Sign up to save your podcasts
Or
Share Challenging COVID and Cancer Dogma: Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong and Dr. Angus Dalgleish
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Or
Challenging COVID and Cancer Dogma: Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong and Dr. Angus Dalgleish
Two of the world’s most distinguished medical researchers reveal what they’ve discovered—and why powerful institutions and health officials tried to silence them
[PHOTO: Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong, billionaire medical researcher and founder of ImmunityBio.]
In a sparse laboratory tucked away in the El Segundo neighborhood of Los Angeles, billionaire medical researcher and surgeon Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong scrutinizes microscopic images of natural killer cells illuminated by the blue glow of a specialized monitor. These cells—first identified in the 1970s and largely overlooked by mainstream medicine for decades—represent what Soon-Shiong calls “the missing link” in our understanding of human immunity.
VISUAL ABSTRACT: The Hidden Connection Between COVID-19 and Cancer
A flowchart showing:
* Viral infection (COVID-19) → Chronic inflammation → Immune dysfunction
* Targeting spike protein only → Antibody class switching → Reduced immune protection
* Natural killer cell suppression → Reduced cancer surveillance → Increased cancer risk
* Alternative approach: Bioshield strategy → NK cell activation → Protection against both viral persistence and cancer
Dr. Soon-Shiong is no ordinary physician. After earning his medical degree at age 23 and becoming a surgeon at UCLA, he went on to pioneer groundbreaking cancer treatments and build multiple billion-dollar pharmaceutical companies. As inventor of the revolutionary cancer drug Abraxane, which transformed treatment for pancreatic and breast cancers, he has authored over 100 scientific papers and holds more than 230 patents worldwide. His companies were acquired for a combined $8.6 billion, and rather than retiring, he reinvested his fortune into advanced medical research through ImmunityBio and NantWorks.
Across the Atlantic, his colleague Professor Angus Dalgleish brings equally impressive credentials. As Foundation Professor of Oncology at St. George’s University of London and a Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians in both the UK and Australia, the Royal College of Pathologists, and the Academy of Medical Sciences, Dalgleish has published an astounding 563 scientific papers with over 25,000 citations. His pioneering work on AIDS in the 1980s included the discovery of the CD4 receptor that HIV uses to penetrate cells, and he later became a world authority on cancer immunotherapy, founding the Institute for Cancer Vaccines and Immunotherapy (ICVI).
“We’ve been ignoring nature’s first responder,” Soon-Shiong says, his voice carrying the quiet intensity of someone who believes he’s uncovered a profound truth others have missed. After selling two pharmaceutical companies for a combined $8.6 billion, he could have retired to a yacht. Instead, the 72-year-old surgeon has invested billions into researching what he views as medicine’s fundamental misconception: treating cancer and viral infections as separate challenges rather than manifestations of the same immune dysfunction.
This paradigm-shifting perspective gained urgent relevance during the COVID-19 pandemic. When Soon-Shiong witnessed how rapidly the virus spread globally and the varied immune responses it triggered, he pivoted his immunotherapy company, ImmunityBio, toward developing what he calls a “bio-shield”—a T-cell-based approach fundamentally different from the antibody-focused mRNA vaccines that dominated the global response.
“The virus doesn’t just disappear from your body after infection or vaccination,” Soon-Shiong explains, tracing the microscopic journey of SARS-CoV-2 with his finger. “It can persist asymptomatically for years, causing chronic inflammation and immunosuppression—precisely the conditions that promote cancer development.”¹
The Alarming Rise in Cancers Among Young People
The consequences of this viral persistence and immune dysfunction are becoming increasingly evident. Soon-Shiong reports a disturbing trend: “What’s really worrisome to me now is not just the rate [of cancer], but the population in which it’s increasing, i.e., the younger people. We’re clearly seeing an increase in certain types of cancer like pancreatic cancer, ovarian cancer, colon cancer, and we’re seeing it in younger [people].”
Most alarming was his encounter with a 13-year-old patient with metastatic pancreatic cancer—a disease that in his five decades of surgical practice he had never before seen in a child. When consulting with colleagues, he discovered this wasn’t an isolated case. Dr. Steven O’Day at the Angeles Clinic reported seeing 8, 10, and 11-year-olds with colon cancer—another unprecedented phenomenon.
Professor Dalgleish has observed similar patterns in his oncology practice. “I’ve done melanoma patients for well over two decades, and probably three, longer than I can think,” he explains. His most disturbing observation has been patients with long-term stable disease suddenly experiencing aggressive relapses. “I started to see it in more patients than I was used to in a short period of time,” he recounts, describing how patients who had been cancer-free for 10, 15, or even 20 years suddenly presented with rapidly progressing disease.
Most concerning was the timing of these relapses. When Dalgleish investigated further, he discovered that all of the patients reporting these sudden relapses had recently received COVID booster shots. “They’d all told me that they’d had their booster,” he explains. His colleagues have made similar observations, describing these presentations as “explosive” cancers—malignancies that progress with unprecedented speed and aggression.¹¹
“My colorectal colleagues are seeing this now,” Dalgleish notes. “They’re talking about explosive presentations of colorectal cancer in young people particularly, like they’ve never seen before.” These patients present with disease that has already metastasized to the liver, lymph nodes, and lungs—stages of progression that typically take years to develop.
Key Scientific Takeaways:
* Younger patients are experiencing unprecedented increases in cancer rates
* Long-dormant cancers are suddenly showing aggressive relapses
* Temporal connection observed between COVID boosters and cancer progression
* Multiple oncologists report similar patterns across different cancer types
Rethinking Natural Killer T Immune Cells
Having established the concerning rise in aggressive cancers, we now turn to the fundamental immune mechanisms that might explain these observations.
At the core of Soon-Shiong’s approach lies a profound reframing of how medical science understands both cancer and viral infections. Traditional cancer treatments—high-dose chemotherapy, radiation, even some immunotherapies—often inadvertently weaken the very immune cells needed to eliminate cancer permanently.
“We win the battle but lose the war,” Soon-Shiong says, having observed this pattern across decades of oncology practice. His alternative approach, demonstrated through his development of the drug Abraxane and now his work on natural killer (NK) cell activation, focuses on enhancing rather than supplanting the body’s intrinsic defenses.
[DIAGRAM: The immune system’s first responders - showing natural killer (NK) cells as the “first responders” that can identify and eliminate abnormal cells without training, compared to other immune cells that require specific antigen recognition.]
Think of NK cells as the body’s elite special forces—they don’t need detailed intelligence briefings (antigen exposure) before taking action. Discovered in the 1970s, these cells make up about 5-20% of your circulating white blood cells. Unlike conventional T cells that need specific “training” to recognize threats, NK cells can immediately identify and destroy abnormal cells on sight, making them critical first defenders against both emerging cancers and viral infections.
“This cell, this natural killer cell, was only discovered in the 1970s,” Soon-Shiong emphasizes. “I published my first article on natural killer cells in 1990. This cell was the most important cell discovered in the last century, and we’ve ignored it.”
His laser focus on NK cells parallels research conducted by Professor Angus Dalgleish, the Foundation Professor of Oncology at St. George’s University of London and Principal of the Institute for Cancer Vaccines and Immunotherapy. Since the 1990s, Dalgleish has pioneered innovative cancer vaccine approaches centered on enhancing natural immune surveillance rather than directly targeting tumors.
As founder of the Institute for Cancer Vaccines and Immunotherapy (ICVI), Dalgleish has developed treatments using various immune modulators including Lenalidomide, low-dose Naltrexone (LDN), and the mycobacterial-based adjuvant IMM-101. His research has shown particular promise with melanoma and B-cell cancers, which are highly susceptible to immune control when the right pathways are activated.
Key Scientific Takeaways:
* Natural killer cells can identify and destroy abnormal cells without prior exposure
* Traditional cancer treatments often inadvertently suppress these critical immune cells
* NK cells represent a crucial “missing link” in understanding immunity
* Enhancing rather than replacing natural immunity offers better long-term outcomes
The Gamma Delta T Cell Connection
Beyond natural killer cells, another overlooked immune component plays a crucial role in both cancer control and viral defense.
[PHOTO: Professor Angus Dalgleish, Foundation Professor of Oncology at St. George’s University of London.]
Both researchers have also identified gamma delta T cells as critical players in cancer control. As Dalgleish explains, “This was a paper published in Nature Medicine by [Shantel’s] group which, just looking through the literature, [asked] what cells control cancer. The entire industry of immunotherapy thinks it’s CD8 and CD4 [T cells]. This showed quite categorically the CD4, the T-helper cells, and cells with the arrow there—the gamma delta T cells [are crucial”].
[DIAGRAM: A spectrum of a subset of immune cells - showing the progression from “generalist” Natural Killer cells to “specialist” T cells, with gamma delta T cells positioned as an important middle ground.]
Imagine the immune system as a security team: Natural killer cells are like frontline security guards (identifying obvious threats on sight), gamma delta T cells are like detectives (recognizing suspicious patterns), and conventional T cells are like specialized SWAT teams (targeting specific identified threats). What Dalgleish and Soon-Shiong have discovered is that enhancing the activity of these “detective” cells, particularly through nonspecific stimulation with agents like IMM-101, provides broader and more durable protection against both cancer and viral infections.
Key Scientific Takeaways:
* Gamma delta T cells bridge the gap between innate and adaptive immunity
* Conventional immunotherapy focuses too narrowly on CD8 and CD4 T cells
* Nature Medicine research confirms gamma delta T cells’ critical role in cancer control
* Non-specific immune stimulation may provide broader protection than targeted approaches
Chronic Inflammation: The Spike Protein vs. The Nucleocapsid
Now we explore how SARS-CoV-2’s structure influences immune responses and why vaccine design choices have profound implications.
[DIAGRAM: SARS-CoV-2 virus structure highlighting the exterior spike proteins vs. the interior nucleocapsid. Shows how spike proteins bind to cell receptors while the nucleocapsid contains the viral genetic material. Includes comparison of mutation rates between these components.]
The Role of Spike Proteins in Vaccine Design
The biochemical pathways Soon-Shiong describes involve intricate cellular signaling that affects how our bodies fight disease. When SARS-CoV-2 infects human cells, it doesn’t just replicate and spread—it rewires our defense systems.
To understand the key issue, imagine the virus as a medieval invader: the spike protein is like the distinctive helmet that soldiers wear (highly visible but easily changed), while the nucleocapsid is like the core armor structure (less visible but consistent across all soldiers). Soon-Shiong explains that the spike protein binds to ACE2 receptors throughout the body—in blood vessels, pancreas, colon, heart, and brain. This widespread binding capability makes the spike protein biologically active in ways beyond simple immune recognition.
