Experts are warning that over 100 studies have now been published that show Covid mRNA “vaccines” have triggered a deadly global “tsunami of turbo cancer.”

In 2021, mainstream science dismissed the idea that Covid “vaccines” could be linked to a surge in cancer.

But now, four years later, oncologists around the world are confronting an unsettling reality: a dramatic and unexplained rise in aggressive cancers, particularly among the young and recently vaccinated.

Professor Khayat, co-founder of France’s National Cancer Institute, once publicly rejected any link.

Today, even he admits: “We have a dramatic increase in pancreatic cancer without any idea why…

“The entire cancer research community worldwide is asking this question.”

If he is intellectually honest, he cannot rule out mass vaccination as a trigger, especially since the surge is global, sudden, and follows the unprecedented rollout of a genetic intervention never before tested on this scale.

Mathilde Debord has just published a comprehensive report in Le Point Critique, highlighting the surge in cancers among the Covid-vaccinated.

Debord’s report cites over 100 peer-reviewed studies linking mRNA injections to rapidly developing cancers.

The report outlines 17 distinct biological mechanisms by which the Covid shots initiate, accelerate, or reactivate malignant processes.

Debord warns that doctors are now “faced with a tsunami of turbo cancers, particularly among young people” who received the injections.

In May 2021, a group of French oncologists sounded the alarm, but their warnings were ignored.

Now, their grim forecasts seem prophetic.

A 2023 paper in Cureus listed 10 ways mRNA injections could promote cancer; the list has since grown to 17, backed by over 100 studies.

These aren’t fringe theories; they’re mechanisms rooted in molecular biology:

• Genomic Instability: Multiple studies suggest mRNA from the vaccine may be reverse-transcribed into human DNA, permanently altering gene regulation.
• Immune Suppression: The Spike protein interferes with p53, the “guardian of the genome,” and suppresses key immune responses that protect against cancer.
• Chronic Inflammation: Spike proteins have been found lingering in blood and organs for up to 17 months post-injection, fueling inflammation and potential tumor growth.
• Altered Microbiome: The gut microbiota—crucial for cancer resistance—is disrupted after vaccination, with a notable loss of protective bifidobacteria.
• DNA Contamination: Pfizer and Moderna shots contain unauthorized DNA fragments and SV40 sequences—oncogenic tools well-known in cancer research.

Renowned epidemiologist Nicolas Hulscher, MPH, created a breakdown of all 17 points in a report on Depord’s findings:

1. Genome Instability

mRNA may be reverse-transcribed and integrated into host DNA, triggering mutations that initiate cancer.

2. Immune Escape

The spike protein binds and inhibits tumor suppressor genes like p53 and BRCA1, shielding cancer cells from immune destruction.

3. Impaired DNA Repair Mechanism

The spike protein interferes with essential DNA repair enzymes, increasing the risk of unchecked mutations.

4. Chronic Inflammation

Lipid nanoparticles and spike protein cause long-lasting inflammation, a well-known driver of cancer.

5. Dysregulation of the Immune System

Suppression of T cells and type I interferon weakens cancer surveillance and promotes immune evasion.

6. RNA Disruption

Codon optimization disrupts microRNA networks, destabilizing cell growth regulation and apoptosis.

7. Activation of Oncogenic Pathways

The spike protein indirectly activates MAPK and PI3K/mTOR signaling, fueling tumor growth and metastasis.

8. Tumor Microenvironment Alteration

Lipid nanoparticles accumulate in tumors, enhancing permeability and potentially accelerating cancer spread.

9. Awakening Dormant Cancers

Post-vaccination inflammation and immune disruption may trigger recurrence in patients previously in remission.

10. Alteration of Immune Surveillance

Modified mRNA blocks toll-like receptors, making tumor cells “invisible” to the immune system.

11. Frameshift Errors

The synthetic mRNA sometimes produces unintended, aberrant proteins, contributing to oncogenic risk.

