Increased cancer rates following mRNA injections
 

 

The public health establishment should remember: silence is not neutrality. It is a choice. And in this case, it is the wrong one.

Source: https://ianbrighthope.substack.com/p/increased-cancer-rates-following

 

= = =

Cancer Signals in Vaccine Data Demand a Transparent Australian Response

A large new study from Italy < https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12381369/  >  should have prompted urgent investigation here in Australia. Instead, it has been met with silence.

Researchers tracked almost 300,000 residents of Pescara province between 2021 and 2023, examining links between COVID-19 vaccination, overall mortality, and hospitalisations for newly diagnosed cancers. Their findings were complex but important. Vaccinated individuals had slightly lower overall mortality, a result the authors themselves attributed partly to the “healthy-vaccinee” effect. But the same study also reported a significant increase in hospitalisations for certain cancers—notably breast, bladder, and colon—in vaccinated groups when a standard 180-day time window was used.

The researchers did not claim causation. They cautioned against premature conclusions, highlighted limitations in their data, and called for urgent replication. This is how science works: raising a signal, testing it rigorously, and refining conclusions as better evidence emerges.

 

You can read the full article here > https://ianbrighthope.substack.com/p/increased-cancer-rates-following

23 minutes ago, Red Phoenix said:

Vaccinated individuals had slightly lower overall mortality,

 

 

With reference to your above study.

 

It said this:

 

Conclusions.

 

The subjects who received SARS-CoV-2 vaccination showed almost half the risk of all-cause death after a median follow-up of 25 months. We also observed an inconstant association between COVID-19 vaccination and cancer hospitalization, depending on infection status, cancer site, and the minimum lag-time between vaccination and cancer. As the results might be influenced by the confounding effect of a differential healthcare utilization by vaccinated individuals, they must be considered preliminary, and further data are definitely required to elucidate the potential association between cancer and COVID-19 vaccination.

6 minutes ago, Bacon1 said:

With reference to your above study.

It said this:

Conclusions.

The subjects who received SARS-CoV-2 vaccination showed almost half the risk of all-cause death after a median follow-up of 25 months. We also observed an inconstant association between COVID-19 vaccination and cancer hospitalization, depending on infection status, cancer site, and the minimum lag-time between vaccination and cancer. As the results might be influenced by the confounding effect of a differential healthcare utilization by vaccinated individuals, they must be considered preliminary, and further data are definitely required to elucidate the potential association between cancer and COVID-19 vaccination.

 

Yes, what you write is correct, and it is also mentioned in the Intro to Prof dr Ian BRIGHTHOPE's article that I posted.  

> But the same study also reported a significant increase in hospitalisations for certain cancers—notably breast, bladder, and colon—in vaccinated groups when a standard 180-day time window was used.

The researchers did not claim causation. They cautioned against premature conclusions, highlighted limitations in their data, and called for urgent replication. This is how science works: raising a signal, testing it rigorously, and refining conclusions as better evidence emerges.

 

Brighthope is advocating that Australia, which has similar data, should conduct its own study replicating the method used by the Italian researchers to support any conclusions (be it positive or negative).  

More anti-vax lies by Red. Where is alter-ego Stiddle?

 

MRNA drugs are the future with active trials on new vaccines and cancer cures. 

 

 

Very odd that when extending the standard 180 day time window to 12 months, the increased incidents of cancer literally disappear?

 

 If a true biological link existed between vaccination and cancer onset, you'd expect the signal to persist or even strengthen over time.

29 minutes ago, cjinchiangrai said:

More anti-vax lies by Red. Where is alter-ego Stiddle?

MRNA drugs are the future with active trials on new vaccines and cancer cures. 

What lies? 

I simply posted the article written by prof dr Ian Brighthope, who advocates to replicate the Italian study in his home-country Australia (as urgently requested by the Italian researchers considering the signal detected).  

49 minutes ago, cjinchiangrai said:

More anti-vax lies by Red. Where is alter-ego Stiddle?

 

MRNA drugs are the future with active trials on new vaccines and cancer cures. 

So you have sussed it eh? When Red is active; Mr Mump is resting.

 

You could be head boy soon.

51 minutes ago, cjinchiangrai said:

MRNA drugs are the future with active trials on new vaccines and cancer cures. 

This is utter hogwash.

 

Do you know the causes of cancer? I doubt you do, although Google is available.

 

I posted a topic on cancer on this platform. Have a read Sir.

