Breastfeeding helps prevent cancer

Scientists just discovered something incredible about breastfeeding...

And it explains so much about why they've been pushing formula on new mothers for decades.

Turns out...

When you breastfeed...

Your body creates specialized immune cells called CD8+ T cells.

These tiny cells stay in your breast tissue for decades...

Patrolling...

Searching...

Destroying abnormal cells before they can turn cancerous.

The research is stunning.

Women with these cells had dramatically better long-term outcomes.

The protective effects last for years after you stop nursing.

And here's what really got me...

They found that the optimal duration is six months or more of breastfeeding.

Six months.

To activate a defense system that protects you for decades.

This isn't just about feeding babies anymore...

This is about mothers receiving a gift from the natural process of being a mother. 

A natural armor that forms while we're nourishing our children.

The study looked at over a thousand women...

And the results were paradigm-shifting.

But here's what nobody's talking about...

Why are more young women being diagnosed with cancer?

Could it be because fewer women are breastfeeding?

Or because they're having children later?

Or both?

The mainstream narrative has always been "breast is best for baby"...

But they conveniently left out the part where it could save YOUR life too.

Watch the breakdown of this groundbreaking research here →

This changes everything about how we understand women's health and immunity.

Standing for mothers everywhere,
Nadia Willis

P.S. If you breastfed your babies... your body is still protecting you right now with those special cells. How incredible is that?

And if you didn’t, it’s not your fault. The mainstream used to tell us that formula was “safe and effective,” but we’ve since learned that we can’t trust them. 

I personally struggled breastfeeding my first son because I had to have an emergency C-section, which sometimes makes it challenging for a mother’s milk to come in naturally. 

But I am thankful I was able to breastfeed as much as I could in combination with giving him formula.

And I recognize there are special circumstances that prevent some mothers from being able to breastfeed at all, so there’s no reason to feel bad if that’s what happened to you

BBC has shown left-wing ideological bias

The BBC is living in cloud cuckoo land, Matt Goodwin says. 

Listing various topics on which the BBC has shown left-wing ideological bias, he demonstrates that, far from others, who are not immersed in the BBC groupthink, disseminating misinformation, it is the BBC which is the purveyor of disinformation – so much so that the BBC exemplifies what disinformation is.

The BBC is in Cloud Cuckoo Land

By Matt Goodwin, 10 November 2025

“Breaking … the BBC”.

Yesterday, shockingly, Tim Davie, Director-General of the British Broadcasting Corporation, resigned amid evidence of blatant bias at the BBC.  It is the most significant crisis in the history of the BBC.

His resignation, alongside the resignation of Deborah Turness, Chief Executive of BBC News, comes against the backdrop of a string of bombshell revelations that have revealed strong left-wing bias in a taxpayer-funded organisation that is supposed to be ideologically impartial.

They include, most damningly, a doctored clip of a speech by President Trump, which was edited in a way to make President Trump look like he was inciting a violent insurrection when, in fact, he was doing no such thing.

Just think about that for a moment. The taxpayer-funded BBC doctoring footage to make it look like the President of the United States of America was saying something he was not.

The BBC Panorama programme, which aired the clip, deliberately misled viewers in a way that would have made the Kremlin or North Korea proud.

Can you imagine, for a moment, how the BBC itself would have responded had it found, say, Fox News or Russia splicing speeches by Keir Starmer?

The same organisation, in other words, that routinely accuses people who simply hold different views of “misinformation” is now imploding because it has been caught spreading … misinformation.

And this is not just about Donald Trump.  Far from it.

As a leaked memo, written by an independent advisor to the BBC’s editorial and standards committee, and published in the Daily Telegraph, makes clear, this bias is also visible on many other issues, where the BBC has similarly thrown impartiality to the wind and imposed a narrow liberal progressive [i.e. left-wing] worldview on everybody else:

• The BBC minimising Israeli suffering and consistently portraying Israel in a negative light.

• The BBC relying on Hamas-dominated agencies for news and information.

• The BBC Arabic outfit featuring journalists who are blatantly biased against Israel, and who have openly celebrated terrorists.

• The BBC “LGBTQ desk” effectively censoring coverage of the trans debate by declining to cover stories that raise ‘difficult questions’ about the transgender dogma that permeates the organisation.

• The BBC “fact-checking” unit, BBC Verify, trying to suggest that car insurance companies are “racist” when there was a glaring lack of evidence for the claim.

• The BBC relying on left-wing sources such as the Trades Union Congress to push a story that suggested ethnic minority workers were more at risk of ‘insecure jobs’ when a range of other contributing factors were completely ignored.

• The BBC excessively pushing one opinion poll, which suggested, wrongly as it happens, that Kamala Harris might defeat Donald Trump in the race for the White House.

• And the BBC’s “push notifications” service displaying a glaring lack of balance on immigration, which also happens to be the most important issue in the country.

In September 2023, for example, of the 219 push notifications the BBC sent out, just 4 were about illegal migrants and asylum seekers – and 3 of those focused on the “poor conditions” that allegedly face people who are breaking our laws.

Astonishingly, the BBC push notification system even ignored the fact that the same month saw the highest number of illegal migrants entering Britain on a single day. This, apparently, was not considered newsworthy in BBC Towers.

To be honest, I’m not surprised by the findings. Are you?

The only surprising thing is the extent to which people in the BBC are surprised and how hard they are currently working – even now – to peddle a narrative that chimes with their groupthink and lets them, and their entire organisation, off the hook.

Over the last 24 hours or so, in one unhinged outburst after another, BBC staff and their allies in legacy media – think Nick Robinson, Emily Maitlis, Adam Boulton, Lewis Goodall, among countless others – have flocked to social media to denounce all this as “an attack on the BBC.”

