Source: https://biomarkerres.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40364-025-00831-w

 = = = 

Abstract

The oncogenic potential of SARS-CoV-2 has been hypothetically proposed, but real-world data on COVID-19 infection and vaccination are insufficient. Therefore, this large-scale population-based retrospective study in Seoul, South Korea, aimed to estimate the cumulative incidences and subsequent risks of overall cancers 1 year after COVID-19 vaccination. Data from 8,407,849 individuals between 2021 and 2023 were obtained from the Korean National Health Insurance database. The participants were categorized into two groups based on their COVID-19 vaccination status.

The risks for overall cancer were assessed using multivariable Cox proportional hazards models, and data were expressed as hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The HRs of thyroid (HR, 1.351; 95% CI, 1.206–1.514), gastric (HR, 1.335; 95% CI, 1.130–1.576), colorectal (HR, 1.283; 95% CI, 1.122–1.468), lung (HR, 1.533; 95% CI, 1.254–1.874), breast (HR, 1.197; 95% CI, 1.069–1.340), and prostate (HR, 1.687; 95% CI, 1.348–2.111) cancers significantly increased at 1 year post-vaccination. In terms of vaccine type, cDNA vaccines were associated with the increased risks of thyroid, gastric, colorectal, lung, and prostate cancers; mRNA vaccines were linked to the increased risks of thyroid, colorectal, lung, and breast cancers; and heterologous vaccination was related to the increased risks of thyroid and breast cancers.

Given the observed associations between COVID-19 vaccination and cancer incidence by age, sex, and vaccine type, further research is needed to determine whether specific vaccination strategies may be optimal for populations in need of COVID-19 vaccination.

 

12 minutes ago, Red Phoenix said:

Given the observed associations between COVID-19 vaccination and cancer incidence by age, sex, and vaccine type, further research is needed to determine whether specific vaccination strategies may be optimal for populations in need of COVID-19 vaccination.

 

 

This part, you left out, from your above linked study:

 

"In conclusion, COVID-19 vaccination could be associated with an increased risk of six specific cancer types, including thyroid, gastric, colorectal, lung, breast, and prostate cancers. Notably, this COVID-19 vaccination-associated cancer risk was likely more elevated among individuals aged ≤ 65 years except in individuals with prostate cancer. Given the observed associations between COVID-19 vaccination and cancer incidence by age, sex, and vaccine type, further research is needed to determine whether specific vaccination strategies may be optimal for populations in need of COVID-19 vaccination."

 

 

3 minutes ago, Bacon1 said:

This part, you left out, from your above linked study:

 

"In conclusion, COVID-19 vaccination could be associated with an increased risk of six specific cancer types, including thyroid, gastric, colorectal, lung, breast, and prostate cancers. Notably, this COVID-19 vaccination-associated cancer risk was likely more elevated among individuals aged ≤ 65 years except in individuals with prostate cancer. Given the observed associations between COVID-19 vaccination and cancer incidence by age, sex, and vaccine type, further research is needed to determine whether specific vaccination strategies may be optimal for populations in need of COVID-19 vaccination."

 

For info > I limited myself to quoting the introductory paragraphs of the Abstract in the OP. 

The paragraph you are referring to is the conclusion of the study at the very end. 

> Note that I would normally have inserted that conclusion also but several of my earlier posts were cut short by Mods because of AN's fair size policy on opening threads.  

So thanks, for adding it...

 

25 minutes ago, Bacon1 said:

This part, you left out, from your above linked study:

 

"In conclusion, COVID-19 vaccination could be associated with an increased risk of six specific cancer types, including thyroid,

 

Changing the goalposts again.  What happened to the old narrative "no way, no how, no evidence"?

 

And what comes next?  Yeah, the mRNAs can cause cancer, but it's a small number and they saved millions so they're still good.

 

It's just like the old chestnut: If you take the mRNA, you won't get Covid.  That one didn't age well either as more and more data came out.

 

Ahh...... the latest edition above of this subforum's anti-vaxer newswire -- thoroughly debunked as usual:

 

The vast bulk of credible research on COVID vaccines and cancer says they do NOT create any increased risk of cancers, such as shown below:

 

U.S. National Cancer Institute:

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."

