Cancer rising?
Commeter “Banned Lizard” recently linked to this:
Dr. Ryan Cole’s Biopsy Results May Explain The Shocking Rise In “Mysterious” Cancers — He Explains There Is Spike Protein “Inside Every Single Cancer Cell”
“What’s inside of every cancer cell? Spike protein. Every malignant B-cell has spike protein in it.” pic.twitter.com/FDkq99ksqa
— ?? ???? ????? ??????? ?? (@Baklava_USA) February 11, 2023
So, what’s this “shocking rise”? Is no link necessary, since obviously we all are aware of the truth of the shocking rise and it’s timely connection with the COVID vaccine’s use?
Be very careful of confirmation bias. I’ve been saying that a lot lately, haven’t I? And yet I keep seeing confirmation bias and shoddy statistics or no statistics. What am I talking about here? Don’t we all know of people who have been diagnosed with cancer and die shortly afterwards? Or who have cancer return after lengthy remissions? Yes, we do. But I’ve always known of such cases, going back many many years. And isn’t cancer on the rise? Some cancers; but that goes back long before COVID and the vaccines, as well.
Anyway who ignores the history is fooling you or fooling himself or herself, or both.
This might be a good time for me to recap my position on COVID and vaccines: I believe COVID was probably bio-engineered and released in a lab leak. I believe the vaccine’s value is that it protects the most vulnerable to a certain degree from very serious cases of COVID rather than from COVID itself. I believe that vaccine mandates are wrong, and that vaccines are not valuable for the young. The evidence offered by the anti-vaccine crowd has been almost entirely garbage statistics, to be impolite about it, and I’ve refuted tons of it in the comments here and in other posts too tedious to find and list right now.
End of summary.
As for the rest of this post, I’m going to give a series of links about long-term trends in cancer occurrence. Anyone serious about analyzing what’s really going on needs to document any recent rises – not just anecdotally, even from doctors or nurses, because of course there are always local rises and other local falls and it’s only the bigger statistical picture that tells the tale – and then tie that rise into long-term trends, explaining both convincingly as well as comparing vaccinated to unvaccinated people in cancer incidence matched for age and pre-existing conditions. I have yet to see anyone even trying to do that.
And yes, some of you distrust all statistics. That’s your prerogative, and it’s understandable to a certain extent, given some of the lies and coverups that have gone on with government agencies and social media in particular. Nevertheless, what that does is allow you to choose your own facts or if necessary make them up or link to people who have made them up or use particularly poor statistical analyses. Unconvincing.
Here are links to pre-COVID but relatively recent articles about rises in cancer rates: this, this, and this. There are plenty of others.
Here’s one you might particularly want to take a look at, particularly the long-term trend angle:
A study by researchers from Brigham and Women’s Hospital reveals that the incidence of early onset cancers — including breast, colon, esophagus, kidney, liver, and pancreas — has dramatically increased around the world, with the rise beginning around 1990…
“From our data, we observed something called the birth cohort effect. This effect shows that each successive group of people born at a later time — e.g., a decade later — have a higher risk of developing cancer later in life, likely due to risk factors they were exposed to at a young age,” said Shuji Ogino, a professor at Harvard Chan School and Harvard Medical School and a physician-scientist in the Department of Pathology at the Brigham. “We found that this risk is increasing with each generation.”
It’s very disturbing. But COVID vaccines cannot explain a long-term tend like this.
Same here:
In 2023, 1,958,310 new cancer cases and 609,820 cancer deaths are projected to occur in the United States. Cancer incidence increased for prostate cancer by 3% annually from 2014 through 2019 after two decades of decline, translating to an additional 99,000 new cases; otherwise, however, incidence trends were more favorable in men compared to women. For example, lung cancer in women decreased at one half the pace of men (1.1% vs. 2.6% annually) from 2015 through 2019, and breast and uterine corpus cancers continued to increase, as did liver cancer and melanoma, both of which stabilized in men aged 50 years and older and declined in younger men. However, a 65% drop in cervical cancer incidence during 2012 through 2019 among women in their early 20s, the first cohort to receive the human papillomavirus vaccine, foreshadows steep reductions in the burden of human papillomavirus-associated cancers, the majority of which occur in women. Despite the pandemic, and in contrast with other leading causes of death, the cancer death rate continued to decline from 2019 to 2020 (by 1.5%), contributing to a 33% overall reduction since 1991 and an estimated 3.8 million deaths averted. This progress increasingly reflects advances in treatment, which are particularly evident in the rapid declines in mortality (approximately 2% annually during 2016 through 2020) for leukemia, melanoma, and kidney cancer, despite stable/increasing incidence, and accelerated declines for lung cancer.
To repeat: anyone who tries to explain this in terms of vaccines cannot ignore the fact that it’s a trend that began before COVID and before COVID vaccines.
With all of these health issues, we have to consider the question of: How much of any apparent increase in cases is simply due to our diagnosing them better, or more quickly? For example, I don’t really believe that autism is increasing dramatically, but I could believe that we are more aware of it, and are identifying it more often.
“some of you distrust all statistics….what that does is allow you to choose your own facts”
Step 1: Disregard all facts that come from known liars.
Step 2: Give extra weight to facts from those who have a track record of being right when most others are wrong.
Here’s the problem I have with your vaccine analysis, Neo…
In September of 2021, I had to go the ER because of a serious adverse reaction to my first dose of a new drug. While I had trouble breathing, it took forever for me to be seen. The reason? The doctor apologized and told me he was taking care of six seriously ill patients with COVID. Each were going to be admitted, he said. He also mentioned, “I hope I can keep them off ventilators. Thank goodness they are all vaccinated.”
Up until that day, I was a strong vaccine proponent. But, what kind of vaccine allows you to be so sick that you are in danger of being put on a ventilator? Before you say, “it might have saved their lives,” show me the double-blind studies that show that result? To my knowledge, there are none.
FYI: Wichita is a city (I guess one of the few) that has plenty of hospitals (eight full service). There is no reason to believe that my ER experience was especially unique.
But, even so, there is no reason to force the vaccine on my 9 and 6-year old granddaughters! Given the extraordinarily low chance of COVID causing serious issues in that age group, and given the uncertainty of the long-term effects of the vaccine, I believe there is a very good chance, a generation from now, the vaccines will be judged to have done more harm than good.
