Glad I'm an anti-vaxxer.
A new, peer-reviewed study by researchers in South Korea has found that people who received COVID-19 shots showed significantly higher rates of developing several cancersrCoincluding thyroid, stomach, colon, lung, breast, and prostaterCocompared to unvaccinated individuals. The research, published on Sept. 26, 2025 in the journal Biomarker Research, was
authored by South Korean medics in orthopedic surgery and critical care
and evaluated data from over eight million adults in the Korean National Health Insurance database to identify a potential link between COVID
mRNA shots and cancer risk within one year after receipt of different
types of vaccines.1
The data indicate that vaccinated individuals had roughly a 35 percent greater increased risk of thyroid cancer and 34 percent greater risk of gastric cancer, with lung and prostate cancers showing even higher
relative risksrCo53 percent and 68 percent respectively. Breast and colorectal cancers showed increases of 20 percent and 28 percent. The authors of the study noted that vaccinated men were more likely to
develop gastric and lung cancers, while vaccinated women were more
likely to develop thyroid and colorectal cancers.1
https://thevaccinereaction.org/2025/11/higher-cancer-rates-found-after- receipt-of-covid-19-shots/
The clot-shots don't sound safe and effective to me. Glad I'm an anti- vaxxer.
On 11/4/25 5:23 PM, Ketanji Kornrows wrote:
A new, peer-reviewed study by researchers in South Korea has found that people who received COVID-19 shots showed significantly higher rates
of developing several cancersrCoincluding thyroid, stomach, colon, lung, breast, and prostaterCocompared to unvaccinated individuals. The
research, published on Sept. 26, 2025 in the journal Biomarker Research, was authored by South Korean medics in orthopedic surgery and
critical care and evaluated data from over eight million adults in the Korean National Health Insurance database to identify a potential link
between COVID mRNA shots and cancer risk within one year after receipt of different types of vaccines.1
The data indicate that vaccinated individuals had roughly a 35 percent greater increased risk of thyroid cancer and 34 percent greater risk
of gastric cancer, with lung and prostate cancers showing even higher relative risksrCo53 percent and 68 percent respectively. Breast and
colorectal cancers showed increases of 20 percent and 28 percent. The authors of the study noted that vaccinated men were more likely to
develop gastric and lung cancers, while vaccinated women were more likely to develop thyroid and colorectal cancers.1
https://thevaccinereaction.org/2025/11/higher-cancer-rates-found-after- receipt-of-covid-19-shots/
The clot-shots don't sound safe and effective to me. Glad I'm an anti- vaxxer.
Here is the research paper:
https://biomarkerres.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40364-025-00831-w?utm_source=chatgpt.com#citeas
On 11/5/25 05:20, T wrote:
On 11/4/25 5:23 PM, Ketanji Kornrows wrote:
A new, peer-reviewed study by researchers in South Korea has found
that people who received COVID-19 shots showed significantly higher
rates of developing several cancersrCoincluding thyroid, stomach,
colon, lung, breast, and prostaterCocompared to unvaccinated
individuals. The research, published on Sept. 26, 2025 in the journal
Biomarker Research, was authored by South Korean medics in orthopedic
surgery and critical care and evaluated data from over eight million
adults in the Korean National Health Insurance database to identify a
potential link between COVID mRNA shots and cancer risk within one
year after receipt of different types of vaccines.1
The data indicate that vaccinated individuals had roughly a 35
percent greater increased risk of thyroid cancer and 34 percent
greater risk of gastric cancer, with lung and prostate cancers
showing even higher relative risksrCo53 percent and 68 percent
respectively. Breast and colorectal cancers showed increases of 20
percent and 28 percent. The authors of the study noted that
vaccinated men were more likely to develop gastric and lung cancers,
while vaccinated women were more likely to develop thyroid and
colorectal cancers.1
https://thevaccinereaction.org/2025/11/higher-cancer-rates-found-after- >>> receipt-of-covid-19-shots/
The clot-shots don't sound safe and effective to me. Glad I'm an
anti- vaxxer.
Here is the research paper:
https://biomarkerres.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40364-025-00831-w?utm_source=chatgpt.com#citeas
I suspect the government and bigPharma colluded to purposefully
manufacture toxic shots to cull the world's population.
My only question is how did they spare their own?
A new, peer-reviewed study by researchers in South Korea has found that people who received COVID-19 shots showed significantly higher rates of
developing several cancersrCoincluding thyroid, stomach, colon, lung, breast, and prostaterCocompared to unvaccinated individuals. The research,
published on Sept. 26, 2025 in the journal Biomarker Research, was authored by South Korean medics in orthopedic surgery and critical care and
evaluated data from over eight million adults in the Korean National Health Insurance database to identify a potential link between COVID mRNA
shots and cancer risk within one year after receipt of different types of vaccines.1
The data indicate that vaccinated individuals had roughly a 35 percent greater increased risk of thyroid cancer and 34 percent greater risk of
gastric cancer, with lung and prostate cancers showing even higher relative risksrCo53 percent and 68 percent respectively. Breast and colorectal
cancers showed increases of 20 percent and 28 percent. The authors of the study noted that vaccinated men were more likely to develop gastric
and lung cancers, while vaccinated women were more likely to develop thyroid and colorectal cancers.1
https://thevaccinereaction.org/2025/11/higher-cancer-rates-found-after-receipt-of-covid-19-shots/
The clot-shots don't sound safe and effective to me. Glad I'm an anti-vaxxer.
On 11/4/2025 8:23 PM, Ketanji Kornrows wrote:
A new, peer-reviewed study by researchers in South Korea has found that people who received COVID-19 shots showed significantly higher rates of
developing several cancersrCoincluding thyroid, stomach, colon, lung, breast, and prostaterCocompared to unvaccinated individuals. The research,
published on Sept. 26, 2025 in the journal Biomarker Research, was authored by South Korean medics in orthopedic surgery and critical care and
evaluated data from over eight million adults in the Korean National Health Insurance database to identify a potential link between COVID mRNA
shots and cancer risk within one year after receipt of different types of vaccines.1
The data indicate that vaccinated individuals had roughly a 35 percent greater increased risk of thyroid cancer and 34 percent greater risk of
gastric cancer, with lung and prostate cancers showing even higher relative risksrCo53 percent and 68 percent respectively. Breast and colorectal
cancers showed increases of 20 percent and 28 percent. The authors of the study noted that vaccinated men were more likely to develop gastric
and lung cancers, while vaccinated women were more likely to develop thyroid and colorectal cancers.1
https://thevaccinereaction.org/2025/11/higher-cancer-rates-found-after-receipt-of-covid-19-shots/
The clot-shots don't sound safe and effective to me. Glad I'm an anti-vaxxer.
