Let us talk about Cancer Research U K and what is it exactly they do.A Fraudulent Charity?

It's all smoke and mirrors; most cancers have been put inside us from vaccines, sometimes taking many decades to activate.

"Cancer was practically unknown until compulsory vaccination with cowpox vaccine began to be introduced. I have had to deal with at least two hundred cases of cancer, and I never saw a case of cancer in an unvaccinated person."--Eustace Mullins, Dr. W. B. Clarke of Indiana

They have to keep this "Cancer is a Mystery" myth going to stop us from looking for the real answer. It's no secret that the World's Vaccine Map correlates exactly with the World's Cancer Map

Dr. Maurice Hilleman, former chief of the Merck Vaccine Division, admits that Cancer has been in many vaccines


Here's a new documentary which exposes the reality of vaccines www.abovetopsecret.com...&addstar=1&on=12811531#pid12811531

More vaccine history available here www.vaclib.org...

reply to post by jameshawkings

"Cancer was practically unknown until compulsory vaccination with cowpox vaccine began to be introduced. I have had to deal with at least two hundred cases of cancer, and I never saw a case of cancer in an unvaccinated person."--Eustace Mullins, Dr. W. B. Clarke of Indiana

Oh_really.png

2250 year old mummy found to have developed prostrate cancer

Originally posted by Griffo
reply to post by jameshawkings

 

"Cancer was practically unknown until compulsory vaccination with cowpox vaccine began to be introduced. I have had to deal with at least two hundred cases of cancer, and I never saw a case of cancer in an unvaccinated person."--Eustace Mullins, Dr. W. B. Clarke of Indiana

Oh_really.png

2250 year old mummy found to have developed prostrate cancer

edit on 15/11/2011 by Griffo because: (no reason given)

It did exist, as we can see, but it was very rare, the epidemic only began after vaccines showed up

Originally posted by jameshawkings
It did exist, as we can see, but it was very rare, the epidemic only began after vaccines showed up

I'm assuming you have something to back that up, yes? And you do realise that cancer was something quite regularly treated within the Ancient Egyptian culture? In fact, it was first discovered by Hippocrates and I can assure you that he was around quite a bit before vaccines were introduced.

Did it ever occur to you that perhaps the reason we are seeing more cases of cancer diagnoses in modern times is not because Big Pharma are injecting you with cancer causing additives, but rather:

a.) our diagnostics have improved, allowing us to better detect when cancer is present;


b.) medical science being what it is, we now live considerably longer than our ancestors from even three generations ago. As well as that, we are able to treat illnesses and manage people with disabilities whereas in the past, these people would simply have died. It is quite likely that we might see more instances of cancer as a result of this.

c.) I think it's fair to say that determining the cause of death to the level we can do now was still not practiced overly much in the past, which again only makes me question how you could possibly know the scarcity of cancer in ancient times.

reply to post by hypervalentiodine

SIgh...

Are you being deliberately misleading or just obtuse? Look at the link provided in the first post at the top of page 2. I'm too lazy to post it for you again. Its from an organisation called Cancer Research UK. It lists survival rates. Now look down the scale to lung. Thank you.

Oh really? Talking in a public place on the internet is not the same as talking in a public place in reality? All of a sudden I am not allowed to express an opinion? While the medium may be different, I disagree with your statement. Do you normally take lots of papers and diagrams with you in a public place and demand that people back up their claims when they talk to you? I think not. How about you refute my figures which come straight from the horses mouth?

Personal insults? I think you will find that an arrogant and condescending way of talking to people (which IS what you were doing) while trying to sound like an authority on something...gasps for breath...while providing absolutely no justification apart from just wanting to argue the point rather than the content, not to mention ridiculing (which is also a form of insult) other people for having a differing viewpoint to yours while providing very little information yourself apart from rhetoric and bombast....clutches the curtains turning blue....can also be taken as an insult. I hear a moral horse neighing in the background and yet you have provided no qualifications apart from "I'm a scientist". Good for you! By definition you are part of that system and might not be too inclined to say anything negative in any form or way whatsoever about your employer, now or a possible future one. I understand an internet employment check can be quite a standard thing these days. I can also totally understand that you believe it is all for the common good too. Good luck.