12. Multiple Injections

Repeated doses exhaust the immune system and drive class switching to IgG4, promoting tolerance to tumors.

13. DNA Contamination

Residual plasmid DNA found in vaccine vials is replication-competent and could integrate into host genomes.

14. Oncogenic SV40 DNA Sequences

SV40 promoter sequences in Pfizer vials may facilitate genome insertion—this same element is used to induce tumors in lab animals.

15. Deregulation of the Renin-Angiotensin System (RAS)

Spike-induced AT1R activation fosters oxidative stress and uncontrolled cell proliferation.

16. Destruction of the Microbiota

17. Increased Resistance to Treatments

Spike exposure prolongs cancer cell survival during chemotherapy, possibly driving treatment resistance.

Each point alone would warrant serious concern.

Together, they paint a devastating picture.

Pathologists are now reporting that cases of “turbo cancers” are skyrocketing.

These cancers are aggressive tumors growing at an unprecedented speed.

Patients in remission are relapsing weeks after booster shots.

In Australia, a major clinical trial investigating the link between mRNA “vaccines” and cancer was abruptly halted, as Slay News reported.

Alarmingly, officials ordered all biological samples from the trials to be destroyed.

It comes after ivermectin was maligned and blocked from being used as a treatment for Covid.

Ivermectin is safe, Nobel Prize–winning, and proven in anti-cancer research.

Meanwhile, experimental injections with no long-term safety data were forced upon entire populations.

The cancer explosion is real, and governments around the world know it.

A growing number of researchers are asking questions.

But instead of investigating, authorities are deflecting.

For the millions suffering, and for those who complied under coercion, these questions are not theoretical.

They are urgent, deeply personal, and demand answers.

Source:  https://slaynews.com/news/over-100-studies-prove-covid-vaccines-caused-tsunami-turbo-cancer/

Bitchute: https://www.bi,tchut,e.com/channel/YBM3rvf5ydDM/

Gab: https://gab.com/hopegirl

Telegram: https://t.me/Hopegirl587

EMF Protection Products: www.ftwproject.com

QEG Clean Energy Academy: www.cleanenergyacademy.com

Forbidden Tech Book: www.forbiddentech.website

The post Over 100 Studies Prove Covid ‘Vaccines’ Caused ‘Tsunami of Turbo Cancer’ appeared first on HopeGirl Blog.

Source:  https://www.brighteon.com/a8e8d78f-372e-43a8-837c-d78bad694dcf

Bitchute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/YBM3rvf5ydDM/

Gab: https://gab.com/hopegirl

Telegram: https://t.me/Hopegirl587

EMF Protection Products: www.ftwproject.com

QEG Clean Energy Academy: www.cleanenergyacademy.com

Forbidden Tech Book: www.forbiddentech.website

The post HARVARD SOCIAL STUDIES EXPERT DIES EXPECTEDLY! appeared first on HopeGirl Blog.

For decades, parents of vaccine-injured children, vaccine-injured adults and others contested the claims that vaccines are the world’s most thoroughly safety-tested products in the world only to be shunned and attacked by the medical community and health agencies.

Now a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine in the first week of July admits vaccines are not properly studied. “But let me provide context so nobody is fooled by what they are clearly up to,” Aaron Siri writes.

And Like That, The Claim Vaccines Are The World’s Best Studied Product Dies

By Aaron Siri

Wow. After decades of Dr. Stanley Plotkin and his vaccinologist disciples insisting vaccines are the most well-studied products on the planet, they just penned an article admitting precisely the opposite.

They just admitted vaccines are not properly studied – neither pre-licensure nor post-licensure. They admitted, for example, “prelicensure clinical trials have limited sample sizes [and] follow-up durations” and that “there are not resources earmarked for post-authorisation safety studies.”

That is an incredible reversal. But let me provide context so nobody is fooled by what they are clearly up to.

For decades, the medical community insisted vaccines are the most thoroughly studied product ever; for example, Dr. Paul Offit said, “I think we should be proud of vaccines as arguably the safest, best-tested things we put in our body.”