They tell us “it’s a coup.” It’s “the right-wing.” It’s “a political campaign against the BBC.” It’s “Boris Johnson.” It’s “the Telegraph.” It’s Robbie Gibb” – former advisor to Theresa May who now sits on the BBC board.

They say, in short, it’s everybody and anybody except the very people who are imposing this bias on the British people and then calling it “news” or “fact-checking.”

What you are witnessing here is an entire generation of Boomer journalists realising that the taxpaying citizens who pay their salaries will no longer allow them to impose their soft left views on the rest of the country – and they really don’t like it.

The same ones, by the way, who often spent years working in the BBC, insisting they were “impartial” and “committed to truth,” only to then leave and morph into the highly political activists we suspected they were all along.

Even now, even today, many of them appear oblivious to the blatant bias that runs through much of the BBC’s content, and what’s behind it.

And what is behind it, exactly?  An organisation that is completely dominated by left-leaning graduates, who often come from incredibly privileged backgrounds, have moved sharply to the cultural left over the last decade or so, as part of the so-called “Great Awokening” among the cultural class, and who simply do not come close to representing the country.

Just look at the evidence on how utterly out of touch the BBC and its staff really are with the average person.

About the Author

Matthew Goodwin is a British political scientist and commentator known for his research on populism and right-wing movements. He was a professor of politics at the University of Kent until July 2024.

Goodwin has authored several books, including ‘Values, Voice and Virtue: The New British Politics’ and ‘National Populism: The Revolt Against Liberal Democracy’ (co-authored with Roger Eatwell), and ‘Revolt on the Right: Explaining Support for the Radical Right in Britain’ (co-authored with Robert Ford).

Stanford Caught Colluding to Censor Americans

Stanford Caught Colluding with Foreign Governments to Censor Americans

Frank Bergman

Nov 4, 2025

Stanford University is under congressional investigation over allegations that its Cyber Policy Center has been working with foreign governments and NGOs to censor Americans’ speech.

The censorship effort was revealed in a report from investigative journalist Michael Shellenberger.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) is leading the probe, seeking answers on whether the university coordinated with overseas officials to pressure U.S. platforms into removing content protected under the First Amendment.

In an October 22 letter, Jordan demanded documents from Stanford’s Cyber Policy Center relating to what he described as a “foreign censorship scheme” and a roundtable held last month that “brought together foreign officials who have directly targeted American speech.”

Secret Meeting with Foreign Censorship Officials

According to Jordan, the event’s keynote speaker was Julie Inman-Grant, “the Australian eSafety Commissioner who has explicitly argued that governments have the authority to demand and enforce global takedowns of content.”

The roundtable, which Stanford did not publicly announce, was “secret and only discovered thanks to a whistleblower who provided Jordan’s investigators with the agenda,” Shellenberger reported.

Attendees reportedly included representatives from the European Union, the United Kingdom, Australia, and Brazil.

“By hosting this event, designed to encourage and facilitate censorship compliance with regulators from Australia, Brazil, the EU, and the UK, Stanford is working with foreign censorship officials to vitiate the First Amendment,” Jordan wrote in his letter.

History of Collusion Claims

Shellenberger noted that in 2023, Stanford’s Cyber Policy Center was “caught covering up and lying” about its collaboration with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) during the Biden administration to censor online speech.

Documents released in the Twitter Files revealed that the Stanford Internet Observatory, part of the same center, worked with DHS and Big Tech companies to suppress online posts questioning the government’s pandemic narrative.

Jordan’s letter said the new inquiry is part of a broader effort to determine “how and to what extent foreign laws, regulations, and judicial orders compel, coerce, or influence companies to censor speech in the United States.”

He gave Stanford director Jeff Hancock, Ph.D., until November 5 to comply.

“Weaponizing Foreign Laws” to Bypass U.S. Free Speech

California attorney Greg Glaser warned that the situation represents “a dangerous fusion of academia, government, and corporate power to circumvent constitutional protections.”

Stanford’s prior involvement in content moderation during the COVID-19 era, Glaser said, amounted to a bypass of the First Amendment, using private platforms to do what the government could not legally do itself.

Jordan agreed that a “new threat” is emerging: foreign laws requiring U.S. companies to remove content accessible to Americans.

“The Committee is concerned that Stanford, and specifically its Cyber Policy Center, may be one of the third parties engaged in assisting foreign governments attempting to suppress American speech,” Jordan wrote.

Global Push for Censorship

The European Union’s Digital Services Act (DSA) and the UK’s Online Safety Act have been cited as examples of international laws with far-reaching censorship implications.

In June, a House Judiciary Committee staff report found that the EU “weaponizes the DSA as a censorship tool that requires the world’s largest social media platforms to engage in censorship of core political discourse.”

Data from X’s 2024 DSA Transparency Report showed that Germany accounted for nearly 90% of all EU requests to identify or censor users accused of posting “illegal or harmful speech.”

The UK, which enacted its own Online Safety Act in October 2023, reportedly made over 12,000 arrests for online speech that year.

The number is higher than arrests in Germany, China, Turkey, and Belarus combined, according to The Times of London.

Australia’s Online Safety Act, enforced by Inman-Grant’s eSafety Commission, carries similar provisions.

Inman-Grant told the World Economic Forum she aims to “coordinate, build capacity… use the tools that we have.”

She added that globalists must “work together with other like-minded independent statutory authorities around the globe.”

Inman-Grant is listed as one of the WEF’s “Agenda Contributors.”

Glaser said such coordination represents “an end-run around Americans’ fundamental rights”, using foreign partnerships to suppress protected speech.

