loading . . . Scott Adams vs. a cancer quack I realize that itâs been four weeks since I posted here, posting about the soft eugenics of MAHA. Iâve been meaning to get back into it, but, for whatever reason, whenever Iâve tried to do so something got in the way; that is, until now. Perhaps itâs because there are few things that I enjoy writing about more than a good crank fight, and few cranks are as cranky as disgraced Dr. William Makis, Makis, as you might recall, is the disgraced nuclear medicine radiologist who lost his medical license in Alberta and, while probably not the originator of the antivax concept that COVID-19 vaccines cause not just cancer, but _**turbo**_ cancer, has arguably been the most vocal antivax quack promoting the idea. In Makisâ telling, COVID-19 vaccines are so full of mutating evil humors that they cause cancers that are not just run-of-the-mill cancers that anyone can get as they get older, but rather cancers so fast-growing and malignant that the are called âturbo cancers,â cancers. Never mind that he canât define what the heck a âturbo cancerâ is compared to regular cancers or provide any good evidence that cancer, much less âturbo cancers,â are associated with COVID-19 vaccination. None of that stopped him from becoming a total cancer quack, promoting all manner of quackery. On the opposing side of this crank fight is Dilbert cartoonist Scott Adams, who actually comes off closer to the side of reason, not to mention being the more sympathetic character due to his having been diagnosed with stage 4 prostate cancer that he tried to treat with Makisâ âprotocol,â which involves:
> I used a combination of Fenben, IVM, Mebendazole, HCQ, Quercitin, IV Vit C, and other supplements to treat my wife's Glioblastoma. Going on 18 months completely free of any cancer.
>
> â Bellisa2022 (@bellisa2022) October 23, 2024
As you will see, Makis is a big fan of ivermectin, that anthelminthic drug that is very effective against diseases caused by parasitic roundworms and was seized upon as a miracle cure for COVID-19 not long after hydroxychloroquine was being promoted as a miracle cure. Heâs also a fan of other anthelminthic drugs mebendazole and fenbendazole, drugs that had shown mild antitumor effects in preclinical models (but not in humans), drugs that he recommends, as is the case with many cancer quacks, in a âprotocolâ or cocktail with ivermectin, vitamins, and supplements rather like the one touted above. Iâve discussed how mebendazole and fenbendazole show mild promise in the lab but have never been validated in clinical trials in humans, making them at best unproven and at worst quackery now (barring new evidence); indeed, I referred to the claims about fenbendazole as reminding me of those of cancer quack Stanislaw Burzynski about his antineoplastons therapy. Iâm not going to go into that more here, as you can read my previous posted linked to in this paragraph. Rather, Iâm interested in what happened after Adams posted this on X, the hellsite formerly known as Twitter:
> UPDATE 1:
>
> Please donât recommend I take Ivermectin and Fenben.
>
> I tried that last year, via Dr. Makis, to no effect. There are claims of it working, but I am aware of no patient who benefitted from it. Neither are you.
>
> Please don't recommend fasting or any diet-relatedâŠ
>
> â Scott Adams (@ScottAdamsSays) May 22, 2025
I havenât written much about Scott Adams before, other than to note that over time he has increasingly embraced COVID-19 minimization, antivax narratives (even saying that âantivaxxers were rightâ), and conspiracy theories, although there were signs as long ago as 2007 that he was slowly heading down the rabbit hole of unreason. (These days, heâs become fairly Trumpy, and President Trump apparently even called him after his announcement to check on how he was doing.) Adamâs history aside, a little more than a week ago he announced that he had been diagnosed with metastatic stage 4 prostate cancer; within a day or two of that came the post/Tweet cited above.
Itâs unclear when Adams was initially diagnosed with prostate cancer, but he was fairly calculating about when he chose to announce his diagnosis. In fact, he quite frankly says that he decided to do so after former President Joe Biden had announced that he had been diagnosed with stage 4 prostate cancer:
> It was not clear when Mr. Adams was diagnosed, but he said that he decided to share the news after learning that Mr. Biden had the same disease, in part because he hoped that Mr. Bidenâs announcement would draw attention away from his own. He had kept quiet about it to prolong a sense of normalcy, he said: âOnce you go public, youâre just the dying cancer guy.â
>
> Mr. Adams said he was also wary of sharing his diagnosis because he wanted to avoid the kind of negative online attention that Mr. Biden has received since his office announced the news on Sunday.
