patrick.net

Shocking study linking covid jabs and cancer 'censored' by mysterious cyberattack

A global review examining reported cases of cancer following Covid vaccination was published earlier this month, just as the medical journal hosting it was hit by a cyberattack that has since taken the site offline.

The study appeared in the peer-reviewed journal Oncotarget on January 3 and was authored by cancer researchers from Tufts University in Boston and Brown University in Rhode Island.

In the review, researchers analyzed 69 previously published studies and case reports from around the world, identifying 333 instances in which cancer was newly diagnosed or rapidly worsened within a few weeks following Covid vaccination.

The review covered studies from 2020 to 2025 and included reports from 27 countries, including the US, Japan, China, Italy, Spain, and South Korea. No single country dominated, suggesting the observed patterns were reported globally.

The authors emphasized that the review highlights patterns observed in existing reports, but does not establish a direct causal link between vaccination and cancer.

Days after publication, Oncotarget's website became inaccessible, displaying a 'bad gateway' error that the journal attributed to an ongoing cyberattack.

The journal reported the incident to the FBI, noting disruptions to its online operations.

In social media posts, one of the paper's authors, Dr Wafik El-Deiry of Brown University, expressed concern that the attack disrupted access to newly published research.

'Censorship is alive and well in the US, and it has come into medicine in a big, awful way,' El-Deiry wrote in a post on X. ...

The paper also uncovered sudden flare-ups of slow-growing cancers that had been stable before receiving the Covid jab, and incidents where the vaccine appeared to 'wake up' certain viruses that can lead to cancer, like human herpesvirus 8.

Major study populations, including one review of 300,000 people in Italy and one examining 8.4million people in South Korea, uncovered higher cancer rates of thyroid, colon, lung, breast, and prostate cancers among vaccinated individuals.

We’ve been waiting impatiently for five years now for someone with authority to say the obvious. But it’s done. Check it off the agenda paper. They’ve mapped it out in the careful language of the academy, and the Censorship Creature is on a rampage, doing whatever it can to stop the truth about the jabs from coming out. I’ll go out on a limb, and argue the only reasonable suspect for these ceaseless cyberattacks on an obscure cancer journal —attacks that began right after it published a damning study linking the covid jabs to a wide array of tumors— is Big Pharma.

In other words, I doubt very much it is Romanian scammers. Or for that matter, Democrats, since they are still trying to figure out Instagram.

The hackers have made no demands. They haven’t replaced the home page banner with a penis joke. They’re just trying to block eyeballs and, more importantly, search engine access to the site.

💉 The newly published (January 3rd), peer-reviewed study in Oncotarget does something that was functionally forbidden for four years: it systematically catalogs cancer cases temporally associated with covid vaccination and covid infection, then asks —carefully, explicitly— whether mRNA might plausibly connect the dots.

There are two reasons why Big Pharma woke up and chose digital violence, in addition to deploying the usual defamation army to undermine and isolate the study’s conclusions.

The first reason is that the study’s authors aren’t fringe figures or Twitter gadflies. Dr. Charlotte Kuperwasser is a senior cancer biologist at Tufts University whose work focuses on tumor microenvironments, metastasis, and immune–cancer interactions. Dr. Wafik S. El-Deiry is a longtime oncologist and molecular cancer researcher at Brown University, former president of the American Association for Cancer Research, and a leading authority on p53 signaling and cancer therapeutics.

In other words, these are scientists whose day jobs are spotting early cancer signals— not making them up for clicks. And they know the game. The paper took a year to traverse peer review and be published— including 5 months of silence following acceptance.

The second, and perhaps bigger reason, is that the two researchers didn’t conduct a new experiment that could be sliced and diced by Big Pharma’s stable of pet critics. Instead, they reviewed 69 other peer-reviewed publications from 27 different countries, covering 333 patients, plus several large population-level datasets, and proved recurring patterns that simply cannot be waved away:

unusually rapid cancer progression,
reactivation of previously controlled disease,
odd tumor clusters near injection sites or draining lymph nodes, and
a striking overrepresentation of lymphomas, leukemias, aggressive solid tumors, and virus-associated cancers.

