Via Andreas Kalcker:
Cancer is a hot topic, specially after the infamous mRNA vaccinations (“Turbo Cancer”), as well as it is CDS (chlorine dioxide in aqueous solution) or a so called “Horse dewormer” Ivermectin or fenbendazole/albendazole. This “Three Musketeers” against cancer have shown impressive results including so called incurable cancers or paliative patients in several cases.
Over the past eighteen years our work has focused on a simple biophysical premise: living systems are charge-driven, and disease states emerge when redox potentials, membrane polarization, and oxygen handling fall out of order. From that lens, cancer behaves as a persistent failure of charge separation and electron flow, reinforced by hypoxia, glycolytic lock, membrane depolarization, and chaotic signaling.
The therapeutic triad we use—CDS (chlorine dioxide in aqueous solution), ivermectin, and benzimidazoles (albendazole/fenbendazole)—arose from this framework and has been refined through iterative clinical experience, starting with early single-agent observations, moving through dual combinations, and arriving at the present three-agent model with defined sequencing, safety gates, and monitoring.
This year’s documented outcomes include multiple tumor types with an overall success rate of 78% in our current research series including four recoveries in pancreatic cancer cases previously deemed irreversible. Below I outline the historical trajectory, the mechanistic architecture, and a testable model colleagues can scrutinize and apply.
Historically, our entry point was oxigen depletion and redox correction. In early compassionate-use cases a decade ago, we observed that carefully dosed CDS improved fatigue, edema, and inflammatory tone in patients with advanced disease, even before any change in tumor mass. Those qualitative shifts were accompanied by better oxygenation indices, lactic acid reduction and more stable vital signs, suggesting restoration of membrane potential and mitochondrial competence. As case numbers grew, we noticed that tumor responses accelerated when CDS preceded any cytotoxic or metabolic stressor, a pattern that led us to define a redox-first sequence.
Around the same period, I worked with benzimidazoles to reduce parasitic burden in children with Autism, focusing on their well-characterized capacity to impair microtubule assembly and disrupt glucose uptake in rapidly dividing cells. This pharmacodynamic profile targets helminths by destabilizing β-tubulin-dependent structures, leading to impaired sugar acquisition and eventual parasite death.
We combined these insights and found that adding albendazole/fenbendazole or mebendazole for gastro intestinal cancers, after redox normalization consistently deepened responses, particularly in glycolysis-dependent, hypoxic tumors. Finally, we integrated ivermectin after recognizing that many cancers exploit excitatory glutamate signaling and purinergic ATP pathways to maintain proliferation, invasion, and immune evasion under stress. Sequencing ivermectin as the third lever—once redox and metabolism had been shifted—lowered the signaling threshold for apoptosis and improved durability.
To explain the why for professionals, a mechanistic scaffold helps. Consider cancer as a coupled set of subsystems: redox/oxygen handling, energy metabolism, structural division machinery, and signal integration. Each subsystem sits at a node where charge and electron flow determine behavior.
- Redox/oxygen handling: Tumors maintain a reduced, hypoxic core that stabilizes HIF-1α, drives glycolysis, and acidifies the microenvironment. Membrane potentials are depressed, mitochondrial Δψm is unstable, and iron-catalyzed reactions raise the chance of uncontrolled hydroxyl radical formation. CDS, in aqueous tissue, introduces a controlled oxidizing capacity that shifts the redox setpoint toward balance (!). Practically, this increases available oxygen equivalents in hypoxic zones, attenuates the lactate burden, and re-polarizes membranes so ion pumps and ATP synthase regain efficiency. Oxidation of biogenic amines like histamine reduces edema and aberrant vasodilation, improving microcirculation. With fewer chaotic electron transfers, Fenton-type generation of •OH declines, concentrating oxidation in the signaling range cells use to repair and execute apoptosis rather than causing indiscriminate damage. This redox reset is foundational—without it, downstream interventions push against a hypoxic shield.
- Energy metabolism and division machinery: Most malignant cells rely on glycolysis despite oxygen presence (Warburg effect), reflecting dysfunctional mitochondria and an adaptation to hypoxia. Albendazole/ fenbendazole/ mebendazole impairs glucose uptake and handling; benzimidazoles more broadly disrupt microtubule assembly, undermining spindle formation and mitosis. When applied after redox normalization, the tumor loses its hypoxia-based buffer and finds its primary energy pathway constrained while its division machinery destabilizes. This dual stress lowers ATP availability precisely when mechanical demands peak, pushing cells toward selective mitotic failure. Normal tissues, less reliant on glycolysis and dividing more slowly, tolerate this window better.
- Signal integration: Ivermectin is not a glutamate-receptor inhibitor in human cancer cells. Tumors amplify glutamatergic and purinergic ATP signaling to support proliferation, migration, angiogenesis, and immune evasion. Calcium flux through these pathways sustains a pro-growth state and raises oxidative noise inside already unstable mitochondria. Ivermectin dampens these excitatory currents and modulates ATP-gated purinergic receptors, reducing the pro-growth chatter that insulates cancer cells from pro-apoptotic cues.Ivermectin can increase chloride currents through certain ligand-gated channels (e.g., GlyR) at supratherapeutic levels. In parasites, ivermectin targets glutamate-gated chloride channels (GluCl), but humans do not express those GluCl receptors. That parasite selectivity is why ivermectin is safe as an antiparasitic in people: it doesn’t inhibit human glutamate synaptic signaling. Once redox has been corrected and glycolytic security stripped, lowering this signaling threshold makes apoptosis more likely and more complete.
