Evidence Accumulates: Covid Vaccines & Cancer with Dr Maarten Fornerod

On Monday 6 May 2024, WCH Steering Committee member Christof Plothe, DO had an in-depth interview with Dutch molecular biologist Dr Maarten Fornerod about current investigations into the carcinogenic potential of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, whether the source is infection or injection.

You can also find this video on: Gettr | Rumble | Facebook | Twitter/X | LinkedIn

Some of the strongest indicators that these ‘vaccines’ may be carcinogenic include:

• Clinicians have observed an increase in cancer after mRNA vaccinations or boosters. Some case reports have been anecdotal, but those from clinicians should be taken seriously due to their experience.
• There is evidence that the mRNA vaccines are immunosuppressant. Increases in IgG4 levels and suppression of the immune system repress the body’s defence against cancer.
• The spike protein is known to activate the oestrogen receptor pathway (see below).
• DNA contamination of the mRNA vaccines is a genotoxic risk, which in turn is a carcinogenic risk.

According to the above, there is no doubt that these mRNA ‘vaccines’ pose a carcinogenic risk. The question is, how great is that risk? And as they clearly pose a safety signal, why is the vaccination campaign continuing?

Dr Fornerod identified two more possible mechanisms whereby spike protein could promote the development of cancer; however, the data in these cases is not as convincing:

• Interaction of spike protein with BRCA and p53, and the possible effect on MDM2
• ‘Stimulation’ of cancer growth by N1-methyl-pseudouridine (m1Ѱ)

Despite these two examples of weaker evidence, Dr Fornerod concluded: It is time to stop the mRNA vaccinations because there are already too many safety signals.

We need a Better Way!

As Christof Plothe observed, testing for carcinogenicity is required before any medication is released, but this was never done in the case of the mRNA shots. There were no long-term safety data, no genotoxic studies, and no carcinogenic studies, not even in mice. This was clearly irresponsible. It was also of concern that early treatments for Covid were denied for almost a year, and instead people had to wait for a vaccine to be produced.

The Covid event drew attention to the fact that there is something seriously wrong with the fields of science and medicine, with rampant corruption, censorship, and misinformation. Having recognised the extent to which these systems are impaired, it is high time for the Better Way!

Who is Dr Maarten Fornerod

• Dr Maarten Fornerod is a molecular biology researcher in the fields of cell biology and cancer genetics. He has made his mark at renowned institutions such as the European Molecular Biology Laboratory in Heidelberg and the Netherlands Cancer Institute in Amsterdam and has published over 100 peer-reviewed articles, including in leading journals such as Cell and Nature Genetics.
• He is scientific adviser and board member of the Netherlands Doctors Collective (Artsen Collectief in Dutch), an organization with over 43,000 supporters and 2,700 medical professionals, promoting health before profit.

View all previous episodes of our live shows here.