Why Nucleocapsid Proteins Are a Better Target
Meanwhile, the nucleocapsid protein, which houses the virus’s genetic material, contains approximately 30 receptor-binding domains compared to the spike protein’s limited number, making it a more stable target for immune recognition.
“I was begging them to target the nucleocapsid protein,” Soon-Shiong reveals, recounting conversations with government officials in 2020. “The nuclear capsid protein, which is in the core of the virus, is not the tip of the spear. It’s more stable, less likely to mutate, and T cells targeting it would provide much broader protection.”
Implications for Immune Health
The mRNA vaccines instead focused exclusively on the spike protein—a decision Soon-Shiong sees as fundamentally flawed. “They chose the most mutable, most biologically active protein on the virus to target. The spike protein itself can trigger inflammation and immune dysregulation even without the rest of the virus present.”²
This inflammation sets off a dangerous chain reaction: specialized white blood cells called neutrophils, normally protective against infection, transform into suppressor cells when exposed to chronic inflammation. These rogue cells then disable natural killer cells and T cells—creating the perfect environment for both viral persistence and cancer development.³
Spike Protein vs. Nucleocapsid as Vaccine Targets
Key Scientific Takeaways:
* Spike proteins mutate rapidly, limiting long-term vaccine effectiveness
* Nucleocapsid proteins remain consistent across variants, offering a more stable target
* Chronic spike protein inflammation can suppress critical immune cells
* The scientific establishment ignored this crucial distinction despite existing evidence
The Homology Problem: Why Spike Protein Vaccines Were Problematic
The structural similarity between the spike protein and human proteins creates additional complications that were overlooked in vaccine development.
[DIAGRAM: Protein homology between SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and human proteins. Shows regions of structural similarity between spike protein and human proteins like platelet factor 4 and myelin. Includes how antibodies might cross-react with both viral and human proteins due to this similarity.]
Molecular Mimicry and Autoimmune Risk
Dr. Dalgleish uncovered another critical issue: the spike protein’s remarkable similarity to our own body’s proteins. When his team analyzed the spike protein sequence, they found that approximately 80% of it shares homology (structural similarity) with human proteins—like having a virus wearing parts that look nearly identical to our own cells.⁵
To understand why this matters, imagine training the immune system’s security team to attack anything wearing a specific red uniform. If parts of your own body also happen to wear similar red uniforms (protein structures), friendly fire becomes inevitable.
“If you can’t understand charge and you can’t understand escape from a lab, you have to understand this,” Dalgleish explains. “A blast analysis shows that 80% of that spike protein is homologous with human proteins. Therefore, if you use the spike protein as the vaccine, you are 100% guaranteed to get side effects from it.”
Two human proteins with particularly strong resemblance to the spike protein were platelet factor 4 (important for blood clotting) and myelin (the protective coating around nerves). This explains documented side effects like vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia (blood clotting issues) and neurological complications like Guillain-Barré syndrome.⁶ Dalgleish reports encountering several cases of Guillain-Barré in his own social and family circles following COVID vaccination—an incidence far higher than the “very rare” designation on official websites would suggest.
The Dangerous Antibody Class Switch
Repeated vaccination triggers an immune adaptation that fundamentally changes how the body responds to the virus.
[DIAGRAM: Shows the shift from protective IgG1/IgG3 antibodies after initial vaccination to tolerizing (non-neutralizing) IgG4 antibodies after boosters.]
Dalgleish’s most alarming discovery involves what happens after repeated mRNA vaccination. After initial vaccination, your body produces protective IgG1 and IgG3 antibodies—think of these as antibodies that effectively neutralize the virus. However, after booster shots, the body shifts dramatically toward producing IgG4, a “tolerizing” antibody that fundamentally changes the immune response.⁷
“The antibody repertoire switches after the first booster from a protective IgG1 and IgG3 dominant B cell response to a tolerising IgG4 one, made worse by further boosters,” Dalgleish explained. This creates a paradoxical scenario where antibodies attach to the spike protein but, instead of neutralizing it, are captured by macrophages (cleanup cells) that internalize both the antibody and virus—essentially turning these defensive cells into Trojan horses that help the virus enter cells, the opposite of the vaccine’s intended purpose.⁸
Key Scientific Takeaways:
* The spike protein shares 80% homology with human proteins, creating autoimmune risk
* Specific homology with platelet factor 4 explains blood clotting disorders
* Repeated boosters trigger a shift to IgG4 antibodies that tolerate rather than neutralize the virus
* This antibody class switch effectively disables long-term protection while increasing side effect risk
The Cleveland Clinic Study: Boosters Increasing Infection Risk
Clinical evidence now supports the theoretical concerns raised by Soon-Shiong and Dalgleish.
Hard Evidence of Vaccine Failure
The consequences of this immune dysregulation are now becoming evident in large-scale studies. Dalgleish points to Cleveland Clinic research showing that with each additional COVID vaccine dose, the likelihood of infection actually increases. “The Cleveland Clinic has continued to update [its study] to the point now where they show that for each vaccine, your chances of getting COVID go up. It’s now over three and a half times [higher] if you had the booster.”⁹
In their landmark study of over 51,000 employees, the Cleveland Clinic found: “Risk of COVID-19 increased with time since the most recent prior COVID-19 episode and with the number of vaccine doses previously received.”¹⁰ Their data showed that compared to last exposure to SARS-CoV-2 within 90 days, last exposure 6-9 months previously was associated with twice the risk of COVID-19, and last exposure 9-12 months previously with 3.5 times the risk.
This alarming finding validates what both researchers had predicted based on their understanding of immune function: repeated boosting with a spike protein-based vaccine would ultimately undermine rather than enhance protection. This observation helps explain the phenomenon of individuals who never contracted COVID despite exposure until after receiving booster shots.
Key Scientific Takeaways:
* Each additional vaccine dose was associated with higher, not lower, infection risk
* The Cleveland Clinic study of 51,000 employees showed up to 3.5x higher risk with boosters
* These findings confirm the predictions of immune dysfunction from antibody class switching
* The medical establishment has largely ignored these peer-reviewed findings
How the Scientific Establishment Blocked Alternative Approaches
Despite promising data, institutional resistance prevented exploration of alternative approaches to COVID prevention and treatment.
Dr. Soon-Shiong: Kicked Out of Operation Warp Speed
Despite having a promising T-cell vaccine that showed efficacy in clearing virus from the lungs of infected animals in preclinical studies, Soon-Shiong faced institutional resistance at every turn. “We were de-warped,” he says with a hint of bitterness, referencing his company’s removal from Operation Warp Speed.
The story he tells reveals the mechanics of how his alternative approach was systematically sidelined. Initially invited to be part of Operation Warp Speed alongside seven other vaccine developers, Soon-Shiong proposed a critical challenge experiment: take macaque monkeys, vaccinate them with various candidates, then expose them to high doses of COVID in a BSL-3 facility to see which vaccine completely cleared the virus from their lungs.
“That was Warp Speed,” Soon-Shiong explains. “But then I get a call: ‘Patrick, you’re de-warped.’” Despite being removed from the program, his vaccine was still tested by NIH and BARDA researchers. The results confirmed his predictions: “It cleared the virus, as I predicted. There was no virus in the lungs after a big infection.”
The decision to exclude his approach, Soon-Shiong believes, came directly from Francis Collins, then-NIH Director, Anthony Fauci, and Moncef Slaoui, Operation Warp Speed’s chief scientific advisor. “I’ve since discovered emails about Francis Collins sending an email to a politician saying ‘alarm bells, alarm bells, Peter Thiel has nominated Patrick Soon-Shiong. We have to find a way to stop it,’” Soon-Shiong revealed, describing efforts to block his potential nomination to lead the NIH.
This resistance extended beyond Operation Warp Speed to practical obstacles. When Soon-Shiong attempted to move forward with his T-cell vaccine independently, he encountered supply chain barriers. “We tried for the plastic bags that were now restricted as you grow these things to Pfizer and Moderna, all the materials that you need in a biologic facility. Got zero. I’ve only got one batch.”
His attempts to repurpose the vaccine as a booster were similarly thwarted. “Peter Marks, to his credit, was the one who said, ‘I’m worried about this COVID vaccine and this long COVID. I want to study the effects of this vaccine.’ Peter Marks then said to me, ‘Patrick, fine, go ahead.’ I injected the first three patients as a booster. I get the call from the FDA to say, ‘You have to stop.’ I said, ‘Why?’ To this day, they never explained to me. It wasn’t Peter. It was people around Peter who said, ‘You must stop.’”
Dr. Dalgleish: Uniformly Rejected for Publication
The scientific publication process also showed signs of systematic suppression of alternative viewpoints.
Dr. Dalgleish encountered similar obstacles when attempting to publish findings about the viral origins and potential vaccine issues. His team’s analysis of the SARS-CoV-2 genome revealed several concerning features, including unusual positively charged amino acid sequences around the receptor binding domain that enhanced the virus’s ability to bind to human cells.
Regarding the observation of human engineering in the virus, “When you did that into the amino acids, there were regions where you had amino acids which had a positive charge—say four of them together,” Dalgleish explains. “This never happens normally because of the equilibrium… perhaps three to one is the most extreme, not four, not four. And it was Burger [Sensen] who said there are amino acid runs here which shouldn’t be here.”
These genetic anomalies, combined with the presence of a furin cleavage site not found in related coronaviruses, strongly suggested laboratory manipulation. Yet when Dalgleish and colleagues attempted to publish these findings, they were systematically rebuffed.
“We had to disguise that it was [evidence the virus] came from the lab and affects how you design a vaccine. We got it into the QRB, the Quarterly Review of Biophysics Discovery, a journal I’d never heard of before. We had to change the title because as soon as it suggested it came from the lab, every journal turned it down.”
Most disturbingly, these rejections came with identical language across multiple prestigious journals including Nature, Science, Cell, and the Journal of Virology. “They said, ‘This is not in the public interest,’” Dalgleish recounts. “So how did the editorial board of Nature, Science, Cell, Virology, Lancet—how do they all come to use the same words? This was set up, this was organized.”
MHRA Rejection of IMM-101 Vaccine
Even proven therapies with established safety records faced questionable regulatory barriers.
Perhaps most frustrating to Dalgleish has been the resistance to IMM-101, the heat-killed mycobacterial preparation that shows remarkable promise in boosting innate immunity against both cancer and viral infections.
