Jump to content

Talk:Turbo cancer

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by LutherBlissetts (talk | contribs) at 18:50, 22 April 2024 (→Oncologists pathologists, claiming turbo cancers: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

More background needed

I felt like this topic needed a little more background, so I expanded the middle part of the article. However, I'm not used to editing WP:MEDRS articles and I have mixed feelings about mentioning the study by Seneff and McCullough, who are both nutjobs. I think it is useful to have specifics on one "study" to show why it's junk, but I don't want to give false balance. If someone could modify my text to make the fringe angle clearer I would appreciate it. Or if what I did violates MEDRS please delete my edits and notify me. I'm still relatively new and a bit shaky. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 16:25, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since when is someone trying to expose Big Pharma a nut job? You're on the wrong side, 2601:840:4380:A020:6AD8:AFB7:99C1:B9C9 (talk) 16:00, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How can you "expose" what doesn't exist? - Sumanuil. (talk to me) 21:33, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If Turbo Cancer is a myth, then why did Phizer recently acquire a company that is developing a medicine to treat Turbo Cancer. 2600:8800:2900:653:949C:ABE3:2FFB:9DB4 (talk) 21:05, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
sounds like another myth Bon courage (talk) 21:10, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You call it a myth but Phizer announced it. It’s not a secret, but you didn’t even do your homework before dismissing this. Sheep will be Sheep. 2600:8800:2900:653:949C:ABE3:2FFB:9DB4 (talk) 21:14, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pfizer purchased a company named Seagen for 43 billion dollars. Seagen is the company that has been working on the cure for Turbo cancer treatments. 2600:8800:2900:653:949C:ABE3:2FFB:9DB4 (talk) 21:12, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing to do with the mythical condition. Which is why no reliable source says so. Bon courage (talk) 21:18, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.biotecnika.org/2024/01/pfizers-43-billion-bet-understanding-rise-turbo-cancers/
Legit source. Are you serious? 2600:8800:2900:653:949C:ABE3:2FFB:9DB4 (talk) 21:22, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some quack web portal. You can read about the actual company activities from their press releases about the acquisition (without the quackery), or some reputable news coverage. Bon courage (talk) 21:30, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very forward-thinking of them to acquire a company that's been investigating cancer cures since 1997, just before the pandemic hit, knowing they were about to create turbo cancer.
Either that or you're talking nonsense. One of those two things. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:38, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The mRNA vaccine side effects are still being studied. I believe you are too early in trying to debunk something that has yet to be thoroughly studied and either bunked or debunked by actual scientists merely by mentioning whatever early studies support your theory. 47.202.59.160 (talk) 11:07, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia doesn't do debunking. It follows good quality sources. And they're calling out this whackadoodle quackery for what it is. Bon courage (talk) 12:22, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The CDC just released data showing a 143,233% INCREASE in fatal cancers among vaccinated citizens. Please explain how this is not germane to your conversation and how it supports your thoughts that mRNA vaccines do not cause turbo cancers. 47.202.59.160 (talk) 10:31, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Doubt it. Citation required. Bon courage (talk) 10:39, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see a citation or link to this data and maybe we can evaluate. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:29, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://ground.news/article/cdc-143-233-surge-in-fatal-cancers-among-vaxxed-americans ChoosingDoes (talk) 21:15, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Errm, we would need a reliable source, like a peer-reviewed article in a medical journal. This looks like some shitty low-rent news source which is so bad the aggregator has slapped this disclaimer on it: "this story is only being covered by one news source that has a ‘low factuality’ rating, which means the outlet has a history of poor reporting practices." Basically, Wikipedia doesn't do bullshit. Bon courage (talk) 21:26, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See below. It comes from a VAERS dumpster dive. In related news, Someone analysed the locations of VAERS reports and correlated with political district lean.
You'll be shocked - shocked! - to learn that Republican districts (less likely to vaccinate and more likely to die of COVID) submit higher than average numbers of VAERS reports, of greater severity.
All of which seems to me to be a further data point in identifying the true cause of turbo cancer and mass death: antivaxer proximity syndrome (AVPS). Anecdotal evidence indicates that AVPS is now the leading cause of fictional death in the world, overtaking both assassination by Big Pharma and even medical error. Guy (help! - typo?) 17:00, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All your citation does is make the same false claim that you did. The CDC did not do you and your citation claim it did. 2600:8802:5913:1700:EC1B:B020:26B0:E142 (talk) 10:35, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, the "143,233% increase" in cancers.
The base rate of cancer diagnosis in the US from 2016-2020 was 442.3 diagnoses per 100,000, and the death rate was 358.3 per 100,000. The population is 81% vaccinated. A 143,233% increase in diagnosis in the 81% would add up to 513,150.8 new neoplasms per 100,000 of the population - every vaccinated person would be diagnosed with over five new cancers per year. Five new cases, per person, of "turbo cancer" that kills you in months. And even if we assume the usual progression rate for old-school normally aspirated cancer, every single vaccinated person has now died. Twice.
It is so self-evidently bollocks that surely nobody could fall for it? Guy (help! - typo?) 16:55, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's no math requirement for right-wing fantasies. That would be too woke. But a data source that will accept your claim that a vaccine turned you into the Hulk? Rock solid. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 03:47, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Missing details