I'll provide a different explanation for the apparent finding of
increased cancer incidence. People who are intelligent enough to
understand the importance of quality information and advice provided by experts in virology, immunology, infectious diseases etc., are much more likely to get recommended vaccinations and are also more likely to have regular visits with medical personnel.
Those people will experience a
much greater incidence of early detection of many diseases, including cancers. People with no training in any of those fields, and who don't
trust things they don't understand and therefore feel suspicious of
those things and prefer to believe conspiracy theories are less likely
to get recommended vaccinations and less likely to interact regularly
with medical professionals.
Their cancers remain non-existent and
untallied when considering the methodology of the reference cited by the
OP. Faulty study design inevitably leads to faulty data, which leads to faulty conclusions.
On 11/4/2025 8:23 PM, Ketanji Kornrows wrote:
A new, peer-reviewed study by researchers in South Korea has found that people who received COVID-19 shots showed significantly higher rates of
developing several cancersrCoincluding thyroid, stomach, colon, lung, breast, and prostaterCocompared to unvaccinated individuals. The research,
published on Sept. 26, 2025 in the journal Biomarker Research, was authored by South Korean medics in orthopedic surgery and critical care and
evaluated data from over eight million adults in the Korean National Health Insurance database to identify a potential link between COVID mRNA
shots and cancer risk within one year after receipt of different types of vaccines.1
The data indicate that vaccinated individuals had roughly a 35 percent greater increased risk of thyroid cancer and 34 percent greater risk of
gastric cancer, with lung and prostate cancers showing even higher relative risksrCo53 percent and 68 percent respectively. Breast and colorectal
cancers showed increases of 20 percent and 28 percent. The authors of the study noted that vaccinated men were more likely to develop gastric
and lung cancers, while vaccinated women were more likely to develop thyroid and colorectal cancers.1
https://thevaccinereaction.org/2025/11/higher-cancer-rates-found-after-receipt-of-covid-19-shots/
The clot-shots don't sound safe and effective to me. Glad I'm an anti-vaxxer.
I'll provide a different explanation for the apparent finding of
increased cancer incidence. People who are intelligent enough to
understand the importance of quality information and advice provided by experts in virology, immunology, infectious diseases etc., are much more likely to get recommended vaccinations and are also more likely to have regular visits with medical personnel. Those people will experience a
much greater incidence of early detection of many diseases, including cancers. People with no training in any of those fields, and who don't
trust things they don't understand and therefore feel suspicious of
those things and prefer to believe conspiracy theories are less likely
to get recommended vaccinations and less likely to interact regularly
with medical professionals. Their cancers remain non-existent and
untallied when considering the methodology of the reference cited by the
OP. Faulty study design inevitably leads to faulty data, which leads to faulty conclusions.
On 11/4/2025 8:23 PM, Ketanji Kornrows wrote:
A new, peer-reviewed study by researchers in South Korea has found that people who received COVID-19 shots showed significantly higher rates of
developing several cancersrCoincluding thyroid, stomach, colon, lung, breast, and prostaterCocompared to unvaccinated individuals. The research,
published on Sept. 26, 2025 in the journal Biomarker Research, was authored by South Korean medics in orthopedic surgery and critical care and
evaluated data from over eight million adults in the Korean National Health Insurance database to identify a potential link between COVID mRNA
shots and cancer risk within one year after receipt of different types of vaccines.1
The data indicate that vaccinated individuals had roughly a 35 percent greater increased risk of thyroid cancer and 34 percent greater risk of
gastric cancer, with lung and prostate cancers showing even higher relative risksrCo53 percent and 68 percent respectively. Breast and colorectal
cancers showed increases of 20 percent and 28 percent. The authors of the study noted that vaccinated men were more likely to develop gastric
and lung cancers, while vaccinated women were more likely to develop thyroid and colorectal cancers.1
https://thevaccinereaction.org/2025/11/higher-cancer-rates-found-after-receipt-of-covid-19-shots/
The clot-shots don't sound safe and effective to me. Glad I'm an anti-vaxxer.
I'll provide a different explanation for the apparent finding of
increased cancer incidence. People who are intelligent enough to
understand the importance of quality information and advice provided by experts in virology, immunology, infectious diseases etc., are much more likely to get recommended vaccinations and are also more likely to have regular visits with medical personnel. Those people will experience a
much greater incidence of early detection of many diseases, including cancers. People with no training in any of those fields, and who don't
trust things they don't understand and therefore feel suspicious of
those things and prefer to believe conspiracy theories are less likely
to get recommended vaccinations and less likely to interact regularly
with medical professionals. Their cancers remain non-existent and
untallied when considering the methodology of the reference cited by the
OP. Faulty study design inevitably leads to faulty data, which leads to faulty conclusions.
On 11/5/2025 10:39 AM, Retirednoguilt wrote:
On 11/4/2025 8:23 PM, Ketanji Kornrows wrote:
A new, peer-reviewed study by researchers in South Korea has found
that people who received COVID-19 shots showed significantly higher
rates of
developing several cancersrCoincluding thyroid, stomach, colon, lung,
breast, and prostaterCocompared to unvaccinated individuals. The research, >>> published on Sept. 26, 2025 in the journal Biomarker Research, was
authored by South Korean medics in orthopedic surgery and critical
care and
evaluated data from over eight million adults in the Korean National
Health Insurance database to identify a potential link between COVID
mRNA
shots and cancer risk within one year after receipt of different
types of vaccines.1
The data indicate that vaccinated individuals had roughly a 35
percent greater increased risk of thyroid cancer and 34 percent
greater risk of
gastric cancer, with lung and prostate cancers showing even higher
relative risksrCo53 percent and 68 percent respectively. Breast and
colorectal
cancers showed increases of 20 percent and 28 percent. The authors of
the study noted that vaccinated men were more likely to develop gastric
and lung cancers, while vaccinated women were more likely to develop
thyroid and colorectal cancers.1
https://thevaccinereaction.org/2025/11/higher-cancer-rates-found-
after-receipt-of-covid-19-shots/
The clot-shots don't sound safe and effective to me. Glad I'm an
anti-vaxxer.
