I totally respect your work, Dr Marik and I praise God for you for not just lying down and let the bulldozer run over you, so I do not question your integrity.
Yet I personally believe that all the vaccines foisted onto our infants, plays a role in these childhood cancers! I’m afraid you will not be able to convince me otherwise.
Agree JDG - ALL vaccines are toxic, along with fluoride in our drinking water & glyphosate etc. being sprayed onto our foods, a toxic cesspool. In God we Trust ...
Absolutely 100%. I agree with you, yet it remains the elephant in the room that no one is willing to mention and talk about. Dr. Marik, would you care to elaborate? We’re all waiting.
The elephant in the room is childhood vaccination. Many readers have asked whether routine childhood vaccines could increase the risk of childhood cancer. While this hypothesis is sometimes raised, there are currently no convincing clinical data supporting such an association.
To answer this question reliably would require a very large, well-designed study comparing cancer rates in vaccinated and unvaccinated children while carefully accounting for other factors that influence cancer risk. To date, no such study has demonstrated an increased risk of childhood cancer associated with routine vaccination.
I discussed this issue with pediatric experts who have studied health outcomes in vaccinated and unvaccinated children. They are not aware of any reproducible signal linking routine childhood vaccination to an increased incidence of childhood cancer.
As with any scientific question, we should follow the evidence rather than speculation. If high-quality data eventually demonstrate a relationship, those findings should be evaluated objectively. At present, however, the available evidence does not support an association between routine childhood vaccination and childhood cancer. We need robust data—not hypothetical speculation—to answer this important question.
The elephant in the room is childhood vaccination. Many readers have asked whether routine childhood vaccines could increase the risk of childhood cancer. While this hypothesis is sometimes raised, there are currently no convincing clinical data supporting such an association.
To answer this question reliably would require a very large, well-designed study comparing cancer rates in vaccinated and unvaccinated children while carefully accounting for other factors that influence cancer risk. To date, no such study has demonstrated an increased risk of childhood cancer associated with routine vaccination.
I discussed this issue with pediatric experts who have studied health outcomes in vaccinated and unvaccinated children. They are not aware of any reproducible signal linking routine childhood vaccination to an increased incidence of childhood cancer.
As with any scientific question, we should follow the evidence rather than speculation. If high-quality data eventually demonstrate a relationship, those findings should be evaluated objectively. At present, however, the available evidence does not support an association between routine childhood vaccination and childhood cancer. We need robust data—not hypothetical speculation—to answer this important question.
Sasha Latypova: "You Should Not Be Vaccine Hesitant, You Should Be 100% Vaccine Hostile. There Are No "Safe" Vaccines. All Vaccines Are INTENTIONAL POISONS. "
"Anyone who tries to sell you "pros and cons" is a con themselves."
One question that inevitably arises is whether routine childhood vaccination might increase the risk of childhood cancer. This is an understandable question. While such an association is biologically conceivable, there is currently no convincing clinical evidence demonstrating that routine childhood vaccination increases the risk of childhood cancer.
Several observational studies comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated children have reported differences in the incidence of certain medical conditions. These include higher reported rates of ear infections (otitis media), asthma, allergic rhinitis (hay fever), eczema and other atopic disorders, sinusitis, gastrointestinal disorders, developmental delays, behavioral disorders, and ADHD among vaccinated children. However, these studies are observational, have important methodological limitations, and cannot establish that vaccination caused these conditions.
Childhood cancer, however, is a very different question. Because pediatric cancers are fortunately rare, determining whether vaccination influences cancer risk would require an exceptionally large, carefully designed prospective study comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated children while accounting for the many genetic, environmental, and developmental factors known to influence childhood cancer. To date, no study of this size and quality has been performed, and given the logistical and ethical challenges, one is unlikely to be conducted.
I have discussed this issue with pediatric experts who have studied health outcomes in vaccinated and unvaccinated children. Based on the available evidence, they are not aware of any reproducible signal linking routine childhood vaccination to an increased incidence of childhood cancer.
As with any important scientific question, our conclusions should be guided by evidence rather than speculation. If future high-quality research demonstrates an association, those findings should be evaluated objectively and without bias. At present, however, there is no credible evidence supporting a link between routine childhood vaccination and childhood cancer. This is precisely why we need rigorous scientific studies—not hypothetical speculation—to answer this important question.