In other words, to criticize this peer-reviewed paper, Big Pharma’s slander team would have to criticize the 69 previous peer-reviewed papers, too. A project like that would look a lot like outright persecution and not Science™. Hence, the DDOS attacks and ad-hominem assaults.

💉 The two scientists were very careful in their paper. They meticulously and repeatedly admitted what they did not seek to prove. They offered no risk estimates, they made no direct causal claims. But they were equally clear about what their results did show: this is no longer anecdote, rumor, or Twitter lore.

Beyond that, they included what might be the best explanation I’ve yet seen of the long-term risks posed by the mRNA vaccines —really, any of the mRNA vaccines— for a wide variety of potential downstream injuries:

In addition, the COVID mRNA vaccines work by instructing the target cells to produce the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. This occurs by introducing a synthetic, modified mRNA (mod-mRNA) which incorporates non-natural pseudouridine into its coding region to prolong the stability of the mRNA beyond that of natural mRNA.
Introduction of the mod-RNA is accomplished using lipid-based transfection in the form of lipid nanoparticles (LNPs). The result is highly efficient transfection of the mod-mRNA into target cells with biochemical and pharmacological behavior different from naturally occurring mRNA. Consequently, the mod-RNA is transcribed into the foreign spike protein (as well as other frameshifted protein products), which elicits a robust immune response.
Given the stability of pseudouridine modified mRNA, along with the residual
DNA in the mRNA vaccine formulations, the mRNA vaccines are delivering exogenous genetic material (DNA and RNA (in the form of engineered nucleic acids)) into a patient’s cells. The COVID19 mRNA vaccines produce Spike protein that is encoded by a stable mRNA and has been found to be long-lived in the human body. These nucleic acid elements have been reported to contribute to Post-Covid Vaccine Syndrome (PCVS/PVS).
Thus, these vaccines fit the definition of gene therapy.

Even as they were cautious about identifying a biological mechanism of injury or making direct claims about causality, they painstakingly catalogued a Devil’s inventory of case reports (and a few small series studies) of cancers linked to jabs— including lymphomas, leukemia, sarcoma, carcinoma (pancreatic, prostate, lung, colon, breast, etc.), melanoma (eye and skin cancer), glioblastoma (brain cancer), and the catchall, other.

It is devilishly hard to pick, but possibly the most unsettling part wasn’t the hypotheses about immune dysregulation, spike protein persistence, or DNA contaminants— it was the authors’ blunt admission that covid vaccines were never evaluated for carcinogenicity, genotoxicity, or multi-dose long-term effects at all.

In other words, you’ll find out what’s in the shots once they’ve been in your body for a few years. The researchers conclusion was simple and stark: “The collective world-wide evidence from 2020–2025 underscores a biologically plausible connection between COVID-19 vaccination and cancer.”

This paper posed the implied question of why no one was allowed to ask about cancer risk in the first place.

💉 The reason this study is so dangerous is that it summarizes and recapitulates a large body of existing literature, which until now has been kept broken in piecemeal and scattered to the winds. This study isn’t new; it’s an inflection point. This study brings together into one place all the existing theories, the proven problems with the jabs, and evidences all of it with direct citations to 69 other peer-reviewed publications.

Here’s a local link to the study from my Dropbox, since, because of the ongoing DDOS attacks, it remains nearly impossible to access online. You might want to archive a local copy. Just saying.

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/8kktdyzucf87ybi5wr29b/oncotarget-v0i0-28824-C19-C19-vaccine-and-cancer-published-plus-supp-1-3-2026.pdf?rlkey=vr98uftqaj4ms7sjck0c7r7r5&e=2&st=ps6tsta1&dl=0

This study offers many reasons to be optimistic, despite the dark subject matter. First, the DDOS attacks may have backfired, by drawing more attention to the study than otherwise. Next, astonishingly, the Daily Mail ran the story straight, without the obligatory template text about how many millions of lives the shots saved and blah-blah-blah. The study is largely immune to criticism, because it is grounded in prior peer-reviewed work. And Pharma is increasingly wounded (albeit still dangerous) and stands on shifting sands.

We approach a tipping point. When we get there, I say we should nuke Big Vaccines from orbit and start over. It’s the only way to be sure.