I'll provide a different explanation for the apparent finding of
increased cancer incidence.-a People who are intelligent enough to
understand the importance of quality information and advice provided by
experts in virology, immunology, infectious diseases etc., are much more
likely to get recommended vaccinations and are also more likely to have
regular visits with medical personnel.-a Those people will experience a
much greater incidence of early detection of many diseases, including
cancers.-a People with no training in any of those fields, and who don't
trust things they don't understand and therefore feel suspicious of
those things and prefer to believe conspiracy theories are less likely
to get recommended vaccinations and less likely to interact regularly
with medical professionals. Their cancers remain non-existent and
untallied when considering the methodology of the reference cited by the
OP.-a Faulty study design inevitably leads to faulty data, which leads to
faulty conclusions.
If the clot-shots are truly safe and effective, why did the government, bigPharma, feckless medical doctors and the media censor people who
dared to question their safety?
Democrat's mandate, censor and gaslight the little people. The ignorant obediently follow along.
On 2025-11-05 16:39, Retirednoguilt wrote:
On 11/4/2025 8:23 PM, Ketanji Kornrows wrote:
A new, peer-reviewed study by researchers in South Korea has found
that people who received COVID-19 shots showed significantly higher
rates of
developing several cancersrCoincluding thyroid, stomach, colon, lung,
breast, and prostaterCocompared to unvaccinated individuals. The research, >>> published on Sept. 26, 2025 in the journal Biomarker Research, was
authored by South Korean medics in orthopedic surgery and critical
care and
evaluated data from over eight million adults in the Korean National
Health Insurance database to identify a potential link between COVID
mRNA
shots and cancer risk within one year after receipt of different
types of vaccines.1
The data indicate that vaccinated individuals had roughly a 35
percent greater increased risk of thyroid cancer and 34 percent
greater risk of
gastric cancer, with lung and prostate cancers showing even higher
relative risksrCo53 percent and 68 percent respectively. Breast and
colorectal
cancers showed increases of 20 percent and 28 percent. The authors of
the study noted that vaccinated men were more likely to develop gastric
and lung cancers, while vaccinated women were more likely to develop
thyroid and colorectal cancers.1
https://thevaccinereaction.org/2025/11/higher-cancer-rates-found-after-receipt-of-covid-19-shots/
The clot-shots don't sound safe and effective to me. Glad I'm an
anti-vaxxer.
I'll provide a different explanation for the apparent finding of
increased cancer incidence.-a People who are intelligent enough to
understand the importance of quality information and advice provided by
experts in virology, immunology, infectious diseases etc., are much more
likely to get recommended vaccinations and are also more likely to have
regular visits with medical personnel.-a Those people will experience a
much greater incidence of early detection of many diseases, including
cancers.-a People with no training in any of those fields, and who don't
trust things they don't understand and therefore feel suspicious of
those things and prefer to believe conspiracy theories are less likely
to get recommended vaccinations and less likely to interact regularly
with medical professionals. Their cancers remain non-existent and
untallied when considering the methodology of the reference cited by the
OP.-a Faulty study design inevitably leads to faulty data, which leads to
faulty conclusions.
And...
A recent study in Nature suggests that mRNA vaccines, including COVID-19 vaccines, may help prevent cancer by priming the immune system to be
more effective against tumors. The study found that receiving an mRNA vaccine may enhance the effectiveness of cancer immunotherapy by
boosting a patient's immune response, leading to improvements in
survival for certain cancers like non-small cell lung cancer and melanoma.
-a-a-a Immune system boost: mRNA vaccines trigger an innate immune response, causing a surge in type-I interferon. This surge helps
activate immune cells that can target cancer cells.
-a-a-a Synergy with immunotherapy: This heightened immune response can
make tumors more susceptible to existing immunotherapies, like immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs).
-a-a-a Potential survival benefit: The research observed that patients who received an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine within 100 days of starting ICI
treatment had improved overall survival compared to those who did not receive the vaccine.
-a-a-a How it works: The vaccine's immune response primes the immune
system to better recognize and attack cancer cells, a process known as "epitope spreading". While cancer cells can try to evade this response,
the combination with ICIs helps sustain the T cell response.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-09655-y
On 11/5/25 7:39 AM, Retirednoguilt wrote:
On 11/4/2025 8:23 PM, Ketanji Kornrows wrote:
A new, peer-reviewed study by researchers in South Korea has found that people who received COVID-19 shots showed significantly higher rates of
developing several cancersrCoincluding thyroid, stomach, colon, lung, breast, and prostaterCocompared to unvaccinated individuals. The research,
published on Sept. 26, 2025 in the journal Biomarker Research, was authored by South Korean medics in orthopedic surgery and critical care and
evaluated data from over eight million adults in the Korean National Health Insurance database to identify a potential link between COVID mRNA
shots and cancer risk within one year after receipt of different types of vaccines.1
The data indicate that vaccinated individuals had roughly a 35 percent greater increased risk of thyroid cancer and 34 percent greater risk of
gastric cancer, with lung and prostate cancers showing even higher relative risksrCo53 percent and 68 percent respectively. Breast and colorectal
cancers showed increases of 20 percent and 28 percent. The authors of the study noted that vaccinated men were more likely to develop gastric
and lung cancers, while vaccinated women were more likely to develop thyroid and colorectal cancers.1
https://thevaccinereaction.org/2025/11/higher-cancer-rates-found-after-receipt-of-covid-19-shots/
The clot-shots don't sound safe and effective to me. Glad I'm an anti-vaxxer.
