Cancer seen at 35 per 10,000 was seen at 45 per 10,000.
Yes, its 1.28x more likely. It's still 0.0045 likelihood, and the most likely outcome of presenting for test with no symptoms or concerns remains a negative (not cancer) outcome.
17 cancers showed lower rates, or identical rates. That's more than half. What are we to make of this overall?
I am not a medical or epidemiological scholar. I am not inclined to change my stance regarding vaccine on those outcomes, given half of the cancers under consideration showed lower risks, I appear to be choosing between equally unlikely outcomes, compared to higher risk outcome of having an infection.
The vaccine does not prevent infection and does not reduce the rate of infection, however it was mandated for everyone to take it, even strong young people with no comorbidities that had already been infected.
I'm not against the vaccine but it was forced when there was no medical reason for it to be forced on everyone. When we then also see stats like this where in certian cancers it significantly increases cancer rates then it becomes dubious.
Your individual chance might no have increased much but across the entire population it is significant. I know people who were otherwise healthy and got diagnosed with cancer after the Covid19 pandemic, everyone suspected it was related to the vaccines and it is now being proven by medical studies.
It is important that the studies get done so that we can learn from our mistakes and make different choices in the future and help those that need the help while not harming others.
> The vaccine does not prevent infection and does not reduce the rate of infection,
This is not true. Multiple studies have shown that the vaccines significantly reduced infection rates.
> however it was mandated for everyone to take it, even strong young people with no comorbidities that had already been infected.
This is not true as well. Plenty of places around the world where it wasn't mandated. If you have a specific region in mind, do you mind elaborating? Are you talking about Korea?
> I know people who were otherwise healthy and got diagnosed with cancer after the Covid19 pandemic, everyone suspected it was related to the vaccines and it is now being proven by medical studies.
"My granddad smoked cigarettes. He died at 95. Hit by a truck."
> Multiple studies have shown that the vaccines significantly reduced infection rates.
Is this true or is this rather being asymptomatic or symptoms not severe enough to warrant seeking medical advice and not getting tested in the first place. Seems more like correlation than causation, I can argue that any day.
> If you have a specific region in mind, do you mind elaborating?
Where I live, South Africa. If you refused to get vaccinated during the pandemic you were forced to remain in quarantine despite taking every required precaution and for many large companies were not allowed to return to work, you were given an ultimatum, vaccinate or quit.
Your last point has no merit, I suspected but couldn't prove so it was nothing more than a suspicion, having actual studies prove it is a different story.
Can you address the 17 cancers with either no change or reduced HI risk? Because your logic that an increase demands action begs a question to what a reduction in risk demands.
If your point was about freedom of choice, I think that's a distinct argument. And, I question Your individual chance might no have increased much but across the entire population it is significant. because, I do not see an increase in 35 per 10,000 to 45 per 10,000 as a population wide increase of significance. I guess it depends what meaning you put on "significance" -statistically it's demonstrable, the authors argue it's not coincidence. In terms of its magnitude to outcomes in a population, I don't see this as outweighing the upside benefit of herd immunity and reduced impacts of infection.
Remember alongside this increase in rates of cancer, are increases in rates of lung and heart disease from a full blown viral attack, and death in people with comorbidities who get covid.
Not my study, and even a single cancer is more than needed, even if treatable. Do you know how much cancer treatment costs? The psychological toll it takes on those diagnosed and those around them.
I'm not arguing for not getting vaccinated, I'm arguing it should not be mandated for people who have no need to get vaccinated because the actual stats show they are not at risk or getting a severe infection in the first place.
It's not a matter of their risk increased but it is fine because they had greater risks to mitigate. It's just a base line increase in risk for dubious benefit.
I was vaccinated, I still got full blown covid after vaccination, I was still infectious and had to quarantine and I still live with the long term effects of having had covid, the vaccine was pointless for me and on top of that just increases my baseline risk.
> A vaccine can’t prevent infection, and it’s not intended to…
Yet it was "marketed" differently at the initial stage.
Pandemic should be a subject of deep sociological study. We went through TV showing death bodies laying on the ground, doctors and medical personnel being completely exhausted yet having time and strength to record dance videos on TikTok, masks being useless and then being obligatory, people dying after the car crash and being counted as Covid deaths because they were tested positive, people having other health issues than Covid not getting medical help, calling people tin-foil hat anti-vaccs or granny killers even if they had all other vaccinations because they voiced a slightest concern or pointed contradictory claims in the official information, telling stories about poor children dying under respiratory devices, while asking their parents why they didn't get them vaccines, without any reflection of this in official data, and at the end experts telling we will all die if we don't get all 3 doses of vaccines, and yet being alive and well after only 64% of population took 1 dose or more.
It all, and more, happened in my country, and I guess in others situation was more or less similar. It could all be rationally explained (government can make bad decisions, experts can be wrong, data is being updated, media feeding on strong emotions of fear or anger etc.), but the damage is done and if there would be next pandemic (and there will be) people are going to be even less trustful and more contrarian, to large extent thanks to people like you.