A related claim often made is that Amish children rarely, if ever, develop cancer because they receive fewer vaccines. The available evidence does not support this assertion. Although Amish adults appear to have lower rates of several common cancers—particularly those associated with smoking and certain lifestyle factors—these findings cannot be extrapolated to children. Reliable population-based data on childhood cancer among Amish communities are extremely limited, and there is currently no convincing evidence that Amish children have a lower overall incidence of cancer. Indeed, some older studies have suggested an increased frequency of childhood leukemia in certain Amish or related Anabaptist populations. Consequently, claims that Amish children are essentially free of cancer are not supported by the available scientific evidence.
Ultimately, this is an area where careful research—not assumptions from either side of the debate—is needed. Until such evidence exists, conclusions should remain grounded in the data rather than in speculation.
Amish adults appear to have lower rates of several common cancers, particularly cancers associated with tobacco and lifestyle exposures. However, this finding should not be extrapolated to children. Reliable population-level data on childhood cancer among the Amish are extremely limited, and there is currently no convincing evidence that Amish children have a lower overall incidence of cancer. Indeed, some older studies suggested an increased frequency of childhood leukemia in certain Amish or related populations. Claims that Amish children are essentially free of cancer are not supported by the available evidence.
Is the incidence of childhood cancers increasing at the same rate in unvaccinated kids as in those who are jabbed? How many Amish children are there? What is their rate of cancers?
Thank you for this!! Do you also look at SUV on a PET scan as an indicator of the tumor’s glycolytic potential? My daughter has a germline tp53 mutation causing rhabdomyosarcoma. A local reoccurance found the tumor to have background levels of SUV. There is fgfr1 and myc amplification.
My daughter was diagnosed with stage 4 alveolar rhabdomyosarcoma just before she turned 17. She is FOX fusion positive. Went through almost a year of chemo, 1 month of radiation, 6 months of maintenance chemo (IVM after the first 3 months), and was NED in January. By May, cancer was back. We had reduced the IVM dose in February, and probably by too much.... SUV on a the PET scan is a measure of brightness, I believe, so yes, the sugar metabolism of the cancer.
i’m so sorry. although my daughter is ERMS and not fusion positive, her germline tp53 mutation makes it as aggressive as FOX fusion positive though in a different way as her tumor is less chemo and radio sensitive.
How is your daughter doing now? I know of a kid also with FOX fusion positive who has been under treatment for 7 years. They’ve done alot of alternative treatments (mistletoe, HDIVC, HBOT, etc) and while those haven’t killed the cancer, they have allowed the child to take on more SOC treatment with a relatively good quality of life.
She doesn't want to do chemo again, but did go through a week more of radiation. We are continuing ivm and have added fen ben, as well as curcumin, aged garlic extract, EGCG, and berberine. It is hard to get her to take anything because she hates feeling like an elderly person with a whole medicine cabinet of drugs to take. Since she's 18, it is also hard to convince her to avoid sugar. She's certainly not a sugar addict, but does like to be able to eat ice cream, have a soda, etc. Her tumor in a vertebrae had grown enough to crack the vertebrae, so she was having severe back pain for over a month. They went in and burned that lesion with radiofrequency and filled the hole and cracks with medical-grade cement. So pain has been getting better. She's taking a drug prescribed by her oncologist called pazopanib that is supposed to block the tumor from creating new blood vessels. Her stomach feels off most of the time because of that. I know there are some supplements that are also VEGR (I think that was the acronymn) suppressors, and I wonder how they compare to the pazopanib in effectiveness.
Thank you so much Dr. Marik for ALL you are doing on the cancer front. I have learned so much from you in your Cancer Care monoliths and now this Substack, and I believe it is making a huge difference in the lives of many, including my daughter!
I totally respect your work, Dr Marik and I praise God for you for not just lying down and let the bulldozer run over you, so I do not question your integrity.
Yet I personally believe that all the vaccines foisted onto our infants, plays a role in these childhood cancers! I’m afraid you will not be able to convince me otherwise.
Agree JDG - ALL vaccines are toxic, along with fluoride in our drinking water & glyphosate etc. being sprayed onto our foods, a toxic cesspool. In God we Trust ...
YES!
Avoid this garbage and no need for a gp unless you break your leg
Absolutely 100%. I agree with you, yet it remains the elephant in the room that no one is willing to mention and talk about. Dr. Marik, would you care to elaborate? We’re all waiting.
