Vaccines are the new smoking

The MAHA FDA failed to provide a black box warning on the covid injections so we are updating section 13.1 of vaccine package inserts from “has not been evaluated for carcinogenic or mutagenic potential or impairment of fertility”

to

“The collective world-wide evidence establishes a causal relationship between vaccination and cancer with a high degree of medical certainty”

This article provides new and overwhelming evidence that vaccines are causing cancer. It expands previous writings to include the “routine” childhood vaccines. All Bradford Hill causation criteria are covered showing a world-wide consistent pattern of increased rate of cancer in the vaccinated with a number needed to harm ranging from 250-1089 depending on age and type of vaccine. The time of onset from vaccination to cancer diagnosis is frequently within the 2-9 week range. Large population studies are reviewed along with case reports and new published papers with mechanistic evidence that contributes to causation. The call to action is to refuse and condemn vaccination, analyze tumour biopsies for confirmation of DNA contamination, SV40 enhancer and spike protein integration and shift treatment options from more doses of carcinogenic modified mRNA to approaches that address the root cause of cancer including metabolism, immune support and lifestyle advice.

source

This is the proof which exceeds the Institute of Medicine standard for causation which are epidemiologic studies, case reports and biologic plausibility.

IoM source

Below are the gold standard Bradford Hill causation criteria. All will be shown to be satisfied and exceed historical precedents for strong confidence in a causal relationship.

It is important to note a causal relationship does not mean everyone who took this poison will develop cancer. It means it is a risk factor that can contribute. This substack is not written with any intent to shame or guilt people who were coerced to taking this injection. It is a lesson why to never mandate a dangerous experiment which was already prohibited by common law and basic standards of informed consent.

Beginning with the childhood schedule from the breaking McCullough Foundation study :

The Lamerato et al. study of a total population of 18,468 individuals between birth and 18 years of age during the years from 2000 to 2016 —of which the 16,511 in the vaccinated cohort received a median of 18 vaccines whereas the 1,957 in the unvaccinated cohort received none at all —probably represents the most comprehensive real-world comparison of vaccinated versus unvaccinated children ever conducted within a self-contained whole population in a full-service integrated health system in the US. The proportionate contrasts overwhelmingly favor the unvaccinated cohort. Every single one of the 22 chronic disease categories assessed had a higher proportion of the vaccinated cohort than the unvaccinated. Given the size of the cohorts which can be regarded as samples of the whole vaccinated and unvaccinated persons in the US, based on the central limit theorem, they must be regarded as probably representative of vaccinated and unvaccinated children across the board throughout the country. Can a retrospective study such as this one show incontrovertible causal relationships? Of course it can.

Focusing on my central thesis of vaccines being carcinogenic there were 169 cases of cancer in the vaccinated children out of a total 16511 for an attack rate of 0.0102.

In the unvaccinated there were 13 cases of cancer out a total of 1957 for an attack rate of 0.0066. The absolute risk difference between the two groups is 0.0036.

The number needed to harm (NNH to induce cancer) is the inverse 1/0.0036 which rounded up to nearest whole patient is 278. To put this in perspective they recalled the AZ shots for a clotting risk of 1 in 55,000 reference.

The number need to harm of 278 is also consistent with the two largest epidemiological studies published to date from South Korea and Italy.

From the Italy study :

Overall, 3134 subjects had a hospital admission with a cancer diagnosis during the follow-up (1.10% of the sample; Table 2(Tab. 2)). The rate of hospitalization for cancer of any site was 0.85% in the unvaccinated group, and 1.15% in the group vaccinated with at least one dose (p<0.001). At multivariate analyses, the likelihood of cancer hospitalization was higher in the subjects who received at least one dose, compared to the unvaccinated (HR: 1.23; 1.11-1.37; Table 3(Tab. 3)). Similar results were observed for the vaccinated with at least three doses (HR: 1.09; 1.02-1.16).

This is an absolute risk increase of 0.30% which translates to a number to harm of 334 (1/0.0030).

I will also point out this figure is grossly under-reported. The method they used to do this is to exclude any new onset cancers within the first 180 days and to exclude any recurrence of cancer.

“Due to the uncertain timing of the potential oncogenic effect after vaccination, a putative period of 180 days was chosen as the minimum time between exposure and possible outcome.”

Yeah that is completely invalid.

The most comprehensive study to date is COVID vaccination and post-infection cancer signals: Evaluating patterns and potential biological mechanisms.

For timing of onset they found:

Across the included studies, the timing of cancer onset following COVID-19 vaccination varied substantially, indicating that latency was not confined to a single early window. Approximately half of the case reports described diagnoses occurring within 2–4 weeks of vaccination, with some reported as early as 7–14 days. However, many reports also documented longer intervals, including diagnoses at 2–3 months, 4–6 months, and beyond eight months after vaccination. Importantly, reports with short intervals are inherently more likely to be recognized and published as temporally notable.

