Authored by Joe Wang via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

A new study on harms resulting from the COVID vaccine was published on April 8 in the U.S.-based peer-reviewed medical science journal Cureus. It represents the largest study to date on adverse effects of the COVID vaccine, and the results are shocking, to put it mildly.

In the study, titled “Increased Age-Adjusted Cancer Mortality After the Third mRNA-Lipid Nanoparticle Vaccine Dose During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Japan,” five Japanese scientists used an entire dataset of the country’s 123 million population (Japan has the highest vaccination rate in the world) to study excess cancer mortalities coinciding with mass COVID vaccination.

The authors also provide a sound explanation as to why these deaths occurred after the mRNA injection.

As a former vaccine researcher, I read the Cureus article with great interest. My fellow Epoch Times columnist, Megan Redshaw, has written an excellent article on this study. Here, I would like to highlight some points that I think are worth reiterating.

Excess Deaths Following the Third Shot

The study shows there were 1,568,961 total deaths in Japan in 2022. About 1,453,162 deaths were expected based on statistical predictions using pre-pandemic information, which means there were 115,799 excess deaths in 2022.

The 115,799 “age-adjusted excess number of deaths” in 2022 occurred after two-thirds of the Japanese population had received the third dose of COVID vaccine.

Based on Japan’s Ministry of Health data, I calculated that there were 39,060 COVID deaths reported in 2022. So, the majority of Japan’s excess deaths in 2022 were not caused by COVID infection, but rather are strongly associated with the vaccination.

Harm Done by the Vaccine, Not the Virus

The study shows that in 2020, after COVID-19 began to spread in Japan but before vaccination was available, the age-adjusted number of deaths was 28,000 fewer than what was predicted. And in 2021, as the virus continued and there was limited COVID-19 vaccination (it started in February), there were 25,000 more deaths than what was predicted.

Based on the number of excess deaths in 2022, the Japanese scientists concluded: “Statistically significant increases in age-adjusted mortality rates of all cancer and some specific types of cancer, namely, ovarian cancer, leukemia, prostate, lip/oral/pharyngeal, pancreatic, and breast cancers, were observed in 2022 after two-thirds of the Japanese population had received the third or later dose of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA-LNP vaccine.”

“These particularly marked increases in mortality rates of these ERα-sensitive cancers may be attributable to several mechanisms of the mRNA-LNP vaccination rather than COVID-19 infection itself or reduced cancer care due to the lockdown,” the authors wrote.

In plain English, this study revealed the mRNA COVID jab is likely the cause of the extra deaths that occurred in Japan.

6 Types of Cancer Had Significant Excess Deaths

The study presented the numbers for all-cause death, but also looked into the details of deaths caused by cancer. It found that of the 20 types of cancer, six of them—ovarian, leukemia, prostate, lip/oral/pharyngeal, pancreatic, and breast cancer—had statistically significant excess mortalities in 2021 and increased further in 2022.

The significant increase in mortalities for the six specific cancer types cannot be blamed on a shortage of health-care services during the pandemic. Reduced cancer screening and health care due to lockdowns should increase deaths for all cancers. However, such an increase was not observed in other types of cancers in Japan in 2022.

So what is so special about the six specific cancer types? They are all known as estrogen receptor alpha (ERα)-sensitive cancers.

The scientists explained why these cancers not only occurred after vaccination, but also killed people in a short period of time after they received the shot.

Cancer After the Jab: A Scientific Explanation

I worked as a research scientist at Sanofi Pasteur, one of the world’s largest vaccine companies, for more than 10 years. As the person who spearheaded Sanofi’s SARS-CoV-1 vaccine development in 2003, I personally found the hypothesis presented by the Japanese scientists very reasonable.

Please bear with me on the scientific terms, because they are important in understanding the possible roles the mRNA vaccine may have played in cancer development.

ERs (estrogen receptors) are a group of proteins found inside cells. They are receptors that can be activated by the sex hormone estrogen. ERα is one of the two classes of ERs, an important regulator in the body’s reproductive system.

Research published in the peer-reviewed journal Science Advances in November 2022 screened 9,000 human proteins to see which protein binds better with the spike (S) protein of SARS-CoV-2, and found the S protein specifically binds to ERα. The binding “upregulates the transcriptional activity of ERα.”

In other words, the S protein of SARS-CoV-2 (from infection or vaccination), when introduced into the human body, binds to ERα and functions as a nuclear receptor coregulator, interfering with the cell’s normal function and leading to malfunction of the cells and organs.

This may explain why death caused by the six types of ERα-sensitive cancers increased in 2022 in Japan after two-thirds of the population received the third dose of the mRNA vaccine.

The vaccine carries the S gene of SARS-CoV-2, hijacking the host cells to produce S proteins. The S proteins produce inside the cell, then bind to ERα, disrupting the cell’s normal function and leading to cancer development.

Cancer is a disease in which some of the body’s cells grow uncontrollably and spread to other parts of the body.

For any healthy person, some cells die, some age, and some become cancerous. All this happens without the person knowing it because the body’s immune system is constantly working to deal with such problems. However, if the immune system is compromised, illness then develops, including cancer.

Plenty of evidence has started to emerge showing that the COVID-19 vaccine has the potential to severely interfere with the human body’s immune system. This new Japanese study provides further evidence of the extent of this phenomenon.

Vaccination and Suppression of Cancer Immunosurveillance

It has been shown the mRNA vaccine not only has the potential to cause cancer, it may also weaken the immune systems’ ability to recognize and repress cancerous tumours.

In a study published last October, Konstantin Fohse and colleagues reported vaccination with BNT162b2 modulated innate immune responses, resulting in a weakened cancer immunosurveillance.

The damage caused by COVID vaccines would have been less if the vaccination wasn’t as widespread, and the dosage of the vaccines were not as high due to boosters.

The Japanese scientists found that for each Pfizer-BioNTech dose, there are about 13 trillion SARS-CoV-2 mRNA-LNP molecules. For Moderna, the number is 40 trillion. Since the average human body has about 37.2 trillion cells, one COVID-19 mRNA-LNP dose would have enough molecules to spread into each and every human cell.

As I wrote previously, contrary to what the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s claim that “after the body produces an immune response, it discards all of the vaccine ingredients” because uridines in normal RNA are now replaced with pseudo-uridines in this COVID-19 mRNA-LNP, we know the modified RNA now lives in the body for months and can even find its way into babies through breast milk.

The Japanese study was written before October 2023 using information from 2022 and earlier. As COVID vaccination continues in many countries, it is scary to think how many people may die or develop cancer if the 2022 trend continues.

Uncertain Future

As authorities across the world still claim that the COVID-19 vaccine is “safe and effective” and continue pushing vaccination, it is uncertain what the future holds.

This is because the COVID-19 mRNA-LNP molecules already in the bodies of hundreds of millions of people will remain there and continue producing the S protein, interfering with the immune system and causing cancer and other diseases.

Studies like the one by the Japanese scientists should have been undertaken in countries such as the United States, Canada, and the UK and published in top medical journals without censorship so that we can learn from mistakes and prevent the mistakes from happening again. Unfortunately, that has not happened.

However, hopefully more and more scientists and researchers will be brave enough to point out the very obvious: that the COVID-19 vaccine is not safe.

It is worth noting that the Cureus medical journal was recently acquired by the Springer Nature Group in December 2022. The group also owns renowned scientific publications such as Nature and Nature Medicine.

COVID vaccine injury has been a taboo subject for scientists and medical journals. Many people were cancelled when they tried to defy the censorship. It is refreshing to see Springer Nature publish the Japanese study.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times or ZeroHedge.

Authored by Jeffrey Tucker via The Epoch Times,

Smart people know to avoid fallacies.

One of them is known as the fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc.

It’s Latin for “after this, therefore because of this.”

The classic example concerns the rooster and the sunrise.

Every morning before the sun comes up, the rooster does his crazy crowing routine, waking up everyone around. Shortly after, the light begins to appear on the horizon.

If you knew nothing else, and you watched this happen over and over, you might conclude that the rooster is causing the sun to rise.

Of course, this is testable. You could kill the rooster and see what happens. The sun still comes up. But wait just a moment. Just the fact that this one rooster is dead doesn’t mean that all roosters are gone. Some rooster somewhere is crowing and causing the sun to rise. So your little experiment doesn’t disprove the theory.

What a conundrum, right?

If someone is convinced that a bird is controlling the sun, there is probably no way to convince him otherwise.

We can laugh at this example. How can someone be so dumb? Actually, this basic fallacy affects all science in all times, all places, and all subjects. The presumption that a regular pattern showing something happens and then something else happens with regularity implies causation is baked into human thinking. Now and always.

It’s a fallacy, meaning that it is not necessarily true. It could be true, however, subject to serious investigation. And therein lies the real problem. We need to figure out what causes what. But discerning causal agents from accidental ones is the biggest issue in all thinking.

The need to know is baked into what it means to be a rational creature. We just cannot help ourselves. That’s why this fallacy persists everywhere.