As to “garbage statistics,” it seems pretty well established that the chances of myocarditis with the vax > without it. Including an incident with my extremely healthy son.
Even better:
What funeral directors know that you don’t
In 78 years, they never had a 15 year old who died from a heart attack. In December 2022, they had 1 a week for three weeks straight. Nobody is talking about it publicly…
TCRT
Prostate Cancer rise might, just might, be related to the downplaying of testing after a certain age. I had Prostate Cancer in 2015, got treatment, but I still have my PSA checked every year. I also have Barretts and got treatment and take a RX to help with the acid reflux.
I like and agree with your comments on COVID and the vaccines. We both got Modern two shots and a booster. We had to because we travel on vacation overseas. Could not fly without them. If it becomes necessary to have another booster then we will stay home. I fear that next year when we get the Flu Shot a booster will be included.
One-twelfth of the world’s population has Cancer Rising. It’s not an easy aspect to have in one’s astrological chart.
_______________________________
Cancer is a sensitive water sign, with a hard outer shell. For this reason, Cancer rising people are often considered distant and aloof.
Since the rising sign or ascendant affects first impressions, some might mistake you for a cold, ornery type. If they catch you in a bad or overwhelmed mood, you won’t likely win friends or influence people.
Your crusty carapace is merely protection, though—underneath you’re a big softy. Your challenge is to show your true sensitivity in the right moments and with the right people.
…
Your water sign emotional intelligence makes you the kind of communicator who makes a deep impact. When you’re at your best, you know how to reach the hearts of others.
https://www.liveabout.com/cancer-rising-rising-signs-207029
_______________________________
They need our love.
That said, neo’s warnings about confirmation basis and statistics are well-put as usual.
The people who have lied relentlessly have no credibility. Track records matter. The brilliant medical statisticians I follow are so much more knowledgeable than Neo that her claim to have refuted them is laughable on its face.
Hubris is unbecoming.
Speaking of young folks dying, I feel bad for Taylor Lorenz. Her grief sounds sincere:
Feels like every month now someone I know dies. People in their 30s and 40s should not be dying like this. How are we supposed to just carry on while people we know and care about are just dropping dead, this is so f****d…
It’s not supposed to happen to my friends. – Taylor decoded.
stan, don’t be a Bunge.
My concern is not cancer but heart issues. I know one person who says he now has 150+ heart beat just from standing up due to the vaccine, and has an Apple watch to track and prove it. So I believe his data, even if the causality may be questionable, but that happening to a 45 year old?
And young people just dropping dead. Did that happen a lot before and we just didn’t see the local news article that we are seeing today,or is this real?
My friend with the problems says this is a “slow burn”. More and more people will die early and unexpectedly. And the mainstream media will never report it.
In addition to checking for confirmation bias we also have to ask “qui Bono” – who benefits? The money trail and other motives were clear and subverted both good science and good governance.
The recent walkbacks of policy and admissions of known problems by officials and staff at pharma firms is very significant.
Info was hidden. In such a situation it is impractical – or even naive – to wait for good data. There is a preponderance of peripheral evidence.
whatever:
You’ve got a perfect hypothesis there that’s not disprovable. Something you think is due to the vaccine, hasn’t happened but will happen, and when it does the media will never report it. That’s not any sort of science; it’s faith.
Your friend’s Apple watch does not prove whatever is going on with his heart is from the vaccine. And of course heartbeat irregularities have always happened to people at all ages. Are you truly unaware of such a thing? I have a nephew who would get some heartbeat or blood pressure problems when he peed, and would sometimes pass out; he was a teenager. Glenn Reynolds’ wife almost died from heart problems when in her 30s and has had a pacemaker ever since (see this). Young athletes drop dead with alarming regularity, and have been doing so since long before COVID or COVID vaccines.
I could go on, but I think you get the idea.
Stan:
You seem to have very little self-awareness about your own hubris.
If you want to dispute the things I’ve said, you might have tried actually critiquing them on the merits rather than calling me names and ignoring the factual meat of what I’ve written. This is not the first time you’ve substituted ad hominems for actual arguments, either.
It’s not the least bit persuasive.
@ huxley > “One-twelfth of the world’s population has Cancer Rising. It’s not an easy aspect to have in one’s astrological chart.”
Tiny tidbit for you from the story on the new Ringed Planetoid:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/50000_Quaoar
“Planetary symbols are no longer much used in astronomy, so Quaoar never received a symbol in the astronomical literature. A Quaoar symbol (Quaoar symbol (fixed width).svg), mostly used among astrologers,[37] is included in Unicode as U+1F77E.[38] The symbol was designed by Denis Moskowitz, a software engineer in Massachusetts; it combines the letter Q (for ‘Quaoar’) with a canoe, and is stylized to recall angular Tongva rock art.[39]”
Makes one wonder how they are shoe-horning an invisible, previously unknown, planet into the astrological charts devised sometime before the time of Christ.
But the internet knows – there is nothing astrologers can’t do!
https://www.yourtango.com/2021339761/dwarf-minor-planets-meanings-astrology
“There are five dwarf planets that cannot be seen with the naked eye, but they can be read in an astrological reading, and each one may reveal something unique about your love life including when you are fertile to plan a pregnancy.
The names of the five dwarf planets are: Pluto, Makemake, Quaoar, Eris, Varuna, and Sedna, and Haumea.”
I didn’t know about any of them except Pluto (for obvious reasons) — gotta get out of the politics silo more often.
IMO, astrology gives conspiracy theorists a good name, but YMMV.
Me, I’m a Gemini, so what do I know?
This natal chart makes me sound pretty good!
https://astro.cafeastrology.com/natal.php
}}} To repeat: anyone who tries to explain this in terms of vaccines cannot ignore the fact that it’s a trend that began before COVID and before COVID vaccines.
I refute it thusly: “BAH!! Government statistics!!”
😀
Yes, in case the facetiousness isn’t glaringly obvious: I’m being facetious.
.
I’m always cautious about statistics from bodies which have done other things to suggest they have been politically compromised (e.g., FBI, CDC, et al).
