Bad news fellow vaxxies, the "turbo cancer" rumor that the conspiracy theorists have been yammering about has turned out to be completely true, as proved by this recent publication:https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38234925/>The "hallmarks of cancer" were proposed by Hanahan and Weinberg (2000) as a group of biological competencies that human cells attain as they progress from normalcy to neoplastic transformation. These competencies include self-sufficiency in proliferative signaling, insensitivity to growth-suppressive signals and immune surveillance, the ability to evade cell death, enabling replicative immortality, reprogramming energy metabolism, inducing angiogenesis, and activating tissue invasion and metastasis. Underlying these competencies are genome instability, which expedites their acquisition, and inflammation, which fosters their function(s). Additionally, cancer exhibits another dimension of complexity: a heterogeneous repertoire of infiltrating and resident host cells, secreted factors, and extracellular matrix, known as the tumor microenvironment, that through a dynamic and reciprocal relationship with cancer cells supports immortality, local invasion, and metastatic dissemination.
are insurance companies paying out when these cases pop up?
>>16145861>the ability to evade cell death, enabling replicative immortality,Holy shit, we might be able to achieve immorality through cancer research!
>>16145866Insurance increment price for amount vaccines mRNA take.
>>16145912it's kinda impossible. even if your cells were immortal, your extracellular matrix would still degrade over time. you would become a wrinkly and sludgy and floppy mess. and you would die from that.
>>16145861you posted only the first line which is a general statement about tumor genesis hypothesisfrom your articleThis staggering intricacy calls for caution when advising all people with cancer (or a previous history of cancer) to receive the COVID-19 primary vaccine series plus additional booster doses. Moreover, because these patients were not included in the pivotal clinical trials, considerable uncertainty remains regarding vaccine efficacy, safety, and the risk of interactions with anticancer therapies, which could reduce the value and innocuity of either medical treatment. After reviewing the available literature, we are particularly concerned that certain COVID-19 vaccines may generate a pro-tumorigenic milieu (i.e., a specific environment that could lead to neoplastic transformation) that predisposes some (stable) oncologic patients and survivors to cancer progression, recurrence, and/or metastasis. This hypothesis is based on biological plausibility and fulfillment of the multi-hit hypothesis of oncogenesis (i.e., induction of lymphopenia and inflammation, downregulation of angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) expression, activation of oncogenic cascades, sequestration of tumor suppressor proteins, dysregulation of the RNA-G quadruplex-protein binding system, alteration of type I interferon responses, unsilencing of retrotransposable elements, etc.) together with growing evidence and safety reports filed to Vaccine Adverse Effects Report System (VAERS) suggesting that some cancer patients experienced disease exacerbation or recurrence following COVID-19 vaccinationin short, the article you posted raises concerns about the safety of the covid vaccine about people who already have had a cancer because it wasn't specifically tested with them to see what impact it might have on their cancer management, including interactions with cancer medication.that's all it says.
>>16145927Fuck. I saw hope. We could make the mods stay here forever.
>>16145936Can you explain your rhoughts on those igg4 class switch papers?
>>16145861
>>16145866The turbo cancer kills so quickly it doesn't end up being all that expensive. Most will die before they can get treated
>>16145936There was more disease, illness and deaths in the cohort that took the jab as opposed to the control group, despite the control group having more participants. This is a fact and level 1 evidence of harm. you are a coping fag that can't admit youre a pussy and kneeled in order to continue med school, the case with much of /sci/. Or you are nigger tier IQ. Pick your retardation.>https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2110345
>>16148286Cancer spending is exploding
>>16148450based hard evidence provider
>>16148450>youre a pussy and kneeled in order to continue med schoolTrump's plan to holocaust that segment of the population via the vax was a masterstroke of 1488D chess
>>16148450the picture you posted shows about the same amount of participants in both randomized groups, but if you want to pick the group with more participants, it would be the group that received the vaccine (21,926 against 21,921).Another mistake you made when interpreting this table is that you're substituting any event with adverse events. The chart only shows that when you inject someone with a placebo, you get around half as many adverse events as if you had injected them with the covid vaccine (pfizer's). I tried to find in the article you linked what they consider to be an adverse event but it's not made crystal clear to me, I'm not a researcher. However they do make a difference between "reactogenicity" which is up to 7 days after the injection, and adverse events up to 6 months after that first period. What it certainly doesn't count as an adverse event is a covid infection, and the main take away of the article you provided is that the vaccine is considered both safe and efficient. In the appendix, a chart shows that about the rate of severe covid is about 1 to 20-30 in you compare the vaccinated group to the placebo group.finally, when it comes to death events>During the blinded, placebo-controlled period, 15 participants in the BNT162b2 group and 14 in the placebo group died; during the open-label period, 3 participants in the BNT162b2 group and 2 in the original placebo group who received BNT162b2 after unblinding died. None of these deaths were considered to be related to BNT162b2 by the investigators. Causes of death were balanced between BNT162b2 and placebo groups (Table S4).
