mRNA Vax Cancer Risk, By Brian Simpson

The discussion surrounding mRNA vaccines and their potential link to cancer risk has emerged as a contentious issue, blending scientific inquiry with public concern and regulatory scrutiny. At the heart of this debate is the technology itself: mRNA vaccines, such as those developed for Covid-19, use messenger RNA to prompt cells to produce a protein that triggers an immune response, a method celebrated for its speed and adaptability during the pandemic. Yet, as their use has expanded, questions about long-term safety, including cancer risk, have surfaced, driven by a mix of preliminary studies, anecdotal reports, and scepticism about their rapid deployment.

One of the central worries involves the possibility of DNA contamination. Critics argue that residual DNA fragments in the vaccines could integrate into the human genome, potentially disrupting cellular processes in ways that might increase cancer risk. Another hypothesis suggests that the vaccines could dysregulate the immune system, either through excessive inflammation or by weakening mechanisms that normally suppress tumour growth. Additionally, the synthetic modifications in mRNA, such as the use of N1-methyl-pseudouridine to enhance stability, have been flagged in some studies as potentially problematic, though these findings remain early and fiercely debated.

The scientific community is divided on the evidence, and unsurprisingly, research is not funded which might turn out a problem for Big Pharma. What research has made it to print, have pointed to correlations between mRNA vaccines and elevated cancer markers and claims of "turbo cancers"—aggressive, fast-progressing tumours—and doctors such as William Makis produce almost daily blogs on these cancer cases. In contrast, mainstream health authorities, heavily influenced by Big Pharma, often at the conflict-of-interest level, assert that no clear link to cancer has been established. They claim that millions have been vaccinated without a detectable surge in cancer rates, but they acknowledge that long-term data, spanning decades, is still absent due to the technology's recent arrival, what we would call its experimental nature.

Compounding the uncertainty are issues of transparency and regulation. Reports, like those highlighted in Rebekah Barnett's newsletter, allege that regulatory bodies, such as Australia's Therapeutic Goods Administration, knew of DNA fragments in vaccine batches but failed to fully investigate or disclose the implications, raising questions about oversight. Efforts to access detailed safety data through freedom of information requests have sometimes been stonewalled, further eroding public trust. This opacity has fuelled a narrative that risks were downplayed in the rush to roll out the vaccines, a charge regulators and manufacturers firmly deny, but, they would say that, wouldn't they?

The divide extends beyond science into public and expert sentiment. On one side, a vocal minority of doctors, scientists, and commentators call for pausing mRNA vaccine use until more is known, citing anecdotal cases of post-vaccination cancer as red flags. On the other, public health officials dismiss these concerns as unproven and potentially misleading, urging confidence in the vaccines' safety profile, all without scientific proof. This clash has turned the cancer risk question into a lightning rod in larger debates over vaccine mandates, government authority, and the integrity of scientific institutions. Definitive answers demand large, longitudinal studies, which time and politics have not yet allowed. It is something Big Pharma just does not want discussed.

https://news.rebekahbarnett.com.au/p/covid-mrna-vaccine-cancer-risk