La violence envers Conversano sur Ogre

" vu la moyenne de développement du cancer du colon c'est au moins statistiquement peu probable" et non, justement !
Un phénomène n'est pas forcément centré sur son espérance, il a une dispersion qui peut être plus ou moins grande.
Allez, on va à l'école. Seulement après on pourra parler de SCIENCE sur les internets.

TG le low les experts disent le contraire. Cope harder.

"Aaghn lé esper dise l'hypoténuse c'est la circonférence de je connais pas le sens des objets mathématiques que j'utilise dans mon argumentaire cope en silens gnnn"


Je traduis pour l'authentique low qi que tu es : ce que tu dis n'a aucun putain de sens. Tu utilises des concepts que tu ne maîtrise pas. Comme un paquet de gogole toutologue du net spé zétitique.

Bordel de merde
@scipion_spqr aka concersanus avec son test adn en pls

Allons au bout de ton non dit :
Donc c'est un complot pharmaceutique de laisser des produits dangereux sur le marché ?

Déjà tu compares une censure idéologique avec de la médecine...

Hors sujet total...


Ensuite je suis persuadé que tu n'as pas cherché à vérifier les informations.

The information in the X post you referenced (ID: 2010473705844138068) is partially verified but appears exaggerated in its presentation and implications. I'll break this down step by step based on available evidence, including the review article itself, related studies, and broader scientific context. Note that while the post highlights a real peer-reviewed publication and reported disruptions to the journal's website, it frames these elements in a way that amplifies unproven causal links and speculative narratives about suppression.Verification of the Core ClaimsThe Oncotarget Review Exists and Compiles Case Reports: Yes, this is verified. A scoping review titled "COVID vaccination and post-infection cancer signals: Evaluating patterns and potential biological mechanisms" was published on January 3, 2026, in Oncotarget (Volume 17) by researchers Charlotte Kuperwasser (Tufts University School of Medicine) and Wafik S. El-Deiry (Brown University).

oncotarget.com +3

It systematically searched literature from January 2020 to October 2025, identifying 69 eligible publications (mostly case reports and small series) describing 333 cancer cases across 27 countries. Key details match the post:~50% of cases occurred within 2-4 weeks post-vaccination (some within days).
Predominantly lymphomas (about 38%), with other types like breast, lung, melanoma, sarcoma, pancreatic, glioma/glioblastoma, and leukemia.
~80% involved mRNA vaccines (Pfizer: 56%; Moderna: 25%).
Patterns included rapid progression, recurrence, or atypical presentations (e.g., tumors near injection sites).
Proposed mechanisms: Immune dysregulation from spike protein (potentially interfering with tumor suppressors like p53), persistent spike protein in tumors, or residual DNA contaminants in vaccines.

The authors emphasize this is not proof of causation—it's based on low-level evidence (case reports) meant to generate hypotheses for further study, not quantify risk or establish links.

oncotarget.com +1

They call for rigorous follow-up research (e.g., large cohort studies, histopathology, forensics).
Supporting population-level data mentioned: A South Korean cohort (8.4 million people) found associations with higher cancer risks (e.g., thyroid, gastric, colorectal, lung, breast, prostate) within 1 year post-vaccination

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

; an Italian study (300,000) noted more cancer hospitalizations in vaccinated groups

oncotarget.com

; U.S. military data (~1.3 million) showed rises in certain lymphomas post-2021.

oncotarget.com

However, these are observational and have limitations (e.g., not accounting for biases like increased medical checkups post-vaccination leading to more detections).

publichealthcollaborative.org +1

Cyberattacks on Oncotarget: This is also verified. The journal's website explicitly states that malicious cyberattacks occurred from December 2025 to January 2026, causing site disruptions and access issues.

oncotarget.com +4

These were reported to the FBI, with suspicions directed at individuals possibly linked to PubPeer (a post-publication review platform). The journal claims these attacks may have aimed to suppress discussions on vaccine-cancer signals, including manipulating search results.

oncotarget.com

However, no independent confirmation of the attackers' identities or motives is available—PubPeer has not publicly responded, and investigations are ongoing.

forbetterscience.com

Is It Exaggerated?Yes, significantly. The X post (and similar discussions on X, e.g., posts from @toobaffled
, @NicHulscher
, @_aussie17
) presents the review as "breaking" proof of a "turbo cancer" epidemic caused by vaccines, using terms like "explosive," "alarming," and "smoking gun."

