There are people on twitter/X who have been analysing the CDC data for a year and have the same conclusions; there's one interesting writeup at https://theethicalskeptic.com/2024/04/16/the-state-of-things.... The author is a bit crackpoty-sounding, but the analysis passes first-order smell tests.
Your link does not pass a smell test in the slightest.
Even the first number he gives ("688,478 Excess Non-Covid Natural Cause Deaths (primarily from the Covid Vaccine)") is complete crackpot fiction and runs counter to the actual current evidence. In fact the very likely reason for this is miscounted/misattributed COVID deaths.
Note - this is a pretty bad study. Quoting the top comment from
Benito Baldauf
Apr 26, 2024 at 08:43 AM:
"The findings presented here leave little room for speculation. Instead the study authors suggest several potential links between mRNA-LNP vaccination and incremental mortality rates among cancer patients in Japan. They discuss thrombogenic effects post vac adjunctive to increased thrombogenicity in cancer patients, suppression of cancer immunosurveillance, leading to excess mortality from cancer, particularly pancreatic and breast cancer and several others. However, several substantial flaws need to be considered when interpreting and discussing empidemiological findings:
Study Limitations: The studies cited may have limitations such as small sample sizes, lack of control groups, and retrospective designs, which can introduce biases and affect the reliability of their findings to support hypotheses.
Causal Inference: While the findings indicate associations between vaccination and cancer outcomes, they do not establish causality. Other factors such as age, comorbidities, and socioeconomic status could confound the observed associations.
Biological Plausibility: While some mechanisms proposed, such as suppression of interferon responses and increased PD-L1/PD-1 expression, have biological plausibility, the link between mRNA-LNP vaccination and cancer progression is complex and multifactorial. More research is needed to elucidate the specific mechanisms involved.
Publication Bias: There may be a tendency to publish studies showing significant results, leading to an overrepresentation of positive findings in the literature. Additionally, the selective citation of studies that support a particular narrative could bias the interpretation of the evidence.
Generalizability: The findings may not be generalizable to all populations or cancer types, as individual responses to vaccination and cancer progression are influenced by genetic, environmental, and immunological factors.
Temporal Association: The temporal association between mass vaccination and increased cancer mortality does not necessarily imply causation. Other factors such as changes in cancer screening practices, healthcare utilization patterns, and viral epidemiology could contribute to the observed trends.
In conclusion, while the findings raise important questions about the potential effects of mRNA-LNP vaccination on cancer outcomes, they should be interpreted cautiously due to the substantial flaws in the studies cited. Further research, including large-scale prospective studies and mechanistic investigations, is needed to elucidate the true impact of vaccination on cancer immunosurveillance and mortality.
6 comments
[ 1.5 ms ] story [ 16.8 ms ] threadEven the first number he gives ("688,478 Excess Non-Covid Natural Cause Deaths (primarily from the Covid Vaccine)") is complete crackpot fiction and runs counter to the actual current evidence. In fact the very likely reason for this is miscounted/misattributed COVID deaths.
See https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38300867/
"The findings presented here leave little room for speculation. Instead the study authors suggest several potential links between mRNA-LNP vaccination and incremental mortality rates among cancer patients in Japan. They discuss thrombogenic effects post vac adjunctive to increased thrombogenicity in cancer patients, suppression of cancer immunosurveillance, leading to excess mortality from cancer, particularly pancreatic and breast cancer and several others. However, several substantial flaws need to be considered when interpreting and discussing empidemiological findings:
Study Limitations: The studies cited may have limitations such as small sample sizes, lack of control groups, and retrospective designs, which can introduce biases and affect the reliability of their findings to support hypotheses.
Causal Inference: While the findings indicate associations between vaccination and cancer outcomes, they do not establish causality. Other factors such as age, comorbidities, and socioeconomic status could confound the observed associations.
Biological Plausibility: While some mechanisms proposed, such as suppression of interferon responses and increased PD-L1/PD-1 expression, have biological plausibility, the link between mRNA-LNP vaccination and cancer progression is complex and multifactorial. More research is needed to elucidate the specific mechanisms involved.
Publication Bias: There may be a tendency to publish studies showing significant results, leading to an overrepresentation of positive findings in the literature. Additionally, the selective citation of studies that support a particular narrative could bias the interpretation of the evidence.
Generalizability: The findings may not be generalizable to all populations or cancer types, as individual responses to vaccination and cancer progression are influenced by genetic, environmental, and immunological factors.
Temporal Association: The temporal association between mass vaccination and increased cancer mortality does not necessarily imply causation. Other factors such as changes in cancer screening practices, healthcare utilization patterns, and viral epidemiology could contribute to the observed trends.
In conclusion, while the findings raise important questions about the potential effects of mRNA-LNP vaccination on cancer outcomes, they should be interpreted cautiously due to the substantial flaws in the studies cited. Further research, including large-scale prospective studies and mechanistic investigations, is needed to elucidate the true impact of vaccination on cancer immunosurveillance and mortality.
This however is not likely to happen. "
has been criticised by several sources
https://twitter.com/Marc_Veld/status/1779881762778120209
https://twitter.com/Debunk_the_Funk/status/17832345940885957...
https://twitter.com/DrSusanOliver1/status/178264909847637610...
one interesting comment :
Only about 65% of Japanese people have received 3 doses.
Cancer patients are more likely to receive 3 or more doses than the average person since they have more contact with the healthcare system.
Who’s most likely to die of cancer? Cancer patients.
There’s your correlation...
<quote end>