Dr Bernhard P Nagel

05/09/2026

Lies, damn lies and statistics. 💥😊

04/09/2026

True story although the F book tells me it's false. Really? We live in a strange world where lies and propoganda abound.

How about this ?
The man who wrote the main scientific papers stating that childhood vaccines don’t cause autism has been arrested for fraud.

04/09/2026

STUDY FINDS mRNA “VACCINES” COULD INDUCE OR ACCELERATE CANCER VIA 35 DISTINCT MECHANISMS

We conducted the most comprehensive analysis to date examining the link between mRNA “vaccines” and cancer.

The convergent mechanistic, clinical, and population evidence is now clear: TURBO CANCER IS REAL.

We analyzed CDC mortality data and found an estimated 153,000–197,000 EXCESS U.S. CANCER DEATHS since the 2021 mRNA injection rollout.

Here’s a concise breakdown of our findings:

MECHANISTIC EVIDENCE:

35 distinct cancer-promoting mechanisms converge through 4 major routes: (1) protooncogene activation, (2) mutation pressure, (3) protein–protein interaction network interference, and (4) cancer stem-cell clonal acceleration.

Key mechanisms include EGFR/RAS/MAPK and STAT3–MYC activation, p53/BRCA suppression, impaired DNA repair, residual plasmid DNA and SV40 regulatory elements, LINE-1 reverse transcription, m1Ψ-associated frameshifting, chronic LNP inflammation, immune suppression, and cancer stem-cell expansion—pathways capable of promoting genomic instability, uncontrolled growth, immune escape, dormancy reactivation, and metastatic outgrowth.

Our central concurrent-hit model proposes that these processes do not necessarily operate independently or sequentially. Multiple cancer-promoting hits overlap in the same susceptible host, compressing the time required for dormant, indolent, or microscopic disease to become clinically aggressive.

CLINICAL EVIDENCE:

The published clinical literature includes 333 documented turbo cancer cases across 27 countries, involving lymphomas, leukemia, melanoma, breast cancer, lung cancer, glioblastoma and other glial tumors, sarcomas, and pancreatic cancer. The vast majority of these cases occurred following COVID-19 vaccination, with a minority following SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Approximately 86% of the post-vaccination cases occurred after nucleoside-modified mRNA products—about 56% after Pfizer-BioNTech, 25% after Moderna, and another 5% after exposure to both mRNA products across different doses.

Across these cases, recurring patterns include rapid cancer progression, short-latency recurrence, reactivation of previously controlled disease, and tumors involving the injection site or nearby draining lymph nodes.

POPULATION EVIDENCE:

OUR CDC WONDER ANALYSIS: At least 119,130 EXCESS U.S. CANCER DEATHS since 2021, rising to approximately 153,000–197,000 after accounting for mortality displacement

INDEPENDENT CDC WONDER ANALYSIS (): 154,330 excess U.S. cancer deaths since 2021, closely matching our corrected range

UNITED STATES (SEER): Early-onset cancer incidence surged 6.4% in just 2 years, from 2021–2023, alongside sharp increases in brain and nervous-system tumors (+19.5%), colorectal cancer (+19.4%), small-intestine cancer (+15.5%), ovarian cancer (+12.8%), stomach cancer (+7.3%), and female breast cancer (+3.6%).

SOUTH KOREA: A nationwide cohort of 8.4 million people found vaccinated individuals had an increased 1-year cancer risk across 6 cancer types: thyroid, gastric, colorectal, lung, breast, and prostate cancer.

ITALY: Vaccinated residents had a 23% higher risk of cancer hospitalization

mRNA ONCOLOGY DANGER:

The very mRNA platform now linked in our paper to 35 oncogenic mechanisms is being repurposed to TREAT CANCER ITSELF.

The platform can distribute systemically, forcing vulnerable tissues including the HEART and BRAIN to express mutated tumor proteins—raising the risk of off-target immune attack, cardiac injury, and neurological damage.

Even more concerning, the LNP delivery vehicle itself promoted metastatic outgrowth in mice even without mRNA cargo, suggesting that some oncologic liabilities reside in the platform itself—not only the encoded antigen.

The first randomized test of mRNA as monotherapy in residual cancer has now FAILED: a Phase 2 trial of an individualized mRNA neoantigen therapy given to 327 patients with residual colorectal cancer crossed its futility boundary and was TERMINATED on a numerical overall survival imbalance.

