- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
WaPo: Studies show Covid-19 vaccines doubled the median survival length of Cancer patients
Posted on 10/25/25 at 4:25 pm
Posted on 10/25/25 at 4:25 pm
Study finds mRNA coronavirus vaccines prolonged life of cancer patients
quote:
Health records of more than 1,000 cancer patients receiving immunotherapy for lung and skin cancer showed they gained additional benefit after vaccination. Covid-19 vaccines, credited with saving millions of lives during the pandemic, set off a powerful alarm that rallies the human immune system against cancer and nearly doubles the median survival length of patients, according to a new retrospective study by researchers at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center and the University of Florida.
11
Posted on 10/25/25 at 4:26 pm to Aced
vaccine prolly what gave em cancer in the first place!!!!! sheep!!!!!
Posted on 10/25/25 at 4:35 pm to Aced
Not the case for my mom sadly.
Posted on 10/25/25 at 4:43 pm to tigersownall
Mine either. Two weeks after the shot she suddenly has a heart attack....
Posted on 10/25/25 at 4:44 pm to Aced
Was that a Pfizer study headed by Fauci?
Posted on 10/25/25 at 5:01 pm to Aced
How would they conclude that with max 4.5 years worth of data?
Posted on 10/25/25 at 5:15 pm to Fenster
quote:
How would they conclude that with max 4.5 years worth of data?
I assume a good number of people with advanced stage cancer took the shot, and a good number of people with advanced stage cancer did not.
Posted on 10/25/25 at 5:22 pm to Aced
These comments prove nobody reads anymore.
Posted on 10/25/25 at 5:25 pm to Aced
Strannix on suicide watch
Posted on 10/25/25 at 5:58 pm to Aced
Sure it does, better go get 6 boosters
Posted on 10/25/25 at 6:04 pm to Aced
Copy of study from Nature if anyone wants to read it:
Web Archive
ETA the abstract:
Web Archive
ETA the abstract:
quote:
Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) extend survival in many patients with cancer but are ineffective in patients without pre-existing immunity1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9. Although personalized mRNA cancer vaccines sensitize tumours to ICIs by directing immune attacks against preselected antigens, personalized vaccines are limited by complex and time-intensive manufacturing processes10,11,12,13,14. Here we show that mRNA vaccines targeting SARS-CoV-2 also sensitize tumours to ICIs. In preclinical models, SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines led to a substantial increase in type I interferon, enabling innate immune cells to prime CD8+ T cells that target tumour-associated antigens. Concomitant ICI treatment is required for maximal efficacy in immunologically cold tumours, which respond by increasing PD-L1 expression. Similar correlates of vaccination response are found in humans, including increases in type I interferon, myeloid–lymphoid activation in healthy volunteers and PD-L1 expression on tumours. Moreover, receipt of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines within 100 days of initiating ICI is associated with significantly improved median and three-year overall survival in multiple large retrospective cohorts. This benefit is similar among patients with immunologically cold tumours. Together, these results demonstrate that clinically available mRNA vaccines targeting non-tumour-related antigens are potent immune modulators capable of sensitizing tumours to ICIs.
This post was edited on 10/25/25 at 6:06 pm
Posted on 10/25/25 at 6:36 pm to Aced
If there's one org you can't trust, it's MDACC in Houston. They are known for shoddy work, pseudo science and questionable results.
Posted on 10/25/25 at 6:53 pm to Aced
If this even a smidgen true, it could be a game changer.
Posted on 10/25/25 at 7:11 pm to Fenster
quote:
How would they conclude that with max 4.5 years worth of data?
Same way the concluded these vaccines were completely, totally, unquestionably safe without years of data. Now shut up and take one or you’ll lose your job.
Posted on 10/25/25 at 7:14 pm to deltadummy
quote:
there's one org you can't trust, it's MDACC in Houston. They are known for shoddy work, pseudo science and questionable results.
I know, I only trust the tweets strannix posts
Posted on 10/25/25 at 7:15 pm to Fenster
quote:
How would they conclude that with max 4.5 years worth of data?
It’s a post hoc analysis of 1139 cancer patients from I think years 2019 to 2022.
For the small cell lung cancer version they compared 704 cancer patients without vaccine in the first 100 days or not at all (assuming pre-covid so no vaccine administered out of reach of the data collected/used or not accidentally left off the records used) to only 180 patients taking vaccine within the 100 days for one cancer.
The melanoma study consisted 167 patients without vaccine in the 100 days or not at all compared to only 88 patients with the vaccine within the 100 days.
The numbers in sample are low due to trying to equalize almost any demographic you can think of between the samples and also have other treatment data on the patients, and they are going thru historical data that wasn’t collected for this particular study or by the people now doing the analysis. The samples without vaccine are much higher in numbers, and they really need more of the vaccine sample for both cancers. I guess they didn’t have the numbers to match demographics and so on to get any more. It does leave open possibility of manipulation of sample sizes to get desired result, but I don’t think they have a motivation to do so here unlike some of the analyses done in support of vaccine and/or booster over natural immunity.
These can be helpful especially in conjunction with actual closed or controlled studies, but by themselves and how much smaller the sample ends up being can make results more about the ones the finally chose to compare.
It does sound interesting, and what I did also read is that it has triggered a phase III trial to try and validate these results.
quote:
MD Anderson Research News October 19, 2025
Cancer patients who received mRNA COVID vaccines within 100 days of starting immunotherapy were twice as likely to be alive three years after treatment as those who never received a vaccine
These findings have prompted a randomized Phase III trial to determine if mRNA COVID vaccines should be part of the standard of care for this type of therapy
If validated, findings could significantly increase the number of patients who benefit from immunotherapy
https://www.mdanderson.org/newsroom/research-newsroom/-esmo-2025--mrna-based-covid-vaccines-generate-improved-response.h00-159780390.html
This post was edited on 10/25/25 at 8:25 pm
Posted on 10/25/25 at 8:26 pm to Aced
Ever since Bezos bought the Post, it is a propaganda arm of the insane left. Even worse than before. There is nothing they write that you can believe.
Posted on 10/26/25 at 8:29 am to Lou Loomis
Except that the study was published in Nature…not the WaPo
Posted on 10/26/25 at 9:03 am to Lou Loomis
quote:
Lou Loomis
A very broken poster.
As stated before not sure how anyone takes this except as good news. I think this will further research into the future of cancer treatments which was always heading towards immunotherapy instead of the very damaging chemotherapy approaches we mostly use today
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News