The Emergence of “Turbo Cancers,” Repurposed Drugs, and the Future of Oncology
Cancer—particularly advanced-stage presentations—has always been a critical concern for patients and medical professionals alike. In recent years, however, some clinicians and researchers have observed what they describe as a troubling rise in highly aggressive cancers striking at younger ages, often progressing at speeds rarely seen before. These cancers, sometimes colloquially termed “turbo cancers,” appear resistant to conventional treatments and challenge many of the traditional assumptions that have guided oncologists for decades.
In an illuminating conversation, Dr. John Campbell interviews Dr. William Makis, a physician specializing in nuclear medicine, radiology, and oncology in Alberta, Canada. Dr. Makis’s background includes significant work in targeted radionuclide therapy—an advanced approach to delivering radiation directly to tumors. Throughout the interview, Dr. Makis shares his perspective on:
- The phenomenon of rapidly accelerating or “turbo” cancers
- How the immune system’s compromise could be tied to recent events, including repeated viral infections and/or new vaccine technologies
- The promise of repurposed drugs—like ivermectin, fenbendazole, mebendazole, and others—as adjunct or standalone therapies for resistant and advanced cancers
- The current culture within oncology, which can discourage clinicians from offering unconventional treatments, even when scientific evidence for these options exists in laboratory and case studies
This blog post delves into these topics in depth, referencing many of the key points raised in the transcript while offering additional research, context, and analysis.
Why This Discussion Matters
Discussions around cancer are never trivial. With an estimated 19.3 million new cancer cases worldwide in 2020 (according to the World Health Organization), cancer is a leading cause of mortality, disability, and healthcare burden. Modern oncology has made enormous strides, yet doctors still often face situations where standard regimens—chemotherapy, radiation, and immunotherapy—provide limited survival benefits for certain advanced or aggressive malignancies.
Dr. Makis raises an important alarm: some cancers appear to be getting more aggressive, and some are striking at younger ages with minimal (if any) family history or genetic predisposition. These cases sometimes defy the usual prognostic timelines, with oncologists underestimating how quickly tumors can grow or metastasize and overestimating how long a patient might survive. Alternatively, some standard therapies seem far less effective for these patients.
Parallel to this, a grassroots swell of interest has grown around repurposed drugs—low-cost, off-patent medications with historically safe profiles. Anecdotal reports, preclinical studies, and even some limited human data suggest that drugs like ivermectin and fenbendazole could offer surprising efficacy in selected cancer types. But mainstream oncology remains cautious or, in some cases, outright dismissive. This article aims to separate facts from speculation, encouraging more rigorous study while championing openness in scientific inquiry.
Meet Dr. William Makis: A Unique Oncology Perspective
Early Life and Education
- Born in Communist Czechoslovakia: Fled to Canada as a refugee.
- Education:
- Immunology degree at the University of Toronto
- Medical degree at McGill University in Montreal
- Specialization in Nuclear Medicine (Radiology and Oncology) over five years
Through his nuclear medicine and oncology work, Dr. Makis became skilled in targeted radionuclide therapies—a sophisticated type of cancer treatment involving radioactive isotopes bound to molecules that target malignant cells. By attaching radioactive elements to proteins or peptides that selectively bind tumor receptors, doctors can irradiate tumor cells precisely while sparing healthy tissue.
A Clash with the Canadian System
Dr. Makis’s clinic and research, despite promising patient outcomes, collided with funding and political challenges. He contends that his innovative cancer therapy program was effectively sidelined and “sabotaged,” only to be reconstituted under a different province with large government investments. This legal and administrative battle placed him in a unique position: by the time the COVID-19 pandemic arrived, he was semi-retired and engaged in legal proceedings, granting him the freedom to speak openly and analyze emerging health phenomena without direct constraints of a clinical employer.
Defining the “Turbo Cancer” Phenomenon
“Turbo cancer” is an informal term—not yet codified in medical literature—that describes a category of extremely fast-growing, atypically aggressive cancers. According to Dr. Makis, these tumors often:
- Present with limited family history or known genetic mutations
- Appear at younger ages (20s and 30s) when such cancers should be exceedingly rare
- Resist traditional lines of therapy, including radiation, chemotherapy, and immunotherapy
- Elicit a gross mismatch in prognostic expectations, e.g., an oncologist expecting a patient to live 5+ years only to see the patient die within months
These aspects defy the classic staging and progression timelines well-documented over decades of oncology practice. Even with standard medical advances, stage IV patients often live longer than they once did, or at least respond in somewhat predictable ways. However, turbo cancers break these rules by accelerating within weeks or months.
Stages of Cancer—A Quick Refresher
- Stage I: A small tumor confined to its organ of origin.
- Stage II: A larger tumor and/or limited spread to nearby lymph nodes.