>>16145936>we are particularly concerned that certain COVID-19 vaccines may generate a pro-tumorigenic milieu (i.e., a specific environment that could lead to neoplastic transformation) that predisposes some (stable) oncologic patients and survivors to cancer progression, recurrence, and/or metastasis. it's probably nothing, go back to sleep
>>16145861I am, of course, going to take this with a massive grain of salt because you've been doomsaying for several years and been wrong about everything so far. But suppose you are right for once. I acted according to conscience and made a great sacrifice in order to right this world. Meanwhile you're still a smug, self-righteous cunt more interested in gloating than concern for your fellow man. I have nothing but contempt for you.
>>16149654ssshhh, go back to sleephttps://www.cureus.com/articles/196275-increased-age-adjusted-cancer-mortality-after-the-third-mrna-lipid-nanoparticle-vaccine-dose-during-the-covid-19-pandemic-in-japan#!/Increased Age-Adjusted Cancer Mortality After the Third mRNA-Lipid Nanoparticle Vaccine Dose During the COVID-19 Pandemic in JapanGibo et al
oh, so sleepy*yawns*
>>16149669
>>16149654The life of the niggercattle lmfao
>>16149665the vaccine was released around the end of 2020, with first a priority for the elderly and medical staff before starting wide range vaccination. Cancers generally take a long time to develop, especially something like prostate cancer.Finally, this particular chart only shows excess or deficit of mortality rate in persons with these cancer, not a higher incidence of those cancer. You'll notice that the first half of the chart, there seems to be a deficit of mortality (which, according to you, would be thanks to the vaccine).in conclusion : the timeframe is too short in 2021 / 2022 to evaluate an increase in cancer developpment caused by the vaccine, it isn't what your chart is evaluating, it's an excess mortality rate during these years, it doesn't compare vaccinated and non vaccinated so you can't infer anything from the vaccine, the covid infection itself could just as much be a factor in those varying rates just like many other factors.>>16149650who said it's nothing ? not the scientists doing the work, researching side effects, coming up with vaccines and also coming up for treatments against cancer. however before you can say what it actually is, you should learn how to read scientific articles
>>16149654>I acted according to conscience and made a great sacrifice in order to right this world.https://www.healthline.com/health/savior-complex
>>16149704inb4 correlation isnt causation
>>16149704So you read the science, tell me why does the Pfizer jabbed arm having more deaths than the placebo group imply that the jabs are safe my nigger?
>>16149704Tell me why the igg4 class switch is good
>>16149704are you using a LLM to write these posts?
>>16149665>>16149701>>16149705See? The responses range from gloating, to pathologising, to simply insulting, all reveling in the supposed privilege of having access to special knowledge that is common to all conspiracy theories. You don't care at all about the well-being of others, you care about considering yourself superior to them, and therefore you would be saying the same thing about vaccines no matter what, whether it's true or not.