OUR CALL:

We call for IMMEDIATE MARKET WITHDRAWAL of nucleoside-modified mRNA-LNP products from broad preventive use and a halt to their expansion into adjuvant and neoadjuvant cancer treatment.

35 mechanisms. Hundreds of documented turbo cancer cases. Up to ~197,000 excess U.S. cancer deaths by our analysis. A failed randomized mRNA cancer trial. And the same technology is now being pushed deeper into oncology.

It’s time to END this madness.

03/09/2026

About time too.

03/09/2026

Another good reason to examine what we have been led to believe.

The Myth of the First Virus
The First "Virus"…or the First Assumption?
Mike Stone
In this episode of AntiViral, the origin story of the To***co Mosaic “Virus” (TMV), commonly referred to as the first “virus,” is examined in detail. Depending on the source, this “discovery” is said to have occurred in 1886, 1892, or 1898, and is often portrayed as having established the existence of a “pathogenic virus” over the decades that followed. The supposed discoverer is alternately identified as Adolf Mayer, Dimitri Ivanovsky, or Martinus Beijerinck, depending on which version of the story is told. The conflicting timelines and competing claims raise an important question: how could such a supposedly clear scientific breakthrough have such an uncertain origin story?
What you will find, however, is that none of these researchers ever observed any “virus.” In fact, Mayer and Ivanovsky believed that the disease was likely caused by a bacterium too small to be seen with the light microscopes available at the time. Beijerinck differed in interpretation, proposing instead that the agent was a contagium vivum fluidum (“contagious living fluid”). Yet what all three men shared was the inability to actually observe any “pathogen.” In other words, the existence of a causative agent was assumed rather than demonstrated.
What is rarely mentioned in this history is that the experiments performed by these researchers lacked a valid independent variable—the presumed cause. None of the three ever isolated, purified, and identified a specific agent that could be independently manipulated during experimentation. In fact, it was precisely because no “pathogen” could be identified to satisfy the causal criteria formalized in Koch’s Postulates that the concept of the “filterable virus” emerged.
The key observation used to justify this hypothesis was that the “infectious” material passed through a porcelain filter designed to retain bacteria. However, the passage of a substance through a filter does not establish the existence of a new type of “pathogen.” The assumption that this represented a new class of “infectious” agent was an interpretative leap rather than a demonstrated conclusion.
As a result, the experiments lacked proper controls. The invasive and injurious procedures used—grinding diseased plant tissue and injecting or rubbing plant extracts into wounded leaves—were never ruled out as potential causes of the observed disease symptoms. However, later research has shown that the same symptoms can arise when healthy plants are subjected to the same treatment in the absence of any presumed “viral” material.
Despite these limitations, the assumption was eventually solidified through the work of Wendell Meredith Stanley, who claimed to have obtained a “pure” crystallization of the “virus” in 1935, and through the pioneering electron microscopy work of Helmut Ruska, who reported rod-like particles in 1939. However, the work of both men was not without significant faults, and these should have raised further questions about the foundations upon which the “virus” model was built.
When the original experiments are examined closely, it becomes clear that the story of the “first virus” was not one of a clear scientific discovery but rather a chain of assumptions that gradually hardened into accepted doctrine.
For a more detailed examination of the work of Mayer, Ivanovsky, Beijerinck, Stanley, and Ruska that contributed to the creation of the “virus” concept, see ViroLIEgy Newsletter on Substack: The First “Virus.”

03/09/2026

Sad to see this however it has been more evident of late.

Turbo cancer. Paper just released.
"Here, we demonstrate that LNP administration promotes tumor metastasis by inducing a systemic inflammatory response. In mouse models, LNP injection triggered acute neutrophil accumulation in the lungs, driven by the release of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) from necrotic muscle cells at the injection site."
sciencedirect.com/science/articl…

Let’s see if we can help you out. You can perform a search at the top of this page, report a broken link to prevent other users from ending up here. Or use this opportunity to take a little break from work, reading interesting material below.

03/09/2026

More sad news.

03/09/2026

Sadly this research is showing what we are seeing clinically.

02/09/2026

Clever Lady, also warned the world about the mRNA injection.

02/09/2026

Simple reason for all the flu cases lately.