Despite taking 4,000 to 8,000 units per day for the past few months.

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence

NICE

Do not routinely test for vitamin D deficiency in people who are asymptomatic.

https://cks.nice.org.uk/topics/vitamin-d-deficiency-in-adults/diagnosis/diagnosis/

Check the vitamin D level by measuring serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) if a person has:

Musculoskeletal symptoms

Suspected osteomalacia.

Chronic widespread pain with other features of osteomalacia (such as proximal muscle weakness).

Suspected bone disease that may be improved with vitamin D treatment, such as osteomalacia or osteoporosis.

Known bone disease, where correction of vitamin D deficiency is needed prior to specific treatment, such as:

Prior to Paget's disease treatment with a bisphosphonate.

Note: asymptomatic people at higher risk of vitamin D deficiency do not need routine testing for vitamin D deficiency,

but should be advised on the need for maintenance dose vitamin D supplementation.

Dr. William Makis MD. Radiologist, Oncologist, Cancer Researcher, Author of 100+ publications. Top Substack Author.

Links for Dr. Makis
makismd.substack.com

https://x.com/MakisMD

Email: [email protected]

Link to video from Montana proponent testemony
https://www.youtube.com/live/PK0LOFc2BAE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1zMYF2O0Gs
https://x.com/toobaffled/status/1889090641684271272

Minutes Special Meeting of Electors, Fremantle, WA
https://www.fremantle.wa.gov.au/sites/default/files/Minutes%20-%20Special%20Electors%20Meeting%20-%2014%20March%202022.pdf

Link to video of full meeting
https://www.youtube.com/live/bDnkQkMQWgU

With Professor Robert Clancy. The point is, this is testable.

Link to Quadrant, https://quadrant.org.au/news-opinions/uncategorized/after-covid-now-its-the-lawyers-turn/

Monovalent mRNA XBB.1.5 vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 hospitalization in Quebec, Canada: impact of variant replacement and waning protection during 10-month follow-up
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.11.13.24317190v1

Protection Conferred by COVID-19 Vaccination, Prior SARS-CoV-2 Infection, or Hybrid Immunity Against Omicron-Associated Severe Outcomes Among Community-Dwelling Adults
https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/78/5/1372/7450138

Comparing frequency of booster vaccination to prevent severe COVID-19 by risk group in the United States
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-45549-9

Two-Dose Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Vaccine Effectiveness With Mixed Schedules and Extended Dosing Intervals: Test-Negative Design Studies From British Columbia and Quebec, Canada
https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/75/11/1980/6570607

COVID-19 mRNA VACCINES: THE PROBLEM THAT WON’T GO AWAY.
Emeritus Professor Robert Clancy AM

This month we ‘celebrate’ 5 years since the covid pandemic began in Australia. This is the 10th article I have written for Quadrant on covid pandemic management. Prior to the pandemic my 300+ publications had been in peer reviewed medical journals. Most reported research on airway immune protection which has been my passion for 50 years. In 2019 the University of Newcastle awarded me a Doctor of Science for this work (I was informed that this was the first such award given by the University). My point is that in 2020 with the appearance of SARS-CoV-2 (the virus causing Covid-19), entirely by circumstance, I was as well placed as anyone to understand this new airway infection, its pathogenesis and its management. Specifically, the likely place for vaccination in the control of the pandemic. That is what I did.

So, why write 10 articles for Quadrant that were critical of the official response to the pandemic? The answer is a simple one. Everything I had understood about the history of pandemics, the science-based development of an Australian Pandemic Plan, the immunology of mucosal (airway) infections, and the sanctity of the doctor-patient relationship, had been summarily replaced with a narrative centred on a genetic vaccine that had never been used in man, and that did not exist. At this stage the medical press that I had worked with for 50 years had been bought by the narrative and would publish nothing that threatened to compromise it. The legacy press (including its ‘experts’) wore ignorance on a grubby sleeve. But these were the prisms through which medical professionals and the public would learn about the pandemic to inform decisions that affected their patient’s, and their own, health.

