Cancer concerns

Why are people worried about cancer risk from covid vaccines?

All HART articles also on Substack. Please consider a PAID SUBSCRIPTION so we can continue our work. Comments are open so you can join in the conversation.

The covid vaccines skipped safety testing for cancer risk. Pfizer said genotoxicity, carcinogenicity and biodistribution studies were “not considered necessary.” Even while their trial info sheet said “Due to the urgent need for a vaccine against Covid-19, with agreement from the MHRA, some of the tests usually required for a newly manufactured vaccine have been modified, in order to make the vaccine available more quickly for assessment.” 

There are numerous reasons to be concerned about a potential cancer risk. Cancer occurs when mutations in DNA mean that cell growth is no longer controlled. The body has plenty of safety nets to minimise the risk of cancer developing but the accumulation of damage can reach a tipping point where cancer results. The balance can also be tipped towards cancer if the immune system stops killing the malignant cells. The whole process can take many years to develop but it needn’t. 

The vaccines can hypothetically contribute to that outcome in multiple ways:

  • Constant production of a mixture of foreign proteins will lead to chronic inflammation and potentially immune exhaustion
  • Modified nucleotides increase risk of cancer
  • Spike protein damaging genes that protect cells from cancer
  • Contaminant DNA that can integrate into the recipient’s DNA and damage protective genes or else enhance growth promoting genes.

Chronic inflammation and immune exhaustion

Many cancers arise after years of inflammation which increases cell turnover. For those who have continued to produce foreign protein, which will encompass a range of types because of frameshifting, this chronic inflammation would contribute to cancer risk. Where the immune system is overactive there may be immune failures which allow cancers to develop.

Modified nucleotides

The modified RNA used in the mRNA products had changes to the nucleic acids designed to shield it from immune attack. Researchers demonstrated using an animal model that the same changes suppress aspects of the immune system that are crucial for preventing cancer development and progression. 

Spike protein effects

Our cells are constantly carrying out essential work which prevents cancer. Two genes that are integral to that are p53 and BRCA1. In June 2020, it was shown that spike could hypothetically interact with those genes. The spike protein from the virus has been shown to inhibit this gene making cancer more likely. In 2021 it was also shown that spike entered the nucleus and blocked 90% of the p53/BRCA repair mechanisms . This paper was retracted after 7 months, partly because it mentioned the v word. When the emails of the authors calling for retraction were requested they were denied in order to protect “trade secrets and commercial or financial information that is privileged and confidential.” The SV40 promoter region in the Pfizer vaccine also binds directly to p53.

Infection with the virus will have exposed people to spike protein but that would have been predominantly in the cells lining the respiratory tract and for a very limited time and in relatively small quantities; moreover vaccinal spike has certain differences from its viral counterpart, the significance of which isn’t fully elucidated. The same is not true for the whole spike proteins that were made by cells after vaccination.

How long did spike last after vaccination?

Manufacturers claimed spike expression would be short lived. Pfizer stated “In mice injected with the luciferase mRNA, the absence of expressed protein by 9 days after dosing indicates that mRNA has been degraded.” 

Reality says otherwise. There are various ways to test. Most researchers use antibody based testing but where spike is bound to antibodies the test will fail. Despite this, different approaches have demonstrated spike production for much longer than 9 days in the vaccinated.

  1. There were 150 billion circulating spike proteins in 3 out of 13 participants at two weeks.
  2. mRNA was found in blood up to at least 28 days when measuring stopped.
  3. People injected with Moderna had platelets that produced spike for at least 40 days.
  4. mRNA was found in lymph nodes up to at least 8 weeks when measuring stopped.
  5. Spike protein expression in endothelial cells in the skin was shown at 3 months.
  6. The blood contained fatty bubbles (exosomes) containing spike protein circulating at 4 months when measuring stopped.
  7. In 2023, it was demonstrated that half of a group of 20 vaccinees still had circulating spike protein from 69 days to up to 6 months after injection, when the study ended. The authors proposed either that it was integrated into the cell’s DNA or that of bacteria in the gut which became a continuing source of spike protein production. None of the 20 unvaccinated healthy controls or 20 patients ill with Covid-19 showed any circulating spike protein.
  8. In 2024, spike protein was shown to be present in circulating white blood cells called monocytes in the vaccine injured, for at least 245 days after vaccination.

