Scientist Blows Whistle on Cover-Up of Study Showing Covid Shots Cause Cancer

Two scientists published a peer-reviewed study in 2021 showing that Covid mRNA shots cause cancer but their findings were covered up over fears it would fuel so-called “ant-vaccine propaganda.”

One of the Sweden-based scientists has blown the whistle to reveal that their bombshell findings were shut down by officials at the universities they worked for.

Newly unsealed emails have also backed up the allegations, revealing the peer-reviewed study was shut down and hidden from the public.

The study was conducted in October 2021 by Dr. Hui Jiang of Stockholm University and Dr. Ya-Fang Mei of Umeå University.

The paper for the study, titled “SARS-CoV-2 Spike Impairs DNA Damage Repair and Inhibits V(D)J Recombination In Vitro,” was published in the peer-reviewed journal MDPI Viruses.

The scientists found that the spike protein from the Covid mRNA injections impairs DNA repair mechanisms, causing cancers to develop and rapidly spread.

However, shortly after the peer-reviewed study was published, the lead author, Dr. Hui Jiang was forced to retract the paper by officials at Stockholm University.

Newly published emails from university officials now call into question the motives behind the retraction.

They show vague reasons cited in the retraction request.

The emails also reveal another scientist was outraged over the “social relevance” of the study, complaining that it was “hacked by anti-vaccinationists.”

Independent journalist Rebekah Barnett has pointed out that three days before an investigation into Jiang and Mei’s paper began on November 5, 2021, medical educator ‎Dr. Mobeen Syed, known as “Dr. Been,” posted to YouTube a video about the implications of Jiang and Mei’s paper for cancer development.

The video has since garnered over 1.4 million views.

“Any cell that has spike protein in it, if it needs its DNA repaired… then spike protein can reduce the DNA repair,” Been explained.

Slay the latest News for free!

We don’t spam! Read our privacy policy for more info.

“Cancer cells are the cells where the DNA has escaped the repair.”

Barnett was able to obtain email exchanges from Stockholm University released under Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests.

In addition to showing backlash from one scientist over the Dr. Been video, the emails show concerns from another scientist that there was no evidence to support a retraction but merely concerns over “publicity.”

Furthermore, co-author Mei provided a whistleblowing statement to Barnett, revealing that she never consented to the retraction.

Rather, Stockholm University essentially forced the lead author, Jiang, to retract the paper.

“Stockholm University initially decided to retract the paper without the authors’ consent, a clear violation of academic ethics,” Mei said.

“Stockholm University asked the first author, Hui Jiang, to retract it, and they began to formalize the process.

“This is an illegal retraction.

“I have reported to the editorial office that the retraction process is incorrect, and I strongly disagree with it.”

FOIA-released emails show that Mei firmly protested the retraction to co-author Jiang on February 1, 2022, just days before he formally submitted the retraction request:

“I absolutely not (sic) accept this retraction,” she wrote.

retraction notice dated May 2022 cited “an improper experimental design with the potential to significantly affect the integrity of the resultant experimental data.”

“Both the chosen construct of the spike plasmid that contained a C-terminal fused with 6xHis tag and use of a GFP reporter system under overexpression conditions in the protocol were identified as having the potential to introduce significant ambiguity regarding the nature of the reported observations,” the notice read.

However, Mei objected to Barnett that these claims are “unfounded” and that “the retraction is unjustified.”

“I strongly disagree (with the retraction notice), because the experiments have a control sample: Nucleoprotein containing 6Histag and GFP report, which localizes in the cell plasmid rather than in the nucleus,” said Mei.

“Therefore, the notice contains incorrect information.

“I never signed the retraction notice.”

Email records show that MDPI (Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute), which publishes open-access scientific journals, challenged the retraction days after a “generic” request letter was submitted to it on November 9, 2021.

“We have checked your retraction request… and feel the information provided is insufficient,” MDPI publishing manager Donna Virlan wrote on November 22.

MDPI assistant editor Gloria Gao seconded the objection that there was insufficient evidence to support a retraction request, noting that the apparent basis for it was “publicity.”

“At the moment, the Committee and editors have seen no evidence, and all we hear is that there is some publicity,” she wrote on November 24.

In the same email thread, academic editor Dr. Oliver Schildgen, who had first approved Jiang and Mei’s paper for publication, noted:

“The retraction letter was rather generic, and for me, it was not clear if the public pressure or scientific faults were the cause for the requests.”

He went on to dismiss “Twitter s****storms as a reason for retracting the article.”

