The Turbo Cancer Conspiracy: A Tale of Fear and Misinformation

In the shadowy corridors of misinformation, a new specter emerged during the COVID-19 pandemic: the theory of "turbo cancer." This conspiracy claimed that vaccines designed to combat the virus, particularly the mRNA vaccines, were secretly causing swift and aggressive cancers in those who received them. Despite being propagated by certain anti-vaccine advocates, including some with medical credentials, this theory stands on shaky ground, unsupported by scientific evidence.

Origins of the Turbo Cancer Theory

The turbo cancer narrative gained traction through the efforts of various vaccine opponents. One notable figure was Florida's Surgeon General, Joseph Ladapo, who speculated that trace amounts of contaminant DNA in the vaccines could integrate into a recipient's genome. According to Ladapo, this could potentially activate oncogenes, genes that, when mutated or expressed at high levels, can lead to cancer. However, medical expert Céline Gounder countered these claims by explaining that trace DNA is a common component in products derived from cell cultures. Moreover, DNA vaccines, which contain far greater DNA quantities, have never been linked to cancer.

The U.S. National Cancer Institute added its voice to the chorus of scientific rebuttals, stating unequivocally, "There is no evidence that COVID-19 vaccines cause cancer, lead to recurrence, or lead to disease progression." They also clarified that these vaccines do not alter one's DNA.

The Claims and the Science

The turbo cancer theory was further fueled by a paper authored by anti-vaccine activists Stephanie Seneff, Peter McCullough, and others. This study proposed a hypothetical mechanism in which the suppression of type 1 interferon by mRNA vaccines might lead to immune suppression, thus allowing cancer to proliferate. The study's authors relied heavily on anecdotal evidence from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) and demanded that health institutions prove these mechanisms impossible or concede their validity. However, Jeffrey Morris, a critic of the paper, argued that such demands unfairly shifted the burden of proof.

Another controversial piece of evidence cited by proponents of the turbo cancer theory was a study published in Frontiers in Oncology. This study involved a laboratory mouse that died of lymphoma after receiving the Pfizer–BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine. The turbo cancer proponents seized upon this as proof of their claims. Yet, the study itself did not assert any causal link between the vaccine and the cancer. Importantly, the mouse in question belonged to a strain predisposed to develop sarcomas and lymphomas and exhibited signs of cancer before the vaccine was administered. Moreover, the study's methodology differed significantly from human vaccination protocols, using intravenous rather than intramuscular injection and administering doses 480 to 600 times higher than those given to humans. The authors of the study later clarified that their findings had been "largely misinterpreted."

The Persistence of a Myth

Despite clear scientific refutations, the turbo cancer theory continues to circulate among certain circles, fueled by a mix of fear, misinformation, and distrust of public health measures. Notably, a GB News presenter, Neil Oliver, was cleared by Ofcom over claims related to turbo cancer, highlighting the ongoing debates and the media's role in shaping public perception.

Conclusion

While the turbo cancer theory thrives on anecdotal claims and hypothetical mechanisms, it lacks the robust scientific backing necessary to gain credibility in the medical community. As the debate continues, public health officials and researchers emphasize the importance of relying on evidence-based information to guide decisions about vaccination and cancer risk.

Sources

• Wikipedia: Turbo cancer