mRNA Cancer Risk Goes Mainstream

Article in The Atlantic tries to downplay covid vaccine cancer risk, but what do they know? Probably, they are trying to get ahead of the narrative. Shameful.

Finally, an article you can send to your mainstream news guzzling friends to warn them of the mRNA cancer risk…if it’s not already too late.

Just published yesterday in The Atlantic:

DID A FAMOUS DOCTOR’S COVID SHOT MAKE HIS CANCER WORSE?

A lifelong promoter of vaccines suspects he might be the rare, unfortunate exception.

Michel Goldman, a Belgian immunologist, described as “one of Europe’s best-known champions of medical research” already had cancer (caused by his first two Pfizer shots?) when he got a covid booster.

And that third shot seems to clearly have made the cancer worse. Numerous new lesions literally showed up in the arm used for his booster…and throughout his body. Emphasis mine:

Serge’s bushy eyebrows furrowed when he spoke with Michel after having seen the scans. (“I will always remember his face, it was just incredible,” Michel told me.) The pictures showed a brand-new barrage of cancer lesions—so many spots that it looked like someone had set off fireworks inside Michel’s body. More than that, the lesions were now prominent on both sides of the body, with new clusters blooming in Michel’s right armpit in particular, and along the right side of his neck.

When Michel’s hematologist saw the scan, she told him to report directly to the nearest hospital pharmacy. He’d have to start on steroid pills right away, she told him. Such a swift progression for lymphoma in just three weeks was highly unusual, and he could not risk waiting a single day longer.

As he followed these instructions, Michel felt a gnawing worry that his COVID booster shot had somehow made him sicker. His brother was harboring a similar concern. The asymmetrical cluster of cancerous nodes around Michel’s left armpit on the initial scan had already seemed “a bit disturbing,” as his brother said; especially given that Michel’s first two doses of vaccine had been delivered on that side. Now he’d had a booster shot in the other arm, and the cancer’s asymmetry was flipped.

In short, his initial cancer was clustered around the left arm, where he got his first two mRNA covid shots. He then got his booster shot in his right arm, and new cancer lesions showed up in his armpit and along the right side of his neck.

There are no words.

Seems pretty clear cut to me.

What follows in this article is a ton of gaslighting, cognitive dissonance, and excuses.

I would still recommend reading the whole thing through yourself, but here are a few things that stuck out at me.

The brothers knew this might be just an eerie coincidence. But they couldn’t shake the feeling that Michel had experienced what would be a very rare yet life-threatening side effect of COVID vaccination. For a doctor who had spent four decades studying and advocating for new medicines, that feeling would unfold into many months of deliberation and self-doubt. Michel used to run an institute for vaccine-technology research, and he’s spoken out to reassure the public about the safety of the COVID vaccines, and of the mRNA vaccines in particular. In December 2020, he told an interviewer that “if there was a real problem with the technology, we’d have seen it before now for sure.” His “main concern,” he continued, was that people would use the mere possibility of side effects “as an argument not to be vaccinated.”

Let’s repeat what immunologist Michel Goldman is quoted as saying here: “if there was a real problem with the technology, we’d have seen it before now for sure.” This is in reference to them doing trials of mRNA cancer vaccines since 2011.

First of all, cancer isn’t covid, and second of all, if you are giving mRNA to people who already have cancer, to fight cancer, and people with cancer tend to get progressively worse anyway, wouldn’t there be some potential problems that might be hidden here?

I’m reminded of the mysterious TikTok guy who claimed he was in a 2013 mRNA study of 200,000 people and almost everyone died except 5 people.

I’m also further wondering…if they have been studying these mRNA cancer vaccines since 2011, and they are so safe and wonderful, why haven’t they been released to the public yet? It only took them less than a year to push out mRNA covid shots…so what’s the holdup if it’s so safe?

Alrighty, let’s look at another fragment of this article:

When we talked about the potential side effects of the AstraZeneca vaccine last year, Michel made it clear that, in the big picture, any chance of serious complications from the shots would be orders of magnitude smaller than the chance of complications from the pandemic illness itself. If COVID vaccines caused clotting disorders or myocarditis in a tiny percentage of those who received them, he assured me, COVID would lead to stroke or heart inflammation in a much larger group.

Let’s just say this last statement is true. You cannot and should never be able to mandate vaccines that carry a risk of death…to everyone on the planet…because of a possible risk of problems from an illness. And this statement is also ridiculous in that the risk of myocarditis from a shot is far greater in younger people who have a much lesser chance of heart inflammation from covid itself.

I’m just struck with the utilitarianism here. Basically, these people believe that we should kill a few people with their vaccines in case a few more people die of a disease.

How about this instead? No-one should die from any medical treatment or intervention, especially vaccines!

Why aren’t these immunologists trying to figure out why some people react to vaccines and come up with different types of vaccines for different people to make them safer? Nope. Let’s just write off a small percentage of people and say it’s “rare.” Who cares if they die?

Yeesh.

