What Is The Evidence That Covid vaccines Cause cancers?

Written by Dr Ros Jones on October 1, 2025. Posted in Current News

Two weeks ago, Dr Aseem Malhotra was invited to speak at the Reform Party’s annual conference, a golden opportunity for speaking out against the pharmaceutical capture of the regulators, academic institutions, medical journals and most of the media, which he certainly did not squander

His full speech is available here. After a general introduction, he turned to his major concerns over the mRNA covid vaccines.

Quoting government data, he pointed out the enormous number of patients needed to vaccinate to prevent just one covid hospital admission.

He discussed the high rate of adverse events, as evidenced from Fraiman & Doshi’s paper in which they reanalysed the original mRNA drug trials and found a one in 800 risk of serious side effects, which was two to four times higher than the risk of hospitalisation for Covid-19.

He then went on to discuss the concerns over possible links to cancer from the mRNA gene-based products. He then quoted Professor Angus Dalgleish saying that he thinks:

“it is highly likely that the covid vaccines have been a significant factor in the cancers of members of the Royal Family”.

Dr Malhotra then went on to discuss other aspects of the pharmaceutical industry and the food industry, the lobbying tactics et cetera, ending with calling out the WHO and its funding links with Bill Gates, who made $500,000,000 from investments in the covid vaccines.

The audience in the main conference room were applauding loudly and cheering as he spoke.

Within hours the Health Secretary, Wes Streeting, was demanding an apology from Nigel Farage:

“It is shockingly irresponsible for Nigel Farage to give a platform to these poisonous lies,” he said. “Farage should apologise and sever all ties with this dangerous extremism.”

Very quickly, Reform’s health spokesman distanced the party by saying they didn’t agree with what he said but they support freedom of speech. Judging by the applause and cheering by rank and file members, I think they may have misread the feeling in the room.

Four days later at Prime Minister’s Question Time, labour MP Dr Simon Opher asked Sir Keir Starmer:

“Will he also join me in condemning other political parties that give a platform to people who spread false rumours about vaccination?

And our Prime Minister replied with alacrity:

“the man who wrote Reform’s health policy has made shocking and baseless claims that vaccines are linked to cancer.”

Starmer obviously doesn’t realise there is a difference between ‘vaccines’ and mRNA gene products.

Now, the BMJ has published a news item quoting doctors calling for the GMC to strike him off the register, indeed complaining that no action was taken when he previously spoke up about cardiac complications.

One doctor, Dr David Nichol, who had made the original GMC complaint was quoted saying:

“It should not have taken a false story about the king to lead to them taking action.”

Meanwhile, Conservative shadow health secretary, Stuart Andrew, commented:

“Public health should never be undermined by conspiracies. Reform UK has given a platform to baseless claims that vaccines caused cancer amongst members of the Royal Family. Nigel Farage must apologise and take responsibility for promoting such dangerous disinformation.”

Helen Morgan, Liberal Democrat health and social care spokesperson, described Reform’s platforming of Malhotra as “deluded, disrespectful and downright dangerous,”

The article also quoted a spokesperson for Cancer Research UK saying:

“There is no good evidence of a link between the covid-19 vaccine and cancer risk.”

‘Experts’ have repeatedly dismissed any links between covid vaccines and cancer.

Blood Cancer UK’s Healthcare Professional Advisory Panel, made up of specialists from across the UK, said:

“There are no controlled, large-scale studies (studies with the most robust scientific evidence) that demonstrate an increased cancer risk following covid-19 vaccination”.

This is of course correct, in that the only large scale RCTs carried out by the various manufacturers, all broke the trial protocols by unblinding the studies within a few months and gave the vaccine to the vast majority of the original placebo group, thus rendering the trials impotent to look for any long term harms such as cancer risks.

Moreover, classifying these products as vaccines allowed them to be approved with none of the animal testing for carcinogenicity (or come to that, reproductive harms), which would have been required if they had been designated ‘gene therapies’ as anticipated by both BioNTech and Moderna.

In a BMJ rapid response, it is pointed out that of course, ‘absence of evidence’ does not equate to ‘evidence of absence’, which is why it is all the more important to look seriously at what evidence does exist.

