The Covid-19 mRNA vaccines ushered in a new medical technology that could prevent and treat a range of chronic health problems. But studies that show it can kill are being suppressed, Tony Edwards reports
What don’t they want us to know about the Covid-19 jabs? One of the jabs—a conventional vaccine manufactured in great haste by AstraZeneca—was quickly rejected across Europe, and the UK government quietly withdrew it earlier this year. But the others harness a new technology, mRNA, which their manufacturers claim heralds the future of medicine.
Drug companies are already preparing the next generation of mRNA-based preventive therapies to treat chronic health problems such as cancer. Pfizer, which marketed the Comirnaty BNT162b2 mRNA jab, is trumpeting the new technology as a way of “unleashing the next wave of scientific innovation.”
But the mRNA jabs were rushed. Safety tests were short-circuited as governments pressed for a solution to the epidemic, but willing citizens rolled up their sleeves to get their protective doses.
And the jabs weren’t safe. Excess death rates—especially among the young, who were targeted for the vaccine—have been worryingly high since 2020, when the vaccines were introduced.
No one is free to ask whether the evidence against mRNA technology in vaccines points to the possibility of problems in other areas of medicine. All attempts to examine the worrying trend have been quashed, and even leading scientists who have investigated it have been silenced.
Cancer is among the side effects that researchers aren’t allowed to speak up about. In recent months, two medical journals have retracted mRNA jab studies, one of which looked at a possible link between the jabs and cancer.
Using official mortality data, a team of Japanese scientists reported significant peaks in their country’s cancer deaths, coinciding with the three jab rollouts in 2021 and 2022—the final booster shot in particular. They submitted their paper to the journal Cureus in early 2024, and it passed the peer review process and was published in April.1
The study’s major finding was that deaths from “ovarian cancer, leukemia, prostate, lip/oral/pharyngeal, pancreatic, and breast cancers increased significantly (up to 9.7 percent) beyond the predicted rates, especially in 2022.” But the four authors, among them Professor Masanori Fukushima, one of the country’s top cancer experts, were careful to point out that they couldn’t prove the jabs were responsible, leaving readers to judge for themselves.
Staff at Reuters Fact Check decided to do the judging for the public. They condemned the paper, quoting US biostatistician Jeffrey Morris, who claimed there had been no significant increase in cancer deaths, and even if there had been, they couldn’t have been caused by the jabs.2
Incidentally, such disagreements are common within academic medicine and are usually conducted publicly via the letters section of the particular journal. However, the Cureus editor decided not to publish Morris’s criticisms. Instead, he apologized for having published the paper and withdrew it, citing the Reuters Fact Check as evidence. By doing so, he deprived the public of their right to examine the evidence in full and arrive at a sound consensus.
The decision has been attacked by top medics, who risk opprobrium from the powerful pro-vaccine lobby. Canada’s Professor Denis Rancourt, who had also found a significant increase in all-cause mortality in southern hemisphere countries after the jab rollout,3 called the retraction “baseless.”
In the UK, leading oncologist Angus Dalgleish said the Japanese paper was “the best uncontaminated data on the subject to have been published.” Regarding the retraction, he said, “It is an absolute disgrace that such censoring of hard data is still going on.”4
The second recently censored study offered a more focused look at Covid jab sequelae by examining the bodies of people who had died shortly after receiving the injection. A group of top US and Canadian medics surveyed 326 published reports of individual autopsies (postmortems) in the Covid era—an unsurprisingly small number perhaps, given the pressure on doctors not to “fuel vaccine hesitancy.”
Being as conservative as possible, the researchers concluded that a good two-thirds of the deaths “were independently adjudicated as directly due to—or significantly contributed to by—Covid-19 vaccination.”
Once again, however, there were publication shenanigans. The researchers had originally submitted the paper to The Lancet only for the journal to sit on it for a whole year.
Finally an online version was published, attracting huge international interest: within 24 hours, the paper had been downloaded 100,000 times. Despite the interest, the journal retracted it without explanation.
The researchers soon found another editor prepared to publish the findings in a journal specializing in autopsy data.
It was dramatic stuff. While the average age of people who died after a Covid jab was about 70, there were a startling number of young fatalities. For example, three days after receiving a Pfizer booster, a 14-year-old girl died of “congestive edema of the lungs, T-cell lymphocytic and macrophage infiltration in the lungs, pericardium, and myocardium of the left atria and left ventricle, liver, kidneys, stomach, duodenum, bladder and diaphragm.”
Five days after his first Pfizer jab, a 22-year-old man died of “isolated atrial myocarditis, scattered single-cell necrosis of myocytes (muscle cells), and extensive contraction band necrosis in the atria and ventricles.”
