Home(Chinese) USA VirusWe Are Not Butt Hurt Anymore !!

We Are Not Butt Hurt Anymore !!




Japanese study finds mRNA injections cause cancer

A newly published Japanese study confirms UK Professor Angus Dalgleish’s concerns about mRNA injections causing cancer.  After the findings of the study were published, Australian Professor Ian Brighthope has classified the injections as class one carcinogens.

More than a year ago, Professor Dr. Angus Dalgleish, a renowned oncologist practising in the UK, first published his concerns that his patients with melanoma were relapsing after several years of being in remission.

“I could find none of the usual causes but on further investigation, I realised that they had all had a booster covid vaccine between three weeks and three months before their cancer’s resurgence, the time in which their immune repression fails,” he wrote in The Conservative Woman on Monday.

After raising the alarm that the vaccine boosters could induce cancer relapse, he became aware of literally dozens of people who had not had cancer before developing leukaemia and lymphomas after the boosters.

In November 2022, Prof. Dalgleish wrote an open letter to the editor-in-chief of the medical journal The BMJ, urging the journal that harmful effects of Covid injections be “aired and debated immediately” because cancers and other diseases are rapidly progressing among “boosted” people.

A few weeks later, he reported that other oncologists had contacted him to say they were seeing the same phenomenon of the recurrence of cancer in many melanoma patients who had been stable for long periods.

“Since pointing this out publicly I have been contacted by many physicians and patients from all over the globe saying that they are not only seeing the same phenomenon but also an increase in other cancers especially colorectal, pancreatic, renal and ovarian,” he wrote at the beginning of this week.

Many people had covid vaccines against their will, Prof. Dalgleish said. “Others gave in to the bullying of the NHS and GPs who hounded them with texts and calls (which I myself received regularly) about the importance of having a booster even though they presented no evidence that it could be beneficial.”

Adding, “Having worked in vaccine development for a decade I remembered an adage that if a vaccine needs a booster, it doesn’t work!”

In his latest article, Prof. Dalgleish highlighted several sources of evidence that have proved his concerns to be justified.  One source being a paper from Japan published last week.

“It was available on a pre-publication server last year but now it has been peer-reviewed and published in Cureus. Titled ‘Increased age adjusted cancer mortality after the third mRNA lipid nanoparticle vaccine dose during the covid pandemic in Japan’,” he said.

In an article published on Wednesday, retired Australian medical practitioner Professor Ian Brighthope highlighted the same Japanese paper and said:

He then went on to explain what carcinogens are, the process of carcinogenicity and how carcinogens are classified before inviting readers to make up their own minds about how carcinogenic mRNA injections are based on the findings of the Japanese study.

Below are some extracts from Prof. Brighthope’s article but we encourage readers to read his informative article in full.

Carcinogens and Carcinogenicity

Carcinogens are substances, organisms or agents capable of causing cancer by altering the cellular, genetic and epigenetic mechanisms within the body, leading to the transformation of normal cells into cancer cells. These agents can be chemical substances, viruses or even certain types of radiation therapies used to treat cancer.

Carcinogens do not necessarily cause cancer in every case or under all circumstances. Factors such as the amount and duration of exposure, the individual’s genetic makeup and exposure to other environmental factors play a significant role in determining whether a person exposed to a carcinogen will ultimately develop cancer. Moreover, not all mutations caused by carcinogens lead to cancer; only certain mutations in specific genes that regulate cell growth, apoptosis, and DNA repair may result in uncontrolled cell proliferation and cancer.

The process of carcinogenicity, also known as carcinogenesis or tumour genesis, involves multiple stages where normal cells undergo a series of changes at the cellular, genetic, and epigenetic levels, resulting in abnormal cell division and the formation of cancer.

Classification of Carcinogens

Carcinogens can be classified based on their mode of action into genotoxic and non-genotoxic carcinogens. Genotoxic carcinogens directly interact with DNA and/or the cellular apparatus, affecting the integrity of the genome. Non-genotoxic carcinogens exert their effects through mechanisms that do not involve direct DNA damage.

International Agency for Research on Cancer (“IARC”) Classification

The IARC Monographs identify factors that can increase the risk of human cancer, including lifestyle factors. Interdisciplinary working groups of expert scientists review the published studies and evaluate the weight of the evidence that an agent can increase the risk of cancer. Agents are then categorised as carcinogenic, probably or possibly carcinogenic, or not carcinogenic to humans, based on the strength of the evidence.

The IARC Working Group also considers the body of evidence as a whole, to reach an overall evaluation of the carcinogenicity of the agent to humans. The categorisation of an agent into one of four groups is a matter of scientific judgment that reflects the strength of the evidence derived from studies in humans and in experimental animals and from mechanistic and other relevant data.

