300+ peer-reviewed cases across 27 countries linking mRNA vaccination to rapid-onset cancers
Former Japanese politician Mr Kazuhiro Haraguchi is an 10 times elected House of Representative from Saga’s 1st district, served as Minister of Internal Affairs and Communications under Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama in 2009 overseeing telecommunications, local governance, and regional sovereignty promotion. A member of the Constitutional Democratic Party of Japan, Haraguchi has been vocal on issues like nuclear disarmament and disability rights, authoring books like “Peace.”
In a stunning tweet directed to to Drs. Wafik El-Deiry and Charlotte Kuperwasser, he detailed his harrowing ordeal: compelled to take the mRNA COVID vaccine to attend a global nuclear disarmament conference, he was diagnosed three years ago with aggressive Diffuse Large B-cell Lymphoma (DLBCL), spreading to his tonsils at Stage 2. Never infected with COVID, he achieved remission with help from renowned doctors like Dr. Tess Lawrie. This story is explosive—a high-ranking official, once at the heart of Japan’s government, now exposing vaccine risks amid rising global reports of post-shot cancers. Japanese research institutes tested his extracted tonsil tissues, detecting diffuse spike proteins (vaccine-induced) but no nucleocapsid proteins (virus markers), confirming the shot, not the virus, as the trigger.
Haraguchi reached out because El-Deiry and Kuperwasser’s paper echoed his nightmare, providing scientific backing he sees as heaven-sent validation in his fight against vaccine harms.
Dr. Wafik El-Deiry, born in 1961, is a powerhouse American physician-scientist, Associate Dean for Oncologic Sciences at Brown University’s Warren Alpert Medical School, and director of the Legorreta Cancer Center. An American Cancer Society Research Professor—one of just 40 active nationwide—he discovered the p21 gene, a key brake on cancer cell growth, earning him recognition as one of “America’s Top Oncologists.” With over 30 years in oncology, he’s led breakthroughs in therapy resistance, drug discovery for colorectal and other cancers, and chaired global networks like the WIN Consortium for personalized medicine. Formerly Rose Dunlap Professor and Hematology-Oncology Chief at Penn State, then Deputy Director for Translational Research at Fox Chase Cancer Center, El-Deiry’s work has saved lives through innovative treatments.
His voice terrifies pharma—untouchable credentials now dismantling vaccine safety myths.
Dr. Charlotte Kuperwasser, Professor of Developmental, Molecular, and Chemical Biology at Tufts University School of Medicine, heads a cutting-edge lab renowned for cracking breast cancer origins, tumor-microenvironment interactions, and hormone-driven risks. With NIH grants fueling organoid models that mimic human breast tissue, her team’s papers in top journals like Nature and Cell advance prevention and therapy. As Chief of Clinical Operations at Naveris (viral cancer detection) and Brownstone Institute contributor, Kuperwasser’s lab is a credibility fortress, blending advanced tech to expose cancer vulnerabilities with real-world impact.
Two recent explosive peer reviewed Oncotarget papers anchor this alarm:
- El-Deiry-led (2024): “Transfected SARS-CoV-2 spike DNA for mammalian cell expression inhibits p53 activation of p21(WAF1), TRAIL Death Receptor DR5 and MDM2 proteins in cancer cells and increases cancer cell viability after chemotherapy exposure”. In plain terms: Vaccine-mimicking spike DNA infiltrates cells, cripples p53 (the “guardian of the genome” that detects damage and triggers cell suicide), blocks TRAIL death pathways, boosts MDM2 (p53 destroyer), and protects tumors from chemo—tested in human cancer lines, explaining observed “turbo cancers” that surge aggressively post-vaccination/boosters.
- Kuperwasser & El-Deiry (published January 3, 2026): “COVID vaccination/post-infection cancer signals: Evaluating patterns and potential biological mechanisms”. This systematic review analyzes 300+ peer-reviewed cases across 27 countries linking mRNA vaccination (and infection) to rapid-onset cancers (lymphomas 38%, breast/lung 16%, sarcomas, etc.), with tumors emerging days to weeks post-shot. It details biological mechanisms and patterns, plus an El-Deiry solo hypothesis paper on HPV E6 + COVID spike cooperating to suppress p53 tumor protection. These works build on nearly 50 prior publications noting temporal cancer associations post-mRNA vaccination.
LlinkThese Oncotarget papers—especially the January 3, 2026, review by Charlotte Kuperwasser and Wafik El-Deiry documenting over 300 peer-reviewed cases of cancers linked to COVID vaccination or infection across 27 countries—have sparked intense debate.
Just days after these publications highlighted rapid-onset patterns (like lymphomas in 38% of cases) and potential biological mechanisms, the journal’s website faced a serious problem: nonstop cybercriminal DDoS attacks from late December 2025 into January 2026.
What is a DDoS attack, in simple terms?
Picture a busy online store with a few doors. Normally, real customers walk in one by one to browse and buy. Now imagine thousands of fake “customers”—actually thousands (or more) of hacked computers, phones, and devices secretly controlled by hackers—rushing the doors all at once. They clog everything up, block the real customers from entering, and make the store appear “closed” even though nothing inside is broken. The owner loses business, and users get frustrated. That’s a Distributed Denial-of-Service (DDoS) attack: “distributed” because the flood comes from many sources worldwide (often a botnet of compromised devices), and “denial-of-service” because it denies legitimate access to the site. These attacks are relatively cheap to launch but can cause major headaches, lost time, and sometimes big costs to fix.
In Oncotarget’s case, the attacks flooded the servers with junk traffic, making the site extremely slow, unreliable, or completely inaccessible for many users over days or weeks. The journal reported this malicious activity to the FBI as cybercriminal behavior, and as of early January 2026, disruptions continued despite efforts to counter them. This meant people couldn’t easily view or download the controversial papers directly from the official site—they had to email the authors for PDFs instead.