Anecdotal reports

Whilst anecdotes are never evidence, it is personal observations and case reports that are often the trigger for broader research, and covid vaccine injuries are no exception.

Professor Angus Dalgleish, Emeritus Professor of Oncology, University of London, had initially been recommending the covid vaccines to his patients and to the public as a whole, but was struck by a succession of his long-standing melanoma patients developing aggressive disease relapse, often after years in remission, and all within weeks of receiving covid booster shots.

He first published his concerns in November 2022, following which he was contacted by oncologists from around the globe confirming they had seen similar things, but very few have been prepared to speak publicly.

Bridging the gap between anecdotes and full large-scale RCTs is of course the Bradford-Hill Criteria.

Epidemiological evidence

There have been multiple reports of increasing cancer rates in 2021 onwards including in younger patients and particularly in cancers of unknown primary.

One example published by Phinance Technologies using data from the Office of National Statistics (ONS), is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Excess cancer deaths age 15-44 years (ONS data)

For the 15-44-year-old age group in 2022, the 43 percent overall rise in cancer deaths includes:

22 percent rise in breast cancer deaths, 80 percent rise in pancreatic cancer deaths for men and 60 percent for women,

colon cancers 55 percent for men 45 percent for women,

melanoma 120 percent for men and 35 percent for women,

brain cancers 35 percent for men and 12 percent for women,

cancers with no known site 60 percent for men and 55 percent for women.

The total numbers are not high because cancer in this age group is rare but that is what makes it so striking.

These individuals are typically below the age range for screening programmes and are of an age cohort likely to include young parents, adding to the human cost.

Notably, there was a sharp rise in cancer deaths of unspecified site. These were close to zero in 2020, then rose to about +32 percent in 2021 and +59 percent in 2022.

These are the rapidly spreading tumours which have already spread to multiple organs at the time of presentation. With modern imaging and tumour markers etc this has been a rare situation in recent decades.

Similar rises have been reported by Edward Dowd’s team using data from the US.

Figure 2: Yearly deaths from neoplasms as underlying cause in the US, age 15-44 years. The red dashed line shows the average from 2010 to 2019. The black dotted line shows the extrapolation of the trend from 2020 until 2022.

In Australia, the rise in cancer deaths has been even more dramatic in all age groups.

Figure 3: Cumulative excess cancer deaths in Australia from January 2015 to July 2023.

A large single centre series of pancreatic cancer patients in Japan showed a worse survival time in 2022-2023 than in 2018-2021.

Those who had received 3 or more doses of mRNA vaccine had a lower survival time than those receiving 0-2 doses and this correlated with IgG4 levels (see below). In Scotland, referrals for Prostate cancer also rose.

Figure 4: Referrals for treatment of prostate cancer by quarter in Scotland, 2018-2023.

An important peer-reviewed paper was published in April 2024 from Japan using national official data and reporting an overall increase in cancers, (in particular, leukaemia and cancers of the ovary, prostate, oropharynx, pancreas, and breast) after mass vaccination with the third dose in 2022.

The paper was later retracted in June 2024, with the following Expression Of Concern appearing on the Cureus website:

“The Editors-in-Chief have been made aware of several concerns regarding the scientific credibility of this article. A comprehensive post-publication editorial review is being conducted to determine if any action is required.”

No further explanation has been published some 15 months later. The article is still visible for all to read and make their own critical analysis. ** See STOP PRESS below **

Basic science

There have now been numerous publications describing mechanisms whereby oncogenesis might be enhanced.

IgG subclasses: many researchers have demonstrated a change after the second or third dose to producing predominantly IgG4 rather than IgG2, and this change has also been demonstrated in children.

IgG4 is a so-called ‘tolerising antibody’, and part of the body’s mechanism for tolerating, for example, foreign proteins in food. As described above, higher IgG4 levels were associated with a worse prognosis in pancreatic cancer.

Impaired T-cell function: T-cells are pivotal in recognising and removal of the occasional potentially cancerous cells which our bodies frequently produce. This is one aspect of immune function which tends to wane with advancing age, hence the usually older demographic for cancer deaths.

There have been several prospective ‘before and after’ studies showing reduced T-cell function following booster mRNA vaccines.