“Stanford’s Internet Observatory Didn’t Die — It Went Global”

Jordan’s letter accused Stanford of once again “attempting to covertly undermine the First Amendment rights of Americans by collaborating with foreign government officials.”

Shellenberger reported that while the Stanford Internet Observatory was widely believed to be dismantled amid prior scrutiny, it was revived under new funding.

The roundtable in question was financed by Frank McCourt, a major donor to the Cyber Policy Center, through his Project Liberty Institute, which promotes “digital governance” and “democratic values.”

“Stanford’s Internet Observatory didn’t die, it went global,” said Seamus Bruner, author of Controligarchs and research director at the Government Accountability Institute.

“The same censorship cartel that policed Americans’ speech during Covid is now hiding behind foreign flags.

“They’re trying to do overseas what the Constitution forbids them to do at home. Congress should treat this as a national sovereignty issue, not just a speech issue,” Bruner said.

Targeting “True Stories”

The Virality Project, housed within the Stanford Internet Observatory, was a key player in monitoring social media content during the pandemic.

According to the Twitter Files, the project tracked and flagged “true stories” as “disinformation.”

Those flagged included posts by Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Kennedy was described as producing “a large volume of content that is almost always reportable.”

The documents showed the project worked “in partnership with the CDC” and promoted pro-vaccine narratives, influencing Twitter’s content moderation policies.

In 2022, the Virality Project proposed a “rumor-control mechanism” to manage trending narratives, an idea later mirrored by the FDA’s “Rumor Control” initiative launched the same year.

Taxpayer-Funded “Censorship-Industrial Complex”

Shellenberger told Congress last year that “taxpayers are unwittingly financing the growth and power of a censorship-industrial complex run by America’s scientific and technological elite, which endangers our liberties and democracy.”

The revelations have played a key role in the ongoing Missouri v. Biden lawsuit, which accuses federal agencies of working with private companies to silence protected speech online.

The case remains active in federal court after the U.S. Supreme Court declined to uphold prior injunctions against the defendants earlier this year.

Global Excess Deaths Driven by Dual Bioweapons!

Scientists Sound Alarm: Global Excess Deaths Driven by ‘Dual Bioweapons’ of Covid & mRNA Shots

Frank Bergman

Oct 19, 2025

 

Scientists are sounding the alarm to warn the public that mRNA “vaccines” and COVID-19 are acting as “dual bioweapons” that are driving global surges in chronic disease and global sudden deaths.

They warn that humanity is being wiped out by the “toxic synergy” of the injections and the virus they are supposed to tackle.

The public was promised that Covid mRNA shots would protect against the virus.

However, mounting evidence now suggests the opposite.

In a chilling new manuscript, scientists assert the visus and “vaccines” have been working against humanity by fueling an unprecedented global health crisis.

The warning was revealed in a bombshell 380-reference scientific manuscript from the McCullough Foundation.

The paper, titled “Compound Adverse Effects of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccination and Coronavirus Infection: A Convergence of Extensive Spike Protein Harms to the Human Body,” details what researchers are calling the “Hybrid Harms Hypothesis.”

McCullough Foundation epidemiologist Nicolas Hulscher, MPH, has been sounding the alarm over the findings.

In a post on Substack, Hulscher explains that “it’s important to understand that humanity was hit with dual biowarfare agents.”

He breaks down these two agents as:

1. A manufactured SARS-CoV-2 virus — the product of U.S.–China collaboration, engineered through years of dangerous gain-of-function work.
2. mRNA gene therapy “countermeasures” — conceived under DARPA’s pandemic programs over 10 years ago.

“Together, they have unleashed waves of chronic illness, sudden deaths, and unprecedented excess mortality,” Hulscher warns.

“We were told mRNA vaccines would protect us from the virus — yet mounting evidence shows they have done the complete opposite.”

Hulscher further raised the alarm during an interview with Brannon Howser of Worldview Tube.

WATCH:

Authored by a multidisciplinary team including Dr. Peter McCullough, Dr. Stephanie Seneff, and Dr. Jessica Rose, the paper lays out how vaccination and infection work together to produce a dangerous, long-term “toxic synergy.”

This toxic synergy, the scientists found, is leading to chronic illness, sudden deaths, and record excess mortality worldwide.

The findings of the study were published in the Preprints journal.

The report describes five major features of the Hybrid Harms Hypothesis:

  • Immune Toxicity: mRNA shots deliver spike protein, inflammatory lipid nanoparticles, and foreign DNA contaminants — all capable of damaging the immune system and potentially integrating into human DNA.

  • Body-Wide Spread: The shot’s components do not remain at the injection site, instead circulating to the brain, heart, ovaries, adrenal glands, and even crossing the placental barrier.

  • Prolonged Spike Production: Synthetic mRNA can drive spike protein production for months — in some cases, years — creating a prolonged “window of vulnerability” in which reinfections layer new damage on old.

  • Cumulative Risk: Each additional dose stacks the total spike burden, altering immune function and weakening defenses against viruses and cancer.

  • Overlapping Damage: Both the virus and the vaccine can cause inflammation, immune suppression, and autoimmunity. When combined, these effects are amplified — making post-vaccine infections more dangerous than either alone.

The paper points to data from eight nations showing major COVID-19 case and death surges began only after 75% of the population was “fully vaccinated” during the supposedly “mild” Omicron era.

Those countries were Denmark, Finland, Norway, Iceland, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore.

Protection from the shots fades within months, often flipping into negative efficacy, meaning more doses can actually increase the risk of infection.

A global analysis linked “vaccination” programs with up to 291% more cases and 205% more deaths than projections without them.