- Stage III: Tumor spread more extensively, often into surrounding tissues or multiple regional lymph nodes.
- Stage IV (Metastatic): The cancer has traveled to distant organs (e.g., the liver, bones, lungs, or brain).
In typical clinical practice, the transition from Stage I to Stage IV can take months to years, depending on the tumor type and aggressiveness. “Turbo cancers,” however, appear to take this journey in an alarmingly shorter time.
Potential Causes and New Pathophysiology
COVID-19 vs. COVID-19 Vaccines
What changed in recent years? One could argue that the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic and the mass deployment of mRNA or DNA-based vaccines represent major “new” factors, distinct from what existed in 2019. As Dr. Makis notes, we do not have a single mechanistic proof that all “turbo cancers” are linked to COVID-19 itself or to COVID-19 vaccines; we do, however, have a constellation of correlative timelines, anecdotal clusters, and preliminary immunological theories.
- COVID-19 Infection:
- Possible repeated waves and variants (e.g., Delta, Omicron) could contribute to immune dysregulation.
- Historically, viruses like EBV (Epstein-Barr) and HPV (Human Papillomavirus) can increase cancer risk, though typically over years.
- COVID-19 Vaccines:
- Short-term safety profile in question for many individuals, especially with repeated boosters.
- Some immunologists suspect repeated exposure to the spike protein could induce shifts in the immune system’s antibody production, leading to immune tolerance toward cancers.
Despite the controversies, what is most crucial is the call for rigorous research, open data, and thorough investigation into whether these recent interventions have induced new pathophysiological pathways.
Immune System Compromise
Another recurrent theme is that a healthy immune system is central to the body’s anti-cancer surveillance. Cells frequently undergo mutations, but a robust immune system identifies and clears them. If the immune system is compromised or skewed toward certain anti-inflammatory or “tolerant” states, malignant cells could more easily slip through.
- AIDS Paradigm: Patients with advanced HIV/AIDS have increased rates of Kaposi’s sarcoma, lymphoma, and other cancers because their immune system (particularly CD4+ T-cells) is severely impaired.
- Subtle Immunosuppression: Even if an individual does not have HIV, repeated infections, chronic inflammatory states, or certain antibody shifts can weaken immunosurveillance.
Hence, the “turbo cancer” phenomenon could arise if, for whatever reason, large segments of the population experienced an unusual immune compromise over a short period. This might be partly (or primarily) linked to COVID-19, vaccine-induced immune changes, or a combination of the two.
Autoimmune-Like Shifts (IgG4)
Dr. Makis refers to research suggesting that repeated injections of mRNA-based vaccines may lead to an IgG4 antibody shift. IgG4 is a subclass of antibody typically involved in tolerance—our bodies can raise IgG4 levels in response to chronic exposure to an antigen, effectively telling the immune system to calm down its reactions.
While this can reduce overzealous immune responses, it might also reduce the immune system’s vigilance against malignant cells. If tumor antigens become “tolerated,” the body no longer attacks them as aggressively. Preliminary studies and case reports are exploring this potential mechanism, though the data remains early and not yet definitive.
The Urgent Need for Research and Data Transparency
The single largest roadblock to verifying or disputing these observations is lack of open data. Health authorities and governments often have large-scale data sets—vaccine registries, infection records, hospital admissions, mortality stats—but release only heavily aggregated or partially incomplete versions of this information. Researchers can thus only guess or rely on small observational snapshots.
In Canada, Dr. Makis has observed data sets being taken down from government websites or systematically withheld. The UK’s health system has also restricted routine tests like vitamin D levels. In the United States, hopes rest on potential legislative changes or new leadership in agencies that might push for anonymized data sharing. Such transparency would allow scientists to conduct the large-scale, multivariable analyses needed to connect (or rule out) potential links between “turbo cancers” and recent public health interventions.
Repurposed Drugs in Cancer Therapy
Beyond identifying potential causes, Dr. Makis dedicates much of his discussion with Dr. Campbell to highlighting repurposed drugs. Such drugs are typically off-patent, inexpensive, and have longstanding safety records. Their popularity arises from:
- Established safety profiles
- Ease of manufacturing
- Multiple potential mechanisms against cancer cells
Ivermectin: Mechanisms and Dosing
Perhaps best known since 2020 for its role in early COVID-19 treatment controversies, ivermectin was initially developed as an anti-parasitic drug. It earned its discoverers a Nobel Prize in 2015. Surprisingly, vast literature indicates ivermectin’s potential in oncology as well.
Mechanisms of Action
- Cancer Stem Cell Targeting: Ivermectin appears to attack the slow-dividing “stem-like” cells within tumors that often escape conventional chemotherapy.
