{"id":305105,"date":"2025-03-15T06:58:12","date_gmt":"2025-03-15T06:58:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/?p=305105"},"modified":"2025-03-17T07:42:44","modified_gmt":"2025-03-17T07:42:44","slug":"how-covid-vaccines-paved-the-way-for-mrna-cancer-vaccines","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/?p=305105","title":{"rendered":"How Covid \u201cvaccines\u201d paved the way for mRNA Cancer \u201cvaccines\u201d"},"content":{"rendered":"

Kit Knightly \u2013 Off-Guardian March 13, 2025<\/strong><\/h1>\n

The unprecedentedly speedy development and approval of the various Covid \u201cvaccines\u201d \u2013 most using previously unsuccessful mRNA technology \u2013 is considered a scientific miracle by ardent followers of The ScienceTM<\/sup>.<\/p>\n

Many others \u2013 us included \u2013 see it another way: one of the greatest scams ever perpetrated against a scared public, and a potentially incredibly dangerous and even deadly one.<\/p>\n

But the damage done by that process doesn\u2019t stop at the Covid \u201cvaccines\u201d themselves, they have opened the door for more and more \u201cvaccines\u201d to be rushed to market. That includes potentially \u201cbespoke cancer vaccines\u201d, of which there are currently hundreds of medical trials taking place around the world.<\/p>\n

Earlier today Wired<\/em> published an interview<\/a> with Lennard Lee, oncologist and director at the Ellison Institute of Technology in Oxford, headlined:<\/p>\n

Covid Vaccines Have Paved the Way for Cancer Vaccines<\/p>\n

It\u2019s quite an interesting read.<\/p>\n

For one thing, if I\u2019m understanding Dr Lee\u2019s words correctly, these products aren\u2019t really \u201cvaccines\u201d [emphasis added]:<\/p>\n

In the current trials, we do a biopsy of the patient, sequence the tissue, send it to the pharmaceutical company, and they design a personalized vaccine that\u2019s bespoke to that patient\u2019s cancer<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

They don\u2019t prevent people from getting cancer, they are used to treat people who already have cancer<\/em>. Meaning they\u2019re not \u201cvaccines\u201d in the true sense of the word at all.<\/p>\n

This echoes the Covid \u201cvaccines\u201d, which are known to prevent neither infection nor transmission of \u201cCovid\u201d, but only \u201climit severity\u201d (the reason they can\u2019t prevent transmission or infection is that \u201cCovid\u201d doesn\u2019t really exist, but we\u2019ve covered that enough).<\/p>\n

It seems the assault on words and their meanings that took place during Covid is going to have knock-on impacts for a long time yet. That, indeed, was the point.<\/p>\n

Later, we learn just how fast all these cancer vaccines have been produced\u2026<\/p>\n

Cancer vaccines weren\u2019t a proper field of research before the pandemic. There was nothing. Apart from one exception, pretty much every clinical trial had failed. With the pandemic, however, we proved that mRNA vaccines were possible.<\/p>\n

Cancer vaccines were not a \u201cproper field of research\u201d before the pandemic. It was the *ahem* \u201csuccess\u201d of the Covid \u201cvaccine\u201d which spurred the creation of mRNA cancer vaccines, so they have existed for \u2013 at absolute most \u2013 three years. And Dr Lee expects them to be approved in less than five [emphasis added]:<\/p>\n

\u2026over the next six to 12 months, we will monitor the people in the trial and work out if there\u2019s a difference between the people who took the cancer vaccine and the ones who didn\u2019t. We\u2019re hoping to have results by the end of the year or beginning of 2026. If it\u2019s successful, we will have invented the first approved personalized mRNA vaccine, within only five years of the first licensed mRNA vaccine for Covid. That\u2019s pretty impressive<\/strong><\/p>\n

We would use the word \u201cunbelievable\u201d.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s quite telling that he skips over the approval process and talks only of effectiveness rather than safety or side effects, don\u2019t you think?<\/p>\n

Of course, he has good reason to be confident; after all the UK government has essentially guaranteed a market for these products before the trials are even completed. Dr Lee says as much himself:<\/p>\n

the UK government signed two partnerships: one with BioNTech to provide 10,000 patients with access to personalized cancer treatments by 2030, and a 10-year investment with Moderna in an innovation and technology center with capacity to produce up to 250 million vaccines.<\/p>\n

At some points the interviewer actually asks some very pertinent questions.<\/p>\n

During the pandemic, the UK was opening clinical trials in a matter of a few weeks. But before it used to take years to complete a clinical trial. What changed?<\/p>\n