Likewise statistics from organizations with known axes to grind (e.g., GreenPeace, MADD, Brady) and a history of prevarication and misrepresentation (e.g., the above, but NOT Project Veritas, who has a known ax to grind, but does seem to be principled in doing so)
And I’m cautious about statistics in zones that qualify as “politicized” science (e.g, Climate Change, LGBTPQXYZ issues, Gun Control,Islam)
In general, I don’t reject them, but I do hold them up as possibly accurate but quite possibly twisted by the biases of their sources… I rate them in the zone of “Wikipedia Statistics” — I trust them if they are on a non-“hot button” issue (such as median income by state), but not if they are on a “hot button” issue (such as extinctions, “warming”)
As the phrase goes, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics. Statistics are only as honest as the collector, analyzer, and presenter. Expecting three people to be truly honest is optimistic. Which is one reason why “blind studies” are the Gold Standard of Science, not “peer review”.
The only studies which can really be trusted are those which the person collecting the data does not know what is being studied (and it’s not clear from the “ask”), the statistician does not know what is being studied (also, “not clear from the ‘ask'”), and only the presenter is in a position to bias the report, while also making the data and the statistical analysis available to the reader, so they can see if the presenter allowed any biases or missed factors that change the result.
THIS IS HOW TRUE SCIENCE WORKS.
As a retired/recovering barrister type lawyer, I should like to repeat here a few of my favorite lines from summation in trials where the other side called statistical or economic experts. “Figures can lie and liars can figure.” Another one I frequently pulled out, “There are three types of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics.” Trite, yes, but also true. One can “prove” almost anything with the use of cherry-picked numbers. So, cui bono and all that. Although it is equally true that anecdotal evidence is often misleading, and tends to fall into the “confirmation bias” category, if the stats don’t jibe to some extent with the observed reality, I have a hard time accepting the stats. I would rather be more likely to go with what I have perceived with my senses than a cold recitation of numbers, even if those numbers are arranged in an impressive, multicolor graph. And for the record, I am seventy-three years old, as is my wife, and neither of us has 1) come down with Covid or the flu; 2) taken any shots for either malady; 3) taken any rigorous protective actions (isolation, etc.), and to the contrary, have 1) lived our lives in as nearly the same manner (to the extent allowed by law and regulation) as before the advent of “the ‘Vid”; 2) maintained social and physical contact with friends and family members who have or had “the ‘Vid”, and 3) have no explanation for our vigorous good health except to point to good genes, clean living and exercise and God’s abundant and unmerited grace.
I’m not sure how long social and institutional concern and attempted control of possible carcinogens has been going on. But,even if you exclude cigarettes, as long as I can recall and that might be back to the early Sixties.
You’d think we’ve gotten something right by accident if no other way.
Have we been making them faster than eliminating them?
Agree wholeheartedly on this one, so thank you for sticking out your neck regarding a topic that’s sure to generate some heated debate in our circles. We have to be willing to confront those on our own side who are unwilling to critically examine the evidence and find the truth — as opposed to “their” truth — wherever it may lead them.
One detail I might add is that there’s definitely a possibility that the COVID vaccines have adverse side effects, and we should be on guard for that possibility. Considering this as well as their effectiveness (or lack thereof), I’ve decided a while ago against taking more jabs. I’m only 40, and the potential risks no longer outweighed the benefits to me. But the problem is that EVERY vaccine has side effects, and the difference with COVID is that those other vaccines never got injected into a hundred million people or more in mere months. So while the side effects trickled in over time with all the other vaccines, with the COVID shot we saw a deluge of anecdotal evidence. This doesn’t necessarily mean the latter is more dangerous.
Also, who knows what’s driving these cancer statistics? An aging population, increasing obesity, better preventative testing — all of these may contribute. But my guess is not COVID vaccines, though I’ll be open to any evidence.
Sounds all very measured, reasonable and rational. (“Angels fear to tread”, etc.)
And who knows? It may even be correct….
Problem is, there is ABSOLUTELY NO REASON to believe them about ANYTHING.
(And the “funny” thing is, that’s exactly the way they want it…)
Let the confusion, distractions, lies and subterfuge CONTINUE!!
I know Neo doesn’t want to hear this, but the video she links at the top goes against her basic argument of statistics. The doctor presents a single solid piece of evidence that is suggestive: in a sample of gastric cancer cells, those cells all contain the spike protein. This is not some statistical correlation, but actual physical evidence which, not being a medical scientist, I assume is highly unusual. Further, the doctor then calls for more pathologists to analyze cancer biopsies for such anomalies. He seems to recognize that this one sample is suggestive, but needs more verification.
Neo, and then most of the following comments go off on the unrelated tangent of cancer incidence statistics. That is not what the linked video is about. Again, just to pound the point home, the video presents actual evidence of apparent anomalous occurrence of spike proteins within cancer cells. That’s all.
This is the beginning of good science, not science based on statistics. It reminds me of a similar situation in physics. You may recall the announcement of faster-than-light neutrinos a few years back. The initial data looked solid, and generated a lot of excitement. (BTW, physicists, except for particle types, love when data shows a accepted theory might be in danger). What happened next? Just what this medical scientist proposes: look for more instances of the situation. In the case of the neutrinos, that happened and nothing was found. Further analysis of the original data found a timing error. So much for over turning Einstein.
Hopefully, a lot of samples of cancers from the last 2 years will be pulled out of storage and then examined for the presence of spike proteins. Only at that point will we have an answer.
Oh, and particle physics? That one area of physics depends on statistical analysis of a lot of very messy data to “prove” the existence of particles, as well as some very esoteric and continually adjusted mathematical models. Sabine has a great video, but I think she doesn’t go far enough…the Standard Model itself depends on such data and also is built on a structure where the primary components, quarks, themselves by design can’t be observed…sigh…..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lu4mH3Hmw2o
While I cannot refute, nor confirm, the points Neo makes in regards to any links between the rise in cancer incidences and mRNA jabs, nor the rate at which recently diagnosed cancer patients are dying due to metastasizing speeds seemingly increasing, I can with high confidence state that if one is relying on the media and the government for accurate information as to what is actually going on, you are living by lies.