I'll provide a different explanation for the apparent finding of
increased cancer incidence. People who are intelligent enough to
understand the importance of quality information and advice provided by
experts in virology, immunology, infectious diseases etc., are much more
likely to get recommended vaccinations and are also more likely to have
regular visits with medical personnel.
Your reference?
Those people will experience a
much greater incidence of early detection of many diseases, including
cancers. People with no training in any of those fields, and who don't
trust things they don't understand and therefore feel suspicious of
those things and prefer to believe conspiracy theories are less likely
to get recommended vaccinations and less likely to interact regularly
with medical professionals.
Your reference?
Their cancers remain non-existent and
untallied when considering the methodology of the reference cited by the
OP. Faulty study design inevitably leads to faulty data, which leads to
faulty conclusions.
The study was not faulty. But your analysis was. You
are pulling things out your ears based on your "beliefs".
You are presenting your beliefs as "axiom" and challenging
others to disprove them. That is not how the scientific
method works.
https://biomarkerres.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40364-025-00831-w?utm_source=chatgpt.com#citeas
Was a painstakingly well documented. But you did not
read it as it challenged your "axioms".
On 11/5/2025 6:58 PM, T wrote:
On 11/5/25 7:39 AM, Retirednoguilt wrote:Can you demonstrate where the experimental design of the study you cite >precludes what I stated? No you can't, because the reference web page
On 11/4/2025 8:23 PM, Ketanji Kornrows wrote:
A new, peer-reviewed study by researchers in South Korea has found that people who received COVID-19 shots showed significantly higher rates of
developing several cancersuincluding thyroid, stomach, colon, lung, breast, and prostateucompared to unvaccinated individuals. The research,
published on Sept. 26, 2025 in the journal Biomarker Research, was authored by South Korean medics in orthopedic surgery and critical care and
evaluated data from over eight million adults in the Korean National Health Insurance database to identify a potential link between COVID mRNA
shots and cancer risk within one year after receipt of different types of vaccines.1
The data indicate that vaccinated individuals had roughly a 35 percent greater increased risk of thyroid cancer and 34 percent greater risk of
gastric cancer, with lung and prostate cancers showing even higher relative risksu53 percent and 68 percent respectively. Breast and colorectal
cancers showed increases of 20 percent and 28 percent. The authors of the study noted that vaccinated men were more likely to develop gastric
and lung cancers, while vaccinated women were more likely to develop thyroid and colorectal cancers.1
https://thevaccinereaction.org/2025/11/higher-cancer-rates-found-after-receipt-of-covid-19-shots/
The clot-shots don't sound safe and effective to me. Glad I'm an anti-vaxxer.
I'll provide a different explanation for the apparent finding of
increased cancer incidence. People who are intelligent enough to
understand the importance of quality information and advice provided by
experts in virology, immunology, infectious diseases etc., are much more >>> likely to get recommended vaccinations and are also more likely to have
regular visits with medical personnel.
Your reference?
Those people will experience a
much greater incidence of early detection of many diseases, including
cancers. People with no training in any of those fields, and who don't
trust things they don't understand and therefore feel suspicious of
those things and prefer to believe conspiracy theories are less likely
to get recommended vaccinations and less likely to interact regularly
with medical professionals.
Your reference?
Their cancers remain non-existent and
untallied when considering the methodology of the reference cited by the >>> OP. Faulty study design inevitably leads to faulty data, which leads to >>> faulty conclusions.
The study was not faulty. But your analysis was. You
are pulling things out your ears based on your "beliefs".
You are presenting your beliefs as "axiom" and challenging
others to disprove them. That is not how the scientific
method works.
https://biomarkerres.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40364-025-00831-w?utm_source=chatgpt.com#citeas
Was a painstakingly well documented. But you did not
read it as it challenged your "axioms".
you cite only provides the abstract, not the nitty-gritty details of the >experimental design. A good study protocol contains a discussion of how
the design of the study attempts to eliminate or at least minimize the
type of faulty conclusions you have accepted as valid.
Also, your selective quotation from the abstract failed to include the >following direct quotes from the abstract:
"However, the researchers cautioned that the findings represent a
statistical association, not proof of causation, emphasizing the need
for further research to determine whether the increases reflect a
biological effect or are influenced by other factors such as healthcare >access, screening frequency, or population demographics."
and
"Some medical professionals caution, however, that these patterns may
also reflect non-vaccine factors, including pandemic-related health care >disruptions, delayed diagnoses, expanded screening programs, or an aging >populationuall of which can elevate reported incidence rates. Yale
Medicine reports that rates of early-onset breast, colorectal, stomach, >thyroid, and prostate cancers have been rising for years across multiple >countries."
How convenient for you not to have included those portions of the abstract!
If you try to go head to head with me I strongly suspect that you will
lose. I spent more than a decade working full time in the management of >human subjects medical research in a huge federal organization. For
much of that time, I was the sole individual personally responsible for
the safe and ethical treatment of human subjects in a huge program (over >$100M/year) of world-wide clinical investigations. My personal
signature was required before any human subjects medical research funded
by the organization I worked for was authorized to recruit a single
subject. I also had full authority to grant or retract permission to
perform any human subjects clinical research whatever at the facilities
where funding for these projects included funds from my organization's >budget. I was second level review after local institutional review
board approval of each study and commonly sent IRB approved protocols
back for revision because of flaws in experimental design. Junk
protocols yield junk data which reach unsupportable conclusions. It is >unethical to subject human subjects to any risk if the outcome of the
study is predetermined to be junk science. My background includes a
M.D. degree and more than 5 years of post-graduate training at a
nationally recognized ivy-league medical school. Why don't I still work
at that organization? I'm happily retired after many decades of hard work.