>
> âOne of the things Iâve been watching is how terrible the public is,â he said, adding that people had been âcruel.â
>
> âThereâs no sympathy for Joe Biden for a lot of people,â Mr. Adams said. âItâs hard to watch.â
Itâs true, too. Bidenâs announcement immediately unleashed a storm of conspiracy theories, ranging from claims that his prostate cancer was a âturbo cancerâ caused by COVID-19 vaccines to claims that he had been diagnosed last year and had kept it covered up so as not to affect his reelection chances. (That latter conspiracy theory doesnât explain why he waited until a couple of weeks ago to announce his diagnosis.) Of course, even as he expressed concern about how news of his diagnosis would be received, Adams couldnât resist adding to his statement that he had had his cancer longer than Biden has had it, âwell, longer than heâs admitted having itââand that after after having spent several minutes of the first part of his podcast wondering if Biden had known about his cancer in 2024.
Adams wasnât entirely wrong to be concerned about how he would be treated either. Just look at how Makis reacted, within hours of Adamsâ announcement with a post on his Substack responding to Adams stating that Makisâ protocol didnât work for him, calling the article Scott Adams reveals his Prostate Cancer and our attempts to beat it â my response to Scottâs Podcast:
> I want Scott to beat prostate cancer, and respecting patient confidentiality, I will say this:
>
> **Ivermectin and Fenbendazole combination has about a 75% response rate across all cancers.**
>
> While thatâs better than any cutting edge cancer treatment out there, **I wish it was 100%**. It isnât.
>
> There is no way to predict who will respond and who wonât. Itâs not an issue of prostate cancer. I have dozens of Prostate Cancer success stories.
>
> It comes down to the individualâs unique cancer cell type.
>
> **For every patient who doesnât respond, we adjust the dosing and the Ivermectin Treatment Protocol and we fight on to try and beat the cancer.**
>
> I have had several situations where 1000mg Fenbendazole didnât work, but 2000mg Fenbendazole did.
>
> I have had situations where 1000mg Fenbendazole didnât work but 1000mg Mebendazole did.
>
> I have had situations where 1000mg Mebendazole didnât work but 2000mg Mebendazole did.
>
> You get the idea.
I most definitely do get the idea. Makis has been burned by a famous, high profile cancer patient announcing on his podcast that he has prostate cancer. Worse, he had tried ivermectin, mebendazole, and fenbendazole and had concluded that Makisâ concoction doesnât work, saying:
> Do you remember last year I was making a big deal online about the claims that ivermectin and fenbendazole are a cure for this exact condition? Well, in case youâre wondering, I did try that and I did try it with the assistance of the doctor who was the the famous doctor Dr. Makis, and it wasnât that I believed it would work. It was just that there wasnât much downside risk; so with my doctorâs you know blessingâhe didnât think it would work, of courseâand it didnât work at all. So I did it for a few months. My PSA probably went up by a factor of ten during that time. So what I was hoping was that it would work and then I could be, you know, part of the solution. Wouldnât that have been cool? And so I was teasing you that I was working on something that that could be, like, life-changing but it didnât work. So I canât say that it never worked for anybody with some different cancer or some different situation, but I can tell you it didnât work at all for me. So thatâs all I know about that.
First of all, I do feel bad for Scott Adams. He repeatedly describes how heâs in pain all the time, how painful his eventual demise is likely to be, and how he was proud of having been part of activism to push for the State of California to allow terminally ill patients the right to assisted suicide. I also have to give him credit for realizing that Makisâ quackery wasnât working and his cancer was continuing to progress. Given all that, I can overlook his digs at Joe Biden, his insinuations that he had known about his cancer for a long time before announcing it, and the like.
But back to Makis. Yes, I get the idea. Heâs trotting out all the usual excuses that cancer quacks trot out whenever their quackery doesnât work, which is basically always:
* It worked for other people.
* Hey, Adams is an outlier, because my concoction works 75% of the time!
* The dose was wrong.
* Maybe he should have tried my other unproven drug, in this case mebendazole.
* It was Adamsâ fault for giving up. (That last part is implied, an insinuation.)
What really riles Makis up is a subsequent video by Adams, in which he reveals that heâll be taking an experimental drugâno, not an âexperimental drugâ as quacks like Makis mean it, but a real drug thatâs undergone real testingâeven though it only has a 0%-30% response rate. At least, thatâs what it sounds like. Certainly itâs what Makis thinks it is, given his reaction, as ranted in his Substack entitled SCOTT ADAMS and the Betrayal of Modern Medicine, although in the clip from Scott Adamsâ podcast included with the post Adams remains kind of coy about it, saying for instance
> However, I have decided on a path of treatment that Iâm not gonna tell you about. Now, it has to do with real doctors. Itâs not going to be me grazing in my backyard and rubbing mud on myself like most of you are recommending. Iâm not going to be taking ivermectin. Iâm not going to be spending more time in the sun. Iâm sure all those are good things. but I donât believe any of them would make me better. I think somebody would have noticed if you could cure incurable cancers with just sort of minor diet changes and things like that. So the reason Iâm not gonna tell you what Iâm gonna do is because I know what the reaction would be
Adams then notes that the reaction âhad started to turnâ with the antivaxxers coming out and asking him if he got his cancer after getting a COVID-19 vaccine. Yes, Adams is right to say that these are âjust terrible people,â because they are. In any case, Adams continues a little later:
> So if youâre saying to yourself, I wonder if itâs X, no, because youâve heard of it. If you say, I wonder if itâs Y, no. It isnât because youâve heard of that. So only a very few of you would have ever been heard of the path Iâm taking. But itâs with top doctors. Itâs not something Iâm making up. Itâs not some little thing Iâm doing on my own. Itâs with top doctors in the field who know a lot about this. And it looks like my odds of survival may have jumped from zero to something closer to 30%, which means donât do my funeral yet. Iâve got a solid 30% chance of getting on the other side of this. And by the way, this is brand new. Like, this is information that I was not aware of until just recently. So I will give you updates at some point, but not until I know if itâs working, which actually wonât take long. So in a matter of, I donât know, a month or so, I should have a pretty good idea if itâs working. But Iâll let you know.
