Professor @TuftsMedSchool, Co-Founder @Naveris_inc. Dedicated to understanding the biological, molecular, and genetic underpinnings of cancer & prevention.
Boston, MA
Joined August 2015
- Tweets1.4K
- Following242
- Followers2.6K
- Likes925
Not quite Jeff. You are correct in that for most tissues, to go from initiation to full blown malignant transformation and overt malignancy take years.
But there are lymphomas and leukemias that can and do develop much faster. DLBCL and Burkitt lymphoma can develop and grow over the course of days, weeks, or a few months. ALL/AML likewise develops very rapidly (days to weeks).
And more generally, more than 50% of adults over age 40 harbor latent, undiagnosed cancerous or precancerous cells and lesions. Therefore, in this context, you don't need an initiating event induced by the vaccine. Rather all you would need is a rapid promoting event to drive tumor progression (or hyperprogression). And well established fast-acting promoters include inflammation, tissue injury/wound healing (which can occur at the injection site), or immune checkpoint inhibition.
And all three of these are well-established consequences induced by infection and/or vaccination against COVID....
And as for the notion that "The immune system...represent just a few bricks in a very large wall that must be built for a cancer to develop and clinically manifest." This is not true if you already have latent, occult or undiagnosed cancer cells present. In this context, the immune system may be the only thing holding tumors at bay and when when the immune system is dysregulated and inhibition is gone- the cancer is unleashed to proliferate and progress rapidly.
This is what the underlying molecular, cellular and systems-level biology shows.
Sorry, but that is not what the molecular biology underlying carcinogenesis shows.
Cancer involves some of our own cells accumulating a specific set of mutations and epigenetic changes that enable them to escape the control of the body's regulatory systems, divide uncontrollably, evade natural programmed cell death signals, generate their own blood supply, and, if metastatic, acquire the ability to spread and seed tumors in other parts of the body.
All of these "superpowers" require the right accumulation of molecular changes, which typically takes LOTS of time, along with evasion of the body's protective systems, including programmed cell death, DNA repair, immune recognition and elimination of abnormal cells, etc.
Your ideas could be considered hypotheses, but they are extremely simplistic and fail to incorporate the many well-established molecular processes underlying carcinogenesis.
It is simply not biologically plausible for a vaccine shot to initiate a new cancer that develops, clinically manifests, and progresses within weeks or months. Even some of the most potent carcinogenic exposures we know of, including asbestos and high doses of ionizing radiation, generally take years for cancers to develop and manifest. It was therefore scientifically absurd to suggest that COVID vaccines could somehow initiate and produce aggressive, clinically apparent cancers on such extraordinarily short timescales.
This is why the purest form of the "turbo cancer" hypothesis was recognized as biologically implausible by those of us who have spent our careers doing cancer research.
The immune system and various environmental exposures can certainly contribute to carcinogenesis, but they represent just a few bricks in a very large wall that must be built for a cancer to develop and clinically manifest.
it’s infections (particularly certain viruses eg. HPV, EBV etc)…. So maybe it’s time to study SarsCoV2 and its pathogen producing vaccine?? Especially since they reactivate latent EBV????
@NIHDirector_Jay @FDA @CDCgov
Scientists discover the likely cause of one in eight cancers – and it’s not smoking, diet or alcohol
independent.co.uk/news/scien…
Nothing to see here
Cancer diagnoses in England hit record high of more than 1,000 people a day
“According to the latest cancer registration statistics, more than 373,000 people were diagnosed with cancer in England in 2024, the highest figure on record. On average, NHS England diagnosed 1,021 people a day with cancer in 2024, up from 972 a day in 2023.”
theguardian.com/society/2026…
Here's the issue....the second sampling period overlapped with Germany's COVID-19 vaccination and booster campaigns. If vaccination was not measured or adjusted for, the study cannot distinguish potential vaccination-associated epigenetic changes from other exposures occurring during the same period.
And here's empirical evidence showing COVID-19 mRNA vaccination inducing a measurable systemic inflammatory transcriptional response in humans.
Notice that the second dose elicited a distinct inflammatory transcriptional program that was much more pronounced than the response to the first dose?!?
science.org/doi/10.1126/scia…
She is not "observing potential issues" -- she is strongly implying there IS an issue by saying we are "pretending" there is not.
And, yes, especially when you have ZERO empirical evidence to link the reported effects to vaccines, in that case it is important to at least propose some plausible mechanism to even lend credence to speculation.
If there is no plausible mechanism and no empirical evidence, then it is truly a "throwing spaghetti against the wall" exercise.
Nothing to see here…. we will just pretend that the vaccines have no possible impact on this either…
And we will continue with not bothering to propose hypotheses or studies to this as well.
(As a reminder- aging is the strongest risk factor associated with cancer….)
