H.R Slabbbnstuf

dead artist down a coalmine with a psychic bird.

[H.R Slabbbnstuf @slabbb77]

@SandeChin It doesnt matter who you vote for, you're also getting the WEF

[Dr. Wojak, M.D. @DrWojakMD]

It's worse than you think

[Professor Ian Brighthope @VirusFighterVi1]

mRNA Vaccines and Cancer. https://t.co/TCqXxOS7Or

The authors’ final position is that the platform’s long-term risks remain unresolved. Under the principle of primum non nocere—first, do no harm—these risks should be independently and transparently investigated before the technology is used more widely in the general population or in patients with residual cancer.

My Opinion

As a physician who has spent more than four decades concerned with prevention, immune resilience and the ethical practice of medicine, I regard this paper as a grave warning that cannot responsibly be dismissed.

The study does not provide final proof that mRNA vaccines cause every cancer reported after vaccination, nor do the authors claim that every recipient is destined to develop cancer. What it does provide is something that should deeply concern every doctor, scientist and regulator: a coherent description of 35 possible cancer-promoting mechanisms, supported to varying degrees by laboratory research, clinical observations and population data.

The significance lies not in any single mechanism considered in isolation. It lies in their convergence. The paper describes the simultaneous activation of cancer-promoting pathways, interference with p53 and DNA repair, inflammatory effects of lipid nanoparticles, residual plasmid DNA, abnormal protein production through frameshifting, impaired immune surveillance, cytotoxic T-cell exhaustion and the possible awakening of dormant malignant cells. These are not trivial theoretical matters. They involve some of the most fundamental biological systems protecting us from cancer.

I am particularly concerned that the greatest danger may not be the creation of a completely new cancer in an otherwise healthy person. It may be the acceleration of a cancer that is already present but microscopic, dormant or controlled by the immune system. Many people unknowingly carry abnormal cells, dormant micrometastases or early malignant clones. Under normal circumstances, these may remain controlled for years. If several cancer-promoting pressures are applied at the same time, that period of control could conceivably be compressed from years into months, weeks or even days.

That is the central meaning of what has become known as “turbo cancer”: unusually rapid progression, recurrence, reactivation or metastatic spread. The expression is not yet a formally accepted medical diagnosis, but the clinical pattern it describes deserves investigation rather than ridicule or censorship.

The population findings are not conclusive, but they are troubling. The Italian and South Korean studies report associations between vaccination and several cancers. American cancer registries show increasing early-onset disease, while analyses of US mortality records identify a significant departure from previous cancer-death trends. These studies have limitations and cannot, by themselves, establish causation. Nevertheless, uncertainty must not be confused with reassurance. When biological mechanisms, clinical reports and population signals point in a similar direction, the proper scientific response is urgent investigation - not denial.

The estimate of between approximately 119,000 and 197,000 excess American cancer deaths is especially serious. It must be independently audited using transparent methods and complete access to the underlying data. It should not be declared proven, but neither should it be ignored merely because it challenges the official narrative. If the estimate is substantially correct, it represents a public-health catastrophe. If it is incorrect, an independent analysis should demonstrate precisely why.

I am also deeply concerned about the movement of this technology into cancer treatment. Patients with residual disease, genomic instability, previous chemotherapy or dormant micrometastases may be among the people most vulnerable to the mechanisms described in this paper. It is extraordinary that the same incompletely characterised platform is now being offered as a treatment to those who may be most susceptible to its unresolved risks.

The termination of the BNT122-01 trial demands complete transparency. The treatment failed to outperform watchful waiting, and a numerical imbalance in overall survival was identified. The direction, size and causes of that imbalance have not been fully disclosed. Patients, doctors and the scientific community are entitled to see the complete arm-by-arm survival results. Commercial confidentiality cannot be allowed to conceal information concerning human life and death.

The fundamental failure began when this technology was deployed on a global scale without adequate investigation of carcinogenicity, genotoxicity, systemic biodistribution, residual DNA, repeated dosing, abnormal protein production or long-term persistence. Short-term antibody measurements were treated as though they answered long-term safety questions. They did not. Passive surveillance was never capable of reliably identifying delayed, complex and multifactorial outcomes such as cancer acceleration.

