New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Ivermectin prescriptions spiked after Mel Gibson touted it for cancer on Joe Rogan’s podcast

There is no hard evidence that ivermectin can treat cancer, but that hasn’t stopped people from trying it

Ivermectin tablets arranged in front of a package and bottle

Dimas Ardian/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Ivermectin prescriptions skyrocketed in the six months after actor Mel Gibson claimed a version of the drug successfully treated three of his friends’ cancer on influencer Joe Rogan’s podcast, a new study found.

On a January 2025 episode of The Joe Rogan Experience, Gibson said that the antiparasitic drugs ivermectin and fenbendazole, which are both commonly used to treat worms in animals, had made his friends’ cancer disappear. Ivermectin, the development of which won two researchers part of the 2015 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, is well proven for its safety and effectiveness in treating diseases caused by parasitic worms in people. But there is no clinical trial evidence to suggest that either drug can treat cancer in humans, and fenbendazole isn’t approved for human use.

Animal studies suggest ivermectin and benzimidazole, a class of drugs that includes fenbendazole, may have certain properties that could inhibit tumor growth, but this use is unproven. In February the National Cancer Institute said it was investigating ivermectin’s ability to treat cancer, but the research is preclinical, meaning that whatever findings come of it still cannot be applied to patients without further studies.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Nevertheless, after Gibson’s endorsement, prescription rates for ivermectin and benzimidazole doubled from January 2025 to July 2025 compared with the same period in 2024, the study found. Prescriptions specifically for patients with cancer also rose precipitously—rates were 2.5 times higher last July than they were in January 2025, compared with the same period in 2024. Male patients and white patients, as well as patients living in the U.S. South, were also more likely to be prescribed the drug, according to the research.

Importantly, the study can’t definitively say that Gibson and Rogan’s conversation caused the spike in ivermectin prescriptions, and it’s unclear whether the patients who received ivermectin chose to use it over other established cancer therapies, such as chemotherapy and radiation.

Still, the results underscore a growing chorus of concern from clinicians and researchers over ivermectin’s off-label use. Prescriptions of the drug also surged during the early days of the COVID pandemic, when it was touted as a potential treatment for the disease based on preliminary positive findings that turned out to be false. Now some experts fear the same could happen with cancer.

“Our findings extend prior work on the potential influence of celebrity endorsement on health care utilization,” the study authors write. “Such influence gains traction when institutional trust erodes. Protecting vulnerable populations from misinformation-driven deviations from evidence-based care requires coordinated action by clinicians, health systems, researchers, and policymakers.”

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe