Multi-Hit Hypothesis for the Oncogenic Potential of mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines
Pathophysiologic Support for the Observation of "Turbo Cancer" after Vaccination
By Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH
As an internist and specialist, it is hard for me to believe that a novel biologic product could cause heart, neurologic, thrombotic, and immunologic disease but to make matters even worse, could also play a role in the initiation and acceleration of oncogenesis. In Western countries before the pandemic, the leading causes of death were heart disease 40%, cancer 40%, and death from other known causes (homicide, suicide, accidents, etc). The mRNA COVID-19 vaccines if proven to promote cancer, would then be implicated in rises in all-cause mortality being observed world wide.
In 1984, Sutherland and Bailer proposed the “Multi-Hit Hypothesis of Carcinogenesis:”
“A new multihit model of carcinogenesis is developed for use in evaluating age-specific cancer incidence rates in human populations. The model allows for some heterogeneity in both risk (perhaps genetic) and pathway (number of hits).”
They essentially said it takes multiple different hits or insults to cells and their genetic machinery to cause a normal cell to become cancerous. Forty years later, Sutherland and Bailer could not have dreamed about the application of their hypothesis to global mass genetic vaccination given every six months to a broad population, some with high risks for, or even with incipient cancer.
Angues and Bustos just published a manuscript in Cureus (after initial citation on Authorea preprint server) that assemblies the evidence to date that both mRNA and the Spike protein work within human cells to cause changes that result in oncogenesis. The figure shown is consistent with a multi-hit hypothesis of oncogenesis after injection with Pfizer or Moderna.
Many questions remain including cumulative dose effect, predisposition (e.g. loss of function mutations in BRCA1/2 P53), additional exposures such as UV radiation, smoking, alcohol, and finally catabolism of mRNA and Spike. Undoubtedly decades of research will be needed to fully understand COVID-19 vaccination and cancer. As we point out in our book Courage to Face COVID-19, it took over 40 years from when Sir Austin Bradford Hill causally associated smoking with lung cancer until there was capitulation by the medical orthodoxy. Let’s hope the world wide exposure of mRNA and alacrity of modern research can shorten this timeframe.
Here are some reasonable first steps:
Remove all COVID-19 vaccines from human use to reduce any additional exposure
CDC should link vaccine administration data with all government cancer registries
The National Cancer Institute should urgently fund mRNA COVID-19 vaccine cancer research
Vaccinated with prior histories of cancer should make a specific post-vaccination oncology clinic visit to consider reassessment or restaging
Vaccinated with no prior history of malignancy should check to see they are up to date on routine cancer screening (prostate, lung, breast, ovary, uterus, colon).
All vaccinated patients and their doctors should be alert to any change in health status and have a low threshold for clinical investigation
Please subscribe to Courageous Discourse as a paying or founder member so we can continue to bring you the truth.
Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH
President, McCullough Foundation
My mother is dying of turbo cancer. She developed a 9 cm CRC primary tumor with large metastases in the liver and in the lungs 18 months after her third shot. A very healthy lifestyle. No previous cancer were ever reported in the history of the family… I'm sharing this with you, but in a way I'm speechless.
Nice to see our host is as always allowing the data and science to influence his views. Our host has always done such. Its admirable, and these days unusual. Dr McCullough has refrained from making any public statements regarding cancer and the jabs but with time is modifying that stance.
Its fine. What 'we' need ('we'=more or less redpilled) is material we can pass to a normie. Since they will choke as their world view trembles, and they catch a flash of the darkening sky outside, and the fire of dragons consuming their fellow hobbits/sheep..... well a sane hobbit wishes to go back to a cozy fire and crumpets and tea. So they will find ANY hook to discount what you might send. It has to be beyond reproach. No talk of genocide, or 5G, or 'no viruses' can be in these materials. The normie will seize on any element to discount the whole.
Note I am NOT saying 5G, or nano-graphene, or genocide are not actual things. That is not the point. The point is we need usable materials to wake normies to an acceptable state. That is all. Wake up normies, or lose. Thats the game, thats all that counts. I will be pleased to engage in public and even mildly acrimonious debates over viruses yes/no, terrain theory, chemtrails, whether it was malignant intent behind breaking energy and food systems etc etc, AFTER the globalists are defeated and back in their slimy holes. Until then? Wake up normies, or lose. So be smart how you try and do this.
I have 2 successes and several more 'in process'. I will say this; the only thing that seems to work is planting seeds of easily provable counters to the narrative. Within a shout of believable off the bat. Then the normies have to come to it on their own, aggressive tactics and all in on 'genocide' is worse than nothing. Confirms them 'we' are insane. So dont do it. "Pharma greed crossed with government incompetence, fear, and inertia seem to have led us to where we are; dangerous jabs". Thats about as far as a normie can go in stage 1 redpilling. Get them there, and on their own they will start to ponder 'malignant intent'.
Sorry a little off topic to article to be sure.