again, do yourself a favor and spend just a few more minutes thinking about what you're going to post, you'd reach the same conclusion as I do and save us both a lot of time.You just posted a picture with charts with the implied conclusion that the covid vaccine is the cause of a higher mortality rate in certain types of cancer. You're trying to subvert the idea that correlation isn't causation like it's some sort of misguided medical dogma. We'll get into that another time. Your own chart is showing in 4 out of the 5 cancer showing increased mortality rates (it's not showing those with no difference or decreased mortality rates), that the point of inflection happens in late 2019 / early 2020 at most. I already mentioned it in my previous post but the vaccination started late 2020 and even late 2021 for the majority of people. So according to your own charts, it might be caused by the covid infection but the vaccine can't cause an effect before it starts being distributed. As for an alternative explanation, maybe care systems in the world became less efficient in treating those cancers during a period of very high stress for medical facilities
>>16149806>You're trying to subvert the idea that correlation isn't causationCorrelation isnt causation, but it's a pretty big fucking clue, m8
>>16149553those crossed over after unblinding werent counted so yes, the control group was bigger.>During the blinded, placebo-controlled period, 15 participants in the BNT162b2 group and 14 in the placebo group died; during the open-label period, 3 participants in the BNT162b2 group and 2 in the original placebo group who received BNT162b2 after unblinding died. None of these deaths were considered to be related to BNT162b2 by the investigators. Causes of death were balanced between BNT162b2 and placebo groups (Table S4).I hope you understand this means that 5 more vaxxed participants died bringing the total to 20 compared to 14 of the unvaxxed.>and the main take away of the article you provided is that the vaccine is considered both safe and efficientkek .you ignore the evidence and jump straight to 'what did they say in the conclusion for retards that didnt read' section. You hate the objective statistics and keep pushing subjective classifications on the death by scientists with conflict of interests on the paper. No 'vaccine' in the history of humanity has level 1 evidence of harm PROVEN like this.
>>16149865where did you get that pic from? could you post the entire thing since it doesn't appear to be from the research article ?
>>16149948https://www.canadiancovidcarealliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/The-COVID-19-Inoculations-More-Harm-Than-Good-REV-Dec-16-2021.pdfits a summary of all alarming stats/facts about the same paper i posted earlier
>>16150025>>16149865alright so here's the mistake, on the third line, the person who made this chart substitued "any severe adverse event" for what is actually in the original paper "any severe event". As I said before, adverse event and any events aren't the same thing. You can argue that they're not properly reporting some events as adverse events and maybe you're right, maybe you're wrong, the fact is that this chart changed what the paper is saying and that I personally have no way to check how they reported these events.So we're left with a 10% increase in serious adverse events, and 300% increase in any adverse events. I'm not surprised personally, actually I'm surprised it's not more than that for the serious adverse events, everyone knows that it can induce myocarditis among other things, and I don't expect a placebo injection to be so close to those of a vaccine injection.for the second part about the death count, I tried to figure it out but it doesn't go into details, but as it shows in your own chart, there is no number for placebo, not even 0. Because it's nowhere mentionned how many people kept without a vaccine shot after the study period. If 90% of the people eventually got the shot, which isn't far fetched since it became mandatory for a large part of the world, it means you're practically left with only people who have received the vaccine. No wonder some of them continue to die. You're not comparing similar groups anymore.I don't know why you also keep repeating there's more people in the control group but it's false.>The participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive two 30-μg intramuscular injections, 21 days apart, of BNT162b2 (0.3 ml volume per dose) or saline placebo.
>>16150079Now about canadian covid care alliance :>Toronto, Ontario physician and cofounder of Canadian Covid Care Alliance, Ira Bernstein, launched Canadian Covid Telehealth, at the address of his Toronto practice, as a "covert prescription network" where he and his colleagues could prescribe ivermectin. In a November video announcing the creation of Canadian Covid Telehealth, Bernstein admitted that Health Canada has not approved the drug. He said, without evidence, that Health Canada and the regulators were not basing their claims against the use of ivermictin on "any credible science."https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_misinformation_in_Canadahttps://nypost.com/2023/06/06/doctor-busted-for-plot-to-kill-estranged-wife-after-serving-time-for-similar-plan/>A former New York podiatrist who served four years in prison for a botched murder-for-hire plot against his estranged wife has been charged in a second attempt to have his wife killed — this time recruiting his lawyer sister to destroy the evidence.>Ira Bernstein, 49, was charged with multiple felonies last week for attempting to solicit the murder of his wife, Susan Bernstein, between July 29 and Sept. 21, 2022, the Rockland County District Attorney’s Office announced.I didn't expect that second part and it's not entirely relevant to the argument you posted, but it's still interesting to know who is speaking
