This is the same "peer-reviewed" paper that claims the shots significantly reduced mortality. If you believe they're lying about that, why would you believe this? Do you really think President Trump would recommend a voluntary shot that was engineered to spread "turbo-cancer"? Still no mass die-off where I'm living....kind of like the bolognavirus.

I am rather rushed so have not had time to study this paper closely, but some factors need to be thought of. The study group and the controls did not enter the study before the jabs were started, but afterwards. This could have been a confounding problem. The two groups were not stratified into similar risk groups with the age difference being significant.

Cancer is a long term illness so the short follow up could confound the results.

More studies need to be.

Does this mean they are no longer BAFFLED?

Is it safe to say my family members are good if they haven't gotten cancer at this point? I'm the only one who didn't get vaxxed and I give the credit to my best friend who was going to school to be a doctor

"Breaking"

But of course the lying media won't report on this, right?

https://files.catbox.moe/ay6t84.pdf

Probably not a summary the study authors would agree with.

Some other factors to consider:

*They excluded folks who already had cancer: "Only the subjects who were admitted for the above cancers for the first time afterthe follow-up start were considered as new cases."

• The unvaccinated cohort was much smaller and younger: "A markedly younger age was observed among the unvaccinated (mean 45.1±19.7 years), compared to the subjects who re-ceived at least three vaccine dose (mean 53.0±20.0 years; p<0.001; Student's t-test for unpaired samples) or at least one dose (mean 50.2±20.5 years; p<0.001"

I'd be hesitant to draw any conclusions at all from this as that five year difference is critical. 45-50 you see a bigtime health breakdown in folks.