Hello and welcome to Better Way Today on this lovely Monday, the 6th of May. I’m here with my friend and colleague Christoph. Today’s interview guest is Dr. Martin Fur. I should have asked you Christoph how we pronounce his last name. Well, I think you’ll do fine. Dr. Martin Fornerod. That’s right. And we’ll tell you a little bit more about him as we get a little further on in the show. But I’m going to start with announcements before Christoph goes into Better Way News. And just a reminder, if you are watching us live, please take a moment and say hello in the chat and let us know where you are tuning in from. So let me get these slides up here. All right, so there is today’s guest and we will hear a great interview with him and Kristoff pretty soon. So in case you missed it, our very own Dr. Teslori was live earlier today from Estonia for an important press conference that was hosted by WCH Estonia. This conference was inspired by the upcoming European Parliament elections and the voting of the WHO documents planned at the World Health Assembly. Guest speakers included Reggie Littlejohn, Andrew Bridgen, Dr. Tess Laurie, and a lot more. This whole entire press conference, it was just over four hours long. I believe it is available in our newsroom where I know many of you are joining us right now, worldcouncilforhealth.org slash newsroom, if you would like to catch up on that. And we have a video that I would like to share of our notices of liability being delivered earlier today. And this video will explain a little bit more about that. Hello, this is Philip Kruse speaking. This is Monday, 6th of May 2024, just right after lunchtime. This is to confirm to the World Council for Health that I have just delivered to the World Health Organization here in Geneva headquarters to a person, to an official from the General Secretary a series of four letters. The letters were addressed to Dr. Tedros, Director General of the WHO, to Janet Diaz, COVID-19 Clinical Management Lead, to Jeremy Farrar, Chief Scientist of the WHO, and to Maria von Kerkhove, COVID-19 Technical Lead. These four letters were notice upon harm and to cease and desist. All of them dated today, 6th May 2024. They are now in the offices of the General Secretariat of the World Health Organization. So this is just to confirm delivery by Philip Kruse on 6th May 2024. Best wishes to the World Council for Health, in particular to Tess Laurie, who has entrusted me on the basis of an official power of attorney with the delivery of this letter. So a big thank you to Philip for delivering those for us earlier today. Tess read aloud one of the four notices of liability during the press conference from Estonia earlier today as well. In the coming days, we will have a press release available about this delivery of these documents along with copies of each of them. And this week, Cameron Takapua joins us from New Zealand for another free meditation on Telegram. You’re invited to join us whether or not you have any meditation experience. Cameron is a lovely meditation guide, and I highly recommend you join us. We will be live on our Telegram channel at 8 p.m. UTC on Wednesday. That’s 4 p.m. EDT, Eastern Time for me, 9 p.m. BST for our friends in the UK, and bright and early Thursday morning where… Cameron is at 8 a.m. in New Zealand. Find the World Council for Health on Telegram at at sign WCH underscore org. And keep an eye out for more information about World Freedom Week. This is happening the 24th of May through the 1st of June. And I’ve got another video to play for you today. We’ve been telling you a lot about the Better Way Detox Fair for a while now, and it’s getting really close. It’s now May, which means we are just over a month away from this event that is happening the 14th through the 15th of June in Wiltshire, UK. There you can embark on a journey to holistic well-being at the first of its kind in the UK, the Better Way Detox Fair. Bringing together a blend of allopathic and holistic practitioners, this unique event promises a fusion of traditional and alternative approaches to health. You can find out more information at betterwayevents.org, including the different activities that will be there. We’re going to have different panels with a lot of different speakers. There’s going to be stands and other kinds of activities. So check out that website and get your tickets soon if you are able to join us. Today’s guest, Dr. Martin Fornerod, has asked us to share this upcoming event happening on the 22nd of June in Amsterdam. For the first time ever, British cardiologist Dr. Asim Malhotra is coming to the Netherlands. For years, he has been warning about the harmful effects of excessive sugar consumption and an unhealthy lifestyle. Malhotra is known for his critical view on the COVID-19 approach. He emphasizes that our lifestyle plays a crucial role in promoting a healthier society and advocates for a revision of our relationship with the food and pharmaceutical industries. Health before profit. Tickets start from 36 euros. You can learn more at healthbeforeprofit.nl. I’m hoping, because I mention this every week, that you’ve visited the WCH online shop by now. But in case you haven’t, you should head over there at the end of today’s show, shop.worldcouncilforhealth.org, because we’re constantly adding new items like books, EMF protection products, vitamins, and supplements. And we have a new rewards program. You can sign up and start earning rewards today. And a reminder, in case you haven’t checked out this yet, WHO’s Global Power Grab is a must-watch two-part film featuring over 100 health freedom advocates and politicians speaking out about the WHO-facilitated corporate power grab. This powerful public interest film was created, compiled, and launched in South Africa ahead of the WHO’s World Health Assembly 77 happening this month. You can find this on Rumble at the link that you see on the screen there, and I’ll also put a link into the livestream chats when I have a chance. Just a few weeks ago, Christoph interviewed Dr. Tom O’Brien. They delved into all things inflammation. If you didn’t catch that interview, I highly recommend that you check it out. You can find it in our video library on our website, worldcouncilforhealth.org. For those that did watch, you probably heard a lot about Dr. Tom’s new docu-series, The Inflammation Equation. Unfortunately, the window to view that docuseries for free was very short, and you didn’t have much time to get it done, but I’m here and happy to report that it will stream for free again later this month. And Dr. Tom is also offering two additional free resources, an e-guide on how to reduce chronic inflammation, as well as a cookbook, Recipes to Tame the Flame. I’m going to put the links to both of these things, as well as how to sign up to view the inflammation equation later this month in the live stream chats in just a moment. While I do that, I’d like to have you watch the trailer again for the inflammation equation before I hand it over to Christoph for Better Way News. I couldn’t eat or drink anything and I started vomiting and I couldn’t stop. It got to the point where I lost a lot of my muscle mass. How many doctors have you seen ballpark? Maybe 60. And I would just hope that I would die. I started suffering from really severe seasonal allergies that would manifest into ear infections