Would you like a turbo cancer with that?

The "Turbo Cancer is a myth" myth is a low point even for Big Pharma and their pseudoscience cronies.

Although it might have been quiet on this substack for a few weeks there has been a lot of activity in the background which takes time to collate, and so here we are.

Today’s article is hopefully going to answer the question about whether "Turbo Cancer” (a) exists and (b) is a consequence, or possible consequence of the imposition of a genetic vaccine platform on the global population.

Turbo Cancer is a Myth: Wikipedia

The first thing that need clearing up is “where did the Turbo Cancer phrase come from?”

If you’re in the field you might think this is a made up term but it really exemplifies the idea of a rapidly progressive cancer, that is one that is progressing or spreading much faster than you would be used to. Most oncologists know how the cancers they treat progress and so can give you an idea of what to expect. A prostate cancer in an elderly person for instance would normally take years to progress, so getting growing secondaries in a few months would be unusual. Similarly for a small breast cancer that was surgically removed or treated with radiotherapy which would be expected to be cured with the first line of treatment.

So you would think “Turbo Cancer” would be embedded in the oncologists lexicon from old, but it isn’t. In fact the first mentions were coming from twitter towards the end of 2022 and beginning of 2023. Here is Dr Charles Hoffe talking about it back in January 2023 as a relatively new phenomenon.

Now Charles is a family doctor rather than an oncologist, but there were certainly oncologists noticing a pattern of rapidly progressive cancers around that time, such as the highly respected Angus Dalgleish who was basically forced out of his position for talking about it, and more recently James Royle a colorectal surgeon who clearly laid out the evolution of this new phenomenon on John Campbell’s Youtube channel here

Here’s Angus Dalgleish talking about it in more depth on Sky News on the 24th November here

So if it wasn’t a term in common use in oncology (it still doesn’t appear on PubMed) and oncologists were talking about it in early 2023, surely it’s actually a thing? Well not according to Wikipedia. Here’s what it says as of today:

Ah, well that seals it then. It’s an “anti-vaccination conspiracy theory”. Because wikipedia articles like this are written by oncologists and scientists aren’t they?

Well here is the author, Guy Chapman, moose knuckle included.

He has a long history of controversy over his role as a wikipedia editor and really exemplifies the problem with wikipedia. That is, amateurs and those with a political narrative can ensure that that narrative prevails.

The Big Guns Roll In

Presumably the discussions on twitter sparked the interest of the pharma cartel because Helen Petousis-Harris (New Zealand’s chief “vaccinologist”) soon rolled up in her Pfizer sponsored virtual Bentley to debunk us all by creating a new substack account just to embarrass us all on our own turf. Then fell completely flat on her face.

If you really want to spend ten minutes on the internet equivalent of pulling your own teeth out with rusty pliers you could check it out here (archived here because it is likely that she will delete it, it’s that embarrassing)

Helen Petousis-Harris debut substack dedicated to “antivaxxers and conspiracy theorists”. Lollipops, stars, rainbows and spirals have been added by me because the substack itself is so dull

So, who is Helen Petousis-Harris?

Well she’s a VACCINOLOGIST. And not just any vaccinologist but a “leading vaccinologist” according to Stuff magazine

And here she is explaining the mechanism of action with those fluffy and friendly lipid nanoparticles (the things that get the RNA - and the residual DNA that they forgot to clean up - directly into your cells) but failing to mention that transfection (the delivery of foreign genetic material into your cells otherwise known as gene therapy¹) is a seriously risky business when applied to a live human.

Apart from rejoicing in the fluffy “nifty” nanoparticles Helen also gets lost in the excitement of the -70 degree freezers that were never actually used (presumably because Pfizer only cared about injecting the contaminant DNA into the population, which is not affected by storage temperature).

Anyway, obviously Helen is a real expert. Because she’s a “vaccinologist”. And what’s a vaccinologist? Well, it’s someone who did a two week course at the Merieux Foundation, which is wholly funded by the pharmaceutical corporations and pharma-linked NGO’s like the Gates Foundation and Wellcome trust to give out “certificates of vaccinology” to anyone who is prepared to sell their soul and spend two weeks in their institute singing Kumbaya and stuff.

