Discover more from All Facts Matter
Dr. Ryan Cole's Claim Of Spike Protein "...Inside Every Cancer Cell"
What To Make Of This Latest Assertion Of mRNA Toxicity
On February 1, 2023, pathologist Dr. Ryan Cole appeared on Dr Drew Pinsky’s “Ask Dr. Drew” YouTube show to discuss the many problems and health concerns arising from the mRNA inoculations put forward by Pfizer and Moderna to combat the COVID-19 “pandemic”.
One of the more alarming statements Dr. Cole made during that interview was that mRNA spike proteins could be found throughout numerous cancer biopsies he had reviewed as a consulting pathologist. That snippet of the show made it onto several Twitter feeds, and was picked up by the news aggregation site Citizen Free Press.
The short version of Dr. Cole’s presentations: the spike proteins produced in the body as the result of the mRNA inoculations are either causing or exacerbating various cancers within the body.
Dr. Cole’s presentation was sufficiently impactful that one Facebook user, a Ms. Robin A. DeLorenzo, posted a brief video summarizing his main point—that he was seeing spike proteins in cell biopsies from cancer tumors—which not only got flagged as false by Facebook, but also drew the ire of Politifact, the self-anointed “fact-checker” and ultimate arbiter of “truth” for corporate media, which promptly rated the claim as “false”.
A woman narrating the video pegged the claim to Dr. Ryan Cole, an Idaho pathologist.
Cole has been "looking at the unusual cancers that are exploding right into Stage 4," the woman said in the video. Those cancer cells, she said, have "the spike protein."
The video doesn’t say that Cole is possibly facing sanctions after the Washington state Medical Commission filed unprofessional conduct charges against him for allegedly spreading COVID-19 misinformation.
In typical Politifact fashion, there are a few errors of fact within the Politifact “fact check”.
To begin with, while Ms. DeLorenzo does speak of “cancers exploding right into Stage 4”, Dr. Cole during his presentation on “Ask Dr. Drew” merely references anecdotally colleagues who are seeing cancer patients who were in remission and are now inexplicably in Stage 4. Ms. DeLorenzo regrettably exaggerates Dr. Cole’s anecdotal reference.
As regards Politifact’s assertion of unprofessional conduct charges against Dr. Cole, as regards the factual veracity of his claims, that is simply an irrelevant ad hominem, and as such is a logical fallacy (an "abusive ad hominem", to be precise) rather than a logical argument proving the accuracy of Ms. DeLorenzo’s core claim that Dr. Cole claims to be finding spike proteins in cancer cell biopsies.
Ms. DeLorenzo’s video is fundamentally factual because her assertion that Dr. Cole claims to be finding spike proteins in cancer cells is factual: Dr. Cole, on “Ask Dr. Drew”, has claimed precisely that.
Politifact would have done well to review either the full “Ask Dr. Drew” video, or even one of the many Tweets of the 1-minute snippet where Dr. Cole makes the claim regarding spike proteins.
In the video snippet that has been tweeted and at several junctures within the full video presentation with Dr. Drew, Dr. Cole shows slides of cell biopsies where he points out the apparently anomalous spike proteins within various cells.
The technicalities of virology and oncology aside (which is rather outside my particular data-centric wheelhouse), the pure factual element of Dr. Cole’s presentation reduces to this: either those slides he presents show spike proteins in cells and at times where there should be no spike proteins, or those slides do not show that. Politifact makes no effort to address, and thus does not actually check any facts whatsoever. Instead, Politifact wanders into yet another irrelevant commentary on Dr. Cole, citing an article from last August in Natural News.
We found an August article about Cole on Natural News, a website known for circulating false information about vaccines. It said that Cole believed that spike proteins in COVID-19 vaccines hurt the body’s immune system and caused an increase in cancer.
Exactly how this undermines Dr. Cole’s argument about circulating spike proteins is uncertain, because, regardless of the quality of Natural News overall reporting, Dr. Cole did make the claims Natural News attributed to him, in an interview with Del Bigtree on The Highwire. To Natural News’ credit, they also provided a link to a 2018 paperwhich summarizes mRNA approaches to vaccines and which Dr. Cole uses as part of his argument about the dangers of the mRNA COVID inoculations.
Politifact also commits a rather sophomoric straw man fallacy by asserting that, as the mRNA inoculations do not alter DNA, they cannot cause cancer.
The Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, in an article about COVID-19 vaccine myths, said: "None of the vaccines interact with or alter your DNA in any way, and therefore cannot cause cancer."