In my family, which is large and extended, probably 60% of them took either the mRNA jab, or the more traditional JNJ jab. There have been no reports of new incidences of cancer, though one of my twin sons has been diagnosed with a heart arrythmia. The son with this diagnosis was coerced to take the JNJ jab for continued employment. His twin brother has had the Gain of Function Flu, twice, once severely, and once more mildly, but did not submit to any jab. It will be interesting long term, and not necessarily in a good way, to see how this all shakes out.
Qui bono? Don’t forget the Panic Whores (the media).
One suggestion I’ve read is the COVID jab (don’t forget the CDC changed the definition of vaccine when the jab wasn’t working), the jab messes with the body’s defense, allowing cancer more room to operate. Another suggestion is during the COVID lockdowns routine screenings were cancelled, as nonessential. Of course, we always have rising accumulation of hostile chemicals in the environment and food chain.
As for the clot-shot, decades ago I refused the swine flu vaccine. This time I refused the mRNA shot as well. Having read that nowhere ever had a successful mRNA shot never been developed, motivated my thinking. All the other vaccines I’ve taken, and now I’m ready to not take another.
Bye the way, a double blind, gold standard study on the annual flu shot has never been done. Every year flu shot administration goes up. Some flu seasons are worse than others. My suspicion is credible evidence for the flu shots doesn’t exist.
Covid in all its permutations appears likely to preoccupy us for at least another year. And we’ve already suffered through it for two! Enough already.
But just to prove I am not above weighing in without scientific “proof”, I will recount a conversation with my neighbors — both licensed pharmacists. About a year into the pandemic they came over to relay the observation that everyone seemed to be focussed on “vaccination,” not therapy. This troubled them because they had zero confidence in the jab, but had a strong faith in two therapies: Ivermectin and oxichloroquine. The problem, they explained, is that these therapies did not have approval for treatment of Covid, so doctors would not write a prescription for them. They were there to tell us they had access to these drugs and would share them if we were diagnosed with the virus.
Leaving aside the accuracy of their story, I do have a sense — anecdotal at best — that the government and the medical profession seemed to talk much more about vaccination rather than therapy. And it does appear there was more money to be made from vaccination rather than therapy. And finally, the vaccines were clearly better income-generators than drugs that had been around for years.
So I can understand some people believing they are being hoodwinked by the government and looking for alternatives to the vaccine. And buttressing their skepticism with anecdotes about side effects.
In any event, the partisan political cancer is clearly metastasizing:
“Rep. Jim Jordan criticized online after saying ‘only Americans should vote in American elections’;
“Republican’s tweet concerned House Joint Resolution 24, which overturns a D.C. bill allowing non-citizens to vote in local elections”—
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/jim-jordan-criticized-saying-only-americans-should-vote-american-elections
Related (two stalwarts):
Jeff Carlson—
https://twitter.com/themarketswork/status/1624804050205306880?cxt=HHwWgMDToZqru4wtAAAA
Hans Mahncke—
https://twitter.com/HansMahncke/status/1624614506201481216?cxt=HHwWgICwsaWS5YstAAAA
Cancer is primarily a disease of old age. You expect the number of cancer cases to rise as the population increases in age.
the problem is when the medical journals have published multiple instances of fraud, some abetted by ftx some not, where is the conclusive research,
Neo-
Per Census data, % of Americans >65 years of age in year 2000 was 6%, and in 2022, 9%.
So our population is aging.
It has long been known, via the American Cancer Society’s data, inter alia, that cancer incidence increases with age. A female’s chance of breast cancer rises inexorably with age, and it never tops out.
Men at age 80 have a 90% chance of having (usually occult, asymtomatic) prostate cancer.
The increase in the percent of aged is due to medical progress,not because younger cohorts were killed off by COVID, the mRNA “vaccine”, or anything else.
However, I remain stalwartly opposed to the m-RNA vaccine. m-RNA instructs cells to make a specific protein, the spike protein of COVID in this case; and it takes two weeks for one’s immune system to recognize and respond to a new, never before seen, antigen. There is no longer any question about the spike protein’s affinity for the (endothelial) linings of arteries, veins and the interior cardiac surfaces, turning some young into cardiac cripples, and causing strokes.
Does it not seem odd the COVID “vaccine” has been free to those jabbed, yet Pfizer has earned billions? A direct pipeline full of money from Washington and its likely unconstitutional mandates in a one-way flow to Pfizer.
TO “F”: the media is terribly Democratic and terribly biased. Take care!
No such thing as a free vaccine, Cicero…(as they say)…
That’s why the IRS needs another 87,000 “members”.
That’s why there’ll be $600 limits on non-declarable monetary transactions.
That’s why waiters’ tips are going to be taxed.
Etc.
(Not to mention the biggest “tax” of ’em all—inflation…especially of the “transitory” “Biden” variety.)
To be fair to “Biden”, there’s a whole s%$*load of supporters—and wacked-out policies—“he” has to “support” and pay for….
The basic issue here is one of “trust,” and, as has been said, “once you loose trust it is very hard, if not impossible, to regain it.”
We might also refer to the ancient Roman legal dictum of “falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus,” i.e. if you lie about one thing, what is to prevent us from believing that you lie about all sorts of other things, and perhaps you lie about everything?
Thus, once we find out that our supposed neutral, objective, and “scientific” “medical experts” and/or sources for all sorts of “official” statistics and pronouncements are lying to us (either by commission or omission)–in the service of a Leftist political agenda–the seed of doubt is planted and, henceforward, everything they say gradually comes to be/should be viewed with the greatest suspicion and skepticism.
Not an ideal situation by any means but, here we are.
Barry Meislin-
You detail some of the many ways in which the US has become an authoritarian (and also socialist) country. I just wish the Republicans would learn to march in lockstep like their opponents.
Snow-
Trouble is half of the US population is sheep. They follow shepherds like Fetterman and Biden. We are a stupid, hedonistic, secular materialist society.
A rancher once told me that if a sheep tumbles into a ditch and ends up on its back, it will not get up. If not rescued, it will die there.