The Merieux foundation credit themselves with the Brazilian meningitis vaccination drive in 1974 failing to remember that meningitis cases and deaths went up the following year despite (or because of) the vaccination drive which followed an almost identical model to the Brazilian COVID vaccination drive in 2022, ultimately resulting in forced vaccination of the population including children.

Chinese President Xi Jinping meets with President of the Merieux Foundation Alain Merieux and his wife at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing, capital of China, April 8, 2024

So what does the data say?

There are only two options in this space, either Helen Petousis-Vaccinology and her cronies with their pharma sponsored diplomas are correct, or there is a real risk of cancer related to the genetic vaccine platform.

And, obviously we would know if there was a cancer spike wouldn’t we, because our beloved government would be all over it.

Except they aren’t, and we have them on record saying so. Back in 2021 to encourage everyone to “get vaccinated” this is the kind of thing that we were sold² about safety monitoring after the vaccine roll out:

The TGA has overall responsibility for monitoring the safety of medicines and vaccines in Australia. Just this week, the TGA released its plans for monitoring the safety of COVID-19 vaccines.

This includes the timely collection and management of reports of COVID-19 vaccine adverse events, an ability to urgently detect any safety concerns and to communicate safety issues to the public.

But what did the TGA (and by default the MHRA and FDA etc) actually do?

I’ll give you a clue.

That’s right. They did absolutely nothing. Actually worse than nothing because they went out of their way to deflect and obfuscate with multiple redacted FOIs.

Here’s a classic highlighted by the excellent Senator Rennick showing that the TGA had produced an FOI with 70 blacked out pages. Für unsere Sicherheit³, presumably.

So what did the TGA say they had done in terms of monitoring for cancer signals?

Absolutely nothing of course.

Here is the TGA’s response to a simple FOI request asking what monitoring they undertook in relation to specific cancers (TGA FOI 5275). They don’t hold incidence data related to cancer.

That’s it. Carry on. Nothing to see here. And no safety monitoring.

So, in order to see whether there have been any cancer signals we either have to listen to doctors who are talking about Turbo Cancers or if you don’t believe them you have to go to the available data.

Now I talked about this way back in 2022 already in response to the Australian Bureau of Statistics data which had already shown a signal for an increase in cancer deaths…

The Australian Bureau of (Lies, Damned Lies and) Statistics

And independent analyst Ethical Skeptic has been shouting from the rooftops about this based on his assessment of the available CDC data for 2 years.

To make this problem even harder to solve, no country provides real time cancer data.

Sure, they could do it for “COVID” but the same labs that supposedly provided the “real time COVID data” are apparently unable to provide “real time cancer data” even though the mechanisms to do this are no more complex that tracking pap smears.

If they can do it for COVID, they can do it for cancer diagnoses. So either the COVID real time data was fake, or they are choosing not to monitor cancer diagnoses.

But getting back to the question, in Australia there are annual releases of hospital episode data and although this is not exactly cancer data we can see where the bodies are being hidden, if not buried.

It’s far from easy to do because each year the AIHW which supplies the data manages to change the categories to make it really difficult to track. But I’m sure it’s accidental. Anyway here you are⁴.

As you can see from the graph, which looks at only the events in the hospital statistics that are cancer-related and significantly elevated from a baseline, there are a whole bunch of them that could indicate a safety signal for cancer. And bear in mind these data already fit in with the known concerns about cancer risk associated with the COVID vaccines and which were suppressed.

But do you know who hasn’t done this work?

The TGA, the MHRA, the FDA or any of the government entities that are being paid to protect us from corporations that only care about making a quick buck. Nope, that analysis was too difficult for them despite having all the resources available in real time.

Not only have they not done the necessary pharmacovigilance that they promised us, but the regulators didn’t even bother with animal testing for cancer.

No, seriously. It’s in their own documents. They literally excuse by saying that because this genetic therapy biologic is called “vaccine” they don’t need to do cancer studies - because vaccines don’t cause cancer, dontyaknow?

This is what the TGA said:

Now don’t you just feel safe?