@NIH, @FDA @CDC @NIHDirector_Jay @SenRonJohnson
pnas.org/doi/epdf/10.1073/pn…
“Since Zolgensma was approved in 2019 for children under two years old with SMA, nine tumors have been reported in patients previously treated with the therapy”
“Of those, two cases to date have shown evidence of vector integration into the DNA of the patients.”
biospace.com/drug-developmen…
Charlotte Kuperwasser, PhD retweeted
“Twelve-month all-cause mortality after initial COVID-19 vaccination with Pfizer-BioNTech or mRNA-1273 among adults living in Florida: Statewide cohort study”
Now appears as peer-reviewed study in Global Epidemiology!
In closely matched cohorts of nearly 2M Moderna & Pfizer vaccinees in Florida, the latter (Pfizer) showed substantial higher all-cause, cardiac, non-COVID and COVID mortality post 1st mRNA COVID vaccine dose.
These results were robust to adjustments on pre-vaccination cardiac hospitalizations as well as SARS-CoV-2 infections.
This study adds to a growing evidence that the mRNA COVID vaccines of Moderna and Pfizer may have different non-specific effects.
Recent study “In Vivo Blood Kinetics and Transcript Integrity of Three mRNA–Lipid Nanoparticle Vaccines in Humans” @acsnano showed significant differences in systemic persistence of nano-lipids and spike mRNA between Moderna and Pfizer mRNA COVID vaccines!
@MaryanneDemasi @FLSurgeonGen
Charlotte Kuperwasser, PhD retweeted
A small biotech called chemocentryx had a failed drug trial on their hands. So they tortured the data until they got a positive result and then submitted it to the FDA. Then never told the FDA about the data manipulation.
The FDA approval lead to a lucrative exit for the manipulators to Amgen.
The story came to light only because of a discovery process triggered by an SEC lawsuit and principled FDA director
At the time : @TracyBethHoeg
The media ecosystem that’s funded by pharma ignored the story. Hoeg was later forced to leave the FDA 🤔
The drug remains on the market.
undark.org/2026/10/28/tavneo…
So @adamfeuerstein -there was no benefit in overall survival with the addition of the mRNA vaccine and “… the question about what exactly was driving the vaccine’s benefit — was it the specific targeting of the neoantigens, or was it the general immune boost that studies have suggested mRNA vaccines generally provide?”
This suggests that the immune reaction to mRNA vaccines is actually driven by the response to the LNPs and not the mRNA target…. what follows is the obvious question: What is the future of this platform and technology ?
Maybe this might explain investors’ reaction…
About the intismeran presentation at #ESMO26 $MRNA $MRK
My impression of discussant talk given by Inge Marie Svane of the University of Copenhagen was that she was positive if not overly enthusiastic about INTerpath-001.
"Measured" might be the best, single adjective.
"Brutal" is how an investor in the audience described the tone of her talk to me. (He was short Moderna, so there's that.) I disagree. Brutal is too harsh. If people were expecting Svane to jump for joy, then yes, she did not meet that expectation. To me, she played it mostly straight down the middle.
She took no position on the mRNA vaccine vs neoadjuvant debate. (Slide below)
She noted the lack of intismerna OS benefit, but said the same about neoadjuvant therapy. She also noted greater toxicity associated with neoadjuvant.
For intismeran, Svane also raised the question about what exactly was driving the vaccine’s benefit — was it the specific targeting of the neoantigens, or was it the general immune boost that studies have suggested mRNA vaccines generally provide?
Charlotte Kuperwasser, PhD retweeted
@KUPERWASSERLAB tells Kim about the incredible research funded by @findthecausebcf she is conducting in her lab by growing breast tissue and introducing toxins to determine environmental effects. See link in bio to learn more. #BreastCancer #Environment #Research @MAStateLottery
Thank you @DavidBCollum for your calling it out like it is!
Cornell FORCED Everyone to Get Vaccinated or Quit...
This Chemistry Professor Responded with this...
@DavidBCollum
These curves don’t seem as impressive as the media campaign and company press releases reported back in August 🤔
This quoted post is unavailable.
1
272
🧐
Moderna shares dropped as much as 25% on Thursday following the leak of partial data on its closely watched cancer vaccine developed with Merck.
Shares of both drugmakers fell even though the full data, released later Thursday following the leak, appeared meaningful for patients and positive relative to Wall Street expectations. cnb.cx/4i9eZoj
An important new analysis: 920 chemicals with breast cancer–relevant biological activity.
500 may be in consumer products, 462 in food, 162 in drinking water.
No one can realistically avoid 920 chemicals.
The opportunity? Prioritize what matters most and prevent exposure at the source.
doi.org/10.1021/EHP.6c00022
@SilentSpringIns @EPA @NIHDirector_Jay @NIH @EHPonline