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

 

Still No Evidence COVID-19 Vaccination Increases Cancer Risk, Despite Posts

May 3, 2024

...

"There is no evidence to support a link between COVID-19 vaccines and cancer, as we’ve reported. Both the National Cancer Institute and the American Cancer Society have stated there’s no information that suggests COVID-19 vaccines cause cancer, make it more aggressive or lead to recurrence of cancer." 

 

https://www.factcheck.org/2024/05/still-no-evidence-covid-19-vaccination-increases-cancer-risk-despite-posts/

 

 

Study finds no safety issue with most recent mRNA COVID vaccines

 

July 30, 2025

 

"At a time when federal officials are calling into question the safety and necessity of COVID-19 vaccines, the mRNA COVID vaccine version used this past season showed no elevated risk of any of the 29 serious adverse events that researchers in Denmark assessed.

 

The nationwide cohort study, published this week in JAMA Network Open, included 1,585,883 people (54% female), of whom 1,012,400 (64%) received the updated mRNA COVID vaccines containing the JN.1 lineage. 

 

No increased risk of 29 adverse events

...

They found no statistically significant increases in the rate of hospital contacts for any of 29 adverse events during the 28-day period after patients received an mRNA vaccine."

 

https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/covid-19/study-finds-no-safety-issues-most-recent-mrna-covid-vaccines

 

 

It's also worth noting that the South Korean doctors behind this report in the OP are NOT specialists in cancer, but DO seem to have quite a history of publishing all kinds of claims of supposed ill effects from COVID vaccines -- ones that other researchers have found don't exist!

 

I'm waiting for their next article finding that COVID vaccines increase people's risk of ingrown toenails!  

 

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9616-2722

 

The early impact of COVID-19 vaccines on major events in cardiac, pulmonary, and thromboembolic disease: a population-based study

Psychiatric adverse events following COVID-19 vaccination: a population-based cohort study in Seoul, South Korea

Autoimmune adverse event following COVID-19 vaccination in Seoul, South Korea

Hematologic abnormalities after COVID-19 vaccination: A large Korean population-based cohort study

etc etc etc.

 

It seems the OP has managed to find the South Korean version of his stable of American anti-vaxer doctors.....

 

Not surprisingly, there does seem to be groups of these kinds of fringe doctors in both South Korea and Japan, typically writing supposed research that's out of their area of expertise... and it tends to result in outcomes like this (from a Japanese doctor that the OP here has posted content from before)

 

Retraction: Increased Age-Adjusted Cancer Mortality After the Third mRNA-Lipid Nanoparticle Vaccine Dose During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Japan

Miki Gibo ^1,✉, Seiji Kojima ², Akinori Fujisawa ³, Takayuki Kikuchi ⁴, Masanori Fukushima ⁴

 

The Editors-in-Chief have retracted this article. Upon post-publication review, it has been determined that the correlation between mortality rates and vaccination status cannot be proven with the data presented in this article. As this invalidates the conclusions of the article, the decision has been made to retract.

 

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11204115/

 

Mayo Clinic:

 

Debunking COVID-19 myths

 

Do COVID-19 vaccines cause cancer or make cancer harder to treat?

 

No. COVID-19 vaccines are not linked to a rise in cancer or more aggressive cancer. This myth may be passed along as one person's experience. Or rarely, as a personal observation by a healthcare professional.

 

Researchers looked at the large groups of people who got a COVID-19 vaccine, and there is no evidence to support this myth.

 

https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/in-depth/coronavirus-myths/art-20485720

 

Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center:

Can the COVID-19 vaccine cause cancer?

No. None of the vaccines interact with or alter your DNA in any way. They cannot cause cancer. There is no truth to the myth that somehow the COVID-19 vaccine could inactivate the genes that suppress tumors.

https://www.mskcc.org/coronavirus/covid-19-vaccine

 

"There is no credible evidence that the Covid-19 vaccine and boosters cause any type of cancer," Otis Brawley, an oncologist and epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins University, told AFP in a May 20 email (archived here). "There is not even a scientifically plausible mechanism through which the vaccine could cause a cancer."

