Covid Vaccines Give Prominent "Misinformation"-Fighter's Immune System Cancer
Further examining the case of the anti-anti-vax research leader who got Turbo Cancer after mRNA injection.
(With grateful acknowledgement to Igor Chudov for coaching this post’s title.)
Extremely rare cases like Michel’s create a tricky terrain for science communication. […] In fact, when Michel first told me about his cancer and about the paper he’d written with his brother, I said that I couldn’t write about it. I was worried that some readers would misinterpret my article, and mistakenly see it as a reason not to get vaccinated.
“[Vaccine skeptics are] looking for anything to support their crazy vision,” he said. “It makes me sad about the world in which we are living.”
Michel Goldman developed symptoms (first, a flu-like illness, and then night sweats and swollen lymph nodes), and was diagnosed with a rare form of lymphoma in September, 2021. This was 6 months after his initial course of experimental, gene-based injections for SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. The affected, hyperactive lymph nodes were on the same side as the injection arm.
He procured a third injection two weeks after diagnosis, this one into the opposite arm. His symptoms quickly worsened — more intense night sweats, new daytime fatigue, and more lymph node swelling. Eight days later, his lymphoma was found to have expanded with patently unnatural furor, with a particular flourish of activity on the other side of his body than previously affected — the side used for the third injection.
Two months later, in November of 2021, the case report for Goldman, written by himself and his brother, was published at Frontiers in Medicine.
As compared with the initial test, there was a marked 5.3-fold increase in whole-body TLG [a lymph node activity measurement], with the increase in the post-booster test being twice higher in the right axillary region than in the left one.
In February, Jane Ruby used the before- and after-third dose comparison from this paper to advocate against taking the experimental, gene-based injections for SARS-CoV-2 spike protein.
This makes Goldman “sad about the world in which we are living.”
As opposed to, you know, seemingly getting cancer because of his Covid vaccines.
“We Can’t Handle the Truth”
Goldman’s story was reluctantly reported in The Atlantic yesterday by Roxanne Khamsi, who initially “said that I couldn’t write about it.”
Khamsi is a career science journalist™ who has written hundreds of articles, served as chief editor for Nature Magazine for over 10 years, and has taught science journalism™ at Stony Brook University and CUNY.
So, is not being able to write about vaccine adverse events a full class, or just a chapter? How many times has Khamsi “couldn’t” write about adverse events, or “couldn’t” publish them as editor?
And yet this astonishing admission of journalistic malpractice is just tossed-off, as easily and naturally as Sam Harris endorsing full-blown state censorship if the thing being censored is a populist former President.
I was worried that some readers would misinterpret my article, and mistakenly see it as a reason not to get vaccinated.
Why shouldn’t I refuse to write about Goldman’s adverse reaction, reads the subtext to Khamsi’s admission: After all, isn’t preventing anti-vaxxers from thinking vaccines are unsafe more important than evaluating whether vaccines are safe?
The irony lost on Khamsi is that a career science journalist™ being consciously reluctant to honestly broker the case for the risks of vaccines is itself a valid reason to believe vaccines are unsafe.
I do not say this in the context of concern-trolling over “trust” or “reputation;” this is a question of rampant, religious delusion: If the “pro-vaccine” side has to censor adverse events to “win” the case, it is a signal that they have succumbed to dogma.
It is not the only such signal in this sad story.
Goldman, for example, leads “I3H,” an organization devoted to the Nonsense Speak mission of “Fostering Interdisciplinarity.”I3H takes a meta-approach to promoting new ways to drug up all of humanity, dipping its toes in regulatory streamlining, promotion of neglected treatment strategies (including monoclonal antibodies for infection with SARS-CoV-2), pro-vaccine and -lockdown indoctrination of children, and gathering intelligence that coincidentally fosters the future dismantling of vaccine-skeptical information networks.
And so when Goldman, “innovative healthcare”-promotor, comes down with lymphoma out of the blue 6 months after his first two injections with an “innovative healthcare,” it doesn’t even occur to him that this itself is an adverse event.
After all, most adverse events happen within a few days of injection; we know this because when they happen after 6 months we don’t even consider them as possibly related, because after all most adverse events…
Goldman’s Type of Cancer is Associated with Recent Immune System Provocation
Goldman’s new cancer was Angioimmunoblastic T-Cell Lymphoma — affected lymph nodes crowd up with hyperactive Follicular Helper T Cells, along with some characteristic accumulations of Follicular Dendritic and EBV-gene expressing B Cells which may be mere bystanders.
