Table of Contents
Miss Information
NZDSOS
Publication Fraud and Censorship
Fraudulent journal publications played a significant propaganda role during the height of the pandemic. Two of the biggest frauds, the Together Trial and the Principle Trial, attempted to discredit ivermectin as an effective treatment against Covid. Perhaps the granddaddy remains the Surgisphere scandal, where the Lancet and New England Journal had to carry out humiliating retractions of a giant scam to smear hydroxychloroquine.
These frauds barely made the news, however, and much of the mud thrown at cheap, low-risk repurposed Covid treatments sadly still sticks today. We have written other articles on the subject of research and publication fraud, for example in June 2022, August 2022, January 2023, February 2023 and September 2023.
The Disinformation Playbook outlines the most common tactics used by the pharmaceutical industry to protect corporate profit. Intensive care physician and eminent Covid-19 and mRNA injury expert Dr Pierre Kory has explained the Disinformation Playbook in many interviews, for example with Dr Paul Thomas at Children’s Health Defense in April 2025.
As well as publishing fraudulent research to market new and expensive products, or to discredit established treatments with expired patents, another tactic is weaponised censorship. This tactic is intensifying as research that challenges lucrative interests in mRNA and other gene therapy technologies continues to proliferate from credible sources. Systems using public-private partnerships reliant on fraud for maximum profit and power need to silence authentic research which threatens to expose the deceit and destroy profit margins.
Systematic Review Links Covid Infection and Covid Vaccines With Cancer
The first systematic review to consolidate and analyse the entire published research reporting on temporal links between cancer and Covid-19 infections and/or Covid-19 vaccinations was published on 3 January 2026. The following day, it became the latest apparent casualty of a weaponised censorship campaign attempting to suppress the scientific process.
The Authors
Eminent scientists Dr Wafik El-Deiry and Dr Charlotte Kuperwasser are each internationally recognised cancer researchers. Physician-scientist Dr El-Deiry practices as a clinical oncologist and runs a cancer research laboratory at Brown University, Rhode Island. He has been researching cancer related genes including P53 (the “guardian of the genome”) since at least 1992 and has over 109,000 citations in academic literature.
Dr Kuperwasser is a distinguished professor at Tufts University in Boston, also running her own research laboratory. She specialises in mammary gland biology, breast cancer and prevention. She has over 18,500 academic citations.
On 3 January 2026 Oncotarget published a systematic review, co-authored by Dr El-Deiry and Dr Kuperwasser. Dr El-Deiry has been editor-in-chief of Oncotarget since June 2024. He was appointed just months prior to the journal’s founding Editor-in-Chief Dr Mikhail Blagosklonny died from metastatic lung cancer.
The article contains disclosures in both the conflicts of interest and editorial note of Dr El-Deiry’s position and that he had no involvement in the publication peer review or decision making process. This meets standard recommendations for peer review.
The Systematic Review
The systematic review, Covid vaccination and post-infection cancer signals: Evaluating patterns and potential biological mechanisms, identified 69 peer-reviewed publications from 27 countries, published between January 2020 and October 2025. It covered 66 case reports involving 333 individual cancer cases; a population level study from Italy involving 300,000 people; a population level study from Korea involving 8.4 million people; and a longitudinal analysis of 1.3 million US military personnel.
Case Reports Reviewed
Encompassing a wide geographic distribution, the literature indicates that cancer related events following Covid infection and/or vaccination are being observed internationally and across diverse clinical settings. Both infection and vaccination are documented, but the majority of exposures are post-vaccination. The authors acknowledge that this is potentially due to reporting patterns rather than risk, acknowledging the lack of data available to determine the difference between cancer risks associated with infection versus vaccination.
Vaccination platforms included in the review consisted of mRNA (86 per cent), adenovirus vector (10.1 per cent) and inactivated vaccines (3.7 per cent). These proportions appear to mirror global vaccination practices rather than representing variant biological risks.
