Joe Rogan and Mel Gibson Discuss Ivermectin and Fenbendazole as Off-Label Therapies for Cancer - Video 

In a striking exchange on Joe Rogan’s podcast, Mel Gibson recounts a story that directly challenges mainstream narratives about repurposed drugs. Gibson explains that three of his close friends were diagnosed with stage IV cancer—and, against all expectations, all three are now cancer-free. Their recoveries, he says, were tied to a regimen involving drugs widely dismissed or ridiculed in public discourse, namely ivermectin, fenbendazole, and other unconventional compounds such as methylene blue.

What interests him is not theory, but the fact that all three individuals experienced dramatic improvement while on these compounds—improvement that standard oncology had not been able to deliver. Rogan immediately recognizes the substances, noting that he has “been hearing that a lot,” especially regarding fenbendazole and ivermectin as off-label anticancer tools.

Gibson’s point is unambiguous: “This stuff works, man.” Rogan adds the sociopolitical angle: whenever something cheap, unpatentable, or broadly accessible appears effective, it tends to become demonized. Profit structures, not pure science, often dictate which compounds are investigated, ignored, or publicly ridiculed. The implication is uncomfortable but increasingly difficult to dismiss: if multiple people are independently reporting remission while using these molecules, and if preclinical research already hints at plausible mechanisms, then perhaps the real question isn’t why people are trying them—but why the medical establishment isn’t.

The scientific rationale behind these anecdotes adds another layer of credibility to Gibson’s story. Fenbendazole, a benzimidazole compound, disrupts β-tubulin in microtubules—the structural scaffolding cancer cells rely on for rapid division. When microtubules destabilize, malignant cells fail to complete mitosis, glucose metabolism collapses, oxidative stress rises, and apoptosis becomes more likely. Several laboratory studies show fenbendazole impairing tumor growth by pushing cancer cells into metabolic crisis.

Ivermectin, on the other hand, operates through complementary but distinct pathways. Research suggests it can inhibit PAK1 and WNT/β-catenin, two survival and proliferation signals commonly overactive in aggressive cancers. It also exerts pressure on mitochondria, increasing membrane permeability and amplifying the metabolic stress that already characterizes malignancies. Tumor cells, which run at high energy demand, become more vulnerable when their mitochondrial stability is compromised.

When used together, ivermectin and fenbendazole create a two-front attack: fenbendazole destabilizes the structural and metabolic backbone of the cancer cell, while ivermectin disrupts its survival programming and energy production. The result is a possible synergistic effect, where neither drug is a cure on its own, but both weaken different load-bearing components of tumor biology. For patients whose cancers have exhausted standard treatment pathways, such synergistic metabolic pressure may help explain why stories like Gibson’s keep emerging—not as isolated miracles, but as repeating patterns that follow a mechanistic logic.

This emerging picture is why Gibson’s account resonates far beyond celebrity anecdote. His friends' recoveries are not being presented as mysteries or spontaneous remissions; they fit into a growing body of early research, metabolic theory, and thousands of patient anecdotes pointing in the same direction. Rogan’s commentary reinforces the broader frustration: cheap, off-patent molecules with intriguing anticancer properties often face institutional resistance, not because they lack scientific basis, but because they lack profitability.

Together, Rogan and Gibson capture a cultural inflection point: a moment when lived experience, early mechanistic data, and institutional skepticism are colliding. Their discussion highlights a growing demand that promising repurposed drugs be researched seriously rather than ridiculed, and that the boundaries of cancer therapy be defined by evidence and outcomes—not by the economics of pharmaceutical development.