4 minutes ago, Stiddle Mump said:

This is utter hogwash.

 

Do you know the causes of cancer? I doubt you do, although Google is available.

 

I posted a topic on cancer on this platform. Have a read Sir.

I have no interest in your ignorance.

4 hours ago, Red Phoenix said:

You can read the full article here > https://ianbrighthope.substack.com/p/increased-cancer-rates-following

 

Another in an unending series of anti-vax Substack articles with more anti-vax nonsense presented by unqualified authors who have no credentials or qualifications in the pertinent topic.  This fact check below is caslling out the false dreck that these kinds of authors and posters traffic in:

No truth in COVID vaccine-related 'turbo cancer' warning

December 23, 2024

Australian Associated Press

 

"AAP FactCheck – Social media users are spreading untrue and unsourced claims that Australian "officials" have warned billions are going to die from "turbo cancers" linked to COVID-19 vaccines.

...

The only person quoted in the article to back up the claim is Ian Brighthope⁶, an integrative medicine advocate the article [falsely] describes as "one of Australia's most renowned doctors". [my editorial comment added]

 

Professor Brighthope is featured in a video version of the report embedded in the article and is identified as a "professor of nutritional and environmental medicine" (4 minutes 55 seconds) – not a virologist or epidemiologist." [emphasis added]

 

(more)

 

https://www.aap.com.au/factcheck/no-truth-in-covid-vaccine-related-turbo-cancer-warning/

 

 

Here's who Ian Brighthope really is, consistent with the above fact check report of his involvement with false cancer claims:

 

 

And just who is the World Council for Health... the private group whose Australia affiliate was led by Brighthope?:

 

"The World Council for Health is a pseudo-medical organisation dedicated to spreading misinformation to discourage COVID-19 vaccination, and promoting fake COVID-19 treatments.^[1]

 

The organization's online appearance is that of a mainstream health organization.^[2] It appears to have been formed in September 2021 and its published leadership contains people which an Australian Associated Press fact check described as "figures who have promoted unfounded conspiracy theories".^[3] The group was founded by Jennifer A. Hibberd and Tess Lawrie, an obstetrician and founder of the "BIRD Group", which erroneously promotes ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment.^[4]

 

The World Council for Health is affiliated with Children's Health Defense, an antivaccine association led by Robert F. Kennedy Jr.^[5]

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Council_for_Health

 

But even with all those facts, let's be generous and see just what Brighthope's bio says on the World Council for Health Australia's website. Is he the kind of guy you want to be getting COVID and vaccine guidance from?

 

Professor Ian E. Brighthope

"Professor Ian Brighthope graduated in Agricultural Science in 1965. For the next three years he was involved in teaching and research. His research interests were in the fields of agriculture and veterinary nutrition, including the nutritional health of cattle, horses, sheep, dogs, pigs and poultry. [emphasis added]

...

It was in the fields of plant and animal nutrition that Professor Brighthope became aware of the importance of optimum nutrition and the use of nutritional supplementation in animal production, the treatment of animal dysfunction and the potential of this approach in the prevention and treatment of human disease.

...

He is currently researching the therapeutic potential of medicinal cannabis, a powerful health care therapeutic of the future. ... The nutraceutical approach is now used in many centres. Additional treatments are now included, in particular the use of the very effective repurposed drugs Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine.

 

https://wchaustralia.substack.com/p/introducing-world-council-for-health-54c

Yeesh!!!  Major league whack job!

 

 

3 hours ago, cjinchiangrai said:

MRNA drugs are the future

Well they might be  or they might not be   but whatever they all need thorough,transparent, rigorous, lengthy safety and efficacy trials  before being offered to patients...not forced and coerced in a tyrannical manner as we saw in recent history.

3 minutes ago, johng said:

Well they might be  or they might not be   but whatever they all need thorough,transparent, rigorous, lengthy safety and efficacy trials  before being offered to patients...not forced and coerced in a tyrannical manner as we saw in recent history.

They worked and saved millions of lives.

6 minutes ago, cjinchiangrai said:

They worked and saved millions of lives.

Did they ?

Link to the original article which is not behind a paywall by the way

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/07/25/covid-vaccines-saved-fewer-lives-than-first-thought/

 

and a link to an archived version which is also not pay walled

https://archive.ph/0fVnD

 

Covid vaccines saved far fewer lives than first thought, a major new analysis has concluded, with researchers criticising “aggressive mandates”.

