TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

According to the latest report, US government data confirms a 143,233 percent increase in cancer cases due to COVID vaccination.

VAERS, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, collects data on vaccine-related adverse events. Analysis shows that in 2021, 98% of cancer-related reports were linked to COVID vaccines, significantly higher than other vaccines. A comparison with the flu vaccine revealed virtually no cancer cases associated with it, highlighting a stark contrast. Research indicates that PD L1, a receptor produced by cancer and immune cells, may contribute to this issue. Elevated PD L1 levels were observed two days after vaccination, suggesting an activated immune system may suppress responses to both COVID and cancer. This nonspecific immunosuppressive effect raises concerns about the potential for increased cancer risk following vaccination.

Kevin McKernan recently discovered that there is contamination in the mRNA shots with cDNA, including a cancer-promoting segment called SV40. SV40 turns on cancer genes in the human body and impairs tumor suppressor systems. This means that the shots not only promote cancer through SV40 but also inhibit our ability to fight cancer. The increase in cancer rates is undeniable, but the question remains: how much of this is due to the vaccines?

This is not conspiracy theory. This has been published in the BMJ by Retzaf Levy, and they go through this process: one where they ran these vaccines in the trial and how they changed that when they decided to go and inject the rest of the world. This is traditionally a mortal sin in vaccine manufacturing or in any sort of biologic manufacturing. The process is the product. You change the process, you have to go through trials again. And the EMA even asked them to do that, although they failed to. They asked for another trial of 250 people once they changed the process and that data was never delivered. So this bait and switch is very important for you to understand why the trial data is of absolute zero consequence to what we're actually seeing in the field. Those numbers are a caricature of what they're actually doing with these injections. They know something. Pfizer very early on they had the data on this from their trial, they knew this was going to happen and they quickly went out and acquired cancer companies. They put $43,000,000,000 into the acquisition of C Gen and they put $2,260,000,000 to acquire Trillium Therapeutics. Trillium was focused on blood cancers that have a CD one forty seven marker on them. Okay? That is one of the markers that is known to be involved in COVID. So, they have a very interesting window on those malignancies and, they're buying up the cancer companies that are probably gonna play the biggest role in benefiting from the mess that they've created. So, in summary, the Pfizer vaccines on the market are not the same formulation as what was tested in the clinical trials. This is a big bait and switch and it's a fraud. So you can't believe anything they're saying about the vaccine efficiency, which we have seen even those numbers decay over time. This is probably why. They're not really what they trialed. They gave you something different. There is significant DNA contamination that's found. Like, 10 out of 11 studies have found this, and the ones that haven't found it have some financial conflicts. So, I think the consensus is out. 10 out of 10 out of 10 of the real studies, are finding this. Several are through peer review, which have not been easy to get through peer review. The peer review journals do not like these papers. They get beat around in peer review for months to years, but they're making their way out now. There is also significant DNA contamination now found in five peer reviewed studies that were not looking at this. They were looking at people's blood and tissue and it was accidentally in there. Other people had to go sleuth it out. We've got cancer on the rise and there's several papers that report cancer post vaccination. Like, right at the site of injection, they'll see neoplasms. Alright? There is there's something going on here. This can't be ignored saying it's a coincidence anymore. Now this is these are liability free and they're often mandated. Okay? This may be the largest carcinogenic hit ever to the human population. And we have these on childhood schedules. We're giving these to pregnant women. This has gone absolutely off the rails.

The speaker claims SV40 in literature turns on cancer genes. They further claim the spike protein impairs tumor suppressor systems P53 and BRCA, promoting cancer and inhibiting the ability to fight it. The speaker suggests cancer rates are up, and the question is how much is due to vaccines. They state that repeated shots every six months increase the chances of getting loaded with synthetic genetic material that will cause harm, including heart disease, neurologic disease, blood clotting, immunologic problems, and cancer.