A wide range of cancer types and clinical spectrums are described. Approximately 43 per cent of publications reported on lymphomas and leukaemias and approximately 41 per cent reported on solid tumours, across a wide spectrum “including melanoma, breast cancer, lung cancer, glioblastoma and other glial tumors, sarcomas, and various organ-specific carcinomas, such as pancreatic cancer”.
Multiple reports describe atypical presentations, including rapid onset, short-latency recurrence and aggressive progression. A subset of reports describe cancers forming around the injection site, including in the deltoid area, axilla and draining lymphatic basins. Others describe virus-associated malignancies such as Kaposi’s Sarcoma and EBV-positive lymphomas. Most reports describe new disease, or activated subclinical disease, with a small subset describing recurrence, progression or metastatic reactivation in patients with a documented cancer history. Specific tumour types were not delineated in the three population level reports.
Time between vaccination and cancer diagnosis was as brief as two to four weeks in about half of the reports, with some cases as early as seven days. The authors note that shorter intervals are more likely to be recognised and published, which may affect this data pattern. A wide interval range of up to and beyond eight months was observed in the remaining reports.
Many of the cancer events occurred after multiple doses, suggesting increased risk with cumulative exposure. El-Deiry and Kuperwasser describe the observations of cumulative exposure as “descriptive and hypothesis-generating”, underscoring the need for further, rigorous research before drawing conclusions.
Population Level Studies Reviewed
The three population-level studies included in the review offer an epidemiological analysis to complement the case-based studies.
A study of 8.4 million people in the South Korean National Health Insurance Service database identified statistically significant associations between Covid vaccination and six cancers. These are reported as Hazard Ratios (HR), indicating higher chance of the specific cancer occurring in the vaccinated group vs the unvaccinated group, with one being no difference; and any number above one indicating the percentage increase.
Thyroid cancer had a hazard ratio of 1.35 meaning the vaccinated were 35 per cent more likely to develop thyroid cancer. The other hazard ratios were gastric cancer HR 1.34; colorectal cancer HR 1.28, lung cancer HR 1.53, breast cancer HR 1.2, and prostate cancer HR 1.69. Despite adjustment for measured confounders, the Korean authors concluded an epidemiologic association warranting further study rather than concluding a causal relationship.
Researchers in Italy studied almost 300,000 residents in the Pescara province, followed retrospectively from June 2021 to December 2023. They found a modestly increased risk for cancer following vaccination but identified study limitations, including a number of biases, and characterised their findings as “preliminary and hypothesis-generating rather than evidence of vaccine-induced cancer risk”.
The third epidemiological study looked at incidence rates of lymphoma reported in the US Defense Medical Surveillance System (DMSS) from 2017–2020. A ~50 per cent increase in Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma and a persistently elevated incidence of T/NK-cell lymphomas was observed during the Covid-19 infection and vaccine mandate period. The analysis was not designed to establish causality and a number of possible confounders are noted, including potential changes to diagnostic practices and healthcare access. Nevertheless, these trends observed in a highly structured population offer a framework for future investigation.
Taken together, these population-level analyses combined with the case-based literature indicate that a cancer signal warrants further prospective evaluation to determine whether Covid-19 vaccination confers any measurable cancer risk or merely reflects surveillance and reporting biases.
Expanded Discussion and Conclusion
El-Deiry and Kuperwasser discuss potential mechanisms linking Covid infection or vaccination to cancer. They briefly outline the various viruses with causal links to cancer and known mechanisms, which largely relates to viral proteins targeting tumour supressor proteins, in turn activating oncogenic signals.
They then describe the various potentially oncogenic properties of mRNA vaccines, including the spike protein itself as well as frameshifted protein products, lipid nanoparticles and residual DNA. Three biologically plausible mechanisms offering a potential vaccine-cancer link are discussed in detail: immune dysregulation, spike protein biology and DNA contamination.
Profound gaps in knowledge of the interactions between mRNA products and biological pathways in the host are identified and discussed. These knowledge gaps include cellular and immunologic mechanisms, host susceptibility and biodistribution, population and epidemiology, and alternative strategies.