“Not expected to have genotoxic potential”

But the question is, could such a drug (a biological mRNA therapy with or without plasmid DNA contamination) induce cancer in its recipient?

Well you’re in the right place to get the answer.

Is it plausible that mRNA vaccines cause cancer?

So putting this another way, the question you should be asking, knowing now that the regulators never test for carcinogenicity (the ability of a drug to induce cancer)…

Are there any feasible mechanisms for the COVID mRNA vaccines to cause cancer if administered in a lipid nanoparticle vector?

Obviously there are only two options here - yes or no. So in the interests of fairness I’ll give you the pharma-government narrative first.

Here is what Helen Petousis-Harris says⁵ in the official rebuttals which are repeated time and time and time again (ad nauseum) by the media (who gain a lot of financial compensation from the pharma industry but claim to be bastions of independence).

Cancer occurs when cells divide out of control. Normally, there are genes that regulate the way in which cells divide, either by speeding it up or slowing it down. To cause cancer, a vaccine would need to interfere with the DNA, particularly the genes that control cell division. There are no components in the vaccine that can do this.

The vaccine cannot, and does not, cause cancer.

In contrast, we have two vaccines in widespread use that prevent cancer, human papillomavirus and hepatitis B vaccines.

Before I debunk Helen Petousis-Harris I’ll just say that it is worth noting the techniques used to “debunk” the claim that there are documented mechanisms for mRNA or DNA genetic therapy products to cause cancer.

What the “factcheckers” do is one of two techniques.

One is a strawman where they find a social media post that says something about the link between COVID vaccines and cancer, and then addresses some detail of the post whilst ignoring the main issue of whether the risk exists.

More commonly though we get something like this:

Well, there is “no evidence” because you specifically didn’t look for it.

Unfortunately it’s left to us to look for it on limited resources and using delayed data as shown above. Bear in mind that we have touched on some of the ways that the plasmid contamination of the COVID vaccines can cause cancer here:

And just to reinforce the point here is a slide from William Makis MD⁶ outlining a non-exhaustive list of ways in which mRNA vaccines of this type and with this proven level of DNA contamination can cause cancer… (and by extension that means can also accelerate cancers that are in their early stages or in remission).

In other words all these mechanisms can create “turbo cancers” given the right circumstances

And what are those mechanisms?

Well here are just some from Andrew’s list with references as always (some of these have been covered before so the substack links are provided)

(1) Insertional mutagenesis from plasmid DNA contamination

(2) Suppression of p53 and related DNA repair proteins

(3) Increase of PD-L1 and IgG4 shift

(4) Activation of cGAS-STING pathways

(5) Activation of microRNA pathways (oncomirs)

(6) SV40 promoter activity

(7) Suppression of TLR pathways

And don’t just take our word for it.

Here’s our exalted AI (on the verge of being your doctor, researcher, oncologist bla bla) in the form of GPT4 outlining⁷ just 5 examples of how one of those mechanisms - insertional mutagenesis - can cause cancer.

1. LMO2 Activation in T-Cell Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia (T-ALL) (ref)

2. MYC Activation in Burkitt Lymphoma (ref)

3. TERT Activation in Multiple Cancers (ref)

4. CCND1 Activation in Mantle Cell Lymphoma (ref)

5. RET Activation in Papillary Thyroid Carcinoma (PTC) (ref)

And again, don’t just take our word for it.

Here is GPT4’s summary of the paper “Mechanisms of Oncogenesis” by Guleria & Sambyal from 2023 with the prompt “summarise in a table the mechanisms of oncogenesis as outlined in this paper”. Note this is not GPT4 providing the answers to the mechanism question, it is just summarising a peer reviewed paper on the subject.

Mechanisms of oncogenesis per Guleria & Sambyal 2023

And if you really want to know how complex this can be our friend Genervter has been working for 3+ years on the pathways disturbed by just the COVID mRNA vaccines resulting in a 7-part substack and another friend Doorless Carp has a 3-part substack just on the subject of the possible mechanisms of cancer arising from interfering with cell pathways using genetic technology biologics.

