Cancer vaccines:

Attempting the truly impossible!

The BBC website has yet again proved to be a fertile ground for articles worth analysing and dissecting to expose the lies and dispel the fear.

This time, the article I found is dated 26th April and entitled, British man tests first personalised melanoma vaccine; it begins,

“An important trial of the world's first ‘personalised' mRNA vaccine against the deadliest form of skin cancer - melanoma - is now under way in the UK.”

It was inevitable that cancer vaccines were to become a ‘hot topic’, as many in the truth community were quick to accurately predict after the revelations about the ‘Royal’ family a few months ago.

There are, however, many problems with the whole concept of ‘cancer vaccines’: so where do I begin?

First of all, the idea that cancer can be prevented or treated with a vaccine is not new; the vaccine industry has been attempting to develop ‘cancer vaccines’ for many decades. The origin of the idea that vaccines could be useful for the treatment of cancer is discussed in a December 2019 article entitled The Intriguing History of Cancer, which states, under the sub-heading The Beginnings,

“From ancient Egypt, some 3,000 years ago, to the early nineteenth century there have been multiple anecdotal reports of tumors disappearing spontaneously or after an infection with concomitant high fever. The similarity between cancer and inflammation was described for the first time by the Greek physician, Galen, who noted that cancer might evolve from inflammatory lesions.”

There are reasons why tumours may disappear after a high fever, but fevers are not caused by any ‘infection’. This is yet another reason that the ‘germ theory’ needs to be exposed for the unproven hypothesis that it is, because it leads ‘research’ in the completely wrong direction. Or rather it’s the wrong direction if the purpose of research is to find ways to truly improve the state of human health, but sadly that isn’t the case. The underlying purpose of medical research would seem to be to only develop ‘treatments’ to manage disease.

It’s crystal clear therefore that the absence of evidence for their theories does not deter the vaccine industry; their work continues apace.

Extract from the Intriguing History of Cancer

The failure of the human trials should have brought the research in this field to a grinding halt, but the medical-industrial-complex are not to be defeated in their goals, no matter how flawed the theory. After all, if fevers cause tumours to disappear, why are they trying to prevent the conditions that they believe cause high fevers? It makes zero sense, but it would seem that the vaccine industry does not operate according to sense or logic - or even science, I might add!

The Objective

According to a December 2023 study paper entitled Therapeutic cancer vaccines: advancements, challenges, and prospects,

“The fundamental objective of cancer vaccines is to activate the immune system against tumor cells.”

Anyone familiar with my work will have a good idea of what I’m going to say next, but please bear with me because there is more to unpack in addition to the unfounded claims about the ‘immune system’.

Why do I call them ‘unfounded’? Because the basic premise that the body has a system that ‘attacks’ invading pathogens - or itself for that matter - is unproven; there are no invading pathogens, so there is nothing for the body to ‘attack’.

The body does have a very intelligent system that promotes health, I am not denying that. Also, some of the organs claimed to be part of the ‘immune system’, such as the spleen and tonsils for example, do play important roles in protecting the body, but not in the way the medical establishment explains it.

The Vaccine

According to the BBC article,

“The jab, mRNA-4157 (V940), uses the same technology as current Covid vaccines and is being tested in final-stage Phase III trials.”

This is, or should be, rather worrying considering the huge number of serious adverse events that have already been reported to have occurred as the result of the ‘Covid vaccine’.

But the cancer ‘vaccine’, if it can actually be referred to as such, is not the only part of the ‘treatment’, as the article states,

“University College London Hospitals (UCLH) doctors are giving it alongside another drug, pembrolizumab or Keytruda, that also helps the immune system kill cancer cells.”

The study on which the BBC story is based is entitled Individualised neoantigen therapy mRNA-4157 (V940) plus pembrolizumab versus pembrolizumab monotherapy in resected melanoma (KEYNOTE-942): a randomised, phase 2b study. This was published online in The Lancet on 18th January 2024.

The study, which began in July 2019, states,

“On the basis of its novel mechanism of action, we hypothesised that the individualised neoantigen therapy mRNA-4157 (V940) enhances the activity of checkpoint inhibitors by increasing endogenous T-cell responses and inducing de-novo T-cell responses, resulting in improved clinical benefit with minimal additional adverse events.”

Translating that into comprehensible parlance, the BBC article explains,

“The vaccine is personalised - meaning the make-up of it is changed to suit the individual patient.”

“It is created to match the unique genetic signature of the patient's own tumour and works by instructing the body to make proteins or antibodies that attack markers or antigens found only on those cancer cells.”

So how do they find the ‘unique genetic signature’ of each patient’s tumour?

According to the study article, under the heading Procedures,

“Each mRNA-4157 individualised neoantigen therapy was produced by use of a proprietary, automated in-house bioinformatics system for neoantigen prediction and therapy design in an integrated manufacturing process.”

This sounds really impressive, but there are serious problems with the underlying ideas that genes control the instructions given to the body, and that the proteins made by the body ‘attack’ markers or antigens specific to the cancer cell. It is widely recognised that gene expression is influenced by the environment, which can involve a wide variety of factors. In other words, gene expression is not fixed, which means it can change if its environment changes.

In an interview reported in IMCJ, the Journal of Integrative Medicine, Bruce Lipton stated,

“Epigenetics changes the entire game, because it says that genetic expression is directly due to the environment and our perception of the environment.

We are capable of changing the environment we live in and we are capable of changing our perceptions. Therefore, we are not victims, but we are actually masters of our genetic activity.”

This raises a fundamental question of whether our gene expression remains the same or whether it changes if we change our thinking as well as our physical environment. And if so, is the genetic signature of a tumour fixed or can it change from one day to the next according to a change in the environment and our thoughts?

