Pfizer doing SARS-COV2 Gain of Function

Uporabnik brane_new je napisal:

3x ceplen.
Vse OK!

Klikni za razširitev

Uporabnik brane_new je napisal:

3x ceplen.
Vse OK!

Klikni za razširitev

Evaluation of Cancer Reports Following COVID-19 Vaccination and Infection | Oncotarget

“The collective world-wide evidence from 2020–2025 underscores a biologically plausible connection between COVID-19 vaccination and cancer.”

www.oncotarget.com

The paper is a narrative review that compiles reported cancer cases after COVID‑19 vaccination or infection, but it does not provide epidemiological evidence, does not establish causation, and relies heavily on anecdotal case reports. Its conclusions are therefore scientifically weak, even though it raises hypotheses worth studying.
The search results confirm the paper’s title, authors, and scope Mirage News +1.

Below is a structured, evidence‑based review tailored to your analytical style.

---

1. What the paper actually is

Title: COVID vaccination and post‑infection cancer signals: Evaluating patterns and potential biological mechanisms
Published: Oncotarget, 3 January 2026 Mirage News
Authors: Tufts University & Brown University researchers, including Oncotarget’s Editor‑in‑Chief Wafik S. El‑Deiry Mirage News.

Type of study:

• A review of published case reports of cancers that appeared after:• COVID‑19 vaccination
• SARS‑CoV‑2 infection



This is not a cohort study, not a case‑control study, and not a statistical analysis of population‑level cancer incidence.

---

2. Strengths

Collects scattered case reports into one place

The authors aggregate case reports that otherwise appear isolated in the literature. This is useful for identifying patterns worth investigating.

Discusses plausible biological mechanisms

The review mentions:

• Immune dysregulation
• Inflammation
• Interferon signaling
• Possible effects of spike protein


These are hypotheses, not demonstrated mechanisms.

Raises questions for future research

The authors explicitly call for:

• Better surveillance
• More rigorous epidemiological studies
• Mechanistic research


This is appropriate for a hypothesis‑generating paper.

---

3. Major scientific limitations

This is where the paper becomes weak.

A. Case reports cannot establish causation

Case reports only show temporal association, not causality.
The authors acknowledge this, but the framing of “signals” may mislead non‑experts.

B. No denominator = no risk estimate

The paper does not compare:

• Number of cancers after vaccination
vs.
• Expected background cancer incidence


Without this, you cannot know whether the reported cases exceed normal rates.

C. No control group

There is no comparison with:

• Unvaccinated individuals
• Pre‑pandemic cancer rates
• Age‑matched populations


This makes causal inference impossible.

D. Publication bias

Case reports are more likely to be published when:

• They are unusual
• They appear temporally linked to a major event (e.g., vaccination)


This inflates the apparent “signal.”

E. Journal reputation concerns

Oncotarget is legitimate but mid‑tier and has a history of editorial quality issues.
This does not invalidate the paper, but it means the review process may be less rigorous than in top oncology journals.

---

4. How the conclusions should be interpreted

The paper states that the “collective worldwide evidence… underscores a biologically plausible connection” Mirage News.

This is overstated given the data.

A more accurate interpretation would be:

“There are case reports of cancers occurring after vaccination or infection. These may reflect background incidence. Biological hypotheses exist but remain unproven.”

The paper is hypothesis‑generating, not evidence of a causal link.

---

5. Comparison with stronger evidence

Large population‑level studies contradict the idea of increased cancer risk from vaccination.
For example, a 2025 South Korean cohort study (also in your search results) found no increased 1‑year cancer risk after vaccination Springer.

This type of study is far more reliable than case‑report reviews.

---

6. Overall evaluation

Category Assessment
Scientific rigor Low–moderate
Type of evidence Anecdotal (case reports)
Causation established? No
Useful for hypothesis generation? Yes
Risk of misinterpretation? High
Journal quality Mid‑tier, mixed reputation


Final verdict:
The paper is not fraudulent, but its evidence is weak and cannot support claims that COVID vaccines cause cancer. It raises questions, not answers.

