LukeMV
#121
I love that you had the balls to post these given that you knew exactly how people here were going to react lol
3 Likes
LaraPo
#122
I received the very first Pfizer vaccine and a booster 5 months later. Of course I don’t want to believe that the vaccines increase cancer risk. I take a neutral position - I simply don’t have enough knowledge to independently come to any conclusion. Consulting with AI generated the following response:
There’s no conclusive proof that cancer is “skyrocketing” among people who received the COVID-19 vaccine—but there is a new wave of studies and headlines that are stirring debate, and it’s worth unpacking carefully.
What Recent Studies Say
• A large South Korean study analyzed health records of over 8.4 million adults and reported a 27% increase in multi-cancer risk among vaccinated individuals, including lung, breast, prostate, thyroid, gastric, and colorectal cancers A B C. The authors estimated this could reduce life expectancy by 0.8 to 2 years B.
• However, critics argue the study lacks a biological mechanism and may suffer from confounding factors—like differences in healthcare access, screening rates, or preexisting conditions.
• A separate article in Science Based Medicine warns that some researchers and commentators are misrepresenting these findings to support anti-vaccine narratives.
• Fact-checkers and mainstream oncologists maintain that no causal link has been established between COVID-19 vaccines and increased cancer risk.
Key Considerations
• Correlation ≠ causation: Just because cancer rates appear higher in some vaccinated groups doesn’t mean the vaccine caused it. Age, comorbidities, and pandemic-related delays in diagnosis could all play a role.
• Biological plausibility: There’s no confirmed mechanism by which mRNA or viral-vector vaccines would trigger oncogenesis. Most vaccines don’t interact with DNA or cell replication pathways in a way that would promote cancer.
• Data gaps: Long-term studies are still ongoing. Most current data spans only 1–3 years post-vaccination, which is a short window for tracking cancer development.
Bottom Line
There’s emerging data worth watching, but no verified proof of a cancer surge directly caused by COVID-19 vaccines. The scientific community is still parsing these findings, and any claims of causality should be treated with caution until replicated and peer-reviewed across diverse populations.
1 Like
Neo
#123
How did you weigh Moderna vs Novavax and which of the two Moderna ones did you take?
I was seriously considering Novavax, because it has a different mechanism non-mRNA, and I’ve had a bunch of Modernas before, so it might conceivably give a slightly stronger immunity (though my first covid vax was the Janssen one). However, I went with the Spikevax Moderna, because I had good luck so far with Moderna, plus I am getting the flu vax at the same time, so having one of them be an mRNA seems like a reasonable move.
So no particularly deep reasons for Novavax vs Moderna, I’d be happy with either.
1 Like
Chu_Kim
#125
What we do know - mRNA vaccines were untested technology across large samples of humans over significant lengths of time, circa 2020. Well, today as of current evidence it appears that these covid vaccines may cause a 27% increase in cancer overall, across multiple types.
Fuckin crazy.
4 Likes
scta123
#126
Don’t get that excited or rather worried.
Judging cancer risk on one year makes no scientific sense. The whole design of this research is wrong and misleading.
Most probable detection is what happened in other countries. During COVID, many people skipped checkups and screenings. When clinics reopened around the same time lots of people got vaccinated there was a catch-up wave. So cancers that were already there were found later, all at once.
That can make it look like cancer went up after vaccination, even if the vaccine didn’t cause it. This is just detection bias.
Link to the study not the “influencers” wrong interpretations.
9 Likes
As the AI-comment stated, this is one study in one aging country with various cofounders. But of course antivaxxers don’t care about that because conservative/right-wing (read: Russian) media told them mRNA is evil and they haven’t changed their minds about it ever since 2021.
1 Like
Bicep
#128
Oh, you keep doing that even though you understand what it means to increase the risk. You exaggerate the argument to say you should all be dead. I know several people that are dead and a few with cancer. True I’m getting old, but these folks should not be dead. I’m not saying it’s a certainty, but watch the studies and be careful.
BTW in the korean study it looked to me (not an expert) like the lines diverged for the first maybe 120 days. So if you got it more than 120 days ago you may be ok. Unless the mechanism has something to do with the immune system, which is complex.
On a long enough time line we’re all dead anyway.
3 Likes
And of course it must be because of the covid vaccine and not because people die or get cancer?
but watch the studies and be careful.
Mortality signals across the world only point in one direction and that is down.
1 Like
If you just think about the biology, there isn’t anything we know of that can cause cancer that quickly.
Even something extreme like exposure to a carcinogenic dose of ionising radiation, it would take 2-3 years before you see any uptick in cancer rates. Smoking, and other massive risk factors usually take decades.
4 Likes
LaraPo
#131
Is it 120 days after receiving Covid vaccine?
