Russian President Vladimir Putin has dropped a bombshell, revealing a chilling new review that confirms mRNA vaccines are fueling a ‘turbo cancer’ surge worldwide, with Russia sounding the alarm on the link between mass “vaccination” and skyrocketing cancer cases and deaths. This explosive disclosure underscores the long-term dangers of these experimental shots, which Putin warns are triggering an unprecedented health catastrophe across the globe.
The groundbreaking study, led by leading Russian researcher Angelina Alekseevna Seliverstova and Dr. Oleg Germanovich Makeev, Professor of Biology and Biotechnology at Ural State Medical University in Yekaterinburg, exposes how the worldwide rollout of COVID mRNA injections has unleashed unexpected safety risks, including dramatically rising cancer rates that continue to escalate. Their findings, based on comprehensive data analysis, highlight a surge in aggressive ‘turbo cancers’ post-vaccination, challenging global health narratives and prompting calls for immediate moratoriums on mRNA technology. As evidence mounts of cellular mutations and immune system disruptions linked to the shots, critics argue this validates long-suppressed warnings, urging accountability from Big Pharma and governments that pushed the jabs without sufficient long-term testing.
Trialsitenews.com reports: This work is not a new clinical trial but a narrative review of published literature and government datasets, with emphasis on U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) statistics and adverse event reports. The authors sought to analyze interim data from roughly four years of global mRNA vaccine deployment. Importantly, no new patient data were collected; instead, the paper synthesizes published findings, registry reports, and mechanistic studies.
Findings
The review asserts a correlation between widespread COVID-19 vaccination and reported increases in cancer incidence. The authors highlight figures suggesting ovarian cancer risk rose dramatically post-vaccination, citing government sources and the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). They report 2,579 cancer-related adverse event entries between late 2020 and August 2022 among vaccinated individuals.
Mechanistic explanations are proposed. The authors argue that spike protein production in human cells could interfere with DNA repair pathways (particularly BRCA1 and p53 tumor suppressors), potentially promoting malignancy. They also discuss broader “spikeopathy” concerns such as myocarditis, autoimmune activation, and clotting abnormalities, while suggesting adenovirus-vector vaccines may carry fewer serious long-term risks. Of course, these remain hypotheses among mainstream scientific medical literature.
Troublingly, some cited numbers appear exceedingly high compared to established epidemiological baselines, raising questions about data interpretation. For example, the claim of a “1,433-fold increase” in ovarian cancer risk is based on secondary reports and not replicated in mainstream peer-reviewed cancer surveillance studies.
Limitations
This review has serious methodological constraints:
- Correlation vs. causation: The data used (VAERS, CDC summaries) cannot establish causality; VAERS reports are unverified and often incomplete.
- Selection of sources: Some citations trace back to secondary or advocacy-oriented publications, not primary epidemiologic analyses.
- Lack of original data: No controlled comparisons between vaccinated and unvaccinated cohorts were conducted.
- Potential bias: Authors emphasize mechanistic harm while giving little attention to countervailing evidence from large population-based safety studies.
These weaknesses significantly temper confidence in the review’s conclusions.
Funding and Disclosure
The paper does not declare external funding. Author affiliations are academic (Ural State Medical University). There are no disclosed financial ties to pharmaceutical companies or advocacy organizations.
Conclusion and Implications
The review highlights continuing debate about long-term safety of mRNA vaccine technology, raising hypotheses about cancer risk mechanisms. However, the evidence presented relies heavily on correlation, adverse-event reports, and speculative mechanisms rather than controlled, reproducible data. For policy and clinical practice, such findings underscore the need for rigorous, large-scale studies—especially regarding cumulative dosing, rare events, and cancer outcomes—but they do not establish proof of harm.
Readers should interpret this paper as an exploratory review with strong claims but limited evidentiary foundation.
TrialSite Evidence Strength Indicator™
| Factor | Score (0–10) | Rationale |
| Study Design | 2 | Narrative review; no original patient data; reliance on correlation. |
| Sample Size & Data Quality | 3 | Draws from VAERS and CDC summaries, but without systematic control groups. |
| Reproducibility | 2 | Findings not yet replicated in mainstream large cohort studies. |
| Transparency | 5 | Authors provide citations, but some sources are weak or advocacy-based. |
| Funding & Conflicts | 7 | No disclosed conflicts; purely academic affiliations. |
| Overall Evidence Strength | 3.8 / 10 (≈38%) – Low confidence, exploratory | Indicates preliminary hypotheses requiring stronger confirmatory research. |
Citation: Seliverstova, A. A., & Makeev, O. G. (2025). RNA Vaccines: Interim Results of Their Use. Ural State Medical University, Yekaterinburg, Russia.