However, in listening to Dr. Cole’s presentation on “Ask Dr. Drew”, his focus appears to be on the potential immunological damage done by the spike proteins, and the capacity for such immunosuppressant effect to facilitate either the emergence or the spread of various cancers. I will leave the technical deconstruction of Dr. Cole’s claims to those more fluent in the relevant biology and immunology (Modern Discontent and Unglossed have done considerable work along these lines and I recommend those Substacks wholeheartedly), but I did not see where Dr. Cole made the specific claim being attributed to him by Politifact.
Thus, while Politifact rates the original Facebook post and therefore Dr. Cole’s claims as “False”, the correct rating for Politifact should be, as per usual, either “non sequitur” or “irrelevant,” as they fail to address the actual facts in question.
However, the facts of Dr. Cole’s claims are sufficiently disturbing that they warrant further consideration on their own merit.
This is actually the second time Dr. Cole appeared on “Ask Dr. Drew”, the first time being last November, in which he covered largely similar material.
Perversely, not only are Dr. Cole’s revelations not even new, in large measure they are not even contested. As readers of this Substack may recall, last September Atlantic writer Roxanne Khamsi all but said straight out that the mRNA inoculations triggered Michel Goldman’s T-Cell lymphoma.
We do not even need to speculate if the mRNA inoculation causes Goldman’s cancer. Roxanne Khamsi leads with the intimation that it did.
The brothers knew this might be just an eerie coincidence. But they couldn’t shake the feeling that Michel had experienced what would be a very rare yet life-threatening side effect of COVID vaccination.
For a lymphoma to follow the injection sites for Michel Goldman’s inoculations and then boosters is a pattern not easily dismissed as mere coincidence, particularly when right after the booster shot Goldman’s lymphoma accelerated rapidly. We may therefore take as stipulated that the inoculation shots are the proximate cause of Goldman’s cancer. This brings us to damning problem number one with the inoculations and their development.
Dr. Cole is presenting additional data which suggests that the mRNA inoculations might be involved in more than just T-Cell lymphomas and they might not be all that rare.
Nor is this the first time that Dr. Cole has raised this alarm. In February of 2022, he appeared on EpochTV—part of The Epoch Times media outlet—to discuss the uptick in various cancers he was seeing in his pathology practice, concerns he would reiterate in April on EpochTV’s “Facts Matter” program, an appearance discussed in detail by YourNews that same month.
Cole said mRNA is a message that tells your cell to make a certain protein for different body reactions.
“But when you put this synthetic pseudouridine [in your body],” said Cole. “The body doesn’t know what to do with it, and it looks at it and says, ‘Hmm, I don’t know what to do. So I’m not going to break it down.’ And so it evades that breakdown process, and it also evades an immune response. But it also turns down our immune system, which is not a good thing because other things—cancers, viruses—get to wake up.”
Dr. Cole is hardly the only medical professional asserting the mRNA inoculations impair the immune system. A peer-reviewed studypublished online in Food And Chemical Toxicology also in April of 2022 asserted substantially the same thing:
In this paper, we present evidence that vaccination induces a profound impairment in type I interferon signaling, which has diverse adverse consequences to human health.
We should remember that there is clinical research demonstrating that both the mRNA from the injection itselfand the spike proteins produced as a result of an mRNA injection remains in the body for a considerable length of time. One study found spike proteins persisting in the body for up to 15 months after injection.
As the dates of these peer-reviewed research studies show, Dr. Cole’s assertions are hardly new, nor are they unique to him, but have ample support within the clinical literature.
Ironically, coronavirus spike proteins have also appeared in the clinical literature as potential means of fighting various types of cancer.
In December, 2021, BioScience Reports published a study showing that peptides derived from the spike protein of the Alphacoronavirus HCoV-229E had certain cytotoxic properties against various human cancer cells.
In order to study the role of some native peptide fragments of proteins on anticancer activity, here we investigated the cytotoxic effect of peptide fragments from domain-1 of PS2Aa1 and one of the loops present in the binding region of the virus spike protein from Alphacoronavirus (HCoV-229E), the latter according to scientific reports, who showed interaction with the human APN (h-APN) receptor, evidence corroborated through computational simulations, and thus being possible active against colon cancer cells.
In November, 2022, Cancers published a paper which suggests that the SARS-CoV-2 S1 spike protein may have applications against lung cancer.
