This rather lengthy article by dr Ah Kahn Syed (a pseudonym) on his ArkMedic substack explores the issue from different angles.

As he wrote > This 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.

Source: https://www.arkmedic.info/p/would-you-like-a-turbo-cancer-with

 

Here his conclusion:

Are Turbo Cancers Real Then?

...

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 [ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34901098/ ] 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.

 

 

 

= = =

 

🤣 💤 🤮

More of the same'  Turbo ' flames from this OP! 

Utter baloney. This o/p needs a health warning disclaimer assigned to all the posts made.

Don't know, so avoided, because I had no desire to find out ...

 

Use proper motor oil in your car and make sure you change it according to the manufacturer's service manual and the turbocharger will not get cancer.

Whether the mRNA covid-vaccines trigger very fast developing cancers is a more than legitimate question and deserves serious debate. But it seems that even posing that question, let alone looking at the data, invokes an immediate dismissal of even considering that possibility by those that were coerced/manipulated in getting these jabs.

But consider the following > In Europe currently over 100 individual substances are either fully prohibited or restricted in food and beverages due to carcinogenicity or potential carcinogenicity. 

However, injecting an experimental substance straight in your blood that will force your body to produce a toxic substance to prevent reduce the effects of a catching a mild respiratory illness, is deemed to be '100% safe and effective'.  And note that these experimental jabs were NOT tested for carcinogenic effects, as that was deemed unnecessary for 'vaccines'.  

I developed lymphoma after a fairly long history of chronic lymphocytic leukemia at the end of 2021. I am now in full remission.

 

Unfortunately for the OP's hypothesis, my lymphoma came after two rounds of conventional COVID vaccines, and before I had any mRNA boosters.

 

I am a statistical sample of one, just as the OP is citing Professor Goldman. Absolutely meaningless without a cohort of cases.

 

Cancers metastasize, that is their nature. Linking that to a vaccine booster is one hell of a logical leap.

 

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc does not apply to one-offs, either for or against.

 

 

 

25 minutes ago, Red Phoenix said:

Whether the mRNA covid-vaccines trigger very fast developing cancers is a more than legitimate question and deserves serious debate. But it seems that even posing that question, let alone looking at the data, invokes an immediate dismissal of even considering that possibility by those that were coerced/manipulated in getting these jabs.

But consider the following > In Europe currently over 100 individual substances are either fully prohibited or restricted in food and beverages due to carcinogenicity or potential carcinogenicity. 

However, injecting an experimental substance straight in your blood that will force your body to produce a toxic substance to prevent reduce the effects of a catching a mild respiratory illness, is deemed to be '100% safe and effective'.  And note that these experimental jabs were NOT tested for carcinogenic effects, as that was deemed unnecessary for 'vaccines'.  

You are obviously unaware of Paracelsus's maxim, "the dose makes the poison".

 

The 100 individual substances are restricted or limited because they can be imbibed or ingested daily. A vaccine jab is far less frequent.

 

What is your evidence? A single person with an existing lymphoma, where the cancer equally may have metastasized as a matter of course. Not all cancers respond to treatment.

U.S. NIH - National Cancer Institute:

COVID-19 Vaccines and People with Cancer

...

Can COVID-19 vaccines cause cancer? Can the vaccines cause cancer to recur or make it more aggressive?

There is no evidence that COVID-19 vaccines cause cancer, lead to recurrence, or lead to disease progression. Furthermore, COVID-19 vaccines do not change your DNA (i.e., your genetic code). [emphasis added]

 

https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/coronavirus/covid-19-vaccines-people-with-cancer#:~:text=Can COVID-19,your genetic code).

 

• Updated: October 10, 2023

 

 

 

American Cancer Society:

 

Can COVID-19 vaccines cause cancer or make cancer grow?

