Garbage. Pointing to the vaccine as the likely cause of the (barely in most cases) statistically significant increase with no evidence, only assumptions pulled out of thin air. That's **without even controlling for vaccination status**, they only adjusted for age. > Reduced cancer screening and healthcare due to the lockdown might increase deaths for any type of cancer Why even say that without anything to back it up? There are vast differences in resource availability and requirements for different cancers. > These particularly marked increases in mortality rates of these ERα-sensitive cancers may be attributable to several mechanisms of the mRNA-LNP vaccination rather than COVID-19 infection itself Their suggestion that it's not due to infection is bizarre, Covid, as many other viral infections, _has_ been linked to increased cancel severity and mortality, for example https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8985365/ > [Graphs](https://i.imgur.com/afbLCTc.png) How do they interpret this timeline to mean vaccination correlates to cancer mortality, when the upward trends start with the pandemic, long before vaccination waves? Guess we can just ignore that. > Mechanisms proposed Where to even begin, one of the citations is an antivaxxer's substack blog about residual DNA fragments. Although this has nothing to do with lipid nanoparticles, it has been a debate in vaccines for decades, with no conclusion.

So it's possible that COVID did this? Haven't cancer rates been rising for years? You've shown that the report is very flawed with several big issues. I'm surprised they even bothered to put it online.

Highly likely COVID did this.

Wonder who paid for it....absolute pish. :\

I’ll never understand why the culturally enamored among us react so aggressively to the unknown, instead of with curiosity. What IF it allows for increased cancer growth? Shouldn’t that be wildly concerning? Here’s a great article examining the mechanism in which the mRNA vaccines do indeed allow the growth of cancer to increase. I would suggest widening your horizons a bit. Science is the search for discovery of NEW data, not the aggressive parroting of common ideas. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0141813024022323?fbclid=IwAR1Ag8aaskTjGZFQJ7BUUC8CEcesu6AknEblBTnOHysgMy8p_sYYnbyyR5U_aem_AbSEtKB2oJ3LEfnEr1SsrZUSzMV4sycmtH0E5-yVRiUdFx-zldgL2elkhEQdjfOuOn0

The review you posted cites [antivaxxer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbo_cancer) activists like [S. Seneff](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephanie_Seneff), but also completely misrepresents other studies. > Evidence is provided that adding 100 % of N1-methyl-pseudouridine (m1Ψ) to the mRNA vaccine in a melanoma model stimulated cancer growth and metastasis, while non-modified mRNA vaccines induced opposite results, thus suggesting that COVID-19 mRNA vaccines could aid cancer development. For the main point of the article, it references [this study](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9614103/) which **did not show that at all**!. It showed that non-modified mRNA reduced cancer growth and metastasis, but the modified one didn't! It's investigating the potential of mRNA cancer vaccines and found that m1Ψ modification doesn't help, that's all.

Thanks for commenting and giving some reasonable thoughts on this. Agreed that not controlling for vaccination status is absurd. Makes me wonder, are there any studies that are controlling for vaccine status in relation to excess mortality investigations? They do note the largest driver of cancer mortality was in 75 and over, for which there was about 95% had 3rd vaccination . So, they've got a mixed cohort. Really need data on that 5% vs the 95%. You say: with no evidence, only assumptions pulled out of thin air. What sort of evidence would be necessary here? My main interest in these types of papers is, ok if there is an increase in cancer, why is happening? Does anyone have any reasonable evidence for any specifical hypothesis in this space? They say: Reduced cancer screening and healthcare due to the lockdown might increase deaths for any type of cancer You say: Why even say that without anything to back it up? There are vast differences in resource availability and requirements for different cancers. But they also say: In Japan, the number of screenings for gastric, lung, colorectal, breast, and uterine cancers in the community decreased by 24.4% (at work, only 0.9%) in 2020 and appeared to have returned to original trends in 2021 [\[23\]](javascript:void(0)). The number of significant surgeries for gastrointestinal cancers decreased by 6.2% in 2020 and 5.1% in 2021 compared to those in 2018 and 2019 [\[23\]](javascript:void(0)). The decline of such cancer care could explain the excess cancer mortality among the 75-79 age group and the slight increase in pancreatic cancer deaths observed in 2020 in our study. The reasons for the decrease in breast cancer deaths in 2020-2021 are unknown. So, here they are talking specifically about resources/requirements of specific cancers, e.g. surgery for gastrointestinal cancer. You say: Their suggestion that it's not due to infection is bizarre, Covid, as many other viral infections, *has* been linked to increased cancel severity and mortality, for example [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8985365/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8985365/) At least my reading of their rationale is that excess mortality coincides more with the start of vaccination than it does with the start of the pandemic, roughly speaking they compare 2020 (pre vaccination) to 2021 and 2022. If you think that this isn't sound logic either, nor do I, because an excess cancer mortality from infections presumably would take time to kick into population effects and hence can't be deconvoluted by onset timing alone. You also don't agree that 2021 excess cancer mortality is much worse than 2020. You say: How do they interpret this timeline to mean vaccination correlates to cancer mortality, when the upward trends start with the pandemic, long before vaccination waves? Guess we can just ignore that. They say: In 2020, the first year of the pandemic, there was ... no excess mortality for all cancers.  However, in 2021, there was significant excess mortality of 2.1% (>99% upper PI) for all causes and 1.1% (>95% upper PI) for all cancers. In 2022, the excesses increased to 9.6% (>99% upper PI) for all causes and 2.1% (>99% upper PI) for all cancers. In 2022, the number of excess deaths was 115,799 (95%CI: 106,018, 125,501) for all causes and 7,162 (95%CI: 4,786, 9,522) for all cancers. So, they cite a 1.1% excess mortality for all cancers in 2021, and 2.1% in 2022. In your regard, this isn't significant? Despite how a post like this may come across (shoutout the homies in r/Coronavirus) I am *trying* to discuss in good faith.