In addition, the researchers warn that many cases labeled “long Covid” since 2021 are actually “post-vaccine syndromes” caused by lingering spike protein from mRNA injections.

“Vaccinated” individuals have been found to carry far higher spike antibody levels and suffer more chronic symptoms than unvaccinated peers.

The finding suggests that “vaccine” injury is being misclassified, hiding the true toll of the shots.

Countries with high mRNA “vaccine” uptake have experienced persistent spikes in all-cause mortality, even after Omicron’s lethality dropped.

Many of these deaths were blamed on COVID-19 despite occurring in fully vaccinated or boosted individuals, often months or years after their last shot.

The Hybrid Harms Hypothesis offers a chilling explanation, revealing that prior “vaccination” may be worsening the severity of otherwise mild reinfections, driving fatal outcomes that would not have occurred without the shots.

If correct, millions of people may still be in a prolonged danger zone, at risk of serious illness or death with each new SARS-CoV-2 exposure.

The report concludes that mass mRNA “vaccination,” combined with repeated virus exposure, has created a sustained public health disaster unlike anything in modern history.

Hulscher notes that it is one for which there is still no accountability.

Obama legalized domestic propaganda by govt...

Finally someone in Congress is talking about this (go Massie)! 

 

In 2013, under President Barack Obama, a quiet but significant change was made to U.S. law.

One that potentially altered the boundary between government messaging and public trust.

It was called the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act.

 

And it effectively removed long-standing protections that once prevented the U.S. government from broadcasting propaganda back into the American public.

 

For over six decades, the original Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 ensured something critical.

 

Any media, news, or psychological operations created by agencies like the State Department or Voice of America for foreign audiences...

 

Could not be used to influence American citizens.

 

This firewall existed to prevent the state from manipulating its own people with taxpayer-funded messaging.

 

But in 2013, that firewall was quietly taken down.

 

No press conference.

 

No public debate.

 

Just a few paragraphs tucked into a massive military budget bill.

 

The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).

 

This opened the door to state-controlled narratives reaching domestic audiences under the guise of "public diplomacy."

 

Government-funded media, originally created to sway opinion overseas...

 

Can now legally be disseminated within the U.S.

 

Potentially blurring the line between foreign influence campaigns and domestic information control.

And while supporters claimed this was about transparency...

 

The reality is that it gave agencies unprecedented freedom to shape public perception.

 

By legalizing propaganda on our own people.

 

This change, signed into law under President Obama...

 

Quietly transformed the American information landscape.

 

And most citizens never even knew it happened.

 

Think about everything you've witnessed since 2013.

 

The coordinated messaging.

 

The narrative control.

 

The way entire news cycles seem scripted.

 

Now you know why.

 

They made it legal.

 

What do you think about the US government using propaganda against its own citizens?

Reply to this email and let me know.

 

In service to truth,

Mikki Willis

Filmmaker

 

P.S. Representative Massie is one of the few in Congress willing to talk about this openly. We need more people asking these questions. Hit reply and let me know your thoughts.

Depression is a Lie

Everything you've been told about depression is based on a theory that was never proven.

 

For decades, we've been told depression is caused by a chemical imbalance in your brain.

 

A serotonin deficiency requiring medication to correct.

 

I believed it too.

 

Until now.

 

A shocking interview with Tucker Carlson just exposed what may be one of the most consequential medical falsehoods of our time.

 

Researchers who took spinal fluid from depressed patients found no evidence of serotonin deficiency.

Yet this unproven theory became the foundation for prescribing SSRIs to millions of Americans.

Think about that for just a second.

 

Millions of people have been medicated based on a marketing campaign.

 

Not scientific fact.

 

In this interview, discover how pharmaceutical companies transformed a hypothesis into medical gospel.

 

Why leading researchers now admit the chemical imbalance theory lacks evidence.

 

The real reasons many people experience depression and anxiety in our modern world.

 

What if your sadness, your anxiety, your feelings of disconnection were never a disease at all?

 

What if they were appropriate responses to a world out of alignment with your soul's deepest needs?

 

This conversation has the potential to transform how we approach mental health in America.

 

Watch the interview that's shaking the foundations of psychiatry →

 

In truth and healing,

Nadia Willis

nadia@truthandunity.com

 

P.S. If you or someone you love is currently taking antidepressants, please know that abruptly stopping medication can be dangerous.

This information is meant to empower, not to replace personal medical advice.

Please consult your doctor before making any decisions.

Climate Change debate

I’ve been studying all sides of the climate change debate for many years — starting back when it was called global warming.

Why the rebrand?

 

Because the Earth began entering a cooling phase and recorded temperatures no longer supported the original narrative. 

 

So, climate alarmists pivoted, adopting a broader term — climate change — that could explain any fluctuation, hot or cold, within the planet’s natural weather cycles.

 

That’s not to say humans aren’t polluting our planet—we are. Unfortunately, the exaggerated climate narrative has distracted us from implementing the many practical solutions already within our reach.

As we’re beginning to realize, real solutions don’t seem to be part of the agenda.

 

For several years I’ve been collecting newspaper headlines stretching from the 1930s to the present day. What they reveal is remarkable: a recurring pattern of fear.

 

One decade the headlines screamed that rising heat would soon make Earth uninhabitable; the next, they warned of an imminent ice age that would freeze civilization into extinction.

 

When these archived headlines are arranged in chronological order, they provide a clear perspective on the climate hysteria:

 

Like every living system, Earth’s climate moves in rhythm — it breathes, fluctuates, expands, and contracts like the ocean tides or a beating heart.