Doctors make $$$$ from pretending cancer can be cured with their toxic infusions....
I am thinking the reason a small percentage survive is because its just luck...
I'd like to see how many would survive simply by adopting clean food and exercise...
I betcha the numbers would still be small but at least as good as injecting toxins...
Of course the doctor wont have such studies ...for obvious reasons...
Medicine is for the most part a racket...stay as far away from these mad dogs as possible
Eat no processed foods...no sugar...no seed oils...no booze...and exercise
I am a physician, and I agree with you.
Crickets
Chalk it up to "early-life exposures" as attributed at the start of the article.
WERErare...before the death shots...
A fiend was recently telling 2 colleagues have each got a round child with cancer....
Cancers in children WERE rare...but not since the death shots....
A friend
The elephant in the room is childhood vaccination. Many readers have asked whether routine childhood vaccines could increase the risk of childhood cancer. While this hypothesis is sometimes raised, there are currently no convincing clinical data supporting such an association.
To answer this question reliably would require a very large, well-designed study comparing cancer rates in vaccinated and unvaccinated children while carefully accounting for other factors that influence cancer risk. To date, no such study has demonstrated an increased risk of childhood cancer associated with routine vaccination.
I discussed this issue with pediatric experts who have studied health outcomes in vaccinated and unvaccinated children. They are not aware of any reproducible signal linking routine childhood vaccination to an increased incidence of childhood cancer.
As with any scientific question, we should follow the evidence rather than speculation. If high-quality data eventually demonstrate a relationship, those findings should be evaluated objectively. At present, however, the available evidence does not support an association between routine childhood vaccination and childhood cancer. We need robust data—not hypothetical speculation—to answer this important question.
Clinical data???????
Hahaha...ya think they'd release this info even if studies showed higher cancer rates in vaxxed...
Same fellas who tell me covid vax injuries are rare...
You still belive them?
Gawsh....
Vaccines are health destroying toxic waste... they are dangerous...and should be avoided
yes..SUV on a PET scan is an indicator of the tumor’s glycolytic potential?
The elephant in the room is childhood vaccination. Many readers have asked whether routine childhood vaccines could increase the risk of childhood cancer. While this hypothesis is sometimes raised, there are currently no convincing clinical data supporting such an association.
To answer this question reliably would require a very large, well-designed study comparing cancer rates in vaccinated and unvaccinated children while carefully accounting for other factors that influence cancer risk. To date, no such study has demonstrated an increased risk of childhood cancer associated with routine vaccination.
I discussed this issue with pediatric experts who have studied health outcomes in vaccinated and unvaccinated children. They are not aware of any reproducible signal linking routine childhood vaccination to an increased incidence of childhood cancer.
As with any scientific question, we should follow the evidence rather than speculation. If high-quality data eventually demonstrate a relationship, those findings should be evaluated objectively. At present, however, the available evidence does not support an association between routine childhood vaccination and childhood cancer. We need robust data—not hypothetical speculation—to answer this important question.
Sasha Latypova: "You Should Not Be Vaccine Hesitant, You Should Be 100% Vaccine Hostile. There Are No "Safe" Vaccines. All Vaccines Are INTENTIONAL POISONS. "
"Anyone who tries to sell you "pros and cons" is a con themselves."
Thanks..
The Elephant in the Room: Childhood Vaccination
One question that inevitably arises is whether routine childhood vaccination might increase the risk of childhood cancer. This is an understandable question. While such an association is biologically conceivable, there is currently no convincing clinical evidence demonstrating that routine childhood vaccination increases the risk of childhood cancer.
Several observational studies comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated children have reported differences in the incidence of certain medical conditions. These include higher reported rates of ear infections (otitis media), asthma, allergic rhinitis (hay fever), eczema and other atopic disorders, sinusitis, gastrointestinal disorders, developmental delays, behavioral disorders, and ADHD among vaccinated children. However, these studies are observational, have important methodological limitations, and cannot establish that vaccination caused these conditions.
Childhood cancer, however, is a very different question. Because pediatric cancers are fortunately rare, determining whether vaccination influences cancer risk would require an exceptionally large, carefully designed prospective study comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated children while accounting for the many genetic, environmental, and developmental factors known to influence childhood cancer. To date, no study of this size and quality has been performed, and given the logistical and ethical challenges, one is unlikely to be conducted.