In addition, in many reports describing diagnoses within the first month, the event occurred after a second dose or booster, complicating attribution to any specific exposure and precluding definition of a uniform latency period. Multicenter analyses frequently characterized latency as variable, spanning weeks to months, and several reviews or population-level studies reported mean onset intervals of approximately 8–9 weeks.

So the Italy study excluded a common time interval in which cancer occurs after vaccination and excluded cancer recurrence and the NNH was still 334. So damning.

To drive the message home they also had evidence of a dose response >3 doses which is strong evidence of causation.

The largest study to date is the South Korea study by Kim

The cumulative incidences of overall cancers was 42.62 per 10,000 in the vaccinated and 33.43 in the unvaccinated for an absolute risk increase of 9.19 per 10,000 or 0.000919. The NNH is 1089 when rounded to the next whole number/ patient. This is 50 times greater than the clotting risk that got the AZ recalled and is in a similar range as the previous two cited population studies and only covers a one year risk.

The results are more dramatic in the over 75s with a NNH of 253 (1/0.003952).

I will also say the South Korea study is drastically under-reported. One reason I say this is their finding for the blood cancers like lymphoma and leukemia which were not found to the significantly associated.

This is not consistent with other studies. If there is a cancer the covid injection cause it is blood cancer. Approximately 40% plus of the case reports are hematological cancers like lymphoma and leukemia.

Source

Conclusions:

The collective world-wide evidence from 2020–2025 underscores a biologically plausible connection between COVID-19 vaccination and cancer. The recurring clinical findings documented across many reports of de-novo cancer onset, rapid tumor progression, viral reactivation, and reawakening of dormant disease, highlight critical gaps in knowledge and understanding of how large-scale immune changes produced by the vaccine interacts with cancer biology.

EDITORIAL NOTE

The Editor-in-Chief, Dr. Wafik S. El-Deiry, was not involved in the peer-review process or the decision-making for this paper. Dr. El-Deiry shared the submitted manuscript with National Cancer Institute (NCI) Director Anthony Letai by email electronically on December 12, 2025.

So he informed NCI. Check out my “Gaslighting” section.

Here is their presentation to ACIP. The HHS people all know and are saying nothing.

Here is a new blood cancer paper.

This paper has several excellent plausible mechanisms I have already included in my list of 33 so I did not include them all.

Source

Source

So they can trigger blood cancer. This is not surprising as transfecting pharmaceuticals like gene therapy have a known cancer risk.

“Hematologic cancer developed in 7 of 67 patients after the receipt of eli-cel…Hematologic cancer developed in a subgroup of patients who were treated with eli-cel; the cases are associated with clonal vector insertions within oncogenes and clonal evolution with acquisition of somatic genetic defects”

which is made with a DNA plasmid with a SV40 promoter like the covid “vaccines”. This is analogy and is also evidence of causation according to Bradford Hill Criteria

Back to the epidemiological studies.

“In addition to these population-level studies, a recent US Armed Forces Health Surveillance Division (AFHSD) report was also identified that presented population-level analyses of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) incidence among active-duty U.S. service members from 2017 through 2023 [85]. The U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) mandated COVID-19 vaccination for all active-duty service members (~1.3 million) beginning in late 2020, with near-universal compliance achieved by mid-2020; this cohort offers a rare longitudinal view of cancer incidence across this transition. Using data from the Defense Medical Surveillance System (DMSS), the authors calculated annual incidence rates (IRs) per 100,000 person-years and categorized cases by lymphoma subtype and the 2017–2020 interval largely represents a pre-vaccine baseline, whereas 2021–2023 reflects a fully vaccinated, post-pandemic cancer incidence [86] (Figure 4).”

“Notably, a rise in mature T/NK-cell lymphomas began across the 2020–2021 transition which spans the period of COVID-19 infection and the beginning of widespread vaccination in the military. Beginning in 2021, a ~50% increase in specified/unspecified and non-follicular NHL subtypes, accompanied by a persistently elevated incidence of mature T/NK-cell lymphomas relative to pre-pandemic years was observed. Notably, the authors did not attribute the observed changes in NHL incidence to vaccination or infection, and the analysis was not designed to establish causality at the individual level.”

The last population study is the famous Gibo study from Japan.

Yes, it was retracted but this is unjustified suppression of critical information. Note the reason cited. The authors did not claim causation so the justification of the editor is invalid. They did not dispute their findings.