 

Agence France-Presse

https://factcheck.afp.com/doc.afp.com.47GV9WD

 

And further, a serious U.S. oncologist (cancer doctor) commenting on the OP's South Korean article:

 

Here we go again: Another study is being misrepresented as evidence that COVID vaccines cause cancer

 

An eminent oncologist, cancer researcher, and cancer center director is promoting a study that seems to show—but, when critically examined, doesn’t—that COVID vaccines are associated with increased cancer risk.

 

September 29, 2025

,,,

"No, I’m not saying that this study is fraudulent. Rather, I’m saying it’s not very good and very likely suffers from significant biases that render its findings of associations between COVID-19 vaccines and cancer suspect. [emphasis added]

...

In brief, I, as several others on X, the hellsite formerly known as Twitter, as well as other social media observed, an increased one-year risk almost certainly represents detection bias of some sort, in which those in the vaccinated group are more likely than those in the unvaccinated group to have their cancers detected.

...

Add to that lots of evidence that has failed to find a post-vaccination surge in cancer cases, either in the US or worldwide, and this paper looks fatally flawed, at least to me. [emphasis added]

...

...the glaring problems with this study that make its conclusions linking COVID-19 vaccines both highly implausible from a biological and clinical standpoint based on what we know about carcinogenesis and cancer latency and very suspicious for specific obvious biases."

 

--David H. Gorski, MD, PhD, FACS is a surgical oncologist at the Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute specializing in breast cancer surgery, where he also serves as the American College of Surgeons Committee on Cancer Liaison Physician as well as an Associate Professor of Surgery and member of the faculty of the Graduate Program in Cancer Biology at Wayne State University.

 

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/another-study-misrepresented-as-evidence-covid-vaccines-cause-cancer/

 

 

What!! Someone suggested that vaccines can cause cancer! How dare they do such studies and reach such conclusions.

 

Such investigations, leading to their findings - as in the OP - will have the fact-checkers licking their lips.

 

Of course vaccines can cause cancers. Many medicines and procedures are not welcome by our bodies. They are seen as insulting and toxic. They take steps to rid themselves of the invasive junk. In most cases the body can do so; provided it has been given the tools and is is good working order.  

 

The problems arise when:

 

The body is not in good order.

Too much toxicity arrives, or/and too often, and some has to be coated and tucked away.

Drugs to suppress any illness symptoms are administered.

Natural body detoxes are stopped from running their course.

 

Big topic 'Cancer'. Much incorrectly understood.  

 

Nature has the answers we seek.

46 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

And further, a serious U.S. oncologist (cancer doctor) commenting on the OP's South Korean article:

 

Here we go again: Another study is being misrepresented as evidence that COVID vaccines cause cancer

 

An eminent oncologist, cancer researcher, and cancer center director is promoting a study that seems to show—but, when critically examined, doesn’t—that COVID vaccines are associated with increased cancer risk.

 

September 29, 2025

,,,

"No, I’m not saying that this study is fraudulent. Rather, I’m saying it’s not very good and very likely suffers from significant biases that render its findings of associations between COVID-19 vaccines and cancer suspect. [emphasis added]

...

In brief, I, as several others on X, the hellsite formerly known as Twitter, as well as other social media observed, an increased one-year risk almost certainly represents detection bias of some sort, in which those in the vaccinated group are more likely than those in the unvaccinated group to have their cancers detected.

...

Add to that lots of evidence that has failed to find a post-vaccination surge in cancer cases, either in the US or worldwide, and this paper looks fatally flawed, at least to me. [emphasis added]

...

...the glaring problems with this study that make its conclusions linking COVID-19 vaccines both highly implausible from a biological and clinical standpoint based on what we know about carcinogenesis and cancer latency and very suspicious for specific obvious biases."

 

--David H. Gorski, MD, PhD, FACS is a surgical oncologist at the Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute specializing in breast cancer surgery, where he also serves as the American College of Surgeons Committee on Cancer Liaison Physician as well as an Associate Professor of Surgery and member of the faculty of the Graduate Program in Cancer Biology at Wayne State University.

