Arguably The Most Important Documentary In The History Of Medicine Was Just Released

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: Azureblue

Um, couple of points I should tell you.

Most cancers don't effect reproduction.
The population has been going up, not down (even though the increase has slowed).

So the idea that cancer is about population control makes about as much sense as "happy thoughts" curing cancer.

thanks for your contribution

The population has been going up, not down (even though the increase has slowed). Yes, I know, please advise where I said it was going down in my post?

The Deopulation Agenda is like a ship leaving port, it takes a long time to get to full speed and takes a mountain of effort to slow and stop it again. Using this analogy, the depopulation ship has only just left the warf.

I did not think that I would have to explain this as I thought most people would be aware of this.

Most cancers don't effect reproduction. - it does if you die

cheers

originally posted by: Azureblue

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: Azureblue

Um, couple of points I should tell you.

Most cancers don't effect reproduction.
The population has been going up, not down (even though the increase has slowed).

So the idea that cancer is about population control makes about as much sense as "happy thoughts" curing cancer.

thanks for your contribution

You're welcome?

Yes, I know, please advise where I said it was going down in my post?

Depopulation is about making the population less than it is. Therefore your remark about depopulation implys a population decrease. Sorry for the assumption if that's not what you meant.

The Deopulation Agenda is like a ship leaving port, it takes a long time to get to full speed and takes a mountain of effort to slow and stop it again. Using this analogy, the depopulation ship has only just left the warf.

I've not heard that one before. Any idea of the timeline? 50, 100, 1000 years?

I did not think that I would have to explain this as I thought most people would be aware of this.

Obviously not lol

Most cancers don't effect reproduction. - it does if you die

That's assuming that people will die from cancer before they can reproduce. Only way for that to happen would be to make childhood cancer increase, terminal and death a certainty before pubity. As I've already pointed out, people are living longer with cancer.

cheers

bottoms up!

a reply to: rickymouse

You are right on the nose. Cancer research is one of the best examples of corruption and greed because its has so much funding and some people are making huge sums of money out of it and the ghastly cures people are having to suffer today - often they don't work either.

Unless we make a stand at breaking down some of the power of these corporations involved this will simply go on and its now 1 in 2 what a terrible statistic.

Okay here's the problem with this argument. It supposes that The World Is America.

And the world is not America. Other places in the world have socialised healthcare systems that are not part of the American Big Pharma industry.

And socialised healthcare systems are heavily invested in curing the maximum number of people for the lowest cost.

So if any of these alternative cancer treatments actually worked, why aren't the socialised healthcare systems around the world using them?

The only answer is because: They Don't Work.

a reply to: BO XIAN

May the depopulation goals and other related junky goals and actions be damned.

the conventional cancer treatment paradigm like the aged care facilities industry and all the pharma they pump into the aged says it all. Trillions wasted.

a reply to: TerryDon79

My wife's cancer (hereditary) meant an average life span of 40. Her father is 50 because of the NEW abilities of science to prolong life.

Sad about your wife. "Cancer" is an Industrial money making institution. "science is the prevailing paradigm that is promoted from a closed shop" perspective. Peer review, universities, research grants, Government funding, FDA, Big Pharma is usually loosely based on questionable science driven by the $.

There is plenty of evidence of how hard they go to destroy someone who offers cures.

Not addressed specificially to you...the usual "we are detecting more cancer due to better technologies" is a whole lot of lies. If we are cooking food better, we are smoking less, and yet cancers are on the rise.

We have denatured soils, assaulted peoples immune systems, pumped hormones GMOS into our food cyles. Our water is tainted with chemicals.

www.whale.to...
THE LIES OF UNLEADED PETROL

Makes sense...not.

originally posted by: Azureblue
a reply to: BO XIAN

In addition to any other reason why money and research is not directed into nutrition as a cause or as a treatment for cancer, may be that cancer is a form of population control.

I recently listened to a talk on a activists radio program, which I think is from New Zealand, interviewing a bloke about the depopulation agenda. The title of the show may have been called "The UN's Covert Depopulation agenda." It also be the tile of the guests book he wrote on the subject. The bloke being interviewed said that his research indicates that even putting people in gaol is a form of population control, because prisoners cannot breed.