The speaker claims that this is not conspiracy theory and cites a BMJ publication by Retzaf Levy, which describes a process in vaccine development: vaccines were trialed under one formulation, but when the decision was made to deploy them globally, the process was changed and the product injected to the rest of the world. The speaker asserts that changing the process requires new trials, yet the EMA asked for an additional trial of 250 people after the process change, and that data was never delivered. This is described as a “bait and switch,” asserted as crucial for understanding why trial data is of zero consequence to what’s seen in the field, implying that real-world outcomes do not match trial data and that the numbers from trials are a caricature of field performance. The speaker claims Pfizer had early data indicating what would happen and acted on that by acquiring cancer companies: $43,000,000,000 into the acquisition of C Gen and $2,260,000,000 to acquire Trillium Therapeutics. Trillium is described as focused on blood cancers with the CD147 marker (CD Adaptor 147) on them, a marker claimed to be known to be involved in COVID. The implication is that Pfizer is building an investment portfolio in cancer companies that would benefit from the consequences the speaker alleges they caused. In summary, the vaccines on the market are said to be not the same formulation as what was tested in clinical trials, labeling this a “bait and switch” and a fraud, and asserting that vaccine effectiveness numbers are not reliable because the products differ from trial formulations and because those numbers decay over time. The speaker alleges significant DNA contamination, stating that 10 out of 11 studies have found this, with the remaining studies allegedly constrained by financial conflicts. The claim is that consensus among real studies supports DNA contamination, with several studies through peer review, which the speaker notes is difficult for those papers to pass through peer review. It is claimed that five peer-reviewed studies not originally examining contamination found DNA in blood and tissue upon sleuthing. The speaker asserts that cancer is on the rise and that several papers report cancer post-vaccination, including neoplasms at the site of injection. The claim is that this situation cannot be dismissed as coincidence and is described as “liability free” and often mandated. The speaker posits that this may be the largest carcinogenic hit to the human population, with vaccines on childhood schedules and given to pregnant women, stating that “this has gone absolutely off the rails.”

A recent report describes a cyberattack and censorship surrounding a peer‑reviewed study that examines cancer diagnoses in relation to COVID vaccination. The study appeared in Oncotarget on January 3 and was authored by cancer researchers from Tufts University and Brown University. It analyzed 69 previously published case reports from around the world, identifying 333 instances where cancer was newly diagnosed or rapidly worsened within a few weeks after vaccination. The Daily Mail reported that the journal hosting the study was hit by a cyberattack that took the site offline, and that the attack helped propel the paper into broader public attention. The piece notes that the cyberattack was described to have disrupted Oncotarget’s online operations and that the FBI was informed of the incident, though the FBI reportedly would not confirm or deny whether it is investigating the attack. Among the paper’s authors is Dr. Wafiq Eldiri, who faced ongoing public backlash and personal attacks, including labels such as "scientifically illiterate," "pathetic," and racial insults, as part of a smear campaign tied to the study. Eldiri publicly described the personal attacks he has endured for pursuing the work and stated that he believes it should not be acceptable to attack a physician and biomedical researcher for presenting published literature on COVID infection, COVID vaccines, and cancer. In a striking twist, two days after the paper’s publication, Pfizer reportedly reached out to recruit Eldiri, praising his expertise in oncologic sciences and offering senior positions. Eldiri released the message publicly and rejected the offer, noting the irony of receiving a Pfizer recruiter message on January 5, 2026. Eldiri has been vocal about the need for thorough investigations into vaccine safety signals, including potential DNA integration, immune suppression, and cancer risks that could, if substantiated, prompt reconsideration or revocation of emergency use approvals. He suggested that the FDA should work toward revoking or restricting COVID mRNA vaccine approvals if there is insufficient evidence of safety and manufacturing cleanliness, and that evidence should undergo high standards of scrutiny given concerns about assays and reporting of adverse events. The discussion references other figures and voices in the debate, including Dr. Mary Talley Boden’s assertion that “now we know why the shots are still on the market,” and Dr. Robert Malone’s commentary that Marty Makri could, but will not, remove the shots from the market. The conversation connects these events to broader political and regulatory dynamics, including calls for accountability and for reevaluating emergency approvals in light of emerging data. The piece also touches on fears about future governance of digital identity and related policy implications.

