From: HapilyRetired@fakeaddress.com   
      
   On 11/6/2025 11:01 AM, hubops@ccanoemail.com wrote:   
   > On Thu, 6 Nov 2025 10:26:08 -0500, 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   
   found-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/s403   
   4-025-00831-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!   
   >>   
   >> 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.   
   >>   
   >>   
   >   
   > As a high school drop-out,  lacking your medical expertise   
   > and experience and insights  -  I'm left to decide these things   
   > by a much simpler method  -  I listen to my doctor and the   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)