The narrative made no sense to me. It denied historic experience. It was confused with inherent dangers by neglecting what could be done, while failing to anticipate what might happen. The official Australian Pandemic Plan had been updated in 2019 for an anticipated influenza pandemic. This was modified to cover the new SARS-CoV-2 pandemic early in 2020. Experience with influenza was considered an appropriate model for a pandemic involving a corona virus mutant.

How did this narrative conflict with the Plan it replaced? First, it ignored the lessons of epidemiology and science. The corollary was the punitive lockdowns and senseless vaccine mandates. Second, it denied the use of safe, cheap and effective repurposed drugs, decisions that contributed to needless loss of life amongst the most vulnerable. Third and at its centre, it distorted views regarding what could be expected as clinical outcomes of a global mRNA vaccination programme, while minimising concerns an untested genetic vaccine may have unexpected adverse events.

With Professor Robert Clancy.

Link to Quadrant, https://quadrant.org.au/news-opinions/uncategorized/after-covid-now-its-the-lawyers-turn/

Monovalent mRNA XBB.1.5 vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 hospitalization in Quebec, Canada: impact of variant replacement and waning protection during 10-month follow-up
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.11.13.24317190v1

Protection Conferred by COVID-19 Vaccination, Prior SARS-CoV-2 Infection, or Hybrid Immunity Against Omicron-Associated Severe Outcomes Among Community-Dwelling Adults
https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/78/5/1372/7450138

Comparing frequency of booster vaccination to prevent severe COVID-19 by risk group in the United States
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-45549-9

Two-Dose Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Vaccine Effectiveness With Mixed Schedules and Extended Dosing Intervals: Test-Negative Design Studies From British Columbia and Quebec, Canada
https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/75/11/1980/6570607

COVID-19 mRNA VACCINES: THE PROBLEM THAT WON’T GO AWAY.
Emeritus Professor Robert Clancy AM

This month we ‘celebrate’ 5 years since the covid pandemic began in Australia. This is the 10th article I have written for Quadrant on covid pandemic management. Prior to the pandemic my 300+ publications had been in peer reviewed medical journals. Most reported research on airway immune protection which has been my passion for 50 years. In 2019 the University of Newcastle awarded me a Doctor of Science for this work (I was informed that this was the first such award given by the University). My point is that in 2020 with the appearance of SARS-CoV-2 (the virus causing Covid-19), entirely by circumstance, I was as well placed as anyone to understand this new airway infection, its pathogenesis and its management. Specifically, the likely place for vaccination in the control of the pandemic. That is what I did.

So, why write 10 articles for Quadrant that were critical of the official response to the pandemic? The answer is a simple one. Everything I had understood about the history of pandemics, the science-based development of an Australian Pandemic Plan, the immunology of mucosal (airway) infections, and the sanctity of the doctor-patient relationship, had been summarily replaced with a narrative centred on a genetic vaccine that had never been used in man, and that did not exist. At this stage the medical press that I had worked with for 50 years had been bought by the narrative and would publish nothing that threatened to compromise it. The legacy press (including its ‘experts’) wore ignorance on a grubby sleeve. But these were the prisms through which medical professionals and the public would learn about the pandemic to inform decisions that affected their patient’s, and their own, health.

The narrative made no sense to me. It denied historic experience. It was confused with inherent dangers by neglecting what could be done, while failing to anticipate what might happen. The official Australian Pandemic Plan had been updated in 2019 for an anticipated influenza pandemic. This was modified to cover the new SARS-CoV-2 pandemic early in 2020. Experience with influenza was considered an appropriate model for a pandemic involving a corona virus mutant.

How did this narrative conflict with the Plan it replaced? First, it ignored the lessons of epidemiology and science. The corollary was the punitive lockdowns and senseless vaccine mandates. Second, it denied the use of safe, cheap and effective repurposed drugs, decisions that contributed to needless loss of life amongst the most vulnerable. Third and at its centre, it distorted views regarding what could be expected as clinical outcomes of a global mRNA vaccination programme, while minimising concerns an untested genetic vaccine may have unexpected adverse events.

