Be careful. If it's the NY Times or any Mainstream paper of "record": Their reporters are paid using funds heaped upon these news "giants" by Big Pharma.
The NY Times is captured and their by-lines are "brought to you by Pfizer."
If the New York Times article helps more patients learn about our therapy, and we eventually become a “Big Pharma” alternative — then that’s a future I welcome.
I don’t fear being smeared. I fear patients dying without knowing they had another option.
BREAKING NEWS: I have respectfully declined the request by New York Times for an interview about my cancer work.
New York Times reporter Stuart Thompson has now approached me three times this week with a request for an interview.
After very careful thought, I politely declined.
Stuart Thompson describes himself as follows:
"I'm a reporter for the The New York Times covering how false and misleading information spreads online and how it affects people around the world" 🤔
"What I cover - I write about online influence operations and the spread of false and misleading information."
Not sure how any of that applies to Cancer and the cutting edge work we do with the use of repurposed drugs like Ivermectin, Fenbendazole and Mebendazole.
I have one of the largest and most successful Cancer Clinics in the world. We are starting to publish peer-reviewed work.
When it comes to "spread of false and misleading information" in medicine, nothing comes remotely close to the "safe and effective" lie.
I have not administered nor recommended any COVID-19 Vaccines, so I really have no experience or expertise in "spreading false and misleading information"
It seems The New York Times sent the wrong reporter?
Does the New York Times have a reporter who writes objectively about Cancer and Cancer Treatments? I don't know.
With an appropriately chosen NYT reporter, I would certainly have considered accepting an interview.
Personally, I am not worried about The New York Times labeling my therapy as “misinformation.” In fact, I welcome their coverage — whether it is positive or critical.
Why?
Because every mention helps more cancer patients discover this therapy and ask the right questions. Visibility leads to awareness. Awareness leads to demand. And demand leads to clinical research, state-level legislative support, and ultimately — access for those who need it most.
This movement is not about being “accepted” by the system. It’s about creating enough momentum that the system has no choice but to pay attention.
So yes — I hope NYT does write the story. And I’m grateful to every patient who is willing to speak up.
Be careful. If it's the NY Times or any Mainstream paper of "record": Their reporters are paid using funds heaped upon these news "giants" by Big Pharma.
The NY Times is captured and their by-lines are "brought to you by Pfizer."
You will be smeared.
Ask anyone who has been sucked in.
If the New York Times article helps more patients learn about our therapy, and we eventually become a “Big Pharma” alternative — then that’s a future I welcome.
I don’t fear being smeared. I fear patients dying without knowing they had another option.
Let’s keep building, not hiding.
This is what Dr Makis just wrote on his page :
BREAKING NEWS: I have respectfully declined the request by New York Times for an interview about my cancer work.
New York Times reporter Stuart Thompson has now approached me three times this week with a request for an interview.
After very careful thought, I politely declined.
Stuart Thompson describes himself as follows:
"I'm a reporter for the The New York Times covering how false and misleading information spreads online and how it affects people around the world" 🤔
"What I cover - I write about online influence operations and the spread of false and misleading information."
Not sure how any of that applies to Cancer and the cutting edge work we do with the use of repurposed drugs like Ivermectin, Fenbendazole and Mebendazole.
I have one of the largest and most successful Cancer Clinics in the world. We are starting to publish peer-reviewed work.
When it comes to "spread of false and misleading information" in medicine, nothing comes remotely close to the "safe and effective" lie.
I have not administered nor recommended any COVID-19 Vaccines, so I really have no experience or expertise in "spreading false and misleading information"
It seems The New York Times sent the wrong reporter?
Does the New York Times have a reporter who writes objectively about Cancer and Cancer Treatments? I don't know.
With an appropriately chosen NYT reporter, I would certainly have considered accepting an interview.
Maybe next time.
Thank you for sharing Dr. Makis’ decision.
Personally, I am not worried about The New York Times labeling my therapy as “misinformation.” In fact, I welcome their coverage — whether it is positive or critical.
Why?
Because every mention helps more cancer patients discover this therapy and ask the right questions. Visibility leads to awareness. Awareness leads to demand. And demand leads to clinical research, state-level legislative support, and ultimately — access for those who need it most.
This movement is not about being “accepted” by the system. It’s about creating enough momentum that the system has no choice but to pay attention.
So yes — I hope NYT does write the story. And I’m grateful to every patient who is willing to speak up.
Good decision, Dr. Makis...DO NOT trust Big Harmya schill, NYT!
The NY Times is NOT to be trusted. Enough said.
They asked Dr Makis too, this is his take on it https://makismd.substack.com/p/breaking-news-the-new-york-times?publication_id=1385328&post_id=164778214&isFreemail=true&r=4cnjpt&triedRedirect=true