Funny, we never heard that cancers can make the vaccines less effective. Seems a fortunate timing on the release of this info. /s
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (76)
sorted by:
or the truth......
the VAX makes CANCER much more effective
This is the correct answer. I have seen researchers who state that these vaccines suppress the immune system processes that attack cancer cells. Coupled with the intra-cellular invasiveness of the mRNA and the wildly unpredictable nature of the effects on proteins in the body (evidence points to these jabs lead to a high chance of neurological disorders due to Prion-like buildup), it is likely the vaccine accelerated the development of his latent cancer and not the other way around.
I believe this happened to my mother. Elderly, in general poor health, smoker, but no cancer ever presented. Days after first jab, large lymph node swelling appears in her neck. Once lanced, it has remained infectious ever since so requires daily cleansing and bandages. Long story short, she had oral squamous cell carcinoma which has since been treated by radiotherapy at great discomfort to her, such that she has difficulty eating, swallowing etc and has lost a lot of weight. Without the jab, I think she would have continued on without the cancer presenting, instead I suspect her immune system was sabotaged enough to trigger the cancer.
The day after? Biologically impossible for cancer cells to replicate that fast, even if the Vax suppressed her immune system.
A lady at my church took the Vax and develops cancer 3 months after, for sure it accelerates growth tremendously but a single day isn't going to do it fren. Praying for your mother.
The lymph node swelling was days later, in January. She hid it under a scarf for about 2 months until I noticed it during a rare face to face visit. After about 6 weeks of various tests including MRI scans and even a contrast scan (with 'dye' inserted in the body), they detected cancer in the oral area, separate to the lymph nodes in the neck. We were about 3 or 4 months after the first jab, and the 2nd had already taken place in the interim, when the diagnosis was confirmed. Sorry, I overly condensed the events and timeline, and you make good points, and I appreciate the concern for my mum. But I do think sufficient time passed for the cancer to emerge - to your point, at least 3 months later - while the medics were investigating what was up with the lymph node swelling.
If George Burns had got the vaccine at 75 years old, he wouldn't have survived until the age of 100.
I agree and that is why each manufacturers insert has a paragraph 13.1 which says the product hasn't been evaluated for its carcinogenic nor mutagenic properties. So they can say we don't know if our product causes cancer. I wonder why the law allows that?
The flaw is thinking that these people care about the law. They'll either outright flaunt a blatant disregard for it, or they'll use crafty tricks to rewrite the existing laws to suit their agenda.
Plus the parasites in the jab affect the function of the cell causing cancer too.
It's going to suppress the immune system in a variety of ways.
I'm pretty confident cancer isn't going to be the only cause of death that sees a "mysterious" incidence spike over the next couple years. Get ready for more heart attacks, sepsis, flu complications - the works.
I hear that doctors are already seeing alarming upward trends in heart conditions amongst the younger demographic. Of course, doctors everywhere are "puzzled" as to why this is happening.
Pretty much capture any original article on archive.is because they change the narrative every moment they can.
Updoot
Preeeety sure this is the case.