Please consider this question and answer after you reviewed the presented evidence.
Your vote matters.
Spoiler alert: causation is often determined by a vote.
Plain Language Summary: There is a well acknowledged precedent for how to determine causation. The Institute of Medicine has set the standard for determining a causal relationship is present between vaccination and a specific adverse reaction. Case reports with biological mechanism is considered sufficient even when an injury is very rare like anaphylaxis. Other widely recognized causal relationships have been established with far less evidence than what is currently available in the medical literature between mRNA injections and cancer. Evidence is presented that satisfy all Bradford Hill causation criteria between mRNA injections and cancer. At the current level of knowledge, the causal role of modified mRNA injections in the development of cancer and its precursors has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
While I could add many more plausible mechanisms and case reports we already have enough information to act. I echo the emphasis of Sir Austin Bradford Hill credited with establishing the causal relationship between smoking and lung cancer
“All scientific work is incomplete—whether it be observational or experimental. All scientific work is liable to be upset or modified by advancing knowledge. That does not confer upon us a freedom to ignore the knowledge we already have, or to postpone the action that it appears to demand at a given time.”
It is only a mystery if you are Dr. Baffled.
According to not a medical journal Wikipedia turbo cancer is just a conspiracy theory. The medical literature says otherwise.
Are you aware the original mRNA inventor and voting ACIP member Dr. Robert Malone MD stated mRNA vaccines cause cancer. Shouldn’t this create international headlines in the mockingbird media or product recall?
Isn’t this trusting the experts? Apparently not. Here is the source.
“We, the MAHA base, need to encourage President Trump - on all social channels - to stand up to the Big Pharma lobby. We know the mRNA vaccines don't work. We know they cause cancer. This is about doing the right thing. Choosing health over money.”
It is not what you know. It is what you can prove.
How is causation actually proven?
I will walk through the precedent for other well acknowledged causal relationships. You will find they are quick to call things causation when it suits their narrative and deny it when obvious if it negatively impacts their investments.
Quick primer: they like saying covid is an oncogenic virus…but not the modmRNA injections that code the full length synthetic poison spike protein.
According to this paper there are several oncogenic viruses. I will focus on HPV and EBV as precedents as I already wrote another substack on HIV inserts in the spike protein.
Yes. Many of these mechanisms will be mentioned in why the modmRNA LNP injections cause these same hallmarks of cancer.
I am showing there is no hesitation in blaming cancer on the synthetic poison SARS-Cov2 Ralph Baric made but no thought if injecting the full length spike protein does the same thing.
Here we demonstrate, in mice, that influenza and SARS-CoV-2 infections lead to loss of the pro-dormancy phenotype in breast DCCs in the lung, causing DCC proliferation within days of infection and a massive expansion of carcinoma cells into metastatic lesions within two weeks. These phenotypic transitions and expansions are interleukin-6 dependent. We show that DCCs impair lung T cell activation and that CD4+ T cells sustain the pulmonary metastatic burden after the influenza infection by inhibiting CD8+ T cell activation and cytotoxicity. Crucially, these experimental findings align with human observational data. Analyses of cancer survivors from the UK Biobank (all cancers) and Flatiron Health (breast cancer) databases reveal that SARS-CoV-2 infection substantially increases the risk of cancer-related mortality and lung metastasis compared with uninfected cancer survivors. These discoveries underscore the huge impact of respiratory viral infections on metastatic cancer resurgence, offering new insights into the connection between infectious diseases and cancer metastasis. source
The injections also cause cancer through IL-6 STAT3 pathway. I will provide evidence in mechanisms section.
I recognize it says “may ignite dormant cancer” and not cause cancer but they are priming the narrative. The data they are citing is from a mice study. They gave away the plot because it says reactivate dormant cancer. That is now how cancer works but that is how EBV works which is an admitted cancer causing virus if you believe the official narrative.
Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) has been implicated in several human cancers, but its broader cancer risk remains unclear. We investigated the association between EBV VCA-IgA antibody levels and cancer risk in two large prospective cohorts from Southern China, comprising 73,939 adults. During around 8-10 years follow-up, 964 and 1026 incident cancer cases were identified in the Zhongshan and Wuzhou cohorts. VCA-IgA seropositivity was associated with higher age-standardized incidence rates for total cancer significantly. In pooled analyses, VCA-IgA seropositive individuals had higher risks of total cancer (HR 4.88, 95% CI: 2.84-8.37), lung cancer (1.76, 1.23-2.54), liver cancer (1.70, 1.10-2.63), nasopharyngeal carcinoma (26.05, 11.77-57.65), and lymphoma (3.20, 1.46-6.99) compared to seronegative individuals. The associations showed an increased dose-response pattern, and keep persistent even up to ten years prior to diagnosis. The population-attributable risk percentage for total cancer due to VCA-IgA seropositivity is estimated at 7.8%. These findings provide prospective evidence that EBV seropositivity is associated with increased risks of multiple cancers.
