The author of the post adheres to the “scientific medical commission” of the no green pass squares, born in contrast to the one created by the government to deal with the Covid pandemic.
Recently the ISS reported the news that we are facing a real one cancer “epidemic”. in our country: in 2022, in Italy, 390,700 new cancer diagnoses are estimated (in 2020 they were 376,600), 205,000 in men and 185,700 in women, with an increase of 14,100 cases in two years.
Knowing that one out of two men and one out of three women is already destined to receive a cancer diagnosis in their lifetime, the news can only alarm us further. The causes of all this are identified in the lifestyles increasingly incorrect given that 33% of adults are overweight, 10% obese, 24% smoke and sedentary people have increased from 23% in 2008 to 31% in 2021. Certainly the interruption of normal diagnostic activities, surgical interventions and therapies as a result of the pandemic has contributed to aggravate this balance, but also the forced sedentary lifestyle we have been forced to with the prolonged lockdowns has certainly not helped our physical and mental health.
We all remember the surreal scenes of the lonely runner on the seashore chased by the police or the canoeist chased by the drone and for this reason hefty fined: perhaps after two years a self-criticism by the health authorities also on the rules would be desirable.
However, there is another potential risk factor increasingly present in the scientific literature, namely the possible causal role of mRNA vaccines in the onset and/or progression of tumor forms.
The use of mRNA vaccines in the context of infectious diseases it has no precedent and there are still many unknowns in this regard, given that it is not clear from which cells of the body, after inoculation, the Spike protein is produced, how much it is produced, for how long and where it is distributed. However, it has been ascertained that the Spike protein induced by the vaccine has a pro-inflammatory action and can interact with complex biological functions of the organism, in particular by interfering with the production of cytokines, modulators of the immune system. I also point out that these products have not been tested for either genotoxicity or carcinogenicity and we know nothing of their long-term effects.
In fact, both cases of new onset and of rapid progression of already existing tumors have been published in a very short time after the inoculums, but of even greater interest are the works that investigate the possible mechanisms underlying all of this.
The subject is obviously very complex, but once again the host’s immune system would be involved which, abnormally stimulated with the repeated inoculations, would lose its efficiency. In particular, the immune surveillance against tumor cells would be altered following the decreased production of interferon, but there would also be an exaggerated production of a growth factor (TGFbeta), a substance capable of inducing, in already differentiated cells, a “regression” towards the mesenchymal state (proper state of the early stages of embryonic life), with the ability to metastasize and greater biological aggressiveness.
Certainly, as reported in this article: “We should carefully monitor the long-term consequences of these vaccines, especially when they are administered to otherwise healthy individuals” and – I add – finally open a scientific debate worthy of the name.
Unfortunately the censorship of every dissonant voice, even if authoritative, that has been recorded over the course of these two years is something unheard of that has not helped science and much less health; as written in the article in fact: “the censorship of opposing or alternative opinions and points of view can be harmful for the public, especially during crisis situations such as epidemics, which are characterized by great uncertainties, as it can lead to the loss of important points of view, information and scientific evidence”.
The title and some passages of this post have been modified by the editors, while keeping the blogger’s arguments unchanged