- Multi-Drug Resistance Reversal: Cancer cells frequently adapt by pumping out chemotherapy agents. Laboratory studies show ivermectin can block or reduce these efflux pumps, resensitizing tumors to chemotherapy.
- Inhibition of Angiogenesis: Tumors require new blood vessel formation (angiogenesis). Ivermectin can inhibit the molecules and pathways responsible for forming these vessels.
- Matrix Metalloproteinase Inhibition: Ivermectin can block the enzymes tumor cells use to detach and spread (metastasize).
- Induction of Apoptosis: At higher doses, ivermectin can push malignant cells toward programmed cell death, especially if combined with radiation.
Typical Dosing Strategies
- Starting Dose: Dr. Makis commonly begins at around 1 mg per kg per day for many aggressive cancers (e.g., a 60 kg person would take ~60 mg). This is notably higher than the 0.2–0.4 mg/kg often used for parasitic or COVID-19 treatments.
- Variations: For very aggressive tumors (such as pancreatic cancer), doses can go as high as 2 mg per kg per day, but side effects (e.g., mild confusion, unsteady gait) become more common, especially in older adults.
- Duration: A typical trial period is three months, as it can take that long to see tumor shrinkage on imaging, though some blood tumor markers can drop within a few weeks.
Side Effect Profile
- Transient Visual Effects: Some patients report seeing vivid colors or flashes, usually subsiding within 1-2 weeks of continued daily use.
- Reduced Chemotherapy Side Effects: Paradoxically, many patients report feeling better during chemo, attributing it to ivermectin’s potent anti-inflammatory properties.
Fenbendazole, Mebendazole, and the Benzimidazoles
Originally developed as antiparasitic (primarily deworming) agents, the benzimidazole family includes:
- Fenbendazole: Widely used in veterinary medicine (a “dog dewormer”).
- Mebendazole: FDA-approved for human use against intestinal worms.
- Albendazole: Another human anti-parasitic agent in the same family.
Preclinical and Emerging Clinical Data
- Broad Anti-Cancer Effects: Similar to ivermectin, these compounds disrupt microtubule function in cancer cells, inhibit glucose uptake (particularly in cancer cells that heavily rely on glycolysis), and induce apoptosis.
- Mebendazole Clinical Trials: A dozen or so ongoing trials evaluating its efficacy in colon, prostate, ovarian, and pediatric brain tumors.
- Fenbendazole Case Series: Published accounts of stage IV cancers going into remission with fenbendazole—a phenomenon popularized by Joe Tippens, who attributes his small cell lung cancer “cure” to fenbendazole + an immunotherapy agent (pembrolizumab).
Dosing Considerations
- Typical Dose: ~1,000 mg daily, often split into two doses, taken 6 days per week with 1 day off to give the liver a rest.
- Duration: Again, a 3-month trial is suggested to assess response via markers and imaging.
- Drug Safety: Rare, transient elevations in liver enzymes. If this occurs, discontinuation typically reverses the enzyme elevation within weeks.
Why Fenbendazole vs. Mebendazole?
They share near-identical mechanisms. Mebendazole is FDA-approved for humans, while fenbendazole is not. However, fenbendazole is often more readily available or cheaper. Some nuances in tissue penetration exist (e.g., mebendazole may be superior for certain cancers like ovarian or central nervous system malignancies, given better blood-brain barrier penetration).
Synergy with Conventional Treatments
One key point Dr. Makis stresses is that repurposed drugs do not necessarily replace standard therapies. Rather, they can:
- Sensitize tumor cells to radiation or chemotherapy
- Help overcome multi-drug resistance
- Potentially limit side effects (e.g., chemo-related fatigue, GI distress)
Patients who add repurposed agents to chemo or radiation often report unexpectedly rapid tumor responses or improved tolerability of harsh treatments.
Other Promising Agents: Artemisia and Medicinal Mushrooms
Artemisia annua
Another Nobel Prize–winning plant, Artemisia annua (commonly called sweet wormwood) is well-known as a source of artemisinin, a powerful antimalarial. Preclinical cancer studies suggest artemisinin and its derivatives could target cancer cells (particularly those rich in iron). There is anecdotal use in various regions where official treatments are inaccessible or cost-prohibitive.
- Formulations:
- Whole-plant tea or tincture
- Extracted artemisinin or artesunate in supplement form
- WHO Caution: During COVID-19, the World Health Organization advised against wide usage for respiratory infections, reminiscent of the controversies around other “alternative” treatments.
Medicinal Mushrooms (e.g., Turkey Tail, Lion’s Mane, Chaga)
- Turkey Tail (Trametes versicolor): Studies show it can stimulate natural killer (NK) cells and promote immunomodulation. Some pet owners and integrative veterinarians anecdotally report dramatic tumor shrinkage in dogs.
