When prescriptions for unproven treatment double after one podcast, patients may abandon what we know works.
Em janeiro de 2025, uma afirmação feita pelo ator Mel Gibson no podcast mais ouvido do mundo atravessou a fronteira entre entretenimento e medicina: três amigos seus com câncer avançado teriam sido curados com medicamentos antiparasitários. O que se seguiu foi documentado com precisão científica — as prescrições desses fármacos quase dobraram nos Estados Unidos, concentradas entre os mesmos grupos demográficos que compõem a audiência do programa. A história não é apenas sobre desinformação; é sobre o que acontece quando o desespero humano encontra uma narrativa simples, barata e amplificada por milhões de vozes.
- Uma única aparição em podcast gerou 60 milhões de visualizações em uma rede social e desencadeou uma onda mensurável de prescrições médicas sem respaldo científico.
- Entre pacientes com câncer, o uso combinado de ivermectina e benzimidazol cresceu 2,5 vezes — um salto proporcional alarmante documentado em registros de 68 milhões de americanos.
- O fenbendazol, medicamento veterinário promovido por Gibson, é proibido para uso humano nos EUA e no Brasil, com efeitos colaterais graves registrados — mas custa US$ 25, enquanto tratamentos oncológicos comprovados chegam a US$ 150 mil.
- O padrão demográfico da alta nas prescrições — homens, brancos, moradores do Sul dos EUA — espelha com precisão a audiência do Joe Rogan Experience, sugerindo que a desinformação seguiu rotas de confiança já estabelecidas.
- Médicos e pesquisadores temem que pacientes abandonem tratamentos eficazes em troca de alternativas sem evidência, comprometendo taxas de sobrevivência em um momento de extrema vulnerabilidade.
Em janeiro de 2025, Mel Gibson sentou diante de Joe Rogan e afirmou que três amigos com câncer avançado haviam se curado tomando ivermectina combinada com fenbendazol, um vermífugo de uso exclusivamente veterinário. O clipe se espalhou com velocidade feroz: mais de 60 milhões de visualizações em uma única postagem no X, 13 milhões no YouTube. O que parecia apenas mais um episódio de desinformação viral logo se tornou um fenômeno rastreável dentro do sistema de saúde americano.
Um estudo publicado no JAMA Network Open, baseado em registros eletrônicos de 68 milhões de pacientes, documentou o que veio a seguir. Entre janeiro e julho de 2025, as prescrições de ivermectina e benzimidazóis quase dobraram nos EUA. Entre pacientes oncológicos especificamente, a combinação foi prescrita 2,5 vezes mais do que no período anterior. No Sul do país, as prescrições para pacientes com câncer chegaram a quadruplicar em relação a 2024 — e o perfil demográfico dessa alta coincide com precisão com a audiência do Joe Rogan Experience: 78% masculina, predominantemente republicana, concentrada nas regiões onde o podcast tem maior alcance.
A ciência é clara em sentido contrário. Nenhum estudo de qualidade demonstrou benefício dessas drogas no tratamento do câncer humano. O fenbendazol é proibido para uso humano nos dois países e apresenta riscos documentados. A origem do rumor remonta a 2019, quando experimentos laboratoriais mostraram que as substâncias matavam células cancerígenas em placas de Petri e em ratos — mas apenas cerca de 5% dos tratamentos que funcionam em animais se traduzem em medicina humana.
O contexto econômico amplifica o problema. Tratar câncer nos EUA pode custar mais de US$ 150 mil. A combinação de ivermectina e fenbendazol sai por cerca de US$ 25 na Amazon. Para pacientes à beira da falência ou racionando cuidados, uma alternativa barata — mesmo sem evidência — tem um apelo que a ciência sozinha não consegue neutralizar. O desafio que os pesquisadores identificam agora é como os sistemas de saúde chegam até esses pacientes com informação precisa no exato momento em que são mais vulneráveis a narrativas falsas.
In January 2025, actor Mel Gibson sat down for an interview on the Joe Rogan Experience and made a claim that would ripple through American medicine: three of his friends with advanced cancer, he said, had been completely cured after taking ivermectin combined with fenbendazol, a deworming medication designed exclusively for animals. The clip spread across social media with ferocious speed. A single post on X accumulated more than 60 million views. The full interview, posted to YouTube, drew over 13 million viewers. By most measures, it was a successful piece of media.
What followed was measurable and troubling. Between January and July 2025, prescriptions for ivermectin and benzimidazole drugs—the class of antiparasitics Gibson had endorsed—nearly doubled across the United States. The increase was not evenly distributed. Among cancer patients specifically, prescriptions for this combination jumped 2.5 times. A study published this week in JAMA Network Open, drawing on electronic health records from 68 million American patients, documented the surge with precision. In the first seven months of 2025, the drug pairing was prescribed to six out of every 100,000 patients—a small absolute number, but a dramatic proportional leap.