Where does it say it they proved causation? The authors said “may be attributable”. This paper contains multiple plausible mechanisms that are worth reading. Their results are valid and as follows:

This is one of the more subtle results showing it killed off the elderly while the Kim study showed cancer mortality increasing in those under 65 years of age.

Methods: We retrospectively examined the effect of vaccination on survival in 272 PC patients diagnosed at our hospital from January 2018 to November 2023 and analyzed prognostic factors, including IgG4 levels in 96 PC patients. Immunohistochemistry for Foxp3 in the tumor tissue was performed, and the serum IgG4 level was measured. Serum samples from 79 patients with benign and malignant diseases, including PC, were collected between September and November 2023, and the spike-specific IgG4 level was determined using an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay.

Results: 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.

If adding more mRNA boosters results in a poor prognosis with a known mechanism (IgG4) I would say this contributes to evidence of causation for dose response.

Yet what does the captured medical journal cartel ask for? The same thing they demand every single time. More vaccines!

I will always include this case report of evidence of genomic integration.

There are several mechanisms and pathways that could link the mRNA anti-COVID-19 vaccination with an increased risk of cancer progression, some of which are common with those connected with SARS-CoV2 infection (the Spike; the inflammatory cytokines) and others that are unique to the mRNA pro-vaccine being associated with its peculiar composition (the presence of pseudouridine; the presence of impurities such as truncated mRNAs and traces of DNA; the presence of inflammatory cationic lipids) and with the vaccination schedule that comprises several shots in a too-short time. The latter has implications as it exposes the vaccinated person to a greater risk of infection, thus facilitating exposure to the side effects of SARS-CoV2 described above.

SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein-based vaccines, particularly mRNA vaccines, have the potential to initiate a set of biological mechanisms that may collectively generate a (transient) pro-tumorigenic environment favorable to cancer progression and/or reactivation of DCCs. These adverse effects may be attributed to the pro-inflammatory action of the lipid nanoparticles (LNPs), the impaired type I interferon (IFN) response, the translational dysregulation of cellular microRNAs triggered by structurally modified mRNA (mRNA vaccines), and/or the unique nature, expression pattern, binding profile, and pro-inflammatory and tumorigenic effects of the produced antigens, namely, the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and/or its subunits S1 and S2 (mRNA and adenovirus-vectorized vaccines) (Figure 1).

Good paper but I already listed all of these mechanisms like 2 years ago.

People like to pretend like causation is just too difficult to ever determine. It is always “correlation does NOT equal causation” with the sheeple. Well there is historical precedent to use as a standard. For instance the IoM concluded the evidence convincingly supports a causal relationship between MMR and febrile seizure based on 12 cases presenting clinical evidence. Notice how it is not a randomized control trial with inert placebo. Causation can be determined from case reports and mechanistic evidence just like I presented.

Causation from 12 case reports? I provided 333 for cancer…with over 30 mechanisms…often within a few weeks.

Here is another one.

Results. A total of 48 children, ages 10 to 49 months, met the inclusion criteria after receiving measles vaccine, alone or in combination. Eight children died, and the remainder had mental regression and retardation, chronic seizures, motor and sensory deficits, and movement disorders. The onset of neurologic signs or symptoms occurred with a nonrandom, statistically significant distribution of cases on days 8 and 9. No cases were identified after the administration of monovalent mumps or rubella vaccine.

Conclusions. This clustering suggests that a causal relationship between measles vaccine and encephalopathy may exist as a rare complication of measles immunization.

So yes a clustering with non-random statistically significant distribution with close temporal association can result in causation.

Source

Yes this is still posted on the National Cancer Institute. They are complicit as the ACIP Committee members informed them of their terrifying results as described above.

From Pfizer. They do not cause cancer. That is so re-assuring coming from the criminal company who failed to disclose the SV40 sequence in the first place.

Albert Bourla admits they put all the profit from these injection into cancer drugs to profit off the misery they caused. Here are the updates from Statista:

They had 3711 reports of cancer reported to them and did not write a single case report.

source

In fact most of the major captured medical journals did not publish any cancer case reports.

Wrong Wikipedia.

This article provided overwhelming evidence of causation that exceeded all historical precedents of causation for adverse injuries from vaccines. All Hill causation criteria were satisfied including 4 large population studies all with similar results, summary of 333 case reports with temporal association with a mean onset of 8-9 weeks, over 30 plausible mechanisms were proposed, a number need to harm from 250-1089 with a relative increase of cancer of approximately 27% was given, it showed more booster doses worsened pancreatic cancer prognosis and that the theoretical concerns of insertional mutagenesis in the patents occurred in published case reports and that there was a concerted effort to cover it all up and profit off it.