For decades, parents of vaccine-injured children, vaccine-injured adults, and other stakeholders contested these claims only to be shunned and attacked by the medical community and health agencies.

In 2018, I had the unprecedented opportunity to depose the architect of our vaccination programme and the Godfather of Vaccinology, Dr. Plotkin, and lay bare the evidence that showed what these authors are now finally admitting about the utter lack of vaccine safety trials and studies. See ‘The Deposition Of Stanley Plotkin’.

After this deposition is made public, Dr. Plotkin goes on a tirade, making demands that FDA add “missing information on safety and efficacy” in vaccine package inserts and that CDC excludes harms from its vaccine information sheets, “lobbying the Gates Foundation to support pro-vaccine organisations,” working to have WHO list vaccine hesitancy as a global threat, lobbying AAP, IDSA and PIDS to “support training of witnesses” to support vaccine safety, etc. See ‘Dr. Stanley Plotkin, The “Godfather Of Vaccines,” Reaction To Being Questioned’.

The problem is, it doesn’t work. It doesn’t work because, at the bottom, there are no proper safety studies. So, there is no safety data to add to the FDA package inserts, and hiding harms by removing them from CDC inserts doesn’t make them go away. Parents and other adults don’t simply stop believing what they have seen with their own eyes because the CDC, WHO, the Gates Foundation, etc., won’t acknowledge them, or worse, they attack them.

That brings us to the present in which Plotkin and his disciples realise they can’t cast voodoo on the public. They can’t hide the truth. So, their only option is to try and co-op the truth they have lied about for decades by now admitting that the studies to show vaccines are safe do not exist. But in making that admission, they conveniently fail to admit that for decades they lied, gaslit, defrauded (and I don’t use that word lightly) the public by claiming that vaccines are probably the most thoroughly safety tested products on the planet and that people should rest assured, no stone on vaccine safety was left unturned.

Thus, in their article just published, they pretend they never lied about vaccine safety. They pretend they are now just pointing out that vaccine safety has never really been conducted, as if that was not known to them before.

Don’t be fooled. Their real agenda is plain, and it is not to study vaccine safety but rather to confirm that which they already believe. This is crystal clear from the fact that while their article admits the studies have not been done, they write in the same breath that serious vaccine harms are “rare.” But if the studies have not been done, how do they know that? The answer is, they don’t, and they don’t care to know the truth. Their goal is to protect the products they have spent their careers defending and worshipping and that have brought them fame and riches.

They also ignore the mountain of studies and data that already exist which clearly show serious vaccine harms. Just take a moment to review the large body of science around one of the adjuvants used in vaccines which multiple studies show can cause serious harm. See ‘A reactogenic “placebo” and the ethics of informed consent in Gardasil HPV vaccine clinical trials: A case study from Denmark’.

Finally, just look at their proposed solution. After making the a priori conclusion that harms are “rare,” ignoring all the existing studies showing harm, these folk have the audacity to want to raid the federal vaccine injury compensation fund to presumably pay themselves and their compatriots hundreds of millions of dollars to conduct the studies that would, no doubt, seek to confirm their prior conclusion that vaccine harms are “rare,” while ignoring the studies that already show serious harm.

So, with that in mind, and sorry for the long wind-up, here are the things they admit in this article for maybe the very first time.

“[T]he widespread vaccine hesitancy observed during the covid-19 pandemic suggests that the public is no longer satisfied with the traditional safety goal of simply detecting and quantifying the associated risks after a vaccine has been authorised for use.”

Comment: The parents of vaccine-injured children, vaccine-injured adults, and others were never “satisfied” with seeking to assess “risks aftera vaccine has been authorised.”

“Post-authorisation studies are needed to fully characterise the safety profile of a new vaccine, since prelicensure clinical trials have limited sample sizes, follow-up durations, and population heterogeneity.”