I think the wise thing to do is to not discount the possibility that cancer may also be a form or population control and or reduction, despite that fact that some people recover and go on to breed.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Classic Bo Xian...

a reply to: TerryDon79

well chemo therapy seem to be ineffective with no real life extending benefits

naturalsociety.com...
www.chrisbeatcancer.com...
www.collective-evolution.com...

oops...dropped the ball....

www.emfacts.com...

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

Of course we're detecting cancer earlier than we were 100 years ago. To say we're not is just plain silliness. There's cancers that are detected now that were barely known about (if at all) 100 years ago.

The "cures" you're on about aren't even cures. They're baloney at the best and potentially deadly at the worst. Trust me, we've been looking into A LOT of alternate medicine the past 10 years.

We also don't eat better. Fast food, cheap food, quick food is worse for you than a decent meal. We buy fresh when we can because 1, it just tastes better and 2, it's better for you than the processed crap.

The whole "they just want money" argument fails too. 58 countries have free health care. I'm in one of them. If we were in the states we would have had to pay in excess of $200,000 in the last 10 years for operations, medications, doctors appointments, A&E visits, chemo and so on. Guess how much we've paid. Nothing apart from travel costs (which is marginal).

The same goes for the "they're keeping people sick" argument. To what end? Isn't money, as I've shown above. People here get sick pay from work and the government. If you're unable to work you can claim pip (used to be disability living allowance) from the government which pays rent and you get cash each fortnight.

Can't be the "keeping researchers in a job" argument. If cures for cancers were found the researchers would still have plenty of other cancers and illnesses to research and still have money to pay for it.

You see how the whole lot of arguments about "big pharma" fall to pieces?

a reply to: BO XIAN

One of my good friends, a 7th Day Adventist . . . has cured herself twice--many years apart . . . from 2 different bouts with cancer--strictly by supplements/homeopathic means.

If it came back, it wasn't "cured," was it? Cancers will sometimes go into remission on their own, then return later. It has to do with erratic genetic programming at the cellular level.

As for diet, nutrition, and healthy lifestyles, yes, of course they reduce environmental factors that can exacerbate a genetic propensity towards cancer. If you jog and meditate, you are spending at least that time not smoking.

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: TerryDon79

well chemo therapy seem to be ineffective with no real life extending benefits

naturalsociety.com...
www.chrisbeatcancer.com...
www.collective-evolution.com...

oops...dropped the ball....

www.emfacts.com...

You don't understand that there are very different types of cancer and each one reacts differently to different types of chemo, so success rates for one type of chemo for all cancers is a moot point as they're not designed to treat all cancers.

Although I am in agreement that Big Pharma is in the business of making customers not cures, this is way over simplified. There are well over 100 known cancers that affect humans and no one "cure" is going to fix them all.

Also, our longevity is adding to the numbers and chances of getting cancer. We have almost doubled our average life expectancy in the last hundred years or so, due to improvements in medicine and the improved understanding of viruses and bacteria. The longer we live on average, the more chance we have of our genes being affected by the mutations that cause neoplasia.

But our understanding of cancer has also grown by leaps and bounds. The five year survival rate for someone diagnosed with cancer today is much higher than 40-50 years ago because we have gotten much better at detecting and treating it.

a reply to: GAOTU789

Exactly my point.

Things like such as high blood pressure, heart disease, lung disease, diabetes, kidney disease, and arthritis were rarer 100 years ago because people didn't (generally) live long enough to develop them in old age. There were still cases, obviously, but nothing like there are today with the average lifespan being so much longer.

ETA: I'd also like to add this. While some areas of treatment, preventative measures and cures are coming along quite quickly, there are other areas that haven't moved in years. Take a broken rib, for example. I cracked 2 ribs 3 years ago. Solution? Rest for at least a month. It still hurts sometimes if I move badly or lift too quickly.

originally posted by: BO XIAN

Well lets ignore the stats shall we, like :

* 50% will get cancer in their lifetime....... becasue we are living longer DUH!
* Remission rates are far higher now than ever and getting better.......DUH!
* Detection has improved considerably....DUH!
* Targetted/genetically derived cures are showing massive potential.