 

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/another-study-misrepresented-as-evidence-covid-vaccines-cause-cancer/

 

 

I very much enjoy your posts, almost like a beacon of light and sensiblity shining through the cr@p that a few well known nut jobs and anti-vaxxers continue to post, so please keep up the good work.

 

For the record I have had 3 Covid jabs and am still very much alive and well!

Another quote from team RFK websight:

 

"Big pharma is making $50 billion usd from selling vaccines, but they make $500 billion from selling the remedies for the injuries caused by the vaccines."

 

This is why the Holy Bible labels the cult as an abomination.  Those hoodwinked by the sorcery will be consumed with 7 times the plagues.  It seems easier to just adjust beliefs and not inject poison to achieve health.

6 minutes ago, Mark Nothing said:

Another quote from team RFK websight:

 

"Big pharma is making $50 billion usd from selling vaccines, but they make $500 billion from selling the remedies for the injuries caused by the vaccines."

 

This is why the Holy Bible labels the cult as an abomination.  Those hoodwinked by the sorcery will be consumed with 7 times the plagues.  It seems easier to just adjust beliefs and not inject poison to achieve health.

Indeed!

 

We are nature. Nature is us. Very nearly all the elements found in the earth are within us. These elements - minerals - all serve a purpose. They are in our bodies for a reason. They aid the delivery of energy. They aid metabolism. They aid growth. They aid the elimination of dead cells and tissue. And importantly, they are the mainstay of the body's defence and maintenance system. And a whole lot more besides. This is why a nutritious diet is a very good thing.

 

Certain minerals have special relationships. they work together. For instance Calcium and Magnesium.

 

Let's hear it for nature. The unsung hero.

Well, Red........you might as well stop beating your head against a wall .  ( I only say that because i still don't believe anything is going to change for "the masses" .)

Sure,  i cheer when the "good news"  pops out , like yesterday :

MORE MAHA WINNING:  RFK Jr. Destroys the ‘Saved Millions of Lives’ vaccine Dogma

2nd Smartest Guy in the World

AND THEN , the kick in the nuts : MONUMENTAL MAHA FAIL: Pfizer Strikes $70 Billion Deal with U.S. to Expand Its mRNA Empire, Lower Drug Prices . 

2nd Smartest Guy in the World

Sep 30       

13 hours ago, Mark Nothing said:

Those hoodwinked by the sorcery will be consumed with 7 times the plagues. 

 

Is the expression "may the fleas of a thousand camels infest your armpits" originally from the Bible? 

 

 

4 minutes ago, rumak said:

Well, Red........you might as well stop beating your head against a wall .  ( I only say that because i still don't believe anything is going to change for "the masses" .)

Sure,  i cheer when the "good news"  pops out , like yesterday :

MORE MAHA WINNING:  RFK Jr. Destroys the ‘Saved Millions of Lives’ vaccine Dogma

2nd Smartest Guy in the World

AND THEN , the kick in the nuts : MONUMENTAL MAHA FAIL: Pfizer Strikes $70 Billion Deal with U.S. to Expand Its mRNA Empire, Lower Drug Prices . 

2nd Smartest Guy in the World

Sep 30       

 

Pfizer has been up Trump's rectum for the past few weeks, because they know how to make him feel good and earn billions of it.

They also know, Trump is only a temporary issue

2 hours ago, Stiddle Mump said:

Certain minerals have special relationships. they work together. For instance Calcium and Magnesium.

 

Let's hear it for nature. The unsung hero.

 

You're right ....  Of course there are tens of thousands of "eat right"  beliefs and protocols,  and one can spend the rest of their life watching youtube videos putting the

bloggers spin on why potatoes should not be eaten with tomatoes , and so on and so forth.    For the last few years I have been working my way through the maze of solutions to many common issues that arise when the body ages .  Soooo many factors .  

Stomach issues,  eye issues,  weight, muscle loss,  blood pressure, colesterol, prostate, ligaments,  knees,  strength,  bowel,  fatigue,  depression,  etc etc etc .

 

So far i am doing pretty good.   Trial and error .   Critical thinking searching solutions.

The fact i seem much healthier than my peers ......... i guess it all is just luck .

If you were my neighbor it would be interesting to discuss our similarities and differences.

