4 Independent Data Sets from 3 Countries Show COVID Vax Cancer Epidemic
Dr Nicholas Hulscher reports that FOUR independent datasets from THREE countries have now confirmed that COVID shots induced a CANCER EPIDEMIC
Hulscher lists the following;
1. U.S. government SEER cancer data (+6.4% surge in early-onset cancers since 2021)
2. CDC WONDER mortality data (138,000 excess cancer deaths since 2021)
3. South Korean study of 8.4 MILLION (increased risk of SIX major cancers)
4. Italian study of 300,000 (increased risk of THREE major cancers)
Hulscher points to several large datasets across multiple countries. In the United States, he highlights patterns in SEER cancer registry data suggesting a rise in early-onset cancers since 2021.
He also references mortality figures derived from CDC databases that indicate excess cancer deaths in recent years. Beyond the U.S., he draws attention to observational studies from South Korea and Italy involving millions of individuals, which report associations between vaccination status and increased incidence or hospitalisation for certain cancers.
The significance is not necessarily that these findings prove causation, but that they raise questions worthy of deeper investigation. They argue that large-scale global health interventions—especially those deployed rapidly—should be accompanied by equally robust, transparent, and ongoing safety monitoring.
Due to the gravity of the situation, even weak or ambiguous signals should not be dismissed outright, but explored carefully.
Big Pharma will counter that such interpretations risk overstating correlations and overlooking well-established complexities in cancer epidemiology. Cancer trends can shift for many reasons: delayed diagnoses during pandemic lockdowns, changes in screening practices, demographic shifts, and long-term lifestyle factors. From Big Pharma’s perspective, isolating a single cause—particularly one as globally ubiquitous as vaccination—is extraordinarily difficult and requires a high evidentiary bar.
Hulscher’s underlying aim is not merely to assert a conclusion, but to push for greater transparency and discussion. Whether one agrees with his interpretations or not, the call for continued examination of real-world data resonates with a broader principle: that public health decisions should remain open to re-evaluation as new evidence emerges.
In the end, the most constructive path forward may lie between dismissal and alarmism. It requires a commitment to rigorous analysis, intellectual humility, and a willingness to engage with uncomfortable questions—while maintaining the discipline to distinguish between hypothesis and proof.
References
- Nicolas Hulscher. Analyses and commentaries on post-COVID cancer trends. Available via Substack and affiliated publications (e.g., Courageous Discourse).
- National Cancer Institute. Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program.
https://seer.cancer.gov/ - Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. CDC WONDER Database (Mortality Data).
https://wonder.cdc.gov/ - Large-scale observational cohort study (South Korea, ~8.4 million participants) examining associations between COVID-19 vaccination and health outcomes. (Refer to PubMed Central database for indexed versions.)
- Italian population-based observational study (~300,000 participants) evaluating post-vaccination health outcomes, including cancer-related hospitalisation. (Refer to PubMed Central database for indexed versions.)
- National Cancer Institute. Early-Onset Cancer Rates Increasing in U.S. (2025 press release and supporting research).
https://www.cancer.gov/news-events/press-releases/2025/early-onset-cancer-rates - BMJ. Peer-reviewed articles on COVID-19 vaccine safety monitoring and pharmacovigilance.
- The Lancet. Studies on global cancer trends and impacts of pandemic-related healthcare disruption.
- World Health Organization. Global cancer statistics and pandemic impact reports.
https://www.who.int/ - UK Office for National Statistics. Cancer incidence and mortality data (UK).
https://www.ons.gov.uk/