There is no information that suggests that COVID-19 vaccines cause cancer. There is also no information that suggests these vaccines can make cancer grow or recur (come back). [emphasis added]

 

https://www.cancer.org/cancer/managing-cancer/coronavirus-covid-19-and-cancer/covid-19-vaccines-in-people-with-cancer.html#:~:text=Can COVID-19 vaccines cause cancer or make cancer grow%3F

 

Last Revised: September 9, 2024

 

 

 

Turbo cancer is not a thing

 

Katelyn Jetelina and Kristen Panthagani, MD, PhD

Mar 28, 2024

...

Bottom line

"The pandemic caused a significant disruption in cancer screenings, and tragically, that meant many people’s cancer diagnoses were delayed, only to be found when they were late-stage. This started well before Covid-19 vaccines were rolled out, and there is no evidence to suggest Covid-19 vaccines are causing a surge in cancer. Even among younger people like Kate Middleton, who unfortunately, are increasingly being diagnosed with cancer." [emphasis added]

 

Kristen Panthagani, MD, PhD, is a resident physician and Yale Emergency Scholar, completing a combined Emergency Medicine residency and research fellowship focusing on health literacy and communication.

 

“Your Local Epidemiologist (YLE)” is written by Dr. Katelyn Jetelina, M.P.H. Ph.D.—an epidemiologist, wife, and mom of two little girls. During the day, she is a senior scientific consultant to several organizations, including CDC.

 

https://yourlocalepidemiologist.substack.com/p/turbo-cancer-is-not-a-thing

 

 

39 minutes ago, Red Phoenix said:

But it seems that even posing that question, let alone looking at the data,

 

The thing is, you are not looking at the data or for the data. You are scouring the internet for conspiracy theories and you ignore the sites that offer scientific data. An example of how crazy your results are can be found in the subheading of the article you started linking to, it says "Big Pharma and their pseudoscience cronies". No serious scientific site or paper would ever sport a subheading like that.

By the way, I believe I do have a serious side effect from the vaccines: I am less patient and tolerant against idiocy since I got them.

2 hours ago, Red Phoenix said:

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

It is not true that regulators failed to monitor cancer risks after the rollout of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines. Regulatory agencies, such as the FDA (U.S.), MHRA (UK), EMA (EU), and TGA (Australia), have continuously monitored vaccine safety, including potential links to cancer.

 

How Cancer Risks Were Monitored:

1. Clinical Trials:

• Before approval, mRNA vaccines underwent large clinical trials with tens of thousands of participants. No cancer risk was identified.

2. Post-Marketing Surveillance:

• Governments and independent researchers used real-world data from millions of vaccinated people.

• VAERS (U.S.), Yellow Card (UK), EudraVigilance (EU), and other databases track adverse events, including cancers.

3. Cancer Registries & Epidemiological Studies:

• Cancer rates continue to be tracked by national cancer registries worldwide.

• No increase in aggressive cancers linked to vaccines has been found in peer-reviewed studies.

4. Independent Studies:

• Multiple studies have examined whether mRNA vaccines affect cancer rates.

• No causal link between vaccination and increased cancer incidence has been found.

 

Key Takeaway:

 

Regulatory agencies did monitor cancer risks and continue to do so. Claims that they ignored potential cancer concerns are not supported by evidence.

 

 

2 hours ago, TimBKK said:

🤣 💤 🤮

 

5 minutes ago, Will B Good said:

It is not true that regulators failed to monitor cancer risks after the rollout of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines. Regulatory agencies, such as the FDA (U.S.), MHRA (UK), EMA (EU), and TGA (Australia), have continuously monitored vaccine safety, including potential links to cancer.

 

How Cancer Risks Were Monitored:

1. Clinical Trials:

• Before approval, mRNA vaccines underwent large clinical trials with tens of thousands of participants. No cancer risk was identified.

2. Post-Marketing Surveillance:

• Governments and independent researchers used real-world data from millions of vaccinated people.

• VAERS (U.S.), Yellow Card (UK), EudraVigilance (EU), and other databases track adverse events, including cancers.