 

cheers

14 minutes ago, CallumWK said:

They also know, Trump is only a temporary issue

 

can you expound on that a bit ?

Just now, rumak said:

 

can you expound on that a bit ?

 

His term is a maximum of 4 years, but I have a strong feeling that he will be gone shortly after the midterm elections

2 hours ago, Mark Nothing said:

Another quote from team RFK websight:

 

"Big pharma is making $50 billion usd from selling vaccines, but they make $500 billion from selling the remedies for the injuries caused by the vaccines."

 

This is why the Holy Bible labels the cult as an abomination.  Those hoodwinked by the sorcery will be consumed with 7 times the plagues.  It seems easier to just adjust beliefs and not inject poison to achieve health.

 

Ya, really good to be quoting and relying on RFK Jr. for vaccine info:

 

Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

"Since 2005, Kennedy has promoted vaccine misinformation^[1] and public-health conspiracy theories,^[2] including the chemtrail conspiracy theory,^[3] HIV/AIDS denialism,^[4] and the scientifically disproved claim of a causal link between vaccines and autism.^[5] He has drawn criticism for fueling vaccine hesitancy amid a social climate that gave rise to the deadly measles outbreaks in Samoa and Tonga.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_F._Kennedy_Jr.

 

 

 

9 minutes ago, CallumWK said:

 

His term is a maximum of 4 years, but I have a strong feeling that he will be gone shortly after the midterm elections

and then ?

 

8 hours ago, Red Phoenix said:

 

For info > I limited myself to quoting the introductory paragraphs of the Abstract in the OP. 

The paragraph you are referring to is the conclusion of the study at the very end. 

> Note that I would normally have inserted that conclusion also but several of my earlier posts were cut short by Mods because of AN's fair size policy on opening threads.  

So thanks, for adding it...

 

 

How convenient... 

 

If even a shred of the incessant copy and paste garbage from fringe sites you’ve been posting were true, humanity would be by now extinct such is the sheer volume of utter rubbish.... Yet you keep flooding forums with it....     

.... so desperate for a hit that the moment one tiny claim miraculously held water, you’d be flapping about it like a victory parade... 

11 hours ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_F._Kennedy_Jr.

 

Sorry, wikipedia should not be used in any debate. 

It's ok to look up someone's birthday or what films they starred in or what year the Declaration of Independence was drafted, that's about it. 

For one thing, where is the info coming from?

Also, it's not real time and up to date.

Information is constantly shifting. New information is constantly coming in. 

 

 

2 minutes ago, rumak said:

 

You're right ....  Of course there are tens of thousands of "eat right"  beliefs and protocols,  and one can spend the rest of their life watching youtube videos putting the

bloggers spin on why potatoes should not be eaten with tomatoes , and so on and so forth.    For the last few years I have been working my way through the maze of solutions to many common issues that arise when the body ages .  Soooo many factors .  

Stomach issues,  eye issues,  weight, muscle loss,  blood pressure, colesterol, prostate, ligaments,  knees,  strength,  bowel,  fatigue,  depression,  etc etc etc .

 

So far i am doing pretty good.   Trial and error .   Critical thinking searching solutions.

The fact i seem much healthier than my peers ......... i guess it all is just luck .

If you were my neighbor it would be interesting to discuss our similarities and differences.

 

cheers

I'm not a stickler for a certain diet. My own diet:

 

Protein in the morning, and little else, other than fruit and veg from then on. Some rice and bread occasionally. No processed sugar. Try to drink a litre of water, with a crushed lime in it, once a day.

 

I have written quite a few essays on diet. Not getting into it here, but it's important - well it is for me - to know the origins of food. I eat local produce AMAP. I do take a couple of supplements.

 

On complaints as we get older issue. Our bodies 'almost' change completely a few times before the mid-20s. Not after that. The biggest test we old-uns face is making sure our metabolisms work as they should after about 70. But that depends, somewhat, upon our past stories. As we get older the repair of cell and tissue slows down. They don't get as readily replaced as in our teens. So some organs and systems suffer; resulting in us not feeling as good as we once did.