There's concern about increased cancer risk after Covid vaccines, noting lack of UK data comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated. A study from Italy reported increased incidence of cancers six months after Covid vaccinations. The source is Experimental and Clinical Sciences Journal, peer reviewed. The paper states: "People that had vaccinated with at least one dose, their chances of getting colorectal cancer the hazard ratio was one point three four. In other words thirty four percent more likely to get it." This is at a six month follow-up. It also claims: "Breast cancer fifty four percent more likely to get breast cancer in the vaccinated group." "Bladder cancer sixty two percent more likely to get it than the unvaccinated group."

The speaker cites two population studies on COVID-19 vaccines and cancer risk, claiming they show massive increases in multiple cancers. The first study, from Italy, followed 300,000 Italians for about 30 months and reported about a 23 percent increased risk of overall cancer hospitalizations, with increases of about 40 to 60 percent in breast cancer hospitalizations, colorectal cancer, bladder cancer, and leukemia/lymphoma. A new study from South Korea, involving over eight million Koreans, purportedly corroborates the Italian data and expands on it. It reports about a 26 percent increase in overall cancer risk and increases across six major types of cancer, including gastric, thyroid, colorectal, and breast cancer, as well as other cancers described as very rare. The speaker frames these findings as an absolute disaster and claims they confirm that the vaccines have unleashed a turbo cancer epidemic. They state that the datasets corroborate these results and that the observed effects can be explained by gene expression chaos documented in other studies, along with genomic integration observed in stage four cancer patients. The speaker characterizes the situation as a disaster that needs immediate acknowledgment.

A recent report describes a global review published in Oncotarget on January 3, 2026, by cancer researchers from Tufts University and Brown University, analyzing 69 previously published studies and case reports from around the world. The review identified 333 instances in which cancer was newly diagnosed or rapidly worsened within a few weeks following COVID vaccination, across 27 countries. Circumstances around the publication intensified when Oncotarget’s hosting journal site was hit by a cyberattack, taking the site offline and drawing wider attention to the study. The Daily Mail reported the cyberattack and noted that the journal said disruptions were reported to the FBI, which declined to confirm or deny any investigation into the cyberattack. One of the paper’s authors, Dr. Wafiq Eldiri, faced a smearing campaign, including personal attacks described by him as scientifically illiterate, pathetic whiny wuss, and racial attacks. Eldiri publicly addressed the backlash, stating he was subjected to ongoing public defamation for pursuing scientific truth and listing the insults he received. Days after the paper’s publication, Pfizer reportedly reached out to recruit Eldiri, praising his expertise in oncologic, start-up sciences, and offering senior positions. Eldiri shared the message publicly and declined the offer, noting the ironic timing of a Pfizer recruiter contacting him on January 5, 2026. Eldiri has been vocal about the need for thorough investigations into vaccine safety signals, including potential DNA integration, immune suppression, and cancer risks that could raise questions about emergency approvals. A tweet referenced in the transcript suggested a path to revocation of COVID mRNA vaccine approval by the US FDA for good cause based on emerging evidence of contaminants from altered manufacturing, unexpected biodistribution, and other characteristics in humans, calling for high standards of evidence and significant sanctions if lapses or inaccuracies in reporting are found. The discussion also referenced statements by Doctor Mary Talley Burden about vaccines remaining on the market and exchanges involving Doctor Robert Malone and Marty Makary, with Malone being urged by followers to act, and Makary reportedly able to pull the shots but not doing so. The piece concludes with mentions of ongoing political and regulatory debates, including accusations of interference by the Department of Justice in related cases, and fears about future collaboration between AI, tech, and biotech sectors to accelerate AI-driven vaccine development, describing it as a “nightmare scenario” that must be corrected.

The speaker discusses data from the VAERS database, highlighting a significant increase in cancer-related conditions following COVID vaccination compared to other vaccines. They mention the overexpression of PD L1, a molecule linked to cancer, post-vaccination. PD L1 can suppress immune response, potentially increasing cancer risk. The speaker emphasizes the concerning implications of this finding.

