Serious 1-year risks of cancers associated with COVID-19 mRNA vaccination: a large population-based cohort study in South Korea
- Thread starter hbk75
- Start date
- Joined
- May 16, 2023
- Messages
- 42,180
- Points
- 113
1-year risks of cancers associated with COVID-19 vaccination: a large population-based cohort study in South Korea
Hong Jin Kim et al. Biomark Res. 2025.Show details
Abstract PubMed PMID
Full text linksCite
Abstract
The oncogenic potential of SARS-CoV-2 has been hypothetically proposed, but real-world data on COVID-19 infection and vaccination are insufficient.Therefore, this large-scale population-based retrospective study in Seoul, South Korea, aimed to estimate the cumulative incidences and subsequent risks of overall cancers 1 year after COVID-19 vaccination. Data from 8,407,849 individuals between 2021 and 2023 were obtained from the Korean National Health Insurance database.
The participants were categorized into two groups based on their COVID-19 vaccination status.
The risks for overall cancer were assessed using multivariable Cox proportional hazards models, and data were expressed as hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The HRs of thyroid (HR, 1.351; 95% CI, 1.206-1.514), gastric (HR, 1.335; 95% CI, 1.130-1.576), colorectal (HR, 1.283; 95% CI, 1.122-1.468), lung (HR, 1.533; 95% CI, 1.254-1.874), breast (HR, 1.197; 95% CI, 1.069-1.340), and prostate (HR, 1.687; 95% CI, 1.348-2.111) cancers significantly increased at 1 year post-vaccination.
In terms of vaccine type, cDNA vaccines were associated with the increased risks of thyroid, gastric, colorectal, lung, and prostate cancers; mRNA vaccines were linked to the increased risks of thyroid, colorectal, lung, and breast cancers; and heterologous vaccination was related to the increased risks of thyroid and breast cancers.
Given the observed associations between COVID-19 vaccination and cancer incidence by age, sex, and vaccine type, further research is needed to determine whether specific vaccination strategies may be optimal for populations in need of COVID-19 vaccination.
- Joined
- May 16, 2023
- Messages
- 42,180
- Points
- 113
Wow, u read NCBI website de woh
- Joined
- May 16, 2023
- Messages
- 42,180
- Points
- 113
Recently, there are some push for LPA famous in SG
In Singapore, a Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA) is a legal document enabling you to appoint trusted individuals (donees) to make decisions for you if you lose mental capacity. An LPA protects your personal welfare, finances, and property by ensuring your decisions are respected without a lengthy and expensive court application for deputyship. Key benefits include peace of mind, stress alleviation during emergencies, cost savings compared to court applications, and keeping decisions within familiar hands, according to Parkway Shenton and St Luke's Hospital.
Why a Singapore LPA is Important for Care
In Singapore, a Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA) is a legal document enabling you to appoint trusted individuals (donees) to make decisions for you if you lose mental capacity. An LPA protects your personal welfare, finances, and property by ensuring your decisions are respected without a lengthy and expensive court application for deputyship. Key benefits include peace of mind, stress alleviation during emergencies, cost savings compared to court applications, and keeping decisions within familiar hands, according to Parkway Shenton and St Luke's Hospital.
Why a Singapore LPA is Important for Care
- Legal Authority:
An LPA gives your chosen donee the authority to make decisions about your personal welfare, including healthcare and living arrangements, and property and financial matters.
- Prevents Delays:
Without an LPA, family members would need a court order to manage your affairs, which is time-consuming and costly.
- Ensures Continuity:
Your donee can take over immediately after a doctor certifies your loss of mental capacity, ensuring your needs are met without confusion or delay.
- Respects Your Wishes:
It allows you to control who makes decisions for you, ensuring your affairs are handled according to your values and wishes.
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2008
- Messages
- 65,989
- Points
- 113
Has it been proven that the mRNA covid vaccine increases the risk of many types of cancers?
No, it has not been proven that mRNA COVID-19 vaccines increase the risk of many types of cancers. Major health organizations, including the Mayo Clinic and the National Cancer Institute, have reviewed large-scale data and found no evidence linking these vaccines to higher cancer incidence, more aggressive cancers, or "turbo cancer."
mayoclinic.org +1
Claims of such risks often stem from observational data, hypothetical mechanisms, or misinterpretations, but they lack causal proof and are contradicted by broader epidemiological trends.Key Evidence Against a Proven Link
No, it has not been proven that mRNA COVID-19 vaccines increase the risk of many types of cancers. Major health organizations, including the Mayo Clinic and the National Cancer Institute, have reviewed large-scale data and found no evidence linking these vaccines to higher cancer incidence, more aggressive cancers, or "turbo cancer."
mayoclinic.org +1
Claims of such risks often stem from observational data, hypothetical mechanisms, or misinterpretations, but they lack causal proof and are contradicted by broader epidemiological trends.Key Evidence Against a Proven Link
- No Epidemiological Surge: Cancer rates in highly vaccinated populations, such as the U.S., U.K., and Europe, have remained stable or followed pre-pandemic trends unrelated to vaccines.
globalvaccinedatanetwork.org
Any perceived increases in diagnoses are more likely due to delayed screenings during the pandemic, leading to later-stage detections, rather than vaccine effects. - Biological Implausibility: mRNA vaccines do not alter DNA, as the mRNA cannot enter the cell nucleus, and the spike protein they produce is temporary and degraded quickly.