- Lion’s Mane: More famous for its potential neurological benefits, including nerve growth factor stimulation, though anti-cancer effects are under investigation.
- Chaga: Common in Northern forests, it contains an array of antioxidants and polyphenols.
While none of these have robust phase III clinical trials behind them, they are low-toxicity, widely used in traditional medicine, and a subject of active scientific investigation.
Case Studies and Real-World Stories
- Breast Cancer Patient: A woman with a 7 cm tumor whose surgery was delayed. After 3 months on high-dose ivermectin (1 mg/kg/day) and mebendazole (1,000 mg/day), her tumor shrank to <3 cm, and some suspicious lymph nodes completely regressed.
- Terminal Pancreatic Cancer: A patient with limited time left pursued 2 mg/kg/day of ivermectin. Within several months, imaging showed no active disease.
- Small Cell Lung Cancer: Joe Tippens recounted his metastasized SCLC remission after taking fenbendazole along with an immunotherapy agent.
- Stage IV Cancers at Stanford: A Stanford case series profiled three patients who achieved remission from seemingly incurable cancers using fenbendazole. Researchers published these findings but did not officially endorse the drug due to FDA approval constraints.
Barriers to Adoption in Mainstream Oncology
Despite compelling preclinical evidence and case reports, repurposed drugs face an uphill battle for several reasons:
- Lack of Profit Incentives
- Off-patent drugs like ivermectin and mebendazole generate low revenue.
- Pharmaceutical companies typically invest in research that can yield patent-protected, high-profit treatments.
- Rigid Treatment Protocols
- Oncology guidelines can be strict, and physicians risk censure or licensure issues if they recommend off-label therapies not endorsed by major bodies (e.g., National Comprehensive Cancer Network in the U.S., NICE in the UK).
- Professional Isolation or Censure
- Doctors who go “off-script” face potential professional backlash. Examples exist of clinicians forced to relocate or practice privately after offering unconventional regimens.
- Limited Clinical Trials
- Although many small trials or case series exist, large randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are expensive. Without industry backing, they are seldom undertaken.
- Cultural Resistance
- There can be a pervasive sense in academic medicine that anything “alternative” is not worth the time—even when strong preclinical science exists.
Moving Forward: A Vision for the Future
Looking ahead, an open-minded approach to oncology is paramount. Patients with stage IV cancer and few conventional options deserve the chance to try interventions with minimal downside risk and plausible mechanistic rationales. Some potential solutions:
- Philanthropic and Government Funding for repurposed drug trials: With less reliance on Big Pharma capital, more impartial studies can be undertaken.
- Patient Registries: Collecting large-scale data on repurposed drug use and outcomes could accelerate our understanding of dosing, synergy, and side effect profiles.
- Legislation and Regulatory Reforms: The United States has a “Right to Try” law for terminal patients; expanding such frameworks could protect physicians and patients seeking to explore repurposed therapies.
- Oncology Curriculum Updates: Medical schools and residency programs could devote more time to discussing the science behind off-patent, repurposed options and how to safely integrate them.
Conclusion: Hope Through Collaboration and Openness
Cancer is complex, and the emergence of highly aggressive, “turbo” variants at younger ages adds another layer of urgency to an already serious public health issue. Dr. William Makis offers important firsthand observations and invites broader scientific inquiry into novel pathology, the role of immune compromise, and whether repeated pandemic-era exposures—be it the virus itself or new vaccine technologies—are contributing factors.
Equally crucial is the role of repurposed drugs—like ivermectin, fenbendazole, and mebendazole—showing remarkable promise in preclinical studies and anecdotal patient success stories. Their low side-effect profiles, broad anti-cancer mechanisms, and potential synergy with mainstream treatments make them prime candidates for more robust clinical trials. Yet systemic barriers remain, from lack of industry profit incentives to restrictive treatment guidelines and cultural skepticism.
Ultimately, cancer patients deserve a medical system that is courageous enough to ask difficult questions, flexible enough to try new interventions (especially when the standard of care offers no more options), and transparent enough to freely share data that can advance our collective understanding. If the medical community embraces these principles, then real progress—against even the most aggressive cancers—becomes increasingly achievable.
Readers: If you or someone you know is facing a difficult cancer prognosis, do not interpret the information here as definitive medical advice. Always discuss potential treatments and supplements with your healthcare team. Stay curious, stay informed, and advocate for a holistic view of your options.
Additional Resources
- Dr. William Makis on Substack – Articles expanding on repurposed drug research and case studies
- National Cancer Institute (NCI) – General guidance on standard therapies, drug trials, and patient resources
- ClinicalTrials.gov – Search ongoing trials by condition, drug, and location
Disclaimer: This post is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Always seek the advice of a qualified healthcare professional for any health-related questions or concerns.