Comment: Let me translate – the clinical trials relied upon to license childhood vaccines are useless with regard to safety since they virtually never have a placebo control, typically review safety for days or weeks after injection, and often have far too few participants to measure anything of value, just see ‘None of the vaccine doses the CDC recommends for routine injection into children were licensed by the FDA based on a long-term placebo-controlled trial’; amazingly, I just had a dispute with a Plotkin disciple not long ago in which they were clearly still not ready to admit the above truth:

Dr. Offit, your revised definition of “placebo” as “immunologically inert” would focus on testing efficacy, not safety, which is precisely the substantive concern raised by @RobertKennedyJr and others when explaining that childhood vaccines are virtually never licensed based on… https://t.co/6b8Bu7F6R4

— Aaron Siri (@AaronSiriSG) June 27, 2023

“It is critical to examine adverse events following immunisation (“AEFIs”) that have not been detected in clinical trials, to ascertain whether they are causally or coincidentally related to vaccination.”

Comment: No sh** and you have been claiming for decades this was being done!

“When they are caused by vaccines (vaccine adverse reactions), the risk attributable to vaccination and the biologic mechanism must be ascertained. That science becomes the basis for developing safer vaccines, if possible, and for determining contraindications to vaccination and the compensation that should be offered for AEFIs.”

Comment: Again, no sh**, and you have also been claiming for decades this was being done!

“Currently in the United States, when the Advisory Committee on Immunisation Practices (ACIP) recommends a new routine vaccine, the only automatic statutory resource allocations that follow are for vaccine procurement by Vaccines for Children (VFC) and for the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP). Although the ACIP acknowledges the need, there are currently no resources earmarked for post-authorisation safety studies beyond annual appropriations, which must be approved by Congress each year.”

Comment: Again, no sh**! But nice of you to finally admit it after decades of gaslighting.

“Progress in vaccine-safety science has understandably been slow – often depending on epidemiologic evidence that is delayed or is inadequate to support causal conclusions and on an understanding of biologic mechanisms that is incomplete – which has adversely affected vaccine acceptance.”

Comment: More gaslighting because had a proper clinical trial been conducted pre-licensure, we would know the safety before it is unleashed on babies and we wouldn’t need to rely on confounded-biased-conflicted-post-authorisation “epidemiological” studies you now want to conduct which you make clear you only suggest because you want to avoid “public concern and consequent decreases in immunisation coverage,” not because you actually care about safety.

“In 234 reviews of various vaccines and health outcomes conducted from 1991 to 2012, the IOM found inadequate evidence to prove or disprove causation in 179 (76%) of the relationships it explored, illustrating the need for more rigorous science.”

Comment: Again, no sh**, and I would appreciate if you would please properly cite to the ICAN white paper from 2017 from which you have plainly lifted this point ‘VACCINE SAFETY: Introduction to Vaccine Safety Science & Policy in the United States’.

“Identifying the biologic mechanisms of adverse reactions – how and in whom they occur – is critical for developing safer vaccines, preventing adverse reactions by expanding contraindications, and equitably compensating vaccinees for true adverse reactions.”

Comment: Shameless to pretend you have not for decades ignored or attacked those calling for these studies while pretending a mountain of such studies showing the foregoing don’t already exist.

“[T]he budget for vaccine-safety monitoring at the CDC (which is responsible for the majority of US federal efforts) has remained stagnant … at about $20 million per year” which they write is an “inadequate level of funding.”

Comment: Again, shameless to pretend parent groups have not been yelling about this issue for decades only to be ignored and attacked.

“The public [now] also wants public health authorities to mitigate and prevent rare but serious adverse events – which no longer seem rare when vaccines are given to millions or billions of people.”

Comment: They have always been given to millions or billions of people, and the studies showing the harms they cause are not rare and they already exist, but you don’t really care about that reality as vaccine safety is not really the goal.

If they are really interested in the truth about what injuries vaccines cause and the rate at which these injuries occur, then they should welcome convening a bipartisan panel that could first review all the very concerning studies and hard data that already exist on this topic (often by scientists not on pharma’s dole) and we could design additional studies together and have them run in the open so everybody has to live with the result.

