How Covid “vaccines” paved the way for mRNA Cancer “vaccines”

The unprecedentedly speedy development and approval of the various Covid “vaccines” – most using previously unsuccessful mRNA technology – is considered a scientific miracle by ardent followers of The Science^TM.

Many others – us included – see it another way: one of the greatest scams ever perpetrated against a scared public, and a potentially incredibly dangerous and even deadly one.

But the damage done by that process doesn’t stop at the Covid “vaccines” themselves, they have opened the door for more and more “vaccines” to be rushed to market. That includes potentially “bespoke cancer vaccines”, of which there are currently hundreds of medical trials taking place around the world.

Earlier today Wired published an interview with Lennard Lee, oncologist and director at the Ellison Institute of Technology in Oxford, headlined:

Covid Vaccines Have Paved the Way for Cancer Vaccines

It’s quite an interesting read.

For one thing, if I’m understanding Dr Lee’s words correctly, these products aren’t really “vaccines” [emphasis added]:

In the current trials, we do a biopsy of the patient, sequence the tissue, send it to the pharmaceutical company, and they design a personalized vaccine that’s bespoke to that patient’s cancer.

They don’t prevent people from getting cancer, they are used to treat people who already have cancer. Meaning they’re not “vaccines” in the true sense of the word at all.

This echoes the Covid “vaccines”, which are known to prevent neither infection nor transmission of “Covid”, but only “limit severity” (the reason they can’t prevent transmission or infection is that “Covid” doesn’t really exist, but we’ve covered that enough).

It seems the assault on words and their meanings that took place during Covid is going to have knock-on impacts for a long time yet. That, indeed, was the point.

Later, we learn just how fast all these cancer vaccines have been produced…

Cancer vaccines weren’t a proper field of research before the pandemic. There was nothing. Apart from one exception, pretty much every clinical trial had failed. With the pandemic, however, we proved that mRNA vaccines were possible.

Cancer vaccines were not a “proper field of research” before the pandemic. It was the *ahem* “success” of the Covid “vaccine” which spurred the creation of mRNA cancer vaccines, so they have existed for – at absolute most – three years. And Dr Lee expects them to be approved in less than five [emphasis added]:

…over the next six to 12 months, we will monitor the people in the trial and work out if there’s a difference between the people who took the cancer vaccine and the ones who didn’t. We’re hoping to have results by the end of the year or beginning of 2026. If it’s successful, we will have invented the first approved personalized mRNA vaccine, within only five years of the first licensed mRNA vaccine for Covid. That’s pretty impressive

We would use the word “unbelievable”.

It’s quite telling that he skips over the approval process and talks only of effectiveness rather than safety or side effects, don’t you think?

Of course, he has good reason to be confident; after all the UK government has essentially guaranteed a market for these products before the trials are even completed. Dr Lee says as much himself:

the UK government signed two partnerships: one with BioNTech to provide 10,000 patients with access to personalized cancer treatments by 2030, and a 10-year investment with Moderna in an innovation and technology center with capacity to produce up to 250 million vaccines.

At some points the interviewer actually asks some very pertinent questions.

During the pandemic, the UK was opening clinical trials in a matter of a few weeks. But before it used to take years to complete a clinical trial. What changed?

That’s an excellent question, one the good doctor is either unequipped or unwilling to answer [emphasis added].

It was really fascinating, because for many years, we believed that research is inherently slow. It used to take 20 years to get a drug to market. Most cancer patients, unfortunately, will succumb by the time a drug gets to market. We showed the world that it could be done in a year if you modernize your process, run parts of the process in parallel, and use digital tools.

See, they used to think research was “inherently slow”, but they were wrong. They just had to “modernize the process”.

For some reason the interviewer doesn’t feel the need to call out this vague non-answer, so we never learn what “the process” is, or how it was “modernized”. “Running in parallel” and “digital tools” are similarly unexplained.

The reader is left with no understanding of what that answer actually means in real terms. We are forced to guess.

“Running in parallel” obviously means doing things at the same time that used to be done one after the other, whether that means animal and human trials or some other parts of the “process” we can never know. Using “digital tools” probably means modelling studies and projections in place of data, but might mean something else.

“Modernising the process” is so loose a term it defies even interpretive guesswork. The answer is vague to the point of being meaningless. It’s something no one would ever accept in a real conversation…

“Wow Howard, you got your month’s work done in 15 minutes. How’d you manage that?”
“Oh, I just modernized the process.”
“…what the hell are you talking about Howard?”

But vague non-answers going unchallenged is par for the course in propaganda interviews such as this.

Of course, none of those non-answers actually addresses the real issue of collapsing the timeframe. The reason drug trials take so long is the need for long term safety data. The only way to have 5 or 10-year outcome data is to give someone the drug, then wait 5 or 10 years and see what happens.

You can’t modernize that, “run it in parallel” or use “digital tools” to model it.

In the UK, you set up the Cancer Vaccine Launch Pad at the end of 2022 to fast-track cancer vaccine trials. Why set up such an ambitious project right after the Covid pandemic?

This is another good question. The answer?

The pandemic was ending, the Omicron variant was much milder than previous variants, and everyone had had their vaccines. Research in the area of Covid vaccines was starting to close down, but companies like Moderna and BioNTech were trying to figure out what to do next, because there wasn’t going to be a need for a Covid vaccine market forever

Translation: Money.

With the end of the “pandemic”, mRNA vaccine manufacturers realised the money hose was about to be turned off and they would need a new one. Hence the new mRNA vaccines for the flu, monkeypox, RSV, HIV, bird flu and cancer –  all within a couple of years.

And cancer is the big one.

You can’t underestimate how much money there is in cancer. Between screening and “treating” it is an industry worth over $400 billion per year and that’s only going up. (You could argue a lot of “screening” is about generating “cancer patients” to treat, but that’s another issue).

Those treatments have been a gold mine for Big Pharma. They take forever, they’re expensive, and if they kill you (which they do, a lot), the coroner will probably find you died of cancer (or “complications resulting from cancer”).

Indeed, the surgery/chemotherapy/radiation pipeline – “cut, poison, burn” – is so profitable that it makes me question how effective any cancer vaccine would ever be allowed to be, supposing it really existed.

After all, a cancer “vaccine” that works by “training the immune system” isn’t just an alternative treatment to chemo and radiation; it is diametrically opposed to them since the vaccine requires a healthy immune system and both those treatments destroy your immune system.

But we’re getting into speculation here – a different article for another time.

*

In conclusion, the Wired headline is entirely correct. Covid vaccines DID pave the way for mRNA cancer vaccines.

How?

• They changed the general understanding of what the word “vaccine” even means.
• They affirmed blind faith in “the science”.
• They normalised rushed (or skipped) testing and trial periods.
• They normnalised government approval without adequate safety testing
• And they created a market for mRNA products that never previously existed.

…but I’m sure any of that should be considered a good thing.