I have discussed this issue with pediatric experts who have studied health outcomes in vaccinated and unvaccinated children. Based on the available evidence, they are not aware of any reproducible signal linking routine childhood vaccination to an increased incidence of childhood cancer.
As with any important scientific question, our conclusions should be guided by evidence rather than speculation. If future high-quality research demonstrates an association, those findings should be evaluated objectively and without bias. At present, however, there is no credible evidence supporting a link between routine childhood vaccination and childhood cancer. This is precisely why we need rigorous scientific studies—not hypothetical speculation—to answer this important question.
A related claim often made is that Amish children rarely, if ever, develop cancer because they receive fewer vaccines. The available evidence does not support this assertion. Although Amish adults appear to have lower rates of several common cancers—particularly those associated with smoking and certain lifestyle factors—these findings cannot be extrapolated to children. Reliable population-based data on childhood cancer among Amish communities are extremely limited, and there is currently no convincing evidence that Amish children have a lower overall incidence of cancer. Indeed, some older studies have suggested an increased frequency of childhood leukemia in certain Amish or related Anabaptist populations. Consequently, claims that Amish children are essentially free of cancer are not supported by the available scientific evidence.
Ultimately, this is an area where careful research—not assumptions from either side of the debate—is needed. Until such evidence exists, conclusions should remain grounded in the data rather than in speculation.
Thanks my friend.
Amish adults appear to have lower rates of several common cancers, particularly cancers associated with tobacco and lifestyle exposures. However, this finding should not be extrapolated to children. Reliable population-level data on childhood cancer among the Amish are extremely limited, and there is currently no convincing evidence that Amish children have a lower overall incidence of cancer. Indeed, some older studies suggested an increased frequency of childhood leukemia in certain Amish or related populations. Claims that Amish children are essentially free of cancer are not supported by the available evidence.
We dont know the answers to these important questions.
Is the incidence of childhood cancers increasing at the same rate in unvaccinated kids as in those who are jabbed? How many Amish children are there? What is their rate of cancers?
Thank you for this!! Do you also look at SUV on a PET scan as an indicator of the tumor’s glycolytic potential? My daughter has a germline tp53 mutation causing rhabdomyosarcoma. A local reoccurance found the tumor to have background levels of SUV. There is fgfr1 and myc amplification.
My daughter was diagnosed with stage 4 alveolar rhabdomyosarcoma just before she turned 17. She is FOX fusion positive. Went through almost a year of chemo, 1 month of radiation, 6 months of maintenance chemo (IVM after the first 3 months), and was NED in January. By May, cancer was back. We had reduced the IVM dose in February, and probably by too much.... SUV on a the PET scan is a measure of brightness, I believe, so yes, the sugar metabolism of the cancer.
i’m so sorry. although my daughter is ERMS and not fusion positive, her germline tp53 mutation makes it as aggressive as FOX fusion positive though in a different way as her tumor is less chemo and radio sensitive.
How is your daughter doing now? I know of a kid also with FOX fusion positive who has been under treatment for 7 years. They’ve done alot of alternative treatments (mistletoe, HDIVC, HBOT, etc) and while those haven’t killed the cancer, they have allowed the child to take on more SOC treatment with a relatively good quality of life.
She doesn't want to do chemo again, but did go through a week more of radiation. We are continuing ivm and have added fen ben, as well as curcumin, aged garlic extract, EGCG, and berberine. It is hard to get her to take anything because she hates feeling like an elderly person with a whole medicine cabinet of drugs to take. Since she's 18, it is also hard to convince her to avoid sugar. She's certainly not a sugar addict, but does like to be able to eat ice cream, have a soda, etc. Her tumor in a vertebrae had grown enough to crack the vertebrae, so she was having severe back pain for over a month. They went in and burned that lesion with radiofrequency and filled the hole and cracks with medical-grade cement. So pain has been getting better. She's taking a drug prescribed by her oncologist called pazopanib that is supposed to block the tumor from creating new blood vessels. Her stomach feels off most of the time because of that. I know there are some supplements that are also VEGR (I think that was the acronymn) suppressors, and I wonder how they compare to the pazopanib in effectiveness.
OMG.. I would just continue doing what you are doing.. you can only do your best.
Thank you so much Dr. Marik for ALL you are doing on the cancer front. I have learned so much from you in your Cancer Care monoliths and now this Substack, and I believe it is making a huge difference in the lives of many, including my daughter!
Thanks.
Very well written and thought out article. Thank you!