We've referenced a case study published by Makis et al. in Case Reports in Oncology in two prior articles.1–2 The case study has since been retracted by the Editor of the journal.3 Reason for the retraction is the alleged improper scientific conduct by the principal author William Makis on the specific charge of obfuscating a conflict of interest of relevance to the publication at hand.
The case study in questions is about the use of fenbendazole as an anti-cancer agent in three patients. William Makis offered coaching services and sold fenbendazole on a website operated in his name during the time of publication of the case study in question. This conflict of interest relevant to the given case study wasn't declared in the original publication. Such missing declaration of conflicts of interest is sadly nothing special in the generally improper scientific conduct within the clinical field.
Makis has commented on this retraction in a paid-for substack post by the title of 'BREAKING NEWS: Big Pharma has attacked our FENBENDAZOLE in CANCER Paper! Retraction with a fraudulent reason...'.4 I don't have access to his post as it isn't publicly accessible.
If the content of the post is as the title suggest, it needs to be said, that if the principal author of the case study truly obfuscated his conflict of interest during publication, the retraction is entirely valid and thus not at all fraudulent. Proper scientific conduct is important and needs to maintained, even if the authors don't hold themselves liable to bias.
It's not unreasonable, that 'Big Pharma' has leveraged this improper scientific conduct to effectuate a retraction of the case study by the journal. Nonetheless, the obfuscation of the conflict of interest is a valid reason of retraction, should the allegation be correct.
If the principal author declared his conflict of interest to the journal, but the journal failed to publish it and is now shifting blame to Makis, it wouldn't be unreasonable for him to sue the journal, though financial feasibility and success of such a lawsuit is questionable.
I don't know, if the results in the case study by Makis et al. is tarnished by conflict of interest, but the fact, that the conflict of interest was obfuscated in the first place doesn't exactly inspire confidence.
Apologies for the need for correction,
Merlin L. Marquard.
References
- Leonhard Marquard C. On the Limitations of Standard-of-Care and the Potential of Integrative Therapy. Marchward. 2026.https://www.marchward.com/on-the-limitations-of-standard-of-care-and-the-potential-of-integrative-therapy/ (accessed 25 Feb2026).
- Leonhard Marquard M. A Promising Path to Kill Cancer Cells with Their Own Growth. Marchward. 2025.https://www.marchward.com/a-promising-path-to-kill-cancer-cells-with-their-own-growth/ (accessed 25 Feb2026).
- Retraction Statement: Paper by William Makis, Ilyes Baghli, and Pierrick Martinez entitled “Fenbendazole as an Anticancer Agent? A Case Series of Self-Administration in Three Patients” [Case Rep Oncol. 2025;18:856–863; https://doi.org/10.1159/000546362]. Case Rep Oncol 2026;19:169. doi:10.1159/000549387
- https://makisw.substack.com/p/breaking-news-big-pharma-has-attacked
