THE CANCER DECEIT

Anything on the news and elsewhere in the media with evidence of digital manipulation, bogus story-lines and propaganda
Mansur
Member
Posts: 210
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2018 9:22 pm

Re: THE CANCER DECEIT

Unread post by Mansur »

@ glg
The way you mentioned the 'hoax aspect' of the thing and, over there at the psychiatry thread, the 'cancer Business', I expected you to elaborate on that. Was I wrong, or are you going to keep it up your sleeve for a while?
glg
Member
Posts: 107
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2020 5:48 pm

Re: THE CANCER DECEIT

Unread post by glg »

Mansur wrote: Thu Dec 08, 2022 11:44 am @ glg
The way you mentioned the 'hoax aspect' of the thing and, over there at the psychiatry thread, the 'cancer Business', I expected you to elaborate on that. Was I wrong, or are you going to keep it up your sleeve for a while?
Neat how you discovered my personal preoccupation with the subject of cancer by extrapolation Mansur.
But thanks, asking for a 'hoax aspect' may indeed presumptously shoot over target when we are already most definitely dealing with deceit.
Albeit I think over the coming years the deceit may turn to, hoax, when the cancer vaccination idea returns with unprecedented vigour.

So... I'm quite sure, this thread will gain more then just a few pages sometime soon and getting ahead of the curve is what already helped me during the covid scam as this forum already had discussed most that needed to be known long before that scam materialised.
So far this forum discussed the thing we call cancer and in just one page of this thread there's already much to be learned or at least many avenues to consider have been opened up by this previous discussion, but I think what is missing is the probable trajectory this problem will subject us to. Targeted biotherapy is in the pipelines, this means, that for the first time in a about a hundred years, the triad of cutting, burning and poisoning can be cast to the shadows, at least artificially, by the deceivers. Targeted biotherapy is designed to act on every specific character an individual and his individual cancer is presumed to have and so the industry is aware that this logic would leave a patient with a truckload of medicine to take every day and an exorbitant health care cost to society. Mostly to alleviate this cost and not particularly because targeted biotherapy works, a vaccine will become an urgent national security issue. This vaccine will work - they say - because cancer is a dormant factor in everyone and certain tests may even be performed for diathesis (The relationship between readiness (predisposition) and a stressful situation allows the scientists to form the model of diathesis). So this cancer vaccine roll out which perhaps still lies a few years in the future and can only be sensed after celebrities start to open up about their cancer stories, will move cancer from deceit to a hoax leaving of course the disease condition in tact or most likely worsening it.

In any case,what may be your input with what has been said so far on this subject Mansur?
Mansur
Member
Posts: 210
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2018 9:22 pm

Re: THE CANCER DECEIT

Unread post by Mansur »

Thank you sincerely (and in advance as well…)
As to my input, I have none.
It was in the wiki, if memory serves, I read that placebo is a 'very curious thing'. Now, in a normal medical encyclopedia I assume placebo is but a small article, but I think in a big (non-scientific) volume about 'placebo', a little article or a footnote would be enough dedicated to modern medical science with all its horrible machinery. This latter is 'read' by everyone day by day - with the medical profession perhaps as the exception. 'Placebo' used as a tool and aid is one of the obvious nonsenses of the scientific thinking (wissenschaftliche Rationalismus – as a famous German said a few decades ago).

Your introductory quote (seems a curious one ):
(D. Rasnick:) The solution one comes up with depends strongly on how one looks at the problem. To see this, consider your favorite puzzle or even better, a well executed magic trick. A world-class magician produces surprise and delight by negating everyday experience and shattering the rules of causality. The magic in the magic trick is to make the audience look at the trick in such a way as to make it appear incomprehensible, unfathomable, impenetrable, baffling, perplexing, mystifying, bewildering—how cancer appears today. However, looking at the same magic trick in a different way (the way another magician would) reveals it to be completely consistent with the logic of how things happen. Once the trick is revealed, the magic disappears and the rational world is restored. By looking at the cancer problem in a different way it is possible to lift the shroud concealing the unifying simplicity behind cancer.
So, we need fellow magicians?

It is absolutely not the 'rational world' that must be restored. It was restored already enough by the magicians themselves. Strange that 'magician' has originally quite another meaning (you mentioned 'occult -modern- science'); And a really magical action is in no way a 'trick' you see at a weekend and forget all about within hours. Occultism, in the broader sense of the word, is the real counterpart to rationalism as the other side of the same coin.

'The solution one comes up with depends strongly on how one looks at the problem' the author says. And we can’t but agree. Nevertheless, it's a simple platitude, a phrase the like of which can be met even in commercials, and an attitude totally inappropriate when we are faced with supposedly real and pressing issues. I assume that the 'cancer problem' is such an old and big issue that even its exposure as a hoax has itself grown into an entire industry that can - and should perhaps - be considered as part of the syndicate.

'The solution one comes up with…' – That is practically a plural form referring to a multitude of solutions possible – in the frame of the 'rational world'… If there are problems.
_______________________

One more question, if you don't mind: the difference between 'deceit' and 'hoax' is not clear to me (certainly because of my being a new hand here) - is it a difference in grade or quite a new category in the activity of pharma and its personnel?
___________________________________________________________________
Newsbender wrote
(...) I decided some time ago that, should I find myself diagnosed with a cancer diagnosis in the future, I will refuse to submit to the traditional "treatment" of burning, poisoning and cutting out, and instead resolve to find the root cause.
Once you are really and truly diagnosed with cancer, I'm afraid you will have long since forgotten any such previous decision. For such a diagnosis to be made, is it not absolutely necessary to seek it in the first place? (In the best case, it is not found.) So without an explicit 'cancer screening' there is no diagnosis - or is there? I don't know.
________________________

(In one of the first articles or websites that came up when I searched 'metastasis' in my native language, there are sentences like:
'It [metastasis] most often occurs because the [surgical] treatment has not killed all the cancer cells.'
Then:
'Metastatic breast cancer is most often diagnosed after [surgical] treatment of the first, primary tumour, and can occur years after the original diagnosis and treatment.')
Post Reply