Two early population studies examining COVID-19 vaccines and cancer risk reported substantial increases in various cancers. The first study, conducted in Italy, followed about 300,000 individuals for roughly 30 months and found: - About a 23% increased risk of overall cancer hospitalizations. - Increases of about 40% to 60% in hospitalizations for breast cancer, colorectal cancer, bladder cancer, and for leukemia/lymphoma. A newer study from South Korea, encompassing over eight million people, examined cancer risks after vaccination and corroborated the Italian findings while expanding on them. It reported: - About a 26% increase in overall cancer risk. - Increases across six major cancer types, including gastric (stomach), thyroid, colorectal, and breast cancers, as well as other cancers described as very rare. The speakers characterize these results as an absolute disaster and claim that the data corroborate all experimental evidence. They state that these findings confirm that the vaccines have unleashed a turbo cancer epidemic. Further explanations offered include: - The datasets corroborate the observed cancer increases. - The authors suggest these increases can be explained by “gene expression chaos” documented in their other studies. - They also cite “genomic integration” seen in stage four cancer patients as part of the mechanism behind the observed cancer risks. The overall message presented is that there is a widespread, vaccine-associated rise in cancer incidence, supported by the Italian and Korean population data, and reinforced by their cited molecular and genomic observations. The speakers conclude that this situation is a disaster that must be acknowledged immediately.

- "Turbo cancer was framed by mainstream media as being basically a myth, but it's not anymore." - "Now it is in the scientific peer reviewed literature, an entire manuscript dedicated on COVID nineteen vaccine induced turbo cancer." - "Unusually aggressive cancers that kind of just like they start with a small tumor, they get the shot, and then they have like 50 tumors or this single tumor grows into a large mass and then they end up dying shortly thereafter." - "So these turbo cancers are usually seen in young individuals as outlined in that study." - "You don't see these cancers in these young individuals and there's so many different mechanisms biologically that the protein does indeed induce cancer." - "One is hyper inflammation makes the body primed for cancerous growths." - "One is genetic dysregulation, gene expression chaos." - "And another one is it literally suppresses tumor suppressor genes, p53 and BRCA, BRCA."

The speaker claims to have identified 13 mechanisms by which mRNA vaccines can induce or promote cancer, asserting that even one is sufficient to warrant an immediate ban. They attribute the rise in "turbo cancers" in young people to these vaccines, despite media outlets citing diet or environmental factors. The speaker alleges government censorship prevents open discussion about vaccine risks, with editors and producers reportedly discouraged from publishing anything that might undermine public confidence in vaccines. They argue the vaccines are ineffective and dangerous, particularly for young people, and that statistical modeling supporting their use is flawed. The speaker highlights an article in the Mail on Sunday where they and James Royal asserted a causal link between the vaccines and cancer, citing cases of relapsed and new stage four cancers. They criticize the medical community for not routinely collecting patients' vaccine histories and dismissing any potential association. The speaker believes the risk of cancer increases exponentially with each vaccine dose.

Speaker 0: The very first two population studies that looked at COVID nineteen vaccines and cancer risk both found massive increases in multiple cancers. And these two studies, one of them is from Italy. One of them followed 300,000 Italians for about thirty months. That was the first one that found about twenty three percent increased risk of overall cancer hospitalizations. And they also found increases about forty to sixty percent increases in breast cancer hospitalizations, in colorectal cancer, as well as bladder cancer, and leukemia lymphoma. Now we have this new study that just came out that out of South Korea that looked at over eight million Koreans and looked at the cancer risks after vaccination there, and they corroborated the Italian data and even expanded on it. And they found about twenty six percent increase in overall cancer. But they also found increases across six major types of cancer including gastric, thyroid, colorectal, breast, all sorts of cancers were increased, very rare cancers. So this is an absolute disaster, and it corroborates all the experimental evidence. It's now confirmed that these shots have unleashed a turbo cancer epidemic. The datasets corroborate, and we can now explain it with the gene expression chaos we are seeing as documented in our other studies as well as the genomic integration we are seeing in stage four cancer patients. This is a disaster. This has to be acknowledged immediately.

