Japanese study finds ‘significant increases’ in turbo cancer after three deathjabs

(IMO it’s not just the deathjabs, but also the virus/bioweapon itself that is causing this. After all, if you got jabbed, you also probably got Covid, so who knows what is really causing the cancer? -nvp)

LifeSiteNews –– A new study has found “statistically significant increases” in cancer deaths after taking a third dose of mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines, according to a Japanese study published April 8 in the journal Cureus.

The study looked at age-adjusted mortality rates for multiple types of cancers from 2020 to 2022 in Japanese government data. “No significant excess mortality was observed during the first year of the pandemic (2020),” it says. “However, some excess cancer mortalities were observed in 2021 after mass vaccination with the first and second vaccine doses, and significant excess mortalities were observed for all cancers and some specific types of cancer (including ovarian cancer, leukemia, prostate cancer, lip/oral/pharyngeal cancer, pancreatic cancer, and breast cancer) after mass vaccination with the third dose in 2022.”

Notably, the rollout of the COVID vaccines coincided with an interruption and slowing of declines in cancer mortality rates that had been observed across all age groups over the span of the preceding decade. Third mRNA doses correlated with “significant excess mortalities” of all cancers, including breast, prostate, and ovarian cancer as well as leukemia. Almost all of the COVID vaccines at issue were mRNA-based…


16 thoughts on “Japanese study finds ‘significant increases’ in turbo cancer after three deathjabs”

  1. The mechanism usually proposed, has to do with anti-cancer T cells getting suppressed, downstream from spike protein circulating in blood.

    Covid infection, if it’s no worse than a bad cold (which is 99% of the time nowadays), is likely to stay in your air passages & lungs; not so likely to hit your blood in much quantity.

    Vaxx injection is supposed to stay at the injection site, except it’s been proven that it often escapes the site & circulates in quantity.

    On the whole: Yes either one COULD hit blood. Or not.

    But infection is unavoidable, & perhaps(?) a lower risk to your blood. While vaxx is avoidable (unnecessary) & perhaps(?) a higher risk to your blood.

    If someone has had 2 covid infections + 4 vaxx injections, that makes 6 potential exposures of spike protein to their blood.

    Where, if they only had the 2 covid infections….Much better off.

  2. Here is what is really causing the cancer. Every your body produces cancer cells. Every day, most of the time, your body’s T4 cells kill it. Sometimes you get cancer and need it cut out, irradiated, etc.

    The Covid 19 vaccine puts your body’s natural cancer defense to sleep. So when your cells divide abnormally, there’s nothing to fight it. Not only that, since your body’s chromosome has been disfigured, you will pump our far more cancerous cells.

    Nothing will stop the cancer.

    Add in SV40, which is an oncogenic virus found in apes, which is in the Covid 19 vaccine, and you will have no chance.

    1. Actually Mike, the usual anti-cancer techniques done “in time” + restoring your immune system, will stop the cancer.

      One friend of mine got vaxxed up (against my gentle advice). I don’t have all the details, but jump forward in time and she got a “sudden, shocking, surprising” cancer. Had it removed & she’s been fine.

      Yes there are tragedies – people who didn’t catch it in time, aren’t fortunately connected to a helpful system, etc.

      But sometimes the gloom & doom around here, on anyone who was dumb enough to vaxx, can get too 100%, absolute, a bit overstated. People gloating & self-petting, I daresay.

      And I’m unpopular if I puncture it, as now. But such is my fate. In any given group, I’m “that guy”. Vaxxers & covidists hate what I say to them, even more 😉

  3. There is a small number of doctors — not quite fringe but not disreputable either — who believe some cancers may be agglutinations of parasites. I am not really there but if I were diagnosed with cancer or for that matter even a benign lump — I would seriously consider ivermectin and/or fenbendazole among other things. It might be interesting and informative to see a study — if any exist — about the incidences of cancer in countries where ivermectin is a kind of once-a-week pill.

    1. I treated my dad with Ivermectin with mixed results. If you take Ivermectin take the paste or the pills. The 1 percent injectable solution will not work orally.

      Anne Barnhardt and “Nurse Claire” have said that you can take Ivm 1 percent solution orally since many subcutaneous injections can be taken orally. Barnhardt says that cattle are injected this way so the needle doesn’t scar meat.