That\u2019s an excellent question, one the good doctor is either unequipped or unwilling to answer [emphasis added].<\/p>\n

It was really fascinating, because for many years, we believed that research is inherently slow. It used to take 20 years to get a drug to market. Most cancer patients, unfortunately, will succumb by the time a drug gets to market. We showed the world that it could be done in a year if you modernize your process<\/strong>, run parts of the process in parallel<\/strong>, and use digital tools<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

See, they used to think research was \u201cinherently slow\u201d, but they were wrong. They just had to \u201cmodernize the process\u201d.<\/p>\n

For some reason the interviewer doesn\u2019t feel the need to call out this vague non-answer, so we never learn what \u201cthe process\u201d is, or how it was \u201cmodernized\u201d. \u201cRunning in parallel\u201d and \u201cdigital tools\u201d are similarly unexplained.<\/p>\n

The reader is left with no understanding of what that answer actually means in real terms. We are forced to guess.<\/p>\n

\u201cRunning in parallel\u201d obviously means doing things at the same time that used to be done one after the other, whether that means animal and human trials or some other parts of the \u201cprocess\u201d we can never know. Using \u201cdigital tools\u201d probably means modelling studies and projections in place of data, but might mean something else.<\/p>\n

\u201cModernising the process\u201d is so loose a term it defies even interpretive guesswork. The answer is vague to the point of being meaningless. It\u2019s something no one would ever accept in a real conversation\u2026<\/p>\n

\u201cWow Howard, you got your month\u2019s work done in 15 minutes. How\u2019d you manage that?\u201d<\/em>
\n\u201cOh, I just modernized the process.\u201d<\/em>
\n\u201c\u2026what the hell are you talking about Howard?\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

But vague non-answers going unchallenged is par for the course in propaganda interviews such as this.<\/p>\n

Of course, none of those non-answers actually addresses the real issue of collapsing the timeframe. The reason drug trials take so long is the need for long term safety data. The only way to have 5 or 10-year outcome data is to give someone the drug, then wait 5 or 10 years and see what happens.<\/p>\n

You can\u2019t modernize that, \u201crun it in parallel\u201d or use \u201cdigital tools\u201d to model it.<\/p>\n

In the UK, you set up the Cancer Vaccine Launch Pad at the end of 2022 to fast-track cancer vaccine trials. Why set up such an ambitious project right after the Covid pandemic?<\/p>\n

This is another good question. The answer?<\/p>\n

The pandemic was ending, the Omicron variant was much milder than previous variants, and everyone had had their vaccines. Research in the area of Covid vaccines was starting to close down, but companies like Moderna and BioNTech were trying to figure out what to do next, because there wasn\u2019t going to be a need for a Covid vaccine market forever<\/strong><\/p>\n

Translation: Money<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

With the end of the \u201cpandemic\u201d, mRNA vaccine manufacturers realised the money hose was about to be turned off and they would need a new one. Hence the new mRNA vaccines for the flu, monkeypox, RSV, HIV, bird flu and cancer \u2013\u00a0 all within a couple of years.<\/p>\n

And cancer is the big one.<\/p>\n

You can\u2019t underestimate how much<\/em> money there is in cancer. Between screening<\/a> and \u201ctreating\u201d it is an industry worth over $400 billion<\/em> per year<\/em> and that\u2019s only going up<\/a>. (You could argue a lot of \u201cscreening\u201d is about generating \u201ccancer patients\u201d to treat, but that\u2019s another issue).<\/p>\n

Those treatments have been a gold mine for Big Pharma. They take forever, they\u2019re expensive, and if they kill you (which they do, a lot<\/a>), the coroner will probably find you died of cancer (or \u201ccomplications resulting from cancer\u201d).<\/p>\n

Indeed, the surgery\/chemotherapy\/radiation pipeline \u2013 \u201ccut, poison, burn\u201d \u2013 is so profitable that it makes me question how effective any cancer vaccine would ever be allowed to be, supposing it really existed.<\/p>\n

After all, a cancer \u201cvaccine\u201d that works by \u201ctraining the immune system\u201d isn\u2019t just an alternative treatment to chemo and radiation; it is diametrically opposed to them since the vaccine requires a healthy immune system and both those treatments destroy your immune system.<\/p>\n

But we\u2019re getting into speculation here \u2013 a different article for another time.<\/p>\n

*<\/p>\n

In conclusion, the Wired headline is entirely correct. Covid vaccines DID pave the way for mRNA cancer vaccines.<\/p>\n

How?<\/p>\n