From these nodes we propose a minimal systems model colleagues can compute or apply conceptually. Define four state variables over time t:
- R(t): redox balance and oxygen handling (higher is more normalized)
- E(t): effective energy margin in cancer cells (ATP availability relative to need)
- S(t): proliferative signaling tone (glutamate/purinergic-driven excitatory pressure)
- P(t): apoptosis competency (tendency to execute programmed cell death under stress)
Cancer persistence corresponds to low R, high reliance on glycolysis, high S, and low P. The triad acts as inputs u1, u2, u3:
- u1 (CDS) increases R and stabilizes the membrane potential, indirectly reducing uncontrolled •OH radicals and diminishing the hypoxia advantage for tumors by enhancing O2 and reducing lactic acid, the tumor’s main metabolite that drives vascularization.
- u2 (albendazole/fenbendazole) decreases E by blocking glucose handling and increases division stress by destabilizing microtubules.
- u3 (ivermectin) decreases S by damping excitatory pathways, thereby raising the effective impact of pro-apoptotic signals.
Coupling terms express observed biology:
- As your breathing gets more effective (R rises), the body senses more oxygen, turns down its “low-oxygen” switch (HIF‑1α), burns sugar less frantically, the cell’s power battery (mitochondrial membrane voltage, Δψm) improves, and overall performance (P) increases—so P goes up as R goes up.
- As E falls under u2 while mitotic demand rises, the ATP shortfall increases mitochondrial outer membrane permeabilization probability, also increasing P. So when your cells need to divide more but have too little energy, their power stations (mitochondria) get leaky, which raises the chance that the cell will self-destruct.
- As S falls under u3, calcium-driven resistance pathways weaken, so the same oxidative and energetic stress produces a larger increase in P. in siple terms: When support gets weaker, the same stress hits harder, so the problem grows more.
The therapeutic window appears when R crosses a threshold R*, after which u2 produces a net drop in E below a viability threshold E*, while u3 lowers S beneath S*, making dP/dt strongly positive. In practice, we aim to reach R ≥ R* before introducing substantive u2, and we introduce u3 near or after u2 onset to suppress compensatory signaling surges. This sequencing matches the clinical pattern: patients tolerate the course better, markers turn sooner, and imaging consolidates gains rather than oscillating. In simple terms: we first push the body past a key turning point, then add treatment 2 to drop harmful activity below a safe level, and bring in treatment 3 to quiet rebound signals—this order helps people feel better, improves tests sooner, and makes scans show steady progress instead of ups and downs.
Our historical dataset aligns with this model. Early single-agent CDS cases improved symptoms but produced slower structural responses; adding benzimidazoles after achieving stable redox led to visible lesion shrinkage in a larger fraction of patients; integrating ivermectin stabilized those gains and reduced partial responses that previously plateaued. The current year’s records include four pancreatic cancer recoveries in patients initially labeled irreversible, a setting known for profound hypoxia and dense stroma. In each case, redox normalization preceded measurable biomarker drops (CA19-9 where applicable) and imaging regression, followed by sustained functional recovery beyond three months without rebound.
Parallel gains were seen in breast, prostate ( Aparicio et.al ), and colon cancers, with consistent patterns: reduction in inflammatory tone, restoration of daily function correlating with improved bioelectric coherence, and objective lesion shrinkage on imaging. Aggregated across the documented series, the success rate stands in our statistic this year at 78%, defined by objective tumor reduction with sustained clinical improvement under physician oversight. All cases are still ongoing research and have archived imaging, laboratory time series, and physician notes, and patient-facing narratives are available for context.
Translating the model into practice requires disciplined monitoring. We establish baseline CBC, comprehensive metabolic panel, liver and kidney function, disease-specific markers, and inflammatory indices; where available, we add oxidative stress and redox panels. We use CDS first to reach a clinical redox plateau—improved energy, reduced edema, steadier vitals—then introduce albendazole/fenbendazole to impose metabolic and mitotic stress, and finally add ivermectin to quiet excitatory signaling. We monitor hydration and electrolyte balance, especially magnesium and potassium, are maintained to stabilize membranes during redox transitions. We do not use high dose antioxidants (!) to avoid blunting the therapeutic redox window while protecting healthy tissue between cycles.
Interaction checks should be mandatory, particularly with anticoagulants and agents that affect cardiac repolarization, although no negative interactions have been reported in 18 years when taken with a 1-hour interval. This is logical, given that CDS quickly decays into oxygen and less than a trace of salt. Self-administration is not legally permitted; all adjustments follow predefined criteria tied to laboratory results and clinical status, under the Helsinki protocol and written consent.
For colleagues, the invitation is to test and refine this model. Measure R through practical proxies—oxygenation trends, acid-base balance, and, when possible, redox-sensitive assays. Track E via lactate, ketone shifts, and functional status under load. Estimate S through cytokine profiles and, where feasible, markers of glutamatergic/purinergic activity. Monitor P indirectly via apoptosis markers and imaging dynamics. Apply the sequence redox-first, metabolism/mitosis-second, signaling-third, and report trajectories so we can collectively sharpen thresholds R*, E*, and S* that predict response.
Our protocols are open-access at andreaskalcker.com and dioxipedia.com, with structured training at the Kalcker Institute for clinicians who want the full operational detail from dosing logic to safety frameworks. Patients should only proceed under medical supervision; our team can be reached at info@alkfoundation.com for coordinated care.
The results we have recorded this year—including four pancreatic cancer recoveries once considered unreachable and a current documented success rate of 78% across multiple cancers—are consistent with the charge-based, redox-centered model outlined here. We will continue to document, publish, and teach so others can verify, challenge, and improve these methods in service of better outcomes.
[Via: Dr.h.c. Andreas Ludwig Kalcker / drkalcker.substack.com]