It makes me think of a Frank Zappa lyric
"You could make more money as a butcher, don't you waste your time on me"
No special reference and certainly no insult meant. Listen to the song, its funny and good humoured. Cosmik Debris from the album Apostrophe.

You're a scientist. My bad. I thought I read medical researcher, perhaps that was Griffo. Anything connected to cancer at all?

In future I would recommend you not to recommend me about what I may and may not post here. There are these special people called Moderators here who perform that function. Please don't let me spoil your party though. I am obviously so totally ...deranged. You are completely right! Now..where's my straight jacket?

Of course you ain't close to a cure yet! It really never does get any better than that does it? No comment further.

Again, apologies, I think it must have been Griffo who mentioned he was the med researcher. It was I think in response to an earlier comment. About not having a choice in "things".

reply to post by Griffo

Is the word practically not in your dictionary? Anyway, it makes me think of the following question.

Do you think our (ancient?) ancestors were stupid?
I mean by that, well, lets give an example. Take tobacco. This has been smoked by people from all over the world for hundreds if not thousands of years. Don't you think they would have noticed large numbers of people suddenly dying after taking up the habit? Sure it takes years but some observant individual would eventually make the link. Even an unknown disease or cause of death would still start ringing bells somewhere. Now I won't say that taking any smoke into the lungs is a good thing, but with the exception of all the known poisonous ones, can you think of one single herb that will give you cancer if you smoke it, apart from tobacco?
ETA: Changed plant to herb, possibly more correct definition for something meant for consumption in one form or another.

reply to post by LightSpeedDriver

I mean by that, well, lets give an example. Take tobacco. This has been smoked by people from all over the world for hundreds if not thousands of years. Don't you think they would have noticed large numbers of people suddenly dying after taking up the habit? Sure it takes years but some observant individual would eventually make the link.

Some people probably did notice that smoking was bad for you, but it would be pretty difficult to get any concrete evidence of the fact when a lot of people were scientifically illiterate and before the invention of faster means of communication

Now I won't say that taking any smoke into the lungs is a good thing, but with the exception of all the known poisonous ones, can you think of one single herb that will give you cancer if you smoke it, apart from tobacco?

Well, I cannot say for certain as there have been no studies conducted on people who find the urge to smoke oregano or the like; but if I had to make an educated guess, I would say, given time, yes other herbs would cause cancer.

My reasoning for this is similar to why smoking gives you cancer. When you burn organic material, the rapid oxidation creates carcinogenic chemicals, for example benzene and benzo[a]pyrene - these are both created when tobacco is ignited. As benzene rings are very common in plants (as well as humans), igniting plant material would lead to the creation of such carcinogens.


If, like I think, you are talking about a herb which is not allowed to be mentioned on this website - you may want to check pubmed or a similar site, because I was searching on there a while ago to rebut a poster who was making the same argument.

It turns out that some studies have shown a link between that herb and some forms of cancer

reply to post by Griffo

Scientifically illiterate? Methinks you place too much faith in what we think we know now and what we think they knew then. I could well be wrong though. I have no idea to its truth and while their treatment was crude it still sometimes saved lives, a docu on romans. They were apparently one of the first peoples we know of to attempt battlefield surgery. Extreme First Aid I guess you could call it. And this is already 2000 years ago. Things like someone's intestines having just been sliced open and spilling over the floor (they attempted to stuff them all back in, dirt and all and somehow "close" the wound quickly and retreat) down to arrow wounds and sword, spear and dagger slashings. In a way that was their scientific forefront. After slowly learning what happens when things go really bad, you can maybe learn to translate it to what happens only go slightly bad or vice versa.

But lets go back further, you mentioned Egyptians. Is there anyone alive, person or corporation that could build a pyramid that accurate? Seal it for thousands of years, even after the outer layer of coloured stone and gold cap had been removed? And then there's the Baghdad Battery. An ancient device that generated a small, but very real electrical charge. And these are a primitive people? I'm 21st century schizoid man but I could never come up with how to make electricity. Without lemons and wire anyway and thats only cos I saw that on TV.