Informed consent was therefore seriously compromised. People cannot give genuine informed consent when important risks have not been investigated, when uncertainties are concealed or minimised, and when refusal is punished through mandates, employment restrictions, travel controls or social exclusion. Consent obtained under pressure is not freely given consent.

I believe that the precautionary principle must now be applied. Broad preventive use of nucleoside-modified mRNA–LNP products should be suspended while these questions are independently investigated. Their expansion into patients with residual cancer should also be halted until convincing evidence demonstrates where the products travel, how long they persist, what proteins they produce and whether they influence recurrence, progression, metastasis or survival.

Every cancer registry should record vaccination date, product, dose number and batch number. Researchers must be given access to the data needed to compare vaccinated and unvaccinated populations while properly accounting for infection, age, previous cancer, screening, smoking, environmental exposures and other confounding factors. Tumours developing after vaccination should be examined using genomic sequencing, circulating tumour DNA, proteomics, immune profiling, cancer stem-cell markers and testing for vaccine-derived material.

These investigations must be conducted by genuinely independent scientists—not controlled by the manufacturers whose products are being examined or by institutions committed to defending earlier regulatory decisions. All protocols, data and results should be publicly available.

I do not accept the proposition that we must wait for absolute proof while exposure continues and the technology is extended into new vaccines and cancer treatments. Medicine has never required certainty beyond all doubt before acting to prevent foreseeable harm. A credible safety signal requires investigation. Multiple converging signals require decisive precaution.

The burden of proof now rests with those who manufacture, regulate and promote these products. They must demonstrate safety with transparent, independent and long-term evidence. The public should not be required to prove harm after being exposed.

The first duty of medicine is not to defend a product, a corporation, a government or an institution. It is to protect the patient. Primum non nocere—first, do no harm—requires that these unresolved risks be investigated before further mass exposure occurs. Anything less would represent a profound abandonment of medical ethics, scientific responsibility and the public trust.

Having stated the reasonable, I now wish to tell you the truth. These vaccines are truly carcinogenic. I cannot understand why I am the only person who has stated this fact in writing.

Ian Brighthope

[Jikkyleaks 🐭 @Jikkyleaks]

🚨🚨🚨 Just one paragraph in this shocking paper exposes the whole vaccine adjuvant industry.

What it means is that adjuvants were used - deliberately - to transport residual DNA into cells to create an immune response using oncogenic pathways.

I'll say that in more verbose terms.

Every human cell has a DNA sensing mechanism that will activate if foreign DNA gets into the cell, to protect your cells from that foreign DNA. If it is activated if sets off an extreme immune response but that immune response cannot keep getting activated - if it does you risk developing cancer in those cells.

The mechanism is cGAS-STING and it has a sister TLR9-MyD88.

And the vaccine industry KNEW that adjuvants work by activating them. And they KNEW that they are oncogenic. And they didn't care because they also KNEW that activating this pathway will induce antibodies - and the presences of antibodies (irrespective of whether they provide immunity) is what drives the FDA approvals and thereby the cash.

So if you are asking why cancer rates have been skyrocketing in young people and why this has been happening even before COVID, this provides an explanation that every molecular biologist should have been shouting from the rooftops.

And the worst thing?

That every recombinant vaccine (which by necessity contains unknown amounts of residual DNA) is potentially affected. And they have been in use since Engerix B in 1968.

What has this got to do with adjuvants?

Well, while you were all distracted with Aluminium and its neurotoxic effects, what the vaccine industry didn't tell you was that Aluminium, Triton, Saponins, polysorbates and LNPs are all "transfection agents" - literally microscopic carriers that carry DNA (that shouldn't be there) into cells (that shouldn't be subjected to it).

And that process, described in this paper but happening every day in those injected with residual DNA and a transfection agent, is what this paper shows provides rocket fuel to a cancer.

And THAT is why the pharma industry went crazy when we exposed #plasmidgate.

They didn't want anybody to know.