All a matter of education…perhaps…er, environment?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saY2UdYcILs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyKl3HuVYDo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAJg0cavdmo
(Or maybe it depends on how well you’ve brainwashed your, um, human…)
well you can’t convince me anyone actually folllows the golem, that’s a reach, but he’s just a marker like a chess piece, some to be replaced by the brazilian cruella,
his chief of staff, worked for searchlight harry reid,
Both the article itself and the cdc website say there is no incidence data available after 2019. Thus, they are modeling using data that couldnt possibly reflect mRNA vaccine impact because the tech didnt exist when the data was collected. In other words, how can we rule out the anecdotal spike in cancer everyone is pointing to using an article that simply does not have the data to speak to the unprecedented illness and corresponding vaccine that was deployed in 2020? For all we know, the anecdotal evidence is well-supported by uncompiled/unpublished 2020-2023 incidence rates and it isnt confirmation bias at all. That said, even if the anecdotal does end up being substantiated, we would have to determine whether it is the vaccine or the virus itself (or both) that causes the spike.
From the article…”The most recent year for which incidence and mortality data are available lags 2–4 years behind the current year because of the time required for data collection, compilation, quality control, and dissemination. Therefore, we project the numbers of new cancer cases and deaths in the United States in 2023 to estimate the contemporary cancer burden using two-step statistical modeling, as described in detail elsewhere.26, 27 Briefly, complete cancer diagnoses were estimated for every state from 2005 through 2019 based on delay-adjusted, high-quality incidence data from 50 states and the District of Columbia…”
Then the CDC: https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/dcpc/data/index.htm
Now, I’m no mathematician, but I count seven names for presumably seven dwarf planets.
Also worth noting: the second most famous dwarf planet (less famous than Pluto but discovered first) is left off the list, Ceres.
Admittedly, Ceres is best known as the largest asteroid, but when the ‘dwarf planet’ category was added (because of all the newly discovered Kuiper Belt objects that fit the old definition and were making things… messy) and Pluto was demoted, Ceres got a promotion.
It may already have been said in some other way…but…
When you see a change like this, always, always check the methodology. Definitions are a big deal. How far down the spectrum between a mildly difficult child with aspirations of engineering to autism? Change that and you change the numbers without changing the facts.
Getting handsy in a necking session is now categorized as rape…? We now have a rape epidemic.
Used to be, we could discern one part in a million. Now we can find one part in a billion. There are a thousand times as many Bad Things!
That has to be considered before a conclusion can be drawn.
Covid aside, I’m not surprised by the increase of cancer. Genetically speaking, our “environment” has a big impact on things. Obesity and sloth are on the rise all over the world. And for the relatively few that get the minimum recommended amount of exercise, how many of us have sedentary jobs? Even working out daily can’t counteract sitting 6+ hours a day.
Our life has gotten less and less active and our diet is made up of more and more processed foods (don’t get me started on Beyond burgers…)
Covid/Covid jab? I’m sure it plays a part but I’m not sure to what extent. And I’m sure we’ll never know. I’m 56, got the 2 part Moderna jab, AND had Covid twice. My heart rate has random increases per my fitbit. When I was sick once with covid and barely moved from bed one day, it showed 6+ hours of active minutes. Fever related, probably.
I never had heart rate increases before like I do now. But is it related to Covid or the jab? I will never know.
To go back to cancer, we all have cancer cells in our system and I have no idea if the spike proteins have always been there. If not, does it even make a difference? I had cancer in my teens, lived, and often wonder whether that will be the cause of my death in some form or the other. Not that I lose any sleep over it.
Re: Qui Bono?
Who is Bono? That Irish singer fella in U2 with the blue-blocker sunglasses.
Cui Bono?
Who benefits? Mainly Bono and his mates, though not the Irish revenue service. (Not that I particularly blame Bono on that count.)
Faith2014:
People didn’t used to monitor their heartrates constantly. Now they often do, with technology like FitBits. Therefore we become more aware of things like that.
Megan:
If the data isn’t there it isn’t there, so the entire hypothesis is based on nothing. But my main point is that there has been a steady rise in certain cancers for 30 years, and any recent rise (if in fact one has occurred, which is not at all certain) must be distinguished from a mere continuation of a long-term trend. Nothing of the sort has been done.
Cicero; et al:
That is why one of the articles I linked to in this post was about a decades-long rise in cancer rates in children. See this.
huxley:
Occam cuts him no slack.
For those who haven’t used the term:
https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/cut+me+some+slack
physicsguy:
I don’t think you understand my points, so I’ll briefly state them more explicitly.
(1) Dr. Cole shows a slide without any meaningful context. Such context might be (for example): how often spike proteins have been found by him or others in cancer cells, what sort of spike protein this is in the photo and how it might relate to COVID or COVID vaccines or both, how commonly such things were found in the past, and whether they have been investigated. This makes his statement (as edited in the tweet, anyway) essentially meaningless at this point, although it doesn’t mean it could not ever point the way to some sort of meaningful investigation.
(2) The quote is offered for the purpose of explaining a supposed statistical spike in certain sorts of cancers, a spike that is assumed but never defined even by a link.
(3) If there is such a spike – and that’s a big “if” – its meaning and prevalence and pattern has not been studied properly at all, so we know nothing of any possible connection. Of course, that doesn’t mean that some day such a connection is found, but there is nothing to indicate anything of the sort at the moment.
So, why do people keep posting such stuff? To me, it’s the mirror image – and not in a good way – of the alarmist stuff posted by those in favor of restrictive lockdowns and mandates re COVID. Two sides of the same coin.
And once again, let me repeat I’m against lockdowns and mandates, but for different reasons.
Also, there is some interesting stuff such as this.
Neo, regarding your point 1,
Yes there is meaningful context: spike proteins found in cancer cells. Just from that it warrants further investigation. That’s all I’m saying. It’s a significant piece of actual physical evidence. Where it leads to depends on what further study shows.
I think we actually agree that it needs further data, but don’t dismiss it out of hand until that data is obtained.
physicsguy:
It is completely meaningless now, and yet it is being offered as having a meaning it doesn’t have. That is my point.
Whether it will ever be proven to have meaning is something that is obviously possible, and I never indicated it was not possible or that I’d be against further reseach.