      However, the 1 percent injectable will not survive the gauntlet of the digestive track and liver. It will have zero effect. This is why oral medication for Ivermectin comes in paste form or pills (the pills have ingredients to get them through the liver).

      I have firsthand experience with this now. I’m disappointed I listened to those 2 about the injectable but it is what it is. Take the paste or human use tablets orally. No 1 percent injectable.

      1. Playing devil’s advocate here. Ivermectin has the temporary side effect of affecting your vision and sensitivity to light. I get that both with the paste and injectable solution. And anecdotally it appears effective against respiritory illness. It’s also important to take it with fatty food and zinc.

      2. Hi Mike – I’d like to understand why you say the 1% injectable will not survive the oral route. Do you have any supporting documentation? If you’re referring to first pass effect when you talk about “ingredients to get them thru the liver” this is typically managed by increasing an oral dose from what would be given by injection since injection bypasses the liver. However, ivermectin is not one of the drugs that are subject to this process.

        Plenty of injectable medications, because they are liquid, can & are administered orally in various circumstances. There are no magic ingredients added to oral preparations to circumvent hepatic metabolism. I can find zero pharmacological basis for your allegation. If you have any papers to show where I’m wrong, please do post them so that I can correct myself & help people from now on.

        1. It’s science. Oral medication usually has additives to prevent medicines, especially large molecule medicines, from breaking up. Pastes and medicines have those additives. You can look them up.

          I gave my dad the paste and injectable for his cancer. The paste worked , the injectable did not. And I had to figure out why.

          This is life and death stuff here, I can’t afford to be glib. I’m right. Ivm oral solution cannot be taken orally. There’s a reason why oral IVM medicines for animals and humans contain digestive help.

          Stop the whole “citation please” internet arguing. I have no reason to lie. Ivm works if you take the right version. The injectable cannot be taken orally. It doesn’t work.

          1. Mike – so your argument is based on an “n” of 1?

            I’m aware that oral medications can sometimes contain additives to assist with their absorption, such as liposomal formulations or enteric coating to protect against stomach acid erosion for medications that must pass through to stomach into the duodenum for their absorption. The reason paste is made for animals is because it contains additives to make it palatable. The reason pills are made for humans is because ivermectin is not administered by injection to humans, whether intravenous or subcutaneous.

            There is no documentation to support your claims about ivermectin being destroyed in the intestines. Nor does your comment regarding the liver make physiological sense. Plenty of medications made for injection are drawn into a syringe, squirted into a medicine cup, and given orally every day. Any medication destroyed in the stomach that has to be administering a special way is labeled as such.

            As noted above, someone obtained the same side effects of blurry vision taking injectable IVM by mouth as when taking the paste. So there’s another n of 1 to cancel out yours.

            My asking for proof of your claims is not an unreasonable request. Your statement has massive implications for a large number of readers, so evidence to support your argument is totally reasonable.

    2. Cancers are not agglutination of parasites. Some parasite have been associated with cancer induction. An you could say uncontrolled cells taking over a body are parasitic in sense. But worms and protozoa are not cancer cells.

      1. Ivm’s mechanism of action against cancer has nothing to do with parasites. Viagara was supposed to be a blood pressure drug. They discovered it had another effect. Ivm works on cancer not because cancer is a parasite, but because there is an effect the drug has on cancer cell receptors.

  4. Mark – can you get a follow up from Nurse Claire on Mike’s statement:
    “However, the 1 percent injectable will not survive the gauntlet of the digestive track and liver.” ?

      1. Yes I must be wrong. Ok, so Ivm 1 percent injectable is given subcutaneous to cattle. Why not orally? Why is it just not mixed with a bucket of silage? Because the drug will not pass successfully through the digestive system.

        This is why horses are given a paste. The paste has additives to help it get through the digestive system and the liver.

        Ivermectin is sold in tablets to humans or in oral solutions in formulations designed for it to be absorbed.

        People can be wrong. Barnhardt and Claire are wrong about the 1 percent injectable being suitable for oral. It’s just a fact and I’ve experienced it first hand. Buy the paste, use the 1 percent subcutaneous, or get the tabs

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.