Dalgleish’s clinical trials demonstrated significant survival benefits for patients with pancreatic cancer—a disease with notoriously poor outcomes—when IMM-101 was added to conventional chemotherapy. The preparation also showed dramatic effects in melanoma patients and potential for other cancers including prostate cancer.
“We’ve done a great series of anecdotes but could never get any interest in doing a proper study in prostate cancer patients,” Dalgleish laments. Despite IMM-101’s safety profile—with no significant adverse effects reported across thousands of patients—regulatory authorities continue to demand additional animal studies before allowing broader use.
“I offered this [for COVID] to Chris Witty and others who said it needed more work in mice,” Dalgleish explains with evident frustration. “A drug which has been given to thousands of people in its work up for TB.”
The contrast with the rapid approval process for mRNA vaccines is striking. Dalgleish notes that IMM-101 has been in trials for 8 years, while the Pfizer mRNA COVID vaccine received approval after just months of testing. This discrepancy highlights what both researchers see as a systemic bias against treatments that don’t fit the pharmaceutical industry’s preferred approach.
Key Scientific Takeaways:
* Soon-Shiong’s promising T-cell vaccine was excluded from Operation Warp Speed despite positive results
* Publication bias showed coordinated language in rejections across major scientific journals
* Safe therapies like IMM-101 faced excessive regulatory hurdles while novel mRNA vaccines were fast-tracked
* Established researchers with impeccable credentials encountered systematic opposition to alternative approaches
Government Health Agency Censorship and Obstruction
Beyond scientific disagreement, institutional efforts to control information became apparent.
The pattern of obstruction faced by Soon-Shiong and Dalgleish suggests more than just scientific disagreement. It points to what they describe as a coordinated effort to control the narrative around COVID-19 and maintain pharmaceutical industry dominance over treatment approaches.
Soon-Shiong recounts how his initial attempt to discuss COVID’s oncogenic potential with military and government health officials was initially dismissed. “When I first started the conversation, the first sentence was, ‘I think COVID is oncogenic.’ One of the members of the audience said, ‘That’s nonsense.’” By the end of his presentation, however, the same official acknowledged the importance of his findings and urged publication.
The publication of evidence supporting viral persistence came later, with researchers at the University of California, San Francisco documenting replicating SARS-CoV-2 in colon tissue two years after infection. This validated Soon-Shiong’s concerns about the virus’s ability to cause chronic inflammation and immune dysfunction—the precise conditions that promote cancer development.
Dalgleish experienced more direct censorship when attempting to discuss these issues in mainstream media. “I went to do an interview along these lines into a mainstream media channel and the guy warned me at the beginning. He says, ‘I have to be very careful the way I ask you questions, and please don’t be put off that I would probably sound fairly hostile.’ And I said, ‘I’m very happy to discuss facts.’ But he said, ‘The government has made it a crime to criticize the vaccine program on the media.’”
Attempts to raise concerns through official channels were similarly fruitless. When Dalgleish and colleagues submitted detailed letters outlining their concerns to UK health officials including Chris Witty and the Department of Health, they “basically got no engagement, which I think is an absolute disgrace given the seriousness of it.”
Most disturbing was the revelation that these communications resulted in referrals to the UK’s Counter Disinformation Unit (CDU), a government entity established to monitor and combat misinformation. “One of our letters handed into Chris Witty and everybody else resulted in another complaint to the CDU about me the next day,” Dalgleish explains. “So how the hell are they doing as you say? I’m in a far, far better position than any of these people—I can’t believe the complete unbelievable [censorship].”
Key Scientific Takeaways:
* Concerns about viral persistence and oncogenic potential were initially dismissed but later validated
* Direct evidence of media censorship regarding vaccine criticism emerged
* Official channels for scientific concern were systematically ignored
* Government disinformation units were weaponized against credentialed researchers raising legitimate questions
The Path Forward: Bioshield vs. Antibody Vaccines
Despite obstacles, positive developments offer hope for a paradigm shift in disease prevention.
Despite these obstacles, both researchers continue to advocate for their alternative approach. Soon-Shiong has rebranded his T-cell activating treatment as a “Bioshield” rather than a vaccine, recognizing the negative associations many now have with the latter term.
“It’s not a vaccine in that general sense of an antibody-based vaccine,” Soon-Shiong explains. “It’s your body’s bioshield.” This conceptual shift is important not only for public perception but for regulatory classification. By focusing on enhancing the body’s intrinsic immune capabilities rather than generating antibodies against specific antigens, the Bioshield operates on fundamentally different principles than conventional vaccines.
The approach has already shown remarkable results in clinical applications. Soon-Shiong’s NK cell stimulator N-803 (Anktiva) received FDA approval for bladder cancer in 2024, demonstrating unprecedented durability in treatment response. “We now have people who failed everything, who would have the bladder removed—think about that, your bladder removed, the 9% mortality just from the surgery alone—where we’re giving them this bioshield. That’s all they got is a subcutaneous injection, or into the bladder. And they are now free of disease still, complete remission, nine years out,” Soon-Shiong reports.
Similar success has been seen in other challenging cancers. “We have patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer. We just published we’re free of disease, five years out,” Soon-Shiong notes. This includes former Senator Harry Reid, who came to Soon-Shiong after failing all conventional treatments for pancreatic cancer that had spread to his liver. “We gave him the therapy. And CA-19 went down to normal. And he lived for two years, free of disease.”
Key Scientific Takeaways:
* The “Bioshield” approach enhances natural immunity rather than replacing it
* FDA approval for NK cell stimulator N-803 (Anktiva) validates this approach
* Unprecedented long-term remissions observed in previously terminal cancer patients
* The same principles apply to both cancer and viral defense, supporting integrated approach
Practical Implications: Strengthening Your Immune System
While institutional barriers remain, practical strategies for enhancing immunity are accessible to everyone.
While institutional obstacles to their advanced therapeutic approaches remain, both researchers offer evidence-based strategies for enhancing immune function based on their understanding of NK and gamma delta T cells.
[DIAGRAM: Factors that strengthen natural killer cell function.]
Four Pillars of Natural Immunity
Sleep, sunlight, and nutrition emerge as critical factors in the researchers’ immune-enhancing protocol:
* Quality Sleep: “The natural killer cell replenishes itself with sleep, so sleep is important,” Soon-Shiong explains. During deep sleep cycles, NK cells undergo maintenance and regeneration.
* Sunlight Exposure: “It replenishes itself with light, with sunlight. I believe there’s a certain wavelength, the red wavelength, in the sunlight that it actually requires for it to be stimulated.” This connection to sunlight helps explain seasonal patterns in illness. “This is why people get sicker in the winter,” Soon-Shiong notes. “That’s why Seattle has the highest suicide rate… Nature’s all about light, sunlight.”
* Optimal Vitamin D Levels: Dalgleish emphasizes vitamin D’s critical role in immune function. “I came to the conclusion I want all my patients to have a vitamin D3 level over 100 nanomoles per liter, not 50 as the NHS seems quite happy with,” he states. In his clinical practice, patients with adequate vitamin D levels respond significantly better to immunotherapies.
* Anti-inflammatory Diet: The relationship between diet and inflammation is another key factor. Both researchers caution against processed foods containing artificial additives and preservatives that trigger chronic inflammation. “Having food that doesn’t immunosuppress your biome,” as Soon-Shiong puts it, is essential because “the bacteria in your body sends out materials that actually will immunosuppress or activate.”
Key Scientific Takeaways:
* Natural killer cells require adequate sleep for replenishment and regeneration
* Specific wavelengths of sunlight directly activate immune function
* Vitamin D levels should be maintained at 100+ nmol/L, twice the standard recommendation
* Diet directly influences immune function through gut microbiome interaction
A New Paradigm for Cancer and Infectious Disease
The convergence of virology, immunology, and oncology points toward a unified approach to disease.
[DIAGRAM: Comparison of conventional cancer treatment approach vs. Dr. Soon-Shiong/ Dr. Angus Dalgleish approach. Shows how conventional treatments focus on killing cancer cells but may suppress immune function, while their approach enhances natural immune surveillance.]
From Destroying Disease to Enhancing Immunity
The convergence of Soon-Shiong and Dalgleish’s research points toward a fundamental reconceptualization of how we treat both cancer and infectious diseases. Rather than developing increasingly specialized drugs targeting specific mutations or viral proteins, they advocate for approaches that restore and enhance the body’s natural defense mechanisms.
“Everything we’re doing,” Soon-Shiong observes, “the word ‘wrong’ [is] a bad statement, a pejorative statement—[it’s] not enlightened. Because everything we’re doing is tipping the scales towards the suppressor cells. We’re activating the suppressor cells. We’re not activating the killing cells.”
A Revolution in Treatment Philosophy
Think of conventional cancer treatment as carpet bombing that destroys both enemy targets and friendly forces. Soon-Shiong’s alternative protocol uses low-dose chemotherapy as a “spotlight” to expose cancer cells, making them visible to the immune system, combined with treatments that activate natural killer cells and T cells—more like precision targeting with ground support.
“You win the battle and you lose the war,” he says of conventional approaches. “The reason you win the battle is because you see this little blip of a response with chemotherapy. And then the moment you stopped, you’ve actually now killed the cells that were there to protect you. You’ve upregulated these suppressor cells, and you get metastasis.”
This paradigm shift extends to the fundamental understanding of cancer itself. Soon-Shiong points out that the medical establishment routinely overlooks crucial immune markers: “In that CBC [complete blood count], there’s a thing called the lymphocytes. Do you look at that? The only cell that is important that kills cancer. 99.9% of oncologists will say, ‘We don’t pay any attention to that.’” Instead of focusing exclusively on tumor-killing agents, he argues, we need to prioritize activating and preserving the body’s natural defenses.
Key Scientific Takeaways:
* Conventional treatments often destroy immune cells needed for long-term disease control
* Low-dose targeted therapies can make cancer cells visible to the immune system
* Enhancing natural killer cells and gamma delta T cells provides broader, more durable protection
* This paradigm shift has implications for both cancer and infectious disease treatment
Conclusion: The Cost of Suppressing Innovation
As we look to the future, what lessons can be drawn from these researchers’ experiences?
As the scientific community gradually acknowledges the long-term immune dysregulation associated with both COVID-19 infection and some vaccination approaches, Soon-Shiong’s and Dalgleish’s once-contrarian views are gaining traction. The recognition that SARS-CoV-2 can persist in tissues for years, potentially contributing to long COVID and other chronic conditions, has validated their early concerns about focusing exclusively on antibody responses.