 

Yet those who profit from fear learned to weaponize this natural ebb and flow. They convinced billions of well-meaning people that humanity itself was the problem — that every storm, drought, or heat wave was somehow our fault.

 

For decades, activists filled the streets, risking their freedom to fight an imaginary monster. 

 

Humanity became divided by a clever, calculated lie.

 

A generation of young people grew so terrified of the planet’s future that they vowed never to have children.

 

Few men have been more complicit in spreading that fear than Bill Gates. 

 

Yet, for some unknown reason he has recently done a 180 on his usual “existential threat” hysteria by finally admitting: 

 

“There’s a doomsday view of climate change that goes like this: In a few decades, cataclysmic climate change will decimate civilization.— Fortunately for all of us, this view is wrong. — It will not lead to humanity’s demise. People will be able to live and thrive in most places on Earth for the foreseeable future.”

 

I see this as a victory. Enough critical thinkers have sought out the facts and refused to be manipulated into compliance.

 

After decades of doom-laden predictions and billions spent on propaganda, it appears that the climate agenda is faltering.

 

We must never let the architects of this fabricated narrative escape accountability for the damage they’ve done.

 

I find it baffling that millions march in the streets — some even gluing themselves to the asphalt — in the name of environmentalism, yet no one protests the countless ways Mr. Gates has harmed our lives.

His work through GAVI has left innocent girls and women in impoverished nations sterilized and paralyzed.

 

He released genetically modified mosquitoes in Florida, dubbed “flying syringes,” designed to vaccinate anyone they bit.

 

In partnership with Harvard, he has developed a cocktail of chemicals intended to be sprayed from aircraft to dim the sun.

He inflicted significant harm on the U.S. education system by funding and pushing the implementation of Common Core practices.

 

Gates is one of the largest private owners of farmland in the U.S., prompting concerns about land concentration and influence over food systems. 

 

It has been confirmed that gates had deep and dark ties to Jeffrey Epstein. 

 

And the list goes on.

 

When will we see a No Kings protest in honor of King Gates?

 

Mikki Willis

Film maker

The US "Peace President" Donald Trump is at war

  The US "Peace President" is either at war or threatening war across multiple continents...

... from threatening interventions in Mexico and Venezuela in North and South America, its continued Ukraine proxy war in Europe, threatened intervention in Nigeria and continued bombing and drone strikes in Somalia, Africa, continued occupation of Syria and Iraq and ongoing hostility vs Yemen and Iran in the Middle East, regime change operations and proxy war across Asia including in Nepal and Myanmar respectively and its continued military build up along China's borders and shores... 

 

While the US insists it wants "peace through strength" it remains at constant war all while attempting to expand its global campaign of violence even further, a complete, uninterrupted continuation of "deep state" wars cultivated under the previous Bush, Obama, and Biden administration's over the past 25 years.

 

The US is waging a global war against multipolarism. 

 

All the Trump administration is doing is repackaging the lies needed to keep this singular continuous agenda moving forward, maintaining at least partial public support for it, and carefully managing opposition in a predictable, left-right partisan and completely neutralized manner.

 

And it is unfortunately working all too well at least in part because of the continued failure, or even lack of a coherent multipolar counter-disinformation strategy.

 

~Brian Berletic

Covid-19 Vaccines and Cancer

You were forewarned... 

The Third Rail: Covid-19 Vaccines and Cancer

Brownstone Institute 

Nov 07, 2025

 

As my colleague, internationally renowned cancer biologist Dr. Wafik El-Deiry, and I articulated in the September ACIP meeting on Covid vaccines, nearly 50 publications have reported a temporal association between Covid-19 mRNA vaccination and the onset of cancer. Epidemiological studies (one from Italy and one from South Korea) have also described increased cancer incidence among Covid-vaccinated individuals compared to unvaccinated groups (albeit with caveats). These reports are mounting and it’s time we acknowledge that something meaningful may be occurring rather than dismissing them outright; this latter response seems to be the dominant reaction in academia, the media, and by our regulatory agencies.

My goal here is to unpack the science and outline plausible biological mechanisms between the association of Covid mRNA vaccination and cancer that warrant further and urgent investigation. The purpose is not to make claims either way but to frame the issue that must be addressed in hopes that open scientific discussion and more importantly, research funding can be directed towards this urgent and growing area of concern. The current climate has made it impossible for scientists to study this without fear of personal or professional repercussions.

What We Know and Don’t Know

At present, there are no published studies demonstrating a direct causal mechanism by which the mRNA vaccines induce cancer. However, that does not mean such a causal connection doesn’t exist. In fact, there are at least three biologically plausible mechanisms that, in my view, merit rigorous study and evaluation given their known links to causing cancer. I’ve written about these mechanisms before in other contexts, but here I’ll explain how they may apply to the Covid-19 mRNA vaccines.

As my colleague, internationally renowned cancer biologist Dr. Wafik El-Deiry, and I articulated in the September ACIP meeting on Covid vaccines, nearly 50 publications have reported a temporal association between Covid-19 mRNA vaccination and the onset of cancer. Epidemiological studies (one from Italy and one from South Korea) have also described increased cancer incidence among Covid-vaccinated individuals compared to unvaccinated groups (albeit with caveats). These reports are mounting and it’s time we acknowledge that something meaningful may be occurring rather than dismissing them outright; this latter response seems to be the dominant reaction in academia, the media, and by our regulatory agencies.

My goal here is to unpack the science and outline plausible biological mechanisms between the association of Covid mRNA vaccination and cancer that warrant further and urgent investigation. The purpose is not to make claims either way but to frame the issue that must be addressed in hopes that open scientific discussion and more importantly, research funding can be directed towards this urgent and growing area of concern. The current climate has made it impossible for scientists to study this without fear of personal or professional repercussions.