>>16150025another summary https://textup.fr/758549JD
>>16150083actually nevermind about the second part, he's a homonym but the one who co funded CCCA is a family physician, not a podiatrist
>>16150079>this chart substitued "any severe adverse event" for what is actually in the original paper "any severe event". As I said before, adverse event and any events aren't the same thingAre you sure you can understand english? the column heading is 'adverse event' therefore the 'severe' under 'adverse event' is a severe adverse event like the chart says... kinda embarrassing you cant grasp this basic english.>adverse event and any events aren't the same thing Ok now im convinced youre doing pilpul, 'any event' is UNDER the HEADING 'adverse events', 'any event' is thus an adverse event without the cause mentioned. This is a poor attempt at muddying the waters.>for the second part about the death count, I tried to figure it out but it doesn't go into details, but as it shows in your own chart, there is no number for placebo, not even 0. it says 14 deaths right there. Why are youshamelessly lying? people can read you know...>Because it's nowhere mentionned how many people kept without a vaccine shot after the study period.Why would a clinical trial measure what happens some arbitrary duration after the clinical trial had been concluded? it has all the stats for 6 whole months, the unblinding was done delibarately to muddy up the water so after this 6 months (which we have all the incriminating stats for that youre ignoring) there wouldnt be a reliable control group to compare it to, this proves the reality im arguing for even more.>If 90% of the people eventually got the shot, which isn't far fetched since it became mandatory for a large part of the world, it means you're practically left with only people who have received the vaccine. No wonder some of them continue to dieAre you implying muh participants were lying? thats the crux of your argument?>>16150083>Now about canadian covid care alliance :Thats not the same guy, yet another lie. plus ivermectin has now been conveniently admitted to be useful against covid. KILL YOURSELF, evil liar.
>>16150131this is getting tiresome, no idea why you're throwing insults when I've been polite with you. You seem to misunderstand some of my phrases, so this will be my last attempt to communicateFirst because it's the least clear cut thing I guess, I can see why you interpret the entirety of "any event" as adverse events, as you said that's what it says right above in that column, it confused me as well. But if you read the bottom paragraph, it explains in "b" that it counts any event that happens in that period, not just things that would be considered as adverse events. That's why there's a subcategory called "related" (ant it says in "c" that those are what the investigators consider to potentially be caused by the vaccine). How else do you explain that subcategory "related" ? To be fair, it certainly includes severe related adverse events, but it's not just that.I think this interpretation is what makes the most sense, because right underneath you have "life-threatening" category. If you can explain to me how a placebo injection manages to cause 26 lifethreatening adverse events, I'm all ears. I don't want to seem like I'm making fun of you either, I'm taking a lot of time sincerely trying to figure it out, as it's not my expertise.now quickly for the other things, I was specifically talking about the death count after the unblinding phase. I'm not going to screenshot it but if you look at your chart, it's the only empty case, it's not that hard to find. Why would I lie about that?In the first phase you have 15 vs 14 deaths, then in the next phase, they unblind the group which means people get to know whether or not they have received the vaccine, and they are allowed to receive a shot, but you could reasonably expect some more people to die from what was originally the placebo group.If most people in the placebo group goes on to receive a vaccine, it makes sense that all death will now be counted as a "vaccine death". But the groups are unbalanced now
>>16149553>In the appendix, a chart shows that about the rate of severe covid is about 1 to 20-30 in you compare the vaccinated group to the placebo group.There was 31 severe covid cases from a total of around 46,000 participants, where "severe covid" could just be a positive pcr test with an elevated heart rate(>124bpm). So 46,000 people take a brand new drug with unknown effects to possibly help 30 people. Seems logical.