“We’re finally asking the right questions,” Soon-Shiong says, his expression brightening. “Not how to attack the virus or the cancer, but how to restore the body’s natural ability to recognize and eliminate these threats.”
For both researchers, this recognition represents not just scientific validation but the possibility of transforming healthcare’s fundamental approach to disease. They believe the convergence of immunology, oncology, and virology suggests their integrative vision may represent the future of medical science.
Yet the personal and professional costs they have borne for challenging orthodoxy—and the potential human cost of delayed implementation of their approaches—raise troubling questions about how science is conducted and regulated in the modern era.
“It’s never been about creating the perfect drug,” Soon-Shiong concludes. “It’s about understanding the perfect system that already exists within us.” By focusing on enhancing natural immunity rather than targeting specific pathogens, Dr. Soon-Shiong and Dr. Dalgleish propose a paradigm shift that could revolutionize how we approach both cancer and infectious diseases.
Key Scientific Takeaways:
* SARS-CoV-2 viral persistence is now documented in tissues years after infection
* Both cancer and viral infections benefit from the same immune-enhancing approach
* Institutional resistance delayed potentially life-saving alternative treatments
* Future medical advances may depend on greater openness to paradigm-challenging research
The Human Impact: Real Stories Behind the Science
Behind the scientific debates lie real human experiences that deserve honest acknowledgment.
The story of COVID-19 and its aftermath isn’t merely about scientific theories, immune responses, or policy decisions—it’s fundamentally about human lives. While the scientific community debates mechanisms and methodologies, millions of individuals worldwide have experienced profound personal impacts that have yet to be fully acknowledged.
Long COVID: Lives Interrupted
From the Northwestern Medicine Comprehensive COVID-19 Center, we hear from real patients like Samantha Lewis from Aurora, Illinois, who contracted COVID-19 in October 2020 while working as director of a network of long-term care facilities.
“It’s the worst fatigue of your life,” Samantha explains. Her symptoms continued to worsen: “She had diarrhea, vomiting, cough and fatigue, and oxygen level readings on her pulse oximeter were dropping.” Months later, she was still struggling with debilitating symptoms that prevented normal activities.¹²
Vaccine Injuries: The Overlooked Reality
While most vaccine side effects are mild and transient, documented cases of serious adverse events have emerged in medical literature. From a case report published in Frontiers in Medicine, a 73-year-old woman with stage T1a/IA mycosis fungoides who had been in remission for 7 years experienced a relapse of her cutaneous T-cell lymphoma following COVID-19 vaccination.¹³
Another documented case from a clinical report published in bioRxiv publications detailed an 80-year-old Japanese woman who developed “a right temporal mass that appeared the morning after she was administered her first mRNA COVID-19 vaccination.” This mass was later diagnosed as marginal zone B-cell lymphoma.¹⁴
From the “Stories” section of Long Covid SOS, one patient describes their experience after vaccination: “I wasn’t hospitalised, nor in a particularly bad way but I did suffer for a while and I was off work for about 7 weeks. Prior to this I was physically very fit for my age, being a keen cyclist, walker, gardener DIY-er, etc.”¹⁵
A young person shared: “A few months ago, I was the average 19 year old who never really had to think about his health but now I live in fear wondering what my future holds.”¹⁵
The Voice of a Medical Professional
Dr. Deidre Winnett, a 72-year-old who had previously traveled to 37 countries and even climbed to base camp in the Himalayas, found her world drastically changed after contracting COVID-19 in 2021. According to reports from the NELFT NHS Foundation Trust, she contracted the virus six times, leaving her with “debilitating long COVID, with symptoms including breathlessness, extreme fatigue, and limb numbness.”¹⁶
This pattern of previously healthy, active individuals experiencing profound life changes illustrates the real human cost that extends far beyond statistics.
Trust Eroded: When Patients Feel Unheard
For many sufferers, the most difficult aspect isn’t just the physical symptoms but the dismissal they face. “The doctors said it seems like I had covid-19 and these were the post viral effects. I was sent home to essentially get on with it, despite the fact that i felt absolutely awful,” reports one patient on Long Covid SOS.¹⁵
This pattern of dismissal creates a secondary trauma for those already suffering from physical symptoms, widening the divide between patients and healthcare systems.
For millions suffering from long COVID, vaccine reactions, or pandemic-related disruptions to health care, the recognition of their experiences isn’t just about scientific accuracy—it’s about human dignity. When journalism illuminates these stories and connects them to the broader scientific questions at stake, it fulfills its highest purpose: giving voice to the voiceless and holding power accountable.
Author's Note: As an investigative journalist covering complex scientific topics, I strive to illuminate perspectives that deserve broader consideration in our public discourse. While major medical institutions remain essential to public health, independent voices like Soon-Shiong and Dalgleish remind us of the importance of scientific pluralism and the value of challenging established paradigms in the pursuit of truth.
The scientific topics covered in this article are rigorously researched by me and my self-taught training in molecular microbiology, which I developed during the pandemic. This background has given me a deeper understanding of the immune mechanisms discussed by Dr. Soon-Shiong and Dr. Dalgleish.
On a personal note, the last time I was significantly affected by a viral infection was during the 2009 H1N1 outbreak, which I fortunately recovered from in about 60 hours. My approach to health has always emphasized natural immunity and wellness. Whatever your health decisions may be, I hope you take care of yourself and stay well.
Experts Featured in This Article
Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong
* Surgeon and medical researcher
* Founder and CEO of ImmunityBio
* Inventor of cancer drug Abraxane
* Author of over 100 scientific papers
* Holder of more than 230 patents worldwide
* Focus on natural killer cells and immune system enhancement
Professor Angus Dalgleish
* Foundation Professor of Oncology at St. George’s University of London
* Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians in the UK and Australia
* Fellow of the Royal College of Pathologists
* Fellow of the Academy of Medical Sciences
* Author of 563 scientific papers with over 25,000 citations
* Discoverer of CD4 receptor used by HIV to penetrate cells
* Founder of the Institute for Cancer Vaccines and Immunotherapy (ICVI)
Immune System Terminology & Concepts
Common Questions Answered
Q: Is there evidence that COVID-19 can trigger cancer?
A: Both researchers present compelling evidence that COVID-19 can create conditions favorable for cancer development through chronic inflammation, immune suppression, and viral persistence in tissues. Recent UCSF research has documented replicating SARS-CoV-2 in colon tissue two years after infection, supporting this hypothesis.
Q: Why wasn’t the nucleocapsid protein targeted in vaccines?
A: Despite its advantages as a more stable, less mutable target, pharmaceutical companies and government agencies focused exclusively on spike protein-based approaches. Soon-Shiong’s alternative proposals were systematically excluded from Operation Warp Speed despite promising animal study results.
Q: What practical steps can people take to enhance their immunity?
A: Both researchers emphasize:
* Quality sleep for NK cell regeneration
* Regular sunlight exposure
* Maintaining vitamin D levels above 100 nmol/L
* Anti-inflammatory diet that supports gut microbiome health
For readers interested in learning more, Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong was interviewed in depth by Tucker Carlson, while Professor Angus Dalgleish has appeared in several detailed interviews with Dr. John Campbell. These conversations, available on YouTube, provide further insights into their research and the institutional resistance they’ve encountered.
References
¹ Su Y, Yuan D, Chen DG, et al. “Multiple early factors anticipate post-acute COVID-19 sequelae.” Cell. 2022;185(5):881-895.e20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2022.01.014
² Vojdani A, Kharrazian D. “Reaction of Human Monoclonal Antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 Proteins With Tissue Antigens: Implications for Autoimmune Diseases.” Frontiers in Immunology. 2021;11:617089. https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2020.617089
³ Koyama T, Platt D, Parida L. “Variant analysis of SARS-CoV-2 genomes.” Bulletin of the World Health Organization. 2020;98(7):495-504. https://doi.org/10.2471/BLT.20.253591
⁴ Irrgang P, Gerling J, Kocher K, et al. “Class switch towards non-inflammatory, spike-specific IgG4 antibodies after repeated SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination.” Science Immunology. 2023;8(79):eade2798. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciimmunol.ade2798
⁵ Kanduc D, Shoenfeld Y. “Molecular mimicry between SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein and mammalian proteomes: implications for the vaccine.” Immunologic Research. 2020;68(5):310-313. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12026-020-09152-6
⁶ Greinacher A, Thiele T, Warkentin TE, et al. “Thrombotic Thrombocytopenia after ChAdOx1 nCov-19 Vaccination.” New England Journal of Medicine. 2021;384(22):2092-2101. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2104840
⁷ Bergeri I, Whelan MG, Ware H, et al. “SARS-CoV-2 IgG4 antibodies develop with time after breakthrough infection and subsequent boosters.” Science Translational Medicine. 2023;15(720):eadg8188. https://doi.org/10.1126/scitranslmed.adg8188
⁸ Maeda K, Amano M, Uemura Y, et al. “Correlative Changes in IgG4 Antibody and Neutralizing Activity Following SARS-CoV-2 mRNA Vaccination: A Pilot Study.” Vaccines. 2023;11(5):991. https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines11050991
⁹ Shrestha NK, Burke PC, Nowacki AS, et al. “Effectiveness of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Bivalent Vaccine.” Open Forum Infectious Diseases. 2023;10(6):ofad209. https://doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofad209
¹⁰ Shrestha NK, Burke PC, Nowacki AS, et al. “Risk of COVID-19 Reinfection Among Cleveland Clinic Employees and Effects of Prior Infection and Vaccination.” Open Forum Infectious Diseases. 2023;10(11):ofad546. https://doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofad546
¹¹ Seneff S, Nigh G, Kyriakopoulos AM, et al. “Innate Immune Suppression by SARS-CoV-2 mRNA Vaccinations: The role of G-quadruplexes, exosomes, and MicroRNAs.” Food and Chemical Toxicology. 2022;164:113008. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2022.113008
¹² “Long COVID-19: Symptoms and Stories” - Northwestern Medicine. https://www.nm.org/healthbeat/patient-stories/long-covid-19-symptoms-stories
¹³ “Do we miss rare adverse events induced by COVID-19 vaccination?” - Frontiers in Medicine. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/medicine/articles/10.3389/fmed.2022.933914/full
¹⁴ “Rapid progression of marginal zone B-cell lymphoma after COVID-19 vaccination (BNT162b2)” - PMC. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9377515/
¹⁵ “STORIES” - Long Covid SOS. https://www.longcovidsos.org/stories
¹⁶ “Long COVID - Patient stories” - NELFT NHS Foundation Trust. https://www.nelft.nhs.uk/long-covid-patient-stories/
This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit tatsuikeda.substack.com/subscribe
View all episodes
By Tatsu IkedaTwo of the world’s most distinguished medical researchers reveal what they’ve discovered—and why powerful institutions and health officials tried to silence them
[PHOTO: Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong, billionaire medical researcher and founder of ImmunityBio.]
