From: robin_listas@es.invalid   
      
   On 2025-11-06 16:26, Retirednoguilt wrote:   
   > On 11/5/2025 6:58 PM, T wrote:   
   >> 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-   
   ound-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/s4036   
   -025-00831-w?utm_source=chatgpt.com#citeas   
   >>   
   >>   
   >> Was a painstakingly well documented.  But you did not   
   >> read it as it challenged your "axioms".   
   >>   
   >>   
   > Can you demonstrate where the experimental design of the study you cite   
   > precludes what I stated?  No you can't, because the reference web page   
   > you cite only provides the abstract, not the nitty-gritty details of the   
   > experimental design. A good study protocol contains a discussion of how   
   > the design of the study attempts to eliminate or at least minimize the   
   > type of faulty conclusions you have accepted as valid.   
   >   
   > Also, your selective quotation from the abstract failed to include the   
   > following direct quotes from the abstract:   
   >   
   > "However, the researchers cautioned that the findings represent a   
   > statistical association, not proof of causation, emphasizing the need   
   > for further research to determine whether the increases reflect a   
   > biological effect or are influenced by other factors such as healthcare   
   > access, screening frequency, or population demographics."   
   >   
   > and   
   >   
   > "Some medical professionals caution, however, that these patterns may   
   > also reflect non-vaccine factors, including pandemic-related health care   
   > disruptions, delayed diagnoses, expanded screening programs, or an aging   
   > population—all of which can elevate reported incidence rates. Yale   
   > Medicine reports that rates of early-onset breast, colorectal, stomach,   
   > thyroid, and prostate cancers have been rising for years across multiple   
   > countries."   
   >   
   > How convenient for you not to have included those portions of the abstract!   
      
   Ah!   
      
   >   
   > If you try to go head to head with me I strongly suspect that you will   
   > lose.  I spent more than a decade working full time in the management of   
   > human subjects medical research in a huge federal organization.  For   
   > much of that time, I was the sole individual personally responsible for   
   > the safe and ethical treatment of human subjects in a huge program (over   
   > $100M/year) of world-wide clinical investigations.  My personal   
   > signature was required before any human subjects medical research funded   
   > by the organization I worked for was authorized to recruit a single   
   > subject.  I also had full authority to grant or retract permission to   
   > perform any human subjects clinical research whatever at the facilities   
   > where funding for these projects included funds from my organization's   
   > budget.  I was second level review after local institutional review   
   > board approval of each study and commonly sent IRB approved protocols   
   > back for revision because of flaws in experimental design.  Junk   
   > protocols yield junk data which reach unsupportable conclusions.  It is   
   > unethical to subject human subjects to any risk if the outcome of the   
   > study is predetermined to be junk science.  My background includes a   
   > M.D. degree and more than 5 years of post-graduate training at a   
   > nationally recognized ivy-league medical school.  Why don't I still work   
   > at that organization?  I'm happily retired after many decades of hard work.   
      
   Thank you.   
      
   --   
   Cheers, Carlos.   
   ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)