What We Know and Don’t Know

At present, there are no published studies demonstrating a direct causal mechanism by which the mRNA vaccines induce cancer. However, that does not mean such a causal connection doesn’t exist. In fact, there are at least three biologically plausible mechanisms that, in my view, merit rigorous study and evaluation given their known links to causing cancer. I’ve written about these mechanisms before in other contexts, but here I’ll explain how they may apply to the Covid-19 mRNA vaccines.

Mechanism 1: Cellular Transformation Due to Spike Protein Biology

The transformation of a normal cell into a cancer cell involves the disruption of multiple safeguards controlling cell growth, survival, and DNA repair. The Covid mRNA vaccines work by instructing the body’s cells to produce the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein for prolonged periods of time (anywhere from days to weeks, to months, and even years). This foreign spike protein then elicits an immune response.

Laboratory studies have reported that the spike protein, whether it is produced by infection or by vaccination, has biological activities. It interacts with cellular pathways that regulate the cell cycle, tumor suppressor functions, and DNA damage repair pathways and machinery. Therefore, in theory, such interactions of spike protein with these pathways could contribute to cellular transformation—although the same could be said for infection with Covid-19 itself. The difference, however, lies in the duration of spike protein produced after vaccination compared to natural infection. This also raises an important question about whether multiple Covid infections are biologically equivalent to the artificial spike protein produced by the vaccine.

Since the spike protein that is produced by the mRNA can persist for as little as a few days, to weeks, months, and even years after vaccination, it is important to acknowledge whether cancer incidence correlates with spike protein expression (or persistence) in the body, but also whether it is present in tumors. A recent case study showed evidence that spike protein can be found expressed in metastatic breast cancer. Thus, in thinking about the relationship between Covid vaccination and cancer, chronic exposure to an agent with biological activity that disrupts cell cycle and DNA damage response pathways is very important to consider. Outright dismissing this possibility seems negligent. Currently data is insufficient to make any firm conclusions about any of this in a conclusive manner, and in the absence of such data means this mechanism cannot be dismissed outright.

Mechanism 2: Genomic Integration and Dysregulated Gene Expression Due to Residual DNA Contaminants

It is now acknowledged by the manufacturers, the FDA, as well as others, including a lab from the NIH, that residual DNA impurities are present in mRNA vaccines.

While many have argued that the quantities present in the vaccine preparations are too small to pose harm, the facts remain: (1) these fragments exist, (2) they are delivered in a lipid nanoparticle that efficiently allows the DNA to enter cells and the nucleus, and (3) the size of these fragments can readily integrate into the genome—especially when cells are dividing and undergoing natural DNA repair. Since no studies have been conducted demonstrating that the quantity of these impurities is insufficient to transfect cells, and that they do not integrate, it is complete speculation at this time that this cannot and does not happen. Said differently, no studies have yet shown that these impurities are too minimal to enter cells or integrate into DNA.

For the Pfizer vaccine, a subset of the impurities contains DNA sequences that are viral regulatory elements, which by definition influence gene expression. In addition, new findings suggest that the Pfizer vaccine also contains DNA that is methylated, which can stimulate a pathway in cells called cGAS-STING. Therefore, at least in the case of the Pfizer vaccine, these DNA impurities cannot only integrate, but they can potentially have far-reaching effects.

DNA integration events in the wrong genomic context could, in principle, dysregulate gene expression and contribute to cellular transformation, especially if combined with prolonged cGAS-STING pathway activation and SV40 promoter gene regulation.

The bedrock of molecular biology is the ability to use lipid nanoparticles to introduce DNA into cells. An undisputed byproduct of this is that some fraction of the DNA will integrate. And when it integrates, it has the ability to alter gene expression and disrupt gene function. To assume this cannot happen with the DNA impurities in the mRNA vaccines is misleading. We simply do not know the fate of the DNA impurities in the mRNA vaccine products when they come into contact with cells (either in vitro or in vivo). There is no data to assert that this cannot happen, and that it does not happen after vaccination.

Nearly all molecular biologists would agree that delivering DNA in lipid nanoparticles to cells is DNA transfection – pure and simple. Hence, this mechanism (and the effects of SV40 promoter sequence integration as well as transfected methylated DNA) makes it possible, in theory, for the DNA contaminants to initiate or drive cellular transformation in the right context. The open question is how often it occurs, and does it occur. To date, the answer to this is unknown, and as mentioned above, no one is studying whether this occurs and at what frequency. Therefore, we cannot draw any conclusions either in support or against these mechanisms at this time.

Mechanism 3: Immune Dysregulation: The Most Plausible Link

The most plausible mechanism linking vaccination to cancer, especially with respect to the temporal associations, involves the immune system. Several peer-reviewed studies have documented immune alterations following repeated mRNA vaccination, including increased inflammatory cytokines, T-cell exhaustion, elevated IgG4 antibody production, and transient immune suppression.

The immune system serves as a critical gatekeeper against cancer, identifying and eliminating transformed cells before they can progress. It can also act as a potent carcinogen and cancer driver in the form of inflammation, especially when chronic. Hence, if the immune system is temporarily impaired or dysregulated, or excessively reactive, the combination of failed immunosurveillance and chronic inflammation could not only allow preexisting abnormal cells to expand, but in fact promote them towards full neoplastic transformation. This could lead to promoted and even accelerated tumorigenesis, easily observed within the temporal windows that have been described.