Every country should be compelled to conduct similar research to confirm these expected findings. Tumour biopsies should be tested for the presence of vaccine strain spike protein and SV40 promoters and other DNA contamination.

The focus should shift to treatment options that address the root cause of cancer as outlined in “Targeting the Mitochondrial-Stem Cell Connection in Cancer Treatment: A Hybrid Orthomolecular Protocol”

In summary, the evidence vaccines can cause cancer is definitive and beyond reasonable doubt.

1. Institute of Medicine (US) Vaccine Safety Committee; Stratton KR, Howe CJ, Johnston RB Jr., editors. Adverse Events Associated with Childhood Vaccines: Evidence Bearing on Causality. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 1994. 2, Causality and Evidence. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK236283/

2. Kuperwasser C, El-Deiry WS. COVID vaccination and post-infection cancer signals: Evaluating patterns and potential biological mechanisms. Oncotarget. 2026 Jan 3;17:1-29. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.28824. PMID: 41498242; PMCID: PMC12893478. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41498242/

3. Committee to Review Adverse Effects of Vaccines; Institute of Medicine. Adverse Effects of Vaccines: Evidence and Causality. Stratton K, Ford A, Rusch E, Clayton EW, editors. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2011 Aug 25. PMID: 24624471.

4. A Peer-Review of the Vaccinated vs. Unvaccinated Study Discussed at the Senate Hearing on September 9, 2025. (2025). International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research , 4(1), 1609-1646. https://doi.org/10.56098/vse7qq65

5. Acuti Martellucci C, Capodici A, Soldato G, Fiore M, Zauli E, Carota R, De Benedictis M, Di Marco G, Di Luzio R, Flacco ME, Manzoli L. COVID-19 vaccination, all-cause mortality, and hospitalization for cancer: 30-month cohort study in an Italian province. EXCLI J. 2025 Jul 1;24:690-707. doi: 10.17179/excli2025-8400. PMID: 40881928; PMCID: PMC12381369. link

6. Kim, H., Kim, MH., Choi, M. et al. 1-year risks of cancers associated with COVID-19 vaccination: a large population-based cohort study in South Korea. Biomark Res 13, 114 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40364-025-00831-w

7. Hematologic Cancer after Gene Therapy for Cerebral Adrenoleukodystrophy https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2405541

8. John A. Catanzaro, Nicolas Hulscher, & Peter A. McCullough. (2025). Genomic Integration and Molecular Dysregulation in Aggressive Stage IV Bladder Cancer Following COVID-19 mRNA Vaccination. In International Journal of Innovative Research in Medical Science (Vol. 10, Number 10, pp. 380–386). Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17122912

9. Zhentao Cui, Juan Cheng. A systematic review of lymphoma secondary to COVID-19 vaccination. Authorea. September 04, 2024. https://www.authorea.com/users/827829/articles/1222329-a-systematic-review-of-lymphoma-secondary-to-covid-19-vaccination

10. Isidoro C. SARS-CoV2 and Anti-COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines: Is There a Plausible Mechanistic Link with Cancer? Cancers (Basel). 2025 Dec 2;17(23):3867. doi: 10.3390/cancers17233867. PMID: 41375068; PMCID: PMC12691228. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12691228/#sec6-cancers-17-03867

11. https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article-abstract/101/3/383/61917/Acute-Encephalopathy-Followed-by-Permanent-Brain?redirectedFrom=fulltext

12. Gibo M, Kojima S, Fujisawa A, et al. (April 08, 2024) Increased Age-Adjusted Cancer Mortality After the Third mRNA-Lipid Nanoparticle Vaccine Dose During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Japan. Cureus 16(4): e57860. doi:10.7759/cureus.57860 https://www.cureus.com/articles/209584-sars-cov-2-vaccination-and-the-multi-hit-hypothesis-of-oncogenesis#!/

13. Valdes Angues R, Perea Bustos Y (December 17, 2023) SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination and the Multi-Hit Hypothesis of Oncogenesis. Cureus 15(12): e50703. doi:10.7759/cureus.50703

14. Abue M, Mochizuki M, Shibuya-Takahashi R, Ota K, Wakui Y, Iwai W, Kusaka J, Saito M, Suzuki S, Sato I, Tamai K. Repeated COVID-19 Vaccination as a Poor Prognostic Factor in Pancreatic Cancer: A Retrospective, Single-Center Cohort Study. Cancers (Basel). 2025 Jun 16;17(12):2006. doi: 10.3390/cancers17122006. PMID: 40563656; PMCID: PMC12191412.

15. Baghli I, et al. (2024) Targeting the Mitochondrial-Stem Cell Connection in Cancer Treatment: A Hybrid Orthomolecular Protocol. J Orthomol Med. 39.3