There is also the famous case of malaria. It was once believed that infections were worse at nightfall, so the theory was that it was caused by cold air at night. Not crazy, right? Except that the real reason was that the mosquitoes came out in the evenings. They were the real culprit. But a bad theory based on fallacy prevented many people from seeing it.

My goodness, we were overwhelmed by this during the COVID-19 experience. The fake science was overwhelming.

Day after day, we saw loads of fake science of this sort being dumped on the world.

Look, California’s cases are down and California bans gatherings, therefore coercive measures are controlling virus spread!

Not so fast.

These factors could be completely unrelated. We might not even have good data on infections at all. Those are subject to testing (accurate or not) and might be completely wrong on a population level. Even if the data were correct, the low infections could be caused by weather, prior immunity, or something else that we have not considered.

Early on, I can recall looking at these amazing real-time charts of infections and deaths and believing that I had a window into reality. Several times, I even posted things along the lines of “See, Arizona has achieved herd immunity,” without understanding that the data were wildly inaccurate and subject to testing, reporting, and a host of other factors. Even the data were suspect: Misclassification was rampant.

And here too, the fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc bit everyone extremely hard. But most of us went along with it.

So crazy did it all become that people including bureaucrats at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention started inventing nutty theories such as that masking protects against virus spread, which science had long proven to be untrue. It became even crazier: You can sit without a mask but walking and standing causes viruses to spread, so that’s when you have to wear a mask!

Absolutely nuts!

It was the same after vaccination.

Countless famous people took to social media to announce they had COVID-19 but it was a mild case thanks to the vaccine. There is simply no way they could know that. They knew for sure that they had the vaccine and they knew for sure that their case of COVID-19 was mild. But believing that one caused the other was simply a matter of faith. It might have been mild regardless. It might have been milder. As time went on, we encountered many studies showing that more vaccination was associated with more infection. Did one cause the other? It’s hard to say.

And yet vast numbers of vaccine studies in the past several years have been affected by this problem. Particularly vexing is the problem of the “healthy user bias,” which is that people who were vaccinated tend to be more compliant and conscientious in other ways too, which meant that initially, it seemed like they had better health outcomes from COVID-19 vaccination, but the results were actually attributable to this bias.

This was revealed in later studies. But the problem of discerning cause and effect from random noise still persists.

The field of medicine has long dealt with this problem. We are mortified that the practice of bleeding patients persisted for centuries even up to the 19th century. How could they have been so stupid? Well, they had a theory that disease was caused by bad humors in the blood so it needed to be drained. Then they observed that the patient got better.

Well, the patient might have gotten better anyway and even faster without bleeding. But it took many centuries to finally realize that. Many non-allopathic medicine people had been screaming about this issue for a long time, but they were ignored as cranks. That’s because bleeding was a conventional practice endorsed by the people with the most professional prestige.

Once you see this fallacy at work, you cannot unsee it. It’s everywhere in medicine but also in economics, health, horticulture, law and sociology, and all the physical world sciences. The gun debate is a good example. There is high crime and there are lots of guns, so people conclude that the guns cause the crime, whereas the presence of guns might simply be a response to crime and a means of protection. Without them, the crime would be far worse.

The fallacy in question drives vast amounts of politics today. There is a tendency to blame any existing president for all existing economic conditions, but the real cause might date further back in time. Still, nearly every debate follows the same lines: This happened; therefore, his actions or inactions caused it. It could be true or it might be the same as the rooster and the sunrise.

We flatter ourselves now that we are beyond such fallacies. They belong only to the superstition-ridden ages of the past. That’s complete nonsense. We are probably more inundated by this fallacy now than ever. Whatever it is that people trust and believe in at any particular time is what people identify as the key to curing whatever malady is around.

Today, people believe in pharmaceuticals. Whatever the issue is, it can be solved by a new lab-created potion. As a result, we are soaked as a society in these, even though the evidence for many of them is scant. The more you look at, for example, the effect of psychiatric drugs, the less it becomes clear whether and to what extent these help or actually may worsen the real problem.

It’s even true with antibiotics. All parents use amoxicillin on childhood ear infections today. But my grandmother swore by putting warm mineral oil in the ear and avoiding conventional meds completely. It took me only a few minutes to discover a 2003 study that randomized whether kids got herbal oils with or without antibiotics. Results: no difference.

The implications are profound. We are so attached to pharma and allopathic strategies that we might be overlooking vast naturopathic and homeopathic methods that work better.

Seizing on one solution and sticking with it prevents the human mind from being creative about other possible and better solutions. Generations can go by in which fallacies rule the day. We can laugh about roosters and sun, bleeding and disease, dances and rain, but how many times do we commit these fallacies in our world today but our dogmatic attachments prevent us from seeing them?