3. Cancer Registries & Epidemiological Studies:

• Cancer rates continue to be tracked by national cancer registries worldwide.

• No increase in aggressive cancers linked to vaccines has been found in peer-reviewed studies.

4. Independent Studies:

• Multiple studies have examined whether mRNA vaccines affect cancer rates.

• No causal link between vaccination and increased cancer incidence has been found.

 

Key Takeaway:

 

Regulatory agencies did monitor cancer risks and continue to do so. Claims that they ignored potential cancer concerns are not supported by evidence.

 

 

yeah that is why the US granted them "unablecfor users affected to sue the manufacturers" to protect them.  The way I look at it, seems the death rate where vaccines were used widely had more deaths than the areas where the vaccines were not widespread.  At the same time, what is a cancer - it is when the cells are being replaced, the DNA gets screwed up so that cell becomes a potential cancer if blood is provided.  Scary for sure is our dna is being screwed up because of the mrna vaccines then believe we are screwedl already and not a whole lot we can do about it.  I lucky enough to be OLD then if/when we get a cancer who can prove where it came from.  But seems I read almost daily that younger and younger folks are coming down with cancers at a much younget age and higher numbers.  Scary for our children.  govt leaders are responsible but never take the blame nor most often are just allowed to escape.  My opinion anyway but based on what I read more and more often.

11 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

You are obviously unaware of Paracelsus's maxim, "the dose makes the poison".

 

The 100 individual substances are restricted or limited because they can be imbibed or ingested daily. A vaccine jab is far less frequent.

 

What is your evidence? A single person with an existing lymphoma, where the cancer equally may have metastasized as a matter of course. Not all cancers respond to treatment.

 

I am not clueless in these matters and very much aware of that maxim by the great healer Paracelsus.

 

Note that your argument that the EU prohibited substances in foods/beverages can be imbibed or ingested on a daily basis, while the vaccine jab is applied less frequently, is flawed.

The whole point of the mRNA jab is to force your body into producing a toxic substance which will trigger a 'controlled'  immune reaction so that you are 'prepared' when you catch an infection that has an identical or largely similar toxin.  That's the theory in a nutshell. 

However, the 'geniuses' that created those mRNA jabs did not foresee an OFF-switch.  They expected that the toxic-substance creation would fizzle out after a couple of days.  Unfortunately it has been found out later that in studies done 180 days after the last mRNA-jab, that these toxic substances are STILL in your blood-stream.  In other words, the jab turned your body into a perpetual toxix spike-protein factory, and that's why it is sometimes referred to as 'the gift that keeps on giving'.

 

I found it noteworthy to select Prof Michel Goldman's case from the article in my post, as the spread of the cancer over a 3-week period is a good illustration of the 'turbo'-character of the cancer he suffered from.

Your and his cases are indeed 'anecdotal', but I would recommend reading the full - lengthy - article from dr Sayed, as he addresses and provides data on many aspects re the connection mRNA jabs and cancer.

Source: https://www.arkmedic.info/p/would-you-like-a-turbo-cancer-with

 

45 minutes ago, Presnock said:

 

yeah that is why the US granted them "unablecfor users affected to sue the manufacturers" to protect them.  The way I look at it, seems the death rate where vaccines were used widely had more deaths than the areas where the vaccines were not widespread.  At the same time, what is a cancer - it is when the cells are being replaced, the DNA gets screwed up so that cell becomes a potential cancer if blood is provided.  Scary for sure is our dna is being screwed up because of the mrna vaccines then believe we are screwedl already and not a whole lot we can do about it.  I lucky enough to be OLD then if/when we get a cancer who can prove where it came from.  But seems I read almost daily that younger and younger folks are coming down with cancers at a much younget age and higher numbers.  Scary for our children.  govt leaders are responsible but never take the blame nor most often are just allowed to escape.  My opinion anyway but based on what I read more and more often.

