Jesus Christ!

I would hate to be an ordinary American right now! Health care to be priced out of reach, now the bodies that can protect against mass disease are gone.

How many will die in the next 2 years?

If coal fired power revives somewhat—more deaths from the pollution. Coal power is dirty.

"In one of the greatest violations of medical ethics in modern history, a new study from South Korea has uncovered devastating consequences from promoting and mandating the COVID-19 injections on the population.

These shots were pushed on babies and pregnant women, directly contradicting the ethical rule against introducing new medical interventions to such vulnerable groups before long-term effects are fully understood.

But they weren’t just aggressively promoted; they were enforced. Refusing the COVID-19 injection could cost you your job, bar you from concerts, businesses, and museums, and, in some cases, even deny you a life-saving surgery unless you complied with the mandate.

Now, as many doctors long warned, the consequences of such reckless health policy are surfacing, and one of the most alarming outcomes is a dramatic rise in cancer risk.

A large-scale population study out of South Korea has now found a 27% overall increase in cancer linked to the COVID-19 injections that were marketed as “safe and effective.”

Dr. John Campbell noted: “There’s a one in a thousand chance that this result arose by chance.”

With regard to the details of the study, Children’s Health Defense reports:

    The study used data from 2021–2023 for over 8.4 million people in South Korea’s National Health Insurance Service database. The sample was split into two groups based on vaccination status. The vaccinated sample was further split into booster and non-booster groups.

    Researchers tracked the patients for one year. The vaccinated group was tracked following vaccination. The results showed a statistically significant higher risk of cancer in the vaccinated group, including:

    • Overall cancer: 27% higher risk

    • Breast cancer: 20% higher risk

    • Colorectal cancer: 28% higher risk

    • Gastric cancer: 34% higher risk

    • Lung cancer: 53% higher risk

    • Prostate cancer: 69% higher risk

    • Thyroid cancer: 35% higher risk



These results are nothing short of devastating. Our worst fears have become reality.

And the worst part is that it didn’t have to be this way. Health officials ignored caution, silenced dissent, and turned public health into a reckless experiment."

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2025/10/devastating-covid-19-vaccine-side-effec...

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

"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."

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 14^th, 2025 at 5:46pm:



Yep. Cowardice comes cheaper than paying recompense.

So now we shouldn't trust Nature magazine. Oh dear.

But another comment on JM's post

"This Korean study is an interesting analysis of population-level data, examining cancer diagnoses within one year of either primary or booster COVID-19 vaccination compared with unvaccinated controls. Matching was done on age (<65, 65–74, 75+), sex, socioeconomic status (insurance-based), comorbidity score, and prior COVID-19 infection.

The propensity score matching is appropriate and strengthens comparability, but important potential confounders may remain. Most notably, age was coarsely grouped with all <65 lumped together—yet a person in their 20s is both far less likely to be vaccinated and far less likely to be diagnosed with cancer than someone in their 60s. Unless the continuous age distributions match well across groups, this could create a spurious vaccine–cancer association. Smoking, alcohol use, and environmental exposures (if available in the dataset) should also have been considered in matching or covariate adjustment."

Except vaccinnation rates by Stista show apaert from 17-20 year olds was between 90% to 98%.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1358025/south-korea-national-covid-19-vaccin...

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 14^th, 2025 at 5:46pm:


Contrary to the claims circulating, the Korean researchers emphasised the limitations of their conclusions and denied offering any evidence of causality.

In their conclusion, the study’s authors stated: “Given the limited availability of real-world data, our population-based cohort study in Seoul, South Korea suggested epidemiological associations between the cumulative incidence of cancers and COVID-19 vaccination, which varied by sex, age and vaccine type. However, further studies are warranted to elucidate potential causal relationships, including the underlying molecular mechanisms related to COVID-19 vaccine-induced hyperinflammation.”

This quote clearly shows that the study presented only “epidemiological associations” and called for further research to explore potential causal links. Therefore, any claim that vaccines “cause” cancer is a direct distortion of the facts.

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 14^th, 2025 at 7:27pm:


'any claim that vaccines “cause” cancer is a direct distortion of the facts.'

'the Korean researchers emphasised the limitations of their conclusions and denied offering any evidence of causality.'

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 14^th, 2025 at 7:42pm:


In scientific terms, an “epidemiological association” indicates a statistical relationship or common pattern between two events, without implying that one causes the other.

To illustrate, if ice cream sales rise in the summer while drowning incidents also increase, there is an epidemiological correlation, but this does not mean that ice cream causes drowning; the common cause is warm weather causing people to eat ice creams and go swimming.

The manipulation occurs when this correlation is twisted into “definitive causality”, the trap influencers fell into. They ignored the scientific warnings and promoted the claim that vaccines “increase the risk”.

The true explanation likely lies in a phenomenon known as “surveillance bias”. People who were more inclined to receive the vaccine were often more diligent about medical check-ups and regular screenings, meaning cancer was diagnosed earlier – not caused by the vaccine.