The timing feels too coincidental to many observers: the attacks ramped up right after papers that challenge the established “safe and effective” narrative around mRNA vaccines by pointing to temporal links with aggressive cancers and possible ways the spike protein might interfere with tumor suppression. With trillions of dollars tied to global vaccine programs and public trust, critics argue this looks like deliberate sabotage—temporary censorship through disruption—to limit easy public access to uncomfortable evidence at a critical moment.
Whether it’s targeted interference, a random coincidence, or something else, the effect is real: it hinders open discussion of scientific findings that could affect health decisions for millions.
This incident ties into the larger controversy surrounding PubPeer, an online platform launched in 2012 as a public forum for commenting on already-published scientific papers. Think of it like a global, ongoing “journal club” or discussion board: anyone can enter a paper’s identifier (DOI or PubMed number) and post notes about potential issues—such as duplicated images in lab results, odd data patterns, or possible errors in figures or methods. The goal was to boost transparency in science by allowing continuous, open feedback beyond the traditional private peer review that happens before publication. Anonymity lets people raise concerns without fear of backlash from powerful institutions or researchers, and it has genuinely helped expose real problems, leading to corrections, retractions, or misconduct investigations in some cases.
However, anonymity has a dark side. Critics argue it can enable harassment or “mob attacks,” where groups pile on with endless minor nitpicks—like tiny formatting errors, old transposition mistakes (e.g., swapped numbers), or insignificant image tweaks—that don’t prove fraud or change the core science. These can overwhelm the target, damage reputations, and create the illusion of serious issues without evidence. The platform has moderation (commenters are supposed to stick to verifiable facts), but it’s far from perfect—some claim it’s been “weaponized” against certain scientists while seemingly protecting others.
For Dr. Wafik El-Deiry, this has become deeply personal. After his vaccine-related papers (including the 2024 one on spike DNA suppressing p53-related cancer defenses), he’s endured waves of anonymous PubPeer comments—over 80+ across his 360+ publications, often focusing on decades-old trivial details like gel band duplications or formatting slips. No fraud has been proven after 20+ months of scrutiny, and no retractions have resulted, yet the attacks persist relentlessly: 2-3 per hour on some Sundays, 15+ in a single day during holidays or even his heart surgery recovery. El-Deiry calls it “gish-galloping”—flooding someone with so many points it’s impossible to respond to everything, making silence look suspicious. He attributes this to a coordinated “mob,” including an image analyst with no oncology background, Elisabeth Bik, and has publicly called for FBI involvement while tagging groups like Science Guardians.
In order to fully appreciate what is happening behind the scenes, you must watch this 10 minutes clip courtesy of Science Guardians.
Science Guardians’ video exposé intensifies the scrutiny: they commissioned independent experts to review 17 of Elizabeth Bik’s older papers from her time at uBiome, the gut-testing startup she co-founded that imploded in 2019 after an FBI raid over alleged massive billing fraud. The review uncovered issues like biased or contaminated samples, undisclosed conflicts of interest, unreliable data, mixing human and animal results without proper checks, and overhyped claims without solid evidence (some papers read like promotional content).
When these critiques were submitted to PubPeer, they were censored or deleted within days (some vanished after just 10 days). This apparent double standard—attacks allowed on outsiders like El-Deiry but blocked on insiders like Bik—fuels accusations that the system protects its own while targeting those who challenge dominant narratives, such as vaccine safety.
A reported network of about 30 pseudonymous commenters (some tied to Bik) allegedly compiles nitpick “dossiers,” then amplifies them through blogs, media (with links to journalists at outlets like Science and Nature), and broader funding ecosystems (e.g., Arnold Ventures who supports research integrity initiatives). To many, this isn’t neutral oversight—it’s a double-edged tool: one blade exposes genuine fraud, the other inflicts targeted damage, especially when trillion-dollar pharma interests feel threatened by credible experts like El-Deiry.
In the end, PubPeer was designed to strengthen science through open critique, but events like the Oncotarget DDoS attacks and El-Deiry’s ongoing barrage highlight how it can be twisted into something that looks more like suppression or harassment. When powerful stakes are involved, even temporary barriers to information raise serious questions about transparency, free inquiry, and trust in the systems meant to protect public health.
Anyway, as the veil lifts on mRNA vaccine harms, I want to pause to honour my dear friend, the late Professor Gabriel Oon Chong Jin—a Cambridge-trained MD, founding president of Singapore’s Society of Oncology, pioneer in liver cancer research, —warned me two years ago about Pfizer’s manufacturing lapses. As a WHO consultant and the founder of Singapore General Hospital’s Onco-Immunology department (ranked among the world’s top), his expertise was unmatched.
Yet, he endured defamation from Singapore’s Straits Times, especially health editor Salma Khalik, for raising concerns about mRNA vaccine harms.In private messages, he shared reports of post-jab cancer acceleration, his voice steady amid the storm.
Passing away at the age of 86 in July 2025, he left behind a powerful legacy of truth-seeking—one that now resonates strongly in the bombshell papers by El-Deiry and Kuperwasser.
Professor Oon, thank you for your unwavering courage. Your warnings, once dismissed, now demand justice. We exchanged messages frequently right up until the very end, and I deeply miss our conversations. Someday, when this storm passes, I will share more about this remarkable and beautiful person.
To the defamers and suppressors: judgement awaits, above if not below.This isn’t over.
Signing off for now
A17
(Tom: I was requested to create a blend of ingredients to help a body better defend against cancer. This is the result: https://www.healthelicious.com.au/NutriBlast_Anti-Cancer_Support_Blend.html )