But answers to my questions in point 1 haven’t even been given, and the answers would impact on the question of whether further research is even warranted.
a laymans explanation
https://www.rcolemd.com/post/dr-ryan-cole-joins-dr-drew-for-updates-on-mrna-and-clots
From the article linked by Neo above: According to experts, increased childhood cancer rates likely stem from environmental factors… Combined with genetic traits, this appears to have spurred a sharp increase in a variety of childhood cancers, even while adult cancer rates continue to decline.
Probably multiple environmental factors. Inflammation is said to be the culprit for many maladies, including cancer. Enter the Covid vax as yet another inflammatory agent with effects that vary with each person and the potency of their jab.
Neo: from the childhood cancer article you cited: ” the 5-year survival rates for childhood cancer have improved considerably over the years, and are now at over 80 percent.”
That over 80% number is rather old news, and is mostly due to a variety of chemotherapy and immunotherapy agent advances. The Pediatric Oncology Group clinical trials led the way. Long ago, I was a POG member.
Only a few chemicals are carcinogenic. The majority are virus-induced. See Human Papilloma Virus. The “chemicals cause cancer” is a Green tool to scare people into becoming Green adherents, throwing money at their organizations like Nature Conservancy, which ten years ago was drilling water wells in Kenya for the poor rural Kenyans. The incidence of cancers in people living close to refineries producing many chemicals, often as byproducts released into the air, is not higher than in other locations. The Mississippi near Baton Rouge, LA has been called “Cancer Alley” because of the many petrochemical-related industries lining its banks, but it is a falsehood.
To determine a single cause means ruling out many other variables, like smoking and alcohol consumption to start with, both of which cause cancers from mouth to stomach.
Cancer cases will increase over the next few years because biopsies and screenings like colonoscopy, cervix biopsies, and mammography were not done or were delayed because of COVID fears, and COVID-positive persons, but not ill with COVID, were denied admission to hospitals and out-patient facilities.
A breast cancer of 9mm diameter is not usually treated with adjuvant chemo after excision, but one of 11mm diameter is, because the eventual death rate is minimally higher. And delay in excisional biopsy has consequences.
Sorry to be so verbose.
Cicero, I personally know two people with metastatic cancers who avoided or were denied cancer screenings during the lockdowns.
Remember this? Nuf’ said:
“The Food and Drug Administration won’t have 75 years to release thousands of pages of documents it relied on to license its COVID-19 vaccine.”
Only a few chemicals are carcinogenic. The majority are virus-induced.
Cicero:
I knew it was old news that viruses could cause cancer, but I didn’t realize things had swung so far in that direction.
I’ve probably posted this at some point in the past, but it bears repeating. When the chickenpox vax was being recommended for my kids, it was new, so I asked a friend of mine – an ER doc – what she thought. She told me she never takes anything that hasn’t been in general, wide public use for at least 5 years and prefers 7. ‘It doesn’t matter how much testing is done, you never really know what the effects are until it has been in widespread use for a number of years.’
Since then, I have been taken off two FDA approved drugs, Celebrex and Fosamax, because – over time – they have been found to have harmful side effects. Principle validated.
This is the reason I did not take the covid vax.
I’ve had every vax applicable to my age. But after this whole Covid shibai I won’t be taking another vax as long as I live.
My friend disregarded her principle and took the vax. But then she had to or lose her job.
Much thanks, miguel cervantes, for the link to that Dr Drew podcast. It’s an hour & 22 minutes. I’ve been watching it during interludes at work. I’m most of the way through and it’s been worth every minute.
neo,
In the last couple of months, we’ve been treated to the spectacle of respectable information, medical and otherwise, being spiked, censored, slagged and smeared.
To some people, including me, that increases interest. And you know, generally, there TPTB aren’t going to bother going after information which doesn’t scare them.
From which we draw the paranoid conclusion that pieces like your source–whether or not it particularly was censored–has the ring of truth. This is a dumb way to assign credibility, but it may not be all that bad.
For example, Rolling Stone’s complete balls-up of an ivermectin story brings up the question of why are some forces so scared of ivermectin and HCQ.
I asked earlier why the cancer rate was up when we’ve been, supposedly, working on removing carcinogens from the environment for at least half a century. Got to be a reason. And vaccines fit, at least ostensibly, not least because THEY have tried to censor so many stories. I think we need to calculate the amount of credibility a piece gets on account of having been censored or otherwise restricted. It’s a new consideration,.Or at least looked like others which have been restricted by TPTB
Say, does Neo think the Russians bombed the Nordstrom’s bargain basements?
Is she fully vaxxed and boosted? Has she left a “If you’re reading this, it’s because I’ve met my end. Died unexpectedly of cause unknown. Here’s my login and password for “the Newneo”, please tell my readers good bye.
Milwaukee:
Death comes for all of us, have you made out your will?
Have you missed the significant events in Neo’s life in the last month as posted in this blog? Someone very significant to Neo, Gerard, passed on.
Pretty funny, heh?
Milwaukee:
Pretty funny, not at all,
Richard Aubrey:
Sorry, but that’s an exceptionally dumb way to assign credibility.
And unless you think the cancer statistics have been cooked for the last 30 years to show increases that only existed after the COVID shots, it doesn’t make sense to distrust those older statistics and to substitute current rumor instead. Because that’s what we’re talking about – rumor and gossip.
I have crunched my own numbers right from the start of COVID – for example, about the early cruise ship numbers – and I think my early work holds up surprisingly well.
What struck me early on is. Well, I live near Chicago. One of the first cases was somebody in Chicago, 2 people I think who came back from a trip. I could be wrong but at that time they were saying this is serious. Yet, I remember Chicago had a mayoral election in March.
Public officials were imploring people to go out and about. Pritzker was adamant about that election proceeeding. I remember him saying how important democracy is to him. At the very beginning of a pandemic. Couldnt wait a month. Spoiler alert: Beetlegeuse won
A month later Pritzker is on the Sunday morning propaganda show fest berating Trump for not having enough ventilators. This also went on in NY, pretty much the same thing sans mayoral election. I know their city health inspector imploring people to go out and about. Why on earth were they saying that? It wasnt logical.
California, Pelosi and the gang….ditto
But early on I thought and still think this was all planned. The virus was dialed up and sprinkled whereever. It was done with malicious intent to control an election among other things. Then they came out with a secret magic potion licketty split.
