key considerations for readers interested in alternative therapeutic strategies.

Conceptual Foundation of the Protocol

Makis’ protocol centers on the mitochondrial-stem cell connection (MSCC) in cancer biology. Malignant cells often rely on anaerobic fermentation for energy (the Warburg effect), evading efficient oxidative phosphorylation. Dr. Makis’ method seeks to restore mitochondrial efficiency, deprive tumors of fermentable substrates like glucose and glutamine, and eliminate CSCs, which contribute to metastasis and treatment resistance.

Key agents include ivermectin, an antiparasitic with anti-inflammatory and antiviral effects, and benzimidazoles (mebendazole for human use or fenbendazole, its veterinary equivalent). Preclinical studies indicate these compounds may inhibit tumor growth more effectively than certain chemotherapeutics in specific models. Dr. Makis has highlighted their potential against “turbo cancers”—rapidly progressing malignancies he associates with mRNA COVID-19 vaccines—reporting a 75% response rate in combination therapy.

Detailed in a September 19, 2024, publication in the *Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine* co-authored with Dr. Ilyes Baghli and Dr. Paul Marik, the protocol integrates drug repurposing with orthomolecular interventions (nutrient-based therapies).

It is typically administered:

• over three months in cycles of three weeks on and one week off 
• regular monitoring of liver and kidney function
• bioavailability is enhanced by consuming doses with fatty meals

Core Pharmacological Components: Regimens and Dosages

Makis’ Dosages are stratified by cancer grade: low (early-stage, indolent), intermediate (moderately progressive), or high (aggressive or metastatic). Personalization is essential, with adjustments based on patient response and tolerability.

Ivermectin: Mechanisms and Administration

Makis states that Ivermectin promotes autophagy and apoptosis through mitochondrial pathways, suppresses glycolysis, and selectively targets CSCs. In vitro and animal studies demonstrate its ability to reduce tumor volume, sometimes surpassing agents like paclitaxel.

Dosage Guidelines *This protocol and use is not FDA-approved, not standard of care, and that ASCO and the American Cancer Society advise against it outside a clinical trial.*
(weight-based; e.g., 1 mg/kg for a 70 kg individual equates to 70 mg):

• Low-grade cancers, remission maintenance, or prophylaxis: 0.5 mg/kg, three times weekly (e.g., Monday, Wednesday, Friday).
• Intermediate-grade cancers: 1 mg/kg, three times weekly, or 0.5–1 mg/kg daily for more challenging cases.
• High-grade or turbo cancers: 1–2 mg/kg daily, escalating to 2.5 mg/kg in severe metastatic scenarios (monitor for transient visual disturbances).

Administration: Six days on, one day off; ingest with food. Long-term use at up to 2 mg/kg daily is reported as safe.

Case examples illustrate potential efficacy: A patient with Stage 3 ovarian cancer experienced complete tumor resolution within two months on 12 mg daily alongside chemotherapy. An 83-year-old with Stage 3 follicular lymphoma achieved near-total remission in six months at 1 mg/kg daily. A 54-year-old with recurrent prostate cancer reached remission in four months at 1.5 mg/kg daily.

Mebendazole/Febendazole: Mechanisms and Administration

These benzimidazoles impair microtubule assembly, restrict glucose and glutamine uptake, and activate the p53 tumor suppressor pathway, with particular activity against CSCs. Their synergy with ivermectin enhances overall response rates.

Dosage Guidelines (generally flat doses) *This protocol and use is not FDA-approved, not standard of care, and that ASCO and the American Cancer Society advise against it outside a clinical trial.*

• Low-grade: Mebendazole 200 mg daily or fenbendazole 222 mg, three times weekly  (complement with vitamin E 800 IU, curcumin 600 mg, and CBD oil 25 mg daily).
•  Intermediate-grade: Mebendazole 400 mg or fenbendazole 222 mg, six days weekly.
• High-grade: Mebendazole up to 1,500 mg or fenbendazole 444–1,000 mg daily, six days weekly (higher for patients over 200 lb or extensive disease; up to 4 g mebendazole reported as tolerable).

Administration: Post-meal intake with milk thistle (250–350 mg) for hepatoprotection; regular blood monitoring advised.

Illustrative cases: A pancreatic cancer patient showed marked improvement with the combination. Stage 4 renal cell carcinoma resulted in a 71% reduction in lung metastases over six months on high-dose fenbendazole.

Supporting Evidence and Limitations

Preclinical data from the 2024 publication and related studies support superior outcomes in models compared to standard chemotherapy. A 2025 PubMed case series on fenbendazole documents tumor regressions in self-administered cases. Dr. Makis’ clinic reports hundreds of testimonials, including remissions in prostate, lymphoma, and pancreatic cancers.

Makis reports, however, evidence is predominantly anecdotal and preclinical. Mainstream critiques emphasize the absence of randomized controlled trials, potential biases in testimonials, and risks of unverified claims. Fact-checking resources classify these approaches as unproven, with warnings against scams.

Considerations and Recommendations

This protocol represents a possible cost-effective, accessible option for adjunctive cancer management but is not approved by regulatory bodies like the FDA for oncology. Potential adverse effects include gastrointestinal discomfort or, rarely, organ toxicity at elevated doses. Many of the anecdotal successes reported are in conjunction with a traditional cancer treatment protocol or after such attempts have failed. Consultation with a qualified healthcare provider is imperative for monitoring, sourcing from reputable pharmacies, and integration with conventional therapies.

For further reading, explore peer-reviewed sources and patient forums. This overview aims to inform and educate, fostering informed discussions on emerging cancer strategies.

*Disclaimer: This article is for educational purposes and does not constitute medical advice. Always seek professional guidance.*