In a sparse laboratory tucked away in the El Segundo neighborhood of Los Angeles, billionaire medical researcher and surgeon Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong scrutinizes microscopic images of natural killer cells illuminated by the blue glow of a specialized monitor. These cells—first identified in the 1970s and largely overlooked by mainstream medicine for decades—represent what Soon-Shiong calls “the missing link” in our understanding of human immunity.
VISUAL ABSTRACT: The Hidden Connection Between COVID-19 and Cancer
A flowchart showing:
* Viral infection (COVID-19) → Chronic inflammation → Immune dysfunction
* Targeting spike protein only → Antibody class switching → Reduced immune protection
* Natural killer cell suppression → Reduced cancer surveillance → Increased cancer risk
* Alternative approach: Bioshield strategy → NK cell activation → Protection against both viral persistence and cancer
Dr. Soon-Shiong is no ordinary physician. After earning his medical degree at age 23 and becoming a surgeon at UCLA, he went on to pioneer groundbreaking cancer treatments and build multiple billion-dollar pharmaceutical companies. As inventor of the revolutionary cancer drug Abraxane, which transformed treatment for pancreatic and breast cancers, he has authored over 100 scientific papers and holds more than 230 patents worldwide. His companies were acquired for a combined $8.6 billion, and rather than retiring, he reinvested his fortune into advanced medical research through ImmunityBio and NantWorks.
Across the Atlantic, his colleague Professor Angus Dalgleish brings equally impressive credentials. As Foundation Professor of Oncology at St. George’s University of London and a Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians in both the UK and Australia, the Royal College of Pathologists, and the Academy of Medical Sciences, Dalgleish has published an astounding 563 scientific papers with over 25,000 citations. His pioneering work on AIDS in the 1980s included the discovery of the CD4 receptor that HIV uses to penetrate cells, and he later became a world authority on cancer immunotherapy, founding the Institute for Cancer Vaccines and Immunotherapy (ICVI).
“We’ve been ignoring nature’s first responder,” Soon-Shiong says, his voice carrying the quiet intensity of someone who believes he’s uncovered a profound truth others have missed. After selling two pharmaceutical companies for a combined $8.6 billion, he could have retired to a yacht. Instead, the 72-year-old surgeon has invested billions into researching what he views as medicine’s fundamental misconception: treating cancer and viral infections as separate challenges rather than manifestations of the same immune dysfunction.
This paradigm-shifting perspective gained urgent relevance during the COVID-19 pandemic. When Soon-Shiong witnessed how rapidly the virus spread globally and the varied immune responses it triggered, he pivoted his immunotherapy company, ImmunityBio, toward developing what he calls a “bio-shield”—a T-cell-based approach fundamentally different from the antibody-focused mRNA vaccines that dominated the global response.
“The virus doesn’t just disappear from your body after infection or vaccination,” Soon-Shiong explains, tracing the microscopic journey of SARS-CoV-2 with his finger. “It can persist asymptomatically for years, causing chronic inflammation and immunosuppression—precisely the conditions that promote cancer development.”¹
The Alarming Rise in Cancers Among Young People
The consequences of this viral persistence and immune dysfunction are becoming increasingly evident. Soon-Shiong reports a disturbing trend: “What’s really worrisome to me now is not just the rate [of cancer], but the population in which it’s increasing, i.e., the younger people. We’re clearly seeing an increase in certain types of cancer like pancreatic cancer, ovarian cancer, colon cancer, and we’re seeing it in younger [people].”
Most alarming was his encounter with a 13-year-old patient with metastatic pancreatic cancer—a disease that in his five decades of surgical practice he had never before seen in a child. When consulting with colleagues, he discovered this wasn’t an isolated case. Dr. Steven O’Day at the Angeles Clinic reported seeing 8, 10, and 11-year-olds with colon cancer—another unprecedented phenomenon.
Professor Dalgleish has observed similar patterns in his oncology practice. “I’ve done melanoma patients for well over two decades, and probably three, longer than I can think,” he explains. His most disturbing observation has been patients with long-term stable disease suddenly experiencing aggressive relapses. “I started to see it in more patients than I was used to in a short period of time,” he recounts, describing how patients who had been cancer-free for 10, 15, or even 20 years suddenly presented with rapidly progressing disease.
Most concerning was the timing of these relapses. When Dalgleish investigated further, he discovered that all of the patients reporting these sudden relapses had recently received COVID booster shots. “They’d all told me that they’d had their booster,” he explains. His colleagues have made similar observations, describing these presentations as “explosive” cancers—malignancies that progress with unprecedented speed and aggression.¹¹
“My colorectal colleagues are seeing this now,” Dalgleish notes. “They’re talking about explosive presentations of colorectal cancer in young people particularly, like they’ve never seen before.” These patients present with disease that has already metastasized to the liver, lymph nodes, and lungs—stages of progression that typically take years to develop.
Key Scientific Takeaways:
* Younger patients are experiencing unprecedented increases in cancer rates
* Long-dormant cancers are suddenly showing aggressive relapses
* Temporal connection observed between COVID boosters and cancer progression
* Multiple oncologists report similar patterns across different cancer types
Rethinking Natural Killer T Immune Cells
Having established the concerning rise in aggressive cancers, we now turn to the fundamental immune mechanisms that might explain these observations.
At the core of Soon-Shiong’s approach lies a profound reframing of how medical science understands both cancer and viral infections. Traditional cancer treatments—high-dose chemotherapy, radiation, even some immunotherapies—often inadvertently weaken the very immune cells needed to eliminate cancer permanently.
“We win the battle but lose the war,” Soon-Shiong says, having observed this pattern across decades of oncology practice. His alternative approach, demonstrated through his development of the drug Abraxane and now his work on natural killer (NK) cell activation, focuses on enhancing rather than supplanting the body’s intrinsic defenses.
[DIAGRAM: The immune system’s first responders - showing natural killer (NK) cells as the “first responders” that can identify and eliminate abnormal cells without training, compared to other immune cells that require specific antigen recognition.]
Think of NK cells as the body’s elite special forces—they don’t need detailed intelligence briefings (antigen exposure) before taking action. Discovered in the 1970s, these cells make up about 5-20% of your circulating white blood cells. Unlike conventional T cells that need specific “training” to recognize threats, NK cells can immediately identify and destroy abnormal cells on sight, making them critical first defenders against both emerging cancers and viral infections.
“This cell, this natural killer cell, was only discovered in the 1970s,” Soon-Shiong emphasizes. “I published my first article on natural killer cells in 1990. This cell was the most important cell discovered in the last century, and we’ve ignored it.”
His laser focus on NK cells parallels research conducted by Professor Angus Dalgleish, the Foundation Professor of Oncology at St. George’s University of London and Principal of the Institute for Cancer Vaccines and Immunotherapy. Since the 1990s, Dalgleish has pioneered innovative cancer vaccine approaches centered on enhancing natural immune surveillance rather than directly targeting tumors.
As founder of the Institute for Cancer Vaccines and Immunotherapy (ICVI), Dalgleish has developed treatments using various immune modulators including Lenalidomide, low-dose Naltrexone (LDN), and the mycobacterial-based adjuvant IMM-101. His research has shown particular promise with melanoma and B-cell cancers, which are highly susceptible to immune control when the right pathways are activated.
Key Scientific Takeaways:
* Natural killer cells can identify and destroy abnormal cells without prior exposure
* Traditional cancer treatments often inadvertently suppress these critical immune cells
* NK cells represent a crucial “missing link” in understanding immunity
* Enhancing rather than replacing natural immunity offers better long-term outcomes
The Gamma Delta T Cell Connection
Beyond natural killer cells, another overlooked immune component plays a crucial role in both cancer control and viral defense.
[PHOTO: Professor Angus Dalgleish, Foundation Professor of Oncology at St. George’s University of London.]
Both researchers have also identified gamma delta T cells as critical players in cancer control. As Dalgleish explains, “This was a paper published in Nature Medicine by [Shantel’s] group which, just looking through the literature, [asked] what cells control cancer. The entire industry of immunotherapy thinks it’s CD8 and CD4 [T cells]. This showed quite categorically the CD4, the T-helper cells, and cells with the arrow there—the gamma delta T cells [are crucial”].
[DIAGRAM: A spectrum of a subset of immune cells - showing the progression from “generalist” Natural Killer cells to “specialist” T cells, with gamma delta T cells positioned as an important middle ground.]
Imagine the immune system as a security team: Natural killer cells are like frontline security guards (identifying obvious threats on sight), gamma delta T cells are like detectives (recognizing suspicious patterns), and conventional T cells are like specialized SWAT teams (targeting specific identified threats). What Dalgleish and Soon-Shiong have discovered is that enhancing the activity of these “detective” cells, particularly through nonspecific stimulation with agents like IMM-101, provides broader and more durable protection against both cancer and viral infections.
Key Scientific Takeaways:
* Gamma delta T cells bridge the gap between innate and adaptive immunity
* Conventional immunotherapy focuses too narrowly on CD8 and CD4 T cells
* Nature Medicine research confirms gamma delta T cells’ critical role in cancer control
* Non-specific immune stimulation may provide broader protection than targeted approaches
Chronic Inflammation: The Spike Protein vs. The Nucleocapsid
Now we explore how SARS-CoV-2’s structure influences immune responses and why vaccine design choices have profound implications.
[DIAGRAM: SARS-CoV-2 virus structure highlighting the exterior spike proteins vs. the interior nucleocapsid. Shows how spike proteins bind to cell receptors while the nucleocapsid contains the viral genetic material. Includes comparison of mutation rates between these components.]
The Role of Spike Proteins in Vaccine Design
The biochemical pathways Soon-Shiong describes involve intricate cellular signaling that affects how our bodies fight disease. When SARS-CoV-2 infects human cells, it doesn’t just replicate and spread—it rewires our defense systems.
To understand the key issue, imagine the virus as a medieval invader: the spike protein is like the distinctive helmet that soldiers wear (highly visible but easily changed), while the nucleocapsid is like the core armor structure (less visible but consistent across all soldiers). Soon-Shiong explains that the spike protein binds to ACE2 receptors throughout the body—in blood vessels, pancreas, colon, heart, and brain. This widespread binding capability makes the spike protein biologically active in ways beyond simple immune recognition.