Timing and Cancer Development

Most solid tumors require years to develop. Therefore, any cancer that appears within 6–12 months of vaccination (except for certain lymphomas, which can progress from initial malignant transformation within weeks to a few months) is unlikely to result from initiating events caused by the mRNA vaccine through mechanisms 1 or 2.

However, even if the Covid-19 mRNA vaccine is not the initiating factor, there remain plausible scenarios in which pre-existing pre-malignant or occult cancer cells (already genetically unstable and poised for full neoplastic transformation) could be accelerated by unintended effects of the spike protein or by rare DNA-integration events. Moreover, any dormant or microscopic cancer held in check by immune surveillance could, in principle, be unleashed or promoted through immune dysregulation (mechanism 3).

Patterns to Watch

Several studies have documented measurable changes in immune function after repeated mRNA vaccination, including inflammation, autoimmunity, and a form of acquired functional immunodeficiency. These changes have also been documented with long Covid, so it will be important to parse out data trends and patterns between vaccinated versus unvaccinated and also between long-Covid vaccinated versus long-Covid unvaccinated.

Since immunodeficiency is often accompanied by chronic inflammation, both have direct implications for tumor surveillance and tumor permissiveness. Hence, there are signals one might expect to observe based on predictable patterns of cancer observed in other forms of acquired immunodeficiency (eg, HIV or organ-transplant recipients). The mechanisms driving these cancers are well established and broadly recognized among cancer biologists.

Lymphoid Cancers

The first and most immediate observation would be an uptick in lymphoid malignancies, particularly non-Hodgkin lymphomas (NHL), T-cell lymphomas, and aggressive B-cell lymphomas such as Burkitt-like or diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). These cancers are tightly linked to immune control mechanisms and to EBV oncogenesis. Under conditions of immune stress or exhaustion, B cells with latent EBV infection may escape control, undergo clonal expansion, and acquire the additional genomic alterations required for full transformation.

In immunocompromised patients, such lymphomas often appear within months of immune dysfunction. Therefore, similar temporal dynamics following repeated mRNA vaccination, or any sustained immune perturbation, would warrant close epidemiologic scrutiny.

Notably, there has been a disproportionate representation of post-vaccine lymphomas in published case reports, including both newly emergent cases and rapid relapses after remission. Whether these observations represent coincidence, reporting bias, or genuine immune disruption remains unknown. However, the pattern itself is biologically consistent with what we would expect if immunosurveillance fails.

Viral Associated Cancers

The next category of cancers that would be expected to increase would include those with a viral etiology, since their emergence is often due to failed immunosurveillance. These include Kaposi sarcoma, Merkel cell carcinoma, cervical and oropharyngeal cancers (HPV-driven), and hepatocellular carcinoma (HBV/HCV). Such tumors typically arise in the setting of immune suppression, chronic inflammation, or both.

A surge in these cancer types, especially among individuals without classical immunosuppression, could indicate a breakdown in immunoediting where host–virus equilibrium is lost. A lapse in immune control of latent HPV infection could accelerate oncogenic progression within the cervix or oropharynx. Similarly, reduced cytotoxic T-cell activity might allow for subclinical Merkel cell or Kaposi lesions to manifest.

Leukemias and Myelodysplastic Syndromes

Several temporal association studies have reported cases of acute leukemias and myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) following vaccination. These malignancies are highly sensitive to inflammatory and immune-modulatory environments, but also to environmental exposures that affect DNA integrity. Therefore, it is plausible that a rise in sustained immune activation followed by suppression could accelerate the expansion of pre-leukemic clones already present in aging bone marrow. It is also plausible that DNA impurities present in the mRNA vaccines could preferentially integrate into hematopoietic precursor cells, which are particularly susceptible to genotoxic stress. Integration within vulnerable genomic regions of these cells could, in theory, initiate leukemic transformation.

Although such clonal dynamics might be subtle at the population level, they could become detectable through longitudinal studies, particularly if stratified by age, vaccination history, and markers of immune activation.

Aggressive or Unusual Solid Tumors

Finally, one might expect to see rare or unusually aggressive solid tumors emerging in temporal proximity to mRNA vaccination. These could include high-grade gliomas, pancreatic carcinomas, rapidly proliferating sarcomas, breast cancers, and other solid tumors.

On a population level, the association between cancer with vaccination would likely appear as disproportionate increases in hematologic cancers (lymphomas, leukemias) and virus-associated cancers relative to baseline trends. One might also expect to observe an increase in earlier onset cancers or clusters of rapidly progressing or treatment-resistant cancers within short intervals post-vaccination if chronic inflammation or T-cell exhaustion were the culprit. Dormant, occult, in-situ cancers, or micrometastases might become more active if immunosurveillance is blunted or if inflammatory cytokines alter the stromal microenvironment. These could easily manifest over 12–36 months post-vaccinations.

While none of these patterns would prove causation, such a pattern should not be dismissed as a coincidence either. Other environmental exposures, such as tobacco, asbestos, and endocrine disruptors, have been linked to cancer. The initial warnings were met with skepticism, yet in each of these examples, rigorous study, observation, and experimental research demonstrated their causal relationship. The same principle should apply here. Researchers must be empowered to replicate and expand upon these analyses, free from censorship, personal, or professional retaliation.

Assessing and quantifying these potential mechanisms must become a research priority if we are to make sense of the growing number of reports linking cancer onset to Covid-19 vaccination and to determine whether these associations reflect true causal relationships.

Long-term, population-level studies will be essential to reveal whether certain cancer types, particularly rare or aggressive subtypes, occur more frequently in vaccinated compared to unvaccinated individuals. For this reason, it is imperative for public health that the scientific community and regulatory agencies commit to rigorous, unbiased investigation of these questions.