To get a taste of how complex the cellular pathways that are impacted by messing about with cellular RNA are… here is a simplified (no, I’m not kidding) slide from Genervter’s extensive investigation.

On that slide is just one pathway known to be impacted by COVID RNA vaccines - the Ras-Raf-MAPK pathway - yet it’s one of the most famous pathways involved with the development of cancer. You really don’t want to mess with that unless you know what you are doing, trust me - people have been trying for decades.

So if you think Pfizer and Moderna can just pop along with a gene therapy that doesn’t impact these complex pathways an analogy would be to take a chain saw to a set of blinking traffic lights and say “there, we fixed that blinking light” - and expect nothing else to go wrong.

And yes, again, it’s a gene therapy. The ASGCT, which is the world’s leading gene therapy authority says so (as does legislation from around the world). Here is a clip from their video (sponsored by Pfizer) which clearly describes gene therapy as using DNA or RNA to produce proteins from your cells, which is exactly what the COVID vaccines do.

So just to summarise where we have got to so far:

"Turbo cancer is a myth" is fake news written by a guy who has no qualifications to write it.  

There are a myriad of mechanisms for the COVID genetic vaccines to cause cancer or accelerate existing cancer.

The presence of plasmid DNA contamination is the most important factor making these therapies high risk for cancer.

The authorities are not looking for increases in cancer incidence but the data that exist shows that cancers have increased already.

High profile scientists are brought out to suppress this information but without any knowledge of the mechanisms involved

Don’t take our word for it

Although genetic therapies don’t need to change your DNA to have their effect, the presence of such massive plasmid contamination in the COVID vaccines significantly increases the risk of DNA integration, one of the mechanisms by which cancers can occur.

So, did the regulators look for DNA integration or alteration following COVID vaccines?

Of course not. But they don’t tell you this - you have to sue them for the information.

And yet again, I don’t want you just to take my word for this - the pharma corporations know that this is a problem. It’s in their SEC filings and patents.

And not only did they know about this problem (well this is just one mechanism, there are so many others) they deliberately hid it by hiding the dangerous parts of the plasmid map (the blueprint for making the RNA) that they submitted to the regulators in every country. It’s not even an accident - you can’t generate these maps from standard software without them automatically annotating the dangerous cancer-causing SV40 sequences.

So they took them out before submitting these maps to the FDA, TGA, EMA and MHRA. Of course, what else do you expect from a company that has been convicted of criminal healthcare fraud?

Furthermore, the plasmid contamination problem that Pfizer tried to hide in this way was known about by the FDA two decades ago. Here is what they said about the presence of plasmid contamination and risk of cancer in 2007:

Theoretical concerns regarding DNA integration include the risk of tumorigenisis if insertion reduces the activity of a tumor suppressor or increases the activity of an oncogene. In addition, DNA integration may result in chromosomal instability through the induction of chromosomal breaks or rearrangements.

We recommend that the sensitivity of this assay be sufficient to quantify <100 copies of plasmid per microgram of host DNA. A claim of “non-persistence” requires that the amount of plasmid at each site falls below this limit of quantification.

And how much did the pharma companies and regulators eventually admit to being present in the COVID vaccines (the “safe” 10ng limit)?

A lot. In the GPT discussion referenced earlier, here is the calculation of how much “100 copies per mcg” is in relation to how much was actually in the products

That’s right. Ignoring the fact that independent analysis has identified plasmid DNA contamination of over 10x the allowed limit, the official limit for DNA contamination is nearly two million copies of plasmid DNA. And you only need one plasmid to disrupt the DNA in one cell to cause cancer.

The odds are stacked against you, but nobody told you that when they labelled it a “vaccine” did they?

Worse still, if that contaminating plasmid contains an SV40 element your risk of cancer shoots up. The FDA and TGA and EMA know this, because SV40 contamination of vaccines has happened before.

It’s important to understand that the contamination of the COVID vaccines doesn’t include the whole SV40 virus but the “SV40 promoter/enhancer” which is literally the most dangerous part of the whole virus from a molecular biology perspective. This is because it will turn on any gene it gets next to and never turn it off. If that’s a cell cycle gene and it is active the result will be unregulated growth of any affected cells - which is cancer.

