A major new study from South Korea on the cancer causing effects of COVID vaccinations has just been published with 8 million people examined in the study and it concludes what everybody has been saying about these vaccines since their introduction. The study reports vaccinated persons had significant more cancer related issues than non vaccinated people.
The percentages are so staggering that its not only significant in scientific terms, but the new RNA vaccines truly do cause turbo cancers. The study can be found here. Every pure blood on the planet should be very thankful they never took that poison. But many people have been killed due to the world government’s eugenics agenda. The evidence that they tried to mass murder billions of people with pharmakia is now beyond any doubt.
Over four million Americans have been killed so far by vaccine related side effects with tens of millions more worldwide. World governments and mega corporations colluded together in a vast conspiracy to defraud the public and to kill the masses for religious purposes like a giant Jonestown cult.
World government released the virus according to reports to sell the vaccines like the movie “Outbreak.” The pattents would suggest this COVID virus was released not only to kill, harm and exploit but to control the masses thru NAZI like passports, like some kind of beast system. No vaccine, no job, no pay, no money and therefore you can’t buy without their mark of the beast.
To make things worse, during the COVID-19 rollout, Western governments quietly expanded their counter-disinformation architecture. Agencies like DHS and CISA in the U.S. coordinated with academic nodes such as the Stanford Internet Observatory to flag vaccine skepticism as a form of “domestic threat.” In practice, this meant that doctors, journalists, and ordinary citizens who questioned mRNA safety, raised concerns about side effects, or criticized mandates were sometimes lumped together with foreign influence operators or even domestic extremists. At the same time, platforms like Twitter and Facebook were pressured to label, downrank, or remove posts that ran counter to the official “safe and effective” message.
This strategy dovetailed with a top-down media campaign that drilled the phrase “safe and effective” into the public mind. It was repeated by public health officials, amplified by news anchors, and echoed by AI-driven moderation systems. In effect, it became a doctrine rather than a nuanced assessment, and alternative data such as the Pfizer FOIA releases, VAERS signals, or early biodistribution studies were swept aside. For those who tried to sound alarms, the experience often felt like gaslighting, as their warnings were dismissed not on scientific grounds but as misinformation or even subversion.
The end result was a system that treated dissent as a security problem rather than a scientific debate. People who genuinely believed they were protecting their communities were branded as dangerous, while institutions that had conflicts of interest maintained control of the narrative. Whether one believes this was strategic negligence or deliberate suppression, the consequence was the same: a collapse of trust. For many, being painted as a “domestic threat” for raising safety concerns was not only a personal betrayal but also evidence of how public health merged with information warfare during the pandemic.
If the most pessimistic interpretations of vaccine injury signals are borne out, the scale of harm would be unlike anything seen in modern medicine. VAERS has logged tens of thousands of death reports following COVID-19 vaccination, which the CDC classifies as unverified and mostly coincidental. Yet critics argue that serious adverse events are still under-reported, pointing to earlier studies that found passive systems may miss the vast majority of cases. Using those multipliers, even a conservative worst-case scenario yields tens of thousands of vaccine-related deaths in the United States; more aggressive assumptions reach into the hundreds of thousands. Globally, such figures would translate to millions of potential victims.
Layered on top of acute events are the signals emerging from large epidemiological studies like the South Korean analysis of over eight million people, which reported 20–70 percent increases in relative risk for several cancers within one year of vaccination. If that pattern were real and extended over five years, it could mean hundreds of thousands of excess cancer diagnoses and deaths in vaccinated populations worldwide. Because cancers develop slowly, the burden would show up gradually, making it harder to link back to the original exposure and easier for authorities to deny any connection. In this scenario, public-health agencies would have unwittingly triggered a slow-motion public-health catastrophe.
The human impact of such a worst-case scenario would be profound. Families who trusted official assurances would discover that a medical intervention they were told was “safe and effective” may have contributed to illness or death. The legal system would struggle with liability because of emergency authorizations and immunity shields. And at a societal level, trust in medicine, government and science would crater, producing a backlash against not only vaccines but any large-scale public-health program. Whether these dire outcomes materialise or not, the very existence of such plausible scenarios underscores the cost of suppressing open debate and rushing a novel technology into billions of arms without transparent, long-term safety data.