>>16149795projection
>>16150083lmao that wikipedia has a page on misinformation
>>16150177Youre a kaafir liar. your constant feigning of sincerity and several lies will not go unpunished. Just look at how many lies youve made so far.1st lie. You asked me where I got the stats from Despite already being made aware that it was a direct quotation from the original six-month paper and you know this because you I have already shared the 6 month paper statistics beforehand and you replied to that. So you were aware that those two statistics did match and you still asked as if I just pulled this out of nowhere or as if it was a separate paper.2. When I mentioned to you the guys (CCCA) who put these alarming stats together, which as you are fully aware are directly from the paper (Verbatim repetition of the numbers), Your immediate response was to not only commit logical fallacy in saying that The founder shilled for ivermectin for those suffering from covid (proven beneficial) But you even made up and fabricated a lie in order to character assassinate him By claiming he was a criminal because he had a similar name as somebody else. Did you delete this lie? No. You just want the reader to skim ahead and then be mislead and left a footnote of a reply you know most wont read, saying 'akshually nevermind'.So it was not enough for you to commit a logical fallacy, but your basis for the logical fallacy was also fabricated. You lied in two separate dimensions, and you want people to assume that these meticulously crafted lies which you have barely admitted to, were accidentally complex falsehoods. Made 3 lies, none of them admitted to explicitly..You are a filthy liar and should be killed. Im Muslim, i can sense a lie a million miles a way God taught us not only why, but how you lie, i know your techniques..
>>16145866Why? The Biden gov mandated the vaccines, the government absolved all the responsibilities for the big pharmas and the hospitals.That just leaves you to pay for the damages yourself.
>>1614593640% of people in the US are diagnosed with cancer. Undiagnosed cancer would probably be even higher when added together. Even if its only 10% more undiagnosed, thats 50% of the population being subject to turbo cancer and super aids from the vax
>>16154766>You are a filthy liar and should be killed. Im Muslim, i can sense a lie a million miles a way God taught us not only why, but how you lie, i know your techniques..Yeah typical Muslim. >he refuted me??? But I'm right! Filthy liar! Kaffir! Im wise Im smart God made me better than you and Im smart Im wise. I am so clever against you and your LIES you liar!!!!You people ALWAYS talk like this. Everything that disagrees with a Muslim is a conscious lie and deeply personal attack.
>>16153575While I do agree, I hate the cavalier approach this takes. How does the entry on Chickadees factor into that?
>>16154839Haha, why are you ignoring the blatant lies you made that i detailed? Any comments? youre not even denying you shamelessly lied. At least i use insults sporadically within the logically sound arguments. You just continue ignoring and lying lmao
>>16154843>why are you ignoring the blatant lies you made that i detailed? Any comments?Aside from the fact that I didn't make that post but you're assuming I'm that anon anyway? Brownie arrogance at its finest
>>16154850Meant for this clown >>16154844
>>16154850>>16154853>Dude it wasnt me who lied, let me defend the liar on his behalf and attack you then.So it doesnt matter to you if what i was saying was truthful or not? Does it not occur to you that if i was right, id be entitled in saying what i said or does the truth not matter to you, kaafir? silly me. ofc it doesnt my God told me:"But most of them, to the truth, are averse." [ 43:78]
>>16154861Typical Muslim logic. "If you told the truth, you'd already agree with me, but if you disagree with me its ONLY because you are a liar trying to trick me!" Your dawahs or whatever they're called still insist Collyridianism is official Christian theology or ever was anything more than heresy
I took astrazeneca, am I fucked?
>>16154942yes, thats the worst one
I was in the military. I got pumped full of all kinds of vaccines, small pox, anthrax, Japanese encephalitis, plus a bunch of other shit I never even heard of. Yeah I got the vax, who cares? I also smoke cigars and drink a six pack of beer a day and I’m still in better shape than 90% of you fags and can run a 2 mile in less than 13 minutes as a middle aged man. Get bent.
>>16154850>i need to look at wikipedia, i'm addicted, i don't know how to get information anywhere else, i need my instant dose of dunning kurgerism to feed my repulsive narcissistic know-it-all personality
>>16158135uh oh vaxxxisters
>>16145861Dowd is an /x/ tier conspiracy nut.
>>16155972first sane person i've seen in my entire life probably, not concerned with sacrificing their fellow inmates
you guys should all move to a third world country, then you can bash each others heads in with hammers and burn each other alive and let each other bleed out, then laugh about it and film it, like it seems like you all want to do.i wish you would snap out of it though, things could be so much more dignified and ACTUALLY just.you don't have to sit here growing angrier, this ritual serves no purpose.we've ALL been brutalized and warred upon.
>>16160037
>>16161131why don't they ever question conspiracy theories
>>16161267why do you insist on placing your trust in known liars? stockholm syndrome? no confidence in your own perceptiveness?
>>16162498wait are we still talking about conspiracy theorists ?