 

Right! As to the OP. Because I don't reckon there are viruses. And because of that; no diseases. I look in other directions for illness. Root causes. Obviously, if the general state of health is poor, a bit of toxicity will hurt the body more that is the body is in tip-top condition. But here's the kicker. The foundations of a cancer might have started many years previously. The body - if it can't eliminate them when they first arrive on the scene - packages up undesirables and tucks them away. Many people, young and old, have these little packets (tumors). They do little harm and are often unaware of their presence. IMO, taking in a new toxic entity can trigger a response, and the old benign tumor then becomes active. 

 

To think that vaccines do not cause some bodies serious harm is dumb to say the least. And to think that Big Pharma, and that Doc, knows what is best, is naive. After all, who prescribed Thalidomide to preggers women? And Vioxx! And AZT!

 

We are nature. Nature is us.

26 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

 

Sorry, wikipedia should not be used in any debate. 

It's ok to look up someone's birthday or what films they starred in or what year the Declaration of Independence was drafted, that's about it. 

For one thing, where is the info coming from?

Also, it's not real time and up to date.

Information is constantly shifting. New information is constantly coming in. 

 

 

Who appointed you as the Grand Poo Bah of what people should and should not accept as a reference. If Wikipedia is a recognised source by AN and millions of people world wide, then it cannot be a bad source.

 

Do you accept JFK Jr or Trump's sites as genuine or fake information? I do not and never will as neither of them are qualified as doctors, yet they blithely rabbit on and claim things tgat are totally incorrect.

 

If Covid never (happened as has been claimed and debunked many times on this site and many others), why did my son, my younger neighbours daughter and my elder neighbours daughter get Covid? The parent's, including me got our vaccinations ASAP and never got Covid? Why did my wife give up her small place to the village as a place for Covid parents, especially as Covid was claimed NOT to exist?

 

If you don't like of accept Wikipedia as a genuine source, then don't use it. Millions of other people worldwide WILL continue to use it.

@rumak

 

A post violating the following forum rule has been removed, along with an ensuing reply:

 

"31. You will not publicly discuss other members..."

 

 

48 minutes ago, billd766 said:

Do you accept JFK Jr or Trump's sites as genuine or fake information? I do not and never will as neither of them are qualified as doctors, yet they blithely rabbit on and claim things that are totally incorrect.

Hold on there boss. It's only he licensed, qualified doctors that you trust?!

 

Dear me!!!

 

I ask you Sir, who prescribed Thalidomide to all those women, when the evidence was out there, that serious birth defects were occurring. Well we know who. But why? Didn't the white-coats care? Didn't they know? Or, were they getting a bit of reddies from the Big Pharma rep?

 

The US history of Kevadon (Thalidomide) is particularly disturbing. Twenty FDA white-coats said it was 'safe and effective' and it should pass it. One lady, Dr Frances Kelsey**, stood firm and said 'no'. She came under immerse pressure to give the drug the 'thumbs up'. She resisted. What did she see that the others would not?

 

Vioxx!! Have a red up. AZT; again. have a read up.

 

** The President's Award for Distinguished Federal Civilian Service is the highest honorary award that the Federal Government can grant a career civilian employee. Awarded to Dr Kelsey in 1962 by POTUS JFK.

18 minutes ago, Stiddle Mump said:

Hold on there boss. It's only he licensed, qualified doctors that you trust?!

 

Dear me!!!

 

I ask you Sir, who prescribed Thalidomide to all those women, when the evidence was out there, that serious birth defects were occurring. Well we know who. But why? Didn't the white-coats care? Didn't they know? Or, were they getting a bit of reddies from the Big Pharma rep?

 

The US history of Kevadon (Thalidomide) is particularly disturbing. Twenty FDA white-coats said it was 'safe and effective' and it should pass it. One lady, Dr Frances Kelsey**, stood firm and said 'no'. She came under immerse pressure to give the drug the 'thumbs up'. She resisted. What did she see that the others would not?

 

Vioxx!! Have a red up. AZT; again. have a read up.

 

** The President's Award for Distinguished Federal Civilian Service is the highest honorary award that the Federal Government can grant a career civilian employee. Awarded to Dr Kelsey in 1962 by POTUS JFK.

 

More flawed logic, broken falasies and intellectual dishonesty from you...   you still have not learned any better... 

