Davin News Server

September 12,2025

COVID Vaccine Linked to Sharp Rise in Cancer, Italian Researchers Find

Medical commentator John Campbell, Ph.D., dissects a peer-reviewed study published in EXCLI Journal in July that examines the long-
term relationship between SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations and cancer hospitalizations in a population-wide cohort of nearly 300,000 
residents of Pescara province, Italy.

by Jill Erzen

September 12,2025

Cancer risk surged 23% in people who received the COVID-19 vaccine, according to a peer-reviewed study published in EXCLI Journal 
in July 2025.

The risk of breast cancer jumped 54% and bladder cancer rose 62% within 180 days of the first vaccination, the study showed.

"This is real data and quite concerning," medical commentator John Campbell, Ph.D., said on his YouTube show as he broke down the 
results.

The study was the first to uncover statistically significant evidence of increased cancer risk following COVID-19 vaccination.

Researchers examined the long-term relationship between SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations and cancer hospitalizations in a population-wide 
cohort of nearly 300,000 residents of Pescara province, Italy.

Residents ages 11 and older were followed from June 2021 through December 2023 using official National Health System data.

The statistical models were adjusted for age, sex, comorbidities, prior cancer and prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, making it the most 
comprehensive follow-up to date on cancer diagnoses following COVID-19 vaccination.

The risk of cancer diagnosis was 23% higher for people vaccinated with one or more doses within 180 days of the first vaccine, 
versus the unvaccinated, the study found.

Among the 296,015 people studied, 3,134 were diagnosed with cancer.

"Even with this relatively small sample size," Campbell said, there is "only one chance in a thousand that this result arose by 
chance."

People receiving at least three doses of the COVID-19 vaccine had a 9% increased risk of cancer diagnosis within 180 days of the 
third vaccination, compared to the unvaccinated.

Two factors contribute to the drop in increased risk with more vaccine doses, Campbell said.

"One is that those people that were predisposed to get cancers basically had already developed it" before the 180-day post-third-
dose deadline was reached, Campbell said. "So perhaps the 23% increase in cancers at six months means that people that are going to 
get cancer ... may get it early."

Secondly, cancer follow-up requires decades for adequate analysis, he said.

There were no long-term COVID-19 vaccine studies, and "that was the whole problem," Campbell said. "They vaccinated the control 
groups in very short order ... so the whole thing was a complete debacle."

"We won't know the answer ... for the next 10,20 years ... as more people are diagnosed with cancer," he said.

Nearly all cancers showed upward trend

Breast, bladder and colorectal cancers showed the highest, statistically significant increases in vaccinated patients compared to 
unvaccinated.

The risk of breast cancer increased 54% and bladder cancer rose 62% in people with at least one dose of the COVID-19 vaccine, 180 
days after they received the shot. Colorectal cancer was up 34%.

In people with at least three doses of the COVID-19 vaccine, at 180 days after the third dose, the risk of breast cancer was up 36% 
and bladder cancer was up 43%.

The risk of colorectal cancer rose 14%, but this increase was not considered statistically significant due to the small sample size 
in the study.

Uterine and ovarian cancers also showed increases following both one and three doses, though the numbers were not statistically 
significant.

Campbell explained:

"It looks like there's a genuine increase, but when you take into account the fact that people were admitted with cancers, when you 
broke that down by cancer types, sometimes the numbers weren't sufficient to give a statistically significant result."

However, if the study were on a larger scale, 'my suspicion is that these would be, I'm afraid, highly highly significant," he 
said.

'Healthy vaccinee bias' may warp cancer risk numbers

In addition to analyzing cancer risk, the study assessed the risk of all-cause mortality associated with COVID-19 vaccination 
status.

Results showed vaccinated people had a lower likelihood of all-cause death throughout the study.

"This is almost certainly attributable to what we call the healthy vaccinee effect," Campbell said. "We were told, manipulated, 
lied, whatever you want to call it, that this vaccine was good for our health. So, people with an interest in health tended to get 
vaccinated."

The study's authors said the same healthy vaccinee bias that makes vaccines look like they reduce deaths could also underestimate 
cancer risks. They wrote:

"The healthy vaccinee bias, similarly to how it likely leads to an overestimation of vaccine effectiveness against all-cause death, 
could also lead to an underestimation of the potential negative impact of vaccination on hospitalization due to cancer. Indeed, the 
healthier lifestyle that is typically associated with vaccination may reduce the risk of lifestyle-associated carcinomas."

Campbell agreed with the authors. Vaccines caused or were associated with more cancers than they were able to identify, he 
suggested.

Certain biological factors indicate an association between the COVID-19 vaccines and cancer, according to Campbell, who said:

"Ongoing production of spike protein will cause inflammation. Ongoing inflammation is associated with cancer. Autoimmune attacking 
of the tissues will cause chronic inflammation. ... 

"DNA contamination ... there certainly is a great theoretical risk of cancer, largely by inhibiting tumor suppressor genes. 
Frameshifting ... you end up with rogue proteins. ... Rogue proteins, inflammation, any mutation, of course, is a cancer. I mean, 
our cancer starts as a mutation. So lots of plausible mechanisms there."

Evidence pointing to the dangers of the COVID-19 vaccines is growing, yet governments refuse to release detailed information on 
vaccinations versus health incidents, Campbell said, calling that failing "quite outrageous."

The lack of data suggests "a cover-up, and it's not acceptable," he said. "But sadly, this is the current period of time we are 
in."

===============================================================================

"Trump Derangement Syndrome" Is a Real Mental Condition

All you need to know about "Trump Derangement Syndrome," or TDS.

"Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) is a mental condition in which a person has been driven effectively insane due to their dislike 
of Donald Trump, to the point at which they will abandon all logic and reason."

Justin Raimondo, the editorial director of Antiwar.com, wrote a piece in the Los Angeles Times in 2016 that broke TDS down into 
three distinct phases or stages:

"In the first stage of the disease, victims lose all sense of proportion. The president-elect's every tweet provokes a firestorm, 
as if 140 characters were all it took to change the world."

"The mid-level stages of TDS have a profound effect on the victim's vocabulary: Sufferers speak a distinctive language consisting 
solely of hyperbole."

"As TDS progresses, the afflicted lose the ability to distinguish fantasy from reality."

The Point here is simple: TDS is, in the eyes of its adherents, the knee-jerk opposition from liberals to anything and everything 
Trump does. If Trump announced he was donating every dollar he's ever made, TDS sufferers would suggest he was up to something 
nefarious, according to the logic of TDS. There's nothing - not. one. thing. - that Trump could do or say that would be received 
positively by TDSers.

The history of Trump Derangement Syndrome actually goes back to the early 2000s - a time when the idea of Trump as president was a 
punch line for late-night comics and nothing more.

Wikipedia traces its roots to "Bush Derangement Syndrome" - a term first coined by the late conservative columnist Charles 
Krauthammer back in 2003. The condition, as Krauthammer defined it, was "the acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in 
reaction to the policies, the presidency - nay - the very existence of George W. Bush."