📬 Join Dr. Goodyear’s Newsletter ➡️ https://pre-scribed.com/subscribe/ 🎙️ Episode Overview: In this powerful solo episode of the Prescribed Podcast, Dr. Nathan Goodyear confronts the emerging debate within the natural and integrative medicine world: Is it time to move beyond ivermectin in cancer care—and does artemisinin offer a better solution? Drawing on decades of clinical experience, a robust survey of mechanistic studies, and his signature emphasis on evidence-based medicine, Dr. Goodyear compares the anticancer potential of ivermectin and artemisinin/artesunate. He dismantles faulty generalizations, calls out censorship in research, and builds a compelling case for why integrative oncology must transcend “zero-sum” thinking. This isn’t just a conversation—it’s a call to action for clinicians, patients, and health leaders to follow the science, not the narrative. 📌 Key Takeaways: Both ivermectin and artemisinin are Nobel Prize-winning anti-parasitics but diverge significantly in anticancer mechanisms.

Artemisinin’s anticancer impact relies on iron-dependent activation, triggering ferroptosis, apoptosis, and immune modulation.

Artesunate (semi-synthetic derivative of artemisinin) is clinically superior due to its water solubility, IV accessibility, and bioavailability.

Ivermectin inhibits Wnt/β-catenin, EMT, mitochondrial respiration, and modulates cold tumors to hot—reprogramming immune accessibility.

Artemisinin targets angiogenesis, STAT3, HIF-1α, and tumor-associated macrophages, shifting M2 (pro-tumor) to M1 (anti-tumor).

Head-to-head comparisons between the two agents don’t exist, but both may work synergistically due to complementary mechanisms.

Ivermectin shows broader preclinical reach, while artemisinin and artesunate have stronger emerging clinical signals.

Research on ivermectin in cancer is being suppressed, whereas artemisinin continues to gain traction and legitimacy.

Integrative oncology isn’t “either/or”—it bridges the best of natural and conventional therapies with precision and intention.

Zero-sum thinking is the enemy of progress. Healing demands nuance, science, and holistic synthesis—not dogma.

Pharmacokinetics matter. Route of administration, absorption, and conversion (e.g. to dihydroartemisinin) directly impact therapeutic efficacy.

Ivermectin and artesunate are tools—not magic bullets. They must be used in patient-specific, strategically timed combinations.

⏱️ Timestamps:

0:00 - Episode Intro

0:16 - Why this conversation matters now

1:12 - Artemisinin vs. ivermectin: unpacking a faulty generalization

2:33 - Shared Nobel Prize origins, divergent therapeutic paths

3:40 - Rejecting the “zero-sum game” of medicine

5:15 - Holistic medicine and Smuts’ theory of holism

6:02 - The science behind artemisinin and artesunate

8:26 - Pharmacology and mechanism differences

10:46 - Oral vs IV delivery: artemisinin's bioavailability problem

12:46 - Iron, cancer, and artemisinin’s ferroptosis magic

15:10 - Macrophage polarization and immune modulation

17:28 - Ivermectin’s mechanisms: Wnt inhibition, ROS, EMT suppression

19:28 - Ivermectin and artemisinin target different cancer hallmarks

24:15 - Clinical signal vs preclinical reach

26:36 - Shared hallmarks, different pathways

28:56 - Why ivermectin research is suppressed—and why it matters

31:15 - Closing call to action: Integrate, don’t isolate

🔔 Subscribe for more evidence-based conversations on the future of functional medicine.

📚 Resources & Links:

Hanahan D, Weinberg RA. Hallmarks of cancer: The next generation. Cell. 2011.

McClelland J. How to Starve Cancer. [Book]

▶️ Watch more episodes + full show notes: https://prescribedpodcast.com

🧬 Learn more about integrative oncology: https://pre-scribed.com

📞 Schedule a consultation or learn more: https://williamscancerinstitute.com

Clinic & Socials Links:

🏥 Visit Dr. Goodyear’s clinic: https://www.drgoodyear.com

📸 Follow us on Socials: https://linktr.ee/doctornathangoodyear