globalvaccinedatanetwork.org
There is no verified mechanism for impairing tumor suppressors like p53 or BRCA, and claims about DNA fragments or impurities have been debunked. - Recommendations for Cancer Patients: Organizations like Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center continue to recommend mRNA vaccines for people with cancer, noting that cancer treatments can weaken immune responses but the vaccines themselves do not pose an added cancer risk.
mskcc.org
- A South Korean cohort study of over 8 million people found higher 1-year risks post-vaccination for thyroid (HR 1.351), gastric (HR 1.335), colorectal (HR 1.283), lung (HR 1.533), breast (HR 1.197), and prostate (HR 1.687) cancers, varying by vaccine type, age, and sex.
biomarkerres.biomedcentral.com
However, it emphasized that associations do not imply causation and called for more research. - In Japan, age-adjusted cancer mortality showed no excess in 2020 but increases in 2022 (e.g., 9.7% for ovarian, 8.0% for leukemia, 5.9% for prostate) after widespread third doses.
pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
The study was descriptive only, without individual vaccination data, and suggested further investigation. - A review proposed mechanisms like innate immune suppression via impaired type I interferon responses, potentially raising cancer risk through disturbed cancer surveillance.
sciencedirect.com
It relied on VAERS reports and theoretical links but lacked direct clinical evidence. - Another article hypothesized multi-hit oncogenesis from vaccines creating a pro-tumorigenic environment (e.g., via spike protein interactions with p53/BRCA or inflammation), citing VAERS data (1,474 cancer-related reports in 2021).
pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
It acknowledged a lack of prospective studies, animal models, or post-2020 cancer data to confirm causality.
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2008
- Messages
- 65,989
- Points
- 113
So this report means nothing? https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41013858/
No, the report doesn't "mean nothing"—it's a legitimate observational study published in a peer-reviewed journal (Biomarker Research) that identifies statistical associations between COVID-19 vaccination and higher 1-year cancer incidence rates for specific types (thyroid, gastric, colorectal, lung, breast, and prostate) in a large South Korean cohort.
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
However, it explicitly states that these are associations, not proof of causation, and calls for more research to explore them.
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Critiques highlight significant flaws that undermine its ability to demonstrate a true causal link, making it far from conclusive evidence that mRNA (or other) vaccines increase cancer risks.Key Strengths of the Study
mazer.substack.com
It aligns with the associations I mentioned earlier but doesn't change the scientific consensus: no proven causal link between mRNA vaccines and increased cancer risk, as affirmed by ongoing surveillance from bodies like the WHO and CDC. If anything, it underscores the need for better-designed studies to rule out biases.In short, the report contributes to the discussion but is weakened by these limitations—it's not dismissible, but it's not proof either.
No, the report doesn't "mean nothing"—it's a legitimate observational study published in a peer-reviewed journal (Biomarker Research) that identifies statistical associations between COVID-19 vaccination and higher 1-year cancer incidence rates for specific types (thyroid, gastric, colorectal, lung, breast, and prostate) in a large South Korean cohort.
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
However, it explicitly states that these are associations, not proof of causation, and calls for more research to explore them.
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Critiques highlight significant flaws that undermine its ability to demonstrate a true causal link, making it far from conclusive evidence that mRNA (or other) vaccines increase cancer risks.Key Strengths of the Study
- Scale and Design: It analyzed data from over 8 million people via South Korea's national health insurance database (2021-2023), using propensity score matching to compare vaccinated and unvaccinated groups.
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
This provides real-world observational insights that warrant attention and further investigation. - Findings: Hazard ratios showed increased risks post-vaccination, varying by vaccine type (e.g., mRNA linked to thyroid, colorectal, lung, and breast cancers) and demographics (e.g., higher in certain age/sex groups).
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Booster doses were also tied to elevated risks for gastric and pancreatic cancers in some analyses.
soniaelijah.com
- Biologically Implausible Timeline: Cancer development typically takes years or decades, yet the study's incidence curves separated almost immediately (within 1 month) post-vaccination.
mazer.substack.com +1
No known carcinogen acts this quickly, suggesting the results reflect detection biases rather than new cancers caused by vaccines. - Detection and Healthy Vaccinee Bias: Vaccinated people are often more health-conscious and have better healthcare access, leading to more screenings and earlier detections.
mazer.substack.com +1
The cancers highlighted are part of South Korea's routine screening programs (e.g., breast, colorectal), so increased diagnoses could stem from "unmasking" during vaccine-related medical visits, not vaccine effects.
techarp.com - Unadjusted Confounders: The study didn't fully account for factors like family history, pre-existing conditions, lifestyle risks (e.g., smoking, diet), or pandemic disruptions in screenings.
techarp.com
Propensity matching was used but is imperfect for eliminating all biases.
mazer.substack.com - Short Follow-Up and Publication Type: The 1-year period is too brief to assess long-term cancer risks, and it was published as "correspondence" (a letter-like format), potentially without full peer review.
techarp.com - Contradictory Broader Data: South Korea's national cancer statistics showed a drop in new diagnoses in 2022 (despite high vaccination rates), and global trends (e.g., stable U.S. cancer death rates post-vaccination) show no surge attributable to vaccines.
mazer.substack.com +1
mazer.substack.com
It aligns with the associations I mentioned earlier but doesn't change the scientific consensus: no proven causal link between mRNA vaccines and increased cancer risk, as affirmed by ongoing surveillance from bodies like the WHO and CDC. If anything, it underscores the need for better-designed studies to rule out biases.In short, the report contributes to the discussion but is weakened by these limitations—it's not dismissible, but it's not proof either.
Similar threads
