Given the fact you have stated that 85% of cancers are caused by viruses, and that there are few good antivirals, especially ones safe and inexpensive enough to be taken for prolonged periods, would ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine be useful as anticancer treatments?

We think both agents deserve continued research efforts, both singly and in combination. That will allow putting together key information about their respective profiles in the mode of action and variety of potential beneficial effects on the body systems in order to provide a sound scientific rationale for their use. That will be essential in order for them to be widely adopted and will also provide a benchmark for comparison with other novel antivirals that will come along from research efforts. You have seen personally, how time-honored pharmaceutical therapeutics fall into disuse because they are displaced by novel derivatives or a lesser chemical approach, because a new agent can be given a fresh patent and thus will be more lucrative financially. So the old war horse will get retired and a new, less effective, agent will become the standard of care. But it is the patients who suffer, getting less benefit than staying with a generic offering of the original therapy would provide. So for these agents to be pursued meaningfully, will require careful evaluation through a concerted effort by independent bodies willing to invest precious dollars. The re-application of old medicines that are off-patent truly serves the public and may be the only way to get a broad-based benefit that serves the world, simply because of economic considerations. There needs to be affordability as much as novelty and effectiveness to make strides in helping people on a large scale.