It has been nearly 5 years since COVID- 19 first emerged. Although we have witnessed a deluge of erroneous claims about the virus, the vaccines, and the treatments, not all have stuck around. Psychology experts have identified certain cognitive factors that make some misinformation and disinformation “sticky”—in other words, persistent and pervasive. Misinformation is particularly sticky when it affirms preexisting beliefs (confirmation bias), affirms the beliefs of a shared political community or religious identity (bandwagon effect), or affirms an overreliance on individual or case-specific information over relevant statistical data (base rate fallacy). The reliance on heuristics or mental shortcuts has contributed to a steady erosion of trust in public health. One of the most dangerous consequences of a low-trust population appears to be the near permanence of demonstrably false information. Undoing the harm caused by ubiquitous misinformation could take decades.
In fact, many of the claims about vaccines are ubiquitous because they are taken from a playbook of evergreen falsehoods about ingredients, fertility, autoimmunity, and now cancer. In the fall of 2022, a newly coined term, “turbo cancer” began trending online. The claim suggests that messenger RNA (mRNA) COVID-19 vaccines—specifically “cancer causing DNA” from simian virus 40 (SV40) in vaccines—are the cause of an epidemic of fast-growing and abnormally aggressive cancers, or turbo cancer.1,2 Although some COVID-19 vaccines contain small fragments of SV40, these fragments are neither the same as the virus itself nor carcinogenic.3 This is not the first time that claims about SV40 in vaccines have circulated.4 As far back as the 1950s, myths about SV40 in polio vaccines were linked to widespread suspicions about safety, despite no causal evidence linked to cancer. In fact, the epidemiological oncology data are quite clear: There is no evidence of this phenomenon. On a more technical note, there is no plausible mechanism of action for this to happen as (1) mRNA cannot alter DNA, as it cannot enter a cell’s nucleus; (2) mRNA fragments rapidly degrade post vaccination and do not linger to disrupt tumor suppression; and (3) mRNA vaccine ingredients cannot accumulate in the body. The reality of increased cancer diagnoses is likely related to delayed cancer screenings and treatments as a result of health care disruptions during the COVID-19 pandemic in addition to changes in lifestyle and environmental exposures.5 The incidence data from multiple populationwide cancer registries (notably from countries with high vaccination rates) may be reassuring, but they do not explain why the term turbo cancer is still proliferating. In order to gain deeper understanding about this, our team of analysts at Infodemiology.com conducted global media monitoring research using publicly available data from over a dozen platforms, including digital and social media outlets. Unfortunately, due to application program interface restrictions from Meta, data from Facebook and Instagram are not included in this analysis. The search terms included any English-language post that mentioned turbo cancer (eg, #turbocancer, #turbocancers, turbo-cancer, turbo-cancers, turbo cancer, and turbo cancers) within online conversations about vaccines. The time series we selected was November 2022 to November 2024. Nearly 1.6 million posts from nearly 20,000 unique authors were identified. These posts included any content referencing turbo cancer across all platforms. They encompass original posts, articles, and reposts. The 1.6 million posts garnered 22 billion impressions (ie, the total number of views for posts that mention turbo cancer). Impressions represent how many times the content was seen by users. Engagement in the forms of likes, comments, and shares totaled 5.5 million interactions. As depicted in the chart below, there was a spike in activity in August 2024 related to a story that turbo cancer whistleblowers had died in a mysterious plane crash.
This same spike was detected in Google Trends, which we used to compare these data. In Google Trends, we performed an Englishlanguage search of the term turbo cancer (no variation) from October 2024 to November 2024. Google searches for turbo cancer have shown regular intervals of interest globally since the term first gained traction in Google search results in October 2022. Based on both assessments, trend lines are showing an increasing number of spikes that are often larger than previous spikes. Despite thorough and repeated debunking, online narratives about turbo cancer and vaccines have persisted. What started as a topic that circulated mainly among vaccine opponents in 2023 has now become sticky, reaching much larger populations in 2024.6,7 Vaccines are often misunderstood, in part because of gaps in effective, judgment free, and easily understandable science communication. To date, many still do not know that there are vaccines available to prevent the onset of virus-related cancers. The human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine protects against 9 types of cancer-causing HPV, which can result in several types of cervical, genital, and oropharyngeal cancers.
When given at the appropriate age, it can prevent 90% of HPV cancers. Additionally, hepatitis vaccines can reduce the risk of liver cancer by preventing chronic infections from hepatitis B and hepatitis C viruses. The COVID-19 vaccine will go down in history as one of the most rigorously tested and scrutinized vaccines in history, and surveillance is still ongoing through programs such as the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System. Results from follow-up studies from clinical trial participants and results from global pharmacovigilance surveys have not found any truth to the claims of vaccine-induced turbo cancer. That said, turbo cancer may be a lingering artifact of the highly volatile information landscape that emerged in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. The purpose of this analysis demonstrates the inextricable link of “infodemiology” and epidemiology.
*Numbers represent search interest relative to the highest point on the chart for the given region and time. A value of 100 is the peak popularity for the term. A value of 50 means that the term is half as popular. A score of 0 means there were not enough data for this term.
Although epidemiology asks us where, why, when, and to whom a disease is spreading and how it affects populations, infodemiology asks us where, why, when, and to whom information is spreading and how that information affects populations. In order to ensure populations stay healthy and informed, we must consider the risk of “infodemics.” Infodemiology.com equips users with the tools to identify health trends that are sticking around and those that are fleeting. 8 As we adapt to myths, ensuring trustworthy and evidence-based information is easily accessible must be a public health priority.