This overstates the evidence:Case reports are anecdotal and prone to reporting bias (e.g., doctors more likely to publish unusual cases post-vaccination).

sciencebasedmedicine.org +1

They don't prove vaccines cause cancer—correlation isn't causation.
The South Korean study has been criticized for methodological flaws, like not adjusting for age, health-seeking behavior, or surveillance bias (vaccinated people may get more screenings, detecting preexisting cancers).

publichealthcollaborative.org +1

"Turbo cancer" is a debunked myth; no large-scale data show a vaccine-induced cancer surge.

publichealthcollaborative.org +3

Cancer typically develops over years, not weeks.
The review includes infection-related cases too, but the post focuses solely on vaccines, ignoring that COVID-19 itself can worsen cancer outcomes.

cdc.gov

Exaggerations like these have fueled viral spread on X, but mainstream critiques (e.g., from Science-Based Medicine) note they revive baseless "turbo cancer" claims without substantiation.

sciencebasedmedicine.org +1

Is It a Conspiracy Theory?Partially—elements lean into conspiracy narratives, but not entirely unfounded:The cyberattacks are real and documented by the journal, with FBI involvement.

oncotarget.com +3

However, linking them to "PubPeer-linked interference to suppress vaccine-cancer signal discussions" is speculative and unproven.

oncotarget.com +1

PubPeer is a legitimate site for scientific critique, not inherently conspiratorial.
Broader claims of global suppression (e.g., "regulators ignoring signals," "criminal cyberattacks") fit conspiracy tropes, especially in anti-vaccine circles on X.

No evidence supports coordinated efforts to hide vaccine-cancer links; instead, ongoing safety monitoring (e.g., by FDA, CDC) hasn't flagged this as a confirmed risk.

mayoclinic.org +2

Ironically, the disruptions may have amplified attention—the review went viral despite (or because of) the claims.

sciencebasedmedicine.org +1

What Is the Scientific Consensus?The consensus is that COVID-19 vaccines do not cause cancer. This is supported by major health organizations and large-scale data:No evidence from clinical trials, pharmacovigilance, or epidemiological studies links vaccines to increased cancer risk or progression.

mayoclinic.org +5

Package inserts note no carcinogenicity testing was required pre-approval, but post-market monitoring hasn't confirmed issues.

oncotarget.com

Cancer patients are at higher risk from COVID-19 itself, and vaccines reduce severe outcomes without worsening cancer.

thelancet.com +4

Some studies even suggest mRNA vaccines may enhance immunotherapy or reduce post-infection cardiac risks in cancer patients.

thelancet.com +1

Dissenting views (e.g., the Korean study) represent outliers with biases, not consensus.

publichealthcollaborative.org +1

Global Vaccine Data Network states "turbo cancer" defies biology.

contagionlive.com +1

In summary, the review is a legitimate signal-detection effort, but the post exaggerates it into proof of harm. The consensus prioritizes vaccination for at-risk groups like cancer patients, with no substantiated cancer link. If new data emerges, it could shift views, but current evidence doesn't support alarm.

Conversalope qui fait comme Rochedy en disant que l'affaire Epstein est minime. Sale pute!

Je t'ai juste chopé en flagrant délit à déblatérer n'importe quoi tout en jouant le scientifique comme un bon représentant de l'obédience zététichienne du net. Ta tentative absolument ridicule de détourner l'attention ne m'intéresse absolument pas.

Si tu veux te vacciner, grand bien te fasse, ça te regarde. Mais merci de ne pas l'imposer aux autres et je suis prêt à te donner ma dose avec grand plaisir si jamais il en manque.

extremement decevant sur le coup Rochedy, j'avais un peu de respect pour lui, pour son rôle de "penseur" qui prend de la hauteur, mais la il se trompe sur toute la ligne, et en plus il s'entete.

ca sent l'embrouille, ya deux ans il était full interdit banquaire, tricard de partout, et la il achete une barraque etc...

ca m'a l'air tres louche, je veux bien qu'il vende ses livres, mais pour etre réintegré dans le systeme il a du fournir des gages...

http:// zclhrqsnru2gyonropylgpaacyuzyexlkqs3xq574addsbfo2cgerayd.onion/

Sur Tor uniquement

Rien de plus que ça de mon côté, sur tor+brave

C'est ça.

Surtout que le type critique tout le monde du monde qu'on émet une pensée complotiste. Typiquement le tweet nauséabond qu'il a sorti sur l'affaire Epstein. Mais tu vas me faire croire qu'il croit sincèrement à la thèse officielle du suicide de Jeffrey...

ça fait ça chez tout le monde, le forum a visiblement crash ce soir malheureusement

Bordel il y a pas plus grosse critique de l'extrême-droite que d'autres personnes marginales d'extrême-droite.

La science n'est pas une entité automotrice, le golem spé pharma-OTAN

Ce n'est pas "la science" qui commercialise des médicaments et vaccins, mais l'industrie pharma, laquelle cherche le profit. Profit rapide même avec un peu de casse : beaucoup plus intéressant que pas de casse mais pas de profits

Plus de malades = plus de profits, accessoirement

ça fait ça chez tout le monde, le forum a visiblement crash ce soir malheureusement

Juste une question, la vaccination et la médecine Occidentale ont décimé la population Africaine ou bien ont au contraire créé leur explosion démographique en réduisant notamment leur mortalité infantile ? (Hélas)

Rien à voir avec la choucroute, faut juste arrêter de leur envoyer de la bouffe et d'améliorer leurs conditions de vie, si on veut éviter qu'ils se multiplient comme des putains de lapins.