There is another explanation for why younger people are coming down with cancers - obesity. It's become an epidemic.

 

It's a chemical fact toxins which can cause cancer are mostly lipophilic, I.e. they are stored in fat. The body has two types of fat, subcutaneous and visceral fat, the latter is stored around the organs.

 

It's logical the more fat a human body has, the more toxins it is capable of storing. The dose makes the poison.

 

The US is one of the most obese nations on earth. Including children. According to the National Cancer Institute, obesity is a strong risk factor for 13 different cancer types.

 

Blaming vaccines for cancer ignores the strong probability being a lardass isn't helping.

1 hour ago, Red Phoenix said:

 

I am not clueless in these matters and very much aware of that maxim by the great healer Paracelsus.

 

Note that your argument that the EU prohibited substances in foods/beverages can be imbibed or ingested on a daily basis, while the vaccine jab is applied less frequently, is flawed.

The whole point of the mRNA jab is to force your body into producing a toxic substance which will trigger a 'controlled'  immune reaction so that you are 'prepared' when you catch an infection that has an identical or largely similar toxin.  That's the theory in a nutshell. 

However, the 'geniuses' that created those mRNA jabs did not foresee an OFF-switch.  They expected that the toxic-substance creation would fizzle out after a couple of days.  Unfortunately it has been found out later that in studies done 180 days after the last mRNA-jab, that these toxic substances are STILL in your blood-stream.  In other words, the jab turned your body into a perpetual toxix spike-protein factory, and that's why it is sometimes referred to as 'the gift that keeps on giving'.

 

I found it noteworthy to select Prof Michel Goldman's case from the article in my post, as the spread of the cancer over a 3-week period is a good illustration of the 'turbo'-character of the cancer he suffered from.

Your and his cases are indeed 'anecdotal', but I would recommend reading the full - lengthy - article from dr Sayed, as he addresses and provides data on many aspects re the connection mRNA jabs and cancer.

Source: https://www.arkmedic.info/p/would-you-like-a-turbo-cancer-with

 

I guess awarding the Nobel Prize for medicine to Katalin Kariko and Drew Weismann in 2023 for the development of mRNA vaccines was a mistake, then.

 

Try as I might, I can't find any reference to the article you cite being peer-reviewed.

 

When it cites Dr, John Campbell as one of its sources, the ivermectin promoter, it's a huge red flag.

36 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

There is another explanation for why younger people are coming down with cancers - obesity. It's become an epidemic.

 

It's a chemical fact toxins which can cause cancer are mostly lipophilic, I.e. they are stored in fat. The body has two types of fat, subcutaneous and visceral fat, the latter is stored around the organs.

 

It's logical the more fat a human body has, the more toxins it is capable of storing. The dose makes the poison.

 

The US is one of the most obese nations on earth. Including children. According to the National Cancer Institute, obesity is a strong risk factor for 13 different cancer types.

 

Blaming vaccines for cancer ignores the strong probability being a lardass isn't helping.

just doubles the equation as obesity makes it difficult for the body to fight any other disease at the same time.  I am not any kind of expert on disease and cancers of any type but I do have a logical thinking mind.  too many coincidences IMHO but if I am wrong, it doesn't change what is happening.

1 hour ago, Red Phoenix said:

 

I am not clueless in these matters and very much aware of that maxim by the great healer Paracelsus.

 

Note that your argument that the EU prohibited substances in foods/beverages can be imbibed or ingested on a daily basis, while the vaccine jab is applied less frequently, is flawed.

The whole point of the mRNA jab is to force your body into producing a toxic substance which will trigger a 'controlled'  immune reaction so that you are 'prepared' when you catch an infection that has an identical or largely similar toxin.  That's the theory in a nutshell. 