This recent publication should also be mentionned and debunked:

https://worldcouncilforhealth.org/news/news-releases/dna-contamination-covid-19-vaccines/ 38.133.44.131 (talk) 16:32, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We would need secondary news coverage of their claims, since the World Council for Health itself is not a reliable source. SilverserenC

Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2024

Add a statement and reference: However, despite the conspiracy theories, of which many turn out to be true, Pfizer has shocked many with the purchase of a failing cancer drugmaker company, paying $43billion. Seagen is a leading developer of medicine called antibody-drug conjugates, or ADCs, which are designed to kill cancer cells and spare healthy ones.

Ref https://www.reuters.com/markets/deals/pfizer-gets-ok-43-bln-seagen-deal-after-donating-cancer-drug-rights-2023-12-12/ https://www.cnbc.com/2023/03/13/pfizer-will-bring-seagens-cancer-drugs-to-the-world-at-a-scale-not-seen-before-ceo-says.html DeltaT001 (talk) 06:20, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Irrelevant. Bon courage (talk) 06:35, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 12 January 2024

2600:1016:B045:E729:7082:F1D3:9A46:8CD3 (talk) 14:27, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It’s not a myth if it’s not proven to be. So maybe don’t state it as a myth when you have no idea.

 Not done. See WP:BIGMISTAKE. Bon courage (talk) 14:30, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It should not be called a myth. It’s a theory, perhaps, because it has not been proven nor disproven. ChoosingDoes (talk) 21:19, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Logic fail. Unicorns cannot be 'disproven', but they are mythical beasts. Bon courage (talk) 21:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oncologists pathologists, claiming turbo cancers

Dr Ute Krüger https://rumble.com/v1eth6h-pathologist-ute-kruger-covid-vaccines-and-turbo-cancer-pathological-evidenc.html Dr William Makis https://substack.com/search/turbo%20cancer?focusedPublicationId=1385328— Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.225.30.93 (talk • contribs) 19:55, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PROFRINGE Bon courage (talk) 19:57, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Angus Dalgelish also
https://dailysceptic.org/2022/11/26/as-an-oncologist-i-am-seeing-people-with-stable-cancer-rapidly-progress-after-being-forced-to-have-a-booster/ 79.154.127.186 (talk) 21:01, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A letter from a crank, no data or supporting evidence. And not even relevant to this article. 2600:8802:5913:1700:EC1B:B020:26B0:E142 (talk) 10:41, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An Angus Dalgleish authored article published in a fringe publication (e.g. The Daily Sceptic), known to that publish false and misleading information about mRNA vaccines, is not a reliable source.
Luther Blissetts (talk) 18:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is an opinion and lacks documented facts

For a Wikipedia page, this article something you’d read on Facebook and NOT a fact based site. There was no evidence provided to contradict a scientific and accepted study. What are the authors credentials to dispute such a study other than pure opinion and conjecture. This page is NOT Wikipedia worthy as it is written now. 2603:7081:3A00:F8B3:E994:6DE7:9C34:9004 (talk) 19:20, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Classic WP:FLAT#5. Reversed burden of proof. Basically, Wikipedia doesn't give credence to bullshit. Bon courage (talk) 19:26, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because there is reasonable sourcing, as already cited. Bon courage (talk) 16:05, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cancer epidemic - doctors 'baffled'