On Thu, 6 Nov 2025 10:26:08 -0500, Retirednoguilt <HapilyRetired@fakeaddress.com> wrote:
On 11/5/2025 6:58 PM, T wrote:
On 11/5/25 7:39 AM, Retirednoguilt wrote:Can you demonstrate where the experimental design of the study you cite
On 11/4/2025 8:23 PM, Ketanji Kornrows wrote:
A new, peer-reviewed study by researchers in South Korea has found that people who received COVID-19 shots showed significantly higher rates of
developing several cancersrCoincluding thyroid, stomach, colon, lung, breast, and prostaterCocompared to unvaccinated individuals. The research,
published on Sept. 26, 2025 in the journal Biomarker Research, was authored by South Korean medics in orthopedic surgery and critical care and
evaluated data from over eight million adults in the Korean National Health Insurance database to identify a potential link between COVID mRNA
shots and cancer risk within one year after receipt of different types of vaccines.1
The data indicate that vaccinated individuals had roughly a 35 percent greater increased risk of thyroid cancer and 34 percent greater risk of
gastric cancer, with lung and prostate cancers showing even higher relative risksrCo53 percent and 68 percent respectively. Breast and colorectal
cancers showed increases of 20 percent and 28 percent. The authors of the study noted that vaccinated men were more likely to develop gastric
and lung cancers, while vaccinated women were more likely to develop thyroid and colorectal cancers.1
https://thevaccinereaction.org/2025/11/higher-cancer-rates-found-after-receipt-of-covid-19-shots/
The clot-shots don't sound safe and effective to me. Glad I'm an anti-vaxxer.
I'll provide a different explanation for the apparent finding of
increased cancer incidence. People who are intelligent enough to
understand the importance of quality information and advice provided by >>>> experts in virology, immunology, infectious diseases etc., are much more >>>> likely to get recommended vaccinations and are also more likely to have >>>> regular visits with medical personnel.
Your reference?
Those people will experience a
much greater incidence of early detection of many diseases, including
cancers. People with no training in any of those fields, and who don't >>>> trust things they don't understand and therefore feel suspicious of
those things and prefer to believe conspiracy theories are less likely >>>> to get recommended vaccinations and less likely to interact regularly
with medical professionals.
Your reference?
Their cancers remain non-existent and
untallied when considering the methodology of the reference cited by the >>>> OP. Faulty study design inevitably leads to faulty data, which leads to >>>> faulty conclusions.
The study was not faulty. But your analysis was. You
are pulling things out your ears based on your "beliefs".
You are presenting your beliefs as "axiom" and challenging
others to disprove them. That is not how the scientific
method works.
https://biomarkerres.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40364-025-00831-w?utm_source=chatgpt.com#citeas
Was a painstakingly well documented. But you did not
read it as it challenged your "axioms".
precludes what I stated? No you can't, because the reference web page
you cite only provides the abstract, not the nitty-gritty details of the
experimental design. A good study protocol contains a discussion of how
the design of the study attempts to eliminate or at least minimize the
type of faulty conclusions you have accepted as valid.
Also, your selective quotation from the abstract failed to include the
following direct quotes from the abstract:
"However, the researchers cautioned that the findings represent a
statistical association, not proof of causation, emphasizing the need
for further research to determine whether the increases reflect a
biological effect or are influenced by other factors such as healthcare
access, screening frequency, or population demographics."
and
"Some medical professionals caution, however, that these patterns may
also reflect non-vaccine factors, including pandemic-related health care
disruptions, delayed diagnoses, expanded screening programs, or an aging
populationrCoall of which can elevate reported incidence rates. Yale
Medicine reports that rates of early-onset breast, colorectal, stomach,
thyroid, and prostate cancers have been rising for years across multiple
countries."
How convenient for you not to have included those portions of the abstract! >>
If you try to go head to head with me I strongly suspect that you will
lose. I spent more than a decade working full time in the management of
human subjects medical research in a huge federal organization. For
much of that time, I was the sole individual personally responsible for
the safe and ethical treatment of human subjects in a huge program (over
$100M/year) of world-wide clinical investigations. My personal
signature was required before any human subjects medical research funded
by the organization I worked for was authorized to recruit a single
subject. I also had full authority to grant or retract permission to
perform any human subjects clinical research whatever at the facilities
where funding for these projects included funds from my organization's
budget. I was second level review after local institutional review
board approval of each study and commonly sent IRB approved protocols
back for revision because of flaws in experimental design. Junk
protocols yield junk data which reach unsupportable conclusions. It is
unethical to subject human subjects to any risk if the outcome of the
study is predetermined to be junk science. My background includes a
M.D. degree and more than 5 years of post-graduate training at a
nationally recognized ivy-league medical school. Why don't I still work
at that organization? I'm happily retired after many decades of hard work. >>
As a high school drop-out, lacking your medical expertise
and experience and insights - I'm left to decide these things
by a much simpler method - I listen to my doctor and the
local, provincial, and national health authorities.
I don't rely on internet "experts" for my health decisions.
Certain internet sources seem factual and sensible - I like the
Mayo Clinic's online articles. < no adverts, no money grubbing >
.. others seem ridiculous - like RFK Jr. and his ilk.
John T.
On 11/5/2025 6:58 PM, T wrote:
On 11/5/25 7:39 AM, Retirednoguilt wrote:Can you demonstrate where the experimental design of the study you cite precludes what I stated? No you can't, because the reference web page
On 11/4/2025 8:23 PM, Ketanji Kornrows wrote:
A new, peer-reviewed study by researchers in South Korea has found that people who received COVID-19 shots showed significantly higher rates of
developing several cancersrCoincluding thyroid, stomach, colon, lung, breast, and prostaterCocompared to unvaccinated individuals. The research,
published on Sept. 26, 2025 in the journal Biomarker Research, was authored by South Korean medics in orthopedic surgery and critical care and
evaluated data from over eight million adults in the Korean National Health Insurance database to identify a potential link between COVID mRNA
shots and cancer risk within one year after receipt of different types of vaccines.1
The data indicate that vaccinated individuals had roughly a 35 percent greater increased risk of thyroid cancer and 34 percent greater risk of
gastric cancer, with lung and prostate cancers showing even higher relative risksrCo53 percent and 68 percent respectively. Breast and colorectal
cancers showed increases of 20 percent and 28 percent. The authors of the study noted that vaccinated men were more likely to develop gastric
and lung cancers, while vaccinated women were more likely to develop thyroid and colorectal cancers.1
https://thevaccinereaction.org/2025/11/higher-cancer-rates-found-after-receipt-of-covid-19-shots/
The clot-shots don't sound safe and effective to me. Glad I'm an anti-vaxxer.