Last year, the World Health Organisation (WHO) claimed jabs had prevented the deaths of 14.4 million people globally in the first year alone, with some estimates putting the figure closer to 20 million.

However, new modelling by Stanford University and Italian researchers suggests that while the vaccines did save lives, the true figure was “substantially more conservative” and closer to 2.5 million people worldwide over the course of the pandemic.

 

And the real kicker here below

 

"The team estimated that nine of 10 prevented deaths were in the over-60s, with jabs saving just 299 people aged under 20, and 1,808 people aged between 20 and 30 globally."

 

 

1 minute ago, johng said:

Did they ?

Link to the original article which is not behind a paywall by the way

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/07/25/covid-vaccines-saved-fewer-lives-than-first-thought/

 

and a link to an archived version which is also not pay walled

https://archive.ph/0fVnD

 

Covid vaccines saved far fewer lives than first thought, a major new analysis has concluded, with researchers criticising “aggressive mandates”.

Last year, the World Health Organisation (WHO) claimed jabs had prevented the deaths of 14.4 million people globally in the first year alone, with some estimates putting the figure closer to 20 million.

However, new modelling by Stanford University and Italian researchers suggests that while the vaccines did save lives, the true figure was “substantially more conservative” and closer to 2.5 million people worldwide over the course of the pandemic.

 

And the real kicker here below

 

"The team estimated that nine of 10 prevented deaths were in the over-60s, with jabs saving just 299 people aged under 20, and 1,808 people aged between 20 and 30 globally."

 

 

Is that you, Donald?

3 minutes ago, still kicking said:

Is that you, Donald?

 

Donald ?    Duck ?

What needs to happen is an independant investigation. Quoting this and that really means nothing until this is done and it's formalised. There's a certain poster on here that believes in big pharma and the CDC 100% but times have changed and they changed 5 years ago. In this period and it's still ongoing and pushed by the left is a campaign to dismiss anything that goes against the narritive created throughout the pandemic. Why should questions not be asked? What was the actual science? We all know about the 6 foot distancing.

Science Didn’t Support ‘6-Feet-Apart’ Pandemic Guideline, Fauci Concedes

Dr. Anthony Fauci, who headed the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases during the height of the pandemic, told Congress that the CDC's social distancing rule was “an empiric decision that wasn’t based on data.”

https://kffhealthnews.org/morning-breakout/science-didnt-support-6-feet-apart-pandemic-guideline-fauci-concedes/

 

26 minutes ago, cjinchiangrai said:

They worked and saved millions of lives.

This is a narrative based on modelling not real world data.

1 minute ago, Fishfish Snakesnake said:

It was not so long ago when I got flamed very harshly on this very site for suggesting that the mRNA gene therapy was anything but miraculously <snicker> "safe and effective". Well here we are now. 

If you notice   this is a sub forum  titled  "off the beaten track"

there is some scope to voice differing opinions here  that is still not tolerated in the other parts of the forum.

34 minutes ago, Fishfish Snakesnake said:

It was not so long ago when I got flamed very harshly on this very site for suggesting that the mRNA gene therapy was anything but miraculously <snicker> "safe and effective". Well here we are now. 

 

Interesting, seeing that you've only made 9 posts on this forum, and none of them were about mRNA.

Scraping the bottom of the barrel, cutting through the bottom, and suddenly realizing it's resting atop the septic tank..........

 

The Victorian Medical Board charged Melbourne general practitioner Dr Ian Brighthope with infamous and professional misconduct in 1988.

 

https://www.afr.com/companies/nature-takes-its-course-19900406-kal7a

 

This one got an early start making tinfoil underpants.

5 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

you've only made 9 posts

Perhaps   he reincarnated  possibly been banned for previous wrongspeak ?

Dr. Ian Brighthope of the Orthomolecular Medical Association of Australia dropped a bombshell......

 

Orthowhat?

 

Orthomolecular medicine^[1][2] is a form of alternative medicine that claims to maintain human health through nutritional supplementation. It is rejected by evidence-based medicine. The concept builds on the idea of an optimal nutritional environment in the body and suggests that diseases reflect deficiencies in this environment. Treatment for disease, according to this view, involves attempts to correct "imbalances or deficiencies based on individual biochemistry" by use of substances such as vitamins, minerals, amino acids, trace elements and fatty acids.^[3][4][5] The notions behind orthomolecular medicine are not supported by sound medical evidence, and the therapy is not effective for chronic disease prevention;^[6][7] even the validity of calling the orthomolecular approach a form of medicine has been questioned since the 1970s.^[8]

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthomolecular_medicine

 

Those who can, do.