It is quite clear that the genetic solution will one day lead to cancer being no worse than a bad cold. A couple of genetically tailored injections and 2 weeks later gone.

a reply to: yorkshirelad

If that was possible (I'm not saying either way because, you know, SCIENCE!) I wish they would bloody well hurry up!

a reply to: JoshuaCox

There is a silver bullet for cancer and its called prevention. Ayurveda teaches how to prevent such sad degeneration of the body. Learn it!

originally posted by: _damon
a reply to: JoshuaCox

There is a silver bullet for cancer and its called prevention. Ayurveda teaches how to prevent such sad degeneration of the body. Learn it!

So eating herbs, roots etc is going to stop your DNA from mutating and replicating those errors into new cells?

Must be some "special" herbs lol

originally posted by: BO XIAN

Have you ever wondered why, despite the billions of dollars spent on cancer research over many decades and the promise of a cure which is forever ‘just around the corner,’ cancer continues to increase?

Wrong, wrong, wrong!
Treatments are always developing, just in the last year there has been numerous breakthroughs in treatment of various cancers.
Deaths from cancer are DECLINING as we develop new treatments and DECLINING as we learn more about what causes certain types of cancer - don't be thinking manipulating the statistics (to remove population increase, demographics and geographic locations, while including statistics from anecdotal claims about less developed nations and their almost non-existent healthcare systems) is anything but a propaganda exercise to sell an idea or product.

There are also thousands of different types of cancer, unique to the individual, which is why treating them is so difficult, so making a claim such as 1 in 2 people will get it is not only ignorant it's deliberate scaremongering.

And the idea that people would promote what's basically nothing more than voodoo magic over ACTUAL MEDICINE when it comes to something as serious as this form of illness, well that's just utterly disgusting.

Listen up, no little concoction proposed by someone on an internet forum should be remotely considered appropriate treatment. This is as bad as people claiming praying will help and modern medicine is evil. It's disgusting to see people profiteering off of this, putting the lives of the easily fooled at risk.

Modern snake oil salesmen are utterly contemptible, disgusting wastes of skin.

And this comes from someone whose mother died from inoperable cancer.

Stop putting lives at risk by promoting this utterly disgusting nonsense!

Greetings-

One can also supplement their HEALTHY diet (no soft drinks, etc.) by using Turmeric. Turmeric is from the Ginger family and has shown to be very useful in this fight.

yournewswire.com...

www.greenmedinfo.com...

www.healthytreefrog.com...

I started using this a few months ago in caplet form. I'd also suggest checking out 'Ayurveda' and eating whatever Your 'dosha' is...

I HAD cancer on My left arm. This is the arm I would hang out the window as a patrol cop and then bake as I played golf. That Cancer is GONE and all I did was get off 5 RX meds (poisons) and started using Coconut Oil..

My most recent lab work was met with "You're the most healthy 52 year old w/a broken back and neck I've ever encountered... ha ha.." My new Dr. is a Chechen and was surprised that I knew what "Vladimir" (His name) meant...

Also STAY HYDRATED!!!

originally posted by: GAOTU789
Although I am in agreement that Big Pharma is in the business of making customers not cures, this is way over simplified. There are well over 100 known cancers that affect humans and no one "cure" is going to fix them all.

Researchers seeking a cure for various types of cancer are often working independently, and they all want to be that name in the history books, the one who discovered the cure. When people claim that the "big evil pharma" companies are in cahoots to prevent this breakthrough, they're lying to give a false impression of what's actually going on out there in the research field because telling the truth would destroy their conspiracy.

I have no doubt big pharma companies can be evil, just as all corporations can become evil simply because they place profit above all else, but to claim that this is all one big conspiracy about preventing a cure for a highly adaptable and incredibly diverse collection of diseases is utter bs.

As for the number of cancers, this is significantly higher when you consider that treatment for those diseases is almost tailored to the individual. The positioning of the disease, the form it takes, the variations within the individual, all of these things play a part to almost make every instance of cancer unique to the individual.

This is why tailored treatment based on the patient is the path most research is taking. What might work in one patient might not work in another. Once they figure out how to instantly (or almost instantly) create a counter to deliver the treatment for that specific patient and destroy those cancerous cells specific to that patient, we will have effectively cured cancer.

We're on the cusp of this right now. The only thing we'll need to then work on is the discovery stage, screening mechanisms to be able to find it.

The good news is that once we have all of this down (something many expect to happen within the next five years, once technological advancement has been factored in) treating any form of cancer is likely to be no harder than treating a rash.