that would take me out for days. Chronic fatigue, sensitivities to chemical smells. I just felt defeated. Some of you may have heard that the expected lifespan for children born today is two years less than it was a couple of years ago. We were expected to have longer lifespan for decades now. We’re getting healthier and healthier and healthier, but now it’s reversing. And it’s reversing where our newborn children are not expected to live as long as you will. And diseases are going up. The percentage of people getting autoimmune diseases or cancers or heart disease is going up. Why is that? It’s lifestyle. It’s how we’ve lived our lives that got us to where we are now. And that’s what we’re talking about. We’re talking about a low level smoldering inflammation that over time, months, years, potentially decades, is taking people’s lifespans down, taking away their energy, destroying their mood, increasing weight gain, and basically making life a whole lot less enjoyable. So it’s clear to me, based on the trajectory of my illness of 27 years, I’ve tried general neuralgia, getting worse, seven years of MS, getting worse, now with brain fog, I’m going to be bedridden, demented, and probably die with intractable pain. A terrible future. A month later, I can sit up at the table for supper, and my mental clarity is improving. My fatigue is markedly less. And my physical therapist says, Terry, you’re stronger. He advances my exercise. I can now do 15 minutes twice a day. And then 20 minutes twice a day. Then 30 minutes twice a day. And then I start walking with walking sticks. With two and then with one. And then none. And you should keep in mind, anyone with a progressive neurologic disorder, we let go of the future. We learn to just live each day as it unfolds because… The future is so terrible. Who knows how much recovery might be possible? The first thing that’s usually going to help most people is to eliminate the triggers of inflammation. And the most common source of inflammation is what’s on the end of your fork. Having the understanding that I need to do things differently is one thing, but also having the capacity to make better decisions for myself and better decisions for my family then allows me to say, you know what, guys, let’s not go to the bar. Let’s go to the gym, right? Let’s take the dogs to the park instead of watch this TV show. And every single one of those branches will start to water the right garden or flame the fire. We’re optimizing digestion. We’re doing all of these foundational things, really kind of walking us back to how we evolve. And in doing this sort of systems approach, this concert of interventions, we’re able to turn the volume down on this chronic inflammation that will eventually show up as these 15 diseases that will kill us. What’s happened to the concept of inflammation, it’s like a volume control. If you have too little volume, you can’t hear it. That would be in a suppressed immune system. That’s like no inflammation. Or if you turn it too much the other way, now you have hyperinflammation, which is that that’s going to lead and associate with many late-stage diseases. How empowering to hear the authorities told you you were not sick, you didn’t have a problem, it’s all in your head, you’re making it up, but you persevered. And even my parents, as much as they wanted to believe, I really had only one of them that finally said, you know, I know you’re right. I know that what you’re experiencing is real and I never gave up on you. So in experiencing that, don’t settle for that. The inflammation equation gets to the root of where inflammation comes from. The lessons you learn from the incredible people who have spent their entire life trying to help you is invaluable. We are interviewing the world experts on brain function, on immune function, on gut function. And we’re taking these people at the top of the field and their geeky way of talking and interpreting it into everyday language so that you understand the basics. Oh, I can see what that means. That makes sense to me. And then you understand what to do about it to turn it around. The science is very clear. You can arrest and reverse the development of your disease. But it’s lifestyle that has to be addressed in order to do that. Come join us. We’ll show you how. So again, the inflammation equation is going to be available to watch for free for those that were unable to access that previously when we showed an interview with Dr. Tom and Christoph. I believe that that begins on May 13th and goes through the 21st of May. And I also put a link to that as well as these two free downloadable documents as well from Dr. Tom. There is a free e-guide on relieving inflammation as well as a free recipe book called Tame Flame. And in case you missed it, the World Council for Health now accepts cryptocurrency donations. We are currently accepting Bitcoin. You can donate by scanning this QR code on the screen right now or head over to worldcouncilforhealth.org slash donate for our wallet address. Thank you so much for your continued support. I’m going to bring Christoph back now. Hello, Christoph. Hi, Emma. Hi. Always such a pleasure to hear your voice. As I said before, everybody here in Germany seemed very tired today, but your uplifting voice did it to me. No coffee was required, so I’m ready for the news. Oh, good. I’ll have to add that to my, that’s somehow my tagline or something. I’m good as coffee. And a nice t-shirt with it. All right, let me bring your slides up for you here and I’ll hand it over to you for the news. Okay, well, hello and welcome to another episode of Battleway News. This week it was loaded with quite essential information for our future. The first one, as you can see here now, AstraZeneca. After the first time admitting that there were some severe side effects this week, actually the license of the so-called COVID vaccine of AstraZeneca was revoked this week by the EU. And I don’t know if you read about this in the mainstream media, but so this highly acclaimed intervention that was titled safe, tested, effective and free of side effects is now since today no longer authorized in the European Union. The interesting thing is that the decision of the EU actually came after AstraZeneca itself. applied for withdrawing the marketing authorization. So we hope to hear more about the full story soon. And next one, please. And well, for the second COVID injection manufacturer, it was an interesting week as well because the drops in Moderna mRNA sales plummeted by 90% equivalent to 1.2 billion of sales that plummeted. The reason is the poor COVID booster uptake. So we’ll keep you posted on what this is going to mean for all the other vaccine manufacturers as well. And we’ll see soon whether people are actually listening to their bodies, to their relatives, to their family members, and to science. So next one, please. And well, as we all know, there is an important decision taking place this month at the WHO, to be precise, on May the 27th to June the 1st. It will either mark the Great Awakening or the Great Downfall of humanity. because the World Health Assembly will meet on these days. One of the many, many organizations that since have united against this coup d’état are 37 Australian organizations, the Council of Australia, so-called, and that involves many, many activists from Australia that came