There is a cancer epidemic going on since 2021, with doctors 'baffled'. So, you saying, you dont know the reason, but you are sure it's not the experimental c19-vaccine where studies on side effects still going on?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/03/23/doctors-warn-abdominal-cancer-epidemic-princess-diagnosis/ https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-13033795/Huge-spike-cancer-sparks-alarm-experts-baffled.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-13197079/cancer-epidemic-young-people-america-uk-india-south-africa.html BlueSky2012 (talk) 11:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DAILYMAIL and Telegraph? No thanks. Bon courage (talk) 11:56, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not even gunna touch the Daily Mail sources, but the Telegraph one just shows two different potential reasons for such an upwards trend;
  1. Genetics and an increase in cancer survival rates, which would naturally increase the chance of one having a genetic predisposition to get cancer
  2. A change in the composition of gut bacteria. I didn't read much into this one.
It also included a study from 1993–2019 in Northern Ireland that saw a 20.5% upwards trend in cancer patients. 2019. Before any COVID vaccines came out. This is not some sudden change like going from 11:59 to 12, this is over several decades.
Please, BlueSky, I beg of thee. Read your sources. CommissarDoggoTalk? 12:11, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yup it's really not a mystery.[1] Bon courage (talk) 14:23, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I read it and decided to add it for a complete picture and spare us the 'but the rise started before C' discussion. We know that. The point is the sudden spike since 2019/2020, as shown by data from Cancer Research UK and others which is obviously getting widespread attention since the Kate Middleton statement.
Here's another one:
Cuomo: "Cancer is on the rise in young adults - why? What's the cause? Why the spike since 2019? Dr. Hyman came on to explain what he knows."
https://www.facebook.com/ChrisCCuomo/videos/1107752177140456/
interesting quotes: 'we are seeing all sorts of things, we did not see before. so I agree, Chris, there' something cooking in the soup'. or at 2:10: 'so hypothetically if the covid vacc ... ahhh .. disease created persistent inflammation in the body ... it drives inflammation which then drives cancer.' BlueSky2012 (talk) 23:06, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of this is relevant to this article. 2600:8802:5913:1700:EC1B:B020:26B0:E142 (talk) 10:53, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear unknown user: What part of ' 'so hypothetically if the covid vacc ... ahhh .. disease created persistent inflammation in the body ... it drives inflammation which then drives cancer.' do you not understand.
This is what the article is about: "covid vacc - drives inflammation (we know that by now) - causing cancer" BlueSky2012 (talk) 12:44, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But the sources are crap, therefore it is not relevant to this article or any other. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why you dont see 'Cancer Research UK' as a legitimate source.
The telegraph is not to establish a definitive link to the vacc, but to show that there is indeed an cancer epidemic with cause 'unknown'. As long as the source of the spike is not found, the vaxx-possibility cannot be ruled out as simple myth, since there is a strinking timely correlation. (and yes we know c!=c). BlueSky2012 (talk) 23:33, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Cannot be ruled out as simple myth" doesn't cut it. Peer-reviewed study in a non-pay-to-play journal showing an unexplained jump between 2019 and the present, or it didn't happen. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 23:57, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is so stupid my brain hurts. How can a "spike" in 2019 (let's assume there is one) be down to a vaccine that wasn't deployed in any numbers until 2021? Unless the vaccine really does have time-travel powers like Naomi Wolf said[2] ! Anyway this is all irrelevant to this article, which is about a dumb antivaxx conspiracy theory, not real-world biomedicine, Bon courage (talk) 05:01, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
wow bias much lol 144.6.61.203 (talk) 20:06, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"I don't like it" is not "bias". - Sumanuil. (talk to me) 01:26, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DAILYMAIL and Telegraph? No thanks is neither bias nor WP:IDLI. It's quality control. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Development of High-Grade Sarcoma After Second Dose of Moderna Vaccine

From the NIH: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10184721/

"A 73-year-old female with a past medical history of hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and renal angiomyolipoma status post resection in 2019 presented with worsening right upper arm swelling for the past two weeks. She noticed the swelling two to four days after receiving her second dose of the Moderna vaccine within 1 cm from the prior injection site. She was diagnosed as having grade 3, stage IIIA undifferentiated, pleomorphic high-grade sarcoma." Encompassmed (talk) 01:31, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An injection sarcoma is hardly "turbo cancer". - Sumanuil. (talk to me) 01:43, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind defining "turbo cancer"? The word "turbo" typically means fast and the sarcoma was said to have developed rapidly. My understanding is that a sarcoma is a type of cancer hence why I thought it was a relevant study. Very interested in your thoughts on this. Encompassmed (talk) 02:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From the paper: Currently, it is unclear whether there is a true association between novel vaccinations and the development of malignancy. A review of the literature does not show any other case reports demonstrating malignancy after receiving the Moderna vaccine. This should be further investigated to see if there is an association and, if so, the mechanism thereof. People didn’t start getting rapidly developing sarcomas left and right during vaccine rollouts so this screams “freak accident that coincidentally resembles so-called ‘turbo cancer’”. Open and shut, nothing more to do. Dronebogus (talk) 05:28, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Read this article for what this article is about. 2600:8802:5913:1700:EC1B:B020:26B0:E142 (talk) 10:56, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1) It's not "from the NIH," it's from a group at SUNY Downstate and Hofstra, on a website hosted by the NIH. If you can't tell or don't appreciate the difference, you're in no position to be lecturing us about MEDRS matters. 2) Cureus is not exactly the highest quality source in the medical world. 3) What Sumanuil said. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:00, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear, it was not my intention to lecture anyone. I was simply seeking others opinions about the article and hoping to learn/understand more. Your username is quite fitting. :) 2605:59C8:63AF:1100:0:0:0:1005 (talk) 13:00, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The science has changed

