Oncologist Calls for Banning COVID-19 Shots, as Congress Debates Whether They Cause or Accelerate Cancer

British oncologist and immunologist Angus Dalgleish, MD called for a ban of COVID-19 shots in testimony during a U.S. Senate hearing on COVID shot safety on June 3, 2026, citing an observed “marked increase in unexpected cancers among boosted patients.” Heard by the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, the subcommittee convened to discuss whether mRNA COVID biologicals can cause or accelerate cancer and whether researchers raising that question have been silenced or have had their research systematically oppressed.^{1 2}

This marks the third in a series of hearings in the 119th Congress on COVID shot safety sponsored by Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin. Previous hearings include an April 2025 hearing about the actions of federal health officials and COVID shot safety signals under the Biden administration, as well as a May 2025 hearing focused on cardiac (myocarditis) events following COVID shots, which led to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in June 2025 requiring manufacturers to update their product information labels.^{2 3}

Dr. Dalgleish introduced himself as someone with “decades of experience in cancer immunotherapy and HIV research,” and said that, in 2021, he began to observe cancer relapses and unusually aggressive disease presentation in patients whose conditions remained stable in prior years. He said he observed “a marked increase in unexpected cancers among boosted patients, including breast, prostate, pancreatic, lymphoma, gall bladder, glioma, and bladder cancers.” He stated:

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.²

Dalgleish said the patterns he observed went “beyond clinical settings” as he watched close friends follow the same trajectory he was seeing in his medical practice. “I watched close friends develop aggressive late-stage cancers and rapidly deteriorate following repeated booster administration.”²

According to Dalgleish:

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.²

Dalgleish is one of several physicians who raised concerns during the hearing. On the topic of investigating safety signals related to the shots, Wafik El-Deiry, MD, PhD, director of the Legorreta Cancer Center at Brown University, said, “Scientists deserve the freedom to investigate legitimate scientific concerns.”²

Julie Gralow, MD, the chief medical officer of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, said, “There is no clinical evidence proving that mRNA COVID-19 vaccines cause cancer.” In response, Sen. Johnson asked Gralow if she was aware that “the mRNA in COVID vaccines was modified with pseudouridine and was not standard mRNA,” to which she acknowledged uncertainty. “You’re saying how safe and effective this is, but you don’t know how it works,” Johnson said.²

Multiple Witnesses Testify That Valid Research Was Retracted and Systematically Suppressed

Sabine Hazan, CEO of ProgenaBiome, testified that her published studies were retracted, which she said was unwarranted, including a 2021 paper on COVID in patient feces, a 2022 paper on ivermectin-based therapy, and a 2024 paper on cardiac safety of hydroxychloroquine. “If there was a treatment, vaccines would not have passed,” she said, adding that she believed the retractions were politically motivated.²

Dutch researcher Saskia Mostert, MD, PhD testified that her institution retracted her team’s 2024 BMJ Public Health study on excess mortality across 47 Western countries, describing the process as “blind fury.” She stated that the study found no plagiarism or falsification, and that her institution still sought retraction.²

British cardiologist Aseem Malhotra, MD of the HUM2N Clinic in London accused multinational pharmaceutical corporations of “meeting the criteria for psychopathy as defined by forensic psychologists.”²

Legis1, which is a Washington DC-based congressional intelligence and lobbying data platform that provides detailed analytics on federal legislation, recapped the hearing and noted that the exchange grew heated, with each side now accusing the other of suppressing science.⁴

Some testimonies criticized the FDA’s recent suppression of pro-vaccine safety studies, which Legis1 pointed out creates a “mirror-image narrative” to the years-long debate over the suppression of studies showing COVID shots carry more risks than fully acknowledged or made known to the public.^{1 2}

According to internal emails released in 2021, White House officials pressured Amazon in 2021 to censor and minimize access to books on its online platform that questioned the safety or efficacy of vaccines. The initiative, led by President Biden’s Senior Advisor for COVID-19 Response, Andrew Slavitt, sought to avoid the spread of what it labeled “propaganda and misinformation.” Slavitt also urged Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and other social media platforms to remove content they opposed and ban the users responsible for publishing the content.⁵

600-Page Report Details How Health Officials Hid COVID Shot Safety Signals

The Apr. 2025 hearing prompted a lengthy interim report by Sen. Ron Johnson, titled, “Unmasked: How Biden Health Officials Purposely Turned a Blind Eye Toward COVID-19 Vaccine Injury Safety Signals.” The report, according to Johnson, includes “approximately 600 pages of records detailing how beginning in early 2021, FDA officials became aware of a new, “state of the art” data mining method that could better detect statistically significant safety signals for adverse events associated with the COVID-19 vaccines. Rather than adopt the “state of the art” method, Biden health officials continued to employ their older data mining method with known limitations that prevented the FDA from detecting adverse events.”⁶

Johnson went on to point out:

The doctors advocating for the “state of the art” system, uncovered approximately 25 statistically significant safety signals for adverse events associated with the COVID-19 vaccines that were not previously detected by FDA’s current methodology. These included sudden cardiac death, Bell’s palsy, and pulmonary infarction. However, we didn’t need a sophisticated algorithm to see that the COVID injection was causing a great deal of harm. The massive volume of adverse events was a safety signal screaming at all of us.⁶

Science Advances Through “Rigorous Inquiry and Transparent Debate”

Concluding his testimony, oncologist Dalgleish stated:

Science does not advance through silence, suppression, or reputational protection. It advances through rigorous inquiry, transparent debate, independent replication, and the courage to follow evidence wherever it leads. I believe there is now an urgent need for independent investigation into the potential relationship between repeated mRNA vaccination, immune dysregulation, and aggressive cancer progression, particularly in vulnerable populations. If legitimate scientific concerns cannot be openly examined, public trust in medicine and public health institutions will continue to erode. Accountability and transparency are not threats to science. They are the foundation that makes science worthy of public trust.” ¹

If you would like to receive an e-mail notice of the most recent articles published in The Vaccine Reaction each week, click here.