So now The Atlantic writer goes into overdrive and hypes up the “dangers” of so-called “vaccine misinformation” (emphasis mine):

Michel knew that by speaking out about another potential rare effect—especially without hard proof—he’d be introducing a different kind of risk. Recent years had already seen a rise in anti-vaccine disinformation, and protesters have thrown menstrual blood at state legislators and issued death threats to public-health officials. Fearmongers have made the problem worse by citing scary-sounding data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, a U.S. government database of possible side effects from immunizations, with insufficient context. In Europe, French police used tear gas to disperse anti-vaccine protesters who were aiming fireworks at officers in July of 2021; a vaccination center was set ablaze in Poland a few weeks later. Michel was well aware of all this trend; in fact, he’d been sounding the alarm about the spread of vaccine misinformation online before the pandemic even started. If he shared his own experience of cancer, might that make the problem worse?

“Protesters have thrown menstrual blood at state legislators”? Huh. Are we talking about a pro-choice protest? I’ll bet this same writer would gush (excuse the pun) if blood were being thrown at Republican pro-life politicians. By the way, that sentence is actually a lie. It was not “protesters” but a solo act by a singular female protestor who was against childhood vaccine mandates; and it happened in 2019 prior to covid.

See how this stuff gets spun? But most people won’t take the time to check the story and just buy into this hyperbolic vision of hoards of scary anti-vaxxers flinging blood everywhere. So disingenuous.

But what gets me about this paragraph is that this guy “Michel” (like he’s the writer’s best friend) is more concerned about “vaccine misinformation” than actually saving people from potentially getting CANCER.

Here’s more…the article covers the online reaction after the paper about his cancer case was published (emphasis mine):

“I would say that 95 percent of the reactions were extremely friendly,” Michel told me later. But as he’d feared, anti-vaccine activists picked up on the story. “The lymph nodes of those who have taken these shots are exploding, burgeoning, and bulging with this toxic bioweapon,” a right-wing influencer named Jane Ruby wrote on Telegram beneath a screenshot of Michel’s CT scans, which had appeared in his published paper (and are reproduced in this article). “LYMPHOMA - That’s right… Cancer of the lymphatic system … STOP THIS FROM GETTING INTO BABIES AND CHILDREN!!!!!” Ruby’s claims were amplified on Natural News, among other anti-vaccination sites where, again, the very images that Michel’s brother had used to diagnose his illness were presented as shocking evidence of vaccination’s dangers. “PHOTOS: LYMPHOMA CANCER EXPLODING IN THE BOOSTED,” one website said.

First of all, I’m not a fan of Dr. Ruby, but notice how The Atlantic writer here doesn’t mention her title and focuses on her being a “right-wing influencer.” Dr. Ruby is not a medical doctor, but she has two doctoral degrees in Education and Psychology and two Masters Degrees in Nursing and International Health Economics. She apparently also has clinical experience as a nurse practitioner, which is basically a nurse/doctor hybrid.

I find Dr. Ruby to be a bit hyperbolic in her presentation, but her credentials aren’t actually that bad.

But I have to say, this line is just stunning in its cognitive dissonance:

…where, again, the very images that Michel’s brother had used to diagnose his illness were presented as shocking evidence of vaccination’s dangers.

Horrors! How dare they use the very images of pervasive cancer as “shocking” evidence of “vaccination’s dangers.”

Does this writer even stop to reread what she just wrote?

Oh, by the way. It’s not all vaccinations. Just mRNA covid vaccinations. (As far as we know of.)

When I told Michel about these online posts, he shook his head in disappointment. “They’re looking for anything to support their crazy vision,” he said. “It makes me sad about the world in which we are living.” That’s not to say he was surprised. Michel knew, for instance, that medical experts have dispelled false rumors about vaccines infecting people with COVID-19. He told me that he’d obsessed over getting the tone of the manuscript exactly right, so as not to fuel vaccine skepticism. He was careful, for example, to describe the vaccine as possibly “inducing” the “progression” of his cancer—rather than “causing” it to surface. “I spent hours and hours,” he said. “I’ve never spent so much time on details in a paper.”

Our best bud Michel says: “They’re looking for anything to support their crazy vision,” he said. “It makes me sad about the world in which we are living.”

Actually, it makes me sad that there is a clear correlation between your booster shot and rapidly spreading lymphoma, and here you are mincing words trying to protect your precious vaccines from scrutiny. The vaccine can possibly “induce” the “progression” of cancer, rather than “causing” it?

Definition of induce from Dictionary.com (emphasis mine):

to lead or move by persuasion or influence, as to some action or state of mind:
to induce a person to buy a raffle ticket.

to bring about, produce, or cause:
That medicine will induce sleep.

Does this writer at The Atlantic actually know what “induce” means?

Basically, he’s saying the vaccine possibly caused the progression of his cancer. “Full stop” as the Twitterati say.

Let’s continue on to see more of how the writer spins all this bad news:

But the scientific literature is sprinkled with odd cases like Michel’s that have puzzled doctors. The Goldmans’ paper follows earlier isolated reports suggesting a possible link between COVID-19 vaccination and lymphoma. Aaron Mangold, who heads the division of clinical dermatology at the Mayo Clinic in Arizona, co-authored a paper published in May 2021 about a patient whose rare skin lymphoma recurred after his initial Pfizer shot. The tumorous ulcer appeared in the armpit of the same arm in which the man had received the injection, and then regressed spontaneously. A second shot of the vaccine, delivered three weeks later, produced no further lesions, Mangold told me, and the whole ordeal could have simply been a coincidence. He felt that he’d been “threading the needle” to go public with the case report given that uncertainty.