Those who can't, make up fakity scientisms.

1 hour ago, johng said:

Did they ?

Link to the original article which is not behind a paywall by the way

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/07/25/covid-vaccines-saved-fewer-lives-than-first-thought/

 

and a link to an archived version which is also not pay walled

https://archive.ph/0fVnD

 

Covid vaccines saved far fewer lives than first thought, a major new analysis has concluded, with researchers criticising “aggressive mandates”.

Last year, the World Health Organisation (WHO) claimed jabs had prevented the deaths of 14.4 million people globally in the first year alone, with some estimates putting the figure closer to 20 million.

However, new modelling by Stanford University and Italian researchers suggests that while the vaccines did save lives, the true figure was “substantially more conservative” and closer to 2.5 million people worldwide over the course of the pandemic.

 

And the real kicker here below

 

"The team estimated that nine of 10 prevented deaths were in the over-60s, with jabs saving just 299 people aged under 20, and 1,808 people aged between 20 and 30 globally."

 

 

 

 

Ya, and the same Stanford academic who authored the study you cite -- claiming COVID vaccines ONLY saved 2.5 million lives -- is also a pretty well discredited COVID denier/minimizer who publicly posted in 2020 that the COVID pandemic MIGHT kill 10,000 Americans... Hey, he was only off by a little, since COVID actually killed 1.2 MILLION Americans.

 

Ioannidis writing in March 2020 at the start of the COVID pandemic:

"If we assume that case fatality rate among individuals infected by SARS-CoV-2 is 0.3% in the general population — a mid-range guess from my Diamond Princess analysis — and that 1% of the U.S. population gets infected (about 3.3 million people), this would translate to about 10,000 deaths [emphasis added]. This sounds like a huge number, but it is buried within the noise of the estimate of deaths from “influenza-like illness.” [emphasis added]

 

https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/17/a-fiasco-in-the-making-as-the-coronavirus-pandemic-takes-hold-we-are-making-decisions-without-reliable-data/

 

He also was involved in what other researchers called a sloppy, error-filled study that aimed to minimize the rate of COVID fatalities by falsely inflating the rates of COVID infections (the more you inflate the infection numbers, the reported deaths produce a lower death rate, which was his goal):

 

""Ioannidis widely promoted a study of which he had been co-author, "COVID-19 Antibody Seroprevalence in Santa Clara County, California", released as a preprint on April 17, 2020. It asserted that Santa Clara County's number of infections was between 50 and 85 times higher than the official count, putting the virus's fatality rate as low as 0.1% to 0.2%.^{[n 1][135][131]} Ioannidis concluded from the study that the coronavirus is "not the apocalyptic problem we thought".^[136] The message found favor with right-wing media outlets, but the paper drew criticism from a number of epidemiologists who said its testing was inaccurate and its methods were sloppy.^{[137][138][139]"}

 

And there's a lot more of the same relating to COVID issues in the longer writeup below.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ioannidis

 

 

American College of Cardiology (benefits from vaccines to reduce risk or heart attack and strokes - inc COVID-19 and Shingles vax). Published just over a week ago.

 

https://www.acc.org/About-ACC/Press-Releases/2025/08/26/13/46/American-College-of-Cardiology-Issues-Vaccine-Guidance-for-Adults-with-Heart-Disease 

 

More on the same benefit from Shingles vaccines.

https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/misc-emerging-topics/shingles-vaccine-linked-lower-heart-attack-stroke-risk

1 hour ago, dinsdale said:

What needs to happen is an independant investigation. Quoting this and that really means nothing until this is done and it's formalised. There's a certain poster on here that believes in big pharma and the CDC 100% but times have changed and they changed 5 years ago. In this period and it's still ongoing and pushed by the left is a campaign to dismiss anything that goes against the narritive created throughout the pandemic. Why should questions not be asked? What was the actual science? We all know about the 6 foot distancing.

Science Didn’t Support ‘6-Feet-Apart’ Pandemic Guideline, Fauci Concedes

Dr. Anthony Fauci, who headed the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases during the height of the pandemic, told Congress that the CDC's social distancing rule was “an empiric decision that wasn’t based on data.”

https://kffhealthnews.org/morning-breakout/science-didnt-support-6-feet-apart-pandemic-guideline-fauci-concedes/

 

 

Except Fauci was in charge of the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and it was the CDC (not the other agency) that promulated the social distancing rules, and Fauci wasn't involved in that at all.

