1-year risks of cancers associated with COVID-19 vaccination: a large population-base

[Halfswede]

Maybe we can now stop pretending that it was all 100% safe and effective. It was not well understood and coerced on the masses. Just like some smokers never get cancer, doesn't mean there isn't a link to smoking and health problems, so I don't want to hear, "But I got jabbed 47 times and I'm fine". At least acknowledge reality.  This isn't the first one pulling the thread, but it's by far the biggest.

https://biomarkerres.biomedcentral.com/a...25-00831-w

Data from 8,407,849 individuals between 2021 and 2023 were obtained from the Korean National Health Insurance database. The participants were categorized into two groups based on their COVID-19 vaccination status.
...

In terms of vaccine type, cDNA vaccines were associated with the increased risks of thyroid, gastric, colorectal, lung, and prostate cancers; mRNA vaccines were linked to the increased risks of thyroid, colorectal, lung, and breast cancers; and heterologous vaccination was related to the increased risks of thyroid and breast cancers.

[RazorV66]

Maybe we can now stop pretending that it was all 100% safe and effective. It was not well understood and coerced on the masses. Just like some smokers never get cancer, doesn't mean there isn't a link to smoking and health problems, so I don't want to hear, "But I got jabbed 47 times and I'm fine". At least acknowledge reality.  This isn't the first one pulling the thread, but it's by far the biggest.

https://biomarkerres.biomedcentral.com/a...25-00831-w

You are going to hurt some people that claim they "trust the science" that says the fake vaccine is the most wonderful thing since puppies and kittens.

[rickymouse]

The vaccine was pretty potent, steering the body strongly to fight covid.  Plus because it was an mRNA vaccine that was not tested long enough, it also caused some damage to things like liver tissues and heart tissues from what I read. The heart and liver damage most likely didn't raise cancer risk, but the vaccine might have caused some damage to some immune cells in some people.

It is possible it dampened the immune system against cancer, and the virus could do the same damage if it overrides the innate system part of which is creation of mucous to inactivate the virus.  But it is hard to say it was just the vaccine that led to these numbers increasing, it could also be raised because of the virus exposure.

It is an association.  I am not fond of the covid vaccine, but I cannot say it is the reason for the cancer risk when the disease was also present.  Not enough evidence to form a definitive link to the susceptibility YET.  But maybe if they keep doing research they will find it is contributing to the rise in cancers.  I doubt if that evidence will be accepted by the CDC or FDA though, so basically it is not real if the FDA does not accept it as real.  Every other countries medical regulating agencies could say it increases cancer and if the FDA does not accept it, we cannot parrot other countries research to get the Jab technology rescinded.

It is an association, and associations do not get accepted until there is ample accepted proof to ban the pharmacology.  They will just say the vaccine saves more lives than it killed with cancer.  A lot of high up people parroted the safety of that improperly tested warp speed vaccine.

[ANNEE]

How The Oral Polio Vaccine Can Cause Polio

SIMON: I understand the problem begins with what's called a live vaccine, which has little bits of weakened polio virus in it, given to children around the world. What seems to have gone wrong?
 
BEAUBIEN: Yeah, that is the crux of it - that this - the oral polio vaccine that's used primarily in low- and middle-income countries - it's been the workhorse of this global effort to eradicate polio. But it is a live vaccine. It's cheap. It's easy to administer.

https://www.npr.org/2019/11/16/780068006...ause-polio

SPOCK:  “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.”

[chivo]

How The Oral Polio Vaccine Can Cause Polio

SPOCK:  “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.”

How about you make another thread on "how polio vax cause polio" instead of derailing this thread?
and be so kind and edit your post out, so it doesn't have to be done by a moderator?

[EXETER]

Maybe we can now stop pretending that it was all 100% safe and effective. It was not well understood and coerced on the masses. Just like some smokers never get cancer, doesn't mean there isn't a link to smoking and health problems, so I don't want to hear, "But I got jabbed 47 times and I'm fine". At least acknowledge reality.  This isn't the first one pulling the thread, but it's by far the biggest.

https://biomarkerres.biomedcentral.com/a...25-00831-w

Several things you should think about before you have an anti-vax orgasm here. 