(Among other reasons to demand the study be conducted in the open is that I have witnessed firsthand what happens when a study comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated children in large multi-million person datasets, using historical insurance data, showed vaccinated children had multiple times the rate of numerous chronic diseases – the study gets buried hence the need to do it in the open.)

Plotkin and company should welcome studies that can show vaccines have not contributed to the rise in chronic childhood disease (many of which are immune-mediated diseases) from 12% of children in the early 1980s (when CDC recommended 7 routine childhood injections) to over 50% of children now (when CDC recommends over 90 routine childhood injections).

And I think they do welcome such studies if they can assure that the outcome would show vaccines do not cause these harms. Alas, the reality is that (as they know) studies showing vaccines contribute to this rise already exist. But their goal, in any event, is not to really study safety. Rather it is to prove their prior assumption that vaccines are safe and harms are “rare.” This approach is how they designed VAERS, V-SAFE, VSD, and every other “safety” system.

As is transparent from their article, the only reason they even pretend to care about vaccine safety is that they want to avoid a reduction in vaccine uptake – not actually assure safety.

That all said, if they are really well-meaning, I would welcome collaborating. To be fair, I will email all four of them to request a meeting to review existing science and design studies mutually agreed upon. If they are really interested in vaccine safety, they should welcome that (I have no hard feelings despite their attacks on me and I hope they can rise above any hard feelings they have for the sake of protecting children). Most importantly, I’m willing to live with the results of those studies. Are they?

Source: https://expose-news.com/2024/07/15/after-decades-of-gaslighting-the-public/

Bitchute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/YBM3rvf5ydDM/

Gab: https://gab.com/hopegirl

Telegram: https://t.me/Hopegirl587

EMF Protection Products: www.ftwproject.com

QEG Clean Energy Academy: www.cleanenergyacademy.com

Forbidden Tech Book: www.forbiddentech.website

The post After decades of gaslighting the public, a new study admits that vaccine safety studies are not conducted before or after use on the public appeared first on HopeGirl Blog.

In 2015 the editor of the Lancet study admitted that pharmaceutical marketing is supported by deceitful research. Now, a new report issued by a distinguished doctor provides more insight into how drug companies manipulate scientific research in order to advance corporate interests in the realms of health and medicine.

A meta-analysis is an overarching view of several previously conducted scientific studies which measures both qualitative and quantitative evidence to come to a conclusion about a premise proposed by a scientist – except when that study is paid for by the very companies whom conduct the ‘analysis’ in order to sway data in their interests.

Though the tool of meta-analysis is used in every branch of science, it has become an important device for doctors when trying to determine the best method of treating disease. They’ve become essential, in fact, because of the sheer onslaught of medical studies coming out every year.

The National Institutes of Health invests nearly $32.2 billion annually for medical research alone, giving grants to a myriad of institutions involving studies conducted by over 6,000 scientists.

A meta-analysis is a way for a doctor to wade through the excessive information available and come to a conclusion – something he used to just ask his fellow doctors in a field about. He now relegates that task to medical studies. There’s just one problem. A new report suggests that more than 80 percent of these studies are funded by corporate interests. It’s not science these doctors are reading, but a commercial in the form of scientific literature put together by and funded by drug makers.

These kinds of studies are “extremely important,” according to Dr. John Ioannidis, a professor of medicine health research and policy at Stanford University. He has conducted many of these types of studies throughout his career, and he says, “They’re trying to make some sense out of a very convoluted scientific and medical literature.”

Not much sense is being made, though, despite thousands upon thousands of research studies.

Ioannidis suggests, “They [drug companies] can get the results or at least the interpretation that fits their needs. So you have the most powerful and most prestigious design in current medical evidence, and it can be easily manipulated as an advertisement, as a marketing tool.”

