From: T@invalid.invalid   
      
   On 11/5/25 7:39 AM, Retirednoguilt wrote:   
   > On 11/4/2025 8:23 PM, Ketanji Kornrows wrote:   
   >>   
   >> A new, peer-reviewed study by researchers in South Korea has found that   
   people who received COVID-19 shots showed significantly higher rates of   
   >> developing several cancers—including thyroid, stomach, colon, lung,   
   breast, and prostate—compared to unvaccinated individuals. The research,   
   >> published on Sept. 26, 2025 in the journal Biomarker Research, was authored   
   by South Korean medics in orthopedic surgery and critical care and   
   >> evaluated data from over eight million adults in the Korean National Health   
   Insurance database to identify a potential link between COVID mRNA   
   >> shots and cancer risk within one year after receipt of different types of   
   vaccines.1   
   >>   
   >> The data indicate that vaccinated individuals had roughly a 35 percent   
   greater increased risk of thyroid cancer and 34 percent greater risk of   
   >> gastric cancer, with lung and prostate cancers showing even higher relative   
   risks—53 percent and 68 percent respectively. Breast and colorectal   
   >> cancers showed increases of 20 percent and 28 percent. The authors of the   
   study noted that vaccinated men were more likely to develop gastric   
   >> and lung cancers, while vaccinated women were more likely to develop   
   thyroid and colorectal cancers.1   
   >>   
   >> https://thevaccinereaction.org/2025/11/higher-cancer-rates-fo   
   nd-after-receipt-of-covid-19-shots/   
   >>   
   >> The clot-shots don't sound safe and effective to me. Glad I'm an   
   anti-vaxxer.   
   >   
   > I'll provide a different explanation for the apparent finding of   
   > increased cancer incidence.  People who are intelligent enough to   
   > understand the importance of quality information and advice provided by   
   > experts in virology, immunology, infectious diseases etc., are much more   
   > likely to get recommended vaccinations and are also more likely to have   
   > regular visits with medical personnel.   
      
   Your reference?   
      
   > Those people will experience a   
   > much greater incidence of early detection of many diseases, including   
   > cancers.  People with no training in any of those fields, and who don't   
   > trust things they don't understand and therefore feel suspicious of   
   > those things and prefer to believe conspiracy theories are less likely   
   > to get recommended vaccinations and less likely to interact regularly   
   > with medical professionals.   
      
   Your reference?   
      
   > Their cancers remain non-existent and   
   > untallied when considering the methodology of the reference cited by the   
   > OP.  Faulty study design inevitably leads to faulty data, which leads to   
   > faulty conclusions.   
      
   The study was not faulty.  But your analysis was.  You   
   are pulling things out your ears based on your "beliefs".   
      
   You are presenting your beliefs as "axiom" and challenging   
   others to disprove them.  That is not how the scientific   
   method works.   
      
   https://biomarkerres.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40364-0   
   5-00831-w?utm_source=chatgpt.com#citeas   
      
      
   Was a painstakingly well documented.  But you did not   
   read it as it challenged your "axioms".   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)