In brief
- A South Korean study of 8 million people reported a 27% higher overall cancer risk among the vaccinated.
- Mainstream commentators immediately dismissed the findings as methodologically flawed.
- The clash reflects a deeper problem: in today’s politicised climate, no study is ever “enough” to prove or disprove vaccine harms.
Study links COVID vaccines to increases in several cancers…or does it?
A new South Korean study linking COVID vaccines to higher cancer risk has reignited a familiar cycle: a bold claim lands, critics swarm, and the public is left none the wiser.
The study, which analysed data from more than eight million people, reported a 27% higher overall risk of cancer among vaccinated groups. Breast, prostate, thyroid, gastric, colorectal and lung cancers all showed elevated incidence.
The findings were immediately dismissed by mainstream commentators, with MedPageToday branding the one-year follow-up period “bonkers” and pointing out that the researchers did not adjust for family histories or cancer screening behaviour.
Valid criticism or gatekeeping?
That pushback may well be valid. Most cancers develop over years, not months, and vaccinated populations are more likely to interact with the healthcare system, leading to more diagnoses. But the speed and uniformity of the criticism reveals a deeper problem: in today’s politicised climate, it has become almost impossible to prove, or disprove, serious vaccine harms.
Critics always have a card to play. If a study shows a short-term signal, the follow-up is too short. If a study shows a long-term signal, too many confounding factors cloud the picture. If multiple cancer types rise together, it is deemed implausible. If just one rises, it is a statistical blip. The result is that no evidence is ever good enough to move the conversation forward.
This is not a purely scientific dynamic. Vaccines were rolled out under conditions of fear and urgency, and governments invested immense political and financial capital in promoting them. To now admit that the products might carry unexpected long-term risks would mean confronting not just a medical misstep, but a crisis of public trust on a global scale. Critics may therefore lean toward dismissal not only out of scientific caution but also from psychological self-protection.
Supporters of the South Korean findings argue that similar signals have emerged elsewhere, from Italy to Japan, and that critics cannot wave them all away forever. But even here, the problem persists. If enough studies point in the same direction, are they corroborating each other, or simply replicating the same biases across databases? Without agreement on that question, the debate never leaves first gear.
Public trust caught in the middle
For the public, the conundrum is stark. On one hand, scepticism toward preliminary research is a safeguard against panic and pseudoscience. On the other hand, blanket dismissal of inconvenient data erodes confidence that science is being practised with honesty rather than defended as dogma. When nearly 70% of the world’s population has been injected, the stakes are existential.
We cannot adjudicate the science. But we can observe how it is received. Right now, any finding that challenges the safety of the COVID vaccines is treated less as a discovery to be tested than as a political threat to be neutralised. That posture may protect institutions in the short term, but in the long run, it deepens suspicion and leaves citizens wondering whether anything they are told about the risks of vaccines or the virus itself can truly be trusted.
Loading...