Sure, I get the health issues associated with inhaling smoke over sensitive lungs repeatedly. Whats an easy way to put this, I'm not particularly aware of history's great Doctor's apart from the more recent ones but I would think that if there were people like say the medical equivalent of Leonardo walking around, then major outbreaks (?) would be noticed by equally clever people. If you subscribe to the Smallpox vaccine theory, with fairly simple resources people were able to accomplish great things. Things that almost seem out of place in time, in a way. But anyway, my point is, surely there were equally gifted doctors at that time and before along with all the artists, poets, musicians, and the rest?

Oh dear. I was thinking more Valerian and possibly some "worts" in there, not herbs as in things used for cooking or things we may not discuss. I have seen a "device" that basically lets people with "lung complaints" (I use the terms lightly, not a professional!) inhale natural herbal remedies that are I suppose more folklore now than anything else but some have been medically studied and shown to ha..don't know the word. Inflate the lung thingies. Capilliaries? Where the air goes through into your body in the lungs, in any case. Tobacco firms use cocoa on their product to achieve the same effect. Bronchial dilation? I bet thats completely wrong. No, I never woulda made a doctor but I've done my research.

The tobacco, as I already stated with links to wikipedia, is radioactive, as it is contaminated with a radioactive fertiliser. Imagine the shavings or dust from a Uranium mine. Only this is Polonium and another one I think, Strontium (always sounds funny in Dutch) or maybe Caesium. I provided links already, its up to you to go clicky clicky on them.

And yes smoking lots of plant matter is not a good thing, much cellulose, chlorophyll and other nasties? Tar and suchlike will contribute but its not the whole story. "We" don't smoke anything for the tar or cellulose but rather its drug content which is obviously smaller than the containing plant. In this case nicotine. This info was buried in a tobacco firm's knowledge archives before they got forced to release their internal company info by the government back in the 80's I think it was. Anyway, I forget the chemicals involvd and also the plants as its not my thing, but I believe some of the folklore/herbal smoking remedies can be anything from 5 - 10 naturally growing things. The names will be wrong but the idea right, dandelion, mint, Valerian, mugs-wort, wolfs-bane, etc. Just the wild growing stuff. I repeat, the names are wrong cos off the top of my head, the only medicinal property I can remember for mint is that it is good for the digestion and stomach processes. Not to mention it tastes great. I never did like menthol cigarettes though. I digress...

The thing we are not allowed to discuss though, now that YOU mention it ...has been injected directly into the (possibly externally protruding?) cancerous brain tumours of stage god knows what terminal patients and the tumour shrank 25% quite rapidly. Shame its illegal huh? Not even allowed to test it under strict medical, ethical and controlled conditions without a specific government "permission".

Be well.

reply to post by jameshawkings

Tullio Simoncini says cancer is cause by the fungus Candida Albicans.

Could it be this fungus that finds its way into vaccines?

reply to post by LightSpeedDriver


I'm sorry, what? 93% of people with cancer, die? No they certainly do not! In fact, cancer survival rates are the highest they have ever been, thanks in part to the research funded by charities such as Cancer Research UK.

You also have a narrow minded view as to what treatments are used. Some treatments that are just hitting the shelves now are actually very specific and targetted. Others in development show exceedinly good promise. In a recent study, they managed to turn off the growth mechanism for cancer cells in mice. In others, they have developed targetted nanotech drugs that are only absorbed by the cancer cells, leaving healthy cells alone, in others still, they use retroviruses to alter the cancerous cells DNA to make them implode, another targets the growth mechanism of blood vessels in tumours, effectively suffocating the cancer and killing it.

I understand you're angry, you lost your dad, but do some research first before spouting off a load of nonsense and making yourself look the fool

reply to post by stumason

Someone else that was too lazy to read before jumping in? 94% of all lung cancer patients die within 5 years! Are you deaf, blind or just being silly? Go check the link.
Seeing as you are all so lazy...
info.cancerresearchuk.org...
Does anyone need slapping with a wet fish?

Your opinions on me holding a certain view interests me little. Yes...testing on mice. It means little to nothing at best. I read something tonight I am too lazy and inebriated to go search for right now but testing on animals does not create the same conditions or yield the same results and is to boot, maybe just a little bit cruel. Ah well, good luck people.