And it’s not just us saying this is a huge risk, every AI engine says so too as does this paper from December. The only people that don’t seem to know about this are the regulators.

But Helen Petousis-Harris says vaccines prevent cancers!

Well now we know what we know let’s go back to the NZ Queen of vaccinology’s statement above:

To cause cancer, a vaccine would need to interfere with the DNA, particularly the genes that control cell division… There are no components in the vaccine that can do this.

Well, clearly Helen doesn’t know what she’s talking about because I have listed above (with evidence from multiple sources) that there are elements that can interfere with DNA AND integrate with it AND cause disruption of cell division genes under the right circumstances.

But because Helen is a “vaccinologist” - not a molecular biologist - she doesn’t care to gain knowledge about such things as p53 and MAPK pathways. Vaccinologists just regurgitate the pharma line that “vaccines don’t cause cancer” completely ignoring that the COVID vaccines are gene therapy, not vaccines.

Even then, it is not known whether “vaccines don’t cause cancer” because there has never been a long term randomised controlled trial to look at this question, which is what is needed: it took 50 years for the realisation that hormone replacement therapy (HRT) caused breast cancer after the pharma companies spent billions (and are still trying) telling us that it didn’t.

The Women’s Health Initiative was one of the few independent non-pharma large studies and demonstrated that pharma had been misrepresenting the risks of breast cancer associated with HRT for years.

So I guess in one way she is right. If you don’t look for cancers and hide your head in the sand you won’t find them. This has a legal term - wilful blindness - and is a form of gross negligence.

Furthermore Helen Petousis-Harris has form. In 2016, a very honourable senior scientist - Dr Sin Han Lee, who had discovered concerning levels of plasmid contamination of HPV vaccines - released a public affidavit alleging serious misconduct from Petousis-Harris and her Pharma cronies including lying in legal documents.

Yet we recently found out the true character of Petousis-Harris after a brutal take down of her false claims on twitter led to her deleting her twitter account and then creating a substack account to try to fight back. Except the substack article that she wrote was not only written by ChatGPT (without declaration) but the prompts used to write the article were switched so that it was clear that parts of the response had been copied and pasted in places to make it look like ChatGPT was giving answers supporting her, when it wasn’t. It was blatant manipulation and she was busted by the mouse who asked her to share the chat link….

…following which she promptly deleted her twitter account then reactivated her account later with a change of name to the ridiculous “Trash Trawler”. No I’m not kidding (you can trace twitter accounts by various methods to show it’s the same account).

This single unnecessary and ridiculous act demonstrated that Helen Petousis-Harris was prepared to fabricate an article to get her way and totally vindicates Dr Sin Han Lee.

But there is more to the story involving Helen Petousis-Harris because one of the reasons that she is rolled out by the media is because she is now director of the Global Vaccine Data Network (GVDN) which is a consortium put together by Big Pharma corporations to tell the population that all their vaccine products are safe.

And of course the GVDN finds that the COVID vaccines are perfectly safe. Which might have something to do with the fact that the GVDN is part of the “Vaccine Safety Net” which is another conglomerate of organisations that include the “Vaccine Confidence Project” whose partners include this motley crew who I’m sure are going to tell you when their drugs are killing people or causing cancers.

And the reason that we know that the GVDN data, published last year completely ignoring the epidemic of cancers, is pharma derived junk, is this universal statement from “large EMR datasets that we have no control over”:

In case you don’t know why that’s a problem you would have to read the last article about synthetic data sets curated and cleaned by pharma companies and regurgitated by academics who have no idea whether they are fake or not.

Pharma Hell on Earth: The Odyssey of Surgisphere

Anyway, back to our GVDN chief Helen. Here she is in 2021 on mainstream TV telling the population that despite people dying after the vaccine it’s not related to the vaccine. Because there is no chance that any of these vaccinologists will admit that any vaccine may cause deaths. [2:19]

Of course Helen’s funding by these pharma companies is never mentioned in any of her appearances, but it’s there. You just have to look for it.

But the “Global Vaccine Data Network” is totally superfluous and seems to be an obvious front for Pharma, who can use it to push their cleaned up version of thae actual vaccine safety monitoring programs such as VAERS (and equivalents around the world).