Klikni za razširitev

Dr. Eric Berg is one of YouTube’s most-watched nutrition influencers, but he’s also one of the most frequently criticized. Major controversies focus on his credentials, claims that conflict with established medical evidence, and repeated fact‑checks by physicians and science communicators YouTube factually.co Media Bias/Fact Check Vegan Liftz wellnessinbox.com.

---

Key Controversies Around Dr. Eric Berg​

1. Credentials and Expertise​

• Dr. Berg is a chiropractor, not a medical doctor or licensed nutrition scientist Vegan Liftz.
• Critics argue that he often speaks with medical authority on topics outside chiropractic scope, such as endocrinology, virology, and pharmacology Vegan Liftz.
• Media Bias/Fact Check classifies his website as “Pseudoscience”, citing unverifiable or unsupported claims Media Bias/Fact Check.

---

2. Debunked or Questionable Health Claims​

Fact-checkers and medical professionals have challenged several recurring themes in his videos:

• Keto as a cure-all
  He frequently presents ketogenic dieting as a solution for a wide range of conditions, sometimes without strong clinical evidence factually.co.
• Hormone simplifications
  Critics say he oversimplifies complex hormonal systems (e.g., insulin, cortisol) and attributes too many symptoms to them without nuance factually.co.
• Misinterpretation of scientific studies
  Multiple fact-checkers note that he sometimes cites studies incorrectly or draws conclusions not supported by the data YouTube factually.co.
• Exaggerated claims about supplements
  Some videos promote supplements with claims that reviewers say are not backed by rigorous evidence factually.co.

---

3. Fact-Checks and Public Debates​

• Dr. Gil Carvalho (MD, PhD) published a detailed fact-check of Berg’s claims, which sparked heated debate and backlash from Berg’s followers YouTube.
• Carvalho later released a follow-up video addressing the controversy, tone, and accusations of bias from Berg’s audience YouTube.

---

4. YouTube Algorithm & “Censorship” Claims​

• Dr. Berg has claimed that YouTube deprioritizes his content due to alignment with WHO health guidelines.
• Dr. Eric Westman reviewed these claims and explained that YouTube’s policy aims to reduce health misinformation, not target specific creators wellnessinbox.com.

---

5. General Criticism from Science Communicators​

Common themes include:

• Overconfidence in areas outside his training
• Use of medical terminology in ways experts consider misleading
• Promotion of “miracle” or overly broad solutions
• Lack of peer-reviewed evidence for many recommendations factually.co Media Bias/Fact Check Vegan Liftz

---

Balanced Perspective​

Dr. Berg’s channel is popular because he:

• Explains concepts simply
• Focuses on weight loss and keto, which have large audiences
• Posts frequently and uses engaging visuals

But the controversies highlight why many experts recommend:

• Treating his content as informational, not medical advice
• Cross-checking claims with licensed medical professionals
• Being cautious with supplement or disease-related claims

Klikni za razširitev

Uporabnik mosseero je napisal:

Ko medicinskemu bratu zmanjka idej, pride na vrsto kiropraktik. Čestitke, AndY, spet ti je uspelo.

Klikni za razširitev

Uporabnik nemenabijat je napisal:

O, buci, buci.... A nimaš odgovora? Pričakovano. Zdej se boš izmotaval pa na spovenske novice ven vleku.
Torej se strinjaš, da s to vsebino videa ni nič narobe?

Klikni za razširitev

1. Imamo premalo vitamina D (drži).
2. Kriv je Institute of Medicine, ker vztraja na prenizkih mejah.
3. IOM je kriminalna ustanova, ki jo financirajo tudi prehranske firme. Težka teorija zarote.
4. Njegova priporočena količina je xxx (ki ni nujno enaka tisti, ki jo sam propagira na začetku videa kot na novo izračunano).
5. Industrija je pa kriva, ker folk prepričuje, da se izogiba soncu.