The scientific case for these drugs as cancer treatment does not exist. No high-quality study has ever shown that ivermectin or fenbendazol benefit cancer patients. Fenbendazol, the animal dewormer Gibson mentioned, is banned for human use in both the United States and Brazil, and carries documented risks of serious side effects. The rumor itself is not new—it has circulated since 2019, born from laboratory studies showing the drugs could kill cancer cells in petri dishes and in rats. But that is where the evidence stops. Only about 5 percent of drugs that work in animals successfully translate to human medicine.
Dr. John N. Mafi, who led the research, expressed the concern that animates the medical community's alarm: "When prescriptions for an unproven cancer treatment more than double after a single podcast—especially among men and people in the South—it raises the worry that patients may be stopping or delaying treatments we know work in favor of something with no proven benefit." The demographic pattern of the surge is striking. The largest increases appeared among men, white Americans, and residents of the American South. In the South specifically, cancer patient prescriptions for these drugs nearly quadrupled compared to 2024. These demographics mirror, almost precisely, the audience composition of the Joe Rogan Experience: 78 percent male, predominantly Republican-leaning, concentrated in regions where the podcast's reach is strongest.
The Joe Rogan Experience is not a fringe platform. It has been the most-listened-to podcast globally on Spotify for six consecutive years, and dominates on YouTube and Apple Podcasts as well. Rogan, a comedian who has hosted the show since 2009, has interviewed figures ranging from Elon Musk to Donald Trump to Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the current U.S. health secretary. The Wall Street Journal has called him one of the most influential voices among American swing voters. During the Covid-19 pandemic, Rogan became a prominent promoter of ivermectin as a coronavirus treatment—not the human formulation, but the veterinary version used for horses—a claim without scientific support that nonetheless gained presidential endorsement in Brazil.
Mel Gibson himself carries a history of controversy. The actor and director has faced multiple accusations of antisemitism, racism, homophobia, and domestic violence. Earlier in 2025, after fires destroyed his California home, he suggested the blazes had been deliberately set. The antiparasitic cancer protocol he promoted is not his invention, but his platform amplified it to an audience of millions.
Researchers are careful to note they cannot prove Gibson's podcast appearance caused the prescription surge—the study is observational, tracking patterns rather than establishing causation. Yet the authors write that the demographic and regional variation in prescriptions "reflects the characteristics of the audience of podcasts and media platforms promoting these therapeutic regimens, suggesting selective amplification and targeted reach of health misinformation." The economic pressure is real and urgent. Cancer treatment in America costs upward of $150,000. A box of ivermectin and a box of fenbendazol together cost about $25 on Amazon. For patients facing bankruptcy or rationing care, the appeal of a cheaper alternative—even one without evidence—carries weight that pure science cannot match. The challenge now, researchers say, is how health systems reach patients with accurate information at the moment they are most vulnerable to false claims.
Notable Quotes
When prescriptions for an unproven cancer treatment more than double after a single podcast—especially among men and people in the South—it raises the worry that patients may be stopping or delaying treatments we know work in favor of something with no proven benefit.— Dr. John N. Mafi, lead researcher
These findings remind us that some forces can influence health care very rapidly. The challenge for health systems is how to reach patients with information that is both timely and reliable.— Michelle Rockwell, principal study author
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why does a single podcast appearance move the needle on prescriptions so dramatically? Isn't there usually more friction in the medical system?
There is, normally. But these are cancer patients—people in crisis, often facing treatments that are brutal and expensive and don't always work. When someone famous says he knows three people who were cured by something cheap and simple, that message travels faster than the peer-reviewed literature ever could.
The study can't prove Gibson caused it, though. So what's the actual evidence of influence?
The timing is too clean to ignore. The prescriptions spike right after the podcast drops. And the people getting these prescriptions match the podcast's audience almost exactly—men, Republicans, people in the South. That's not coincidence, it's a fingerprint.
But fenbendazol is banned for human use. How are doctors even writing these prescriptions?
Some doctors may not know it's banned. Others might be prescribing it off-label, which is legal in the U.S. if a doctor decides to. The real issue is that patients are asking for it based on something they heard, and some doctors will write it rather than have a difficult conversation about why they shouldn't.
What's the actual harm if someone tries it instead of proven treatment?
Time. Cancer doesn't wait. If you spend three months on something that doesn't work, you've lost three months when chemotherapy or surgery might have helped. And these drugs do have side effects. You're trading a known risk for an unknown benefit.
Is this a failure of the medical system or of media literacy?
Both. The system has no real way to compete with a celebrity endorsement on the world's most popular podcast. And most people don't know that lab results in rats almost never translate to humans. That's not their fault—that's information they were never taught.