Mandated covid injections ignited a worldwide hyper-progressive cancer epidemic

Number needed to harm: 333 people to induce one additional cancer.

Two major epidemiological papers on vaccination and cancer have been published in the last month that reinforce my initial hypothesis that covid injections promote oncogenesis.

The first is a large cohort study from South Korea. reference

Let us get right to it.

27% more overall cancer in the vaccinated at 1 year. That is pretty damning.

Did you read my previous substack? The paper that claimed HPV causes cancer said :

“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” source

If the theory is covid was an oncogenic virus and covid injections prevent covid (they increase it likely through ADE) cancer would decrease in the vaccinated. Just like in the all cause mortality data and the HPV vaccine the opposite is true. There is statistically significant more cancer in the vaccinated. This despite the “Healthy Vaccinee” Effect.

From the supplementary tables the cumulative incidences of overall cancers in the unvaccinated were 33.43 and 42.62 in the vaccinated for an additional 9.19 per 10,000.

Vaccinated women were at a cumulative incidences of 48.40 per 10,000 compared to 38.82 for the unvaccinated women or an excess of 9.58 events per 10,000.

The results are even worse in the elderly. For over age 75 incidence was 119.96 in the vaccinated and 80.44 in the unvaccinated for a difference of 39.52 per 10,000.

If my math is right the number needed to vaccinate to induce an additional cancer is about 1000 for all ages or 250 over the age of 75. For comparison here is the estimated number needed to treat to prevent a death from the UK.

reference

According to these estimates from the UK gov you would need to vaccinate over 1 million 40 year olds to prevent 1 death. You only need to vaccinate 1000 to induce an additional cancer. You are 1000 times more likely to induce a cancer in a healthy 40 year old than to save their life with a covid injection.

Saving grandma?You need to vaccinate 26,900 people aged 75-79 to theoretically save one life and 250 to induce an additional cancer….That is 107 real world extra cancers to save one theoretical life of a 75 year old. Can you say failed risk benefit profile?

In conclusion, COVID-19 vaccination could be associated with an increased risk of six specific cancer types, including thyroid, gastric, colorectal, lung, breast, and prostate cancers. Notably, this COVID-19 vaccination-associated cancer risk was likely more elevated among individuals aged ≤ 65 years except in individuals with prostate cancer.

NEXT

Compared with the unvaccinated, those receiving ≥1 dose showed a significantly lower likelihood of all-cause death, and a slightly higher likelihood of hospitalization for cancer (HR: 1.23; 95% CI: 1.11-1.37). The latter association was significant only among the subjects with no previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, and was reversed when the minimum time between vaccination and cancer hospitalization was set to 12 months.

reference

This study shows a 23% increased likelihood of hospitalization for cancer. This is not “slight”. They try to downplay the finding by saying it reversed after 12 months. I will show the difference in methods of the two studies any why this is not re-assuring.

First point is they only included first time cancers. Turbo cancer literature includes recurrence of dormant cancers previously in remission. These are totally excluded using these methods.

More importantly this study excluded all new cancers within 180 days after vaccination! Perhaps these authors are not familiar with the definition of turbo cancer.

These cancers tend to present at an advanced stage, progress rapidly, and occur in younger patients. Additionally, some patients previously in remission have been reported to develop uncontrolled cancer relapses shortly after receiving a COVID-19 vaccination (usually a booster). The temporal association between these cancers and COVID-19 vaccination is undeniable. These observations have given rise to the term “turbo-cancers.” source

To be clear I prefer the term hyper-progressive cancer to avoid sensationalism and use already established medical terminology. Immunotherapy including Merck’s Keytruda (pembrolizumab) a PDL1 is already acknowledged to cause hyperprogressive disease (cancer) in up to 43% of patients source

Let us review some charts and see why excluding cancers before 180 days is the equivalent of covering up a crime.

source

These are all occurring in less than 6 months.

source

source

45% of patients in this systematic review developed lymphoma within 30 days and this study would have excluded them hiding the signal. I have to question if this is deliberate.

We are going to circle back to the South Korea study and see what they did.

They did not rule out cancer within the first 6 months which is the honest way to investigate it.

So what is the impact of their findings as reported?

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 translates to the number needed to harm (induce cancer) of 333. Confirmed with AI (not clear why it rounded to 250).

In the present study, while diagnostic delays and further confounders cannot be excluded, it should also be mentioned that the healthy vaccinee bias, similarly to how it likely leads to and overestimation of vaccine effectiveness against all-cause death, could also lead to an underestimation of the potential negative impact of vaccination on hospitalization due to cancer. Indeed, the healthier lifestyle that is typically associated with vaccination may reduce the risk of lifestyle-associated carcinomas.

Yes I agree. The Italy study considerably underestimates the rate of cancer which stands at a number need to harm of 333 but it does not need to be worse than that so I will leave it there.

Other notable mentions speaking to plausible mechanisms include this paper by McKernan

These data demonstrate the presence of 1.23 × 10⁸ to 1.60 × 10¹¹ plasmid DNA fragments per dose encapsulated in lipid nanoparticles. Using fluorometry, total DNA in all vials tested exceeded the regulatory limit for residual DNA set by the US Food & Drug Administration (FDA) and the World Health Organization (WHO) by 36–153-fold for Pfizer and 112–627-fold for Moderna after accounting for nonspecific binding to modRNA. When tested by qPCR, all Moderna vials were within the regulatory limit, but 2/6 Pfizer lots (3 vials) exceeded the regulatory limit for the SV40 promoter-enhancer-ori by 2-fold. The presence of the SV40 promoter-enhancer element in Pfizer vials raises significant safety concerns. This study emphasizes the importance of methodological considerations when quantifying residual plasmid DNA in modRNA products, considering increased LNP transfection efficiency, and cumulative dosing presents significant and unquantified risks to human health.

Also McCullough published the first evidence of modmRNA injections integrating into the genome in a human patient with stage IV bladder cancer.

The public may think no big deal. This is just one case. I will remind everyone causality can be established as strong based on one case presenting definitive clinical evidence according to the Institute of Medicine . Here is an example.

The evidence convincingly supports a causal relationship been covid injections and cancer. The number need to harm (induce cancer) based on the best available evidence is approximately between 250-1000.

They mandated an injection that causes cancer.

Please consider financially supporting my work.

Dr. Paul