Many of the case reports of lymphoma after modmRNA injections include reactivation of EBV which is only one of the mechanisms of oncogenesis.
I already shared the mice data which showed mice can develop lymphoma from the injection.
Two days following booster vaccination, the animal suffered spontaneous death with diffuse malignant infiltration of multiple extranodal organs at only 14 weeks of age. Although a causal relationship between the SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine and B-LBL observed in the present case cannot be unequivocally established and may represent coincidence, the temporal sequence of events suggests its involvement in this rare hematologic malignancysource
Animal experiments do count towards biological plausibility according to the Institute of Medicine who rules on these things.
Do you think that is the best I got?
I have systematic review level evidence they are causing hematologic malignancy in humans.
143 cases with 45.7% of them occurring within 30 days of administration.
“with the majority of patients diagnosed with lymphoma after receiving the second dose of the vaccine”.
And a dose response too. The authors are cautious to not say causation and this paper has been under oppressive peer review for almost a year now. Is 143 cases enough? Pfizer knew of many more and did not generate case reports for them.
I will show the same pattern with leukemia as well.
Results: Distinct metabolic profiles were observed between the leukemia and control groups. Increased glycolysis, pentose phosphate pathway activity, and altered tryptophan, lipid, and heme metabolism were noted in leukemia samples. Metabolic changes in vaccinated patients (ASL) were more similar to unvaccinated leukemia patients (LO) than to healthy controls, with minor vaccine-associated variations. Notable metabolites included 5-methoxyindoleacetate, phosphorylcholine, and tetrahydrofolic acid.
Conclusion: This preliminary study identified altered metabolic pathways in leukemia bone marrow and suggests metabolomic differences associated with BNT162b2 vaccination. While the findings do not support a causal link between mRNA vaccination and leukemia development, they highlight the need for further studies to understand vaccine-induced metabolic modulation in hematological contexts. source
The temporal association between last dose and leukemia onset is striking. I will share it in another section.
Would you be surprised to learn causation is often determined by a vote?
That is the power of consensus and opinion. It is ultimately a confidence test. What do you believe?
“the final qualification of the carcinogenicity of any given substance being evaluated is taken by vote of the external (non- International Agency for Research on Cancer IARC) participants.” source
Believe it or not there are instances where causation is established between an injury and vaccines. Here are the summary conclusions and necessary evidence from the Institute of Medicine
The criteria for establishing a causal relation is high quality case reports and biological plausibility.
Key highlights are causal relationship is established because of “individual reports in VAERS” and “The most compelling evidence consist of the cases reported”. So much for not being able to cite VAERS. IoM thought it was consistent with a causal relationship.
Case reports are lower level evidence but the key point is high level RCT or meta-analysis are not required. They did not even identify the precise component response for the severe reaction of anaphylaxis. Also note this is for an very rare reaction estimated at 9 cases per 170,000 up to the famous “1 per million doses”.
JAMA recently warned about the cancer risk of alcohol and updated the warning labels to include cancer. I am again using this as precedent.
Our findings highlight the need for effective policy and interventions to increase awareness of cancer risks associated with alcohol use and decrease overall alcohol consumption to prevent the burden of alcohol-attributable cancers.
Are the methods sufficient to prove causation?
This “population-based study, population attributable fractions (PAFs) calculated using a theoretical minimum-risk exposure of lifetime abstention and 2010 alcohol consumption estimates from the Global Information System on Alcohol and Health (assuming a 10-year latency period between alcohol consumption and cancer diagnosis.”
Estimates, theoretical minimums and assuming a 10 year latency period are not strong scientific evidence…but it was enough for HHS, JAMA and Lancet to put on a warning label and inform the public.
Why wasn’t this done with mRNA injections yet?!
Now I will do a deep dive on each criteria of causation and show how it exceeds the evidence that HPV causes cervical cancer. The seminal paper on this is by Bosch 2002 and it was cited by 5709 other papers.