The four IARC groups are:

  • • Group 1: Sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity, the highest IARC classification for carcinogenicity. [Agents that are judged to fall into this category are also referred to as “class one carcinogens.”]
  • • Group 2A (probably carcinogenic to humans) or Group 2B (possibly carcinogenic to humans): Limited evidence of carcinogenicity, a positive association.
  • Group 3: Inadequate evidence of carcinogenicity.
  • Group 4: Evidence suggesting lack of carcinogenicity.

World Cancer Research Fund (“WCRF”) and American Institute for Cancer Research (“AICR”) Classification

The 2007 WCRF and AICR Food, Nutrition, Physical Activity and the Prevention of Cancer: a Global Perspective report and subsequent tumour-specific updates are based on systematic reviews of the scientific literature for food, nutrition and physical activity.

A WCRF and AICR Panel judged and graded the evidence into five categories: convincing, probable, limited (suggestive evidence), limited (no conclusion) or unlikely to affect cancer risk.

Decide for yourselves the level of carcinogenicity that characterises mRNA

After describing how carcinogens are classified, Prof. Brighthope invited readers to judge for themselves how mRNA injections should be classified by sharing the conclusion from the recently published Japanese study:

Statistically significant increases in age-adjusted mortality rates of all cancer and some specific types of cancer, namely, ovarian cancer, leukaemia, prostate, lip/oral/pharyngeal, pancreatic, and breast cancers, were observed in 2022 after two-thirds of the Japanese population had received the third or later dose of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA-LNP vaccine. These particularly marked increases in mortality rates of these ERα-sensitive [Estrogen Receptors Alpha-sensitive] cancers may be attributable to several mechanisms of the mRNA-LNP vaccination rather than covid-19 infection itself or reduced cancer care due to the lockdown.

As the title of his article stated, Prof. Brighthope classifies mRNA injections as a “class one carcinogen.”

Sources for this article include: mRNA is a class one carcinogen & a broad-spectrum mutagen, The Liberty Beacon, 18 April 2024

Previous article
Next article


    • mRNA Covid, mRNA flu, mRNA tetanus?. I know someone that had a bad reaction to the “new and improved” tetanus shot, as did I. The “new and improved” tetanus shot also wiped out fertility in young females in Kenya.



  1. All this information is extremely concerning for the future of a huge number of people, plus the world economy, society and political stability. The worst case scenarios expressed by concerned people such as Zelenko, Yeadon etc had possible very high fataility rates for the jabbed within a decade or less, if they are anywhere near even partially right those of us who refused to get this toxic jab may not be any better off than the jabbed in the long term. Disturbing times.



    • We will have nicer places to go and nicer cheaper places to stay.
      The issue will be getting there. OK internally.
      Japan and Germany have has this problem for 10 – 15 years. Too many nice buildings and no occupants.
      Thats why the female Hitler let the immigrants in. So they could fill their houses and factories with workers. Same for Bidens lot. Thay all wanted brown slaves.



  2. This based on Danny Kruger’s “reply” to Andrew Brigden’s Parliamentary speech.
    Danny Kruger reply & the Hansard link in that Utube link to then column 521 to be found on the right.
    Harms from the mRNA have been acknowledged, so why are those facts buried in ongoing debates?.

    Excess deaths and data deficit
    20 mins 48 secs : April 21, 2024 : Dr. John Campbell :

    …. We know, by all the different measures, that many more people are dying now than were before the pandemic.
    In particular, the impact on people’s hearts, and increasingly younger people’s hearts, deserves attention.
    The British Heart Foundation reported last June that since the start of the pandemic, 100,000 more people have died than would have been expected.
    That is surely significant cause for us to take this question seriously.
    We know that there are adverse effects from the vaccination.
    Everybody acknowledges that; it is a question of the extent to which those effects have been manifested. ….. …..

    So what is the assertion, the basis for “Safe & Efficacy” ?

    …. We are asking for anonymised data that poses no risk to any individuals. If the data is open and public, and the whole purpose is scientific interrogation and analysis,
    it should not be possible to misuse it.
    We need as much sunlight on that data as possible. ….

    Where is that data? that even the NZ Ministry of Health will still not anonymize, & release in its entirety for independent research, but spends on lawfare on a whistle blower, Barry Young.



Recent posts

Have Your Say

Monday Fun

Have Your Say

Recent comments

Viking on Have Your Say
Viking on Have Your Say
Sooty on Have Your Say
Nunnas on Have Your Say
waikatogirl on Have Your Say
Pinky1 on Have Your Say
nasska on Have Your Say
Ross12 on Have Your Say

Pike is our weekly review of the most popular posts and comments seen on YSB in the past week.
light rain
14.4 ° C
14.4 °
14.1 °
91 %
100 %
15 °
18 °
15 °
12 °
13 °
NZD - New Zealand Dollar