 

The argument you present is riddled with fallacies - mainly false equivalence, hasty generalisation, and appeal to emotion.....

 

You argued false equivalence:
You argue that because some licensed doctors and regulators in the past made catastrophic errors (e.g. Thalidomide, Vioxx), that doctors in general cannot be trusted today.
That’s like saying....

“Some pilots have crashed planes, therefore we shouldn’t trust any commercial pilot.”
It’s a fallacy because isolated historical failures do not invalidate an entire profession or its collective expertise. Modern medicine has vastly improved regulatory safeguards, clinical trial standards, and pharmacovigilance systems precisely because of those past mistakes.

 

You have made hasty generalisation:
You use a few examples (Thalidomide, Vioxx, AZT) to make a sweeping claim about all doctors or all pharmaceutical approval processes.
It’s cherry-picking - drawing a universal conclusion from exceptional cases without acknowledging the millions of safe, effective, life-saving drugs that doctors do prescribe daily.

 

You have appeal to emotion:
Your tone is deliberately emotive - “Dear me!!!”, “the white-coats”, “getting a bit of reddies” - to provoke distrust and outrage rather than reasoned evaluation. Emotional language does not strengthen your argument; it merely attempts to manipulates the feelings of anyone emotional and stupid enough to bypass their rational scrutiny.

 

 

Neither is it the first time you have completely ignored causation and correction:
The Thalidomide disaster is often cited in such debates as this because it changed drug regulation worldwide. It led to the modern FDA approval process and the ethical standards for human testing we have today.

 

Using the Thalidomide disaster as proof that doctors can’t be trusted ignores the fact that science self-corrects. The entire point of evidence-based medicine is to detect and prevent precisely those errors.

 

In short:
Your very weak argument confuses human fallibility with institutional corruption, cherry-picks examples, and uses emotional rhetoric to paint a misleading picture. A single regulator (Dr Kelsey) does not prove that everyone else is untrustworthy - it proves that critical thinking within the medical establishment can and does protect the public.

 

Repeatedly, you prove you are not up to the task of representing your claims with intellectual honesty.

18 hours ago, Stiddle Mump said:

Of course vaccines can cause cancers. Many medicines and procedures are not welcome by our bodies. They are seen as insulting and toxic.

 

To make the claim that vaccines cause cancer because it contains toxins is unscientific bullcrap. 

 

Toxins do cause issues in the body, but we are constantly being exposed to toxins in the air we breathe, the water, food. And people are exposed to toxins for decades and decades before they get cancer, if they ever do get cancer.

 

You're trying to pass yourself off as a scientist here? A kid can pick apart your logic. 

 

3 hours ago, save the frogs said:

 

Is the expression "may the fleas of a thousand camels infest your armpits" originally from the Bible? 

 

 

Or from the Aussie bible " May all your chooks turn into emus and kick your dunny down".

13 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

If even a shred of the incessant copy and paste garbage from fringe sites you’ve been posting were true, humanity would be by now extinct such is the sheer volume of utter rubbish.... Yet you keep flooding forums with it....     

 

That's precisely the point.

 

The OP's assertion is basically that "the vaccine is trying to poison us". 

But most of us would be dead if that were the case.

 

Let's take arsenic as an example. How much arsenic is needed to kill the average human being? 

I suspect it might vary between an 80 lb woman and a 300 lb man, but maybe not by much.

In other words, specific doses within very limited ranges of poisons can kill humans.

 

So extrapolate that to a vaccine. 

Let's say the vaccine was deadly. That means it would need to contain a certain amount of poison. But it would be mathematically impossible for the vaccine to kill only a small percentage of people. Either it killed most of us or it was hardly that toxic. Because we all respond the same way to poison,for the most part. 

 

Since most of us are still alive, the theory is erroneous.

 

And the cancer diagnosis has not gone up exponentially either. 

 

Or maybe it would mostly kill off frail and elderly people, but even that is not provable. Or it's provable that it's not the case as many frail and elderly people still walk among us.

 

All this stuff is fear-mongering and science is either fraudulent or just crappy science. 

 

Maybe these scientists are just trying to make a name for themselves.