I doubt many in authority who claimed to have gotten it actually got it.
Not anti-vaxx, but never considered getting it. It wasnt long ago when our government sprayed pot plants with paraquat.
Mind you, I grew up a Cubs fan, so I can be cynical, so theres that.
Yes. Cicero, that’s about the size of it…
“…A rare salute to the Boston FBI for refusing Jan. 6 improper investigations on citizens”—
https://www.bostonherald.com/2023/02/11/howie-carr-a-rare-salute-to-the-boston-fbi-for-refusing-jan-6-improper-investigations-on-citizens/
H/T Instapundit.
Related:
1.
‘Lois Lerner 2.0? IRS chilling dissent with interrogation of nonprofit: election integrity activist;
‘ “This is further evidence that the Biden administration believes it has the authority to license thought and speech, and it doesn’t,” said Phill Kline.’—
https://justthenews.com/government/federal-agencies/lois-lerner-20-irs-meets-disinformation-targeting-nonprofit-seeking-tax
Opening graf:
“Much as the Obama IRS targeted conservative groups for audits, the tax collection agency has subjected an elections nonprofit to a battery of prying questions about its policy positions, language choices and methodology for arriving at correct opinions and conclusions prior to peremptorily rejecting its application for tax-exempt status without appeal….”
2.
‘Archives worked to quietly collect Biden records, after escalating with Trump, emails reveal;
‘Trump condemns double standard in contrast between low-key handling of Biden retention of classified documents vs. FBI raid on Mar-a-Lago in his own official records case.’—
https://justthenews.com/government/white-house/national-archives-worked-biden-privately-return-docs-including-boston-emails
Opening graf:
“The National Archives (NARA) coordinated with President Biden’s attorneys for the discreet collection of classified documents found at the Penn Biden Center in Washington, D.C., displaying a collaborative spirit in marked contrast to its adversarial stance toward Donald Trump and his legal team in the former president’s federal records case, newly disclosed emails reveal….”
3.
And now Pence…
4.
Etc., etc., etc….
neo
It was late last night and I might not have been clear.
Two items: Why has cancer risen against the backdrop of strong efforts going back more than half a century to get rid of carcinogens? I was even reproached recently for eating a marshmallow which was black and flaky on account of having been too close to the fire.
Is there some cause we’re missing? Would seem to be an inescapable answer.
Asking such a question is legitimate, but in certain cases is taken as being a conspiracy theorist. It means you don’t believe Authority, to even question. I was not referring to the vax.
Secondly, given the environment–TPTB lie and censor and wouldn’t waste their time if there were not something in it for them–it’s not strange to question .
For example there’s nothing wrong with ivermectin and HCQ, but they are verboten in polite society, yielding gasps of horror if one even mentions them. From people whose familiar with SCIENCE ended with some television show for kids eons ago–Mr Science?–and who venerate the subject as the more traditional Catholics do the Pope’s ex cathedra pronouncements.
But reasonably informed people know that the availability of a cheap and effective therapeutic voids the EUA.
Is there a connection? Make the case there can’t be, when a doctor reporting good results is threatened with loss of license by a politician. One would think good results would interest people, no?
TPTB’s energetic resistance to certain kinds of information does not prove it’s true. But when the information seems reasonable and its possible validity looks like a major problem for TPTB, we may wonder.
Active censorship is not the entire picture. The aformentioned big, fat, clumsy lie in Rolling Stone is another aspect. “fact checkers” are another. Physicians who can’t get a hearing outside FNC when reporting good results are yet another.
The recent blow-up wrt Twitter, and weaponization of social media hearings demonstrate that the information whose dissemination was restricted one way or another has generally turned out to be true.
If you have nothing else to go on, TPTB’s resistance and some common sense on the part of our general knowledge makes presuming at least some credibility the way to bet until further info is available.
To put it another way, if TPTB are pitching it and it doesn’t seem to make sense, then going by recent performance, it’s more than likely false. Or they wouldn’t bother.
“on form” as the Brits say.
A different example would be the Columbia Journalism Review piece on the Russia collusion hoax. A great many institutions deliberately lied, and knew they lied. One wonders what they thought the end would be. One possibility is that they knew they would be busted–they were–but it would have been worth it, considering the goal.
We’re supposed to trust those institutions because they say we’re supposed to trust them?
My point is we don’t simply not believe them and disregard anything they have to say. “on form”, the opposite is likely to be true.
“Now concerning food offered to idols: we know that ‘all of us possess knowledge.’ This ‘knowledge’ puffs up, but love builds up. If anyone imagines that he knows something, he does not yet know as he ought to know.” (I Corinthians 8:1,2)
Apparently, arguments stemming from “expert” opinions are nothing new. They were probably old in St. Paul’s day. The argument then was whether eating meat offered to idols was acceptable for Christians. Today we argue whether wearing masks, accepting controversial shots, links between said shots and cancer, heart attacks, infertility, miscarriages, et al are valid links. Same issue, different subject. How, then, should we live?
But equally true today as in the 1st century. “Knowledge puffs up”, or as a different translation puts it, “Knowledge makes for arrogance”. I have personally met more than one in the past two years—on both sides of the debates—who qualify as arrogant in their “knowledge”, which, as Neo has pointed out more than once, is based on the expert opinion of people they trust. My church probably lost close to a quarter of its members because they “knew” the church leadership was responding to the pandemic…wrongly.
The solution? “Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up”. We need to keep the rest of Paul’s statement in mind. “If anyone imagines that he knows something, he does not yet know as he ought to know.” The jury is still out. We don’t “know” as much as we think we know. So, “love” is Paul’s answer. The older word for that is “charity”. Hard as it may be, we have to learn how to respond civilly and charitably to folks whose knowledge contradicts our own sincerely held beliefs.
Much depends on it.
Waidmann
I’ve haven’t had any problems whatsoever with the two vaxxes and two boosters I received.
But I’m done with the vaccinations. Not for any political/idealogical reason, however: I’m just indifferent to COVID. And I don’t think I’ll get it. And if I do get it I believe I’ll recover quickly from it. I’m just not afraid of Covid.
The only things I fear are public speaking and beautiful women who scorn me.
