1-year risks of cancers associated with Covid-19 vaccination
biomarkerres.biomedcentral.com
biomarkerres.biomedcentral.com
Yes, its 1.28x more likely. It's still 0.0045 likelihood, and the most likely outcome of presenting for test with no symptoms or concerns remains a negative (not cancer) outcome.
17 cancers showed lower rates, or identical rates. That's more than half. What are we to make of this overall?
I am not a medical or epidemiological scholar. I am not inclined to change my stance regarding vaccine on those outcomes, given half of the cancers under consideration showed lower risks, I appear to be choosing between equally unlikely outcomes, compared to higher risk outcome of having an infection.
I'm not against the vaccine but it was forced when there was no medical reason for it to be forced on everyone. When we then also see stats like this where in certian cancers it significantly increases cancer rates then it becomes dubious.
Your individual chance might no have increased much but across the entire population it is significant. I know people who were otherwise healthy and got diagnosed with cancer after the Covid19 pandemic, everyone suspected it was related to the vaccines and it is now being proven by medical studies.
It is important that the studies get done so that we can learn from our mistakes and make different choices in the future and help those that need the help while not harming others.
If your point was about freedom of choice, I think that's a distinct argument. And, I question Your individual chance might no have increased much but across the entire population it is significant. because, I do not see an increase in 35 per 10,000 to 45 per 10,000 as a population wide increase of significance. I guess it depends what meaning you put on "significance" -statistically it's demonstrable, the authors argue it's not coincidence. In terms of its magnitude to outcomes in a population, I don't see this as outweighing the upside benefit of herd immunity and reduced impacts of infection.
Remember alongside this increase in rates of cancer, are increases in rates of lung and heart disease from a full blown viral attack, and death in people with comorbidities who get covid.
I'm not arguing for not getting vaccinated, I'm arguing it should not be mandated for people who have no need to get vaccinated because the actual stats show they are not at risk or getting a severe infection in the first place.
It's not a matter of their risk increased but it is fine because they had greater risks to mitigate. It's just a base line increase in risk for dubious benefit.
I was vaccinated, I still got full blown covid after vaccination, I was still infectious and had to quarantine and I still live with the long term effects of having had covid, the vaccine was pointless for me and on top of that just increases my baseline risk.
This is not true. Multiple studies have shown that the vaccines significantly reduced infection rates.
> however it was mandated for everyone to take it, even strong young people with no comorbidities that had already been infected.
This is not true as well. Plenty of places around the world where it wasn't mandated. If you have a specific region in mind, do you mind elaborating? Are you talking about Korea?
> I know people who were otherwise healthy and got diagnosed with cancer after the Covid19 pandemic, everyone suspected it was related to the vaccines and it is now being proven by medical studies.
"My granddad smoked cigarettes. He died at 95. Hit by a truck."
Is this true or is this rather being asymptomatic or symptoms not severe enough to warrant seeking medical advice and not getting tested in the first place. Seems more like correlation than causation, I can argue that any day.
> If you have a specific region in mind, do you mind elaborating?
Where I live, South Africa. If you refused to get vaccinated during the pandemic you were forced to remain in quarantine despite taking every required precaution and for many large companies were not allowed to return to work, you were given an ultimatum, vaccinate or quit.
Your last point has no merit, I suspected but couldn't prove so it was nothing more than a suspicion, having actual studies prove it is a different story.
I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with the study, just pointing out the table. In fact, it kind of me of the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_sharpshooter_fallacy#Exa....
Edit: they looked at 17 cancers and one effect was significant. Is this exactly the jelly bean scenario?
Edit: reading the paper now. There are overall results that are probably more interesting.
There were extensive and contentious discussions between ACIP members, Pfizer and industry representatives regarding the statistically significant rates of birth defects and stillbirths documented in the COVID-19 mRNA injections animal and human clinical trials during Friday’s vaccine advisory committee, including Pfizer’s own study of 300 pregnant women.
“The safety and the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy have never been tested in appropriately powered randomized clinical trials. In one randomized trial there was observed numerical imbalance of higher number of babies with congenital malformation among those born to vaccinated women.”
The net result of these discussions - in 2 separate policy votes of 11 to 1, pregnant women have been dropped from the CDC’s recommendations for the COVID-19 shots and ACIP is now recommending against vaccinating pregnant women.
Let’s go through some the body of evidence ACIP used before we get to the draft warning verbiage for pregnant women.
Spike Protein and Nanoparticles Found in the Placenta and Breast Milk:
Dr. Griffin noted that there were peer-reviewed studies demonstrating the presence of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines (which is the spike protein and lipid nanoparticles) in breast milk and the placenta.
Pfizer Pregnancy Study Shows 4-Fold Increase in Birth Defects - Pfizer Denies Findings
Pfizer also claimed that the birth defects in the vaccinated occurred during the first trimester, weeks before they got the first injection. After nearly 8 minutes of debate between Dr. Kulldorf and the Pfizer representative, Carol Hayes from the American Association of Nurse Midwives came to Pfizer’s defense falsely claiming, ‘birth defects only occur in the first trimester.’
https://www.thekingstonreport.com/p/pfizer-denies-significan...
I wonder (pure speculation) if this is because many in the non-vaccinated groups die because of COVID and so don't get a cancer diagnosis?
A significant error I often see in cancer studies, is the assumption that after a carcinogenic event (consumption of something toxic, exposure to radiation, etc.) suddenly there is a tumor of such a large size the person notices it and gets it investigated by a medical professional.
Some cancers take years to grow, which means the increase in certain cancer-type rates cannot possibly be explained by a carcinogenic event within a 1-year timescale.
Science is not just about finding relationships in data. You have to justify the claims, argue against them, uncover biases and guarantee the correctness of data. Statistical links are the weakest form of evidence and literally anything can be proven if not graduated through the scientific model.