Cancer Within Days
Cancer Within Days
Plus discovery of a possible mechanism for cancer spread
Disclaimer: This is not medical advice, speak with a medical professional.
The Daily Beagle has a compelling hypothesis for what causes the dubbed ‘turbo cancer’ in patients.
Demonstrating (Turbo) Cancer
For those of you maybe on the fence about the existence of ‘turbo cancer’, perhaps this case report, “Rapid Progression of Angioimmunoblastic T Cell Lymphoma Following BNT162b2 mRNA Vaccine Booster Shot: A Case Report”, will provide an answer. Credit to Jikkyleaks for re-finding this study.
The study is unusual in that the patient (Michel Goldman) is also the study author, meaning he took the mRNA shots.
He swears up and down the shots do not cause cancer (perhaps to save his career) — having decided to take the shots himself, he is his own biggest conflict of interest, but we’re going to let his PET (positron emission tomography) scan do the talking. Note the dates:
Anyone familiar with PET scans will see that and their eyes will bulge. Remember, Pfizer lied and said the mRNA shot ‘stays in the arm’. It doesn’t.
What does it show? Quoting the study:
A 18F-FDG PET/CT revealed multiple voluminous hypermetabolic lymphadenopathies above and below the diaphragm as well as several extra-nodal hypermetabolic lesions […]
A lymphadenopathy is a swollen lymph node, which can happen when the body fights a pathogen. A ‘hypermetabolic lesion’ refers to a collection of cells who use up more glucose (sugar) than normal, and thus appear more distinctly on a PET scan.
It can mean either inflammation, infection, trauma, or cancer, however PET scans are used primarily to detect cancer. Does the mRNA shot cause cancer? Well, going back to the title of the paper…
Rapid Progression of Angioimmunoblastic T Cell Lymphoma Following BNT162b2 mRNA Vaccine Booster Shot: A Case Report
Lymphoma is a class of cancer. Angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma (AITL) is a rare type of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (basically, a specific type of cancer), and “rapid progression” is self-explanatory; the cancer sped up.
Is there a link? The case report cites another paper — “Cytosolic Recognition of RNA Drives the Immune Response to Heterologous Erythrocytes” — and remarks:
[…] mice genetically engineered to reproduce the RHOA G17V and TET2 mutations—both were present in our case—develop lymphoma upon immunization with sheep red blood cells […]
It then goes on to comment that RNA triggers the lymphoma:
[…] RNA of sheep red blood cells was shown to be responsible for their ability to stimulate TFH and induce germinal center reaction […]
Perhaps, you argue, Michel Goldman was already pre-disposed to cancer, or was vulnerable, and this was super-duper rare? (The go to calling card when it can’t be disproven).
This next one should blow your socks off.
Cancer Within Days Or Your Money Back
Tossing another case report onto the pile: “Ph-Positive B-Cell Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia Occurring after Receipt of Bivalent SARS-CoV-2 mRNA Vaccine Booster: A Case Report”, it makes the most mindblowing remark (emphasis added):
In our patient, the BCR-ABL1 Ph–positive (p190 form) B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia occurred just five days after the bivalent COVID-19 booster vaccine inoculation
Even 5 weeks is fast (ask any oncologist), but 5 days is breathtaking. For contrast, Michel Goldman’s timeframe is 8 days inclusive.
Cancer For The Mouse
Another report, lambasted by the media as ‘not’ showing the shots causes cancer, reports similarly to above: “B-cell lymphoblastic lymphoma following intravenous BNT162b2 mRNA booster in a BALB/c mouse: A case report”, which reported cancerous lymphoma in a mouse after injection.
Despite this, the authors vented angrily.
The report authors were so aggressively hounded by media they issued an update to the paper saying they ‘disassociate’ themselves from the term ‘turbo cancer’, calling it ‘non-scientific’, and refusing to recognise it as a valid medical term (no-one ever said it was a valid medical term, it is a descriptor).
They pout at anyone daring use their published evidence to infer the shots cause cancer (even though they themselves report cancer after giving the shot), and that the shots must be safe because the other 70+ mice didn’t get cancer:
[…] at the moment of writing this correspondence, we have injected over 70 BALB/c mice with the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine (either single- or double dosed). Excluding the published case report, none of these other vaccinated animals developed hematologic malignancies of any type
A gun with 1 bullet and 70 empty chambers is still dangerous, and a 1 in 70 chance isn’t reassuring. For context, a woman with a 10 in 1,000 chance (1 in 100) of getting colon cancer is considered high risk.