The speaker claims to have identified 13 mechanisms by which mRNA vaccines can induce or promote cancer, asserting that even one is sufficient to warrant an immediate ban. They attribute the rise of "turbo cancers" in young people to the vaccines, despite media outlets citing diet or environmental factors. The speaker alleges government censorship prevents open discussion about vaccine risks, with editors and producers reportedly considering it a crime to undermine public confidence in them. They state the vaccines are ineffective and dangerous, with benefits existing only in statistical models. They criticize COVID modeling for being consistently inaccurate and exaggerating the severity of the pandemic. The speaker highlights a Mail on Sunday article where they and James Royal argued that the vaccines cause cancer, citing relapsed cancers and new stage four cancers in healthy individuals. They conducted a survey revealing that they were the only doctor asking patients about their vaccine history, while other doctors deny any association between the vaccines and cancer.

A scientist reports an increase in cancer cases worldwide after the rollout of experimental injections. CDC data confirms this trend, with a significant increase in cancer cases. The spike protein in these injections binds to the p53 gene, leading to cancer pathways opening up. There are numerous harmful effects caused by the spike protein, and the scientist is concerned about the lack of long-term safety studies for these products. The lipid nanoparticles in Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, not intended for human or veterinary use, have been administered to over 5 billion people. The J&J vaccine, containing a carcinogenic substance, was quietly pulled from the market. The NIH is withholding information on cancer pathways and forced the retraction of a scientific paper. These injections also affect the immune system's ability to function properly, impacting cancer prevention. The scientist apologizes for those who received these injections without informed consent and urges action at the local level to stop further harm.