It typically occurs after age 60 (Goldman was 66).
Most people develop AITL in their 60s and 70s.
While it may be primed by somatic mutations to T Cells, it is believed to typically be provoked by some sort of recent immune insult.
The exact, underlying cause of AITL is unknown. It is believed that a dysfunctional immune system response to an unknown antigen ultimately leads to the development of the disorder.
As opposed to the carcinogenic dangers that might apply to the populace as a whole,manifestation or progression of AITL after Covid-vaccination suggests that Follicular Helper T Cells were primed to “go crazy” upon the mere presentation of mRNA-encoded spike protein within lymph nodes. In fact, this is exactly the mechanism Goldman and co-authors propose for the observed explosion in activity after the third dose:
In fact, the supposed enhancing action of the vaccine on AITL neoplastic cells is fully consistent with previous observations identifying TFH cells within germinal centers as key targets of nucleoside-modified mRNA vaccines [but only after the third dose?]
Hilariously, they comment on the “interesting” fact of a previous paper not considering the link:
Regarding the relationship with the underlying malignancy, hypermetabolic lymph nodes were considered as malignant in 5% of the patients while no conclusion regarding the malignant nature could be drawn in 15% of the vaccinees including 16 patients with lymphoma. Interestingly, in none of these studies [nor by us, here, regarding my first two doses], the possibility that the mRNA vaccines could have played a role in the development of malignant lymph nodes was considered.
And so Goldman, — who doesn’t report being infected with SARS-CoV-2 until the next February — must either ascribe his lymphoma to some other immune insult, or to his injection with mRNA for the spike protein. It is ridiculous to simply rule out the latter. There is not in fact a biological law that prevents adverse events from manifesting months after the fact; this is a secular religious fantasy.
Wouldn’t it make sense that what can exacerbate in the third dose, could have instigated in the first two?
Neither in his original paper nor his dialogue with Khamsi is the question even brought up. Perhaps Khamsi can post a follow-up with additional “anti-vax” online statements lamentably inspired by her Actually Doing Journalism For Once. If so, please include:
Goldman, you clearly got cancer from the Covid vaccine to begin with.
Notwithstanding this staggering blind-spot, Goldman advocates for more robust attention to “rare” adverse events. As Khamsi reports, there was much hesitation and hand-wringing on his part. Although eventually pulling the trigger and publishing his case-report, he is picky with his language, and refuses to consider his experience to imply any risk to anybody outside of incredibly exotic birds of pre-disposition such as himself.
Whatever the result of [prospective studies screening for adverse events only in rare AITL patients], it should not affect the overall favorable benefit-risk ratio of these much-needed vaccines.
Well, of course not — because that would require acknowledging that prospective screening of all sorts should have taken place in everyone to begin with, during the trials.
Khamsi presents Goldman as a tortured mind who, when faced with an imagined moral dilemma — will searching for the truth empower those who question vaccines? — sided with the truth. Again, the admission that both Goldman and Khamsi, powerful brokers of scientific knowledge, are instinctually reluctant to acknowledge adverse events, and this means they may have suppressed other reports, isn’t even apparently realized.
Why should it be suspicious that a lifelong vaccine promoter and lifelong scientific interlocutor waited until he, himself, was the victim?
Confessions of a Vaccine Idolater
Khamsi’s essay is not done divulging insights on the dogmatic, dissonance-strewn mindset of vaccine idolaters.
In the dialogue between herself and Goldman:
When we talked about the potential side effects of the AstraZeneca vaccine last year, Michel made it clear that, in the big picture, any chance of serious complications from the shots would be orders of magnitude smaller than the chance of complications from the pandemic illness itself.
Based on what?
If COVID vaccines caused clotting disorders or myocarditis in a tiny percentage of those who received them, he assured me, COVID would lead to stroke or heart inflammation in a much larger group.
Based on what?
Or maybe the cancer and the mRNA vaccine were connected, but the risk of getting immunized was still just a tiny speck beside the benefits.
Based on what?!
In every case, the mere property of being called a “vaccine” seemingly activates an axiomatic feature of the universe that magically prevents negatives from outweighing benefits.
And just what do our fanatics imagine the “benefits” actually are, in this case?
He remains adamant that COVID-19 vaccines are necessary and useful for the vast majority of people.