The scientists play fast and loose with risk definitions (‘ignore the cancer and hope you’re one of the other 70 mice’) in a desperate bid to save their careers. You have to sign waiver consent forms for surgeries with a 1 in 1,000 risk, but no such form exists here.
Another Paper Advises: Keep Shots Away From Tumour Sites
Another study “Prevalence and Significance of Hypermetabolic Lymph Nodes Detected by 2-[18F]FDG PET/CT after COVID-19 Vaccination: A Systematic Review and a Meta-Analysis”, does something similar to Goldman’s paper, using PET scans on cancer patients.
The paper actually advises giving the shot as far away from the tumour site as possible, implying the mRNA shots cause issues (but written with cagey wording):
[…] should have the COVID-19 vaccine in the contralateral arm to the tumor site.
Contralateral basically means ‘the other side’ (as far away from the tumour site as possible). They suggest the COVID-19 vaccines “mimic” the “malignant disease”, essentially saying the impacts of it are hard to distinguish from cancer!
They avoid calling it cancer, but if it acts like cancer and spreads like cancer…
Other Notable Reports
Picking through our compiled list of hundreds of reports showing harms, we found other notable reports relating to cancer post-shot.
These lesions were biopsied by a gastroenterologist, who confirmed that they were hypopharyngeal and gastric cancers. Gastric cancer was pathologically confirmed to be adenocarcinoma.
One even posits if a Bell’s palsy case is cancer incognito:
In this study we describe all aspects of this case and discuss possible causal links between the rapid emergence of this metastatic cancer and mRNA vaccination. We place this within the context of multiple immune impairments potentially related to the mRNA injections that would be expected to potentiate more aggressive presentation and progression of cancer. The type of malignancy we describe suggests a population risk for occurrence of a large variety of relatively common basaloid phenotype cancer cells, which may have the potential for metastatic disease
So the idea the shots cause cancer is certainly evidenced.
Mainstream Media: Just Don’t Look For It!
The ever present establishment shill (famous for defending crook Sam Bankman-Fried) New York Times answer to this horrifying finding? Just avoid cancer testing!
There can’t be any evidence of it causing cancer if you intentionally don’t test for it doing so! If it looks like cancer and spreads like cancer… then better not test like cancer! Denial is a treatment, right?
It’s not like the New York Times has a conflict-of-interest after telling their readers the Pfizer shots are safe and effective.
The Daily Beagle Finds A +110,000 Cancer Case Increase
In our article “Where Did The Cancer Cases Go?”, we highlighted evidence being buried by charities (financed by pharmaceutical companies, no less) showing a massive increase in cancer cases. We extracted the data and presented it.
Between 2020 and 2021, cancer cases just leapt up in numbers, well over 110,000 cases, the majority of which are in the under 50s (those less likely to get cancer on average), which the American Cancer Society tried to cover up.
But perhaps you don’t trust The Daily Beagle, and instead trust Harvard (who are in bed with Moderna).
Harvard, in 2022, reported cancer cases were rising in the under 50s and blamed, uhh… sleep deprivation, besides other things that have been around for centuries.
They also insisted it was a ‘30-year global trend’ but didn’t detail the yearly breakdowns, gave no specific figures, and provided no data source. But they agree with the Daily Beagle cancer cases have risen in the under 50s!
Pharmaceutical Companies Clearly Anticipate An Explosion Of Cancer Cases (Moderna Et Al)
Whilst pharmaceutical companies absolutely insist their poisons don’t cause cancer, all their financial spending habits and business contracts say otherwise.
In our article “Murderous Moderna’s Infiltration Of Politics” where we detailed extensive and rife corruption, we also noted how Moderna were in bed with multiple major pharmaceutical companies.