Speaker 0: Let's start with I had predicted, unfortunately, and I hate that I am right. I predicted before the vaccines were ever launched to the public that they would have a profound impact on the immune system. And as a result of that alone, would likely cause increased cancer rates just because of their immunological impact. So let's start, if you would, just by talking a little bit about what you are seeing in the data, in the numbers with regard to cancers, what kinds of cancers, those sorts of things. And then maybe we'll get into the weeds, you and I, about perhaps some of the pathology of that, why that might be, some theories for why we're seeing these numbers. Speaker 1: You know, Doctor. Kelly, I've been tracking these turbo cancers as they're being called, these very aggressive cancers that are showing up in young COVID vaccinated people. The youngest case I've reported is a 12 year old boy who had a Moderna vaccine and came down with, end stage brain cancer that killed him in less than a year. I'm seeing it in teenagers in university and college students who are mandated to take COVID vaccines. People in their twenties, thirties, forties, fifties are coming down with stage four cancers. These cancers are presenting at a late stage, stage three, but usually stage four. These are lymphomas, leukemias, these are breast cancers, colon cancers, lung cancers, hepatobiliary cancers, testicular cancers in young men, ovarian cancers in women, kidney cancers, renal cell cancers, melanomas, skin cancers, and sarcomas as well. So these are the types of cancers that are showing up in a younger cohort than oncologists expect. They're showing up at a late stage. The tumors can grow very large. So some of these tumors are described as football sized, even watermelon sized, you know, these are ten, fifteen centimeter tumors, and they're very aggressive and and they really they spread very rapidly. Even when the surgeons are trying to get at them, trying to surgically excise them so that they could control the tumor, what they usually find after surgery is that the tumor has already spread. It's already spread to the lymph nodes, it's already spread to the lungs or the bones, very aggressive cancers, and really related to the COVID-nineteen vaccine specifically, and mRNA vaccines, the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. Speaker 0: One of the things, me just step back for a second, because one of the things that might not be known to our audience is that all cancers are not created equal with regard to the population that they hit. You know, for example, we not uncommonly and tragically see certain blood cancers in children leukemias, for example. It wouldn't be uncommon, to to see a brain tumor, brain cancers sometimes in young children. It would be extraordinarily uncommon to see a colon cancer in somebody before the fourth or fifth decade. Very uncommon to see a lung cancer before the fourth or fifth decade. Those sorts of things, extremely uncommon to see. So some of these cancers that we are seeing, and I think you're getting at that, things like these colon cancers, we are now seeing colon cancers in people in their late teens, twenties, and thirties. And again, as you said, very aggressive colon cancers. So it's not just that cancers per se, but it's seeing cancers in in groups of people in whom they'd never seen before. So let's in terms of just to put some magnitude on it. In terms of give us some sense of the magnitude versus what we would have considered to be the baseline numbers. Speaker 1: You know, it's very hard to get a sense of this because it's almost impossible to get good cancer data from from the governments. Know, Ed Dowd has talked about this, the difficulty of getting good data. You know, I've tried to get cancer data here in Canada from Statistics Canada, from the Canadian Cancer Society, and they are not reporting any data from 2021 or 2022. It seems they're holding this data back. And so I'm left with anecdotal evidence. When Ed Dowd, you know, he'll report from US insurance data that disability rates, in the working population, let's say, eighteen to sixty four, who abided by the COVID vaccine mandates, disability rates are 500% higher compared to the working population who dropped out of the workforce and didn't want to get the vaccines. Well, a big portion of those disabilities are these cancers, are these cancer diagnoses. And so, you know, I'm seeing an explosion of these cancers. I'm seeing it in doctors. I'm seeing it in nurses. I'm seeing it in other vaccine mandated professions. So all types of healthcare workers, I'm seeing it in teachers, I'm seeing it in police officers, firefighters, the military. You know, you see it in flight attendants, for example, you know, you had these airlines that wanted to have 100% vaccinated workforce. So really anywhere where there were very strict COVID vaccine mandates, that's where I'm seeing these explosions of these very aggressive cancers. And I can tell you, this year, '23, seems to be much worse. There's many more cases of these turbo cancers than in 2022 or 2021. The trend is upwards. The numbers are on the rise. You can see this on websites like GoFundMe. If you go on GoFundMe and you put stage four cancer and you can pick whatever cancer you want, you could put, you know, breast cancer, you could put lung cancer, colon cancer. Not only are you seeing the shocking ages, young ages of these individuals who are reporting their cancers and their fundraising because, you know, they lose their jobs when they're undergoing chemotherapy, for example, by you see just how many people are suffering are coming down from these cancers, especially in 2023. It's just unbelievable. It's a tsunami of cancer diagnosis.

Many people have received COVID shots for various reasons, but there are significant concerns regarding their safety. Reports indicate rising cases of autoimmune diseases, heart inflammation, and neurological issues, including cancer. The lipid nanoparticle mRNA technology used in these vaccines has not proven to be safe long-term. Studies show these shots can suppress the immune system, particularly affecting T cells, which are crucial for fighting infections and cancer. This immune suppression may contribute to the emergence of more aggressive cancers, termed "turbo cancers," as observed by pathologists. Data from insurance and disability datasets reveal alarming increases in cancer cases following the vaccine rollout, raising serious concerns about public health.

This study looked at the population of South Korea and there were over 8,000,000 people who were vaccinated there and they drew from that population as well as several 100,000 who were not vaccinated for the comparison control group. They did a multivariate analysis where they found other variables associated with cancer and canceled those out. They eliminated any people who had had cancer or suspicion of cancer previously, so all these folks had never had cancer and they followed them for one full year from the time of their most recent injection or one full year from a picked reference date for the control group. What they found was quite astonishing because overall at twelve months, there was a substantially higher number of cancers found in the vaccinated group, and this comprised six different cancers that had a higher risk. You can see this on the forest plot that I’ll have up on screen, that this included thyroid cancer, gastric cancer, colorectal cancer, lung cancer, prostate cancer. All of those were elevated in the vaccinated group and the prostate and lung cancer were more than a fifty percent increase. This new technology is very risky and we can't say conclusively that it caused cancer, but certainly this is a very alarming finding and needs more research to back it up.

