Remember asbestos?

It was thought to be miraculous stuff.  It is nearly 100% chemically inert.  It does not burn, evaporate, dissolve in nearly all liquids or undergo material chemical reactions with nearly everything.  The exception is strong acids.

As a result it was believed to be extremely safe around humans and animals, in that it didn't chemically react and thus would not biochemically react.  Of course you could choke on finely-divided powder and similar which would be extremely serious because being that it didn't dissolve in anything your body couldn't eliminate it either, but other than that nobody expected trouble with it.  It was used all over the place for insulation, fireproofing and similar for this reason.

Everyone who believed that was wrong.

The astounding thing is that nobody, after we discovered this, went back and revised their view of cancer in light of that which was then proved.

That is, there are two "cancer" related things: Those that cause cancer and those that promote cancer.  They're not the same.  To cause cancer a thing must be active either at a serious biochemical or nuclear level.  That is, ionizing radiation causes cancer because the radiation literally damages the DNA and, if that occurs during mitosis you can wind up with a cell that has no (or wildly dysfunctional) regulatory growth factors. Likewise a biochemically-active substance can damage the cellular machinery while division is taking place, resulting in a similar outcome.  That makes sense.

But we live in a universe where these causes are always present all around us.  Specifically, our planet is chock full of natural ionizing radiation sources.  The most-damaging of these are alpha emitters; an alpha particle is a helium nucleus and as radiation sources go it is very large (as compared with beta, which is an electron, or gamma, which is more-akin to energy such as light or radio frequencies, but at much higher levels of energy and fundamental frequency.)  Because alpha is so large on a comparative basis it is much more likely to hit and disrupt part of a DNA strand -- and thus cause cancer.  While intact skin is enough to block alpha particles there is no intact layer of dead skin in the lungs as that would prevent gas exchange, nor is such present in the intestines or there would be no nutrient absorption and both of which must happen for life to continue so any alpha-emitter you inhale or ingest can trivially cause cancer.

So why doesn't everything die of cancer shortly after coming into existence?

Because you, and everything living animal around you, have an immune system.  The fundamental job of the immune system is to find anything that is "not self" and destroy it.  This is the miracle of organized multicellular life and without it nothing with a life cycle of significant length would exist.  Yet we do exist, as do birds, mice, cats, dogs, ferrets, cows, elephants and so on.  We exist because the immune system finds these dysregulated cells, realizes they are "not self" and destroys them -- and so long as it successfully does so you do not have "cancer" in a clinical sense -- although in point of fact every one of you do, indeed, have cancer in you.

Oh by the way we have an extraordinarily incomplete view of precisely how the immune system works -- how it determines, for example, what is "self" and what is not and how all the components work together and under what circumstances they do, and don't lead to a correct -- that is healthy -- outcome.

Given this, however, how is it that a chemically inert thing can promote cancer?  That is, by what mechanism can asbestos do that -- because we know it does.

There's only one logical explanation: It causes inflammation in the body, that is, the immune system knows it is "not self" and tries to eliminate it but cannot because the substance is chemically inert.  The attack on it is thus unsuccessful but the immune system does not give up since the "not self" is still there and that eventually leads it to fail to detect other cancerous cells in the vicinity and be unable to destroy them.

That is, asbestos doesn't cause cancer (because an inert thing can't cause something) but it does promote cancer.

The distinction is important.

It has also been ignored.

Well, that was ridiculously and I'd argue criminally stupid.

Additionally, it has been discovered that the mRNA vaccines inhibit essential immunological pathways, thus impairing early interferon signaling. Within the framework of COVID-19 vaccination, this inhibition ensures an appropriate spike protein synthesis and a reduced immune activation. Evidence is provided that adding 100 % of N1-methyl-pseudouridine (m1Ψ) to the mRNA vaccine in a melanoma model stimulated cancer growth and metastasis, while non-modified mRNA vaccines induced opposite results, thus suggesting that COVID-19 mRNA vaccines could aid cancer development. 

The mRNA covid jabs deliberately substituted out uridine, an amino acid, for a synthetic pseudo-uridine because without doing that the mRNA material was rapidly and efficiently identified as "not self" and destroyed by the immune system, preventing it from working.  In other words the developers deliberately used a substance that "looked like" (to transcription in the cell) uridine but the immune system was incapable of detecting and destroying it.

Now we have hard evidence that doing this causes the promotion of cancer.

Isn't this exactly what happens with asbestos by the same mechanism?

It is.

The immune system cannot destroy asbestos because it is chemically inert.  Pseudo-uridine was chosen specifically because the immune system did not tag and destroy it; without doing that the mRNA material never got delivered into the cells in sufficient quantity to produce enough spike to elicit a response before the immune system tagged and destroyed it.

What led people to believe that doing this was safe when we had a former example where it definitely was not, and yet the body knew it was "not self" because no such thing as pseudo-uridine exists in the body -- any body, of any animal, anywhere -- in the first place!  Well, of course we didn't look -- looking takes a lot of time, in fact many years, because cancer doesn't show up right away most of the time.

But there was every reason to believe you'd get fucked by doing this given our history with asbestos and oh, by the way, the same thing is true for machine-made seed oils, especially hydrogenated ones that are specifically designed not to break down.

The underlying cause is likely sustained and systemic, artificially-induced inflammation that the immune system cannot clear because the substance in question is not able to be destroyed by the immune system -- or in the case of seed oils in addition to them being engineered to not be destroyed (e.g. so they're "shelf stable" in the store without refrigeration) you keep introducing more of it by eating more and more of it.

Proved?  No, but a hypothesis that fits known facts and both explains the increase of cancers that initiated with ever-larger consumption of seed oils in fast food, fast casual and other dining away from home despite large decreases in smoking and thus smoking-related cancers and at the same time explains the FURTHER cancer increases we are seeing post-covid mRNA shots.

Yeah folks, you did a really fucking stupid thing if you took those shots and if you keep eating seed oils you are increasing your risk even further.

You can't un-take the shots but you can stop eating seed oils.

PS: What mitigates, to at least some degree, this risk?  Increasingly the evidence is...... Vitamin D.  In other words, the sun (in moderate amounts) and during months when you can't get enough that way, which for most of the US or darker-skinned people is at least half the year, reasonable levels of supplementation.  No, its not a panacea, but being deficient has no upside and plenty of potential downside both when it comes to infections and cancer -- and its either entirely free or extremely cheap to make sure you're not.  Oh, and what else are we told?  Stay out of the sun.  Yeah.