The COVID mRNA shots containing N1-methyl-pseudouridine SUPPRESS the immune system and STIMULATE cancer growth. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0141813024022323 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.154.127.186 (talk) 18:00, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you point to a passage in this review providing evidence that those vaccinated against COVID are "suffering from a high incidence of fast-developing cancers", as the article says? WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 22:27, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Analysis here
https://theethicalskeptic.substack.com/p/houston-we-have-a-problem-part-1 79.154.127.186 (talk) 20:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A Substack post from 2022 has something to say about an article published in 2024? How stupid do you think I am? BTW, did you look at the graphs? The rise in malignancies begins around New Year's 2019-2020, a year before vaccines became available (assuming these data are accurate at all). Try again. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 23:56, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, please do not try again. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:40, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cancer development by SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine

Study: "The possible co-occurrence of high BRCA1 demand to repair DNA damage caused by activated transcription via ERα bound with S-protein along with dysfunction of BRCA1 sequestrated by S-protein raises concerns about increased cancer risk in ERα-sensitive cells in mRNA-LNP SARS-CoV-2 vaccine recipients."

"As mentioned above, there is also great concern about the risk of dysfunction in the crucial cancer suppressor genes, brca2 and P53, as well as BRCA1, through mechanisms involving downregulation of IRF9 through interference by specific miRNA in exosomes [26] and the possible sequestration by the S2 subunit of S-protein in the vaccine [91]. Impaired BRCA1 activity is associated with higher risk of breast, uterine, and ovarian cancer in women and prostate cancer in men, as well as moderately higher risk of pancreatic cancer in both men and women [92]. BRCA2-associated cancers include breast and ovarian cancer in women, prostate and breast cancer in men, and acute myeloid leukemia in children [26]. These findings are highly consistent with our results."

https://www.cureus.com/articles/196275-increased-age-adjusted-cancer-mortality-after-the-third-mrna-lipid-nanoparticle-vaccine-dose-during-the-covid-19-pandemic-in-japan#!/

Please adapt the article accordingly, since this is now more than a 'antivaxxer myth': BlueSky2012 (talk) 00:38, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comments about Cureus, above (note link). Furthermore, the article does not make any effort to compare cancer rates between vaccinated and unvaccinated populations, only notes an age-adjusted increase in cancer mortality in Japan over time. You guys are always going off about how vaccines haven't been compared to a placebo, yet you're convinced by increases in death rates among people who may not have even been vaccinated? Sad. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 01:05, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Its peer reviewed and what has your opinion about Cureus have to do with it? What is 'above (note link)' -
"After the Third mRNA-Lipid Nanoparticle Vaccine Dose" implied vaccinated, does it not?
" yet you're convinced by increases in death rates among people who may not have even been vaccinated? Sad."
"As of February 27, 2023, around 77.5 percent of the population in Japan received the second dose of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) vaccination."
So, most are vaxxed, that's the really sad part. You trying to dismiss all this: Sad
More data will come out soon. Stay tuned! BlueSky2012 (talk) 12:39, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please follow the link above Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive 425#Can Cureus be trusted enough to be used anywhere? to find out that Cureus is not exactly the highest quality source in the medical world is not just an "opinion". Also, consult WP:MEDRS. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:22, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop posting irrelevant stuff to this page. 2600:8802:5913:1700:EC1B:B020:26B0:E142 (talk) 10:58, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reading the headline shows you that this is relevant.
So please head your own advice, thanks! BlueSky2012 (talk) 12:40, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence N1-methyl-pseudouridine stimulated cancer growth and metastasis

"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."

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38583833/ BlueSky2012 (talk) 13:10, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Model...suggesting...could. Once again, find a peer-reviewed study in a non-pay-to-play journal showing that aggressive cancer rates actually have increased between 2019 and the present or you're connecting nonexistent dots and wasting everyone's time. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 13:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Professor Angus Dalgleish about IGG class 4 and T cell suppression

Professor Angus Dalgleish about IGG class 4 and T cell suppression, both relevant in cancer development, both influenced by the covid injections

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZHEX1FQg6M&t=183s

Professor Angus Dalgleish, (Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians, Fellow of the Royal College of Pathologists, Fellow of Medical Science.) Professor Dalgleish is a highly experienced doctor, physician, medical teacher, medical author and researcher with over 500 primary research publications. BlueSky2012 (talk) 13:13, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then he should try to publish his opinion in a peer-reviewed journal instead of YouTube. It would be the minimum requirement for making it useable in Wikipedia medical articles. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:48, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Turbo_cancer&oldid=1220262877"