together in order to raise their voices. And if you could just show the next slide, please. And as we can see why we are now looking at demands by the WHO that certainly should be stopped by any independently thinking human being and especially politicians that think about the sovereignty of their own countries. And if you just look at Article 3 of this, you can see that the respect for the dignity of human rights and fundamental freedom of persons has actually been erased from these amendments and have been replaced with a principle of equity, inclusivity, coherence, and accordance with common but different responsibility of the state parties, basically meaning that human rights will be scrapped off this list and, as we said, the sovereignty of the countries themselves will be handed over to the WHO, an unthinkable process that should be headlined everywhere on this planet. So thank you Australia and thank you to all the numerous organizations worldwide that are trying to stop this action. And next one please. And as we know, mainstream media has not been very successful in giving critics of the last few years a voice. But maybe things are changing. If you look at the New York Times, thousands believe COVID vaccine harmed them. Is anybody listening? It’s the first one of the big papers in the U.S. that actually now looks at the people that haven’t profited from these times. They say that all vaccine had at least occasional side effects, but people who say they were injured by COVID vaccine believe their cases have been ignored. So thank you, New York Times. And we hopefully get more on this from many, many more papers, and we keep the story alive. And next one, please. and this is a very fundamental paper that just came out and uh well some of you might almost already have forgotten what life was like in the last few years but uh when one of the measures that has been proven intensely now to be completely ineffective the masking um actually uh looked in this study they looked at all the toxins that actually were inhaled by people wearing them and they analyzed an amazing amount of studies one thousand and three studies And they found dozens of organic and inorganic toxins through the forced wearing of the mask. On average, the nitrogen masks were exposed to 43 times more carcinogenic phthalates, 227 times more carcinogenic volatile organic compounds, and 1,220 times more titanium dioxide than recommended by the respective limit value. So they actually included 631 mask study from surgical textile in masks and N95 studies. And 63% have showed alarming result with high micro and nanoplastics release and exceedance could also be evidence for volatile organic compounds, xylene, acrolein, perfluorocrylic substances, phthalates, and many, many substances more important. including heavy metals, lead, cadmium, cobalt, copper, and titanium dioxide. So the conclusion of this study, this is why I’m taking a little bit longer to describe because I think it’s very relevant, is undoubtedly that mask mandates during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic have been generating an additional source of potentially harmful exposition to toxins with health-threatening and carcinogenic properties at population level with almost zero distance to the airways. So I hope that future plans of calling out new infectious problems on this planet will take this one into account amongst many, many other studies that have been carried out in the last few years. So next one, please. And please take your time to download this amazing book. It’s a free download, or you can donate some money to the authors. Amongst them is our amazing Professor Bhakti, Dr. Hooker, Michael Palmer, Margaret Du Bois, Mark Skidmore, David Rasnick, and Mary Holland as a lawyer and Catherine Austin Fitz. So please take a look at this, the new book on mRNA vaccine toxicity, a good summary of everything we know by now and why this technology should certainly not only be stopped at the moment, but be prevented from entering the market in order to be used on animals and humans alike with you know their plans replacing almost all standard vaccinations and next one please and as always to look at the better way Tonight from Paolo Celio, we can never judge the life of others because each person knows only their own pain and renunciation. It’s one thing to feel that you’re on the right path, but it’s another to think that yours is the only path. So a bit of humility and some inspiration for you tonight. And I’ll hand it over to Emma for the next inspiration. Thank you, Christoph. Your news truly is better news. I always look forward to it. You do a great job. Thank you. All right. And now, without further ado, it is time to introduce our guest. We have Dr. Martin Fornerad. He’s a molecular biology researcher in the fields of cell biology and cancer genetics. He has made his mark at renowned institutions such as the European Molecular Biology Laboratory and the Netherlands Cancer Institute. and has published over 100 peer-reviewed articles, including in leading journals such as Cell and Nature Genetics. He’s a scientific advisor and board member of the Netherlands Doctors’ Collective. And so without further ado, I’m going to push play, and we’re going to listen to this excellent interview between Christophe and Dr. Fernerod. And welcome to another episode of, uh, the better way show. And, uh, tonight we have a very, very important topic and, um, a very, uh, amazing speaker who’s going to tell us his perspective. It’s the associate professor Martin Fonrod. Um, Dr. Fonrod, thank you so much for joining us tonight. And, uh, I think I’ll hand it straight over to you to start your presentation. So I’m very happy to be here because I’ve been following World Council for Health already for many years, I think until from 2021. So happy to share some thoughts here. Okay, so I would like to discuss a study that came out this month from Japan. And let me see if I can share my screen. So it’s this paper that came out, published April 8th, 2024, from Japan, peer-reviewed in the journal Curious. And it’s about the age-adjusted cancer mortality after the third mRNA lipid nanoparticle vaccine dose during the COVID-19 pandemic in Japan. This paper is retrospective, of course, so it looks back to the population. It’s a large study. It essentially covers a big part of the Japanese population, and it’s also fairly straightforward. They report an increase in cancer-related death in 2021 to 2022, but not in uh 2020 and so their main their main result is uh actually on uh on figure I think it’s figure one on the on the a part so on the on the right side of the left side of the screen you see that uh from uh 2010 onwards there is a slow decline in age adjusted mortality per 100,000. So the Y axis doesn’t go to zero. So it’s not an enormous decrease, but it’s a clear trend. to lower cancer mortality. And the reason probably is better therapy in those years. But then after 2020, so 2020 is still following this trend. But 2021, 2022, you see a deviation from the trends. And that’s significant. So in 2021, it’s already significant. And in 2022, it becomes statistically more significant. And so the right part of this figure is actually a zoom in of the last three years. And here they specify the excess mortality here in the red bars. And you see that in 2020, there is