Don't believe me?
Grok this tweet and watch Grok squirm.

https://t.co/raX5d46A8u

@DrJulieSladden @MaryanneDemasi @DrJBhattacharya @stkirsch @RWMaloneMD @JesslovesMJK @weldeiry @Kevin_McKernan @CanningPharm @Nicolina0815 @Fynnderella1
#plasmidgate #novagate

[NZ and the MRNA @HopeRising19]

UNDER NZ MANDATES IF YOU WERE HEART DAMAGED BY DOSE ONE OF PFIZER mRNA....YOU WERE STILL MANDATED TO TAKE DOSE TWO

I spent time with a group of women unknown to me at the weekend.

They asked me what I do and I told them the truth.

They had absolutely NO IDEA that New Zealanders were injured by their mandated Pfizer mRNA Covid jab and then were denied exemptions from the next dose!

They had no idea that in July 2021 the government technical safety advisors said that people who developed Myocarditis after dose one SHOULD NOT receive dose two.

Then the mandates came, and Ashley Bloomfield ignored the recommendations.

Heart damaged with dose one?

Highly likely you were still mandated to take dose two...then you lost your job AND tried to cope with heart damage.

I shared the details with the Royal Commission of Inquiry (see video) in NZ July 2025.

@winstonpeters @CaseyCostelloMP @SimeonBrownMP @dbseymour @chrishipkins @nzdsos @RCR_NZ

[Maryanne Demasi, PhD @MaryanneDemasi]

🧵The evolution of the bribe
The old bribe in medicine relied on envelopes of cash & luxury junkets. The new version builds careers, shapes institutions, and influences medicine from within.

LINK 👇👇
@jeffreytucker @DowdEdward @newstart_2024
@Holden_Culotta @LocasaleLab @MAHA_Action
@SecKennedy @ChildrensHD @AaronSiriSG

[H.R Slabbbnstuf @slabbb77]

@pennymarienz Thank you for your compicipation and understaverness.
You're welcomlactine🤪

[ScienceGuardians @SciGuardians]

Credit: @BBarucker
Full interview 👇
https://t.co/F1zmBKJtYO

[ScienceGuardians @SciGuardians]

🚨 Bombshell claim meets documented reality:

Jeffrey Tucker (@jeffreytucker) reveals what top FDA & NIH officials allegedly told him: the lockdowns were designed to delay natural immunity until the shots were ready.

One year ago, one of the world’s most cited scientists — @Stanford professor John Ioannidis (meta-research pioneer and global authority on evidence-based medicine) — already described the price of opposing that narrative:

> “Death threats were very commonplace… both myself and every single member of my family were attacked in ways I could never have imagined.”

> “The vast majority of credentialed scientists self-silenced.”

⚠️ Why threaten and silence leading experts who questioned the preferred policy… if nothing was at play?

🎥 Watch Ioannidis in his own words

[Jikkyleaks 🐭 @Jikkyleaks]

@jeffreytucker Over 100 anomalies in the Pfizer trial listed here too
https://t.co/NZd1km0pVf

@open_vaet

[Sonia Elijah @sonia_elijah]

🧵🚨1/10 The BMJ just RETRACTED a peer-reviewed 2024 paper that documented a staggering 3 million excess deaths across 47 Western countries between 2020 and 2022. The study analysed all-cause mortality data and noted excess deaths remained elevated for three consecutive years, despite containment measures and COVID-19 vaccines. The authors called for further investigation into the causes.

[Molon Labe @DrMolon_Labe]

@EricawithaC13 This came out at Brook Jackson trial 3 years ago. Pfizer admitted they submitted fake test to the FDA & knew they had immunity with the PREP act. The DOJ showed up to defend Pfizer. Pfizer's defense was they didnt commit fraud they just deliverd the fraud the government ordered.

[Erica~Jo @EricawithaC13]

🚨 I FOUND WHAT MAY BE THE MOST IMPORTANT MODERNA ADMISSION YET🚨

In a new federal court filing, Moderna said: “the objective most relevant to the vaccine-reducing transmission”
Then immediately added: “The Government reiterates today that it purchased the vaccine to obtain that benefit.”