Here it is.
From the summary:
During the 1990s, epidemiological studies, supported by molecular technology, provided evidence on the causal role of some human papillomavirus (HPV) infections in the development of cervical cancer. This association has been evaluated under all proposed sets of causality criteria and endorsed by the scientific community and major review institutes.The finding is universally consistent, and to date there are no documented alternative hypotheses for the aetiology of cervical cancer.
HPV has been proposed as the first ever identified, “necessary cause” of a human cancer. In practical terms, the concept of a necessary cause implies that cervical cancer does not and will not develop in the absence of the persistent presence of HPV DNA
WOW. They could not be more confident. There are no other explanations for cervical cancer other than HPV DNA? Not smoking, alcohol or number of sexual partners. Nothing?
Other factors can act with HPV or independently to increase the risk of cervical cancer including:
infection with human immunodeficiency virus or other sexually transmitted diseases
becoming sexually active at a young age
long-term use of oral contraceptives
giving birth multiple times
young age at first pregnancy
smoking tobacco or breathing in second-hand smoke
a compromised immune system
obesity which can negatively impact the detection of pre-cancers during cervical screening
In case you were wondering I am going to rip this paper to shreds.
So right away their arrogance is revealed. The “necessary cause” in which cervical cancer does not and will not develop in the absence of the persistent presence of HPV DNA is absolutely FALSE.
Ok lets get to the causality criteria:
So it is based on questionnaires in case-control studies. This is not high level evidence. Again it looks like ethics will be the pretense why they cannot study it properly.
Causality in public health requires a judgment based on scientific evidence from human and experimental (animal) observations. As such, only the latter may benefit from the most stringent criteria of causality; that is, the repeated induction of the disease by exposure to the relevant agent(s) compared with the “spontaneous” occurrence of the same disease in unexposed and yet comparable groups of animals. All causal associations of human cancers have been recognised based on educated judgment of the results of epidemiological studies at the level already available for HPV and cervical cancer. Final proof can only be confirmed by intervention (preventive) trials, in which a reduction of the disease burden (incidence or mortality) is observed following the introduction of a preventive practice in strictly controlled conditions. These studies typically include as controls populations to whom the existing standard of preventive care is being offered.
The first HPV vaccine was introduced in the United States in 2006, 4 years after this paper. Well now in 2025 we have that final proof where the intervention did not result in a reduction in the disease burden. We still have cervical cancer in the HPV vaccinated don’t we?
Oh the rate of cervical cancer is rising almost 20 years after HPV vaccination. Why aren’t they posting the rates of cervical cancer in the vaxx versus unvaxxed and the number needed to treat to prevent a case of cervical cancer? That evidence doesn’t exist.
There were 12 randomised control trials (RCTs) of Cervarix and Gardasil…The use of composite and distant surrogate outcomes makes it impossible to determine effects on clinically significant outcomes. It is still uncertain whether human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination prevents cervical cancer as trials were not designed to detect this outcome, which takes decades to develop. Although there is evidence that vaccination prevents cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 1 (CIN1) this is not a clinically important outcome (no treatment is given)
For background CIN is not cervical cancer. Most CIN revert back to healthy tissue from natural immunity without any other medical treatment
Most HPV infections are self-limiting and spontaneously regress within 1 to 2 years as a result of cell-mediated immunity. In one study, two-thirds of adolescents infected with low-risk HPV types spontaneously cleared their infections by 12 months, as did over 50% of those infected with high-risk HPV typessource
Right. So it goes away on its own because of the immune system. No vaccine required but they want to claim credit for it like they did with all other childhood diseases. In case you do not believe me here is Cochrane Review saying it:
Most people who have sexual contact at some point in their life will be exposed to the human papilloma virus (HPV). In the majority of women, HPV infection will be cleared by the immune system. When the immune system does not clear the virus, persistent HPV infection can cause abnormal cervical cells. These lesions are known as cervical ‘precancer’ because over time they can progress to cervical cancer if left untreated…
None of the studies have followed up participants for long enough to detect an effect on cervical cancer. The researchers looked at precancer cervical lesions instead.
Most people will get HPV in their teens. Very few ever develop cervical cancer. There is a vaccine for HPV and absolutely no evidence it prevents cervical cancer which the paper that established causation said it would. The disease burden of cervical cancer was not eliminated because of the HPV vaccine.