hardly any excess mortality. Actually, there is an under mortality. So the gray bars here are decreases in a cancer mortality, but then after 2021 you see an increase So the red bars increase until, let’s say, 5%. And then they plot it together with the vaccination rounds in Japan. So the first and second vaccination, the third, fourth, fifth. I think Japan is one of the most vaccinated countries on Earth. I think they have just finished their seventh population-wide messenger RNA injection round. And so here the asterisks here mean it’s statistically quite significant. So that’s a correlation in time with the vaccination rounds. they also look at which cancers are increased during this time. And so this is one of their other figures. And here they, on the y-axis, it’s the excess or deficit in cancer mortality of all different types of cancer. And so what I found interesting is that not every cancer shows an increase. Some cancers show a deficit, so the little symbols again denote statistic significance, so then you’re more sure about whether there is real excess mortality or deficit. And so there’s only a part of the cancers, like pancreas, lip, oral, pharyngeal, prostate, leukemia, ovary that are increased and they’re particularly increased in 2022. So that’s the red bars. And some of them are also increased 2021, but almost none of them is increased in 2020 apart from pancreas here. So that’s essentially that’s the data. So it’s very straightforward, very descriptive. And then, of course, the question is how to interpret this study. And I think there are two main interpretations. So the first interpretation is that the COVID crisis may have caused this increase of cancer and it could be due to delayed care or stress or unhealthy behavior. People locked up in their room, eating unhealthy, watching too much television, all these factors. But the second interpretation is more worrying, even more worrying. That is that the mRNA vaccines may cause this increase in cancer death. And indications are timing and the timing of the third injection coincides with the increase of cancer. There are specific types of cancer increased, so not all of them, which you might expect if it was just a general COVID crisis cause. And also, This explanation, possible explanation, fits with other indication linking these mRNA vaccines to cancer. And so I listed how there’s a whole bunch of indications, but I selected a few which I want to discuss. So there’s evidence for carcinogenic side effects, right, of the messenger RNA corona vaccines, and there are a strong strong indications, strong evidence, and there’s not so strong evidence. And among the strong evidence is, I think, observations from clinicians that report increase in cancer after the booster or after the mRNA vaccinations. Some of them have made it into the into literature. So these are case reports, but of course these are anecdotes. But I think anecdotes from clinicians you could probably have to take seriously because a good doctor has experience and has some sort of filter, historical filter of when things are unusual. So that’s one. Then there is the immunosuppressive effect of the messenger RNA vaccines. I think that’s also not controversial anymore. So you see an increase in IgG4, you see effects, immunosuppressive effects on the immune system. And that is very much related to cancer risk because your immune system actually is your defense against cancer, right? This is why it’s important to have a healthy lifestyle, to make sure your immune system is well taken care of by vitamin D, exercise, not smoking, not drinking, so all the lifestyle things that you can do. that help your immune system also have beneficial effects on your cancer risk. So that’s one of the things that I’ve learned as a biologist and as a biologist in the biomedical fields is that your health is maybe 90% your lifestyle and 10% healthcare. So there’s a big, or maybe 80-20, but there’s a large amount of influence that you have yourself on your cancer risk. Now, the other strong evidence is estrogen receptor pathway activation by the spike protein. And then DNA contamination of mRNA vaccine. So the DNA contamination is, I don’t think it’s controversial anymore. It’s clearly a genotoxic risk. And any genotoxic risk is also a carcinogenic risk. So the question is not anymore whether it’s a carcinogenic risk, but how much of a carcinogenic risk it is. And then, so, so this, I call this strong, strong evidence. And then of course the question is, you know, is this so strong that it is, you know, evidence or proof beyond the reasonable doubts? And of course not. And none of these, none of these evidences is, know um proof beyond the reasonable doubt that the mrna corona vaccines cause cancer but but that’s not the bar right that is not the threshold to judge these mrna vaccines because the threshold the bar is actually safety a safety signal and so I think together these evidences are enough of a safety signal in order to have questions about the wisdom of continuing these messenger RNA vaccination campaigns. So this is strong evidence. And there’s also not so strong evidence. So I would like to just, as an example, present why I think some of this evidence is strong and why some of this evidence is not so strong. so the strong evidence I find is estrogen receptor pathway activation by spike and I’ll so I show it in in one slide um so this spike protein it’s it’s a beautiful paper uh from 2022 uh it’s always published 2022 it was already posted online uh may 2022 so not 2023 may 2022 it was posted online and it uh it shows or it demonstrates that the spike protein binds to estrogen receptor alpha and causes an estrogen receptor alpha dependent cell proliferation so it’s a beautiful paper because it finds something really unexpected so it picks up the estrogen receptor alpha as a strong binder nanomolar range to spike protein from a screen so they they did they did a sort of a screen of things that bind to to spike and so of course they find usual suspects or expected suspect as ace two but then they pick up also estrogen receptor alpha and they show that this spike protein so the purified spike protein activates or inhibits the estrogen response depending on context but now for the cancer story uh what they show also is that spike causes an increase in cell proliferation in an estrogen responsive cell line and they use use the cell line mcf7 for this and they have controls they’re beautiful controls because you know science is about controls so they this they show that this doesn’t happen in an estrogen non-responsive cell line and they show that the effect is blocked by by an estrogen receptor antagonist. So I’ve put the results here on the screen. So it’s figure three of this paper. And it’s published in Science Advances. So it’s a really good journal. But this main result is a bit hidden. So it’s in the D panel. why I enlarge it a little bit so here they look at proliferation of mcf7 cells so it’s a cell line that grows that duplicates and it does that with a certain speed so they look at cell proliferation or normalize it to 100 percent of control and control cells are just the cells growing in a dish now if they add e2 which is an estrogen they see an increase in cell proliferation, which you would expect because it’s MCF7 is estrogen responsive. But then also here with the second