To me, it sounds as though Adams is probably enrolling in a phase I or II trial of a new anticancer drug. I am, however, skeptical that anything could produce a 30% durable remission rate against metastatic prostate cancer, and I also suspect that Adams is probably conflating response rate (percentage of patients with measurable tumor shrinkage) with a âcureâ rate. Be that as it may, I wish him well, as it sounds as though Makis is probably correct to conclude that Adams has enrolled in an experimental protocol of some kind.
Unsurprisingly, Makis canât handle a high profile cancer patient like Adams repudiating his quackery as not having worked and choosing instead an experimental therapeutic with a low, but measurable, chance of prolonging his life; so he amps up his âblame the victimâ narrative, even as he tries to pretend to be sympathetic to Adams as a having been âbetrayedâ by âModern Medicine.â The giveaway is Makisâ complaints before he talks about Adams:
> I was pleasantly surprised when Scott approached me in October 2024 for help with a serious health condition. Of course, I agreed to help.
>
> Fast forward to May 19, 2025. Scott let the world know that he has terminal Stage 4 Prostate Cancer metastatic to bones, that he tried Ivermectin and Fenbendazole with my assistance and that it didnât work.
>
> He followed that up with a May 22, 2025 Tweet that again mentions my name and he has it pinned. It now has 2.3 million views.
>
> Since Scottâs May 19, 2025 video, my Twitter account has been flooded with hundreds of negative messages, attacks, threats, smears and I have had to block hundreds of Twitter accounts to protect myself from the tsunami of abuse.
>
> As they say: âNo good deed goes unpunishedâ.
Poor baby. If youâre a cancer quack promoting misinformation and treating patients with unproven and disproven treatments, itâs to be expected that when a famous person tries your quackery and it doesnât work you _**will**_ be called outâand rightfully so! Some of your patients with treatable cancer likely paid with their lives, and youâre complaining of a little social media piling on? Seriously, dude, youâre pathetic.
So, what, according to Makis, happened? I bet you can guess. Thatâs right; thereâs a whole lot of blaming the victim going on, but not before he blames Adamsâ oncologists for having failed âto stop Scottâs cancer from progressing rapidly to a âterminal stageâ in a short period of time,â because, if you believe Makis, âProstate Cancer patients can live many years, even decades without progression, with the proper Cancer Treatment.â (Capitalizations his, not mine.) Of course, as any oncologist or urologist who treats prostate cancer knows, this characterizations is often, but far from always, accurate. Yes, _**most**_ prostate cancer patients who have the most common indolent varieties of prostate cancer die _**with**_ prostate cancer rather than _**of**_ it. Yes, we often speak of how in autopsy series 75% of men who live into their 80s have detectable tiny foci of prostate cancer in their prostates. These men with indolent disease, however, are usually older than Adams, who is only 67 years old, usually in their 70s and 80s (and beyond). Moreover, around 5-10% of prostate cancers are metastatic at the time of diagnosis, and there are aggressive subtypes that can grow and metastasize rapidly. Stepping back, we donât know what stage Adamsâ cancer was at diagnosis (mainly because he hasnât really told us). Nor do we know which conventional treatments heâs undergone other than that apparently heâs never had surgery to remove his prostate and his primary tumor, which implies to me that the cancer was probably advanced and at least unresectable at the time of diagnosis.
The next section of Makisâ lament is a master class in quack deflection and victim-blaming. Seriously, Stanislaw Burzynski couldnât have whined more plaintively. First, he says that Adams was âbetrayedâ by Modern Medicine (again, Makisâ capitalization), because he took the COVID-19 vaccines, characterizing it as a âlife-changing betrayal.â Actually, Adams had it right the first time getting vaccinated; where he went wrong was when he fell under the sway of antivaxxers and came to doubt vaccines.