Interestingly, we found that recombinant SARS-CoV-2 spike S1 employed its interaction with ACE2 to induce the death of human lung cancer cells and that intranasal administration of recombinant spike S1 led to regression of tumor in vivo in the lung of NNK-intoxicated mice. Therefore, intranasal administration of SARS-CoV-2 spike S1 may be beneficial for lung cancer patients.
Whether we look at the spike proteins from the SARS-CoV-2 virus as either a cancer cause or a cancer cure, one attribute of the spike protein seems to be a recurring theme within the clinical literature: the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein can have a profound impact on the human body, and on cellular mechanisms within the human body.
While the CDC officially does not admit that the mRNA inoculations litter the body with spike proteins or that the spike proteins themselves can be quite harmful to the body, they have tried to shy away from the entire debate by revising their COVID-19 inoculations page to excise any mention of the duration for both the inoculation and the spike protein within the body.
As late as July 3, 2022, the CDC had this to say about the duration of the spike protein within the human body:
The mRNA and the spike protein do not last long in the body.
Our cells break down mRNA from these vaccines and get rid of it within a few days after vaccination.
Scientists estimate that the spike protein, like other proteins our bodies create, may stay in the body up to a few weeks.
Shortly afterwards, the CDC quietly edited these statements off the page, and now say nothing about either the mRNA’s or the spike protein’s duration in the body
Readers are invited to draw their own conclusion about the CDC’s revision to the language on its own website.
Moreover, the CDC is not the only medical site to assert both the safety of the mRNA inoculations and the claim that neither the mRNA itself nor the spike proteins remain active in the body for very long. Nebraska Medicine even as of this writing asserts that mRNA degrades in the body after a few days, and the spike proteins degrade after a few weeks (archival link here).
Meanwhile, the CDC continues to assert the inoculations at being both safe and effective. Neither the CDC nor the FDA has made any acknowledgement on their respective websites of the studies cited here, articulating the very dangers that were “fact checked” into oblivion at one point.
Yet neither the CDC nor the FDA can deny that these peer-reviewed studies exist, that they were conducted by credentialed and established biomedical experts, and that they present evidence of real dangers arising from the mRNA inoculations. Nor can the CDC deny that, as of this writing, no factual challenge to these papers has been brought forward.
The studies do exist. Their evidences are real. The dangers they highlight are real.
Ignore those dangers at your own risk.
All Facts Matter is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Alternatively, please consider leaving a tip through Ko-Fi. Thank you always for your support!
Pardi, Norbert et al. “mRNA vaccines - a new era in vaccinology.” Nature reviews. Drug discovery vol. 17,4 (2018): 261-279. doi:10.1038/nrd.2017.243
Seneff, Stephanie et al. “Innate immune suppression by SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccinations: The role of G-quadruplexes, exosomes, and MicroRNAs.” Food and chemical toxicology : an international journal published for the British Industrial Biological Research Association vol. 164 (2022): 113008. doi:10.1016/j.fct.2022.113008
Röltgen, Katharina et al. “Immune imprinting, breadth of variant recognition, and germinal center response in human SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination.” Cell vol. 185,6 (2022): 1025-1040.e14. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2022.01.018
Ogata, Alana F et al. “Circulating Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Vaccine Antigen Detected in the Plasma of mRNA-1273 Vaccine Recipients.” Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America vol. 74,4 (2022): 715-718. doi:10.1093/cid/ciab465
Patterson, Bruce K et al. “Persistence of SARS CoV-2 S1 Protein in CD16+ Monocytes in Post-Acute Sequelae of COVID-19 (PASC) up to 15 Months Post-Infection.” Frontiers in immunology vol. 12 746021. 10 Jan. 2022, doi:10.3389/fimmu.2021.746021
Cruz, Jenniffer et al. “Computational study, synthesis and evaluation of active peptides derived from Parasporin-2 and spike protein from Alphacoronavirus against colorectal cancer cells.” Bioscience reports vol. 41,12 (2021): BSR20211964. doi:10.1042/BSR20211964
Sheinin, Monica et al. “Regression of Lung Cancer in Mice by Intranasal Administration of SARS-CoV-2 Spike S1.” Cancers vol. 14,22 5648. 17 Nov. 2022, doi:10.3390/cancers14225648
Du, Lanying et al. “The spike protein of SARS-CoV--a target for vaccine and therapeutic development.” Nature reviews. Microbiology vol. 7,3 (2009): 226-36. doi:10.1038/nrmicro2090