Traveling the country, the speaker has heard anecdotes from physicians about unusual cancer cases following the rollout of boosters. In Florida, one physician reported seeing five kidney cancers in young patients in one month, whereas they usually see one per decade. A chief of oncology reported seeing five astrocytoma brain cancers in young patients after the booster rollout, when they usually see one per year. Another physician reported their 21-year-old son developed salivary gland cancer after getting a booster. The speaker claims these are not normal cancers, and they've heard of patients with stable cancer or who have been cancer-free for years developing stage four disease after getting vaccinated. Doctors in France and the UK have allegedly confirmed similar observations, and a family doctor from Ireland reported seeing the "weirdest cancers" after the shot rollout. The speaker concludes that these anecdotes suggest something is wrong.

It is claimed that Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 mRNA vaccines cause extremely aggressive cancers called turbo cancers, but the medical establishment is allegedly ignoring this. An oncologist, Dr. David Gorsky, who has received funding from Jeffrey Epstein, has written articles claiming this is a made-up phenomenon. However, thousands of people are reportedly experiencing extremely aggressive cancers after taking the vaccines. The top five turbo cancers are lymphoma, brain cancers (glioblastomas), breast cancers, colon cancers, and lung cancers. Mainstream media is allegedly starting to acknowledge the rise of aggressive cancers in young people but are not allowed to link it to the vaccines. Turbo cancers are reportedly resistant to conventional treatments like chemotherapy, radiation, and immunotherapy. Oncologists will allegedly provide standard treatments, but when those fail, patients are sent home to die. It is claimed that oncologists will not recommend alternative treatments to protect their licenses and jobs, so it's important to have an alternative cancer treatment plan.