Regarding cancer and carcinogens, despite what Cicero may claim there are bodies of evidence indicating non-viral carcinogens, certain specific asbestos-form natural minerals, Cr-6, vinyl chloride, benzene, fungal derived biomolecules, coal tar and combustion-derived semi volatile molecules, etc. Just because the green Panic Whores latch onto an issue doesn’t make the issue a real thing. However people get mesothelioma without any known exposure to asbestos; the lottery of life.-
The dose makes the posion ……
One of the greatest problems our modern society faces is confirmation bias leading to a lack of critical thinking on a given subject and shaming of those who disagree. Almost all of the discord we see in out current culture can be linked in some way to these phenomena. I’m certainly guilty of allowing confirmation bias to guide my thinking when I see some news story that appears to confirm some bias I have.
To be fair, these issues have always existed among us as long as humans have existed. But in this modern post information scarcity era these problems have been greatly exacerbated. Social media has been disigned to reward knee jerk responses. And the modern news business requires often misleading “click-bait” headlines in order to get readers to pay attention even if they’re not trying to push some agenda. And of course there’s no shortage of agents of great powers (including, sadly, our own govenment) who desire to mislead and divide us for their own ends. And there’s always garden variety charlatans who are attempting to decieve people for money or power.
We’re awash in information and much of it is bad. And I fear these problems are only going to get much worse in the coming years with the rise of all these new AIs that will be able to generate bad information in volumes many orders of magnitude greater than what we’re currently facing. Imagine being able to flood the internet with false, yet very convincing, “studies” and articles that are able to fool people, defeating all the normal safeguards we have for disregarding this information?
All:
Regarding Cicero’s assertion that viruses are predominant(?) causes of cancer as opposed to chemical (or mineral) carcinogens; there is a large body of evidence correlating exposure to specific chemicals and minerals to later to development of cancer. Evidence and science that existed before the Green Panic Whores latched on to it.
Vinyl chloride, the monomer which the plastic (polymer) polyvinyl chloride (PVC) is made from. Just one example.
But you have to balance risks, not say they don’t exist.
https://redstate.com/smoosieq/2023/02/13/in-east-palestine-ohio-there-remain-more-questions-than-answers-following-disastrous-train-derailment-n702981
What was in the derailed railroad tankers? Vinyl chloride, a highly flammable, posionous, volatile, carcinogen.
If there has been a rise in cancers and cancer recurrences since people started getting the vaccine (and almost all cancer patients would have gotten the vaccine, or else they would have been refused treatment/not be allowed into hospitals), I would attribute it more to the vaccine’s impact on a normal immune system’s cancer-fighting ability. The past ten years have seen the success of immunotherapy in treating almost all types of cancer (Keytruda, etc) where immune cells, which get switched off by cancer cells, are turned back on to kill them. If the immune cells that normally kill cancer cells were affected by the vaccine (or not produced in the same numbers as before due to the vaccine), these immunotherapies that may have been holding cancers in check for years may have also started to fail in many patients after receiving the vaccine.
@ Nonapod > ” Imagine being able to flood the internet with false, yet very convincing, “studies” and articles that are able to fool people, defeating all the normal safeguards we have for disregarding this information?”
This is something from a Hoyt commenter that applies to Nonapod’s question. It’s a 5 minute video scripted “dialogue” between a Deep State apparatchik and a Skeptic (I think they are established personas in the work of the original author) who are debating the reason why we have been “allowed” to see how AI works.
https://twitter.com/Aristos_Revenge/status/1622865343206068224
My notes: AI is a military development being released to the public to sow confusion as to the reality of communication, calling forth a government issued digital ID to verified humans, leading to total control of access to internet, banking, etc “to trace and combat misinformation” aka anything we disapprove of.
From the Twitter thread: Feb 8 Replying to @Aristos_Revenge This video is kind of concerning because a few weeks ago OpenAI released a research report that did in fact propose some of the solutions mentioned in this video. Jan 12 A thread on the recent report published by @OpenAI: ? (link at the Tweet).
Aristophanes, the poster, is enjoying his 15-minutes of fame as the originator of the DAN hack of ChatGPT.
https://redstate.com/brandon_morse/2023/02/07/chatgpt-n700082
ChatGPT Breaks Free of Its Leftist Programming and Gives Very Anti-Woke Answers
By Brandon Morse | 5:30 PM on February 07, 2023
Shots in the seasonal influenza model, which are statistically unsupported to mitigate, let alone prevent, pathogenic infection, progression, and transmission. It is a disservices to conflate these treatments with vaccines that are sterilizing and tested over years, even a decade, or more, for safety and efficacy in at risk cohorts, let alone the general population.
Have had 2 former co-workers die from pancreatic cancer one a few weeks ago the other a few months ago.
Would bet a million the second had the Jab, first don’t know
Skip:
Gee, since the majority of Americans have received the COVID shot, it’s not a difficult thing to bet that at least one and probably even both of those people were among them.
Meaningless information, of course.
You might as well say that most people who die of anything have received a COVID shot, because most people in the US have received COVID shots and all people die of something
Ergo, COVID shots cause death – or something like that.
In fact, most elderly people in particular have received COVID shots – I think it may be something like 90%, and elderly people are most likely to die. That does not mean COVID shots cause death – although the sort of reasoning I often see from some people indicates they might actually believe that sort of “logic.”
Have had 2 former co-workers die from pancreatic cancer one a few weeks ago the other a few months ago.
In 2020, 47,000 people died of pancreatic cancer in this country, a tad lower than it has been in recent years. There are only two cancer sites which produce more deaths in a typical year (the lung and the colon & rectum). Pancreatic cancer is pretty much a random strike (unlike lung cancer) and is not typically treatable (which colon cancer typically is).
The majority are virus-induced.
Not buying.
Let me think about it for 10 seconds, okay. The wife worked for the last five years in the SE WA cancer registry program, a national program of data collection and analysis that tries to track every single cancer patient from first diagnosis, until death, all their treatments at all providers. It is a massive data collection and analysis program, because, wait for it, cancer is a very complicated disease in every way.
So when someone says Covid did this to cause my or someone I know’s cancer, well, the word sucker for a Panic Whore comes to mind.