This article was originally published by Willow Tohi at Natural News.
-
- Oncologist Dr. Angus Dalgleish observed six melanoma patients relapse within six weeks of receiving COVID-19 booster shots, prompting him to investigate a possible link between mRNA vaccines and cancer progression.
-
- Dalgleish testified before a U.S. Senate subcommittee on June 3, 2026, urging the removal of mRNA COVID vaccines from the market due to what he described as T-cell exhaustion and immune system changes.
-
- The oncologist reported similar cancer progression patterns in colorectal, breast, prostate, blood cancers, and gliomas, including younger patients with more aggressive disease and reduced treatment efficacy.
-
- Critics, including virologists and cancer experts, told The BMJ there is no epidemiological evidence linking mRNA vaccines to increased cancer incidence, calling Dalgleish’s observations anecdotal.
-
- Dalgleish wrote to The BMJ editor in 2022, calling for a halt to vaccine booster programs and open debate about cancer relapses, warning of what he called “active suppression” of scientific inquiry.
A prominent British oncologist told U.S. lawmakers this month that mRNA COVID-19 vaccines should be pulled from the market, citing his clinical observations of previously stable cancer patients relapsing rapidly after receiving booster shots—a claim that has divided the medical community and raised questions about scientific censorship.
Dr. Angus Dalgleish, professor emeritus of oncology at City St. George’s, University of London, testified June 3 before the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations in a hearing titled “Plausible Mechanisms of COVID-19 Injections Causing Cancer and Attacks on Scientific Publications.” His testimony drew on four years of clinical observations and letter-writing campaigns that he says were ignored or suppressed by medical journals and public health authorities.
The hearing, chaired by Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., examined what Dalgleish described as a troubling pattern: cancer patients whose disease had been controlled by their immune systems suddenly deteriorating after mRNA booster doses.
The clinical observations
The pattern first emerged in early 2022, Dalgleish told lawmakers. Six melanoma patients under his care relapsed within six weeks. All six had recently received COVID-19 booster shots.
Melanoma is an aggressive skin cancer, but these patients’ cancers had previously been controlled by T-cells—immune cells that identify and destroy malignant cells. Dalgleish suspected the vaccines had disrupted that protection.
He later observed similar patterns in colorectal, breast, prostate, blood cancers and gliomas. Some cases appeared in younger patients than expected. Some progressed more aggressively than standard protocols predicted. Some cancer treatments appeared less effective than they should have been.
Medical commentator John Campbell, Ph.D., who has documented Dalgleish’s concerns for years, summarized the oncologist’s findings in a June 7 video: The immune system “was tolerating the cancer, and this was the reason we were starting to see it.”
The mechanism question
Dalgleish testified that published research supported his clinical observations. He cited one study showing evidence of T-cell exhaustion “across hundreds of patients” following booster doses.
T-cell exhaustion occurs when immune cells lose their ability to attack threats, including cancer cells. Dalgleish also pointed to multiple biological mechanisms by which vaccine-derived mRNA could theoretically contribute to cancer development, including suppression of tumor-suppressor genes.
The immune system “was tolerating the cancer, not attacking it as it should,” Campbell said in detailing Dalgleish’s testimony. “These cancer cells will be dividing, but the body’s immune system wasn’t attacking them.”
Dalgleish’s concerns date to 2022, when he wrote to BMJ editor Dr. Kamran Abbasi, warning about leukemia, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and other cancers he believed were associated with mRNA shots. “I shouted, I screamed: ‘The canary in the mine!’” Dalgleish told Campbell in a 2024 interview.
Suppression of scientific inquiry
A central theme of both the Senate hearing and Dalgleish’s public statements was whether these concerns received adequate investigation.
“Most doctors, when patients are presented with cancer, are not asking if they’d had an mRNA vaccine,” Campbell said. “It’s absolutely fundamental in medicine that the first thing you do is you take a history, and you talk to the patients.”
Because vaccination history is often not discussed, patterns may be missed, Campbell argued. “Of course, they don’t discover a link between mRNA vaccines and cancers because they’re not asking who was vaccinated.”
Dalgleish described a pattern of professional pushback. He said colleagues told him his observations were “pure anecdotal, nothing to see here, shut up, and by the way, you’ll upset cancer patients.”
Despite the resistance, Dalgleish said physicians from around the world contacted him with similar observations.
The political dimension
The vaccine-cancer link entered mainstream political discourse in September 2025, when cardiologist Aseem Malhotra told the Reform UK party conference that Dalgleish believed COVID vaccines were “highly likely” linked to cancers in the royal family.
Prime Minister Keir Starmer called the comments “shocking and baseless claims” that “cost lives.” The General Medical Council confirmed it was considering disciplinary action.
Some experts attributed the controversy’s traction to influence from the U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has canceled $500 million in mRNA vaccine funding. Reform UK said Malhotra was a guest speaker with his own opinions and that the party “does believe in free speech.”
A reckoning over scientific debate
Dalgleish’s Senate testimony represents the highest-profile platform yet for concerns he has raised since 2022. He urged lawmakers to halt mRNA vaccine programs entirely.
“There is no way you can control this technology, and its use for future vaccines should be banned and the COVID ones stopped now,” Dalgleish testified.
In his written testimony, Dalgleish addressed the broader stakes: “Science does not advance through silence, suppression, or reputational protection. It advances through rigorous inquiry, transparent debate, independent replication, and the courage to follow evidence wherever it leads.”
Whether Dalgleish’s observations represent a genuine safety signal or a collection of coincidences remains unresolved. What is clear is that the debate over mRNA vaccines, cancer surveillance, and scientific censorship has moved from medical journals to Senate hearing rooms—and shows no signs of abating.
Sources for this article include:
ChildrensHealthDefense.org
BMJ.com
DailySceptic.org
Read the full article here
