Daniel Corcos

MD, PhD
Mammography-induced cancers
Medical science whistleblower

[Daniel Corcos @daniel_corcos]

Mammography-induced cancers. First publication in the New England Journal of Medicine. https://t.co/HkKaJls829

[Santé Nutrition @SanteNutriFR]

Mammographie : le chercheur licencié de l'INSERM pour avoir révélé les cancers qu'elle provoque https://t.co/JV53nVeFDh

[Marilyn Johnson -Widcoq🔺 @ilovestemilion]

Les travaux de Daniel Corcos @daniel_corcos montrent que la hausse des cancers du sein après dépistage ne s’explique ni par une meilleure détection ni par le vieillissement de la population. Elle découle bien des mammographies. Il chiffre ce risque à environ 4 cancers provoqués pour 1000 séances, contre 6 cancers dépistés pour 1000 femmes. On provoque donc presque autant de cancers qu’on en détecte.
Après une quinzaine d’années de dépistage, l’incidence du cancer du sein a pratiquement doublé dans certaines tranches d’âge, en particulier chez les femmes de 65 à 75 ans. C’est un paradoxe. Pour le cancer de la prostate, dépisté par une simple prise de sang (le PSA), le dépistage rajeunit au contraire l’âge des malades et fait reculer les cancers chez les personnes âgées. Pour le cancer du sein, ce sont les femmes les plus exposées, donc les plus âgées, qui sont touchées.

[Daniel Corcos @daniel_corcos]

@robt_heartdoc They are not allowed to do the RCTs because one would conclude that mammography causes cancer.

[Daniel Corcos @daniel_corcos]

This is because people make comparisons between groups that cannot establish a causal link, whereas only "before/after" intervention studies are valid.
If we were to accept this reality, we would have to acknowledge that mammography screening is responsible for millions of cancers, yet no one dares to say so.
https://t.co/PbOkPYeOgd

[Prof Jeffrey S Morris @jsm2334]

No turbo cancer in South Korea (of course!)

Extensive study followed >36m people wrt cancer rates of various types from 10 years before COVID vaccine rollout to 4 years afterwards.

No change.

Why does the zombie claim of COVID-19 vaccines causing "turbo cancer" continue on?

[Daniel Corcos @daniel_corcos]

@Jean__Fisch You take no risk in claiming that it’s due to the Covid vaccine. If you were to say that it’s due to X-rays, you would lose your job. https://t.co/zrCT78dV0r

[Daniel Corcos @daniel_corcos]

You will not find any scientists willing to debate me, because those who are intelligent enough to debate know that they would lose their jobs if they were to arrive at this inescapable conclusion.
#Mammography causes #Cancer

[Daniel Corcos @daniel_corcos]

You will not find any scientists willing to debate me, because those who are intelligent enough to debate know that they would lose their jobs if they were to arrive at this inescapable conclusion.
#Mammography causes #Cancer

[Disa Sacks @SacksDisa]

This is a huge scandal
I can’t find a scientist in the related fields willing to have a serious open debate and discussion on the Evidence presented by @daniel_corcos -that screening mammography programs ( ionizing radiation an undisputed potent carcinogen) are inducing approx as many breast cancers as they detect

the tragedy is that safe modalities already exist yet there is no will or incentive to mage them widely available

[Daniel Corcos @daniel_corcos]

@ALaSource2 Il y a une omerta mondiale sur le risque des rayons X, qui explique pourquoi les campagnes de dépistage mammographique ont autant de succès.
https://t.co/txQZLOfSst

[Daniel Corcos @daniel_corcos]

L’explication des cancers causés par les mammographies, une enquête scientifique et policière.
🧵

[ALaSource @ALaSource2]

Quand un chercheur de l’INSERN @daniel_corcos se fait virer par #YvesLevy mari de #Buzyn pour avoir mis en évidence que les mammographies provoquent le #Cancer c’est qu’il est temps de se poser la question sur l’orchestration mondiale de l’Octobre rose….

[Daniel Corcos @daniel_corcos]

@DrJBhattacharya My job and my money.
https://t.co/ZyycbVW9MJ

[Daniel Corcos @daniel_corcos]

Thread on my dismissal from @Inserm for discovering cancers caused by mammograms by Yves Lévy, Fauci’s friend.
Fauci was the head of American biodefense, and he is responsible for the Covid pandemic that killed millions.
🧵
1/

[Disa Sacks @SacksDisa]

way past time to debate and discuss the solid and elegant work of @daniel_corcos on mammography( ionizing radiation -a potent and undisputed carcinogen) inducing approx as many breast cancers as it detects
The tragedy ??? that safe screening modalities already exist

we need you voice

[Daniel Corcos @daniel_corcos]

@jattali Peut-être pourriez-vous alors nous expliquer si les ordres de confinements ont été justifiés (ils n'ont à ce jour pas montré leur utilité et étaient contraires aux connaissances de l'époque) et la décision de ne pas chercher les responsables de la création du virus.