VAERS of course is the official vaccine safety database. It is the one that was agreed to by pharma when they bullied the US government into removing all liability for vaccines. And what does VAERS say about deaths following COVID vaccines in comparison to other vaccines? Well it says that there are around 50x the number of death reports per million doses of vaccine for COVID vaccines. If you look carefully at Jessica’s slide you will see this tiny orange column for influenza vaccine deaths compared to the stonking one on the right for COVID vaccines.

So on one hand we have Helen Petousis-Harris’s GSK-backed groups telling us that there are no deaths from COVID vaccines. And on the other the official VAERS data reporting portal telling us that there are at least 50x the number of death reports made to official government reporting portals. I wonder who we should believe?

It might also be worth mentioning here that Helen Petousis-Harris was famously caught in emails obtained under FOI⁸ knowing about the increased risk of pertussis in infants whose mothers received the vaccines in pregnancy yet failing to declare this to the public. Maybe she will be remembered as Helen “Pertussis-Harris”.

But to close the loop on the GVDN here is their official pre-bunk of this article

And in the cancer section, just to reaffirm that the author (Helen) doesn’t actually understand this (and why she deleted her tweets and then twitter account) she quotes this graph to “prove that there is no increase in cancers” (contrary to the ABS and AIHW data that I have shown).

It looks like a slam dunk for Helen except for the fact that she didn’t read the bit on the right of her own graph that says

2020-2023 data are estimated

Neither did she go to the source data at the AIHW which tells you that they are not reporting the bit that we are interested in, because these are projections from pre-COVID (vaccine) data.

Yet here is the actual death certificate data (the only other up-to-date cancer related data available) sourced from the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

ABS doctors certified deaths 2017 to 2023 with trendline showing a significant and sustained rise from 2021 src: https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/health/causes-death/provisional-mortality-statistics/jan-2024

So we have multiple official source data telling us that there has been a significant increase in cancer incidence and cancer deaths since 2021, and the only source telling us that there isn’t is controlled by Pharma and some guy with a moose knuckle.

Who could have predicted that?

And don’t get me wrong, it’s not just Helen Petousis-Harris and the GVDN. The actuaries told us too. Yes that’s right the same actuaries who starred in a previous article that upset them a lot around the time that the Australian Actuaries Institute deleted their twitter account when their conflicts of interest were exposed.

Well according to this report everything is hunky-dory. The only problem is that the “lack of excess mortality” quoted is based on a comparison to 2023. No, really. So mortality deaths didn’t jump in 2024 when compared to 2023. Well blow me down with a feather.

The cancer section (which whitewashed the impact of excess mortality due to cancer) was written by Adele Groyer, who notably posted this meaningless chart as proof of absence of an impact of the COVID vaccines on cancer deaths as it completely ignores the pre-vaccine baseline and the big red alert boxes in the cancer section of its own chart…

… and the irony of this whitewashing of the COVID vaccine and turbo cancers question became stark just a few months later when Adele died at 44 of what appears to be a very rapidly progressive cancer. Bear in mind that it is very unusual to succumb so quickly to cancer in this age group because of their ability to tolerate the most aggressive treatments.

The frustration of course is that those of us that are trying to find out why there is a sudden increase in cancers, particularly in the small but significant number of rapidly progressive cancers reported, are thwarted by the very groups that are supposed to be independent.

“But vaccines prevent cancer - look at HPV and Hepatitis”

In this last section I’m just going to address this common call from the “vaccinologists” armed with their 2-week diplomas. To remind you I’ll requote our Helen from earlier.

In contrast, we have two vaccines in widespread use that prevent cancer, human papillomavirus and hepatitis B vaccines.

Is this true?

Well, the answer is that it is not proven. And even if it was proven you would have to show that for a each vaccine, any downstream side effects or risk of cancer (e.g. from the presence of plasmids that shouldn’t be there) was outweighed by any protection from cancer of the vaccine itself. Bear in mind that the HPV and Hepatitis vaccines are also recombinant vaccines and therefore potentially subject to the same risks we are discussing here and in the previous article:

Would you like Plasmids with that?