I'll provide a different explanation for the apparent finding of
increased cancer incidence. People who are intelligent enough to
understand the importance of quality information and advice provided by
experts in virology, immunology, infectious diseases etc., are much more >>> likely to get recommended vaccinations and are also more likely to have
regular visits with medical personnel.
Your reference?
Those people will experience a
much greater incidence of early detection of many diseases, including
cancers. People with no training in any of those fields, and who don't
trust things they don't understand and therefore feel suspicious of
those things and prefer to believe conspiracy theories are less likely
to get recommended vaccinations and less likely to interact regularly
with medical professionals.
Your reference?
Their cancers remain non-existent and
untallied when considering the methodology of the reference cited by the >>> OP. Faulty study design inevitably leads to faulty data, which leads to >>> faulty conclusions.
The study was not faulty. But your analysis was. You
are pulling things out your ears based on your "beliefs".
You are presenting your beliefs as "axiom" and challenging
others to disprove them. That is not how the scientific
method works.
https://biomarkerres.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40364-025-00831-w?utm_source=chatgpt.com#citeas
Was a painstakingly well documented. But you did not
read it as it challenged your "axioms".
you cite only provides the abstract, not the nitty-gritty details of the experimental design. A good study protocol contains a discussion of how
the design of the study attempts to eliminate or at least minimize the
type of faulty conclusions you have accepted as valid.
Also, your selective quotation from the abstract failed to include the following direct quotes from the abstract:
"However, the researchers cautioned that the findings represent a
statistical association, not proof of causation, emphasizing the need
for further research to determine whether the increases reflect a
biological effect or are influenced by other factors such as healthcare access, screening frequency, or population demographics."
and
"Some medical professionals caution, however, that these patterns may
also reflect non-vaccine factors, including pandemic-related health care disruptions, delayed diagnoses, expanded screening programs, or an aging populationrCoall of which can elevate reported incidence rates. Yale
Medicine reports that rates of early-onset breast, colorectal, stomach, thyroid, and prostate cancers have been rising for years across multiple countries."
How convenient for you not to have included those portions of the abstract!
If you try to go head to head with me I strongly suspect that you will
lose. I spent more than a decade working full time in the management of human subjects medical research in a huge federal organization. For
much of that time, I was the sole individual personally responsible for
the safe and ethical treatment of human subjects in a huge program (over $100M/year) of world-wide clinical investigations. My personal
signature was required before any human subjects medical research funded
by the organization I worked for was authorized to recruit a single
subject. I also had full authority to grant or retract permission to
perform any human subjects clinical research whatever at the facilities
where funding for these projects included funds from my organization's budget. I was second level review after local institutional review
board approval of each study and commonly sent IRB approved protocols
back for revision because of flaws in experimental design. Junk
protocols yield junk data which reach unsupportable conclusions. It is unethical to subject human subjects to any risk if the outcome of the
study is predetermined to be junk science. My background includes a
M.D. degree and more than 5 years of post-graduate training at a
nationally recognized ivy-league medical school. Why don't I still work
at that organization? I'm happily retired after many decades of hard work.
As a high school drop-out, lacking your medical expertise
and experience and insights - I'm left to decide these things
by a much simpler method - I listen to my doctor and the
local, provincial, and national health authorities.
I don't rely on internet "experts" for my health decisions.
Certain internet sources seem factual and sensible - I like the
Mayo Clinic's online articles. < no adverts, no money grubbing >
.. others seem ridiculous - like RFK Jr. and his ilk.
John T.
I wholeheartedly agree that the the Mayo Clinic's web site is a reliable >source of medical information. Unfortunately, depending on where you
live and in today's world, your political views, local, provincial and
even national health authorities may or may not be good sources of
guidance. In the U.S. at least 1/3 of the population considers RFK Jr.
to be a national health authority. Furthermore, having a M.D. diploma >doesn't guarantee that the individual hasn't come under the influence of
the woo-woos. Sometimes their motivation is the opportunity to get even >richer than they might become if they had remained in a traditional
medical career path.
On 11/5/2025 6:58 PM, T wrote:
On 11/5/25 7:39 AM, Retirednoguilt wrote:Can you demonstrate where the experimental design of the study you cite precludes what I stated? No you can't, because the reference web page
On 11/4/2025 8:23 PM, Ketanji Kornrows wrote:
A new, peer-reviewed study by researchers in South Korea has found that people who received COVID-19 shots showed significantly higher rates of
developing several cancersrCoincluding thyroid, stomach, colon, lung, breast, and prostaterCocompared to unvaccinated individuals. The research,
published on Sept. 26, 2025 in the journal Biomarker Research, was authored by South Korean medics in orthopedic surgery and critical care and
evaluated data from over eight million adults in the Korean National Health Insurance database to identify a potential link between COVID mRNA
shots and cancer risk within one year after receipt of different types of vaccines.1
The data indicate that vaccinated individuals had roughly a 35 percent greater increased risk of thyroid cancer and 34 percent greater risk of
gastric cancer, with lung and prostate cancers showing even higher relative risksrCo53 percent and 68 percent respectively. Breast and colorectal
cancers showed increases of 20 percent and 28 percent. The authors of the study noted that vaccinated men were more likely to develop gastric
and lung cancers, while vaccinated women were more likely to develop thyroid and colorectal cancers.1
https://thevaccinereaction.org/2025/11/higher-cancer-rates-found-after-receipt-of-covid-19-shots/
The clot-shots don't sound safe and effective to me. Glad I'm an anti-vaxxer.
I'll provide a different explanation for the apparent finding of
increased cancer incidence. People who are intelligent enough to
understand the importance of quality information and advice provided by
experts in virology, immunology, infectious diseases etc., are much more >>> likely to get recommended vaccinations and are also more likely to have
regular visits with medical personnel.
Your reference?