Peoples vaccine inquiry https://substack.com/home/post/p-156782056
CCVAC Speech to PVI Press Conference 4 February 2025

I’m Ros Jones, a retired consultant paediatrician, and I am here on behalf of more than 200 experienced health professionals and academics. We’ve sent numerous letters to the regulators and politicians about the folly of covid vaccines for children. We, like others here, were asked for a detailed witness statement which we provided, even agreeing to it being shared with one of their ‘experts’ . When we were told we wouldn’t be called, we were nevertheless thanked and told our statements had been very useful to the Inquiry team in their deliberations. However, nothing we provided was used at all. We were simply ascribed to the ‘misinformation brigade’. Apropos of which, our first fully referenced letter with all our names was sent by Chris Whitty’s department to the Counter Disinformation Unit, who previously monitored online child pornography & terrorism!
So following on from Dr Evans, firstly the ethics – it was very clear that whatever bug was doing the rounds in spring 2020, it did not affect children to any significant degree, yet the government measures caused disproportionate harm. It wasn’t just the school closures, it was the testing and masking and the don’t kill your granny messaging. And parents saw first hand the harms of lockdowns. So when the vaccines were presented
as the only route back to normal, parents were not immune from the messaging.
The risk : benefit balance is widely variable by age so a one-size fits all was never right. Matt Hancock was absolutely clear this was an adult vaccine, Kate Bingham went further to say for more than 50 s with comorbidities. Professor Lim in his evidence confirmed that the phase 1 rollout was expected to cover 99% of the mortality from Covid-19. Yet none questioned why the vaccine juggernaut seemed to be unstoppable.
So that brings me to the approval process. MHRA authorized the use of Pfizer for 12- 15s on the basis of 1131 vaccinated children followed for 2 months. You don’t need to be a medic to know that is not a measure of safety. Yet Kate Bingham said the studies were large!! MHRA only checked data provided by Pfizer. They then passed the baton to the JCVI. The Moral and Ethical Advisory Group (MEAG), a multifaith and ethics group set up in 2019, asked specifically to be involved in discussions re children’s
vaccine but their planned meeting in June was cancelled as they were told there were plans to vaccinate kids. In fairness, JCVI meeting minutes show they were worried - they were looking at myocarditis reports from Israel and the US. And they said NO, not for healthy under 18s. But 48 hours later they held an emergency meeting at the request of the CMO to ‘reconsider their decision’. Why was Chris Whitty not questioned about this? Or about the CMOs decision that this would help keep children in school and hence good for mental health! He admitted their calculations (it worked out at 15
mins / child) allowed no time out of class for the vaccination procedure, let alone for any adverse effects.
Turning to myocarditis, this has been acknowledged & added to the PIL but their so called expert misquoted the Oxford study, saying it showed more myocarditis with covid than with the vaccine (as stated in the conclusion sentence of their abstract) but even the results section of the abstract actually reported that for males under 40, myocarditis was 6x more likely after vaccination than after infection. Again the MHRA were never
pinned down as to why they didn’t give more detail of rates by age to enable informed consent.
Everyone just kept repeating ‘VERY rare’ and ‘recovers quickly’. How rare depends on how hard you look. Israel, where the first cases were reported, sent letters to all their paediatricians, cardiologists & Emergency physicians, telling them what to look out for and this resulted in ~ 1 in 6000, so not ‘very rare’ , Mr Keith, that is ‘rare’. But Thailand did what the MHRA should have demanded of Pfizer: they organised a prospective study in two large secondary schools with cardiac blood tests and ECG before and 1/52
after vaccination and they found a worrying 1 in 29 with either clinical or subclinical myo- or pericarditis. That is ‘COMMON’ As for ‘recovers quickly’, teenagers admitted to US hospitals with chest pain seemed to
recover quickly but 89% had abnormal cMRIs. JCVI wanted to see their follow up data before making a decision. If they had been allowed to delay, they would have learned that 60% were still abnormal 6/12 later. These are abnormalities which have been

Peoples inquiry
https://substack.com/home/post/p-156782056
Dr Engler described how the structure of the Inquiry and the questioning of Core Participants was conducted to give a carefully curated story about the Covid vaccines, minimising criticism of the products or rollout and affirming its resounding success. Through the use of closed questions and the refusal to allow them to present science supporting their concerns (as they were not deemed ‘expert witnesses’’), Dr Engler commented that

“despite their valiant efforts, the few dissenting voices who were allowed to speak had their testimony constrained by both the questions asked and the answers they were permitted to give.”