arrow, they also see the same increase by spike protein. So purified spike protein, they see the same increase in cell proliferation. And they do controls. So there is a inhibitor of the estrogen receptor pathway. It’s called raloxifene. rel here. So if they add rel on top of estrogen or on top of spike, you lose this additional cell proliferation. So this is a beautiful experiment that shows that spike can activate the growth of MCF7 cells, which are breast cancer cell line. And this paper is of course, I mean, of course the authors think about, you know, both COVID, but they also think about the vaccines, right? Because there’s a specific part in spike that combined estrogen receptor and in the paper, they, or it must have been in their mind that you could make, the vaccine is a lot safer, or at least remove this potential safety issue by changing that part of the spike. So indeed, this is also a beautiful example of censorship that we know in the COVID era in science. So in the preprint, which was posted May 2022, their last sentence of their discussion is, Finally, we propose that tissue-specific dysregulation of ER activity should be considered in design of S-based vaccines. So S-based vaccines are spike-based vaccines. So these are the messenger RNA vaccines, for example. And so this is the last sentence of their discussion. And, you know, in a scientific publication, usually the last sentence of the discussion is an important sentence because it It’s sort of the view into the future of the authors. But then in the published version, November 2022, the last sentence is gone, right? So this is censorship. So either it’s self-censorship or the editor said, you know, we don’t want to have this last sentence because it can create vaccine hesitancy, something like this. I mean, as a reviewer, I’m a reviewer myself. And, you know, I hardly comment ever on the discussion. That’s because the discussion is just the thoughts, the opinion of the authors. I mean, there’s no reason to to comment too much on that, because you can agree or disagree on the discussion, but I’ve never asked authors to remove something from the discussion part of paper. Sometimes I ask them to discuss something extra, an unexpected finding, but I never ask them to remove something. So in my view, this is censorship at work. Okay. Now, so this was very very strong good paper you know well controlled um but then I also want to show two examples of of not so strong data and when I say not so strong as a scientist you usually you understate so it’s an understatement um because I mean scientists usually understate because they don’t want to you know to insult or to to to put too much emotion in their argumentation. So the first one is what I read a lot on social media, that there is an interaction of spike of tumor suppressors, BRCA1, P53, and there might be an effect on MDM2. So this is a… This is an observation that’s not just gone through peer review. So it’s on a preprint server bio archive, new results, SARS-CoV-2 spike subunit inhibits, p53 activation receptor DR5 and MDM2 proteins in cancer cells. So now this is their figure 1a. and from this uh so the first thing that so this is an ip western so you know so an ip western is that you you fish out your protein of interest in this case p53 and then you you detect the proteins that are bound to it and you detect them by by western blood so all these little fields these are western bloods so what you see is that if you fish out P53, then indeed you detect P53, right? But you don’t detect spike. So there’s no spike associated with P53. So this is an experiment. So the interaction data was kind of modeling. This is a real experiment. So we don’t see any P53 spike interaction. But then what the authors claim is that there is a decrease in MDM2-EGFP interaction. if you add spike and you know I don’t see that I mean there is there’s no difference at all between this band here and this band there and if there was a little difference I mean there’s also a little difference between here the p53 that they pull down here and here so um so this is in my view not strong evidence of an influence of spike to p53 um the other um the other paper that I see a lot recently is the stimulation of cancer growth by pseudouridine by so this the stabilizing base in in the rna um and that’s that’s based on a review paper and the review paper um reviews some uh some unpublished or and so unaccepted and peer-reviewed data but if you look at this so it’s a um it’s a vaccine study so they they use a vaccine against ova without so they use an rna vaccine in the cell line and they they use a mouse model um in order to to to look for tumor genesis and also all the black spots are tumors in in I think these are lungs of mice and so what you see is that if you use the pseudouridin you indeed see much more cancer right that that’s what they see but then uh if they uh if they use um So there’s no difference, right? There’s no difference in the control. So this is the control. PBS is a control experiment where they don’t use any mRNA vaccine. and this is a messenger RNA vaccine that contains this pseudouridin, and there’s no difference, right? So that’s their conclusion. So you cannot say that these pseudouridins stimulate cancer. They don’t inhibit cancer, right? So that’s why you have to be really careful in order to, you know, what you how to interpret these kind of studies. And so the best thing is to look at the data and not look at the conclusions of these papers. So I would say these are not so strong or not at all strong indications. However, there is enough, in my opinion, there’s enough strong evidence linking mRNA vaccines to cancer, and then in addition to the safety signal of Japan, to say, okay, it’s time to stop. So I think, so that’s my little presentation about the molecular biology side of this. So maybe… I stopped sharing my screen. I don’t know, Christophe, do you have any questions, comments? Well, quite a few actually, but I’ll try to be brief. Well, first of all, thank you very much for this brilliant presentation and thank you for also representing a critical science, something that in these black and white times of the last years, we really missed. We were mostly presented with one perspective, but as you correctly pointed out. If not, everybody is able to read anything apart from the discussion point of the study, by the way, and the abstract. So this is a very, very valid point in the first place, that we should be always critical. And science has always been about different opinions and comparing them. And that’s science. So many of us became a little bit sentimental that part of that science has disappeared. I start with right in the beginning because it has never been denied that the mRNA technology was a novel technology and a gene therapy. Now in Australia, they actually file lawsuits because it’s GMO. And so if you have a gene therapy that’s completely novel, one of the criteria is you need to test, does it cause cancer? Carcinogenicity is a requirement to release any medication. This was never done. So what’s your thought on releasing a product that on three quarters of the world population that has missed out this important step? That was clearly irresponsible. I mean, clearly irresponsible because there was no long-term safety data and there was no genotoxic studies and