However, the 'geniuses' that created those mRNA jabs did not foresee an OFF-switch.  They expected that the toxic-substance creation would fizzle out after a couple of days.  Unfortunately it has been found out later that in studies done 180 days after the last mRNA-jab, that these toxic substances are STILL in your blood-stream.  In other words, the jab turned your body into a perpetual toxix spike-protein factory, and that's why it is sometimes referred to as 'the gift that keeps on giving'.

 

I found it noteworthy to select Prof Michel Goldman's case from the article in my post, as the spread of the cancer over a 3-week period is a good illustration of the 'turbo'-character of the cancer he suffered from.

Your and his cases are indeed 'anecdotal', but I would recommend reading the full - lengthy - article from dr Sayed, as he addresses and provides data on many aspects re the connection mRNA jabs and cancer.

Source: https://www.arkmedic.info/p/would-you-like-a-turbo-cancer-with

 

The theory behind all vaxxes, is that they promote a 'positive' response from the body. The 'positive' bit, is so that (theoretically) the body will adapt to what has just invaded it. And stop the thing, that is being vaxxed against, getting a foothold in the future. There is also the belief that the jab in question, can lessen/dampen the illness symptoms. If of course one already has them. Or likely to get them.

 

The negative effects of the jabs range from a sore arm to death. Obviously not so well celebrated as the positive ones.

 

The body sees the jabs as a violation of its defence, and takes appropriate steps (if it is able), to rid itself of the injected toxin. What does the body do with the toxic entities? Can they cause cancer? Questions for another time with those.

 

1 hour ago, Lacessit said:

I guess awarding the Nobel Prize for medicine to Katalin Kariko and Drew Weismann in 2023 for the development of mRNA vaccines was a mistake, then.

Guess it was.

 

Plenty of Nobel awards seen ridiculous to me. Not just in a dubious medical field, but across the board.

1 hour ago, Lacessit said:

I guess awarding the Nobel Prize for medicine to Katalin Kariko and Drew Weismann in 2023 for the development of mRNA vaccines was a mistake, then.

 

Try as I might, I can't find any reference to the article you cite being peer-reviewed.

 

When it cites Dr, John Campbell as one of its sources, the ivermectin promoter, it's a huge red flag.

 

#1 - Yes, a pure disgrace that Kariko and Weismann were awarded the Nobel Prize for Medicine for their work on development of mRNA gen therapy.  

There is of course a precedent > António Egas Moniz (1874-1955) won the 1949 Nobel Prize in medicine for developing the prefrontal lobotomy, a surgical procedure that severed brain tissue to treat psychiatric disorders

 

#2 - Obviously the article by dr Sayed is not peer-reviewed, as it is not a 'scientific study' on a research-subject, but rather an essay explaining his insights in the link between the covid-jabs and the explosion in cancers.  He published it on his own substack and all readers can provide comments.

 

#3 - Dr John Campbell was initially a firm believer in 'the $cience' but the evidence became so overwhelming that we were conned by Big Pharma and their bought complicit mainstream media, that he 'fell from grace' despite him being as objective as possible and always providing the facts and data that he was commenting on. 

3 hours ago, farang51 said:

 

The thing is, you are not looking at the data or for the data. You are scouring the internet for conspiracy theories and you ignore the sites that offer scientific data. An example of how crazy your results are can be found in the subheading of the article you started linking to, it says "Big Pharma and their pseudoscience cronies". No serious scientific site or paper would ever sport a subheading like that.

By the way, I believe I do have a serious side effect from the vaccines: I am less patient and tolerant against idiocy since I got them.

 

I remember the conspiracy theory that said it was crazy to say covid came from a lab.

 

Yet here we are now the odds are it did. 

16 hours ago, farang51 said:

 

The thing is, you are not looking at the data or for the data. You are scouring the internet for conspiracy theories and you ignore the sites that offer scientific data. An example of how crazy your results are can be found in the subheading of the article you started linking to, it says "Big Pharma and their pseudoscience cronies". No serious scientific site or paper would ever sport a subheading like that.

By the way, I believe I do have a serious side effect from the vaccines: I am less patient and tolerant against idiocy since I got them.

