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

[quintessentone]

So why do you deny science on certain things and claim to follow the science on other things?

You can't have it both ways.

I tend to believe studies that are peer-reviewed and repeated for consensus, because that's all we really have to prove the methodology is sound. I deny other studies that are not repeated or repeatable. When I do research studies, I look at many and their methodologies. Some include important variables and others do not. What I am seeing with the OPs source study, is a lack of age variables when many other sources claim that mostly the elderly have high cancer rates. See how I roll?

From the OPs source:

"Given the limited availability of real-world data, our population-based cohort study in Seoul, South Korea suggested epidemiological associations between the cumulative incidence of cancers and COVID-19 vaccination, which varied by sex, age, and vaccine type. However, further studies are warranted to elucidate potential causal relationships, including the underlying molecular mechanisms related to COVID-19 vaccine–induced hyperinflammation."

-----------

Now for some peer review of the doctor who conducted that study:

"As I described last week, we have met Prof. El-Deiry before in the context of his having demonstrated too little skepticism of work claiming that contaminating DNA from mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines could integrate into genomic DNA and cause “turbo cancers,” to overinterpreting and overextrapolating results that his lab published linking binding of the spike protein to p53 (the granddaddy of tumor suppressor genes) to possible cancer development, to being willing to let his good name as a respected cancer researcher and director of a major cancer center be weaponized against vaccines by being interviewed by an antivax “journalist.” I’ve expressed my disappointment in Dr. El-Deiry on a number of occasions, as well as my admiration for his pre-COVID vaccine work, especially his groundbreaking work from the 1990s on another tumor suppressor, p21, which I cited often in my graduate work. Then, as now, Prof. El-Deiry was quite…defensive…when criticized:"

Here we go again: Another study is being misrepresented as evidence that COVID vaccines cause cancer | Science-Based Medicine

--------

See what I mean about looking a little deeper?

[midicon]

Well if science is to be denied because of too many variables, then no studies can ever be considered as having any empirical evidence.

[quintessentone]

[Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VD-Odyv19us]

Mayo Clinic, 2025:

"The new vaccine approved by the FDA essentially is a COVID-19 vaccine targeting a different strain of the COVID-19 virus than was in the original vaccine or bivalent vaccines that came out last year. It's still a COVID-19 vaccine, but it's now targeting the XBB.1.5 strain, which is the virus that's been circulating throughout the U.S. and most parts of the world since the beginning of this year."

"The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention panel of vaccine experts voted to recommend the new 2023–2024 COVID-19 vaccine to all Americans age 6 months and older.
 The COVID-19 vaccine definitely should be taken by those at the highest risk of complications from COVID-19, and that includes older people, people with weakened immune systems and young children. These are the people that we are seeing have significant complications from COVID."

New COVID-19 vaccine answers - Mayo Clinic Health System

[RazorV66]

I tend to believe studies that are peer-reviewed and repeated for consensus, because that's all we really have to prove the methodology is sound. I deny other studies that are not repeated or repeatable. When I do research studies, I look at many and their methodologies. Some include important variables and others do not. What I am seeing with the OPs source study, is a lack of age variables when many other sources claim that mostly the elderly have high cancer rates. See how I roll?

From the OPs source:

"Given the limited availability of real-world data, our population-based cohort study in Seoul, South Korea suggested epidemiological associations between the cumulative incidence of cancers and COVID-19 vaccination, which varied by sex, age, and vaccine type. However, further studies are warranted to elucidate potential causal relationships, including the underlying molecular mechanisms related to COVID-19 vaccine–induced hyperinflammation."

-----------

Now for some peer review of the doctor who conducted that study:

"As I described last week, we have met Prof. El-Deiry before in the context of his having demonstrated too little skepticism of work claiming that contaminating DNA from mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines could integrate into genomic DNA and cause “turbo cancers,” to overinterpreting and overextrapolating results that his lab published linking binding of the spike protein to p53 (the granddaddy of tumor suppressor genes) to possible cancer development, to being willing to let his good name as a respected cancer researcher and director of a major cancer center be weaponized against vaccines by being interviewed by an antivax “journalist.” I’ve expressed my disappointment in Dr. El-Deiry on a number of occasions, as well as my admiration for his pre-COVID vaccine work, especially his groundbreaking work from the 1990s on another tumor suppressor, p21, which I cited often in my graduate work. Then, as now, Prof. El-Deiry was quite…defensive…when criticized:"

Here we go again: Another study is being misrepresented as evidence that COVID vaccines cause cancer | Science-Based Medicine

--------

See what I mean about looking a little deeper?

Yeah blah blah blah.

Is there more than 2 biological sexes?
Can men get pregnant?

If you cannot answer those questions truthfully, because that is basic science 101 from grade school, why the hell should we take anything else you say about science seriously?

[Maxmars]

Well if science is to be denied because of too many variables, then no studies can ever be considered as having any empirical evidence.

It's not science that is being denied

It's the reports of science.... filtered by principally unscientific ideals.

Science is never "the culprit"... along the same lines as technology....

How we use it... or in this case, adapt narratives into science... that's the rub.

[Chiefsmom]

"It's the reports of science.... filtered by principally unscientific ideals."

And funded by those looking for specific results.

Yes, science was great.  But not since it became "For Sale"

[RazorV66]

[chivo]

I’m sorry the comparison went over your head.

Naahh nevermind. I'm not gonna be an a**hole to the ladies!! You are right, sorry hehe!!

[Moon68]

"It's the reports of science.... filtered by principally unscientific ideals."

And funded by those looking for specific results.

Yes, science was great.  But not since it became "For Sale"

Or it's own religion.

[Ray1990]

It was never about the needs of the many. It was about the need for the money.

I said at the time "this is panning out to be the biggest wealth transfer in history" but people were too busy claiming I'm a vaccine shill because I had the nerve to say "I'm getting all the messed up so-called side effects of the vaccine despite not having the vaccine". 

But it's all good, my government is doing awesome work clawing back it's expenses. Or should I say making scapegoats out of little lumps whilst walking talking tumours go free.

Society was sick before COVID.