there was no carcinogenic studies, not even in mice. I mean, still, it seems like such a natural thing to do with this kind of technology to first to first do proper animal studies for carcinogenic, and especially now. Of course, the argument was we were in a crisis. We were in a crisis, so we had to take risks. We can discuss about that a long time, but for sure now, this argument doesn’t hold anymore. So now it’s the time whenever there is a safety signal with a novel technology like this, you have to stop. I mean, it reminds me a little bit about the discussion on smoking and cancer, right? Like in the 50s, I think the first publications already indicated that there was, you know, that there was indications that smoking caused cancer, right? And for a long time, you know, people discussed and there was, you know, even though there was a lot of evidence, you know, it took like 10 years or more for let’s say the science to uh the scientific consensus to agree that that that it had uh that smoking caused cancer so I hope we don’t we don’t arrive in this situation that we go on for another 10 years with this right we cannot afford that Well, especially in the light that we’re still being introduced to more injections, and you rightly pointed out in this study, it didn’t start after the first injection, it started with the boosters. So we should be really clear what another stimulation of the immune system via this technology creates in our body. And yeah, we know that in terms of the emergency, we could discuss forever, as you just mentioned, but it was for many scientists and people in the medical profession, a little bit concerning, amazing, to say the least, that an emergency was out there and everybody had to wait a year for a vaccine to occur and all other approaches were denied and people were even as doctors denied to offer any treatments and send people just to hospitals. It’s clear that there’s something seriously wrong in science and medicine, right? Absolutely. And I think the COVID crisis, so there comes some sort of illness, right, in science and in medicine. And that’s why the COVID crisis is so interesting and important because it sort of magnifies this. it magnifies this microcosm of misinformation, censorship, even corruption. So all of that is magnified to a very large extent. But these are things that are already, of course, have developed for a long time in science and medicine. And I think, so maybe this is, because it’s now so clear, I mean, the COVID crisis makes it so clear that it’s a way to recognize it and also to cure this disease. Well, I take on this message because it can make us really optimistic that some things will change. So, yeah, well, thank you for that comment. And I’d like to come back talking about this with something you mentioned that we have are not told whether that’s covid or cancer that lifestyle interventions as you mentioned you mentioned if you and whenever I looked up uh your picture in the net I see you in running gear uh running around so so you obviously uh are convinced of what you’re telling us that 80 to 90 I need it I need it myself I mean I need I need to do exercise just for my my my mental health also from general health and uh you know and especially if you’re over 50 you know you have to take care of your if your immune system um as I said you can I mean, you have it, you have your, your health for a large part in your own hands. Yeah. And such, such an important message to bring across because still, when you have a cancer, uh, diagnosis, you’re being told, well, that’s bad luck. And, uh, yeah, it’s genetics, which we clearly know. Yeah. Is not the main thing why you should, uh, be confronted with cancer or any infection. Um, um, not only the one that we’ve been experiencing for the last few years. One of my all-time favorite experiments, I think it’s many years ago. So there’s a mouse strain that’s genetically, it’s an inbred strain. So this mouse strain has many genetic defects and it’s prone to cancer and heart disease. And so these mice, they die quite young of heart disease and or of cancer. But if you give them a healthy diet, they live as long as their normal counterparts. So meaning that even if you have bad genes or you have bad luck with your genes, you still have influence over that by just, you know, living a healthy lifestyle. So no sugar, no alcohol, don’t smoke, you know, all the things go in the sun, not too much stress. So you can counter with lifestyle, you can counter a lot of the, let’s say, bad luck in your genes. I mean, everybody has bad luck in their genes, in one or two genes. So nobody is completely without defects genetically. And we know of the people who have found a genetic predisposition for their breast cancer and just removed the breasts. This would be an important message for them. Yeah. Just try to get into lifestyle interventions and yeah. I don’t argue against mastectomy for certain genetic conditions. So I don’t do that at all. I mean, that’s a decision that every person should make them for herself, right? And just balancing the risks. But at least… you know healthy lifestyle and also exercise is very important for cancer patients so this is something that was that that was so I know and I know a person that um that tried to introduce in the 90s exercise for cancer patients and she was almost fired for that. And now it’s sort of mainstream. So now people recognize that yes, also yet let’s say exercising is beneficial for cancer patients. Yeah. I’d like to come back to the increase in number because this Japanese overview is just one national surveillance. And we already talked in our previous chat about the difficulties of getting the data in the different countries. So we seem to have a worldwide phenomena so uh as you rightly pointed out whether that’s causal or uh incidental yeah um we’ll have to find out uh but it’s uh obviously um a safety signal that um a year after the rollout of an international health intervention, we see this rise of cancer everywhere. And just a little quote from Edward Dowd, who did an analysis of the UK data, in which he just basically looked at the the cancer claims and in hematological cancers in 2022 it was up 522 percent. If we look at data from CDC and they find a doubling of a risk then this is already considered a safety signal. Why do you think with all the safety signals, even if we don’t have the clear data yet, because they’re just coming in, we still don’t hear about this in the media? Yeah, that’s the center part of the COVID crisis. It’s still ongoing. I think now, By now, I think many people are aware that there is a problem with these mRNA vaccines. So it’s not only a possible cancer risk, but it’s also other risks. And so the data is accumulating and why it’s not, let’s say on the front page of the New York Times, I don’t know, but I think it’s a matter of time. So maybe on that note, So cancer risk is one, but there are many other adverse events reported after the messenger RNA injections. And so in the Netherlands, we have Wouter Aukema, and he’s a data scientist, or actually he’s a hacker, but he’s a… ethical hacker. And so he has provided a platform where we can analyze all of the side effects of the EMA, the European Medical Agency. um so he so this website is public but it’s but you cannot do analysis on them so he um he did this uh he he