Mortality Trends Among Early Adults in the United States, 1999-2023

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2829783

US population groups, ages 25-44 years, 1999 – 2023

All cause mortality

Other natural causes of death
Transport
Alcohol related
Homicide
Endocrine, nutrition, metabolic
Digestive
Circulatory
Cancers

Mutually exclusive underlying cause-of-death categories were adapted from prior work

Used baseline of 1999 to 2010,

to project expected mortality trends for 2011 to 2023.

We analyzed 3, 392, 364 deaths among the full US population aged 25-44 years from 1999 to 2023.

In 2021, all-cause excess mortality was nearly 3 times what it had been in 2019

(116.2 vs 41.7 deaths per 100 000 population).

In 2023, excess mortality decreased to79.1 deaths per 100 000 population.

Early adult mortality was 70.0% higher in 2023 than it would have been had pre-2011 trends continued,

reflecting 71, 124 excess deaths.

Although mortality rates decreased after the core pandemic years, excess mortality remained higher than expected based on prepandemic levels.

Increases in early adult mortality can signal population risks that may become more pronounced as these cohorts age.

These results suggest the possibility of a worsening mortality crisis unless these trends are reversed.

The 2 distinct phases of increasing mortality (before and after 2020) may also suggest the need to attend to ongoing consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic,

causes of death related to long-term consequences of infection, medical disruption, and social dislocation—and to deleterious health trends that predated it.

Exploring the Anticancer Potential of Fenbendazole: A Review of Anecdotal Case Reports and Emerging Evidence (2025)

https://www.onedaymd.com/2025/01/anticancer-potential-fenbendazole.html

A compilation of 80 case reports across various cancer types,

including breast, lung, colorectal, and pancreatic cancers

While these anecdotal accounts suggest potential anticancer effects of fenbendazole,

the lack of controlled clinical trials necessitates caution.

Healthcare professionals should be consulted before considering fenbendazole as a treatment option.

There has been growing popularity in recent years for the use of Fenbendazole (FBZ) as a single agent or supplementary therapeutic

Methods

Reports were categorized by cancer type, and outcomes were assessed based on self-reported measures such as tumor regression, remission status, and overall survival.

Results

These findings, while compelling, must be interpreted cautiously due to the inherent limitations of the data sources.

Breast Cancer

Eight cases of breast cancer reported outcomes such as tumor shrinkage or remission.

A majority of these cases involved early to moderate-stage disease, with some patients combining fenbendazole with standard treatments like chemotherapy and hormonal therapy.

One notable case involved a patient with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer achieving remission after six months of fenbendazole use,
alongside a ketogenic diet and immune-supportive supplements.

Lung Cancer

Nine cases, highlighted improved survival rates and tumor regression.

One patient with advanced NSCLC demonstrated significant tumor shrinkage within three months of incorporating fenbendazole alongside checkpoint inhibitors.

Colorectal Cancer

In nine cases, patients reported tumor reduction, remission, or disease stabilization.

The most striking outcome was from a patient with stage IV colorectal cancer achieving no evidence of disease (NED) status after integrating fenbendazole with conventional therapies and dietary modifications.

Pancreatic Cancer

Eight cases involved pancreatic cancer, an aggressive malignancy with limited treatment options.

Outcomes were generally less pronounced than in other cancers

Other Cancer Types

Reports included melanoma, prostate cancer, glioblastoma, and ovarian cancer, with mixed outcomes. Some patients indicated significant clinical improvement, including reduced tumor markers and alleviated symptoms.