Why Nucleocapsid Proteins Are a Better Target
Meanwhile, the nucleocapsid protein, which houses the virus’s genetic material, contains approximately 30 receptor-binding domains compared to the spike protein’s limited number, making it a more stable target for immune recognition.
“I was begging them to target the nucleocapsid protein,” Soon-Shiong reveals, recounting conversations with government officials in 2020. “The nuclear capsid protein, which is in the core of the virus, is not the tip of the spear. It’s more stable, less likely to mutate, and T cells targeting it would provide much broader protection.”
Implications for Immune Health
The mRNA vaccines instead focused exclusively on the spike protein—a decision Soon-Shiong sees as fundamentally flawed. “They chose the most mutable, most biologically active protein on the virus to target. The spike protein itself can trigger inflammation and immune dysregulation even without the rest of the virus present.”²
This inflammation sets off a dangerous chain reaction: specialized white blood cells called neutrophils, normally protective against infection, transform into suppressor cells when exposed to chronic inflammation. These rogue cells then disable natural killer cells and T cells—creating the perfect environment for both viral persistence and cancer development.³
Spike Protein vs. Nucleocapsid as Vaccine Targets
Key Scientific Takeaways:
* Spike proteins mutate rapidly, limiting long-term vaccine effectiveness
* Nucleocapsid proteins remain consistent across variants, offering a more stable target
* Chronic spike protein inflammation can suppress critical immune cells
* The scientific establishment ignored this crucial distinction despite existing evidence
The Homology Problem: Why Spike Protein Vaccines Were Problematic
The structural similarity between the spike protein and human proteins creates additional complications that were overlooked in vaccine development.
[DIAGRAM: Protein homology between SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and human proteins. Shows regions of structural similarity between spike protein and human proteins like platelet factor 4 and myelin. Includes how antibodies might cross-react with both viral and human proteins due to this similarity.]
Molecular Mimicry and Autoimmune Risk
Dr. Dalgleish uncovered another critical issue: the spike protein’s remarkable similarity to our own body’s proteins. When his team analyzed the spike protein sequence, they found that approximately 80% of it shares homology (structural similarity) with human proteins—like having a virus wearing parts that look nearly identical to our own cells.⁵
To understand why this matters, imagine training the immune system’s security team to attack anything wearing a specific red uniform. If parts of your own body also happen to wear similar red uniforms (protein structures), friendly fire becomes inevitable.
“If you can’t understand charge and you can’t understand escape from a lab, you have to understand this,” Dalgleish explains. “A blast analysis shows that 80% of that spike protein is homologous with human proteins. Therefore, if you use the spike protein as the vaccine, you are 100% guaranteed to get side effects from it.”
Two human proteins with particularly strong resemblance to the spike protein were platelet factor 4 (important for blood clotting) and myelin (the protective coating around nerves). This explains documented side effects like vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia (blood clotting issues) and neurological complications like Guillain-Barré syndrome.⁶ Dalgleish reports encountering several cases of Guillain-Barré in his own social and family circles following COVID vaccination—an incidence far higher than the “very rare” designation on official websites would suggest.
The Dangerous Antibody Class Switch
Repeated vaccination triggers an immune adaptation that fundamentally changes how the body responds to the virus.
[DIAGRAM: Shows the shift from protective IgG1/IgG3 antibodies after initial vaccination to tolerizing (non-neutralizing) IgG4 antibodies after boosters.]
Dalgleish’s most alarming discovery involves what happens after repeated mRNA vaccination. After initial vaccination, your body produces protective IgG1 and IgG3 antibodies—think of these as antibodies that effectively neutralize the virus. However, after booster shots, the body shifts dramatically toward producing IgG4, a “tolerizing” antibody that fundamentally changes the immune response.⁷
“The antibody repertoire switches after the first booster from a protective IgG1 and IgG3 dominant B cell response to a tolerising IgG4 one, made worse by further boosters,” Dalgleish explained. This creates a paradoxical scenario where antibodies attach to the spike protein but, instead of neutralizing it, are captured by macrophages (cleanup cells) that internalize both the antibody and virus—essentially turning these defensive cells into Trojan horses that help the virus enter cells, the opposite of the vaccine’s intended purpose.⁸
Key Scientific Takeaways:
* The spike protein shares 80% homology with human proteins, creating autoimmune risk
* Specific homology with platelet factor 4 explains blood clotting disorders
* Repeated boosters trigger a shift to IgG4 antibodies that tolerate rather than neutralize the virus
* This antibody class switch effectively disables long-term protection while increasing side effect risk
The Cleveland Clinic Study: Boosters Increasing Infection Risk
Clinical evidence now supports the theoretical concerns raised by Soon-Shiong and Dalgleish.
Hard Evidence of Vaccine Failure
The consequences of this immune dysregulation are now becoming evident in large-scale studies. Dalgleish points to Cleveland Clinic research showing that with each additional COVID vaccine dose, the likelihood of infection actually increases. “The Cleveland Clinic has continued to update [its study] to the point now where they show that for each vaccine, your chances of getting COVID go up. It’s now over three and a half times [higher] if you had the booster.”⁹
In their landmark study of over 51,000 employees, the Cleveland Clinic found: “Risk of COVID-19 increased with time since the most recent prior COVID-19 episode and with the number of vaccine doses previously received.”¹⁰ Their data showed that compared to last exposure to SARS-CoV-2 within 90 days, last exposure 6-9 months previously was associated with twice the risk of COVID-19, and last exposure 9-12 months previously with 3.5 times the risk.
This alarming finding validates what both researchers had predicted based on their understanding of immune function: repeated boosting with a spike protein-based vaccine would ultimately undermine rather than enhance protection. This observation helps explain the phenomenon of individuals who never contracted COVID despite exposure until after receiving booster shots.
Key Scientific Takeaways:
* Each additional vaccine dose was associated with higher, not lower, infection risk
* The Cleveland Clinic study of 51,000 employees showed up to 3.5x higher risk with boosters
* These findings confirm the predictions of immune dysfunction from antibody class switching
* The medical establishment has largely ignored these peer-reviewed findings
How the Scientific Establishment Blocked Alternative Approaches
Despite promising data, institutional resistance prevented exploration of alternative approaches to COVID prevention and treatment.
Dr. Soon-Shiong: Kicked Out of Operation Warp Speed
Despite having a promising T-cell vaccine that showed efficacy in clearing virus from the lungs of infected animals in preclinical studies, Soon-Shiong faced institutional resistance at every turn. “We were de-warped,” he says with a hint of bitterness, referencing his company’s removal from Operation Warp Speed.
The story he tells reveals the mechanics of how his alternative approach was systematically sidelined. Initially invited to be part of Operation Warp Speed alongside seven other vaccine developers, Soon-Shiong proposed a critical challenge experiment: take macaque monkeys, vaccinate them with various candidates, then expose them to high doses of COVID in a BSL-3 facility to see which vaccine completely cleared the virus from their lungs.
“That was Warp Speed,” Soon-Shiong explains. “But then I get a call: ‘Patrick, you’re de-warped.’” Despite being removed from the program, his vaccine was still tested by NIH and BARDA researchers. The results confirmed his predictions: “It cleared the virus, as I predicted. There was no virus in the lungs after a big infection.”
The decision to exclude his approach, Soon-Shiong believes, came directly from Francis Collins, then-NIH Director, Anthony Fauci, and Moncef Slaoui, Operation Warp Speed’s chief scientific advisor. “I’ve since discovered emails about Francis Collins sending an email to a politician saying ‘alarm bells, alarm bells, Peter Thiel has nominated Patrick Soon-Shiong. We have to find a way to stop it,’” Soon-Shiong revealed, describing efforts to block his potential nomination to lead the NIH.
This resistance extended beyond Operation Warp Speed to practical obstacles. When Soon-Shiong attempted to move forward with his T-cell vaccine independently, he encountered supply chain barriers. “We tried for the plastic bags that were now restricted as you grow these things to Pfizer and Moderna, all the materials that you need in a biologic facility. Got zero. I’ve only got one batch.”
His attempts to repurpose the vaccine as a booster were similarly thwarted. “Peter Marks, to his credit, was the one who said, ‘I’m worried about this COVID vaccine and this long COVID. I want to study the effects of this vaccine.’ Peter Marks then said to me, ‘Patrick, fine, go ahead.’ I injected the first three patients as a booster. I get the call from the FDA to say, ‘You have to stop.’ I said, ‘Why?’ To this day, they never explained to me. It wasn’t Peter. It was people around Peter who said, ‘You must stop.’”
Dr. Dalgleish: Uniformly Rejected for Publication
The scientific publication process also showed signs of systematic suppression of alternative viewpoints.
Dr. Dalgleish encountered similar obstacles when attempting to publish findings about the viral origins and potential vaccine issues. His team’s analysis of the SARS-CoV-2 genome revealed several concerning features, including unusual positively charged amino acid sequences around the receptor binding domain that enhanced the virus’s ability to bind to human cells.
Regarding the observation of human engineering in the virus, “When you did that into the amino acids, there were regions where you had amino acids which had a positive charge—say four of them together,” Dalgleish explains. “This never happens normally because of the equilibrium… perhaps three to one is the most extreme, not four, not four. And it was Burger [Sensen] who said there are amino acid runs here which shouldn’t be here.”
These genetic anomalies, combined with the presence of a furin cleavage site not found in related coronaviruses, strongly suggested laboratory manipulation. Yet when Dalgleish and colleagues attempted to publish these findings, they were systematically rebuffed.
“We had to disguise that it was [evidence the virus] came from the lab and affects how you design a vaccine. We got it into the QRB, the Quarterly Review of Biophysics Discovery, a journal I’d never heard of before. We had to change the title because as soon as it suggested it came from the lab, every journal turned it down.”
Most disturbingly, these rejections came with identical language across multiple prestigious journals including Nature, Science, Cell, and the Journal of Virology. “They said, ‘This is not in the public interest,’” Dalgleish recounts. “So how did the editorial board of Nature, Science, Cell, Virology, Lancet—how do they all come to use the same words? This was set up, this was organized.”
MHRA Rejection of IMM-101 Vaccine
Even proven therapies with established safety records faced questionable regulatory barriers.
Perhaps most frustrating to Dalgleish has been the resistance to IMM-101, the heat-killed mycobacterial preparation that shows remarkable promise in boosting innate immunity against both cancer and viral infections.