“If scientific misconduct took place, it is important for the readership to know explicitly what was wrong as also this has a learning effect in the self-clearance process of science,” Schildgen continued.

“However, I do not care about Twitter shitstorms as the guy who sent the e-mail below, we have to be neutral as scientists.”

Schildgen’s remarks came after German scientist Dr. Götz Schuck griped about the so-called “misinformation” spreading as a result of the paper.

“I fully understand that after the publication has gone through a peer-review process with five reviewers, you think a detailed justification by the authors is required as to why the publication should be withdrawn,” Schuck wrote.

“But it is also the case that unusual times call for unusual measures and that the source of scientific knowledge is instrumentalized as a source of misinformation.”

The next day, Schuck treated the article’s consequences as an emergency matter, citing “anti-vaccine propaganda” and emphasizing public reaction to the paper rather than the paper itself.

“This is a real scientific scandal… the article is spread virally on the internet,” Schuck wrote to Stockholm University employees.

“You can’t just rely on a scientific investigation of the case.

“Every day they hesitate enables further dissemination of misinformation”

“I urge you to remove the article in question as soon as possible,” he added.

According to Barnett, Schildgen assured Schuck proper procedure was being followed and recommended that any further concerns be directed to the chief editor, NIH scientist Dr Eric Freed, “to whom he formally handed over the case.”

However, Schuck then protested relying on a “purely scientific argument” in favor of considering the “social relevance” of the article.

“It can’t be that you’re just going back on a purely scientific argument here.

“What is the social relevance?

“I have seen questions on Twitter from a medical doctor who asks why his patients are asking him about this publication.

“Look at the reality,” Schuck insisted.

“This publication was hacked by anti-vaccinationists.

“That’s what it looks like,” he wrote.

The paper was officially retracted on May 10, 2022, citing “improper experimental design with the potential to significantly affect the integrity of the resultant experimental data.”

Incredibly, while Mei is recorded as signing off on the decision, she told Barnett that she was “forced to do that.”

“Stockholm University issued an order,” Mei added.

“We were asked to submit the letter within 48 hours before checking the lab book and experiment protocols.”

Mei shared that she never signed the formal retraction request.

Experts have now begun raising the alarm over the implications of retracting the study, which was published just a few months after the Covid mRNA shots were rolled out for public use in early 2021.

Dr. Syed, aka Dr. Been, summed up in a statement to Barnett the disturbing implications of Jiang and Mei’s findings for immune suppression and cancer.

“The Jiang and Mei study showed that the spike protein has a suppressive effect on a protein called p53, which is commonly called ‘guardian of the genome’ for its role in repairing DNA, which in turn helps to prevent cancer formation,” Syed explains.

“The very heavy (90%) suppression of p53 in the study shows that the main cancer repair mechanism in the body can be suppressed by the presence of spike protein which was found in the nucleus of cells consistent with the findings in the preclinical studies submitted to the Therapeutic Goods Administration (FOI 2389 document 6) following application of the mRNA product.

“p53 suppression is a primary driver of a number of cancers but in particular pancreatic, breast, ovarian cancer and lymphoma.

“The biggest effect is seen in women’s cancer where BRCA mutation, which interferes with p53 production, is associated with a dramatic increase in the lifetime risk of breast cancer to around 70% (from 12%) and ovarian cancer to around 50% (from 1.5%).

“This was seen in Angelina Jolie, for example, whose hereditary BRCA mutation led to her having a double mastectomy to prevent her getting breast cancer.”

Syed estimates that, because of the paper’s retraction, “some 20%-30% of the population were deprived of access to information” that would have led to their refusing the Covid injections “even in the presence of vaccine mandates due to the potential carcinogenicity risk.”

“A further 20% of the population may have declined the product purely based on the existence of this risk.

“It could therefore be reasonably estimated that up to half of the excess cancers, as reported in the ABS provisional mortality reports… might have been prevented had appropriate due diligence and pharmacovigilance been applied,” Syed wrote.

READ MORE – Renowned Oncologist Drops Bombshell: Ivermectin Cures Cancer

join telegram


Who is the best president?

By completing this poll, you gain access to our free newsletter. Unsubscribe at any time.

By Frank Bergman

Frank Bergman is a political/economic journalist living on the east coast. Aside from news reporting, Bergman also conducts interviews with researchers and material experts and investigates influential individuals and organizations in the sociopolitical world.

Notify of


Would love your thoughts, please comment.x