https://biomarkerres.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40364-025-00831-wSouth Korea study of 8.4 million adults finds radically higher risks of overall, lung, prostate, thyroid, gastric, colorectal, abreast cancers etc, across both mRNA and viral-vector platforms already one year after inoculation. The study suggests the risk of getting cancer could grow even more in long term perspective, and this possibility should be further studied.The study proves without any doubts that "genetic vaccination" is linked to significant increases in multiple major cancers, with the signal consistent across all vaccine platforms, both sexes, and age groups.cDNA vaccines (AstraZeneca type): linked to higher risks of thyroid, gastric, colorectal, lung, and prostate cancers.Overall cancer HR 1.47 (95% CI 1.39–1.56) -> 47% higher riskmodRNA vaccines (Pfizer/Moderna): linked to higher risks of thyroid, colorectal, lung, and breast cancers.Overall cancer HR 1.20 (95% CI 1.14–1.26) -> 20% higher riskHeterologous (mixed schedules): linked to higher risks of thyroid and breast cancers.Overall cancer HR 1.34 (95% CI 1.21–1.48) -> 34% higher riskIt is first study performed on such huge cohort (over 8 mln people) proving extremely oncogenic character of modRNA/AVV "vaccines"
>>16798705Cancer Rates Up Regardless of Vaccine or Vaccination>lulz, vaxxtard dieders
I know this will get absolutely braindead "NO U" replies, but whatever. I wish /sci/ was actually scientifically literateThe overall cancer HR in this study is 1.01, not 1.47. You literally made up that value, OP. Also an HR of 1.01 with a 95% CI of 0.95-1.06 is a quick indication that nothing in this study is going to be statistically relevant.Of the 30 different cancer types mentioned for vaccinated individuals, 14 have an HR below 1 and 14 above 1. So you could just as easily say that Covid vaccination reduces risk of certain types of cancer. The 95% confidence intervals for all of the cancer types are the same order of magnitude as the HR itself, or even greater. So this is meaningless data.The reality is, this is a shit publication based on shit data, published by shit scientists in a shit journal
>>16798705nice schizo source chud
>cancer is cells with damaged genetics>viriuses can cause cancer (e.g. HPV, simian adenovirus)>gene therapy causes cancerAstrozenica literally used simian adenovirus.Who could have predicted this?
doctors and the pharmaceutical industry both make big profits on every false positive cancer diagnosis. So they're incentivized to find as much cancer as they can, even when it's not there and they're always pushing the boundaries of what justifies a positive diagnosis and shilling ever more opportunities to produce those false diagnoses.
>>16798730Thanks for highlighting this! Your response give me an idea of writing a book, something a-la "The Manual of Shitty Research" or something similar. Cuz there's a lot of clickbait research that I've seen when publishing my paper that is scientifically just a piece of fancy crap. Any ideas for the chapters of the book? Now that I think about it, it seems like a great idea
>>16798730Reposting from /pol/ thread for visibility:"The guy is a troll. The study is about much higher overall risk of 6 types of cancer and thats what the study is about. Overall cancer HR 1.47 is linked to AVV vaccines in group of thyroid, gastric, colorectal, lung, and prostate cancers. Not all cancers, of course. I checked these calculations with Grok to be sure and everythings fine.https://x.com/i/grok/share/AOIZ7bfnSgiw8Ip60OCrslkXp"and"These six cancers are among the most common in South Korea, accounting for a large proportion of diagnoses. In 2025 projections, thyroid leads (most diagnosed overall) followed closely by colorectal, lung, breast, prostate and stomach (gastric). This high baseline incidence means the study had greater statistical power to detect modest risk elevations here, while rarer cancers (like pancreatic or ovarian) might show null results due to fewer events. Less common cancers have wider confidence intervals and it makes associations harder to achieve significance (p<0.05). LNPs in modRNA/AVV "vaccines" distribute spike-encoding material to specific organs where it persists for months at least. Preclinical data show significant accumulation in thyroid, prostate and GI tract. It would be also compatibile with these chosen cancer types. This could lead to localized inflammation or DNA integration risks."
>I checked these calculations with Grok to be sure
>>16798857Calculations are accurate, aligns with Figure 1C bar for cDNA (elevated due to multiple site-specific risks). Claimed cancer link: thyroid, gastric, colorectal, lung, prostate. Thyroid (1.35, 1.21–1.51), gastric (1.34, 1.13–1.58), colorectal (1.28, 1.12–1.47), lung (1.53, 1.25–1.87), prostate (1.69, 1.35–2.11). Overall 1.47 (1.39–1.56).
>>16798862Die vaxxie
>>16798730I think the thread needs to know your vaxx status
>>16798862Is it true that the vax also protects against 14 types of cancer?as per:>>16798730
Concerning data from Japan regarding the mRNA Covid Vaccine, data from 18 million people (vaccinated vs unvaccinated) https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40416011/https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12095670/Dr. Yasufumi Murakami, PhDhttps://imahealth.org/experts/yasufumi-murakami/
>>16799414>>16799415>>16799389
>>16798730This article was published in Biomarkers Research, which has an IF of 11.8 . This means it went through rigorous review, unlike your shitty little 4chan comment. The senior author of this study is well published and has, thanks to obtuse little gov-ass licking sheep like you, a reputation to lose for doing research about the shitshow this "vaccine" has been to this day.Tell us: How many boosters did you take? And where did you take your little "debunkal" from for cope? A pharma bots on Twitter? lmao
>>16798730This poster is completely and utterly wrong. The numbers they are referring to are from the vaccinated vs boosted cohorts, not unvaxxed vs vaxxed.pic related is unvaxxed vs vaxxed.
>>16800209That chart you posted does seem to show that vaxxies have lower rates of certain types of cancer.
>>16800064>IF of 11.8that is literally nothing in life sciences, anon
>>16800319>>16800209Not really. The horizontal red lines are the only significant results - which show an increase in 6 cancer types. There are no significant results showing lower rates in any cancer type. The horizontal black lines are non-significant as they all pass through the vertical red dotted line, HR of 1.0.
No refunds
>>16798705chlorine dioxide is the cure
>>16798705would you rather be alive with cancer (that you might beat) or cancer free and dead from covid?