Canadian Gov’s Push to Euthanize Veterans!!!

Bombshell Testimony Exposes Canadian Government’s Push to Euthanize Veterans

Frank Bergman

Nov 13, 2025

An alarming testimony before Canada’s House of Commons has blown open grave allegations that the Liberal government is ramping up pressure to euthanize military veterans under the nation’s rapidly expanding “assisted suicide” regime.

The explosive allegations were revealed in a parliamentary testimony from Kelsi Sheren, a Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) veteran.

Sheren told MPs during a hearing before the Canadian Veterans Affairs Committee that she has firsthand evidence showing the practice is far more widespread than officials admit.

She told the nation’s top lawmakers that she has evidence that multiple veterans have been pressured into being euthanized under the government’s Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) program.

Sheren testified that “over 20 veterans have confirmed being offered MAiD” instead of more expensive treatments.

“I have the proof, and I have proof of more,” she told lawmakers.

The claims follow recent reports that Canada’s socialized healthcare system is now saving $136 million a year by euthanizing patients instead of treating them.

During the hearing, Conservative MP Blake Richards asked Sheren if she was willing to provide evidence supporting her claims.

Sheren confirmed that the veterans have submitted written testimonies or “actual audio recordings” documenting the unsolicited offers of euthanasia.

According to Sheren, many others remain silent out of fear.

“We also have other individuals who are too afraid to come forward because Veterans Affairs has threatened their benefits,” she said.

Sheren, a Canadian combat veteran and artillery gunner, added that some were even offered non-disclosure agreements and “payouts if they were to take it.”

Veterans Affairs Canada told media outlets that its “employees have no role or mandate to recommend or raise (MAiD).”

Yet similar allegations have surfaced before.

Last year, it was revealed that the federal department responsible for supporting Canadian veterans had apparently acted to suppress documentation on euthanasia practices.

It followed reports that caseworkers attempted to railroad struggling former service members into euthanasia.

Slay News previously published a report highlighting bombshell revelations from Sheren on the treatment of veterans.

Sheren explained on a podcast with Dr. Jordan Peterson last year that the drugs used in MAiD essentially waterboard a person to death.

Assisted suicide was legalized in 2016 by the Liberal government of former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

A new report from the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition shows the devastating scale of the program: Canada has euthanized 90,000 people since 2016.

However, some are still hopeful that the Liberal government’s eugenics agenda can be turned around.

Last week, a Conservative MP’s private member’s bill, which would ban individuals with mental illness from being euthanized, received full support from the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition.

The revelations point to an alarming reality that Canada’s euthanasia system is no longer confined to edge-case medical situations.

Instead, it is increasingly becoming a state-endorsed “solution” for vulnerable citizens, including those who once served their country.

Dick Cheney was a radical war hawk

Cheney, a Republican, is considered the architect of the so-called “war on terror,” the strategy underlying the US military interventions that began after the September 11, 2001, attacks in Afghanistan and Iraq, of which he was a leading advocate.

 

It is worth remembering that during the hours of the 9/11 attack on America, Cheney was on the command deck of the United States Defense Forces in Washington while President George W. Bush was fleeing aboard Air Force One to safety.

 

There are those who suspect that Dick Cheney, not Osama Bin Laden, was the real director of 9/11 movie, or, according to others, he was the assistant director of that movie along with Israel!

 

In fact, due to various subsequent political misadventures, (including the great fake that started the war in Iraq), Cheney ended his second term as vice president as one of the most unpopular politicians in recent American history, and never ran for president.

 

He was a much-discussed and criticized figure, and as vice president, he played a central role in defining US domestic and foreign policy after 9/11, as well as the role and responsibilities of the vice president’s office.

 

His political career in Washington began on the staff of Republican President Gerald Ford, where he served first as deputy chief of staff (1974–1975), then chief of staff (1975–1977), a central role in all US administrations, effectively serving as the president’s top aide.

 

After a decade as a congressman, elected from Wyoming, he served as secretary of defense for George H.W. Bush (George W. Bush’s father), coordinating first the US invasion of Panama (1989) and then the first Gulf War in Iraq (1991).

 

In 2000, George W. Bush chose him as vice president, somewhat anomalously: Cheney was the head of the group that was supposed to select the vice president, but in the end, he was chosen himself.

 

Bush and Cheney won one of the most balanced, chaotic, and contested presidential elections ever, the 2000 election, the outcome of which was decided only after more than a month of legal wrangling.

Cheney wielded enormous power during the first Bush administration, partly exploiting the president’s inexperience.

 

He acted independently, created a parallel chain of command, and made several important decisions without reporting directly to the president.

 

He recommended immediate intervention after the attacks on the Twin Towers, with the bombing of Afghanistan, and above all, he was decisive in convincing Bush of the need to invade Iraq in 2003 to oust President Saddam Hussein.

 

During the “war on terror,” Cheney was one of the most ardent proponents of the use of so-called “enhanced interrogation techniques.”

 

Under Bush, he also spearheaded a progressive expansion of the president’s powers, after decades of limitations by Congress and the effects of the Watergate scandal.

 

The effects of those decisions and the military campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq continued for decades. His influence on government action diminished somewhat in Bush’s second term, but remained much greater than that of a normal vice president.

 

He did not hold any other public office thereafter.

 

He had suffered heart problems since the 1970s: he suffered his first heart attack in 1978, at age 37, during a campaign for a House seat; he underwent surgery several times and wore a pacemaker.

 

He said he asked doctors to disable the device’s wireless functionality, fearing it could be used to try to kill him.

 

In recent years, Cheney had become highly critical of the current Republican Party, and especially of Donald Trump’s leadership.