⚠️THE OBJECTIVE MOST RELEVANT TO THE VACCINE WAS REDUCING TRANSMISSION⚠️

And Moderna says taxpayers BOUGHT THE VACCINE TO OBTAIN THAT BENEFIT‼️

But the pivotal 2020 trials did not even establish whether the shots prevented transmission, and the government later had to conduct (and fund) separate research to answer that question‼️

But  American taxpayers already had to fund development and buy the shots while we were being LIED TO and told vaccination was necessary to protect OTHER PEOPLE!

So the FRAUD evidence is now blatant and enormous:

How do you take billions in taxpayer money for a product whose MOST RELEVANT procurement objective was reducing transmission when that benefit had not been established by the pivotal trial?

That is not a side issue. That is literally fraudulent inducement / procurement fraud based on a material misrepresentation.

MODERNA JUST PUT ITS SIDE OF THE TRANSACTION IN A FEDERAL COURT FILING.

Now compare that admission against the contracts, certifications, representations and billions of taxpayer dollars paid to Moderna. Imagine what Fauci's texts are all going to show!
THAT'S A GOOD BINGO! EVERYBODY CLEAR YOUR CARDS!

@TheJusticeDept surely you will want to call me and discuss. I'm available any time.

[Alles andere als Mainstream! @mrczrchr]

PCR-Betrug jetzt offiziell bestätigt
86 Prozent der "Positiven" nicht infiziert

Eine bahnbrechende, von Fachkollegen begutachtete Studie aus Deutschland hat soeben die wissenschaftliche Grundlage entkräftet, mit der Lockdowns, Abstandsregeln und Impfpflichten gerechtfertigt wurden. Die Forscher analysierten Daten der „Akkreditierten Labore in der Medizin“ (ALM) – einem bundesweiten Konsortium behördlich akkreditierter medizinischer Labore, die zwischen 2020 und 2023 rund 90 Prozent aller SARS-CoV-2-PCR-Tests in Deutschland durchgeführt haben.

Als die Forscher die wöchentlichen PCR-Positivitätsraten der ALM mit den Daten der IgG-Antikörpertests derselben Labore verglichen – womit im Wesentlichen gemessen wurde, wer tatsächlich eine durch die Infektion ausgelöste Immunität entwickelt hatte – machten sie eine verblüffende Entdeckung:

Nur etwa 14 Prozent derjenigen, die in der frühen Phase der „Pandemie“ (2020–Mitte 2021) einen positiven PCR-Test hatten, bildeten tatsächlich Antikörper – was bedeutet, dass die meisten frühen „Fälle“ niemals echte Infektionen waren.

Letztendlich kam der Großteil der Bevölkerung zwar mit dem künstlich hergestellten Virus in Kontakt und bildete Antikörper – doch die PCR-Daten, mit denen weltweite Lockdowns, Angstmacherei und Impfpflichten gerechtfertigt wurden, waren ein kompletter Betrug. Eine Rechenschaftspflicht ist geboten.

https://t.co/m4FkPui9bX https://t.co/uKPa3JPCeW

[NZ and the MRNA @HopeRising19]

NEW EMAIL RELEASE SHOWS FDA FULLY AWARE OF LARGE NUMBERS OF SERIOUS COVID INJURIES AND DID NOTHING ABOUT IT - MAY 2021

I always thought that when the TRUTH finally broke through the barricades of censorship, obfuscation and denial, that I would feel elation, vindication...relief.

I was wrong

Instead the constant flow of previously hidden truth, seeping from the Fauci emails and text messages, just serves to stoke my thinly veiled anger and grief.

Here's another VITAL communication, scrupulously and carefully ignored by NZ MEDIA

Yesterday we learned (via release from American Senators Johnson and Paul) that:

On May 27th 2021, the then HEAD OF THE FDA, Janet Woodcock, emailed Anthony Fauci saying:

*she was being contacted by numerous people who were VACCINE INJURED (by all 3 different types of Covid jabs)...and many of these people were HEALTH PROFESSIONALS

*The symptom pictures are odd, unusual, not easily characterised

*The syndromes (groups of symptoms) are not quantifiable or diagnosable through current testing

*A little gaslighting statement about "psychological reactions after vaccination"

*No one is taking the seriously

*No one is studying the injured

*No one knows how to TREAT the injured

*THERE IS NO EFFORT TO STUDY THE INJURED

*These unusual syndromes occurring after Covid shots would NOT be identifiable through the current pharmacovigilance databases designed to give early warning systems. THE SYSTEMS WERE NOT FIT FOR PURPOSE

*These people are "MEDICAL MYSTERIES" and we should study them but we need $$$ and clearly PHARMA would not support this for obvious reasons

And finally she warns
"If you let a problem fester then it will come back to bite you later and you are not prepared".

