As Slay News reported, the study, published in the Cureus journal, found that the risk of dying from cancer dramatically increased each time a patient received an mRNA injection.
The paper for the study is titled: “Increased Age-Adjusted Cancer Mortality After the Third mRNA-Lipid Nanoparticle Vaccine Dose During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Japan.”
The study was conducted by world-renowned Japanese experts specializing in cardiovascular medicine and cancer research.
However, Cureus has now retracted the study after it sent shockwaves through the scientific community.
In a notice on its website, the journal said:
“Upon post-publication review, it has been determined that the correlation between mortality rates and vaccination status cannot be proven with the data presented in this article.”
This invalidated the results, prompting the retraction, the journal claims.
However, the journal only decided to retract the study after it was attacked by one of Facebook’s so-called “fact-checkers.”
Denis Rancourt, Ph.D., all-cause mortality researcher and former physics professor at the University of Ottawa in Canada, blasted the journal over the move.
Rancourt, who also has published in Cureus, slammed the retraction as “baseless” in a post on X.
“Showing data in support of vaccine-induced cancer is not allowed: burn it,” he wrote.
Other scientists also expressed frustration with the retraction.
“Unfortunately, one more scientific study that challenges the established narrative gets retracted,” Panagis Polykretis, Ph.D., a researcher at Italy’s Institute of Applied Physics at the National Research Council said in a statement.
“One more outrageous and unjustified example of censorship takes place!”
The study, published in April, analyzed official Japanese government statistics.
The researchers compared age-adjusted cancer mortality rates during the COVID-19 pandemic (2020-2022) with pre-pandemic rates.
The researchers found a 2.1% mortality increase in 2021 and a 9.6% increase in 2022.
They determined that age-adjusted death rates for leukemia, breast, pancreatic, and lip/oral/pharyngeal cancers increased significantly in 2022.
The study notes that cancer rates surged after a large portion of the Japanese population had received the third dose of a Covid mRNA shot.
Overall, they found no significant cancer-related excess mortality in 2020.
However, there a 1.1% increase in 2021 after the rollout of the first and second vaccine doses.
This continued to rise to a 2.1% increase in 2022.
Mortality for some cancers increased by as much as 9.7%, according to the study.
The paper also discussed possible mechanisms by which multiple mRNA vaccines could influence cancer rates and called for further research into the issue.
According to John Campbell, Ph.D., who discussed the study on his YouTube show, the findings suggested the vaccines may be accelerating cancer deaths in patients with preexisting tumors.
The paper went through a “rigorous peer review process” before Cureus accepted the paper on April 8, according to Polykretis, who detailed the retraction saga on his Substack.
Less than a month after the paper’s publication, a “fact check” was conducted on the study by one of Facebook’s “fact-checkers.”
However, while the study was flagged as being false, the so-called “fact check” actually targeted a social media post that cited the paper.
The post that was “fact-checked” was a link to a fake news story that cited the study but added false claims to sensationalize it.
Instead of simply reporting on the bombshell findings in the study, the article made false claims that Japan had “declared a national emergency over the explosion of cancer cases across the country caused by the mRNA vaccines.”
This was completely false, however.
The Japanese government took no action in response to the study.
The article also made the false claim that the study linked “increases in aggressive forms of turbo cancers in the country” to Covid shots.
However, the study made no mention of “turbo cancers.”
The Facebook “fact check,” conducted by Reuters used these false claims to assert that the study itself was “false.”
The “fact check” called the analysis “flawed” and stated the paper offered no proof of “turbo cancers” — a claim the study authors don’t make.
It continued by stating the study “assumes without evidence that vaccines are the cause of the cancer death rates they observe.”
It’s important to note that the “fact check” was not written by a doctor or a scientist, despite their attempts to overrule the top Japanese researchers.
So-called “fact-checkers” are almost always failed journalists who are not able to pursue a career in journalism so, instead, resort to attacking others.
Despite the unreliability of the discredited “fact check,” Cureus responded by pulling the study.
On June 12, Graham Parker-Finger, director of publishing for the Cureus Journal of Medical Science, notified the authors about concerns with their paper.
According to Polykretis, Parker-Finger cited the Facebook “fact check.”
An “expression of concern” was posted that same day and about a month later the journal retracted the article.
The article has been viewed over 287,000 times.
Polykretis asked, since when does a scientific journal’s editorial board judge scientific studies “on the basis of a poorly written, not backed by scientific data and not peer-reviewed fact-checking” article?
M. Nathaniel Mead is co-author of the first peer-reviewed paper to provide an extensive analysis of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine trial data and post-injection injuries.
Mead, whose article also was printed and then retracted by Cureus, described this latest retraction as “unfortunate but also quite revealing.”
In a statement, Mead said:
“The Gibo et al. retraction makes it official: Even though Cureus has now published many counter-establishment narrative papers related to adverse events, it is clearly ‘unsafe’ for any authors presenting papers that expose the likely mortality risk of these gene-based prodrugs.
“As you will recall, our comprehensive ‘Lessons Learned’ review and analysis also was heavily focused on the mortality aspect. So that’s where Springer-Nature seems to be drawing the line — after they accept the paper.
“Scientists seeking to publish on mortality-related aspects of the Covid mod mRNA injections obviously need to be extra cautious when considering their publishing options. These weaponized, predatory retractions will likely continue for as long as these products remain on the market.”
Following a backlash over the retraction and allegations of censorship, Parker-Finger responded by issuing a statement that said:
“Concerns were raised following publication, so we undertook a post-publication review, in line with good publishing practice, which led us to conclude that retraction was warranted for the reasons outlined in the retraction note.”