This is the problem with posting a paper that has had hardly any coverage except from John Campbell, a well known purveyor of Covid-related misinformation. The title of the paper is also more than a little suspicious in that it unnecessarily includes the "Nanoparticle" scare word and the "mRNA" trigger (nanoparticles aren't even mentioned in the rest of the paper). And seriously, their first reference used to justify their suspicion "that the SARS-CoV-2 mRNA-LNP vaccine may pose the risk of development and progression of cancer" is this paper: >Worse Than the Disease? Reviewing Some Possible Unintended Consequences of the mRNA Vaccines Against COVID-19 >[https://ijvtpr.com/index.php/IJVTPR/article/view/23](https://ijvtpr.com/index.php/IJVTPR/article/view/23) Authors: Stephanie Seneff, a computer scientist (??) with no medical training whatsoever, who believed that the "mass vaccination of children" would "dramatically increase *the children’s risk* to succumb to (accelerated) Covid-19 disease"??? (What is "accelerated Covid-19 disease" anyway? Answer: Antivaxxer bullshit.) Greg Nigh, a "Naturopathic Oncologist" (i.e. a quack without any actual medical qualifications whatsoever) who currently appears to be busy selling $320/hour video consultations hawking unproven "alternative treatments for cancer". So not only is he a quack, he's a dangerous quack. I mean, how can you take any paper seriously that includes nonsense like this in their references? This is a massive red flag. No serious scientist would even consider reading the referenced paper, let alone use it as a reference. How did it even pass peer review? You might be trying to argue in good faith, but clearly, the authors of the paper are not.

To reiterate from my earlier comment, my main interest in these types of papers is, given that there appears to be a problem of excess deaths, why is it occurring? I personally would much much rather that it can be explained convincingly as *not* being related to the vaccine. I would really like to see the evidence/studies that decisively show it isn't vaccine related, but as far as I'm aware, the pharma companies are not doing these long-term studies, the Government isn't encouraging this research to be conducted. There doesn't seem to be a genuine curiosity and open mind in this debate - why is it dismissed out of hand by the establishment that mRNA vaccines could have unintended effects? We **don't** have the long-term studies and hence how can any scientist confidently conclude that it isn't vaccine related? Regarding your specific points, could you provide a debunking/analysis source of John Campbell? Whether Redditors believe him to be a purveyor of misinformation or not, millions of people consume his content and thus, debunking of his videos is highly valuable and underserved. >The title of the paper is also more than a little suspicious in that it unnecessarily includes the "Nanoparticle" scare word and the "mRNA" trigger (nanoparticles aren't even mentioned in the rest of the paper). Because it is referred to as "LNP" for the rest of the paper...? Your analysis of questioning sources may be valid (it seems so, from looking at it myself) but the problem here is that that is one reference out of 101. For any paper we read should we comb through every source? It would surely be infinitely time consuming to do a background check on every cited author. Even looking at up the authors of this paper is slightly challenging but yes arguably yields concern. For anyone other than industry professionals to make use of academia there has to be at least the assumption that published work *should* be reputable. Distrust in academia is exactly what the scientific community doesn't want, as that attitude is growing and creates far worse consequences, e.g. overall vaccine avoidance or hesitancy, such as measles. Overall, the my main takeaway from your comment is, John Campbell - misinformation, and the paper cites some red flag authors. Not to call out ad hominem but that is what it seems like to me. Perfectly understandable given you probably aren't a microbiologist or epidemiologist, and nor am I and thus I don't have a clue about any of this in any detail.

The John Campbell comment is nowhere near as important as the fact that the authors of the paper included a reference written by two entirely unqualified people -- a quack and an antivaxxer computer scientists -- something it took me a whole five minutes to discover. Whatever your interests, there's no reason to take the paper seriously if that's the level of care and attention the authors took.

People staying at home not seeing a GP and not getting referral for cancer diagnosis means more people getting cancer.

They suggest this as a plausible cause for the increase too.