If HPV vaccination prevented cervical cancer it would only appear in the unvaccinated…This is not the case at all.
This study is limited by its ecological design. Changes in screening recommendations and practices, teenage sexual behaviors, and safer sex practices could also decrease cervical cancer incidence and mortality. However, screening rates decreased in young women and girls following changes in screening recommendations in 2009.5 Furthermore, despite decreased teenage sexual activity and increased condom use over recent decades, changes during the study period were small and unlikely to lead to large relative changes in cervical cancer incidence or mortality.6 Comparison groups were based on ages, which carry differing cervical cancer risks. Additionally, information regarding individual vaccination status was lacking, and some women older than 25 years were likely vaccinated. Finally, while the decreased cervical cancer mortality associated with HPV vaccination may translate to older age groups as HPV-vaccinated cohorts age, the number of deaths and hence the number of potentially averted deaths in young women and girls was small. While long-term prospective data are necessary to validate these findings, efforts to further improve vaccination uptake remain important.
So much wrong is with this. Remember when they said HPV DNA was the only cause of cervical cancer? Now safer sex could decrease cervical cancer incidence and mortality. Pretty amazing they admit the potentially averted deaths was small and individual vaccination status was lacking. I guess that proves HPV vaccination prevents cervical cancer. These people.
Lets finish this exercise. Lets go 1 by 1 on the Hill causation criteria.
In brief, this project included nine case–control studies in different parts of the world, mostly in high risk countries. HPV DNA testing was done in two central research laboratories using the MYO9/1120 and the general primer (GP) GP5+/6+21,22polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing systems. The published results have reported ORs for cervical cancer in the range of 50 to 100 fold for HPV DNA.
Yeah. I will stop you right there. PCR is not a diagnostic test. It does not prove a virus is present or still infectious. It is nucleic acid amplification. If you magnify the signal a trillion times you can find anything. If this is the standard then any PCR test that shows spike protein or SV40 sequences in a tumour is 100% conclusive proof it caused the cancer. We already have some of this data but all cancer biopsies should be tested for the presence of SV40 promoters and synthetic spike protein
Pfizer SV40 cancer promoters are found in tumour biopsies.
So if PCR is what proved HPV causes cervical cancer why not apply this standard to the mRNA injections?
HPV infection is common: Nearly all sexually active people are infected with HPV within months to a few years of becoming sexually active. Around half of these infections are with a high-risk HPV type. source
Nearly all people are infected with HPV…so how many get cervical cancer source
Right. It peaks at 16 per 100,000 or 0.016% 20 years after exposure….This is not a strong association. Lets see what the article says.
No. It is an incredibly low strength of association between HPV positivity and developing cervical cancer but they claim “one of the strongest ever observed”. The methods they used to determined their odds ratios are not scientifically sound.
So what is the strength of association of the mRNA injection and any new cancer or re-occurence? Truthfully I cannot provide an odds ratio comparing vaccinated to unvaccinated. I have some data from credible sources though.
From the famous Gibo paper that was retracted for political reasons that challenged the conclusions but not the data:
No significant excess mortality was observed during the first year of the pandemic (2020). However, some excess cancer mortalities were observed in 2021 after mass vaccination with the first and second vaccine doses, and significant excess mortalities were observed for all cancers and some specific types of cancer (including ovarian cancer, leukemia, prostate cancer, lip/oral/pharyngeal cancer, pancreatic cancer, and breast cancer) after mass vaccination with the third dose in 2022. AMRs for the four cancers with the most deaths (lung, colorectal, stomach, and liver) showed a decreasing trend until the first year of the pandemic in 2020, but the rate of decrease slowed in 2021 and 2022.
In 2020, only pancreatic cancer slightly exceeded the 95% upper PI. However, statistically significant excess mortality was observed for three out of 20 types of cancers in 2021, and five out of 20 in 2022. The types were ovarian cancer, leukemia, prostate cancer, lip/oral/pharyngeal cancer, and pancreatic cancer, in descending order in 2022. AMRs exceeded the predicted value by 7.6% (95%CI: 5.6, 9.5) in 2021 and 9.7% (7.5, 12.0) in 2022 for ovarian cancer, 1.7% (-2.1, 5.7) and 8.0% (3.4, 12.8) for leukemia, 5.3% (2.7, 7.9), 5.9% (3.0, 8.9) for prostate cancer, 1.3% (-1.4, 4.1) and 5.5% (2.3, 8.7) for lip/oral/pharyngeal cancer, and 1.9% (0.4, 3.4) and 2.0% (0.3, 3.7) for pancreatic cancer. Breast cancer had significant deficit mortality in 2020 and 2021, which shifted to excess in 2022, though without statistical significance.