Those people will experience a
much greater incidence of early detection of many diseases, including
cancers. People with no training in any of those fields, and who don't
trust things they don't understand and therefore feel suspicious of
those things and prefer to believe conspiracy theories are less likely
to get recommended vaccinations and less likely to interact regularly
with medical professionals.
Your reference?
Their cancers remain non-existent and
untallied when considering the methodology of the reference cited by the >>> OP. Faulty study design inevitably leads to faulty data, which leads to >>> faulty conclusions.
The study was not faulty. But your analysis was. You
are pulling things out your ears based on your "beliefs".
You are presenting your beliefs as "axiom" and challenging
others to disprove them. That is not how the scientific
method works.
https://biomarkerres.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40364-025-00831-w?utm_source=chatgpt.com#citeas
Was a painstakingly well documented. But you did not
read it as it challenged your "axioms".
you cite only provides the abstract, not the nitty-gritty details of the experimental design. A good study protocol contains a discussion of how
the design of the study attempts to eliminate or at least minimize the
type of faulty conclusions you have accepted as valid.
Also, your selective quotation from the abstract failed to include the following direct quotes from the abstract:
"However, the researchers cautioned that the findings represent a
statistical association, not proof of causation, emphasizing the need
for further research to determine whether the increases reflect a
biological effect or are influenced by other factors such as healthcare access, screening frequency, or population demographics."
and
"Some medical professionals caution, however, that these patterns may
also reflect non-vaccine factors, including pandemic-related health care disruptions, delayed diagnoses, expanded screening programs, or an aging populationrCoall of which can elevate reported incidence rates. Yale
Medicine reports that rates of early-onset breast, colorectal, stomach, thyroid, and prostate cancers have been rising for years across multiple countries."
How convenient for you not to have included those portions of the abstract!
If you try to go head to head with me I strongly suspect that you will
lose. I spent more than a decade working full time in the management of human subjects medical research in a huge federal organization. For
much of that time, I was the sole individual personally responsible for
the safe and ethical treatment of human subjects in a huge program (over $100M/year) of world-wide clinical investigations. My personal
signature was required before any human subjects medical research funded
by the organization I worked for was authorized to recruit a single
subject. I also had full authority to grant or retract permission to
perform any human subjects clinical research whatever at the facilities
where funding for these projects included funds from my organization's budget. I was second level review after local institutional review
board approval of each study and commonly sent IRB approved protocols
back for revision because of flaws in experimental design. Junk
protocols yield junk data which reach unsupportable conclusions. It is unethical to subject human subjects to any risk if the outcome of the
study is predetermined to be junk science. My background includes a
M.D. degree and more than 5 years of post-graduate training at a
nationally recognized ivy-league medical school. Why don't I still work
at that organization? I'm happily retired after many decades of hard work.
On 2025-11-05 16:39, Retirednoguilt wrote:
On 11/4/2025 8:23 PM, Ketanji Kornrows wrote:
A new, peer-reviewed study by researchers in South Korea has found
that people who received COVID-19 shots showed significantly higher
rates of
developing several cancersrCoincluding thyroid, stomach, colon, lung,
breast, and prostaterCocompared to unvaccinated individuals. The research, >>> published on Sept. 26, 2025 in the journal Biomarker Research, was
authored by South Korean medics in orthopedic surgery and critical
care and
evaluated data from over eight million adults in the Korean National
Health Insurance database to identify a potential link between COVID
mRNA
shots and cancer risk within one year after receipt of different
types of vaccines.1
The data indicate that vaccinated individuals had roughly a 35
percent greater increased risk of thyroid cancer and 34 percent
greater risk of
gastric cancer, with lung and prostate cancers showing even higher
relative risksrCo53 percent and 68 percent respectively. Breast and
colorectal
cancers showed increases of 20 percent and 28 percent. The authors of
the study noted that vaccinated men were more likely to develop gastric
and lung cancers, while vaccinated women were more likely to develop
thyroid and colorectal cancers.1
https://thevaccinereaction.org/2025/11/higher-cancer-rates-found-
after-receipt-of-covid-19-shots/
The clot-shots don't sound safe and effective to me. Glad I'm an
anti-vaxxer.
I'll provide a different explanation for the apparent finding of
increased cancer incidence.-a People who are intelligent enough to
understand the importance of quality information and advice provided by
experts in virology, immunology, infectious diseases etc., are much more
likely to get recommended vaccinations and are also more likely to have
regular visits with medical personnel.-a Those people will experience a
much greater incidence of early detection of many diseases, including
cancers.-a People with no training in any of those fields, and who don't
trust things they don't understand and therefore feel suspicious of
those things and prefer to believe conspiracy theories are less likely
to get recommended vaccinations and less likely to interact regularly
with medical professionals. Their cancers remain non-existent and
untallied when considering the methodology of the reference cited by the
OP.-a Faulty study design inevitably leads to faulty data, which leads to
faulty conclusions.
And...
A recent study in Nature suggests that mRNA vaccines, including COVID-19 vaccines, may help prevent cancer by priming the immune system to be
more effective against tumors. The study found that receiving an mRNA vaccine may enhance the effectiveness of cancer immunotherapy by
boosting a patient's immune response, leading to improvements in
survival for certain cancers like non-small cell lung cancer and melanoma.
-a-a-a Immune system boost: mRNA vaccines trigger an innate immune response, causing a surge in type-I interferon. This surge helps
activate immune cells that can target cancer cells.
-a-a-a Synergy with immunotherapy: This heightened immune response can
make tumors more susceptible to existing immunotherapies, like immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs).
-a-a-a Potential survival benefit: The research observed that patients who received an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine within 100 days of starting ICI
treatment had improved overall survival compared to those who did not receive the vaccine.
