This article was originally published by Willow Tohi at Natural News.
-
- U.S. Senate hearing scheduled for June 2nd will investigate biological mechanisms by which COVID-19 vaccines may increase cancer risks
-
- A systematic review of 69 studies published in Oncotarget identified possible safety signals linking vaccines to leukemia, lymphoma, breast, and lung cancer
-
- A South Korean study of 8.4 million people found a 27% higher overall cancer risk and statistically significant links to six cancer types among vaccinated individuals
-
- British oncologist Dr. Angus Dalgleish has told Parliament he witnessed long-stable cancer patients suffer aggressive relapses after third or subsequent booster doses
-
- Multiple scientists scheduled to testify have faced censorship, including retracted papers and social media restrictions
A U.S. Senate hearing scheduled for Wednesday afternoon will feature testimony from oncologists and researchers who say scientific evidence suggests COVID-19 vaccination may be linked to increased cancer risks. The hearing, titled “Plausible Mechanisms of COVID-19 Injections Causing Cancer and Attacks on Scientific Publications,” comes as multiple large-scale studies and clinical observations have raised concerns that warrant further investigation. Sen. Ron Johnson, chair of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, will lead the hearing at 2:30 p.m. EST as doctors and scientists present findings that they say have been suppressed by medical journals and social media platforms.
The evidence mounts: Cancer signals in large populations
The hearing will feature a systematic review of 69 studies and reports published in the journal Oncotarget by Dr. Wafik El-Deiry, director of the Legorreta Cancer Center at Brown University, and Dr. Charlotte Kuperwasser of Tufts University. Their review identified mechanisms — including spike protein effects and DNA contamination found in some COVID-19 vaccine types — that might trigger cancer development.
A two-year study of 8.4 million South Koreans published last year found a statistically significant link between COVID-19 vaccines and six cancer types: breast, colorectal, gastric, lung, prostate and thyroid. The study also identified a 27% higher overall cancer risk among vaccinated individuals.
A 2025 study of nearly 300,000 Italians found cancer hospitalizations were moderately higher among COVID-19 vaccine recipients, with particularly increased risk of bladder, breast and colorectal cancer. Additionally, a U.S. Armed Forces Health Surveillance Division report tracking non-Hodgkin lymphoma in active-duty service members between 2017 and 2023 found a significant increase in some lymphomas during 2021, the year COVID-19 shots became widely available.
Clinical warnings: “The signal is screaming”
Dr. Angus Dalgleish, professor emeritus of oncology at City St. George’s, University of London and one of the United Kingdom’s leading skin cancer specialists, recently warned members of British Parliament that he has witnessed long-stable cancer patients suffer aggressive relapse after receiving a third or subsequent COVID-19 booster.
Dalgleish first observed the pattern among his skin cancer patients in 2022. Since then, international research has confirmed his concern, he told Parliament. The body’s T-cell response can become suppressed after a third vaccine dose, Dalgleish explained, and the spike protein and lipid nanoparticles can induce microclots — a particular danger for cancer patients already predisposed to blood-clotting disorders.
“In my opinion, this is no longer a hypothesis,” Dalgleish said. “The data are in. The mechanisms are understood. The signal is screaming. It is time to act.”
Censorship and retraction: Scientists face pushback
The hearing will also address how scientific publications on COVID-19 treatments and vaccine safety have been suppressed. Dr. Sabine Hazan, a gastroenterologist and microbiome researcher scheduled to testify, has faced multiple retractions of peer-reviewed publications years after their initial publication, with no public explanation from Springer Nature, the German-owned publisher that retracted her work.
Hazan’s research had explored connections between the microbiome, long COVID, and vaccine injury. The retractions occurred after the Springer Nature Research Integrity Team approached her directly, bypassing the journals’ editors.
El-Deiry reported that LinkedIn censored him when he posted information from his recent paper on COVID-19 vaccines and cancer, removing the post and labeling it as misinformation.
A pattern of scientific suppression
This hearing occurs against a backdrop of ongoing tension between researchers raising vaccine safety concerns and institutions that have sought to limit such discussion. The resistance to acknowledging potential cancer links echoes earlier suppression of evidence regarding vaccine injury and breakthrough infections.
The European Commission now faces a court order to disclose all COVID-19 vaccine procurement information, and multiple countries have launched investigations into excess mortality during the pandemic period. The PANDA team’s comprehensive multidisciplinary review concluded that COVID-19 risks were overstated and vaccine safety signals were extremely concerning — conclusions that have been largely ignored by mainstream medical authorities.
The World Health Assembly continues negotiations on a global pandemic accord scheduled for December, despite objections from critics who say such agreements could further centralize control over public health decisions.
A reckoning for vaccine policy
The Senate hearing represents the highest-level official examination of potential cancer links to COVID-19 vaccination to date. With witnesses including a Brown University cancer center director, a pediatric oncologist from the Netherlands, and a prominent British cardiologist, the testimony could reshape public understanding of vaccine risk-benefit calculations. The historical pattern of delayed acknowledgment of adverse effects — from thalidomide to Vioxx — suggests that today’s dismissed concerns may become tomorrow’s accepted findings. Whether this hearing leads to policy changes or further investigation remains uncertain, but the mounting evidence demands scrutiny that has been absent from public health discourse.
Read the full article here