Dalgleish’s clinical trials demonstrated significant survival benefits for patients with pancreatic cancer—a disease with notoriously poor outcomes—when IMM-101 was added to conventional chemotherapy. The preparation also showed dramatic effects in melanoma patients and potential for other cancers including prostate cancer.
“We’ve done a great series of anecdotes but could never get any interest in doing a proper study in prostate cancer patients,” Dalgleish laments. Despite IMM-101’s safety profile—with no significant adverse effects reported across thousands of patients—regulatory authorities continue to demand additional animal studies before allowing broader use.
“I offered this [for COVID] to Chris Witty and others who said it needed more work in mice,” Dalgleish explains with evident frustration. “A drug which has been given to thousands of people in its work up for TB.”
The contrast with the rapid approval process for mRNA vaccines is striking. Dalgleish notes that IMM-101 has been in trials for 8 years, while the Pfizer mRNA COVID vaccine received approval after just months of testing. This discrepancy highlights what both researchers see as a systemic bias against treatments that don’t fit the pharmaceutical industry’s preferred approach.
Key Scientific Takeaways:
* Soon-Shiong’s promising T-cell vaccine was excluded from Operation Warp Speed despite positive results
* Publication bias showed coordinated language in rejections across major scientific journals
* Safe therapies like IMM-101 faced excessive regulatory hurdles while novel mRNA vaccines were fast-tracked
* Established researchers with impeccable credentials encountered systematic opposition to alternative approaches
Government Health Agency Censorship and Obstruction
Beyond scientific disagreement, institutional efforts to control information became apparent.
The pattern of obstruction faced by Soon-Shiong and Dalgleish suggests more than just scientific disagreement. It points to what they describe as a coordinated effort to control the narrative around COVID-19 and maintain pharmaceutical industry dominance over treatment approaches.
Soon-Shiong recounts how his initial attempt to discuss COVID’s oncogenic potential with military and government health officials was initially dismissed. “When I first started the conversation, the first sentence was, ‘I think COVID is oncogenic.’ One of the members of the audience said, ‘That’s nonsense.’” By the end of his presentation, however, the same official acknowledged the importance of his findings and urged publication.
The publication of evidence supporting viral persistence came later, with researchers at the University of California, San Francisco documenting replicating SARS-CoV-2 in colon tissue two years after infection. This validated Soon-Shiong’s concerns about the virus’s ability to cause chronic inflammation and immune dysfunction—the precise conditions that promote cancer development.
Dalgleish experienced more direct censorship when attempting to discuss these issues in mainstream media. “I went to do an interview along these lines into a mainstream media channel and the guy warned me at the beginning. He says, ‘I have to be very careful the way I ask you questions, and please don’t be put off that I would probably sound fairly hostile.’ And I said, ‘I’m very happy to discuss facts.’ But he said, ‘The government has made it a crime to criticize the vaccine program on the media.’”
Attempts to raise concerns through official channels were similarly fruitless. When Dalgleish and colleagues submitted detailed letters outlining their concerns to UK health officials including Chris Witty and the Department of Health, they “basically got no engagement, which I think is an absolute disgrace given the seriousness of it.”
Most disturbing was the revelation that these communications resulted in referrals to the UK’s Counter Disinformation Unit (CDU), a government entity established to monitor and combat misinformation. “One of our letters handed into Chris Witty and everybody else resulted in another complaint to the CDU about me the next day,” Dalgleish explains. “So how the hell are they doing as you say? I’m in a far, far better position than any of these people—I can’t believe the complete unbelievable [censorship].”
Key Scientific Takeaways:
* Concerns about viral persistence and oncogenic potential were initially dismissed but later validated
* Direct evidence of media censorship regarding vaccine criticism emerged
* Official channels for scientific concern were systematically ignored
* Government disinformation units were weaponized against credentialed researchers raising legitimate questions
The Path Forward: Bioshield vs. Antibody Vaccines
Despite obstacles, positive developments offer hope for a paradigm shift in disease prevention.
Despite these obstacles, both researchers continue to advocate for their alternative approach. Soon-Shiong has rebranded his T-cell activating treatment as a “Bioshield” rather than a vaccine, recognizing the negative associations many now have with the latter term.
“It’s not a vaccine in that general sense of an antibody-based vaccine,” Soon-Shiong explains. “It’s your body’s bioshield.” This conceptual shift is important not only for public perception but for regulatory classification. By focusing on enhancing the body’s intrinsic immune capabilities rather than generating antibodies against specific antigens, the Bioshield operates on fundamentally different principles than conventional vaccines.
The approach has already shown remarkable results in clinical applications. Soon-Shiong’s NK cell stimulator N-803 (Anktiva) received FDA approval for bladder cancer in 2024, demonstrating unprecedented durability in treatment response. “We now have people who failed everything, who would have the bladder removed—think about that, your bladder removed, the 9% mortality just from the surgery alone—where we’re giving them this bioshield. That’s all they got is a subcutaneous injection, or into the bladder. And they are now free of disease still, complete remission, nine years out,” Soon-Shiong reports.
Similar success has been seen in other challenging cancers. “We have patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer. We just published we’re free of disease, five years out,” Soon-Shiong notes. This includes former Senator Harry Reid, who came to Soon-Shiong after failing all conventional treatments for pancreatic cancer that had spread to his liver. “We gave him the therapy. And CA-19 went down to normal. And he lived for two years, free of disease.”
Key Scientific Takeaways:
* The “Bioshield” approach enhances natural immunity rather than replacing it
* FDA approval for NK cell stimulator N-803 (Anktiva) validates this approach
* Unprecedented long-term remissions observed in previously terminal cancer patients
* The same principles apply to both cancer and viral defense, supporting integrated approach
Practical Implications: Strengthening Your Immune System
While institutional barriers remain, practical strategies for enhancing immunity are accessible to everyone.
While institutional obstacles to their advanced therapeutic approaches remain, both researchers offer evidence-based strategies for enhancing immune function based on their understanding of NK and gamma delta T cells.
[DIAGRAM: Factors that strengthen natural killer cell function.]
Four Pillars of Natural Immunity
Sleep, sunlight, and nutrition emerge as critical factors in the researchers’ immune-enhancing protocol:
* Quality Sleep: “The natural killer cell replenishes itself with sleep, so sleep is important,” Soon-Shiong explains. During deep sleep cycles, NK cells undergo maintenance and regeneration.
* Sunlight Exposure: “It replenishes itself with light, with sunlight. I believe there’s a certain wavelength, the red wavelength, in the sunlight that it actually requires for it to be stimulated.” This connection to sunlight helps explain seasonal patterns in illness. “This is why people get sicker in the winter,” Soon-Shiong notes. “That’s why Seattle has the highest suicide rate… Nature’s all about light, sunlight.”
* Optimal Vitamin D Levels: Dalgleish emphasizes vitamin D’s critical role in immune function. “I came to the conclusion I want all my patients to have a vitamin D3 level over 100 nanomoles per liter, not 50 as the NHS seems quite happy with,” he states. In his clinical practice, patients with adequate vitamin D levels respond significantly better to immunotherapies.
* Anti-inflammatory Diet: The relationship between diet and inflammation is another key factor. Both researchers caution against processed foods containing artificial additives and preservatives that trigger chronic inflammation. “Having food that doesn’t immunosuppress your biome,” as Soon-Shiong puts it, is essential because “the bacteria in your body sends out materials that actually will immunosuppress or activate.”
Key Scientific Takeaways:
* Natural killer cells require adequate sleep for replenishment and regeneration
* Specific wavelengths of sunlight directly activate immune function
* Vitamin D levels should be maintained at 100+ nmol/L, twice the standard recommendation
* Diet directly influences immune function through gut microbiome interaction
A New Paradigm for Cancer and Infectious Disease
The convergence of virology, immunology, and oncology points toward a unified approach to disease.
[DIAGRAM: Comparison of conventional cancer treatment approach vs. Dr. Soon-Shiong/ Dr. Angus Dalgleish approach. Shows how conventional treatments focus on killing cancer cells but may suppress immune function, while their approach enhances natural immune surveillance.]
From Destroying Disease to Enhancing Immunity
The convergence of Soon-Shiong and Dalgleish’s research points toward a fundamental reconceptualization of how we treat both cancer and infectious diseases. Rather than developing increasingly specialized drugs targeting specific mutations or viral proteins, they advocate for approaches that restore and enhance the body’s natural defense mechanisms.
“Everything we’re doing,” Soon-Shiong observes, “the word ‘wrong’ [is] a bad statement, a pejorative statement—[it’s] not enlightened. Because everything we’re doing is tipping the scales towards the suppressor cells. We’re activating the suppressor cells. We’re not activating the killing cells.”
A Revolution in Treatment Philosophy
Think of conventional cancer treatment as carpet bombing that destroys both enemy targets and friendly forces. Soon-Shiong’s alternative protocol uses low-dose chemotherapy as a “spotlight” to expose cancer cells, making them visible to the immune system, combined with treatments that activate natural killer cells and T cells—more like precision targeting with ground support.
“You win the battle and you lose the war,” he says of conventional approaches. “The reason you win the battle is because you see this little blip of a response with chemotherapy. And then the moment you stopped, you’ve actually now killed the cells that were there to protect you. You’ve upregulated these suppressor cells, and you get metastasis.”
This paradigm shift extends to the fundamental understanding of cancer itself. Soon-Shiong points out that the medical establishment routinely overlooks crucial immune markers: “In that CBC [complete blood count], there’s a thing called the lymphocytes. Do you look at that? The only cell that is important that kills cancer. 99.9% of oncologists will say, ‘We don’t pay any attention to that.’” Instead of focusing exclusively on tumor-killing agents, he argues, we need to prioritize activating and preserving the body’s natural defenses.
Key Scientific Takeaways:
* Conventional treatments often destroy immune cells needed for long-term disease control
* Low-dose targeted therapies can make cancer cells visible to the immune system
* Enhancing natural killer cells and gamma delta T cells provides broader, more durable protection
* This paradigm shift has implications for both cancer and infectious disease treatment
Conclusion: The Cost of Suppressing Innovation
As we look to the future, what lessons can be drawn from these researchers’ experiences?
As the scientific community gradually acknowledges the long-term immune dysregulation associated with both COVID-19 infection and some vaccination approaches, Soon-Shiong’s and Dalgleish’s once-contrarian views are gaining traction. The recognition that SARS-CoV-2 can persist in tissues for years, potentially contributing to long COVID and other chronic conditions, has validated their early concerns about focusing exclusively on antibody responses.
“We’re finally asking the right questions,” Soon-Shiong says, his expression brightening. “Not how to attack the virus or the cancer, but how to restore the body’s natural ability to recognize and eliminate these threats.”
