re: Jabs increase risk for 7 major types of cancer

quote:

---

This is false.

---

You're right. The rate is much higher.

quote:

---

Why did you ask a poster to provide a link? Why couldn’t you listen to both X videos and look up the articles yourself? That’s what I did in about 10 minutes.

---

It should be fairly obvious why I do this, and their lack of a response proves my point. Of course I can find whatever article I want; I've got full access to PubMed. This is my way of demonstrating how minimally informed posters are on topics, yet portend to know alot because of, like in this OP, random twitter videos aimed at the low IQ crowd. Let's move on.

quote:

---

This is the article mentioned in the first video. It comes from Biomedical Research, Volume 13, Article 114.

---

Yes, this was already posted earlier in this thread. Have you looked at it? When I first clicked the link, I was perplexed as it was a 4 page document, of which the 4th page is just the references. When accounting for the abstract and figures, there is probably less than a page of actual text. I searched and searched assuming this was some sort of short version of an actual study, but could never find it. Then I dig deeper and see that it isn't' even classified as independent research per this journal, but as "Correspondence." Hence why it starts out as "To the editor."

This is not a "study" that can even be critiqued in its current form. There are no Methods or Discussion sections. They do not go into details on their propensity score matching. It is just....a correspondence to the editors. It's useless. Anyone who writes papers or reviews studies can see this immediately.

To further prove this point, the article you posted was published online on Sept 26, 2025. It is from Volume 113, Article 114 as you noted. I went to the very next article in the same volume, Article 115. Here it is. Download the pdf and compare. Firstly, it is categorized as "Research," not "Correspondence." It is 19 pages, with detailed Background, Methods, Results, Discussion, and Conclusion sections which is standard in scientific studies. Now compare with your link. See the differences?

quote:

---

LINK

---

Thanks for sharing! Just from the abstract:

quote:

---

Of the 296,015 residents aged =11 years, 16.6% were unvaccinated, 83.3% received =1 dose, and 62.2% =3 doses. Compared with the unvaccinated, those receiving =1 dose showed a significantly lower likelihood of all-cause death, and a slightly higher likelihood of hospitalization for cancer.

---

Now the difference in the phrasing is important. Those who are vaccinated had a statistically significant decrease in "all-cause" death, but a slightly higher likelihood of hospitalization for cancer. This "slightly higher" means it did not reach statistical significance like it did for all cause mortality. I didn't watch the twitter video, but did they mention that, per the study they referenced, the COVID vaccine literally saves lives?

Further more:

quote:

---

In contrast, no association between vaccines and cancer was observed among the individuals with a recorded previous infection. Even if we could not exclude a potential role of the vaccines over and beyond SARS-CoV-2 infection, such sharp differences by infection status should be interpreted with caution: while it is possible that seropositivity may modulate the response to vaccination (Chambers et al., 2024[9]; Leung, 2022[56]), or that the infection itself may modulate the immune response to cancer cells (Xianpeng Liu et al., 2024[58]), it is also true that in the study setting the requirements for SARS-CoV-2 testing and vaccination changed frequently (Italian Government, 2022[44]), and an unknown portion of those resulting uninfected were likely not tested (Flacco et al., 2022[32]).

---

Leading them to conclude:

quote:

---

Given that it was not possible to quantify the potential impact of the healthy vaccinee bias and unmeasured confounders, these findings are inevitably preliminary.

---

If anyone reads this study and takes away that the authors are arguing that vaccines are clearly a/w increased risk of cancer, they aren't reading what I just read. But any simpleton can get on twitter, mention a study, bring up random out of context numbers and rile up and convince the uneducated masses who so desperately want to believe. Both sides pander to useful idiots. Read the study yourselves, people.

quote:

---

You asked for links to review. They’re now provided for you. Will you now read them and tell us why they are or are not to be believed?
The choice is entirely yours.

---

As a medical molecular biologist, thank you. You cannot argue with idiots.

quote:

---

CNN just had a doctor on saying 50% of the US population has hep B.


That is false. Doctors have no problem lying.

---

I’m an engineer with a long career in my past. I worked with engineers who were great, engineers who were morons, some who were virtuous and some who were skunks. I expect doctors are about the same mix.

I thought they made you 25% more immortal.