According to this Japanese data overall cancer deaths increased by 2.1% in 2022.
Here is The Ethical Skeptic showing 110,750 excess cancer deaths since the 2021 roll out.
In this study we investigate trends in death rates from neoplasms (ICD-10 codes C00-D48) in the USA using crude data from the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). We limit our investigation to individuals aged 15 to 44 and for the period of 2010 to 2022. We investigate both trends in neoplasms where these appear on multiple causes (MC) of death, or as the underlying cause (UC), as well as the trends in the ratio of multiple cause to underlying cause death rates. Using different metrics, we compare mortality trends due to neoplasms before the COVID-19 pandemic with the pandemic period. We show a rise in excess mortality from neoplasms reported as underlying cause of death, which started in 2020 (1.7%) and accelerated substantially in 2021 (5.6%) and 2022 (7.9%). The increase in excess mortality in both 2021 (Z-score of 11.8) and 2022 (Z-score of 16.5) are highly statistically significant (extreme events). When looking at neoplasm death reported as one of multiple cause of death, we observe a similar trend with excess mortality of 3.3% (Z-score of 5.1) in 2020, 7.9% (Z-score of 12.1) in 2021, and 9.8% (Z-score of 15.0) in 2022, which were also highly statistically significant. The results indicate that from 2021 a novel phenomenon leading to increased neoplasm deaths appears to be present in individuals aged 15 to 44 in the US. The greater rise in deaths due to neoplasms in multiple causes compared to underlying cause indicates that some deaths from neoplasms are being brought forward by other causes. The rise in cancer-death rates as underlying cause might be the result of an unexpected rise in the incidence of rapidly growing fatal cancers and/or a reduction in survival in existing cancer cases. Further stratification is underway, for example by age and cancer type to understand these trends and their relationship to pandemic related factors such as access to or utilization of cancer screening and treatment, changes in health-related behaviors such as exercise or smoking, exposure to COVID-19 disease or COVID-19 vaccines.
When analyzing MC death rates we found that the excess death rate from neoplasms was 3.3% in 2020, then rose to 7.9% in 2021, and 9.8% in 2022 (Figure 6). The excess death rate in 2020 was highly statistically significant with a Z-score of 5.1. The excess MC death rates in 2021 and 2022 can be considered extreme events with respective Z-scores of 12.1 and 15.0
The possible effect of the modRNA COVID-19 vaccines, which were rolled out from 2021 and prioritized for vulnerable groups such as those with cancer should be studied. This imperative is base on a growing body of evidence supporting plausibility including the case reports and CDC’s cancer signals derived from VAERS described in our introduction. Accordingly, future work should compare cancer rates in vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals.
That is kind of suspicious. This epidemiological data is building a consistent picture with dose response. I can show the increase in all cause mortality (which includes cancer mortality) increased only after the roll out.
With all these amazing cancer cures like HPV vaccines and mRNA platforms surely pharmaceutical companies are predicting the cancer therapeutics market will decrease right?
No. Cancer brings in the most money for pharma and the industry is heavily betting it will continue to escalate. The people pushing the covid shots are all jumping on the exploiting cancer patients bandwagon. The most profitable drug in the world (Merck Keytruda - pembolizumab a PD1 inhibitor) causes hyperprogressive disease or turbo cancer in up to 40% of patients by the way. The covid injections do it through overlapping mechanisms.
Strength of Association between the 2021 roll out and increased cancer morbidity and mortality should be considered an extreme event. Soon they will be telling you it is a good thing! Let me get the headline ready.
Next is Consistency.
The increased rate in cancer mortality is consistent in different countries and populations. The countries that achieved the highest coverage are suffering the worse turbo cancer pandemics. The previous section already covered USA and Japan. It was similar in Australia.
COVID-19 vaccination in Australia ; 97% of the eligible Australian population aged 12+ have received one dose… and they are having a turbo cancer pandemic now.
Here is a credible medical doctor from there who is not Dr. Baffled. Highly recommended reading!
Even Russia is noticing. This one will be labelled Putin propaganda I am sure.
“A correlation has been found between the increased incidence of cancer and the widespread use of COVID – 19 vaccinations”
The turbo cancer pandemic after the roll out is not random. If it was occurring in the unvaccinated we would hear about it incessantly.