 

And the rules the CDC did come up with were grounded in past research that the federal government had done that supported the policy the CDC adopted:

 

Government Accountability Office report - May 2020

 

Social Distancing During Pandemics

"A CDC guideline based on historical studies of selected infections says that the area of highest risk is within 3 feet of an infected person. Some studies suggest a buffer of 6 feet may further reduce risk.

 

Other studies examining droplet dispersion in sneezing and coughing found they can go more than 6 feet. Also, viral material may persist in the air within a room for up to 3 hours." [emphasis added]

...

Microbiological studies on a variety of respiratory viruses have shown viral material can travel 2 meters or farther from an infected patient. Specifically for COVID-19, one study showed that viral material can be recovered from ventilation fans in a patient’s room. However, it was not established whether the viral material could lead to disease transmission."

 

https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-20-545sp

 

"“There was no magic around six feet,” Robert R. Redfield, who served as CDC director during the Trump administration, told a congressional committee in March 2022. “It’s just historically that’s what was used for other respiratory pathogens. So that really became the first piece” of a strategy to protect Americans in the early days of the virus, he said. [emphasis added]

 

Washington Post

https://archive.ph/XjvrE

 

 

The Brighthope Clinics and Biocentres ... specialised in Nutritional Medicine, Environmental Medicine, intravenous therapies including chelation therapy and herbal medicine.

In other words, total quackery.

As for "Professor", he co-created the Graduate School of Integrative Medicine at Swinburne University, so the university gave him the title.  Nothing to do with his academic standing.

1 hour ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

Except Fauci was in charge of the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and it was the CDC (not the other agency) that promulated the social distancing rules, and Fauci wasn't involved in that at all.

 

And the rules the CDC did come up with were grounded in past research that the federal government had done that supported the policy the CDC adopted:

 

Government Accountability Office report - May 2020

 

Social Distancing During Pandemics

"A CDC guideline based on historical studies of selected infections says that the area of highest risk is within 3 feet of an infected person. Some studies suggest a buffer of 6 feet may further reduce risk.

 

Other studies examining droplet dispersion in sneezing and coughing found they can go more than 6 feet. Also, viral material may persist in the air within a room for up to 3 hours." [emphasis added]

...

Microbiological studies on a variety of respiratory viruses have shown viral material can travel 2 meters or farther from an infected patient. Specifically for COVID-19, one study showed that viral material can be recovered from ventilation fans in a patient’s room. However, it was not established whether the viral material could lead to disease transmission."

 

https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-20-545sp

 

"“There was no magic around six feet,” Robert R. Redfield, who served as CDC director during the Trump administration, told a congressional committee in March 2022. “It’s just historically that’s what was used for other respiratory pathogens. So that really became the first piece” of a strategy to protect Americans in the early days of the virus, he said. [emphasis added]

 

Washington Post

https://archive.ph/XjvrE

 

 

Who cares. Fauci was the vioce. He made it up. Fact is it was not based on science at the time. His own words. Fact is the jab didn't stop you getting Covid. Fact is the jab didn't stop you spreading Covid. Fact is it's caused harm. Fact is it was pushed hard by legacy media. Fact is people were mandated to get jabbed. Healthy people and children. Fact is people have lost trust in the so-called experts. The left are so worried about JFK Jnr. because they like you have got so much to lose if it's shown the narrative of which you are so invested in is shown to be wrong. There's already plenty out there to show this to be the case.

Yep, you have shown pretty clearly and repeatedly, that you don't care about the actual facts, even when they are directly presented to you. Fauci had nothing to do with the 6 foot guideline, and there was, notwithstanding his comment, plenty of prior U.S. science and study to support it.

 

US GAO report from 2020:

Social Distancing During Pandemics

 

 

 

 

https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-20-545sp

 

 

12 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

Yep, you have shown pretty clearly and repeatedly, that you don't care about the actual facts, even when they are directly presented to you. Fauci had nothing to do with the 6 foot guideline, and there was, notwithstanding his comment, plenty of prior U.S. science and study to support it.

 

US GAO report from 2020:

Social Distancing During Pandemics

 

 

 

 

https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-20-545sp

 

Dear, dear dear!

 

Talk about missing the point. So what if the droplets travelled over 2 metres? So what; nothing!

 

What a load of humbug.