 

The article by dr Sayed is not a research study but an essay published on his substack blog in which he shares his insights in the link between Covid and rapidly emerging cancers. 

Imo "Big Pharma and their pseudoscience cronies" is a very accurate description of all these Big Pharma funded 'independant research studies' and sponsored 'medical publications and websites'. 

 

You wrote that you believe you have a serious side effect from the vaccines.  So it's somewhat puzzling that you discard this very worthwhile article about the harms of these gen-therapies (they are not vaccines) because the author is calling a spade a spade, and not trying to obfuscate it with flowery language.  Especially since the article is a legitimate reaction against the efforts of Big Pharma and its actors, that try to hide or belittle the harmful effects of these shots with all means possible.

4 hours ago, Red Phoenix said:

The article by dr Sayed

Is that the persons real name? If not, why not?

 

No one that is using words like "Big Pharma and their pseudoscience cronies" is  trying to be taken serious by anyone but crackpots. Words like that are meant to attrack crackpots that cannot tell real research from conspiracy theories.

 

Maybe you should read my second paragraph again, you seem to have missed the sarcasm.

12 minutes ago, farang51 said:

Is that the persons real name? If not, why not?

 

No one that is using words like "Big Pharma and their pseudoscience cronies" is  trying to be taken serious by anyone but crackpots. Words like that are meant to attrack crackpots that cannot tell real research from conspiracy theories.

 

Maybe you should read my second paragraph again, you seem to have missed the sarcasm.

 

As I mentioned in the opening post of this thread dr Ah Kahn Syed is a pseudonym used by this Australian MD which allows him to speak his mind and provide his deep-dive insights on his ArkMedic substack.

Are you not aware that many doctors in Australia had their license revoked when not parroting the official Public Health narrative about Covid and vaccination? 

 

And yes, I missed the sarcasm and misinterpreted your 2nd paragraph, but what would you expect from a crazy idiotic crackpot nutter like me?

 

On 2/2/2025 at 12:04 PM, Red Phoenix said:

This rather lengthy article by dr Ah Kahn Syed (a pseudonym) on his ArkMedic substack explores the issue from different angles.

As he wrote > This 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.

Source: https://www.arkmedic.info/p/would-you-like-a-turbo-cancer-with

 

Here his conclusion:

Are Turbo Cancers Real Then?

...

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 [ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34901098/ ] 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.

 

 

 

= = =

 

Lymphoma can and does spread at different rates depending on the type and location. These scans are quite misleading as there is no pre-vaccine scans to show he was cancer free prior to the first vaccine. If Sept 8th is his first vaccine date then the cancer was already present for an undetermined timeframe, if the 8th was his first scan discovering he had cancer then it was present for some undetermined timeframe and a rapid spread is not uncommon at all. Posting articles like this without all the context alters the perception that the vaccines alone accelerated the cancer.

It causes people to post stupid things about it on every occasion they feel fit. 

Can 'getting' cancer ever be a good thing?

 

Not all; but are some a blessing in disguise?

3 minutes ago, Dan O said:

Lymphoma can and does spread at different rates depending on the type and location. These scans are quite misleading as there is no pre-vaccine scans to show he was cancer free prior to the first vaccine. If Sept 8th is his first vaccine date then the cancer was already present for an undetermined timeframe, if the 8th was his first scan discovering he had cancer then it was present for some undetermined timeframe and a rapid spread is not uncommon at all. Posting articles like this without all the context alters the perception that the vaccines alone accelerated the cancer.

 

In my post I provided the link to the case-report that prof Goldman published about his own case (co-authored with 6 of his colleagues). 

Clicking within the page featured on that link [ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34901098/ ] you can read the full case-report here

https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/medicine/articles/10.3389/fmed.2021.798095/full

 

Note that prof Goldman and his colleagues do not share your opinion that for this case "a rapid spread is not uncommon at all".