Moderna and Merck bragged personalised mRNA cancer vaccines were in the works on December 14th 2023:
Likewise, de facto Moderna owners Flagship Pioneering joined (evil) forces with Pfizer in 2023…
…and Pfizer has spent a whopping $43 billion on acquiring a cancer firm Seagan, implying they expect to make at least that back (read: that’s a lot of cancer):
Moderna have been scheming about cancer for a while now, starting work on ‘personalised cancer vaccines’ (no doubt, also mRNA poison shots) back in 2015.
Moderna also partnered with AstraZeneca on cancer back in 2013:
On weight of evidence, we see proof the shots both cause cancer, and suddenly, within a very abnormally short time-frame, with the very same shot peddlers suddenly buying up large quantities of cancer research and development where money is no object.
Now, unless the pharmaceutical companies have developed psychic powers, they must know something we don’t that guarantees a sudden explosion in cancer cases, enough to warrant a $43 billion purchase. That isn’t something you just do randomly on a whim.
This isn’t speculation either, they’re already trying to use the so-called ‘personalised cancer vaccines’:
Richard Scolyer worked on this shot himself, having been diagnosed with cancer in the middle of 2023 (“[…] Scolyer collapsed to the floor from a seizure in a Polish hotel room six months ago […]” — article dated Dec 2023).
He reported on Twitter he’s had his 7th so-called anti-cancer shot:
Whilst The Daily Beagle was not able to find an explicit claim he’s had the SARS-CoV-2 shot, he's based at the University of Sydney.
The University of Sydney arranged for staff to have shots, and implemented a vaccine mandate back in 2021, before he fell ill, so on weight of probability he has taken one (absent evidence of him being exempted) prior to his collapse.
Various Reports In Media
There are also numerous informal reports in media on the rise in rapidly progressing cancers, some by medical professionals. Some examples:
“As an Oncologist I Am Seeing People With Stable Cancer Rapidly Progress After Being Forced to Have a Booster”, article by ‘2nd Smartest Guy in the World’, quoting Dr Angus Dalgleish, Professor of Oncology at St George's University of London, to Dr Kamran Abbasi, Editor in Chief of BMJ (British Medical Journal)
“Turbo Death from Turbo Cancers: “We’re in Trouble,” Says Dr. Ryan Cole”, article by ‘Vigilant Fox’, quoting pathologist Dr Ryan Cole.
"'Hyperprogressive' Cancers Due to COVID Vaccine-Induced IgG4 Antibodies", by Igor Chudov, quoting BMJ paper “an immune evasion mechanism with IgG4 playing an essential role in cancer and implication for immunotherapy”.
"Florida ER Nurse (Dawn) diagnosed with Alveolar Rhabdomyosarcoma (Turbo Cancer), 5 months after COVID-19 booster. She had 3 Moderna vaccines in total.", by Dr William Makis, MD.
“Cancer began its rise in early 2021.”, by the Ethical Skeptic, citing numerous datasets.
How Can Turbo Cancers Be This Fast?
One key objection oncologists (cancer researchers) have when presented with evidence of the short time frame for cancer is this isn’t how cancer normally behaves. It is why most people describe it as ‘turbo’, rather than just cancer.
For context, cancer usually takes months or years; it is like suggesting granny with arthiritis can beat the world’s fastest professional athlete. Oncologists who haven’t seen ‘turbo cancers’ first hand presume the cancer was caused by ‘something else’ much earlier in a patient’s life.
The Daily Beagle would like to present evidence of a mechanism that would explain this rapid biodistribution.
The Possible Mechanism For Turbo Cancers
Meet The Cancerous DNA
Whilst everyone has been focused on the DNA that came packaged with the mRNA shots and the implications for genome health in the next generation of kids, everyone seems to have forgotten there will be other types of foreign, potentially hostile DNA already floating around in the bloodstream, which LNPs can potentially interact with.
The first is morally neutral cirDNA (circulating DNA), which can come from healthy cells, diseased cells and more. There’s multiple ways it can turn up in the bloodstream (and not all the ways are fully understood). Shortstop: it is DNA circulating around the bloodstream.
Our focus is a subset of it: The nasty ctDNA — circulating tumour DNA — the floating, circulating DNA of the cancerous tumour. It is so consistently related to cancer, it is used as a biomarker, and used to guide treatment. That means you can use it to detect certain types of cancer in patients.
That’s right folks, cancerous DNA circulates in the bloodstream (but only if you already have cancer)!