Hereâs the part that made me laugh out loud as Makis complains about Adamsâ oncologist, whoever that oncologist might be:
> In addition to failing to treat his cancer properly, Scottâs Oncologist lied to him, repeatedly.
>
> First, he told Scott that Ivermectin wouldnât work, even though he had no way to know whether it would or wouldnât.
>
> Second, he told Scott that he had 0% chance of survival and would die shortly.
>
> I wish Scott had told us the name of his Oncologist, and the name of the Cancer Center he was treated at, so that other Cancer patients could avoid them and save themselves from harm. Unfortunately, he hasnât given us these names.
>
> Instead, he has given the world my name, for reasons I donât understand.
Later on, he repeats his lament:
> And yet, amidst all of this betrayal of Modern Medicine, Scott doesnât give us his doctorsâ names, or the name of the Cancer Center that failed to treat him properly.
>
> Instead, he has my name pinned with 2.3 million views.
Again, poor baby! Actually, I rather suspect that Makis loves being the center of attention and is hoping to gain a few new marks from it, his expressed unhappiness notwithstanding. In any case, I approve. I always try to name and shame quacks like Makis whenever I can. Second, Adams was probably actually pretty smart here, given the social media reaction from antivaxxers to his post in which he announced that he had stopped Makisâ ivermectin and febendazole protocol.
I laughed even harder as I watched Makis try to avoid admitting that heâs almost certainly practicing medicine without a license:
> I have never been Scottâs doctor. I was his Health Coach, very briefly.
How does a delicensed and disgraced quack avoid being prosecuted for practicing medicine without a license? He calls himself a âHealth Coachâ and then practices medicine anyway! Also, one wonders how much Makis charges for his âHealth Coachingâ services, one does! Actually, one doesnât have to. You can Google him and find stories of his charging patients $650 just for email consultations in which he sends people a âpersonalized protocol.â
His grifting aside, it doesnât take long before Makis goes on to claim that he barely knew Scott Adams:
> Our Health Coaching relationship lasted 1.5 months, at which point Scott left.
>
> Scott supposedly tried Ivermectin and Fenbendazole, for a total of 1 month.
>
> Scott never completed my Ivermectin Protocol, which is a minimum of 3 months with follow-up blood work and imaging.
>
> So we will never know if Ivermectin and Fenbendazole would have worked for him or not. Trying it for one month and then stopping, is not sufficient to make any sort of conclusion.
>
> It is the equivalent of doing one chemo cycle, stopping and declaring chemo doesnât work.
I might say âFair enoughâ in response to Makisâ excuse-making, but thereâs a difference. Chemotherapy has copious evidence developed over decades to show that it works, how it works, how it should be used, how long a course of therapy should be for the best balance between efficacy and safety, as well as hard data about its success and failure rates. Makis just makes it up as he goes along, clainming that it takes at least three months for his concoction to work and that it is not unusual for a prostate cancer patientâs PSA to rise during treatment because, according to him, thatâs just evidence the magic of the treatment killing cancer cells. Where have I heard variants of âitâs just killing the cancerâ in response to clinical evidence that a cancer is progressing? Hint: Lots of places and times!
Yet, like quacks the world over who make excuses when their patients donât get better or their patientsâ cancers progress, Makis claims:
> Scott didnât try Ivermectin and Fenbendazole in any proper shape or form and we will never know if it would have worked for him or not.
Actually, we can know. It didnât work. It wouldnât have worked if Adams had stuck with it. Thereâs no good evidence, clinical or medical, to suspect otherwise.
As much as I love a crank fight, I donât like to see anyone suffer and die from cancer, not even a crank like Scott Adams. In this crank fight, I know which crank Iâm rooting for, even if Adams canât resist conspiracy mongering about Joe Bidenâs recent diagnosis of metastatic prostate cancer. Everything Iâve observed about William Makis leads me to the opinion that he is not just an antivaxxer, but heâs a cancer quackâand a grifting cancer quack at that!âas well as a truly unpleasant person, to boot. Whatever my opinion of a cancer patietn as a person, Iâm always going to be on the side of the patient against a quack like Makis.
On that note, I noticed that another crank (whoâs a big fan of DMSO, rather than ivermectin, as a cancer treatment) has entered the fray, and Makis is really, really unhappy about it. That, however, will have to be a topic for another day.
* Is it so wrongâŠ
* A âclinical trialâ of foot bath âdetoxificationâ
* A Snow job on evolution
* S2173: NJ antivaxxers show up too early and refuse to leave a meeting about NJ Transit. Thereâs a metaphor there somewhere
### Share this:
* Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
* Tweet
* * * Share on Tumblr
* * Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
* Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window) Telegram
* Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp
*
Like Loading...
### _Related_ https://www.respectfulinsolence.com/2025/05/29/scott-adams-vs-a-cancer-quack/