DNA contamination: there have now been multiple researchers showing excessive DNA contamination in both Pfizer and Moderna shots, well above permitted levels. This is related to so-called Process 2 production, the system of inserting the required spike protein section of DNA into EColi bacteria which can then produce at scale, ie as required for mass production.

This is not the synthetic ‘Process 1’ method used for all the pre marketing drug trials. Amongst other things, this DNA includes ‘promoter’ fragments from simian virus SV40, a virus which in its whole form is oncogenic.

The literature on this has been summarised in a letter and lay summary from the NORTH group sent to Prime Ministers of 27 countries and another report on this topic has been published only this month.

DNA incorporation: it was repeatedly claimed that residual DNA was harmless and neither that nor the mRNA could in any way be incorporated into the recipient‘s own DNA. However in vitro and animal studies have certainly shown this.

A preprint paper reported last week on a 31-year-old young woman with Stage-IV bladder cancer. Within her circulating tumour DNA, they found a section of genetic material which matched perfectly to a sequence from the Pfizer vaccine.

In their conclusion the authors state:

“This sentinel case report provides the first documented evidence of genomic integration of mRNA vaccine-derived genetic material in a human subject….While causality cannot be established from a single case…it represents a highly unusual and biologically plausible pattern.

These findings highlight an urgent need for systematic genomic surveillance, orthogonal validation with long-read sequencing, and larger cohort studies to rigorously define the impact of synthetic mRNA vaccine platforms on genome integrity and cancer risk.”

Lack of biodistribution and pharmacokinetic studies: limited animal biodistribution studies were carried out prior to human studies commencing, and these were withheld from the public.

Lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) were shown to be concentrated in liver, spleen, adrenals and ovaries and present in all organs studied (see Table 4-2). However these studies did not include their mRNA payload and thus there was no information at time of approval and mass rollout as to how long mRNA might persist and hence for how long and where spike protein would continue to be produced.

Independent researchers have shown spike protein persisting for weeks, months or in one paper years,after injection.

Pathological studies: these have been shamefully lacking and the pioneering work by the late Professor Arne Burkhardt has not been taken up by pathology departments elsewhere.

In his department a simple histochemistry method has revealed spike protein of vaccine origin in numerous tissues including surgical cancer specimens as well as post mortem cardiac tissues.

A full Atlas of Histology has been published in his memory.

Other mechanisms: the above and many other possible mechanisms have been reviewed here, and are covered in a recent paper describing no less than 17 possible mechanisms.

Summary

Dr Malhotra’s remarks at the Reform Party annual conference highlighted concerns raised by many doctors and scientists across the world. Calls for a moratorium on the mRNA technology have been voiced by the People’s Vaccine Inquiry group in the UK and subsequently by signatories on the HOPE accord.

More recently, health professions and scientists from across 27 nations in the NORTH group, have written to their Heads of State with similar demands.

The latest is a call in Japan, where Professor Masanori Fukushima and colleagues have published a detailed summary of all the harms observed, which they have presented to their national regulatory authority.

Demands for GMC referral ignore that the GMC’s Good Medical Practice guidance specifically requires doctors to, “Act promptly if you think that patient safety or dignity may be seriously compromised.”

These are not just fringe views of conspiracy theorists. The authors and signatures on all these documents have nothing to gain and only the potential loss of their medical licence or their university position, simply for speaking out.

Moreover, this information is not new. Professor Angus Dalgleish was reporting rises back in 2022 and others even before that. HART reviewed the available information back in May 2024.

As we said then:

“The denial of the rise in cancer deaths by ministers in the Health Department is a denial of reality. No statistical knowledge is required to see the problem. Would there be such a failure to acknowledge reality if there wasn’t an accompanying fear that they know the cause for this?”

STOP PRESS:

1-year risks of cancers associated with COVID-19 vaccination: a large population-based cohort study in South Korea. Kim H, Kim MH, Choi M et al. 26th Sept 2025.

Linked national data from South Korea has shown a significant rise in multiple cancers comparing vaccinated to the unvaccinated.

The steepest increase was for the over 75s but an increase was seen in younger age groups too. Overall cancer rates were up by around 30 percent, with significant increases in thyroid, gastric, colorectal, lung, breast and prostate cancers.

Withdrawal of these products is long overdue.

See more here substack.com

Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Expose The Lies About Covid 19

PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.