The study found that “most of the deaths occurred within a week from last vaccination” and that “the primary causes of death were sudden cardiac death (35 percent), pulmonary embolism (12.5 percent), heart attack (12 percent), VITT (vaccine-induced blood clots and bleeding, 7.9 percent), myocarditis (7.1 percent), multisystem inflammatory syndrome (4.6 percent), and cerebral hemorrhage (3.8 percent).”5
A novel finding for the pathologists was evidence of injuries in “multiple organ systems.” The researchers speculated that the spike protein antigens created by the mRNA jab technology had been designed to suffuse the whole body, using the lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) contained in the jab dose as the spike protein carriers. This is, of course, in marked contrast to conventional vaccines, which neither contain LNPs nor generate extra antigens.
The article was published online June 21 but has been withdrawn in press.
The unusual effects of the new mRNA technology could explain the unprecedented number of post-jab injuries and deaths reported around the world in the last few years, such as in the US Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS, vaers.hhs.gov) and the UK’s Yellow Card system (yellowcard.mhra.gov.uk).
The authorities have mostly ignored these, but now even top vaccine enthusiasts, such as Professor Stanley Plotkin, author of Plotkin’s Vaccines (Elsevier, 2023), are beginning to acknowledge that the Covid-19 mRNA jabs were poorly safety-tested.
“The public wants health authorities to mitigate and prevent rare but serious adverse reactions, which no longer seem rare when vaccines are given to millions or billions of people,” he and his colleagues wrote in a recent article. “It is critical to examine adverse events following immunization to ascertain whether they are causally or coincidentally related to vaccination.
“Progress in vaccine-safety science has been slow, which has adversely affected vaccine acceptance. Safety research requires timely funding linked to the introduction of new vaccines.”6
Sadly, that exhortation comes too late in the day for the 37,800 Americans reported in VAERS to have already died from the Covid injections—a huge mortality figure that is probably itself a gross underestimate.7
The question remains: Will authorities give mRNA technology an impartial look before approving it for other uses?
Last April, Professor Angus Dalgleish, a British cancer expert renowned for the development of cancer vaccines, spoke to Senator Ron Johnson, the US congressman most actively opposed to vaccine mandates.
Here’s a précis of his statement:
“It’s unbelievable the damage this drive for vaccines has done, when vitamin D and good nutrition generally would do far more for the overall health of populations than an untried vaccine.
“My first principle with vaccines is less is more—the less you put into the vaccine, the more likely it is to work. But the drug companies went for the spike protein, and when we analyzed it in our laboratory, we found there were six ‘inserts,’ plus a furin cleavage site.
“All these gave the vaccine a charge, making it act like a fridge magnet for human cells. Another analysis of ours also revealed that the spike protein had 80 to 100 percent homology to human epitopes, leading to blood clotting and Guillain-Barré syndrome, which turned out to be true. But we couldn’t get our data published anywhere.
“So we prepared a document for the UK government, which was then passed to its medical advisers, who decided to ignore it. I was furious because I knew there would be significant side effects; the question was how bad would they be?
“I protested when the authorities began to give the vaccines to people in their 40s and 50s, but I went berserk when they suggested giving it to children. After all, the average age of death from Covid was 82! The whole thing was a dystopian Orwellian nightmare.
“What brought me even further into the fray was the booster. We’ve done a lot of work on cancer vaccines, and we have an adage: if a vaccine needs a booster, it clearly doesn’t work—and, my goodness, has that been proved true in the case of Covid vaccines.
“Boosters suppress the T-cell immune response, and I began to see my melanoma patients, who had been stable for years, suddenly relapsing. Sometimes the relapse was quite vicious: I had to treat them all over again, and some never responded. We couldn’t treat those cancers—they didn’t respond to the standard treatment.
“The only thing my relapsed patients had in common was that they’d all been bullied by their GPs to have a booster, “just to be safe.” Many also came down with lymphomas. Three friends of mine only agreed to have the booster so they could travel post-lockdown, but one has relapsed and two have died.
“That’s why I go really vocal in saying that using mRNA technology for infectious disease is not just gross medical negligence, it really is criminal negligence. The scandal is that every time I’ve raised the issue, I’ve been carpeted not only by my hospital but even by the Royal College of Physicians, who’ve told me to be quiet, as I’m upsetting patients.
“No, I am not. I am doing my job: first do no harm. I am like the canary in the coal mine. I have seen harm, and my message is ‘Stop now.’” 1
Also see: The Bolus Theory of Covid Vaccine Damage
What do you think? Start a conversation over on the... WDDTY Community
Great news! Discounts are available based on your cart total. Check the details below:
