Table of Contents
Guy Hatchard
GLOBE.GLOBAL
hatchardreport.com
Information
Opinion
The UK Times runs a story “After centuries of cut, burn and poison, could a jab cure cancer?” by Tom Whipple. 11,000 miles away the same story appears in Stuff newspaper. This is one of those ‘isn’t it wonderful?’ reassuring stories that unfortunately don’t look quite so rosy after close scrutiny, but like bad pennies are turning up everywhere. On the surface informative and exciting, underneath sadly lacking in that investigative depth we were expecting and certainly overhyped.
This story would not be out of place in a glossy brochure seeking investment funds for BioNTech. According to the story, RNA vaccine technology is rather like buying a piece of furniture from Ikea. Each person could very soon have their own personalised cancer vaccine off the shelf. What could possibly go wrong?
The tremendously hopeful note that the story strikes is based on a lot of over simplified theory and the success (???) of the Pfizer Covid vaccine co-developed with BioNTech. It sounds reassuringly easy to design mRNA vaccines that rush to your aid and eliminate those nasty cancer cells. Ugur Sahin and Ozlem Tureci, founders of BioNTech, are pictured in white coats, they are quoted promising:
“We stimulate the immune system, do something magic, and the tumour disappears.”
Heady stuff, but the cited evidence is less than thin. A decorated cancer
researcher who was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer in 2007, then tried all his innovative ideas out on himself, and died in 2011. In 2020, 16 patients with pancreatic cancer were treated by BioNTech. Eighteen months later 8 have died and 8 are cancer free after 18 months. The details are sadly lacking. What stage were they at and how does that compare with their expected prognosis?
The missing piece of the jigsaw is the article’s lack of scrutiny of the safety of BioNTech’s only commercialised mRNA vaccine product—the Pfizer Covid vaccine. If you want to ask questions and also seek answers, you will need to turn to a completely different kind of journalism.
Igor Chudov is a mathematician (like The Times author) but he writes on Substack and is therefore not constrained by any editorial policy or any no go areas dictated by the newspaper owners, their advertisers, or subtly imposed government guidelines.
Chudov published a very different cancer story yesterday “Cancer Rates are Increasing — and May Get Much Worse. Wiped Out Immune Systems Take Time to Manifest”.
According to the article, we are seeing the first ripple of a coming storm of cancer deaths.
Chudov reports the work of the Ethical Skeptic (another Substack researcher) whose analysis of CDC figures has shown that the rate of US cancer deaths accelerated in 2021 and 2022 coinciding with the rollout of the Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA Covid vaccine and other biotech vaccines.
It is the effect size that is surprising—9 sigma. What does this mean? Well perhaps you can remember from high school maths that for a Bell curve two thirds of data points lie within one standard deviation of the mean, that is known as 1 sigma. 95% lie within two standard deviations (2 sigma) and 99.7% lie within 3 sigma.
I’m going to translate for you what the observed 9 sigma deviation from the prior pattern of cancer deaths probably implies in very simple layman terms:—
- A hugely statistically surprising number of people already infected with cancer have suffered a rapid progression of their condition to death. Covid vaccination reduced their likely longevity.
- Some people who previously had no evidence of cancer, and possibly no lifetime expectation of cancer, are falling ill and dying in the weeks and months following Covid vaccination. And it is not due to Covid infection—it didn’t happen in 2020.
Read Chudov’s article first hand. It is a long read, but well worth the effort. In addition to the US data, he looks at the official UK cancer mortality data which shows a similar increase. He also quotes another substack author A Midwestern Doctor who analyses and references in detail what it is about mRNA vaccines that causes cancer. The approach is investigative as we should expect it.
There are concerning issues that Tom Whipple, author of the fawning Times article, chooses not to address.
He failed to discuss questions that constitute the normal substance of scientific debate, but his piece was beamed around the world. We expect The Times to ask questions, but they are not. They have quietly rolled over and followed the biotech PR line. They are not alone, MSM is collectively failing the sniff test. We are being manipulated.
If you want real journalism, it is flourishing elsewhere. GLOBE and other independents are asking vital questions that few are prepared to countenance.