I am not angry I lost my dad, I am not angry at all. After what the treatment did to him, dying was probably the best thing that could happen to him. I'm sitting here quite calmly, there's no froth at the mouth, no hammering on the keyboard or spitting at the monitor. I don't need style advice though, thanks all the same. Judging from your avatar you look to be a royalist. Now who's a fool?



Disclaimer: Before I get a rap on the knuckles, even though my location says Holland, I am English so I am allowed to make a snide remark about the royals!

reply to post by LightSpeedDriver


Before Europeans took up tobacco smoking, the Native Americans only smoked it occasionally in special ceremonies, not every couple of hours while at work or down the pub. So, your argument that they'd "notice" people dying is false and not just on that count, but people back then had no understanding of cancer and would attribute someones death by it to anything else.

Cancer has existed long before "Big Pharma", the "Gubberment" or industrialisation, it's just people didn't know what it was and it has been described by a variety of different names. A common cause of death in the past was "consumption", which a lot of the time was actually Cancer or an illness caused by the advancement of the Cancer taking it's toll on the body.

reply to post by stumason

False argument? More flawed I think, possibly. I will agree that tobacco was possibly a sacred herb and not consumed as we do now. I think that was what they smoked in the Peace Pipe but could be wrong. I don't know very much about them. Anyway, I do think they would easily recognise disease and illness though. Its quite easy to recognise even today. If you feel ill you feel ill and you can often communicate that to another person. Obviously before the dying part.

The debate was not about how long cancer has existed, but whether the cancer charities and all their related research, companies and methods were in any way effective. I think after 60-70 years of research we can say that not much has changed since 1970, apart from possibly the palliative drugs used. The treatment itself is still chemo and radio therapy though.

I also agree we may not have had a name for it or always recognised it for what it was but before us were also other peoples and cultures. We don't know everything about all of them. Therefore, it is not inconceivable. All this faith in "science", meaning only the funded research into things that certain people want to look at and document with "published papers" while blindly ignoring any attempt at an alternative is just blinkered thinking to me. Guess this is why I'm not in this field.

Originally posted by LightSpeedDriver
Someone else that was too lazy to read before jumping in? 94% of all lung cancer patients die within 5 years! Are you deaf, blind or just being silly?

Not once in both the posts on the front page where you made the claim did you say "lung cancer" patients, but rather just "cancer patients". I can show you the posts if you like?

Oh, I will point out though that the low survival rates for Lung Cancer are not down to the treatment, but rather due to late diagnosis due to that particualr cancers subtle first symptoms. By the time it is picked up, it is usually far to late to do anything about it. I am willing to bet that if there was a national Lung Cancer screening service, like breast cancer, survival rates would shoot up due to early diagnosis.

Originally posted by LightSpeedDriver
Your opinions on me holding a certain view interests me little. Yes...testing on mice. It means little to nothing at best. I read something tonight I am too lazy and inebriated to go search for right now but testing on animals does not create the same conditions or yield the same results and is to boot, maybe just a little bit cruel. Ah well, good luck people.

Actually, it does.yiled useful results. Almost every drug we have today has gone through animal testing. Mice are used because of their short life spans, so results are quicker to see. If mice testing proves promising, they then move on to either primates or human tissue trials. The claim that you "read somewhere" is often used on these boards, but usually turns out to be from some untrustworthy or biased source with an agenda, if it even exists at all.

And I have no idea what me being a "royalist" has to do with anything.

reply to post by LightSpeedDriver


On the point about "not a lot has changed since the 70's" I think you are massively out of the loop. Just look at survival rates over the past 30 years, they are massively improved. Drugs are better, treatment is better and is only getting more advanced as time goes on.. There are treatments in trial phases that will, within the next 20 years, make Cancer a "manageable" disease (effectively curing it or at least halting it's advancement so death doesn't result), like HIV is today. HIV is no longer a death sentence and people can expect to live full lives with the disease, unlike 20 years ago.

reply to post by stumason

You are not reading the content but I am used to that on threads that attempt to present an alternative opinion to the mainstream. I really don't care for whatever it is you feel obliged to point out though. Its getting rather tiring and boring.

Good luck torturing and killing all those animals though. I'm sure it must really be fun.