extracted the data from the ema adverse events um database and maybe I can quickly show it yes please so it’s um let’s see if I share my screen uh entire screen so so this is so he is you can easily find him uh at alkema.org so it’s he’s a he has a website um where he explains exactly how how you can analyze this yourself it uses a program that’s called pablo sorry barton I i can’t see it at the moment can you I don’t see it on the screen um I shared my screen I think oh okay allow okay now can you see it yeah yeah yeah now I can see okay so walter alchema he has his own website alchema.org where he explains uh what he has done uh and so this database you can just download it from his his website so you can there’s a drive there’s a google drive with the data and it uses a a program called tableau which is not for free but you can use it for 14 days for free and and so this is the his dashboard And it has four panels. But if you look at, so these are all the side effects of all of Europe that are reported in the EMA. And so if you look at the lower right part, it goes here from 2018 to 2023. And so in orange are all all the side effects reported, except for the COVID-19 vaccine side effects. So that’s like 5K per year. But then in blue are all the COVID-19 adverse events so you see that they are let’s say factor two higher than all of the other side effects combined and so what you can do is then analyze so here at the upper at the upper right you see uh what what the medication was that caused the side effect so pfizer 18 to 64 years is the biggest one so if you click that then um then you see in the lower left side, you see what kind of side effects these are. And it’s clear that the bigger the bubble, the bigger the side effects. So there’s 82,230 adverse events that are COVID-19. So that means that the most frequent side effects of Pfizer vaccination is COVID-19. And so this is interesting. So you also see that you can choose cardiac disorders. And so these are the cardiac disorders caused by Pfizer. And then you see indeed myocarditis, pericarditis, but also palpitations. 11,000 tachycardia, so fast heart rate, arrhythmia, so irregular heart rate, etc. So this is a good resource and it also shows how many adverse events were reported due to these mRNA vaccines. And so the fact that COVID-19 is a well-known or is the most frequent side effect that fits very well with an earlier publication. So this is the famous Cleveland study. So this is the reference that shows that you are more likely to get COVID-19, the more you get boosted. So without any doses, it’s the black line, there’s a certain risk of catching COVID-19. But the more injections you get, the more risk you have for catching COVID-19. And of course, this is association, this is not cause and effect. But still it fits very well with what Wouter Alkema has now revealed, right? So I’ll stop this, I’ll stop this thing, yes. Yeah, well, no, thank you for pointing that out as well. As we didn’t want to take too much of your time, even if I would love to, yeah, because it’s a whole ocean of knowledge that we can dig in talking to you. um maybe one uh a final uh well two but one and a half final questions um one being um we hear a lot about turbo cancer so something that progresses quite quickly to stage four And many clinicians say that they haven’t experienced this before. What is your take on this rapid progression? Is this something new or are we just seeing more of it and therefore it’s more in the headlines? What’s your opinion about it? I think we should listen carefully to medical doctors that report this. because these are anecdotes, but these are anecdotes of doctors, of physicians that have experience. And if they say they notice this unusual increase in stage four cancer, and maybe even among the young, I think that that should immediately provoke attention to the cancer community. So the next step is from this anecdote, look into the data and then look at every country. You have to look at the cancer registration data and combine it with vaccination data. So that’s very important to be able to distinguish or to make the relationship vaccination booster versus cancer and versus cancer stage. And at the moment, I haven’t seen any study that makes this connection or that studies the vaccination status of cancer patients. Whereas in every country, I imagine this data should be available somehow. So I think this is urgent. I think this should be an urgent line of research. But apart from that, you know, apart from researching that, I think it’s just time to stop these mRNA vaccinations because there’s just too many safety signals. So studies have to be done, have to be done also to, as a safety study for future vaccines, right? But we should not say, okay, now we’re going to study it. And in the meantime, we keep on using this vaccine, right? We should stop it and then also do these association studies. I mean, I was about to conclude by asking you what your conclusion would be for science and humanity to go forward. You just said it. So thank you very much. And I hope your words will resonate with many that watch this interview with you and will resonate with the scientific community because it’s overdue that we go back into into science in the true sense of it. I’m a scientist, I believe in the power of the scientific method. The scientific method is very strong, but you should never mistake that for science as an authority, because you should never use science as an authority, because it’s just not an argument. right also something like a scientific consensus I mean maybe it’s there but you should never use it as a as an argument because you know the scientific consensus is is often wrong you know and it’s not the scientific consensus that matters it’s it’s it’s the data and it’s the argumentation it’s the logic that matters well thank you for pointing that out is there is there any final um um word you would like to address uh the viewers tonight um well final words um stay optimistic well we’ll take that with us so thank you very much for your time and thank you for your inspirations and uh yeah I i think we’ll soon hear more of you and uh yeah wishing you a good evening and thank you so much bye Thank you to Christoph and to our guest Dr. Martin Fornarad for that excellent discussion. Just a reminder for anybody that is watching us live right now that this video should stay live wherever you’re watching it and be available on our website and in our video library at worldcouncilforhealth.org if you would like to watch again or share it with someone. um and next week on monday we have a different event to um offer you uh same time same place but it’ll be a little bit different so stay tuned for some information about that coming soon thanks to everybody who joined us today live or if you’re watching the recording of this right now thank you for that as well we will see you next week bye Thank you for watching this episode of Better Way Today. If you found value in it, please consider making a value exchange with us. The World Council for Health is a grassroots people’s organization and we rely on funding from people just like you. Your contributions from as little as $5 or £5 or 100 Rand help to power our work. The World Council for Health team is on a mission to serve you. Please make it your mission to support us. Thank you.