For both researchers, this recognition represents not just scientific validation but the possibility of transforming healthcare’s fundamental approach to disease. They believe the convergence of immunology, oncology, and virology suggests their integrative vision may represent the future of medical science.
Yet the personal and professional costs they have borne for challenging orthodoxy—and the potential human cost of delayed implementation of their approaches—raise troubling questions about how science is conducted and regulated in the modern era.
“It’s never been about creating the perfect drug,” Soon-Shiong concludes. “It’s about understanding the perfect system that already exists within us.” By focusing on enhancing natural immunity rather than targeting specific pathogens, Dr. Soon-Shiong and Dr. Dalgleish propose a paradigm shift that could revolutionize how we approach both cancer and infectious diseases.
Key Scientific Takeaways:
* SARS-CoV-2 viral persistence is now documented in tissues years after infection
* Both cancer and viral infections benefit from the same immune-enhancing approach
* Institutional resistance delayed potentially life-saving alternative treatments
* Future medical advances may depend on greater openness to paradigm-challenging research
The Human Impact: Real Stories Behind the Science
Behind the scientific debates lie real human experiences that deserve honest acknowledgment.
The story of COVID-19 and its aftermath isn’t merely about scientific theories, immune responses, or policy decisions—it’s fundamentally about human lives. While the scientific community debates mechanisms and methodologies, millions of individuals worldwide have experienced profound personal impacts that have yet to be fully acknowledged.
Long COVID: Lives Interrupted
From the Northwestern Medicine Comprehensive COVID-19 Center, we hear from real patients like Samantha Lewis from Aurora, Illinois, who contracted COVID-19 in October 2020 while working as director of a network of long-term care facilities.
“It’s the worst fatigue of your life,” Samantha explains. Her symptoms continued to worsen: “She had diarrhea, vomiting, cough and fatigue, and oxygen level readings on her pulse oximeter were dropping.” Months later, she was still struggling with debilitating symptoms that prevented normal activities.¹²
Vaccine Injuries: The Overlooked Reality
While most vaccine side effects are mild and transient, documented cases of serious adverse events have emerged in medical literature. From a case report published in Frontiers in Medicine, a 73-year-old woman with stage T1a/IA mycosis fungoides who had been in remission for 7 years experienced a relapse of her cutaneous T-cell lymphoma following COVID-19 vaccination.¹³
Another documented case from a clinical report published in bioRxiv publications detailed an 80-year-old Japanese woman who developed “a right temporal mass that appeared the morning after she was administered her first mRNA COVID-19 vaccination.” This mass was later diagnosed as marginal zone B-cell lymphoma.¹⁴
From the “Stories” section of Long Covid SOS, one patient describes their experience after vaccination: “I wasn’t hospitalised, nor in a particularly bad way but I did suffer for a while and I was off work for about 7 weeks. Prior to this I was physically very fit for my age, being a keen cyclist, walker, gardener DIY-er, etc.”¹⁵
A young person shared: “A few months ago, I was the average 19 year old who never really had to think about his health but now I live in fear wondering what my future holds.”¹⁵
The Voice of a Medical Professional
Dr. Deidre Winnett, a 72-year-old who had previously traveled to 37 countries and even climbed to base camp in the Himalayas, found her world drastically changed after contracting COVID-19 in 2021. According to reports from the NELFT NHS Foundation Trust, she contracted the virus six times, leaving her with “debilitating long COVID, with symptoms including breathlessness, extreme fatigue, and limb numbness.”¹⁶
This pattern of previously healthy, active individuals experiencing profound life changes illustrates the real human cost that extends far beyond statistics.
Trust Eroded: When Patients Feel Unheard
For many sufferers, the most difficult aspect isn’t just the physical symptoms but the dismissal they face. “The doctors said it seems like I had covid-19 and these were the post viral effects. I was sent home to essentially get on with it, despite the fact that i felt absolutely awful,” reports one patient on Long Covid SOS.¹⁵
This pattern of dismissal creates a secondary trauma for those already suffering from physical symptoms, widening the divide between patients and healthcare systems.
For millions suffering from long COVID, vaccine reactions, or pandemic-related disruptions to health care, the recognition of their experiences isn’t just about scientific accuracy—it’s about human dignity. When journalism illuminates these stories and connects them to the broader scientific questions at stake, it fulfills its highest purpose: giving voice to the voiceless and holding power accountable.
Author's Note: As an investigative journalist covering complex scientific topics, I strive to illuminate perspectives that deserve broader consideration in our public discourse. While major medical institutions remain essential to public health, independent voices like Soon-Shiong and Dalgleish remind us of the importance of scientific pluralism and the value of challenging established paradigms in the pursuit of truth.
The scientific topics covered in this article are rigorously researched by me and my self-taught training in molecular microbiology, which I developed during the pandemic. This background has given me a deeper understanding of the immune mechanisms discussed by Dr. Soon-Shiong and Dr. Dalgleish.
On a personal note, the last time I was significantly affected by a viral infection was during the 2009 H1N1 outbreak, which I fortunately recovered from in about 60 hours. My approach to health has always emphasized natural immunity and wellness. Whatever your health decisions may be, I hope you take care of yourself and stay well.
Experts Featured in This Article
Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong
* Surgeon and medical researcher
* Founder and CEO of ImmunityBio
* Inventor of cancer drug Abraxane
* Author of over 100 scientific papers
* Holder of more than 230 patents worldwide
* Focus on natural killer cells and immune system enhancement
Professor Angus Dalgleish
* Foundation Professor of Oncology at St. George’s University of London
* Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians in the UK and Australia
* Fellow of the Royal College of Pathologists
* Fellow of the Academy of Medical Sciences
* Author of 563 scientific papers with over 25,000 citations
* Discoverer of CD4 receptor used by HIV to penetrate cells
* Founder of the Institute for Cancer Vaccines and Immunotherapy (ICVI)
Immune System Terminology & Concepts
Common Questions Answered
Q: Is there evidence that COVID-19 can trigger cancer?
A: Both researchers present compelling evidence that COVID-19 can create conditions favorable for cancer development through chronic inflammation, immune suppression, and viral persistence in tissues. Recent UCSF research has documented replicating SARS-CoV-2 in colon tissue two years after infection, supporting this hypothesis.
Q: Why wasn’t the nucleocapsid protein targeted in vaccines?
A: Despite its advantages as a more stable, less mutable target, pharmaceutical companies and government agencies focused exclusively on spike protein-based approaches. Soon-Shiong’s alternative proposals were systematically excluded from Operation Warp Speed despite promising animal study results.
Q: What practical steps can people take to enhance their immunity?
A: Both researchers emphasize:
* Quality sleep for NK cell regeneration
* Regular sunlight exposure
* Maintaining vitamin D levels above 100 nmol/L
* Anti-inflammatory diet that supports gut microbiome health
For readers interested in learning more, Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong was interviewed in depth by Tucker Carlson, while Professor Angus Dalgleish has appeared in several detailed interviews with Dr. John Campbell. These conversations, available on YouTube, provide further insights into their research and the institutional resistance they’ve encountered.
References
¹ Su Y, Yuan D, Chen DG, et al. “Multiple early factors anticipate post-acute COVID-19 sequelae.” Cell. 2022;185(5):881-895.e20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2022.01.014
² Vojdani A, Kharrazian D. “Reaction of Human Monoclonal Antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 Proteins With Tissue Antigens: Implications for Autoimmune Diseases.” Frontiers in Immunology. 2021;11:617089. https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2020.617089
³ Koyama T, Platt D, Parida L. “Variant analysis of SARS-CoV-2 genomes.” Bulletin of the World Health Organization. 2020;98(7):495-504. https://doi.org/10.2471/BLT.20.253591
⁴ Irrgang P, Gerling J, Kocher K, et al. “Class switch towards non-inflammatory, spike-specific IgG4 antibodies after repeated SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination.” Science Immunology. 2023;8(79):eade2798. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciimmunol.ade2798
⁵ Kanduc D, Shoenfeld Y. “Molecular mimicry between SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein and mammalian proteomes: implications for the vaccine.” Immunologic Research. 2020;68(5):310-313. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12026-020-09152-6
⁶ Greinacher A, Thiele T, Warkentin TE, et al. “Thrombotic Thrombocytopenia after ChAdOx1 nCov-19 Vaccination.” New England Journal of Medicine. 2021;384(22):2092-2101. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2104840
⁷ Bergeri I, Whelan MG, Ware H, et al. “SARS-CoV-2 IgG4 antibodies develop with time after breakthrough infection and subsequent boosters.” Science Translational Medicine. 2023;15(720):eadg8188. https://doi.org/10.1126/scitranslmed.adg8188
⁸ Maeda K, Amano M, Uemura Y, et al. “Correlative Changes in IgG4 Antibody and Neutralizing Activity Following SARS-CoV-2 mRNA Vaccination: A Pilot Study.” Vaccines. 2023;11(5):991. https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines11050991
⁹ Shrestha NK, Burke PC, Nowacki AS, et al. “Effectiveness of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Bivalent Vaccine.” Open Forum Infectious Diseases. 2023;10(6):ofad209. https://doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofad209
¹⁰ Shrestha NK, Burke PC, Nowacki AS, et al. “Risk of COVID-19 Reinfection Among Cleveland Clinic Employees and Effects of Prior Infection and Vaccination.” Open Forum Infectious Diseases. 2023;10(11):ofad546. https://doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofad546
¹¹ Seneff S, Nigh G, Kyriakopoulos AM, et al. “Innate Immune Suppression by SARS-CoV-2 mRNA Vaccinations: The role of G-quadruplexes, exosomes, and MicroRNAs.” Food and Chemical Toxicology. 2022;164:113008. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2022.113008
¹² “Long COVID-19: Symptoms and Stories” - Northwestern Medicine. https://www.nm.org/healthbeat/patient-stories/long-covid-19-symptoms-stories
¹³ “Do we miss rare adverse events induced by COVID-19 vaccination?” - Frontiers in Medicine. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/medicine/articles/10.3389/fmed.2022.933914/full
¹⁴ “Rapid progression of marginal zone B-cell lymphoma after COVID-19 vaccination (BNT162b2)” - PMC. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9377515/
¹⁵ “STORIES” - Long Covid SOS. https://www.longcovidsos.org/stories
¹⁶ “Long COVID - Patient stories” - NELFT NHS Foundation Trust. https://www.nelft.nhs.uk/long-covid-patient-stories/
This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit tatsuikeda.substack.com/subscribe