Seems To Mainly Affect Pre-Existing Cancer Patients
One observation The Daily Beagle noticed on dubbed ‘turbo’ cancer cases, is individuals appeared to have a prior history of cancer (some as old as 20 years ago), with the worst cases being those who were in remission or at extremely recessed states (such as the Michel Goldman case above).
This would explain why the dubbed ‘turbo cancer’ does not impact everybody, and why shots have to be administered away from pre-existing tumour sites per above, as they appear to make pre-existing cancer worse.
Oncologists will rightly point out ctDNA existed before the shots, and this by itself doesn’t explain how the cancers seem to ‘spontaneously’ (for a lack of a better term) appear in every major organ.
In The Daily Beagle’s hypothesis, in order for it to spread to every organ, the ctDNA has to exist before the arrival of something cancer patients never typically see.
LNPs.
Why?
LNPs Visit Every Major Organ
Taking data from “JW-v-HHS-prod-3-02418” (pages 461-462), which is an FOI’d document obtained via lawsuit showing Pfizer biodistribution patterns of LNPs (lipid nanoparticles) post-shot, The Daily Beagle compiled a chart showing the LNPs visit every major organ.
Pfizer artificially cut off the data at 2 days, however in our article “How Long Do Pfizer Lipids Last?” we find additional data that suggests the LNP — ALC-0315 — never seems to leave (even in the liver!):
We also (unscientifically) forward projected the artificially cut off data to suggest LNPs could be present as long as 1700 hours (>70 days, or >2 months):
For oncologists not aware, LNPs have been patented by Acuitas Therapeutics as being able to produce ‘transgenes’ by pulling in and integrating DNA (besides other things):
Potentially, the LNPs could drag along pre-existing ctDNA as it enters a cell (like mud on your boots entering the house), essentially turning that cell cancerous. As LNPs exist in every major organ in the body, and ctDNA will be floating around in a cancer patient’s bloodstream, the two shall meet.
This explains both the speed (the LNPs speed up ctDNA entry and keep working for over 70 days) and the spread (LNPs arrive in every major organ, interacting with any ctDNA there). It also explains why not everybody gets the dubbed ‘turbo cancer’; they have to have ctDNA in circulation before they get an mRNA shot.
The Daily Beagle would propose calling this LNP-Mediated Cancer.
This may not be the only mechanism for the shots to cause cancer (some show autoimmune disorders weakening immune response to cancer), but it would explain both speed and spread of the faster progressions.
It Also Gives Us Insight How Some Normal Cancer Spreads
The Daily Beagle has worked hard to turn this tragedy into a silver lining. We believe it gives us insight into how normal cancer spreads to multiple organs, meaning it may be possible to devise a treatment for it (both turbo and normal cancers, although not likely all of them).
One has to understand our hypothesis for the normal mechanism of spread.
In our article “Plasmids Can Integrate Without Transfectants” we spoke with David A. Dean, PhD, who revealed plasmid DNA could integrate within the host cell’s DNA during cell division.
He also made another remark that’s very easy to miss: “along with all other cellular DNA”. Any other DNA in the cell (specifically, in the cytoplasm but not in the DNA) will integrate with the daughter cell DNA upon division.
This means, if the cytoplasm contains ctDNA, upon division, that cancerous tumour DNA will integrate. Both in circumstances with LNPs, and without. This would turn the daughter cells cancerous, and tells us how cancer may spread to remote sites.
This means ctDNA may take advantage of cellular division in order to propagate cancer to other cell sites remotely. This hypothesis would hold true whether naturally occurring (via cell division) or artificially (via LNP integration).
Hopefully this article gives oncologists clues as to where to look, and we look forward to seeing if the hypothesis gets proven or disproven.
In a future article we plan to discuss hypothetical treatment modalities based on this and other findings, so stay tuned.
And stay safe, dear reader.
Found this informative?
Help inform?
Thoughts, dear reader?
Might also be worth revisiting
https://arkmedic.substack.com/p/philadelphia-2023
Speculation that the co-creator of the Pfizer vax has Bells Palsy.
https://dailysceptic.org/2024/01/09/biontech-pfizer-vaccine-creator-obviously-suffers-from-bells-palsy-but-no-one-talks-about-it/
That would be schadenfreude.