A study that reportedly proved a link between Covid Vaccines and Cancer has been withdrawn under suspicious circumstances reports LifeSiteNews.
The study, which reportedly showed that the mRNA spike protein used in Covid-19 Vaccines can dramatically increase the risk of cancer, was abruptly withdrawn from publication without a proper explanation, with one of the authors only saying that they had come 'under pressure' to retract it because it was being used for "anti-vaccine propaganda".
The co-author of a study showing that the spike protein from both the COVID-19 virus and the COVID shots impairs DNA repair mechanisms, thereby contributing to cancer, claimed that the lead author was forced to retract the study.
However, newly leaked emails now call into question motives behind the retraction, showing vague reasons cited in the retraction request, as well as an uproar from one scientist over the “social relevance” of the study, complaining that it was “hacked by anti-vaccinationists.”
In October 2021, Dr. Hui Jiang of Stockholm University (the lead author) and Dr. Ya-Fang Mei of Umeå University published in the peer-reviewed journal MDPI Viruses a paper titled “SARS-CoV-2 Spike Impairs DNA Damage Repair and Inhibits V(D)J Recombination In Vitro.” Independent journalist Rebekah Barnett has pointed out that three days before an investigation into Jiang and Mei’s paper began on November 5, 2021, medical educator Dr. Mobeen Syed, known as “Dr. Been,” posted to YouTube a video about the implications of Jiang and Mei’s paper for cancer development, which has since garnered over 1.4 million views.
Any cell that has spike protein in it, if it needs its DNA repaired… then spike protein can reduce the DNA repair… Cancer cells are the cells where the DNA has escaped the repair,” Been explained.
In addition to showing backlash from one scientist over this video, email exchanges from Stockholm University released to Barnett under Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests show concerns from another scientist that there was no evidence to support a retraction but merely concerns over “publicity.”
Furthermore, co-author Mei told Barnett that she never consented to the retraction, and that Stockholm University essentially forced the lead author, Jiang, to retract the paper.
“Stockholm University initially decided to retract the paper without the authors’ consent, a clear violation of academic ethics,” Mei said. “Stockholm University asked the first author, Hui Jiang, to retract it, and they began to formalize the process. This is an illegal retraction. I have reported to the editorial office that the retraction process is incorrect, and I strongly disagree with it.”
FOIA-released emails show that Mei firmly protested the retraction to co-author Jiang on February 1, 2022, just days before he formally submitted the retraction request:
“I absolutely not (sic) accept this retraction,” she wrote.
A retraction notice dated May 2022 cited “an improper experimental design with the potential to significantly affect the integrity of the resultant experimental data.”
“Both the chosen construct of the spike plasmid that contained a C-terminal fused with 6xHis tag and use of a GFP reporter system under overexpression conditions in the protocol were identified as having the potential to introduce significant ambiguity regarding the nature of the reported observations,” the notice read.
However, Mei objected to Barnett that these claims are “unfounded” and that “the retraction is unjustified.” “I strongly disagree (with the retraction notice), because the experiments have a control sample: Nucleoprotein containing 6Histag and GFP report, which localizes in the cell plasmid rather than in the nucleus. Therefore, the notice contains incorrect information,” said Mei, adding, “I never signed the retraction notice.”
It turns out that:
Retracting the paper ‘did not require evidence of scientific misconduct’
When Barnett asked Stockholm University’s press office about Freed’s role in retracting the paper, a spokesperson responded:
Stockholm University does not have insight into the retraction process. According to Swedish legislation and academic practice, Swedish researchers are the only owners of their research results (”upphovsrättsliga lärarundantaget”). As a consequence, researchers decide themselves if (and when) results should be published or retracted.Stockholm University did not take part in the retraction (and did not receive any pressure). The university’s research is truth-seeking, free and unbound. Stockholm University strives for an open scientific system, where everyone has free and open access to scholarly texts, research results and research data.
Implications for cancer and immune suppression
Dr. Syed summed up in a statement to Barnett the disturbing implications of Jiang and Mei’s findings for immune suppression and cancer:
The Jiang and Mei study showed that the spike protein has a suppressive effect on a protein called p53, which is commonly called ‘guardian of the genome’ for its role in repairing DNA, which in turn helps to prevent cancer formation.
“The very heavy (90%) suppression of p53 in the study shows that the main cancer repair mechanism in the body can be suppressed by the presence of spike protein which was found in the nucleus of cells consistent with the findings in the preclinical studies submitted to the Therapeutic Goods Administration (FOI 2389 document 6) following application of the mRNA product.
Implications for cancer and immune suppression.
“p53 suppression is a primary driver of a number of cancers but in particular pancreatic, breast, ovarian cancer and lymphoma. The biggest effect is seen in women’s cancer where BRCA mutation, which interferes with p53 production, is associated with a dramatic increase in the lifetime risk of breast cancer to around 70% (from 12%) and ovarian cancer to around 50% (from 1.5%). This was seen in Angelina Jolie, for example, whose hereditary BRCA mutation led to her having a double mastectomy to prevent her getting breast cancer.”
Syed pointed out that “the study implied that the presence of the COVID virus could have the same effect,” although viruses are not present in the body as long as the vaccine.
He estimates that, because of the paper’s retraction, “some 20%-30% of the population were deprived of access to information” that would have led to their refusing the COVID jab “even in the presence of vaccine mandates due to the potential carcinogenicity risk.”
“A further 20% of the population may have declined the product purely based on the existence of this risk. It could therefore be reasonably estimated that up to half of the excess cancers, as reported in the ABS provisional mortality reports… might have been prevented had appropriate due diligence and pharmacovigilance been applied,” Syed wrote.
Barnett remarked that Jiang and Mei’s paper has since been “vindicated,” since “multiple high-quality papers have now entered the scientific record confirming and building upon” their results, including a paper published last month by two cancer experts at Brown University, Professors Shengliang Zhang and Wafik El-Deiry, “showing that the spike protein has a suppressive effect on the tumor suppressor protein p53.”
Related:
TRUTH Can't Be Suppressed: Proof FACT CHECKERS Lied About Vaccines Not Corrupting DNA