[Daniel Corcos @daniel_corcos]

@SanteNutriFR Vous pouvez actualiser:
https://t.co/hC1oxXXjAp
https://t.co/xtlnQCDWds
https://t.co/lGEGxbVieR

[Daniel Corcos @daniel_corcos]

Ma présentation sur les cancers causés par les mammographies à l'Institut Cochin (Paris).
🧵
1/

[Daniel Corcos @daniel_corcos]

@dlingenfelter @jhas5 When a suspect hides evidence that could either incriminate or exonerate them, it means they are guilty.

[Daniel Corcos @daniel_corcos]

https://t.co/n9AZPMxWmi

[Daniel Corcos @daniel_corcos]

🎯

[Ashley Rindsberg @AshleyRindsberg]

Everyone wants to weigh in with their Most Astute Take™ on the midterms.

But no one wants to even factor in the glaringly obvious: the US has been under the most sustained information attack by foreign states in decades, if not generations.

Foreign adversaries have learned to weaponize the very protections and safeguards – First Amendment, Section 230, privacy laws – that make discourse online possible. They use our shield as their weapon.

These actors have learned that they don't need to "hack Facebook" — as the press claimed Russia did in 2016. (In fact, that had no measurable impact.) They found that they don't need to infiltrate voting systems.

Instead, they have learned to focus on seeding poisonous narratives into virtually every open information system online. It's not only effective, but it's remarkably efficient.

The influence happens in various ways:

1. Bot manipulation – Accounts/shows that see enormous engagement surges on particular issues are motivated to double down on the messaging that the bot swarms respond to.

2. Direct incentives – Money and influence. This comes in the form of corporate financing, advertising deals materially larger than their market value. (Did Hasan Piker go to China just for kicks?)

3. Information poisoning – Bringing fringe narratives into the mainstream by seeding them into open, trusted platforms (e.g. Wikipedia).

4. Discourse radicalization – Actors tied to foreign adversarial states pull the discourse further to the fringe. There is no accountability mechanism, so these actors are free to not just say, but endlessly repeat, the most extreme, toxic, and false claims.

5. Network building – As one example: the Singham Network can build, fund, and run ideological networks with alarming success rates.

These are broad categories; they break down into thousands of smaller tactics.

Further, they innovate. Foreign adversaries have an ability to test and experiment, since state budgets are virtually unlimited relative to the cost.

Even more damagingly, there is almost no mainstream journalistic reporting on, or investigation into, malign influence by foreign actors in information spaces.

Can we name a single public investigation into information operations by US adversaries like China in recent months?

(It's as if, after a decade of "Russia, Russia, Russia," the press simply forgot this is a thing.)

Even in the rare cases where we catch and expose these activities, there is almost never consequences:

Example 1 - Recall the right-wing influencer taking $10m per year from the Russian government, whose posts seemed design to sowed division? Far from consequences, this individual was entirely let off the hook and even invited back into the country.

Example 2 – Al Jazeera's digital network, AJ+, was ordered by DOJ to register as a foreign agent – and simply ignored the order. Were they shut down? Did their operation even slow down?

Example 3 – Chinese operatives work in plain site on social platforms, disclosing their affiliations while dragging the discourse into the anti-American fringe.

Example 4 – The CCP-linked Singham Network, which funds groups like Code Pink, was exposed in recent months and still functions seamlessly.

Example 5 – Influencers and podcasters traveled to Cuba, apparently coordinating with the Cuban government, and are caught doing so. Have any one of them ceased or even decreased their activities?

WHAT REALLY MATTERS
This is the core imbalance: autocratic states running these operations have no – literally zero – checks on their capabilities:

+ They face no domestic journalistic investigation.
+ There is no Oversight Committee demanding answers.
+ There is no FOIA process to produce information.
+ There is no consequence in rare cases of exposure.

Total freedom to maneuver on the information battlefield.

We think, naively, that because these platforms are owned by US companies and regulated by American bodies that they are "ours."

Nothing could be further from the truth.

[Daniel Corcos @daniel_corcos]

https://t.co/n9AZPMxWmi

[Husk @huskirl]

Asking my AI teacher how to spell seventeen

[Ashley Rindsberg @AshleyRindsberg]

Over the past months, a single Wikipedia editor has been quietly shaping @AbdulElSayed's entry.

The editing has been intensive and highly directed. For example:

+ Hasan Piker controversy got cut down.
+ Syed's antisemitism problem – deleted.
+ Harris and Obama endorsements went in.
+ A line saying AIPAC’s brand is “toxic” included.

Is it an op?

Well, two weeks ago the same editor had this to say in an edit summary on the El-Sayed page:

“another half month of this shit.”

🧵

[Daniel Corcos @daniel_corcos]

@schiste Soit il y a un contrôle effectué par Wikimedia pour évincer les acteurs malhonnêtes, soit il n'y en a pas, et alors, il n'y a aucune raison de financer ce truc.

[Daniel Corcos @daniel_corcos]

@NiONiPardon Catherine Hill les collectionnait. En France, elle participe à un scandale sanitaire. https://t.co/ShTRzhYdM2

[Daniel Corcos @daniel_corcos]

La fraude du surdiagnostic du cancer du sein.
🧵
Ce fil est le plus complet et le plus didactique que j'ai réalisé sur le sujet.
Sa version anglaise à obtenu plus de 2 millions de vues.

Si vous le trouvez utile, merci de RT.