Temporal association is a necessary component for establishing a cause-and-effect relationship. For causation to exist, the cause must always precede its effect.
This is the evidence for temporal association between HPV and cervical cancer.
subclinical HPV infections are highly prevalent in young individuals, whereas invasive cervical cancer typically develops in the third decade and later (fig 9)
Right. So HPV exposure happens early in life and cervical cancer happens decades later. The graph looks like a negative association but I guess technically HPV happened before cervical cancer. Not convincing at all.
Ok. My turn. Lets see the time from the last mRNA vaccine to the onset of leukemia.
Imaging getting lymphoma 4 days after an mRNA injection and thinking it was a coincidence. Maybe the mouse data does transfer to humans.
Temporal association between mRNA injections and cancer is beyond doubt. They are coincidence makers. Smoking does not do this. No other carcinogen does.
for HPV they admit it hard to determine. They make wild guesses based on “viral loads” or how many cycles they run the PCR but its nonsense.
Weak AF.
Dose response is actually very important and a strong indicator of causation. The fact myocarditis was more common after second dose was considered in the evidence that led to admitting it was a causal relationship. Is there a dose response between mRNA injections and cancer. We saw it was more common with the second dose for lymphoma in the systematic review. This is what Japan noticed.
Mass vaccination with the first and second doses started in the spring of 2021, and the vaccination rate soon peaked in the summer of 2021 at 80% of the population. The vaccination rate for the third dose peaked in the spring of 2022, at 68%. Now, Japan is even conducting mass vaccination with a seventh dose, making it the country with the highest vaccination rates…
Statistically significant increases in age-adjusted mortality rates of all cancer and some specific types of cancer, namely, ovarian cancer, leukemia, prostate, lip/oral/pharyngeal, pancreatic, and breast cancers, were observed in 2022 after two-thirds of the Japanese population had received the third or later dose of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA-LNP vaccine. These particularly marked increases in mortality rates of these ERα-sensitive cancers may be attributable to several mechanisms of the mRNA-LNP vaccination rather than COVID-19 infection itself or reduced cancer care due to the lockdown. The significance of this possibility warrants further studies.
That got this amazing paper retracted. The Gibo paper is goldmine of plausible mechanisms and data. I am going to highlight the retraction notice which is invalid.
Cannot be proven? Invalidates the conclusion? The authors did not claim causation or proof. The editors did not dispute any of their data or mechanisms. This is some relevant background from an oncologist.
Do I have any other evidence of dose response for mRNA injections. Yes.
emerging evidence suggests that the reported increase in IgG4 levels detected after repeated vaccination with the mRNA vaccines may not be a protective mechanism; rather, it constitutes an immune tolerance mechanism to the spike protein that could promote unopposed SARS-CoV2 infection and replication by suppressing natural antiviral responses. Increased IgG4 synthesis due to repeated mRNA vaccination with high antigen concentrations may also cause autoimmune diseases, and promote cancer growth and autoimmune myocarditis in susceptible individualssource
IgG4 is a major plausible mechanism between mRNA injections and cancer and is well established.
The overall SIR estimates suggested an increased risk of overall cancer in IgG4-RD patients (SIR 2.57 95% CI 1.72–3.84) compared with the general population. The specific SIRs for pancreas and lymphoma were higher than those of the general population in IgG4-RD patients (SIR 4.07 95% CI 1.04–15.92, SIR 69.17 95% CI 3.91–1223.04, respectively). source
69 times lymphoma risk. No wonder that one keeps coming up.
Remember how the HPV paper talked about the final proof would be when the intervention comes. How well did patients with pancreatic cancer do after mRNA injections?
The overall survival (OS) of PC patients was shortened in those vaccinated three times or more, and the total serum IgG4 levels increased with the number of vaccinations. Of note, OS was significantly shorter in the high IgG4 group, and Foxp3-positive cells in the tumor tissues were increased. Repeated vaccinations increased the spike-specific IgG4 levels, and a positive correlation was observed between spike-specific IgG4 and the total IgG4. Conclusions: These findings highlight repeated vaccination as a poor prognostic factor in PC patients and suggest that IgG4 is induced by repeated vaccination and may be associated with a poor prognosis in these patients. source
So much for the potential for mRNA to cure cancer. And look at the benefit of generating an antibody response. Maybe don’t waste 500 billion with AI losers playing God to further destroy cancer patients. RFK Jr. believes in this reckless idea. His universal flu vaccine is idiotic as well.