Though the National Academy of Medicine offers many protocols for divulging the ‘money behind the study,’ it can be very difficult for doctors well versed in medical jargon, let alone a common person doing their own research, to wade through the subtleties of a study which is designed from its origins to come to a specific conclusion.

For example, Pfizer, the maker of Prozac, and who pays for many of the meta-analysis for their own drugs, can hide their authorship behind an institution, a scientist, or even suggest in the analysis itself, findings which are not an assimilation of unbiased analytical data, but which simply promote the use of their product.

Many studies have found similar issues with drug companies meddling in the scientific data to skew it in their favor. One such study, penned by Ioannidis, called “The Mass Production of Redundant, Misleading, and Conflicted Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses” published in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, which evaluated 185 meta-analyses, found that one-third of them [meta analysis] were written by pharma industry employees. Other conflicts of interest were also very apparent.

Aside from Ioannidis’ research, in 2015, the editor of one of the world’s most respected medical journals, The Lancet, went public about the massive research fraud that was ruining the field of medical clinical research:

“Much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.” – Dr. Richard Horton, editor of the world’s most respected medical journal, The Lancet

These statements are alarming for several reasons. First, there is the implied lack of any sort of unbiased research on medicine, along with the ridiculous amounts of public funds, let alone private, being spent on ‘medical research,’ that is already determined well before a study is analyzed.

Secondly, the public is swindled once again with fancy, peer-reviewed, scientific journals which should stand as fact, but have been infiltrated by the corporate elite.

As Ioannidis states,

“The publication of systematic reviews and meta-analyses should be realigned to remove biases and vested interests and to integrate them better with the primary production of evidence.”

The corporate takeover of medicine continues.

By Christina Sarich

Christina Sarich is a freelance writer, musician, yogi, and humanitarian. Her insights appear in magazines as diverse as Weston A. Price, Nexus, Atlantis Rising, and the Cuyamungue Institute, among others. She was recently a featured author in the Journal, “Wise Traditions in Food, Farming, and Healing Arts,” and her commentary on healing, ascension, and human potential inform a large body of the alternative news lexicon. She is also a staff writer for Waking Times.

(Source:  wakingtimes.com; October 14, 2016; http://tinyurl.com/gtjbdnc)

The post Doctor warns – 80% of medical studies are advertisements for Big Pharma appeared first on HopeGirl Blog.

In 2001, the pharmaceutical company SmithKline Beecham (now GlaxoSmithKline) published a trial known as Study 329, which claimed that the drug paroxetine – known as Paxil or Seroxat – was “generally well tolerated” and that it helped cure depression in children and adolescents. This led to some two million youngsters being prescribed the pill in the next year alone.

But the study ignored the fact that the drug may cause serious side effects, including suicide. Re-analysis of Study 329 by a team of independent researchers showed the drug was no more effective than a placebo, and that the risk of harm was significant, with at least 12 out of 93 children taking the drug developing suicidal thoughts. GlaxoSmithKline was fined $3 billion for one of the biggest frauds in American healthcare history.

This is but one example of pharmaceutical industry influence shaping the outcome of scientific research. A recent study, published in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, evaluated 185 meta-analyses, and found that one third of them were written by pharma industry employees, who were 22 times less likely to have negative statements about a drug than unaffiliated researchers. Almost 80 percent of the studies had some sort of industry tie, either through sponsorship (funding of the study), or conflicts of interest, where one or more authors were either industry employees or independent researchers receiving industry support (speaking fees, grants, etc.).

In a 2006 study examining industry impact on clinical trials of psychiatric medications, industry-sponsored trials reported favorable outcomes 78% of the time, compared with 48% in independently funded trials. Antidepressants are one of the largest pharmaceutical markets, yet it is likely that the problem of scientific fraud extends to other drugs and vaccines. The need for oversight (government and industry) is increasingly obvious.

(Source:  projectcensored.org; April 6, 2016; http://tinyurl.com/ztjhhoy)

The post Falsified drug studies led to millions of children receiving dangerous antidepressants appeared first on HopeGirl Blog.