Studies Needed on the Oncogenic Potential of COVID-19 Vaccinations
Fact Checkers deny it but present no new data. We're doing Science - and taking deep dive into the question of plausibility using molecular evidence using Systems Biology
There has been some discussion on the oncogenic potential of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination - the ability of exposure to COVID-19 vaccines to increase the risk of cancers.
This study area is obviously high priority given the disease burden that could result from mass exposures. To assess plausibility, mechanisms of action (disease pathophysiology) studies are needed.
A little background, and some detail on our project:
Autoimmunity or other molecular antagonism against important cellular processes can lead to cancer. Disruption of processes that mediate DNA replication and repair, for example, or regulate cell division can be oncogenic. Given the importance of immune surveillance in our bodies against new precancerous cells, autoimmunologic impairment of the immune proteins and cells would not only spell disaster for infections, but could also lead to unchecked cancer growth.
The evidence in support of these possibilities is diverse, but hard evidence is difficult to find.
In my April 2020 paper warning against pathogenic priming, I wrote:
“Remarkably, over 1/3 (11/27) of the immunogenic proteins in SARS-CoV-2 have potentially problematic homology to proteins that are key to the human adaptive immune system (emboldened in Table 1). Mapping of the overall gene list to Pathways via Reactome.org revealed that many functions of the human adaptive immune system might be impacted via autoimmunity against these proteins and their interactors, including MCH(sic) Class I and Class II antigen presentation, PD-1 signaling, cross-presentation of soluble exogenous antigens and the ER-Phagosome pathway."
This sounds like an argument for vaccination, but it’s not. Subclinical mumps, measles and pertussis infections are well established in the vaccinated. Similarly, following vaccination, the repeated exposure to SARS-CoV-2 virus in the vaccinated might lead to silent, subclinical disease processes due to SARS-CoV-2 virus infection in spite of - or because of - vaccination. These chronic exposures may be more prevalent in the vaccinated than in those with natural immunity. Thus, the question is not merely “does vaccination increase the risk of cancer”, but is better posed as “does repeated exposure to SARS-CoV-2 infections in the vaccinated lead to increased risk of cancer”?.
Dr. Ryan Cole’s Observations
While pooh-poohed by so-called “Fact Checkers”, Dr. Ryan Cole of Idaho saw and in Aug, 2021 reported an uptick in uterine cancers in women who had been vaccinated.
Dr. Cole reported that he was seeing increases is herpes virus, mononucleosis, shingles, human papillomavirus, and uterine cancers.
Dr. Burkhardt reported that 93% of post-inoculation autopsies showed lymphocyte penetration in all organs and tissues, and Dr. Bhakdi commented on autopsy findings that cells in the lymph nodes being destroyed following vaccination.
Publications providing evidence of immune impairment
A number of publications support plausibility, and some have been dismissed without new evidence by so-called “Fact Checkers”. Important, the loss of CD8 cells in long-haul COVID was noted by Dr. Bruce Patterson (who I interview on Unbreaking Science on Jan 31, 2020). These are the natural killer cells Dr. Cole was concerned about.
We know that yes, loss of CD8 cells are associated with increased risk of cancer.
is cited by these authors from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, who wrote:
“For instance, SARS CoV-2 proteins, can hijack the human immune response to pathogens and the DNA damage repair system, thereby damaging both innate and adaptive immunity”
The fact-checkers claim that Dr. Cole is mistaken, yet there it is.
Increase in All-Cause Mortality in the UK and Indiana
What We Should Expect in the Molecular and Epidemiologic Evidence
If vaccination sets forth a cascade of events that leads to increased cancer risk in the vaccinated, we should see biological pathways related to the specific cancer types being reported as elevated, including blood cancers and per Dr. Cole, uterine cancers.
In the epidemiologic data, there should be a pulse in the risk of cancer types that is not explained by the increased risk of cancer progression due to the cessation of cancer screening visits that occurred during the lockdown. Unlike the temporary pulse from lock-down related cancers, we should see a sustained increased in cancer rates over time in the vaccinated compared to the unvaccinated. This aspect of this question is not part of the current study, but will be part of another study we will launch later this year.
IPAK SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein Oncogenic Potential Study
Most of the people vaccinated in the US received spike-only vaccines. Here’s what we intend to do
Using the known and published immunogenic epitopes in the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, identity homologies (similarities) with known oncogenic proteins that could lead to autoimmunity against key cancer-related proteins. For this, we’ll canvas the Human Protein Atlas for genes which if mutated confer cancer risk and use the methodology laid out in (Lyons-Weiler, 2020).
Using pathway analyses, we will characterize which biological pathways are likely to be most influenced.
We will write the results up for peer-reviewed publication.
Our preliminary analysis tells us so far that yes, there appear to be impacted biological pathways (preliminary data):
Obviously, I hope this hypothesis is wrong, so we will attempt to disprove it via statistical hypothesis testing using gene enrichment analysis, a statistical technique conducted at the biological pathway level.
All of our studies are funded by the public. We have set up a dedicated donation portal for small monthly donations to IPAK, The Institute for Pure and Applied Knowledge, a not-for-profit in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, dedicated to this project. Funds used underwrite the costs of the study as well as any publication fees if we opt for open-access publication (an added step that we prefer to increase distribution).
All knowledge generated by IPAK via research is public domain - none of the knowledge can be used by IPAK for profitable ventures.
So, let’s see whether the hypothesis of increased oncogenic potential is plausible.