A recent study from South Korea has ignited fresh alarm bells— associating COVID shots to increased risks of several cancers within just one year. Published in Biomarker Research, the paper titled “1-year risks of cancers associated with COVID-19 vaccination: a large population-based cohort study in South Korea” draws on a massive dataset of over 8 million individuals—challenging the “safe and effective” messaging around the shots.
Unpacking the data
The study by Hong Jin Kim et al., utilized data from the Korean National Health Insurance Service database spanning 2021 to 2023. After applying propensity score matching (PSM) to balance variables like age, sex, and comorbidities, the researchers compared 595,007 vaccinated individuals against 2,380,028 unvaccinated controls. A subgroup analysis further examined non-boosted versus boosted vaccinated participants. The outcomes? Statistically significant increases in the hazard ratios (HRs) for six major cancers: thyroid, gastric, colorectal, lung, breast, and prostate.
Quantifying the risk
The researchers revealed:
“Our data showed associations between COVID-19 vaccination and an increased the risk of six cancer types, namely, thyroid (hazard ratio [HR], 1.35; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.21–1.51), gastric (HR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.13–1.58), colorectal (HR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.12–1.47), lung (HR, 1.533; 95% CI, 1.25–1.87), breast (HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.07–1.34), and prostate (HR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.35–2.11) cancers.”
The following is a breakdown of the increased risk based on the hazard ratios (HRs).
Thyroid cancer: HR 1.351 → (1.351 - 1) × 100 = 35.1% increased risk.
Gastric cancer: HR 1.335 → (1.335 - 1) × 100 = 33.5% increased risk.
Colorectal cancer: HR 1.283 → (1.283 - 1) × 100 = 28.3% increased risk.
Lung cancer: HR 1.533 → (1.533 - 1) × 100 = 53.3% increased risk.
Breast cancer: HR 1.197 → (1.197 - 1) × 100 = 19.7% increased risk.
Prostate cancer: HR 1.687 → (1.687 - 1) × 100 = 68.7% increased risk.
These figures are not anomalies; they represent a 20% to 69% increased risk compared to the unvaccinated group, depending on the cancer type.
How vaccine types increase cancer risks across sex & age
Breaking it down by vaccine platform, the findings are even more stratified and troubling. cDNA-based vaccines (such as those from AstraZeneca or Janssen) were linked to increased risks for thyroid, gastric, colorectal, lung, and prostate cancers. mRNA vaccines (Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna) showed associations with thyroid, colorectal, lung, and breast cancers. Heterologous vaccination—mixing different types—correlated with higher risks for thyroid and breast cancers.
The authors went on to note:
“Given the observed associations between COVID-19 vaccination and cancer incidence by age, sex, and vaccine type, further research is needed to determine whether specific vaccination strategies may be optimal for populations in need of COVID-19 vaccination.”
Sex and age disparities add another layer of concern. Vaccinated males appeared more susceptible to gastric and lung cancers, while females faced greater risks for thyroid and colorectal cancers. Age-wise, those under 65 were more vulnerable to thyroid and breast cancers, whereas individuals 75 and older showed heightened prostate cancer risk. This contradicts the common assumption that vaccines pose uniform risks across demographics, raising questions about why younger, healthier populations might be disproportionately affected.
The alarming booster dose data
The study’s analysis of booster doses is particularly alarming. In the vaccinated subgroup, boosters were associated with a significantly higher risk of gastric cancer (HR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.01–1.50) and pancreatic cancer (HR, 2.25; 95% CI, 1.44–3.50).
Source: 1-year risks of cancers associated with COVID-19 vaccination: a large population-based cohort study in South Korea, Table 1
Table 1 in the paper (shown above) starkly illustrates this, with pancreatic cancer showing over double the risk in boosted individuals—a finding that demands immediate scrutiny, especially given the aggressive nature of this disease.
The mechanistic hypotheses
What mechanisms could explain these links? The researchers hypothesize based on prior literature, pointing to SARS-CoV-2’s oncogenic potential through pathways like the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system, viral mutagenicity, and inflammatory cascades. Since COVID shots encode the spike protein—mirroring aspects of the virus itself—they suggest similar risks might apply. Citing references such as Jahankhani et al., the paper notes: “Similar to other viruses, such as human papillomavirus and Epstein–Barr virus, SARS-CoV-2 shows an oncogenic potential, which has been hypothetically proposed based on its mechanisms of action.”
A pattern emerges
This is not the first time vaccine-related adverse events (AEs) have surfaced in South Korean data. The same team previously reported on autoimmune and psychiatric AEs post-vaccination in studies published in Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (2024) and Molecular Psychiatry (2024). Yet, global health authorities have failed to acknowledge such patterns, often attributing them to coincidence or confounding factors.
Critics might argue the study’s retrospective design limits causation claims, and indeed, the paper acknowledges limitations like potential unmeasured confounders. However, with a cohort this massive and real-world data scarce, dismissing these signals outright would be gravely irresponsible. As I’ve reported before on excess deaths, cancers, and regulatory failures, this adds to a growing body of evidence that the rushed COVID “vaccine” rollout has had catastrophic consequences.
This South Korean study serves as another red flag for policymakers, clinicians, and the public. The authors’ final words resonate: “further studies are warranted to elucidate potential causal relationships, including the underlying molecular mechanisms related to COVID-19 vaccine–induced hyperinflammation.”
If you find value in the work I do, please consider a paid subscription or make a one-off donation.
You are quite right to raise the issue of possible confounders in observational non-randomized, non-controlled data such as this.
However, in this particular case, consideration of the main confounder, the average health status of vaccinated versus unvaccinated, would make the effect look even worse for the vaccines.
That’s because in general those people who get vaccinated are a priori healthier than unvaccinated, and quite considerably so.
In the recent Italian study, this healthy vaccinee effect was demonstrated quite starkly - ACM in the vaccinated cohort was half that in the unvaccinated and there is no plausible hypothesis to explain this as being a benefit of the injections, rather than a difference in baseline characteristics.
I note that these researchers have not published any all cause mortality data, have they? That would go some way towards quantifying the differences between the 2 cohorts.
Yet Trump, RFK Jr and Bourla appear to be best buddies...How Bourla sleeps through every night...knowing what his products have done, continue to do, and will do in future...He ain't human...