May 2021 FDA KNEW that:

People were being seriously injured
People were being gaslighted
Nobody knew how to diagnose or treat them
They should be studied
Pharma would be against them being studied
Early safety signal warning system were not fit for purpose

Video: Me (Lynda Wharton) testifying to NZ Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Covid Response, in relation to serious adverse events from Covid injectables in NZ
(further links in comments below)

@SimeonBrownMP @winstonpeters @CaseyCostelloMP @chrishipkins @chrisluxonmp @RCR_NZ @KiwiAly @chrislynchmedia @nzdsos

[John Olooney @OlooneyJohn]

This is the US Government Oversight committee report on covid.

Its 520 pages. You can read it in a couple of nights and it explains all about covid and the response to it.
That document is littered with horrific facts.

This US Govt. published report has been out since December 2024.
It never made any MSM news and considering the impact covid had on EVERYONE i struggle to comprehend why a two year investigation and report was simply totally ignored.

Explain to me how a document can be published that admits that DARPA commissioned covid.

Admits that the CCP financed it and that gain of function was done in Wuhan because no laws there prevented a bio weapon being made there.
How can everyone be so utterly mentally neutered i wonder?
Where is the outrage ?
https://t.co/xownyRXLAW

[Warnock's @WarnocksNZ]

@RCR_NZ how were people so ok with this?

[REALITY CHECK RADIO @RCR_NZ]

🚨 THEY KNEW. THEN 311,257 TEENS GOT DOSE TWO.

Government officials and Vaccine Ministers had been advised about the increased myocarditis risk following the second Covid shot in young people.

The public wasn’t told.

Then 311,257 New Zealand teenagers received dose two. That’s around 78% of the entire 12–17 age group.

🔥 MAKE THIS THE BIGGEST STORY IN THE COUNTRY. SHARE THIS VIDEO EVERYWHERE.

📌 Stay across this story: https://t.co/r5wnICp8aL
📖 The People’s Report: https://t.co/uE08bQjRkR
📖 The People’s Position: https://t.co/b5MvWVs85f

[Jona Walk @JonaWalk]

Like any brave publisher the editor in chief of @bmj_latest accused me of spreading misinformation in a post I can't reply to. But I do have something to say: @KamranAbbasi you seem awfully comfortable throwing around the word "misinformation" and that's terribly damaging to the debate.

Our letter predates the retraction, but I feel my concerns were justified after reading your retraction notice (link below), which led to my decision to publish it. Our letter is not "misinformation", it's criticism. Criticism from a scientist with personal experience in the issues we're discussing who is deeply concerned about your decision. Criticism you could have taken the time to seriously consider and respond to.

You throw the same accusation at the paper. But just because you (or even I) might have chosen different words for the discussion does not immediately make it "misinformation". True science progresses by those who dare to ask new questions, and the authors asked a very important one. Whether Covid-vaccines may contribute to the persistent excess mortality we have seen since 2021, remains unanswered as studies claiming to prove no link exists suffer from serious flaws (see other link below). It is in fact a question that many are working on. Diligent, hard working scientists who put key questions and the search for truth before their own career advancement. Scientists whose work you just made even more difficult, and even more dangerous.

Because a great deal of damage has been done to individual scientists and to the field of (Covid)vaccine research in general by those who throw the word "misinformation" at anything they don't like. I consider this trend to be one of the greatest threats to scientific research in our time. I would be happy to tell you about my research and what I have experienced as a result of it that led me to this conclusion, if you would be open to that?

As a side note for the audience: the BMJ never replied to our e-mail. This post on X is the first I have heard from them.

[James Melville 🚜 @JamesMelville]

Follow the retracted science.