Nicholas Holcher, an epidemiologist and foundation administrator at the McCullough Foundation, appears on the WiderWake Media Podcast to discuss what he calls harms from the mRNA COVID vaccines and to critique mainstream approaches to the pandemic and public health policy. - Vaccine definitions and mRNA technology - Pre-2000 definition: a vaccine is an injectable or oral product that introduces a killed part of a virus or an inactivated form to the body so that encountering a wild-type version would not infect or would cause a less severe illness. - He asserts that mRNA injections are not vaccines: they are a gene transfer platform using modified messenger RNA with long persistence in the body (via N1-methylpseudouridine), delivered in lipid nanoparticles. He claims these bubbles distribute systemically, including to the brain, heart, bone marrow, and reproductive system, and that they instruct cells to produce a spike protein, effectively turning organs into “toxic spike protein production factories.” He says this leads to autoimmune attack on those tissues and contributes to adverse events, including myocarditis, strokes, immune destruction, and “turbo cancers.” - History and purpose of mRNA in vaccines - According to Holcher, work on this technology existed for decades but animals testing showed high mortality or sterilization in ferrets and mice, preventing approval except under a declared global emergency. He contends the COVID-19 crisis enabled emergency use authorization across Western countries, with ulterior aims to inject the globe with mRNA technology. - Global impact and uptake - He estimates about 70% of the global population received at least one COVID-19 injection (mRNA or viral vector). He notes Eastern countries used non-mRNA platforms (e.g., AstraZeneca/J&J in some places; Sinovac elsewhere) but that uptake in the West was high. - Harms and evidence - Excess deaths: cites a study by Dennis Brancourt et al. estimating around 17 million deaths worldwide as a result of COVID injections (as of September 2023); he claims US deaths could be in the hundreds of thousands to millions. - Turbo cancers: cites multiple studies in 2023 showing increased risk of seven cancer types (colorectal, bladder, breast, thyroid, prostate, etc.) in vaccinated groups; cites a major cancer journal, OncoTarget, reporting hundreds of turbo cancer cases across 27 countries, with Pfizer contributing most cases. Holcher also mentions his own group’s work with Neo7 Bioscience documenting genomic integration of vaccine-derived mRNA in a stage IV bladder cancer patient (31-year-old woman) with a segment of mRNA found in circulating tumor DNA on chromosome 19; another study reported thousands of dysregulated genes in post-vaccine cancers, including p53, KRAS, and BRCA. - Definition of turbo cancer: per Merrick et al., rapid, aggressive tumor progression with sudden onset and early metastasis, often in younger individuals, and resistant to treatment. - Fertility, pregnancy, and autism - Fertility: cites studies suggesting fertility impacts, including Karaman et al. finding depletion of primordial follicles in rats after mRNA vaccination; Manichi et al. reporting 33% lower conception rates in vaccinated women in Denmark; a study indicating a ~20% drop in sperm concentration and motility with no recovery over five months. - Autism: asserts a large body of evidence linking vaccines to neurodevelopmental disorders, citing a 136-study review with 107 studies finding positive associations between vaccines and neurodevelopmental issues, including autism, attributed to toxicity and immune system disruption, particularly in children with high vaccine exposure and reduced detox capacity (CYP450 impairment). - Other topics tied to vaccines and public response - The COVID-19 period and vaccine skepticism: claims the pandemic catalyzed a large anti-vaccine movement because people were compelled to take an experimental gene therapy product. - Sam Altman and gene editing: discusses Altman’s Preventive venture with the aim to reduce heritable diseases via in utero gene editing but warns of the path to designer babies and the potential for harm in early-iteration edits, citing prior CRISPR experiments on human embryos that produced deformed offspring or nonviable results. - AI, workers, and future society: predicts two-tier society with implanted or enhanced individuals and a replacement of human labor by robots and AI systems; discusses military and surveillance ambitions in gene editing and AI augmentation. - Mental health and digital life: references a randomized trial showing that turning off mobile Internet improved depression scores and well-being to an extent comparable to or greater than antidepressants. - World Health Organization (WHO): notes the US has pulled out of the WHO, arguing this is good for the US but potentially harmful for others still in the organization; expresses concerns about the pandemic treaty and ongoing global health governance, including vaccine passport-style surveillance. - FDA and public health policy: acknowledges some shifts (e.g., cutting doses from the childhood schedule) but argues the FDA remains compromised and too aligned with vaccine industry interests; criticizes the removal of a potential black box warning for vaccines and calls for more accountability. - Resources and contact - Holcher invites listeners to follow him on X (Twitter) at @nichulsher and to read their work on focalpoints.com and through McCullough’s network. Note: The transcript presents Holcher’s claims and interpretations about vaccines, turbo cancers, autism, fertility, and policy changes. The summary reproduces these points without endorsement or evaluation.

Speaker 0 argues that, when re-examining the data from the original study, the raw numbers reveal a different pattern than what the study’s modeling suggested. Specifically, they state that, in the raw proportions, every single one of the 22 chronic disease categories was proportionally higher in the vaccinated group. This includes cancer, which the study reportedly treated as a control condition and claimed there was no difference for. According to Speaker 0, the study’s use of cancer as a control is at odds with the raw data they observed. They claim that there was a difference in cancer outcomes, contrary to the study’s implication of no difference. They emphasize that, with rare outcomes, the modeling employed in the original analysis is not very reliable, and as a result, the study did not perform any basic proportional analysis. Speaker 0 states that when they performed a basic proportional analysis themselves, cancer was fifty-four percent higher in the vaccinated group compared to the unvaccinated children. They mention that this result is “explained biologically” and assert that there is biological plausibility behind it. Key points: - Raw proportions show all 22 chronic disease categories higher in the vaccinated group, including cancer. - The original study used cancer as a control and claimed no difference, which Speaker 0 disputes based on the raw data. - Modeling for rare outcomes is described as not very reliable. - A basic proportional analysis by Speaker 0 indicates cancer is 54% higher in the vaccinated group versus the unvaccinated. - A biological explanation or plausibility is asserted for the observed cancer difference in the vaccinated group.

COVID deaths in the U.S. are estimated at 2 million, with around 18 million worldwide. Recent U.S. government data indicates a staggering 143,233% increase in cancer cases attributed to COVID vaccinations.