Even something as detrimental as radiation exposure (if it doesn’t kill you outright) takes about 30 years to develop into cancer. That’s why a lot of areas close to Chernobyl had a lot of adults in their 30s-40s developing cancer from the radiation they received as children. We’ll probably, unfortunately, see the same for children around Fukushima, Japan. BTW, the radioactive core is still leaking radiation into the seawater 15 years later, but there’s absolutely nothing we can do about it.
Asbestos, Agent Orange, smoking, sun exposure (melanomas), and lots of other known carcinogens take DECADES to cause cancer. Why do we think MRNA vaccines would cause it immediately? I highly doubt these vaccines are more carcinogenic than radiation, smoking, asbestos, or Agent Orange. I would assume that the spike in cancer rates may have come from some other source people were exposed to decades before in the 90s, that’s just showing up in the data now.
I’m more worried about the MRNA causing heart issues. I think the cancer link is a red herring.
3 Likes
Yes and no. Many cancers take decades to develop, but other cancers are much faster, like blood cancers, that’s how you get one year old kids die of cancer. Cancer can absolutely deveop in months, though 3 months is a bit aggressive and unusual. One reason drugs are tested for carcinogenic activity, is precisely because they can cause cancer pretty fast. I don’t know of any vaccines that would cause such fast onset cancer, particularly that if you are “fine” after 120 days, it means the cancer not only has to develop in less than 120 days, but be symptomatic enough so it can be diagnosed - all in less than 120 days… very hard to pull off.
On a completely different note, my wife and I both just had the Moderna Covid and the flu vaccine. I expect that as usual I will have no sides, and I also got the vax a day after I took a larger dose of rapa than ever (10 mg - long story). Coincidentally yesterday I happened to re-watch Cronenberg’s “The Fly”, so if I turn into a hideous chimera from the vax fusing into my genome I’ll make sure to come here and repent with a tearful mea culpa before I blow my brains out.
But more seriously, like I said before, there are very few advantages to being old, but one is that I’m less worried about some new factor initiating cancer - I don’t have enough decades left for it to cut me down in my prime youngster twenties.
2 Likes
Bicep
#134
I probably shouldn’t keep doing this, but it is in the news and it is a study:
https://x.com/VigilantFox/status/1977577207347183700
Of course last night I watched the entire show. Del makes a big show of things. A bit dramatic for me and I think it’s even a little fakey, but this doesn’t mean the study shouldn’t be actually done with randomized control trials (the immoral unethical kind). I predict vaccines in the future will be optional.
1 Like
scta123
#135
Totally fake! No data or peer review exist.
2 Likes
LaraPo
#137
“effects of 1 to 3 doses of the COVID-19 concoctions accounted for 18.6% of the total variance in 31,478 all-cause deaths reported”
What are the health effects of getting infected with COVID-19 one to five times compared to receiving one to five vaccine doses? Is there any data comparing the risks? Which poses greater harm—repeated infection or vaccination? And who has better survival outcomes after COVID-19 infection: vaccinated or unvaccinated individuals?
Unfortunately this article does not directly compare the health outcomes of multiple infections versus multiple vaccinations. It also seems that it wasn’t peer reviewed.
3 Likes
I wouldn’t expect scientific rigor or peer review from that article though - it’s just blatant anti-vaccine propaganda published by a known anti-vaccine propaganda platform
4 Likes
Bicep
#139
Bias is a terrible thing. People who are brilliant still do really bad science because of bias. Having the pharma companies do their own studies is crazy. So the science is biased. Also the reporting is biased because the media is all pretty much owned by the pharma companies. They say it on the commercials during the news. Brought to you by pfizer.
In my view from here, it is time for the other side to try things their way. Order new studies with new perspective. It will be interesting to see how it comes out. If the diseases are so scary that vast swaths of the population of the planet are wiped out without vaccines and drugs then we’re in big trouble anyway. My view is that things like measles are from deficiency and really not a problem for most. Cleanliness is a big deal too.
Propaganda goes both ways.
3 Likes
And when independent universities do the same studies and come to the same conclusions it’s all just part of the liberal masterplan.
Also the reporting is biased because the media is all pretty much owned by the pharma companies. They say it on the commercials during the news. Brought to you by pfizer.
If everything is controlled by Big Pharma, why would they allow “”“brave dissidents”“” to post their antivaxx “”“truths”“” on the internet? The only reason I can come up with is that the antivaxxers make the entire antivaxx movement look unhinged and ridiculous so Big Pharma allows them to post freely on the internet to undermine their message.
Order new studies with new perspective. It will be interesting to see how it comes out.
Your messiah RFK is trying to do that but apparently the best he could come up with was some random pain medication causing autism. SAD!
My view is that things like measles are from deficiency and really not a problem for most.
No, it’s actually caused by middle-aged to old people with the need to feel special posting contrarian opinions on the internet.
1 Like