So it’s not enough to say “this treatment prevents death from road accidents in the Amazon forest” if it increases your risk of death from snake bites.

There are two vaccines that are referred to above - the HPV vaccine to prevent cervical cancer and the Hepatitis B vaccine to prevent liver cancer. Both are relatively uncommon cancers in the developed world with a cumulative lifetime incidence of less than 2%. But reducing the incidence of this cancers is important. About 50% of liver cancers are thought to be related to Hepatitis B and up to 90% of cervical cancers are related to the HPV types in the current vaccines. So preventing these would be great.

There is only one problem, that not a single randomised controlled trial of repute shows that this happens. In the case of HPV we would love to see a drop in cervical cancer incidence but it hasn’t yet happened despite Australia being the first to roll out the HPV vaccine program in 2007.

The arguments for the lack of significant impact to date of the HPV vaccine are too complex for this article but it just goes to show that preventing cancer is multi-factorial and not as simple as people like Larry Ellison or Tedros might think. For instance if reliance on HPV vaccination has the effect of discouraging screening (which is proven to reduce cervical cancer incidence and mortality) the overall impact could be to increase not decrease cervical cancer rates. Like preventing car crashes in the Amazon forest.

But wait, didn’t the huge randomised controlled trials for the HPV vaccine show a reduction in pre-cancers of the cervix at least?

Well here’s the thing. When you look at the rates of cervical pre-cancer from the later HPV9 study and compare it to the rates in the original HPV4 study the rates of all-cause pre-cancer are essentially the same, around 14 per 1000 person-years.

Note that this information is buried in the supplementary data, it’s not front and centre. And note also that this is a similar bait-and-switch that we showed the pharma companies pulling in the Israeli COVID data.

And this is the kind of problem we’re faced with. In order to get a working treatment for anything we need clear open and transparent data so that we don’t spend all our resources on things that end up not being as effective as the drug company initially claimed and we can actually look for the thing that would be more effective. Instead, we end up relying on the golden calf of the likes of GSK and Merck who drain the coffers and ensure that independent pharma companies - who might actually care whether their products worked - are ignored or pushed out of the scene altogether.

Are Turbo Cancers Real Then?

Well I think there is enough information in this article for you to have made a decision on this. That comes down to whether you believe the sparse data that the government are unable to hide against the data that you are freely given but is underpinned by the very corporations that make the drugs.

What is certain is :

1. that the regulators did not monitor the population for cancers after the rollout of a novel vaccine technology

2. that multiple mechanisms are proven to exist that can cause new cancers or enhance existing cancers and that relate to these technologies

3. that the regulators were unaware of the complexity of these mechanisms when they approved the vaccines

4. that there is a huge network of propaganda underpinned by pharma whose job is to silence any discussion of this issue

But I think the most effective image of the last 3 years to resolve this debate is that of Professor Michel Goldman, who published his own case report following his COVID mRNA vaccines. After his first set of vaccines he developed lymphoma. And not believing that “Turbo Cancer” could be a thing he dutifully got his booster.

The rest, as they say, is history.

1. Archived https://archive.md/kd8Fa.

2. Archived https://archive.md/5JrWy

3. In Nazi Germany (and many other collectivist regimes) the public is sold on the idea that healthcare and security will be included as part of the package. For your safety. Because if you give you autonomy up to the government they will look after you, obviously.

https://www.pressreader.com/usa/the-saline-couriereEf37/20210107/281590948195714

4. AIHW collated data include R code to collate from AIHW DRG data cube files (need to be saved as csv for each year with name AIHW_DRG_yyyy.csv)

Aihw Separations 2015 2022

397KB ∙ XLSX file

Download

Download

5. Archived https://archive.md/MRFlO

6. This slide was incorrectly attributed to Andrew Zywiec at the time of writing, who had published it on twitter without the correct attribution. This has now been corrected.

7. Full conversation with references here

https://chatgpt.com/share/679dc20f-ab94-8005-942b-0ab63d1710f2

8. Source article https://www.vaccinssansaluminium.org/autisme-et-vaccination-la-fin-dun-mythe/