-a-a-a How it works: The vaccine's immune response primes the immune
system to better recognize and attack cancer cells, a process known as "epitope spreading". While cancer cells can try to evade this response,
the combination with ICIs helps sustain the T cell response.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-09655-y
On 11/6/25 4:20 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2025-11-05 16:39, Retirednoguilt wrote:
On 11/4/2025 8:23 PM, Ketanji Kornrows wrote:
A new, peer-reviewed study by researchers in South Korea has found
that people who received COVID-19 shots showed significantly higher
rates of
developing several cancersrCoincluding thyroid, stomach, colon, lung, >>>> breast, and prostaterCocompared to unvaccinated individuals. The research, >>>> published on Sept. 26, 2025 in the journal Biomarker Research, was
authored by South Korean medics in orthopedic surgery and critical
care and
evaluated data from over eight million adults in the Korean National
Health Insurance database to identify a potential link between COVID
mRNA
shots and cancer risk within one year after receipt of different
types of vaccines.1
The data indicate that vaccinated individuals had roughly a 35
percent greater increased risk of thyroid cancer and 34 percent
greater risk of
gastric cancer, with lung and prostate cancers showing even higher
relative risksrCo53 percent and 68 percent respectively. Breast and
colorectal
cancers showed increases of 20 percent and 28 percent. The authors of >>>> the study noted that vaccinated men were more likely to develop gastric >>>> and lung cancers, while vaccinated women were more likely to develop
thyroid and colorectal cancers.1
https://thevaccinereaction.org/2025/11/higher-cancer-rates-found-
after-receipt-of-covid-19-shots/
The clot-shots don't sound safe and effective to me. Glad I'm an
anti-vaxxer.
I'll provide a different explanation for the apparent finding of
increased cancer incidence.-a People who are intelligent enough to
understand the importance of quality information and advice provided by
experts in virology, immunology, infectious diseases etc., are much more >>> likely to get recommended vaccinations and are also more likely to have
regular visits with medical personnel.-a Those people will experience a
much greater incidence of early detection of many diseases, including
cancers.-a People with no training in any of those fields, and who don't >>> trust things they don't understand and therefore feel suspicious of
those things and prefer to believe conspiracy theories are less likely
to get recommended vaccinations and less likely to interact regularly
with medical professionals. Their cancers remain non-existent and
untallied when considering the methodology of the reference cited by the >>> OP.-a Faulty study design inevitably leads to faulty data, which leads to >>> faulty conclusions.
And...
A recent study in Nature suggests that mRNA vaccines, including COVID-19
vaccines, may help prevent cancer by priming the immune system to be
more effective against tumors. The study found that receiving an mRNA
vaccine may enhance the effectiveness of cancer immunotherapy by
boosting a patient's immune response, leading to improvements in
survival for certain cancers like non-small cell lung cancer and melanoma. >>
-a-a-a Immune system boost: mRNA vaccines trigger an innate immune
response, causing a surge in type-I interferon. This surge helps
activate immune cells that can target cancer cells.
-a-a-a Synergy with immunotherapy: This heightened immune response can
make tumors more susceptible to existing immunotherapies, like immune
checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs).
-a-a-a Potential survival benefit: The research observed that patients who >> received an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine within 100 days of starting ICI
treatment had improved overall survival compared to those who did not
receive the vaccine.
-a-a-a How it works: The vaccine's immune response primes the immune
system to better recognize and attack cancer cells, a process known as
"epitope spreading". While cancer cells can try to evade this response,
the combination with ICIs helps sustain the T cell response.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-09655-y
Who paid for that study?
Remember all the garbage about ivermetin not working
that came from industry funded sources.
Tolls like you aren't worth one more millisecond of my time. You thrive
Who paid for that study?
Remember all the garbage about ivermetin not working
that came from industry funded sources.
on the thrill of upsetting people. You'll have to find your thrills
from someone else.
On 11/7/25 6:47 AM, Retirednoguilt wrote:
Tolls like you aren't worth one more millisecond of my time.-a You thrive
Who paid for that study?
Remember all the garbage about ivermetin not working
that came from industry funded sources.
on the thrill of upsetting people.-a You'll have to find your thrills
from someone else.
Corruption in your field is rampant.-a Gus what Mr. MD.
"Death by Medical" is the leading killer in the US.
Not heart disease or cancer.
If you want to do something about it, start by WASHING
YOUR FUCKING HANDS!
And stop pulling shit out your ass and calling it fact.
On 2025-11-07 22:33, T wrote:
On 11/7/25 6:47 AM, Retirednoguilt wrote:
Tolls like you aren't worth one more millisecond of my time.a You thrive >>> on the thrill of upsetting people.a You'll have to find your thrills
Who paid for that study?
Remember all the garbage about ivermetin not working
that came from industry funded sources.
from someone else.
Corruption in your field is rampant.a Gus what Mr. MD.
"Death by Medical" is the leading killer in the US.
Not heart disease or cancer.
If you want to do something about it, start by WASHING
YOUR FUCKING HANDS!
And stop pulling shit out your ass and calling it fact.
You have no credibility at all in this matter. He has.
On 11/7/25 6:47 AM, Retirednoguilt wrote:
Tolls like you aren't worth one more millisecond of my time.-a You thrive
Who paid for that study?
Remember all the garbage about ivermetin not working
that came from industry funded sources.
on the thrill of upsetting people.-a You'll have to find your thrills
from someone else.
Corruption in your field is rampant.-a Gus what Mr. MD.
"Death by Medical" is the leading killer in the US.
Not heart disease or cancer.
If you want to do something about it, start by WASHING
YOUR FUCKING HANDS!
And stop pulling shit out your ass and calling it fact.
On 2025-11-07 22:33, T wrote:
On 11/7/25 6:47 AM, Retirednoguilt wrote:
Tolls like you aren't worth one more millisecond of my time.-a You thrive >>> on the thrill of upsetting people.-a You'll have to find your thrills
Who paid for that study?
Remember all the garbage about ivermetin not working
that came from industry funded sources.
from someone else.
Corruption in your field is rampant.-a Gus what Mr. MD.
"Death by Medical" is the leading killer in the US.
Not heart disease or cancer.
If you want to do something about it, start by WASHING
YOUR FUCKING HANDS!
And stop pulling shit out your ass and calling it fact.
You have no credibility at all in this matter. He has.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 54 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 01:50:47 |
| Calls: | 743 |
| Files: | 1,218 |
| Messages: | 187,735 |