Combination Therapies, with conventional cancer treatments (e.g., chemotherapy, radiotherapy, immunotherapy), ? making fenbendazole’s specific effects.

Supplement Use: Many used supportive supplements, (e.g., D3, C), zinc, curcumin, ? synergistic effects

Consistency and Dosage: Regular and sustained use of fenbendazole appeared to correlate with better-reported outcomes. Dosages ranged from 222 mg (a standard veterinary dose) to 1 gram per day, depending on individual protocols.

Limitations

Sample size, (N=80)

Self-Reported Data

Concurrent Therapies

Potential Mechanisms of Action

Microtubule Disruption

Metabolic Effects, (inhibits glucose uptake in cancer cells)

Immune Modulation, (may enhance immune responses)

Discussion

Consistency of positive outcomes across diverse cancer types suggests a potential biological effect that merits further investigation.

The pattern of case reports also suggests that fenbendazole may exhibit broad-spectrum anticancer properties.

It is imperative that patients consult healthcare professionals before considering fenbendazole as a treatment option.

Future Directions

Controlled Clinical Trials

Mechanistic Studies

Combination Therapy Research

Conclusion

The consistency of anecdotal outcomes, supported by plausible preclinical mechanisms, positions fenbendazole as a promising candidate for further investigation in oncology.

I

@JayMitchell-c7i
I am a stage IV metastatic prostate cancer survivor 5 1/2 years now. Menbendazole, ivermectin, atorvastatin, metformin....PSA went from 1900 to undetectable for past 4 years. Oncologist couldn't care less I am still alive. How can we get the word out faster?

@BusyMama-07
My friend's dad had terminal bladder cancer and had months to live. He started taking ivermectin and now he's cancer free within six months.

@dagnolia6004
we have the right to eat sugar, drink alcohol, smoke tobacco, etc. BUT oh NO...don't take a drug we can't make into MONEY!

@lillian9221
Government should not interfere with being born or dying. These experiences are right out of the hand of God.

Fenbendazole (Fen ben)

@JudyHart1
Fenbendazole gave a friend 5 more years, she’d been directed to hospice, 30 days later 100% cancer free with fenbendazole.

US funding in 2024 – 25

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1456464/largest-donors-who/

Withdrawing the United States from the World Health Organization [White House]

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/withdrawing-the-united-states-from-the-worldhealth-organization/

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered:

Section 1.

The United States noticed its withdrawal from the World Health Organization (WHO) in 2020 due to the organization’s mishandling of the COVID-19 pandemic that arose out of Wuhan, China,

and other global health crises,

its failure to adopt urgently needed reforms,

and its inability to demonstrate independence from the inappropriate political influence of WHO member states.

In addition, the WHO continues to demand unfairly onerous payments from the United States,

far out of proportion with other countries’ assessed payments.

China, with a population of 1.4 billion, has 300 percent of the population of the United States, yet contributes nearly 90 percent less to the WHO.

Section. 2. Actions

The United States intends to withdraw from the WHO.

The Presidential Letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations signed on January 20, 2021, that retracted the United States’ July 6, 2020, notification of withdrawal is revoked.

The Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs shall establish directorates and coordinating mechanisms within the National Security Council apparatus as he deems necessary and appropriate to safeguard public health and fortify biosecurity.

The Secretary of State and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall take appropriate measures, with all practicable speed, to:

pause the future transfer of any United States Government funds, support, or resources to the WHO;

recall and reassign United States Government personnel or contractors working in any capacity with the WHO

identify credible and transparent United States and international partners to assume necessary activities previously undertaken by the WHO.

Global System Negotiations

While withdrawal is in progress, the Secretary of State will cease negotiations on the WHO Pandemic Agreement and the amendments to the International Health Regulations,

and actions taken to effectuate such agreement and amendments will have no binding force on the United States.

THE WHITE HOUSE, January 20, 2025.

Asking for donations

https://x.com/mvankerkhove/status/1882417069762953684