Speaking of carcinogens BPL-1357 is the universal flu vaccine. What is BPL? It is “reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen”.
Increased rate of cancer per dose in VAERS from Dr. Jessica Rose. Remember VAERS does count from the IoM. source
In summary more dose is more poison. More synthetic spike protein, more IgG4, and a higher all cause mortality and neoplasm death rate
We show a rise in excess mortality from neoplasms reported as underlying cause of death, which started in 2020 (1.7%) and accelerated substantially in 2021 (5.6%) and 2022 (7.9%). The increase in excess mortality in both 2021 (Z-score of 11.8) and 2022 (Z-score of 16.5) are highly statistically significant (extreme events).
This explanation for the mechanism HPV causes cervical cancer is under-developed and weak.
I have already established biological plausibility here are 33:
These 33 mechanisms are sufficient to satisfy the multi-hit explanation for cancer.
Other authors have found similar mechanisms. I could add many more but only one mechanism is required for causation. Molecular mimicry was enough for autoimmune issues. IgE was enough to determine a causal relationship for anaphylaxis.
It is telling the authors insisting on the causal role between HPV and cervical cancer are saying it is not justified to look for other explanations. The media has done nothing but alternative explanations for the link between mRNA injections and cancer and wont look at the one thing I just proved that does induce it.
I fully acknowledge there are many other causes of cancer or products that will worsen the prognosis. Take Mercks Keytruda that works off the program death (PD1) pathway and produces hyperprogressive disease in up to 43$% of patients. That is one of the mechanisms the covid injections do it as well.
But it is sufficient. Many of the case reports use the language “previously healthy” and then have onset of cancer within days. I find this image below sufficient to illustrate the pattern.
The Institute of Medicine set the precedent for establishing confidence in a causal relationship which is convincing case reports and plausible biological mechanisms. VAERS reports do count. This standard has been exceeded by orders of magnitude and evidence was presented that show all Bradford Hill Criteria and the Multi-Hit factors of oncogenesis are satisfied.
The strength of association was found in excess mortality from neoplasms increasing in a dose response with the roll out which was statistically significant representing an extreme event. The SV40 promoters and injection derived spike protein were found integrated into real world cancer patients.
The coherence of the signal was found across different regions and populations and was confirmed with news generating headlines in numerous highly vaccinated countries from the United States, Australia, Japan, Canada and more.
The increase in cancer mortality was non-random and beyond the pre-covid trend. It is reflected in mandated professions and in the current worker disability crisis. If it was occurring in the covid unvaccinated it would be highlighted in the news incessantly.
The temporal association between mRNA injections and blood cancer and others is measured in DAYS. No other carcinogen does this. Not smoking, alcohol or HPV.
There are an absurd number of plausible mechanisms of action that mRNA injections promote cancer. I stopped at 33 mechanisms because only 1 is required. Numerous other authors share consistent concerns over DNA contamination, SV40 promoters, genomic integration and stability, immunosupression, chronic inflammatory cascades, reactivation of other oncogenic viruses like EBV, and immune dysregulation in triggering other autoimmune conditions which have a bidirectional relationship with cancer.
There is a dose response in many of these mechanisms. IgG4 is the most obvious as it increases after the third shot or booster dose. The same applies to the DNA contamination, N1 methylpseudouridine, and dose of oncogenic synthetic spike protein. The population data reflect cancer rates increasing in a dose response.
The experimental and population data were suppressed and retracted without cause. This reflects premeditation and a criminal cover up.
The animal studies also reflect rapid onset cancer with administration.
The willingness to label Sars-Cov2 an oncogenic virus but then refuse to consider the injections that code for the full length spike protein also oncogenic reflects a deep seated denial and criminal cover-up.
ModmRNA injections make cancer prognosis worse in pancreas cancer patients. The final proof of the HPV paper was that the intervention should decrease the overall disease burden. The roll out significantly increased global cancer mortality. This is the proof of the pudding.
The Moderna patents show the industry was aware of these possibilities. The Pfizer data show they were aware of thousands of cancer reports after administration. They concealed the SV40 promoters. They shifted their investments to profit off the turbo cancer pandemic their products created.
We are on to reversibility. It is time to remove all quacksines and pray humanity can recover.
Comments
Nothing yet. Say the first thing.
Sign in to join the conversation.