If the “vast majority” of people do not suffer severe infection or death from encounter with SARS-CoV-2, what necessity or use is there in injecting them with mRNA for spike protein in advance? But in this religion, of course, the axiomatic demands exerted on the universe by the magic word “vaccine” ensure that “at least one, anywhere” constitutes a “vast majority.”
The fact is that a majority of people survive infection without severe outcomes, even in “high-risk” groups. They fight off the infection with their immune system and they move on. Injections that reduce severe outcomes do not benefit people who wouldn’t have experienced them to begin with; they are therefor of no use to most people. And even if a plurality of people suffer long-term symptoms after infection — what evidence is there that injection improves this rate? It is mixed, at best;the reality might be that these injections cause the same symptoms just as often.
Khamsi closes with reflection. Goldman’s lymphoma apparently responded to treatment (leaving aside the question of whether it might have self-resolved). He has made his call for expanded pharmacovigilance which in no way should be taken as questioning the mighty glory of the god Vaccine.
And yet, naturally, he wrests with the question of what it means that the god Vaccine did, in fact, smite him. The only solution to this problem, it seems, is to believe in the god’s wonders for humanity at large even more fervently.
[Goldman is now questioning whether] a vaccine that is saving tens of millions of lives each year might have put his own in jeopardy.
This is a frankly unhinged number, suggesting a psychotic break with reality on the part of our vaccine idolators.
As well as an unsupportable use of present participle in the Omicron era. But even granting a fantasy of complete death protection resulting from worldwide, universal uptake — steelmanning the case for these failed injections as much as possible — how can Goldman and Khamsi actually be sure that injecting 8 billion, yearly or bi-yearly, to save 3 million, is actually a net positive? A rate of 4 deaths in 10,000 from yearly injection would lead to a net negative.
How does Goldman know that isn’t the rate? As he recently irresponsibly opined in his case study:
It is therefore unlikely that existing pharmacovigilance systems will be efficient to identify extremely rare cases
Thanks to the axiom-enforcing magic of the word “vaccine,” of course, the math doesn’t actually matter. “Vaccine” will self-correct reality: Ah, look, the experimental injections are saving 100 million now, and every hour at that!
Goldman may have lapsed into self-martyrdom rather than renouncing his god, but in clinging to the god in the first place he is clearly projecting himself onto the public at large. If he thinks he needed this awesome toxic, experimental, poorly-monitored, cancer-inducing, cancer-promoting protection against SARS-CoV-2, then everyone — the vast majority — must need it, too. Can’t have a “vast” majority without children. Lets get this ridiculously untested product into them, too. Parasitic elderly germaphobe vampires gonna parasitic elderly germaphobe vampire.
While Michel remains unsure about his fourth shot, he has continued to be outspoken on the benefits of vaccination overall, and often speaks to Belgian media on the topic.
Take it already, you reckless, misinformation-spewing menace to Vaccine!
If you derived value from this post, please drop a few coins in your fact-barista’s tip jar.
Khamsi, Roxanne. “Did a Famous Doctor’s COVID Shot Make His Cancer Worse?” (2022, September 24.) The Atlantic.
Goldman, S. et al. “Rapid Progression of Angioimmunoblastic T Cell Lymphoma Following BNT162b2 mRNA Vaccine Booster Shot: A Case Report.” Front Med (Lausanne). 2021 Nov 25;8:798095.
Neunez, M. Goldman, M. Goldman, S. Lambert, PH. (2019.) “Vaccines, Shots That Protect You.” Front Young Minds. 7:31.
Stevens, H. Neunez, M. (2020.) “COVID-19, The Quarantine-Virus Disease.” Front Young Minds. 8:102.
These do have a bit of entertainment value in so far as representing attempts to be “hip” with the “kids” by throwing entire walls of text at them (complete with “abstracts”).
See “Liquid Cancer.”
See “The Protective Effect” (database-based evidence for ‘Long Covid efficacy’) and “The BA.5 Summer Survey Study” (survey-based evidence for ‘Long Covid inefficacy’).
Patterson, et al. “SARS-CoV-2 S1 Protein Persistence in SARS-CoV-2 Negative Post-Vaccination Individuals with Long COVID/ PASC-Like Symptoms.” researchsquare.com
As Kurt Vonnegut said, "I had to laugh like hell".
That's my instinctive reaction to this guy being damaged by the vaccines, then I have to catch myself and remind myself that that's not nice.