It is highly unlikely for even modified RNA to remain active for such a length of time.  There has therefore been a theoretical claim that spike DNA has integrated into the human cellular DNA. Once in DNA it could then be continually and perpetually made into mRNA and from there into spike protein by a functioning cell apparatus. 

Two problems emerge from this if it turns out to be true. First, the presence of spike itself would raise the cancer risk as described above. Second, the presence of spike for this length of time is indirect evidence of DNA integration. It is not clear whether that is integration into human cells or into, perhaps, bacteria in the gut. However, if it is the former that is a cancer risk because the integration itself could damage protective genes or enhance growth promoting processes. DNA integration is also a cancer risk.

Direct evidence of DNA integration

There is now practical evidence to support the claim that vaccine DNA can integrate into a cell’s DNA. It was already shown that the virus SARS-CoV-2 can, like certain other viruses, integrate into DNA which is why, after testing positive, healthcare workers have to wait 90 days for their mucosal cells to die off before testing again. 

The vaccine has been shown to result in a vaccine sequence integrating into the DNA of liver cells in the laboratory within 6 hours. The authors believed this was due to the cell converting the mRNA into DNA first. 

Kevin McKernan, a genomics expert, who has been instrumental in exposing the problems of DNA contamination and the true content of the sequences in the vaccine, has again been first to carry out this critical experiment. He worked with Professor Ulrike Kämmerer to show that cells in a laboratory surrounded by vaccine not only had DNA integration, but showed tiny mutations where the DNA has been passed on to daughter cells.

Risk factors for DNA integration

The lipid nanoparticles were originally designed to deliver DNA into the nucleus of the cell for gene therapy. The specific lipid nanoparticles used predominantly delivered material to the cytoplasm, however there was clear evidence that the nucleus was also entered which would increase the risk of DNA integration. However, small fragments of DNA would not result in continued whole spike protein production.

There are three parts of the vaccine sequence which would increase transportation to the nucleus, called nuclear localisation signals. Finally, the fact the DNA was fragmented into numerous smaller lengths would also maximise the chance of DNA integration and presents a higher cancer risk. The risk of integration is highest during cell division so any cells that are already growing too fast in a pre-cancerous way would be most at risk. 

Failing to minimise the risk in the vaccines

Kevin McKernan’s carried out critical work on the presence of DNA in the vaccines and he reported that his work has been replicated in Germany, Japan, France and South Carolina. The evidence was such that regulators had to admit to it but tried to downplay the issue claiming there was no functional consequence of this DNA without evidence to back that up. In Kevin’s words, “After the regulators had admitted to being deceived they asked the opinion of the party that deceived them ‘how bad was the deception?’ They shockingly believed the answer they were given.” 

The trial product did not have the same level of contamination because a “bait and switch” meant that the clean trial product was replaced by a mass produced product contaminated with endotoxins (from the cell walls of bacteria used in production) and DNA. The pharma companies handed the regulator a genomic map showing the genetic sequence present in the bacterial DNA used as a template. This map was unlabelled from 6 o’clock to 11 o’clock. Kevin points out how odd that was. The annotation software that does such labelling would certainly have labelled a region of sequence which is an SV40 viral promoter and nuclear localisation signal which in McKernan’s words, “moves DNA directly to the nucleus within hours in all cell lines.” Someone must have deleted that label.

McKernan goes on to point out that the regulatory requirement for not exceeding a certain ratio of DNA to RNA in the product was obfuscated. Moderna patents show that DNA contamination was a real issue and that the standard quality control testing using quantitative PCR underestimates the problem. The companies shared with the regulator test results using quantitative PCR which underestimated the DNA levels and then a different test for the RNA to overestimate those levels and thereby hide the extent of the problem. Even with these cheats, the levels are more than ten times higher than the regulators limits. Based on PCR testing thresholds, the testing for DNA in the vials showed a million times more sequences present than the number required in a covid test to describe someone as a “case”. 

There are good reasons to fear a cancer surge as a consequence of the mRNA vaccines. Those with long haul vaccine injury symptoms are likely most at risk because of continuing exposure. The regulators failed the public catastrophically with these novel products.

Please follow and like us:
Visit Us