Under intense pressure from pro-pharma shills, Stockholm University retracts “controversial” study linking COVID jabs to CANCER

External pressure from “concerned” scientists and members of the public reportedly resulted in a major study about Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) “vaccines” and cancer being retracted by Stockholm University in Sweden.

Research by Dr. Hui Jiang and Dr. Ya-Fang Mei linking COVID injections to cancer had to be pulled, authorities say, because it upset some people, including one scientist who questioned the “social relevance” of the paper. This same scientist claimed the science contained in the paper was “hacked by anti-vaccinationists.”

The research team from Umeå University, also in Sweden, published their findings in the peer-reviewed journal MDPI Viruses back in October 2021 at the height of the Trump regime’s Operation Warp Speed mass injection scheme. A video about the study that was posted to YouTube not even a month later quickly amassed more than 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,” explained Dr. Mobeen “Been” Syed, the medical educator who put together the YouTube video.

“Cancer cells are the cells where the DNA has escaped the repair.”

(Related: Croatian pathologist Ivana Pavic recently discovered that cancer risk among fully vaccinated patients aged 15 through 59 is 52 percent higher compared to unvaccinated cancer risk.)

Stockholm University bullied researchers into retracting study

According to independent journalist Rebekah Barnett, an investigation into the research was commenced just three days after the YouTube video from Dr. Been was posted. Email exchanges obtained by Barnett under Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests show that entrenched establishment scientists were livid about the revelations being made.

We are building the infrastructure of human freedom and empowering people to be informed, healthy and aware. Explore our decentralized, peer-to-peer, uncensorable Brighteon.io free speech platform here. Learn about our free, downloadable generative AI tools at Brighteon.AI. Every purchase at HealthRangerStore.com helps fund our efforts to build and share more tools for empowering humanity with knowledge and abundance.

According to the official “science,” the claims made in the study generated too much “publicity,” which is how the ball got rolling to get the paper retracted. Even though there was nothing false about the findings, they rocked the boat too much to be allowed to persist in the scientific literature.

Dr. Mei reportedly informed Barnett that she never actually consented to the retraction. Stockholm University basically forced Dr. Jiang, the study’s lead author, to retract it against his will.

“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.”

Mei vehemently contested the retraction to co-author Jiang on Feb. 1, 2022, just a few days before Jiang formally submitted his coerced retraction request.

“I absolutely not [sic] accept this retraction,” Mei wrote in a FOIA-released email to Jiang.

In a May 2022 retraction notice, the reason provided for the retraction was “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 retraction notice further reads.

Mei responded to this by calling the excuse “unjustified,” adding that the allegations were “unfounded.”

“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,” Mei said.

“Therefore, the notice contains incorrect information. I never signed the retraction notice.”

There is never a good reason to get injected with Big Pharma “vaccine” chemicals. Leran more at ChemicalViolence.com.

Sources for this article include:



Submit a correction >>

Get Our Free Email Newsletter
Get independent news alerts on natural cures, food lab tests, cannabis medicine, science, robotics, drones, privacy and more.
Your privacy is protected. Subscription confirmation required.

comments powered by Disqus

Get Our Free Email Newsletter
Get independent news alerts on natural cures, food lab tests, cannabis medicine, science, robotics, drones, privacy and more.
Your privacy is protected. Subscription confirmation required.


Get the world's best independent media newsletter delivered straight to your inbox.

By continuing to browse our site you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.