Originally Published: [DATE HERE]
Third Party Re-Publication by USA Citizens Network

Source: [PASTE LINK HERE]
Author: [IF KNOWN]

Summary:

Main point 1
Main point 2
Key claim or finding
Context or interpretation

3. CONTENT (MIDDLE BIG SECTION)

Save39,835 views Jun 21, 2026The connection between mRNA COVID vaccines and cancer relapse and occurrence. By Prof Angus Dalgleish MD FRCP FRACP FRCPath FMedSci

My name is Professor Angus Dalgleish. I am an oncologist and immunologist with decades of experience in cancer immunotherapy and HIV research, including early clinical use of cancer immunotherapy in the United Kingdom long before checkpoint inhibitors were approved. I am Professor Emeritus and Foundation Chair of Oncology at the University of London, and Principal of the Institute of Cancer Vaccines and Immunotherapy. Beginning in late 2021, I observed a series of unexpected cancer relapses and unusually aggressive disease presentations among patients whose conditions had remained stable for years.

A consistent pattern quickly became apparent: these relapses followed repeated COVID booster administration. These were patients in long-term remission who suddenly relapsed after being advised to receive additional doses of the vaccine.

Despite the seriousness of these observations, there was little willingness to openly investigate these potential safety signals.

From my background in HIV research and immunology, including early work involving the CD4 receptor, I was particularly sensitive to signals involving T-cell function and immune dysregulation. This led me to become concerned that repeated boosting strategies might contribute to impaired immune surveillance in vulnerable individuals, a concern later supported by evidence of exhausted T-cell responses following repeated vaccination. Over time, however, it became increasingly clear that the pattern extended far beyond relapse in vulnerable cancer patients alone.

I began observing something far more alarming: unusually aggressive cancers, advanced-stage disease in younger individuals, and clinical presentations that differed sharply from what we would normally expect in routine oncology practice. Something broader — and far more concerning — appeared to be emerging. In my own clinical practice, I observed a marked increase in unexpected cancers among boosted patients, including breast, prostate, pancreatic, lymphoma, gall bladder, glioma, and bladder cancers. Some of the most striking observations came from colorectal cancer surgeons, who described a shift from earlier-stage, more routinely detected disease toward patients presenting with metastatic stage IV cancers and unusual thrombotic features.

Increasingly, these patterns extended beyond clinical settings and into personal lives. I watched close friends develop aggressive late-stage cancers and rapidly deteriorate following repeated booster administration. At that point, the issue no longer felt purely academic or theoretical. It became deeply personal. I became increasingly concerned by unresolved questions surrounding the biologic behavior of mRNA-based platforms.

Emerging literature proposed several biologically plausible mechanisms linking these vaccines to cancer progression, including immune dysregulation, vascular injury, and effects involving oncogenic and tumor-suppressor pathways.

Additional issues involved residual DNA fragments and SV40 promoter/enhancer sequence elements identified in certain vaccine lots, findings which I believe warranted far greater regulatory scrutiny and independent investigation given their potential oncogenic implications.

Through my previous work with mRNA experts and service on the Scientific Advisory Board of CureVac, I also became increasingly uneasy about questions involving biologic stability, genomic interaction, and the adequacy of long-term safety evaluation surrounding repeated mRNA exposure. For example, unresolved questions remain regarding potential interactions with cellular genetic processes, potentially activating cancer-promoting pathways while disrupting tumor suppression.

The consistency of these clinical observations, combined with emerging mechanistic evidence, should have prompted far greater scientific scrutiny and open investigation than they received. Instead, many clinicians and researchers became increasingly hesitant to openly question or investigate these potential safety signals at all. As a UK citizen, I found it striking that several members of the Royal Family, who were vaccinated, publicly disclosed unexpected cancer diagnoses during the same period many clinicians were reporting unusually aggressive cancers more broadly. Given what we know already, I have no doubt in my mind that the mRNA vaccine likely played a significant role in the development of these unexpected cancers. I raise this not to imply certainty regarding any individual case, but to illustrate how difficult open scientific discussion surrounding these broader patterns has become, even when the observations are highly visible.

CANCER EVIDENCE TO SENATE — POST DATA

INTERVIEW DETAILS

Interviewer:
Dr. John Campbell

Interviewee:
Professor Angus Dalgleish MD FRCP FRACP FRCPath FMedSci

June 21, 2026

United States Senate (Washington, D.C.)

(Referenced throughout transcript as “deputation to the US Senate” and Senate hearing context)

Main Theme:

Cancer relapse and new cancer occurrence following COVID-19 mRNA vaccination

Subtopics:

T-cell suppression and immune dysfunction
“Turbo cancer” / hyper-progression cancers
Melanoma relapse observations
Lymphoma and leukemia cases post booster
Immune system disruption and tumor control failure
Broader cancer incidence patterns post-vaccination

1. Clinical observation of relapse

“Six patients in six weeks… complete disease-free melanoma patients suddenly relapsing — this had not happened in the previous 10 years.”

2. Vaccine timing association

“I asked what had happened… they all said they had the COVID jab… and in every case it was after the booster.”

3. T-cell suppression hypothesis

“I immediately thought: is it suppressing the T-cell response? And the data suggested that might be the case.”

4. Pattern recognition in oncology

“I have never seen this before… multiple bone metastases in melanoma appearing in a way that is completely different from historical patterns.”

5. Hyper-progression (“turbo cancer”)

“We are seeing what are now being called hyper-progressive cancers — rapid, advanced-stage presentation across multiple tumor types.”

6. Broader clinical concern

“We are now seeing an enormous number of rare tumors that we would not normally expect to see in routine oncology practice.”

7. Suppression of scientific discussion

“There is a conspiracy of silence… the Senate hearings were not covered by mainstream media.”

Transcript

Show transcript Dr. John Campbell3.32M subscribers Videos About:

Educational Disclaimer:
This content is for informational and educational purposes only and is not medical, legal, or professional advice.

Medical Disclaimer:
This material is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease. Always consult a licensed healthcare professional.

AI Assistance Disclosure:
This content was created with the assistance of AI tools for summarization, structuring, and formatting. Final editorial selection, interpretation, and publication decisions are made by the publisher. AI is used as an assistive tool only and does not replace human editorial responsibility.

Third-Party Re-Publication Notice:
This article is republished by USA Citizens Network for informational and public discussion purposes. Original content belongs to the original source.

Source Usage Notice:
This content may include quotations or referenced materials used for educational discussion and commentary purposes.

Cancer evidence to Senate