The influence of our thoughts and beliefs over our health cannot be dismissed as unimportant, as demonstrated by the placebo and nocebo effects, which I’ve discussed in previous articles.

The other part of the treatment

As the study title indicated, its purpose was to compare the use of the vaccine and pembrolizumab combination with the use of pembrolizumab on its own.

So what is pembrolizumab?

The NCI (National Cancer Institute), a department within the US government’s NIH (National Institute of Health), explains,

“Pembrolizumab is a type of targeted therapy drug called an immune checkpoint inhibitor (a type of immunotherapy). It is a monoclonal antibody that binds to the protein PD-1 on the surface of immune cells called T cells. It works by keeping cancer cells from suppressing the immune system. This allows the immune system to attack and kill the cancer cells.”

Again, this does not represent how the body actually functions. In his book, Natural Hygiene: Man’s Pristine Way of Life, Herbert Shelton provides an exquisitely simple explanation of cancer in the statement that,

“Cancer does not attack. Cancer evolves.”

In other words, cancer is a process.

Melanoma

Melanoma is claimed to be caused by the sun, as the NHS Melanoma skin cancer web page states,

“Ultraviolet (UV) light is the most common cause of melanoma. It comes from the sun and is used in sunbeds.”

The sun can burn the skin after a long exposure, but that does not mean that the sun is dangerous, far from it, we need to expose ourselves to the sun, but limit that direct exposure to our skin so we don’t burn. Wearing sunscreen does not mean that we can expose ourselves for longer, no matter how high the factor, because sunscreens are more harmful to our health than the sun; a little research of the ingredients listed on sunscreen product labels is revealing.

So yet again the medical establishment provides misleading information and incorrect ‘solutions’.

The Study

Returning to the study, it is stated that the combination of pembrolizumab and the mRNA vaccine showed a slightly better outcome.

Not only is the source of the funding relevant to note, but the role of the funders is significant.

Does this suggest the funding source might have a vested interest in the outcome?

I would also point out that significant adverse events were reported to have occurred as the result of both forms of treatment, which is not at all surprising considering that the purpose of these treatments is to target and kill the cancer cells. Anything that is introduced into the body for the purpose of killing something within the body is going to cause damage - that is not disputed, even by the medical establishment.

Another extract from the study article

The scientific community does recognise that certain chemicals are carcinogenic, but they still cling to the idea that there are such things as ‘biological carcinogens’, in other words, they believe that certain ‘viruses’ or bacteria can cause cancer, as the WHO Cancer fact sheet shows,

Extract from the WHO fact sheet

The disturbing part is that this type of treatment is not exclusive to one form of cancer, as the BBC article reports,

“UCLH investigator Dr Heather Shaw said the jab had the potential to cure people with melanoma and was being tested on other cancers - lung, bladder and kidney tumours.”

It would seem that they plan to roll out trials using mRNA technology for other cancers, which is only going to make things worse, not better!

The problem with all of this is that, as I’ve discussed in many of my previous articles, the medical establishment does not understand the human body and how it actually works. Their ‘model’ of disease, and cancer in particular, is seriously flawed.

Taking advantage of our good nature

One of the main challenges to overcome is that so many people still believe the standard view of ‘cancer’ and that it can be effectively treated by the medical establishment. They genuinely believe that by taking part in these trials they are helping medical research to progress; that they are actively taking part in the effort to ‘fight’ cancer and prevent it recurring. This can be seen quite clearly in the BBC article with reference to Steve Young, the British man undergoing the clinical trial,

“Speaking to BBC Radio 4 Today Programme, he said: "[The trial] gave me a chance to feel like I was actually doing something to fight a potential unseen enemy.

"So rather than just sit there and wait and hope it was never going to come back, I actually had this chance to get involved in putting on some boxing gloves and squaring up to it."

Metastasis

The idea that cancer ‘comes back’ and spreads to other areas of the body, referred to as ‘metastasis, is also highly problematic. The only way to solve the problem of cancer is to address the cause(s), not ‘fight’ it with cancer-causing treatments. The recurrence of ‘cancer’ arises because the body is still processing whatever caused the cancer in the first place in addition to the carcinogenic substances used as treatment.

As I’ve stated above, cancer is not something to ‘fight’. Herbert Shelton also explains in his book previously referred to,

“Cancer does not develop in a normal body. This is to say, a genuinely healthy body will not evolve cancer.”

What is called ‘cancer’ represents an imbalance within the body that the body is attempting to resolve. The symptoms and tumours diagnosed as ‘cancer’ are the body’s own healing processes. This means that ‘fighting’ it is actually doing the opposite of healing the body; fighting the body’s healing processes makes no sense from a true health perspective, and will only make the situation worse because the body then has to increase its efforts to not only heal the original problem that gave rise to the diagnosis, but it also has to process and eliminate the ‘treatment’.

The Solution?

A key factor that is missing in the mainstream model of ‘cancer’, or any other disease for that matter, is the role of our own ideas, thoughts, and beliefs. It is possible to manifest all kinds of health issues just by believing in them, as demonstrably proven through the nocebo effect, which, as I have discussed in other articles, is incredibly powerful. It has been shown in clinical trials that people who believed they were receiving a genuine chemotherapy drug, but in fact received a placebo, nevertheless experienced some of the known chemotherapy ‘side effects’, including vomiting and hair loss.

The point I want to emphasise here is that we have far more agency over our bodies than we are led to believe, but we cannot do that if we are in a state of fear about ‘diseases’ that may attack us out of the blue.

This is where our power lies - in releasing the fear, and learning how to truly take responsibility for our own health.

Please will you help to support my work. 🙏