The first major flaw should be obvious to anyone. The sample size is incredibly small, 3 people with “non‑malignant adverse events” and 7 with cancer compared to 803 pre-COVID unvaccinated controls.
More technically, with only 3 and 7 cases against 803 controls, this study has essentially no statistical power to detect realistic gene‑expression difference, only gigantic, biologically implausible effects would be detectable, and multiple‑testing correction drives the effective power even closer to zero. The DESeq2 authors explicitly warn that extremely unbalanced designs, especially when one group has very small n, because they produce unreliable dispersion estimates and spurious differential expression.
Another major problem was that the RNA sequences were processed with different protocols and different techniques. This creates batch effects that can eliminate any biological signal and the authors didn’t use any standard corrections to account for this. They treat the batch effects as vaccine-induced “transcriptomic dysregulation.” This is simply using a major confounding variable and attributing it to a biological effect, when it is not.
Further, they are trying to imply that mRNA vaccines lead to transcriptomic dysregulation which leads to cancer. They don’t use pre-vaccination baselines, no controls, no time-series and don’t provide mechanism or experiment for them. All they did was took people who had symptoms or cancer and sequenced their blood. This is reverse-causation that they are trying to make false claims of discovery. It’s very dishonest, because cancer patients always show massive transcriptomic disruption. They are trying to make the case that this is vaccine induced, when there is no evidence.
They use very fringe references that are narrative reviews, not studies to make false claims that vaccine mRNA persists for months, spike protein causes prion‑like aggregation, LINE‑1 reverse transcription leads to genomic integration, and plasmid DNA contamination causes oncogenesis.
Further, they try to use normal biological processes such as nonsense‑mediated decay activation, ribosomal biogenesis, interferon signatures, and mitochondrial pathways as pathology. These are normal stress response pathways that occur with infection, inflammation and cancer. They try to claim that this is vaccine-induced, when it is not.
They conclude “Shared and distinct molecular signatures in both cohorts demonstrate underlying mechanisms contributing to post-vaccine symptomatology and complications, including oncogenesis and or progression of malignant disease. These findings underscore the need for a deeper investigation into the long-term safety of mRNA vaccines and host response variability.” They do this in spite of a failure to measure spike protein, mRNA persistence, epigenetic markers or oncogenic transformation and do not include functional assays or matched controls.
They are making inferences without evidence. That is not science.