In other words, these researchers are self-censoring because they are terrified that people might not want to get vaccinated.

Newsflash, Researchers: People already know this stuff is happening whether you want to admit it or not. We’ve seen it up close and personal with our friends, family, and loved ones. Imagine a big collective middle finger pointing at you right now.

Let’s continue:

Ladan Zand, a nephrologist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, faced the same conundrum when she co-authored a paper last year detailing five patients who had a relapse of kidney disease following mRNA COVID vaccination. Her team also documented eight patients who were newly diagnosed with the disease, known as glomerulonephritis, after receiving the shot. But Zand cautions that those patients might have had underlying kidney disease and not been aware of it. People infected with the novel coronavirus also show higher rates of kidney-function decline over time. “I spend half of my visits now asking patients to get vaccinated,” she said. “If you were to compare the risks and benefits, the benefits of the vaccine way outweigh the risk of rare entities that, for the most part, seem to be self-limiting.”

Wow. The cognitive dissonance is strong in this one. Writes a paper about kidney disease relapse after mRNA shots. Then goes into massive denial and tries to wave off any new cases by saying “maybe they already had it and we just didn’t know.” Then spends “half of” her visits with patients pestering them to get vaccinated.

Some of these doctors may be outright insane.

Here’s one who at least sees the problem but then tries to rationalize it by allegedly saying, “Well, it’s only one patient”:

William Murphy, an immunologist at UC Davis, told me that Michel’s before-and-after CT scans were fascinating in the context of the mouse study from Columbia. The cancer’s behavior certainly appeared to be related to the vaccine, he said, “given the huge difference in the scans of the tumor progression in a very short period of time.” But one can’t be certain, however striking the data. It’s just a case report, he added—one patient.

Actually, I think we should give the immunologist the benefit of the doubt here. I strongly suspect the reporter propagandist added this rationalization at the end in this case. I’ve been interviewed by the press enough times to know they will outright fabricate your quotes when they want to.

Then there’s this:

The Goldmans’ paper, for its part, notes that it would be “premature” to extrapolate the findings from Michel to other patients with the same kind of cancer, and that the link, even if it were proved, should not discourage general uptake of “much-needed vaccines.” An unusual paragraph tacked onto the bottom of the article underscores the point. Marked “Patient Perspective,” and written in the third person, it notes that Michel himself “remains convinced that mRNA vaccines represent very efficient products with a favorable benefit-risk ratio,” and that he hopes the report will encourage further research.

Good God. We have a brand new vaccine technology being shot into the arms of little children, and it’s premature to warn people of this potential risk? And he still thinks this risk of systemic, terminal cancer is a favorable risk-benefit ratio?

I generally don’t wish cancer on people, but…I’m having a hard time sympathizing with this guy.

This is horrific.

I’m only guessing that his own cognitive dissonance is inspiring these ludicrous statements. He just doesn’t want to admit he killed himself with the Pfizer vaccines.

As for The Atlantic article…what this tells me is this:

• They (meaning the public health apparatchiks) now know the cancer risk is real, and probably worse than they are saying.

• They can’t keep the genie in the bottle anymore. The story is getting out.

• They are now doing pre-emptive damage control to frame the narrative, so that people have it impressed in their minds that the cancer risk is “very rare.”

• They are furthermore equating any calls to action about said cancer risk as fueling “vaccine misinformation” and putting you in league with “right-wing influencers.”

• They will furthermore keep cancer victims in the dark as much as possible and isolated from one another, to maintain this perception of “rarity.”

• We’ll also see stories of many other things now suddenly causing cancers, especially in children.

• Big Pharma will get to profit off of more cancer treatments.

• Politicians will pat themselves on the back for their “war on cancer.”

It’s already starting. I just wrote about two weeks ago:

Perhaps not coincidentally, the media is now pushing a narrative about younger and younger people getting cancer. Citing a new study, here’s a story with the somewhat misleading headline, Young People Are Getting Way More Cancer Than Old People Did:

It's important to note, of course, that senior citizens and people over the age of 50 are still being diagnosed with more cancer than young people. And young people still aren't getting cancer too much in absolute terms. According to the National Cancer Institute, there are fewer than 25 cases per 100,000 people in age groups under age 20, about 350 cases per 100,000 people among people 45–49, and more than 1,000 cases per 100,000 people in those who are 60 years and older.

This study, however, says early-onset cancer may be the next global epidemic, and that future generations may be even more likely to develop the disease.

If this mRNA cancer link is for real, that writer from the Atlantic is literally helping kids get cancer.

Ethics, people?

If there is any real risk of a new vaccine technology causing sudden and rapid cancers, even in a small number of people, it should be pulled off the market immediately.

In the least, stop giving it to children, goddammit.

What is wrong with you people?