Significant study limitations are also acknowledged and discussed. Whilst the systematic review provides a useful early signal detection, the authors are clear that causal link between Covid vaccines and cancer cannot be concluded.
Lack of informed consent and other ethical considerations are discussed in detail. These include inadequate safety and monitoring evaluations which would have required rigorous processes had these products been defined by the regulators as gene therapies instead of vaccines. Further research is required to allow adequate risk:benefit analysis given cancer susceptibility differences between individuals.
The authors conclude that whilst a biologically plausible connection between Covid vaccines and cancer is supported by the emergent literature, further studies are required “to distinguish coincidence from causality”. Under normal circumstances this would have been investigated during the clinical trials. But these products were not investigated for carcinogenicity at all.
In September 2025, Dr Kuperwasser and Dr El-Deiry gave this 13-minute presentation to the Advisory Committee on Immunisation Practices, on Safety Uncertainties of mRNA Vaccines.
Censorship by Cyberattack
Whilst discussing potential mechanisms linking cancer with covid-19 infection and/or vaccination, El-Deiry and Kuperwasser make no claim of causality. Instead they call for more comprehensive integrated scientific investigations to allow for “deeper insight into the fundamental links between immunity, infection, and cancer emergence”.
On 4 January 2026, a day after the article was published, Dr El-Deiry reported that his journal Oncotarget had experienced a distributed denial of service (DDOS), defined as “a malicious attempt to disrupt the normal traffic of a targeted server, service or network by overwhelming the target or its surrounding infrastructure with a flood of Internet traffic”. As stated by National Security Agency Director Averil Haines at Event 201 in 2019, a tactic of propaganda is to “flood the zone with a trusted source” to block “disinformation”.
The article was unable to be added to the live journal index, essentially blocking it from public view. Dr El-Deiry immediately made it available via an independent link. Consistent with his conservative and cautious tone, El-Deiry gives more thoughtful and calm comments to the FranceSoir news site, although reading between the lines one senses his frustration.
Oncotarget report that a series of malicious cyberattacks are suspected to be the activity of individuals associated with PubPeer, an online “journal club”. Established in 2012, PubPeer claims that anonymous “post-peer publication review” protects contributors from “fear of retaliation”. Nicknamed PubSmear, it is accused of serving the interests of Big Pharma by smearing research which goes against corporate interests.
Other seminal papers pointing to significant harms from mRNA Covid vaccines have been removed or retracted, either with no reason given by the editors or on some flimsy ground strongly disputed by the authors. It is a convention that genuinely flawed papers are retracted by the authors themselves if possible. Mistakes and misunderstandings (and, yes – deliberate fraud) do happen in science and it is in everyone’s interest that due process is followed to repair the damage. However, burying correct but highly inconvenient research clearly has cost lives, and important papers illuminating the jab-cancer connection have been attacked.
For example, Dr Kevin McKernan discusses attempts here to get his group’s DNA contamination paper retracted by “investor funded” hit squads PubSmear and Retraction Watch. This same genomics expert gave a presentation – behind closed doors but he reproduces it here – to NZ’s Royal Commission, labelling the government’s Covid response as highly carcinogenic. The nonsense attacks he and others endure as they close in on one likely cause of the upshoot in cancer since 2021 is covered at his blog here.
Although writing here mainly about censorship of links to cancer, NZDSOS notes that some of the molecular mechanisms implicated – for example, inflammation, mitochondrial destruction and distorted immune responses – are common to many of the other serious adverse effects. Mead et al wrote a powerful review which was retracted by the journal platform Springer Cureus (discussed here). The paper was later published elsewhere in two parts, here and here.
The carcinogenic risks of these vaccines have been spoken about repeatedly – and repeatedly ignored – by vaccinologist/oncologist Professor Angus Dalgleish. See Professor Dalgleish’s presentation at the 2024 NZDSOS conference on our Rumble channel.
The bottom line – it’s not just happening on social media and mainstream media, but also in the high impact medical journals that our medical community rely upon. Inconvenient science is being heavily censored to protect profits. All at the expense of population health.
This article was originally published by New Zealand Doctors Speaking Out With Science.