I’ve known since highschool that a virus is a protein coat that wraps a bit of nucleotide, that “infection” means that protein coat has successfully entered your body and taken up residence, and that a vaccine’s job is to prepare your defensive systems to recognize what otherwise it would not.
I’ve no idea why your country has done such a bad job educating you, nor why you’ve allowed yourself to be so uninformed about the very basics of immunology and virology… I’m sorry they’ve failed you. But, when - not if — you face a really serious communicable pandemic (which, let’s be real, SARS-CoV-2 does not and never did represent), if you die because of your resistance to both information and “marketing” (good or bad) it will be your own fault, not mine.
And, amazingly, when you reach, say, 96, and you do die, there’s a reasonable chance that you’ll die of complications of infection from a descendent of SARS-CoV-2.
Also, re: the definition changing, pre-2015 the only vaccines we had for viruses were so-called live-attenuated vaccines, which usually got shortened to “weakened or killed virus” because most people are too uniformed (and uninformable) to understand that viruses are not alive and cannot be killed. Essentially we took remnants of virions from organisms that had survived infection and brute-force introduced those remnants into humans in order to provoke an immune response (ie immune protection, there never has been and never could be a world in which a primed immune response is the same thing as permanent and irrevocable immunity, though again most people can’t understand this so it gets short-handed). Post 2015 we had artificially produced viral proteins we could synthesize and introduce… post 2020/1 that arsenal now includes mRNA-produced targeted proteins, which is friggin amazing tech.
But no jab ever offered lifelong permanent immunity… every jab ever just offered you some response to that specific virion in the future. If the virus mutates fast (as all coronaviruses and influenza viruses do) then that protection naturally decays over time as the protein drifts away from what you’ve been exposed to. That’s why you have to get a new booster every year for fast-evolvers, every five to ten years for slow evolvers, and probably never again in your lifetime for glacially slow evolvers.
There were extensive and contentious discussions between ACIP members, Pfizer and industry representatives regarding the statistically significant rates of birth defects and stillbirths documented in the COVID-19 mRNA injections animal and human clinical trials during Friday’s vaccine advisory committee, including Pfizer’s own study of 300 pregnant women.
“The safety and the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy have never been tested in appropriately powered randomized clinical trials. In one randomized trial there was observed numerical imbalance of higher number of babies with congenital malformation among those born to vaccinated women.”
The net result of these discussions - in 2 separate policy votes of 11 to 1, pregnant women have been dropped from the CDC’s recommendations for the COVID-19 shots and ACIP is now recommending against vaccinating pregnant women.
Let’s go through some the body of evidence ACIP used before we get to the draft warning verbiage for pregnant women.
Spike Protein and Nanoparticles Found in the Placenta and Breast Milk:
Dr. Griffin noted that there were peer-reviewed studies demonstrating the presence of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines (which is the spike protein and lipid nanoparticles) in breast milk and the placenta.
Pfizer Pregnancy Study Shows 4-Fold Increase in Birth Defects - Pfizer Denies Findings
Pfizer also claimed that the birth defects in the vaccinated occurred during the first trimester, weeks before they got the first injection. After nearly 8 minutes of debate between Dr. Kulldorf and the Pfizer representative, Carol Hayes from the American Association of Nurse Midwives came to Pfizer’s defense falsely claiming, ‘birth defects only occur in the first trimester.’
Fig1B is quite interesting. It seems like the overall cancer incidence in the non-vaccinated group increases much more slowly in the first 90ish days, but then stabilizes at a similar or very slightly lower rate in the middle of the graph at 180 days. I would not expect any non linear time effect in the control group.
I wonder (pure speculation) if this is because many in the non-vaccinated groups die because of COVID and so don't get a cancer diagnosis?
Taking a bunch of data from the Korean National Health Insurance database and looking for one specific connection is less than helpful. Like carl sagan said: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
A significant error I often see in cancer studies, is the assumption that after a carcinogenic event (consumption of something toxic, exposure to radiation, etc.) suddenly there is a tumor of such a large size the person notices it and gets it investigated by a medical professional.
Some cancers take years to grow, which means the increase in certain cancer-type rates cannot possibly be explained by a carcinogenic event within a 1-year timescale.
Science is not just about finding relationships in data. You have to justify the claims, argue against them, uncover biases and guarantee the correctness of data. Statistical links are the weakest form of evidence and literally anything can be proven if not graduated through the scientific model.
Yes, its 1.28x more likely. It's still 0.0045 likelihood, and the most likely outcome of presenting for test with no symptoms or concerns remains a negative (not cancer) outcome.
17 cancers showed lower rates, or identical rates. That's more than half. What are we to make of this overall?
I am not a medical or epidemiological scholar. I am not inclined to change my stance regarding vaccine on those outcomes, given half of the cancers under consideration showed lower risks, I appear to be choosing between equally unlikely outcomes, compared to higher risk outcome of having an infection.