ETA And you speak advertising jargon. Manageable disease? Pfffff!

reply to post by LightSpeedDriver


Someone comes in and presents a counter argument to your anti Charity rant and you find it "tiring and boring", seemingly because you can't formulate a coherent and factually based response. You have made several false claims in this thread about the disease and it's treatment, I call you out on it and now you're "bored"..

How old are you?

reply to post by stumason

BS and you know it. I;ve had a good page and a half of being remonstrated and talked down to for even daring to hold such an evil opinion. Its like people just can't accept things. Am I not allowed to voice an opinion? Do I talk to you like a child?

ETA Did I mention no one actually came with any conflicting evidence to my claims because you were all too eager to wade in and argue rather than read what I'd really posted? Apart from a lot of rhetoric and dancing around the issue. Well, I did now. My Dad died of lung cancer. What else would I be referring to? So did my Nan.

Could Candida Albicans be what is in aerial sprays?

Iodine kills Candida Albicans and Flouride and Bromide lower Iodine levels.

Candida Albicans thrives in acidic conditions and processd foods tend to make us more acidic.

Originally posted by LightSpeedDriver
Its from an organisation called Cancer Research UK. It lists survival rates. Now look down the scale to lung.

This is becoming repetitive. I read the link and I even read the paper the link sources, which you would have known if you'd read the post from before.

Oh really? Talking in a public place on the internet is not the same as talking in a public place in reality? All of a sudden I am not allowed to express an opinion? While the medium may be different, I disagree with your statement.

It's not just the medium that's different, it's the context. Two people sitting together making private conversation is not an invite for external opinion, whereas a public lecture or someone preaching to the public, is. Web-based forums offer the same context, however not being in a real-time setting means that you have to be very sure in what you are saying and very clear and accurate in how you represent your information; other posters have the equal advantage of being able to research your posts and counter them not only with ad-lib opinions, but with evidence to back up their rebuttals.

If you don't the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

How about you refute my figures which come straight from the horses mouth?

Again, I am not refuting the figures I am refuting how you represented them.

while providing absolutely no justification apart from just wanting to argue the point rather than the content,

Exactly which part of which post needs justification or clarification? If you'd kindly point out the relevant parts, I'll be happy to back them up with ample evidence, since the evidence I already gave you is apparently insufficient.

not to mention ridiculing (which is also a form of insult)

I am not ridiculing you, I am ridiculing your posts. It's different. One implies that I have a issue with you as a person, which I don't, and the other implies that I have a problem with your posts, which I do.

You're a scientist. My bad. I thought I read medical researcher, perhaps that was Griffo. Anything connected to cancer at all?

Indirectly, maybe. I've had more to do with medicinal chemistry in the past. My current project for the next three or so years is strictly a synthetic organic chemistry one.

In future I would recommend you not to recommend me about what I may and may not post here. There are these special people called Moderators here who perform that function.

I wasn't trying to moderate you, I was giving you friendly advice so as to avoid needless argument and apparent hurt feelings in the future. It's your call, really.

Again, apologies, I think it must have been Griffo who mentioned he was the med researcher. It was I think in response to an earlier comment. About not having a choice in "things".

Mm, I think Griffo is more in that field than I am. No problems, in any case.

All this faith in "science", meaning only the funded research into things that certain people want to look at and document with "published papers" while blindly ignoring any attempt at an alternative is just blinkered thinking to me.

That is completely not the way science works. Firstly, there is a difference between the faith you observe in science and the blind faith that you are implying. I have faith that when I release something from a height, it will fall due to gravity. That is *very* different to blind faith, which relies on little to no evidence at all and makes tenuous connections between things that may or may not have occurred, at best.

Secondly, science is all about accepting alternatives and adapting preexisting models as new evidence comes to light. It becomes a little touchy when we get into medicine, however, since there is a whole barrage of political and ethical obstacles to overcome, most of which are there for good reason, some of which are not. The other thing to understand is that a vast majority of alternative therapies for cancer treatment fall under the banner of complete crack-pottery; they either don't work or they don't work and are very toxic.

Originally posted by troubleshooter
reply to post by jameshawkings

 

Tullio Simoncini says cancer is cause by the fungus Candida Albicans.

Could it be this fungus that finds its way into vaccines?

C. albicans is the fungus responsible for thrush and no, it does not cause cancer. It is a natural part of your body's flora.