From: T@invalid.invalid   
      
   On 11/6/25 7:26 AM, 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!   
   >   
   > 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.   
      
      
   Then you should know better.  We both know how the   
   scientific method works.  You pulling crap out   
   your ass and stating it as an axiom, because your   
   have an MD degree, does not cut it.   
      
   And we both know the EVERY profession has fraud   
   in it.  Shall I name some in your profession?   
      
   You did not read what I cited.  You read the   
   vaccine site.  Your criticism on the vaccine cite   
   article is somewhat warrented.  But the actual   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)