First, the study included different types of vaccines.  According to the study, the cDNA vaccine showed an association with increased Hazard Ratio for cancer as did the mRNA vaccines.  So if there actually is a causal effect, it is not limited to the mRNA vaccines.  In fact, their study claimed that there was actually a higher Hazard Ratio for the the cDNA vaccine than for the mRNA types. The main thing those two different vaccines have in common is that they both produce spike proteins as the antigen. That would suggest that if vaccination that produces the spike protein as the antigen actually causes a higher risk of cancer, then having a SARS-COV-19 virus infection should produce an even higher risk of cancer, since the virus infection produces an order of magnitude more spike protein than the vaccine. 

And that leads to the second point, which is that the study did not (as far as I can see) control for the fact that almost all the population of South Korea (around 95%) had BOTH been vaccinated AND had been infected with the SARS-COV-19 virus at some point.  So was the supposed increase in cancer risk due to vaccination or due to SARS-COV-19 viral infection? This study didn't discuss that possibility.

Or was it even a causal relation at all?  The study focused on the Hazard Ratio 1 year after vaccination.  Many of those cancers take more than 1 year to develop, so it seems likely that the cancers were probably already in place and developing before the Covid pandemic hit.

And that would match the pattern of cancer in South Korea. It has been going up at a fairly steady rate since at least 2015, so it would not be surprising if there was an increase in cancer rates there during the Covid pandemic, regardless of whether people were vaccinated or not. 

But that's not true in the US and most other developed countries. Cancer rates here have been on a fairly steady decline for about 10 years.  It would be interesting to see whether this data pattern that the South Koreans are reporting is duplicated in other developing countries.

[annonentity]

Nearly every country with a high vaccination rate has a national health system which is on the verge of collapse. The MSM is repleat for the newly found reasons for all the various causes of various diseases from bowl cancer to heart attacks, usually blaming medications which have all been in use since the pre pandemic days, but never bringing up the simplest and most common-sense cause for the rises in all disease rates. Which is immune system collapse. 
  At the present rate of death and  permanent disability rates, I wonder if this is the final shock that a complex society will not be able to stand especially when it was already in its declining phase. If it is in its declining phase then the amount of corruption and gaslighting would be at the total levels that we appear to be seeing now.
 Anyone with any sense has put two and two together by now, and is organizing an exit strategy.

[ANNEE]

How about you make another thread on "how polio vax cause polio" instead of derailing this thread?
and be so kind and edit your post out, so it doesn't have to be done by a moderator?

I’m sorry the comparison went over your head.

[Halfswede]

Listen, I get how we got there.  People were scared, the 'science' was all new. The point of this is to acknowledge it caused problems.  There are still people weirdly defending the big pharma stance that it was perfect. I get that, too. Lots of them got the vaccine and are worried that now they might get cancer.  It's still a low chance, but greater now.  They are angry and scared again inside and by acknowledging it, it makes it a bit more real. And that really sucks. I've seen it.

I have no real issue with them attempting the fix.  It was chaos and fear.  The 'get vaxxed or lose your job, right, access etc.' mandates were dead wrong, but I get the effort.  Clinging to the idea that it was perfect though are like the people who refused to acknowledge the mass killings of Stalin after they were shown the facts.  

The 'good of the many' is communist drivel, like saying you can't judge unless your house is in order (more communist drivel).  Forcing people (yes, they were literally held down in some places), was wrong.  Putting kids who had an almost zero chance of major covid complications at higher risk for cancer because optics, was wrong.  



Forget all that though.  Now that that dust has settled, the vaccine increases your risk of cancer. It just does.  We acknowledge that every other drug advertized on TV can have terrible side effects, but for some reason people will cling to the purity of the covid vax like it was their god. As soon as the next science pops up (new data, more time), people swarm to poopoo it like no other medical issue ever.

I know it's a big ask to expect people to just say, "I was scared and angry, so I lashed out at anything and anybody questioning the safety".

[ANNEE]

The 'good of the many' is communist drivel, . . .

Or common sense.