National Cancer Institute Launches Ivermectin Cancer Study Under RFK Jr.'s NIH, Alarming Scientists

From Dewormer to Cancer Cure? The NCI's Controversial New Direction

The National Cancer Institute, the premier cancer research body in the United States, is now using federal funds to investigate whether ivermectin — the cheap anti-parasitic drug that became a symbol of medical misinformation during the COVID-19 pandemic — has the ability to kill cancer cells. The announcement has alarmed career scientists within the agency and reignited fierce debate about the politicization of publicly funded medical research under the Trump administration.

NCI Director Anthony Letai, a physician appointed by the Trump administration in September 2025, revealed the preclinical study during a January 30 event titled "Reclaiming Science: The People's NIH." The gathering, held at Washington D.C.'s Willard Hotel and hosted by the MAHA (Make America Healthy Again) Institute, featured National Institutes of Health Director Jay Bhattacharya and other senior agency officials, according to reporting by STAT News.

"We'll probably have those results in a few months," Letai told the audience, referring to the ivermectin study. He did not cite any new evidence that might have prompted the world's leading cancer research institute to investigate the antiparasitic drug's potential oncological properties.

No Scientific Basis for the Hypothesis

The decision to allocate NCI resources to ivermectin research is particularly striking given the lack of credible evidence supporting the hypothesis. While ivermectin has proven highly effective as an antiparasitic medication — its developers won the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 2015 — its promoted uses against COVID-19 were thoroughly debunked by multiple large-scale clinical trials.

The leap from antiparasitic to cancer treatment is similarly unsupported by rigorous science. While some laboratory studies have shown that ivermectin can affect certain cellular pathways at high concentrations in vitro, the gap between petri dish results and effective human cancer therapy is vast. A small clinical trial that administered ivermectin to patients with metastatic breast cancer in combination with immunotherapy found no significant benefit from adding the drug, according to KFF Health News.

Letai himself appeared to temper expectations during his remarks, stating that ivermectin is "not going to be a cure-all for cancer" at the population level. Yet the very act of deploying NCI resources to study the drug has sent a powerful signal about the agency's shifting priorities under the current administration.

Career Scientists Sound the Alarm

Inside the NCI, the reaction has been one of deep concern. Career scientists at the agency, speaking on condition of anonymity, described the study as "based on nonscientific ideas" and expressed worry about the misallocation of limited research funding, STAT News reported.

The concern is not merely academic. The NCI operates with a finite budget, and every dollar directed toward ivermectin research is a dollar not spent on promising clinical trials, genomic research, immunotherapy development, or other evidence-based approaches that have driven real advances in cancer treatment in recent years. Critics argue that the study represents a capitulation to political pressure from the medical fringe rather than a genuine pursuit of scientific discovery.

Letai did not elaborate on whether NCI scientists are conducting the research internally or whether the institute has directed funding to an outside institution. That lack of transparency has only deepened the unease among agency personnel.

The Broader Pattern Under Kennedy's NIH

The ivermectin study does not exist in isolation. Under Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has a long history of promoting anti-vaccine positions, numerous figures from the medical fringe have been appointed to powerful federal positions. The MAHA Institute event where Letai announced the study was organized by allies of Kennedy, and the agenda explicitly framed the discussion around challenging mainstream scientific consensus.

NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya, who co-authored the controversial Great Barrington Declaration during the pandemic, has overseen a broader shift in NIH priorities that critics say elevates ideological preferences over established scientific methodology.

The concern among the broader scientific community is that studies like the ivermectin investigation serve a dual purpose: they provide a veneer of institutional legitimacy to fringe medical claims while simultaneously diverting resources from evidence-based research. Even if the preclinical study produces negative results — as most researchers expect — the mere fact that the NCI pursued it will be cited by proponents as validation of their claims.

For the scientific community watching from outside the NIH, the episode represents a troubling erosion of the firewall between political agendas and publicly funded research. The NCI has historically been guided by peer review, scientific evidence, and the judgment of career researchers. Whether that tradition can survive the current political climate remains an open and increasingly urgent question.