Nazis Among Us
POSTED BY: dreamtrove
UPDATED: Wednesday, July 24, 2024 14:54
VIEWED: 2059
PAGE 2 of 3
CTS
that would be the fear, I'm not convinced myself, but it has occurred to me as a possibility, it's not to be ruled out.
Fortunately, the care providers are not in on it, and so they can dissuaded by scientific arguments because they're very knowledgeable.
One doctor even expressed concern about the recognized treatment plan, and what he wasn't saying was saying that the idea had occurred to him as well. He is handing over control to a couple of Indians on the idea that they will have other ideas. Its probably better than even odds that we willed up seeking treatment overseas.
It's also important to realize that 3% is not zero. It's possible that a plan B will not have to beimplemented
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Magon,
I don't think this is what CTS was implying, it certainly was not what meant. Chemo is relatively harmless to the patient, and somewhat effective. Radiation is less effective, and is likely to be a little bit outmoted. We will probably continue to treat cancer this way for decades as a form of ritual, but everyone has pretty much recognized that it does not sol e the problem.
The hazards come from side treatments, like steroidal treatments, anti-immune and even tumor promoting drugs. It's a minefield out there. Its entirely possible also that cures have been intentionally silences, for either reason. Most working treatments result in what's called survival, by which they mean the person has cancer steady for five years or more.
Survival is different from cure, which really means remission, survival appears to be a designation for chronic conditions. I would imagine a chronic five year cancer treatment is reallyexpensive. There's an obvious incentive.
I see no reason to take a society so incredibly backwards and barbaric that it still fights wars would NOT stoop to such a level, in fact, it's hard tl see any difference in the primary logic.
More raising the question here than coming to a conclusion
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
So what IS the success rate of chemo/radioactive therapy?
I know that AIDS patients can often live indefinitely on their chemical cocktails.
--Anthony
Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
You need to check out order out of attacking the new world order, whoever originally posted the link, if you can, repost here, it's was bytemite I think
It was me, but I didn't post it here. It wasn't from a "respectable" source, either, and there's lots of conspiracy theory cites that I'm not sure about. But otherwise, there's a lot in the post that makes sense.
http://pakalert.wordpress.com/2009/06/11/the-new-world-order-wants-the
-new-world-order-to-fail-order-out-of-attacking-the-new-world-order/
Quote:
We will need a canary for this one. Something that will not grow in water contain petrochemicals and CFCs.
Everything kinda dies when you have enough of any chemical above a specific dose, even stuff we normlly consider vital nutrients. But, there might be some organisms more susceptible to death by petroleum and CFCs than other organisms. Usually it's young aquatic macrobiotes that suffer the worst: fish and tadpoles and their eggs.
But because you live near farms, you might have a problem with aquatic macrobiotes in the first place because of the nitrates and algal blooms. So if you have algae and it starts to die off, that may be a sign.
Quote:
Another thing that enters into this is pure corruption. The company that makes drug A has connections, and drug B's owner does not, so it doesn't matter whY the chances ar
At the business level it's this, I think. At a business level, all those guys are thinking about is profit, and generally, killing off their customers doesn't help profit (except price gouging, but that's usually terminal patients, and addiction). Though, administrators generally aren't scientists, and might be gullible enough to believe an agenda.
Banks, special interests, government, and industry are all connected, it's the same groups of elites everywhere. But some elites like one thing, others like another, they work together when they think it furthers their goals, dont really stand in the way when it doesn't, so the death machine creeps ever slowly forward as destructive agenda ideas seep into direction and policy making. They may be picking and choosing, but what they're choosing from still will inevitably go bad, and it's enough.
Hey Sig. >_> Agree with your posts.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:It depends on the type of cancer, and how you define "success."
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
So what IS the success rate of chemo/radioactive therapy?
Physicians sometimes present conventional cancer treatment as the only thing that improves survival rates, the only thing that works, when that simply isn't true.
Here is just one example of the lie.
http://www.ouralexander.org/
This is not something I could persuade anyone of on a forum like this. But if you were interested in chemo/radiation/surgery vs. other cancer treatments, there are books like
Ralph Moss' The Cancer Industry
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1881025098/healingdailyc-20
or James Carter's Racketeering in Medicine:
http://www.amazon.com/Racketeering-Medicine-Alternatives-James-Carter/
dp/187890132X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1292815920&sr=1-1
The cancer treatment debate goes very much like the vaccine debate or the global warming debate. Most people have already made up their minds, and "debates" usually end up in name-calling and invectives. I really don't want to go there. So that is all I'll say about that.
Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
While I would tend to agree that most cancer treatments are worse that the disease, I have a close friend that survived melanoma with a Interferon treatment that he thought was killing him and another friend that was cured of hepatitis C with a drug cocktail that included Interferon. If you go to your local doctor looking for a cancer cure you will probably die, if you do your research and find a doctor that actually likes curing people you chances are greatly increased.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Anthony,
Maybe the treatment has changed, but there are a few things that came to mind last time i looked into it
1) the company that made AZT had a sweetheart deal
2) AZT could kill a normal personas it interrupts healing.
3) as few as 25% of HIV positives had AIDS. its entirely possible that the magic johnsons of the world simply fought off the disease the first time, on contact, like we would the flu.
4) people are still dying by the millions of the disease, three million a year, and that cocktail is now available worldwide.
5) many drugs proven in animal tests to be effective were then blocked by the WHO, who almost certainly caused the problem in the first place, whether or not you believe that they did so maliciously.
So, sorry, not buying it. If a disease was basically treated and cured, it wouldn't be killing people at such a rapid rate.
To your other point
the current treatments and their success rates vary widely. In this case, 3%.
If there were a conspiracy, and usually there are several, then it would target those which were most a burden on the system.
You might have noticed that anti aging treatments never get mainstream attention, even though mainly are now widely known.
Why does our medical community still prescribe pain killers for arthritis? What is this, the middle ages? It would seem that common sense would have taken over. I can only think of two real answers: either they are a) stone stupid or b) have no interest in promoting an aging population.
To say nothing of mental health. I now know how to cure virtually every kind of mental illness and I'm no genius. I would have to think that anyone in the field with half a brain and access to the internet could have figured out the answers by now, but the treatments are barbaric and mentally disabling.
Honestly, I have no idea what the answer is. This could be a broad spectrum systematic failure of an out of contol bureaucracy, and there may be no ill intent anywhere, but what I can be sure of is that it is a failure.
My best guess on the chemo treatments currently used, which are not what I was commenting on, as I said before, its the steroids, not the chemo, but I don't have a strong objection to the chemo other than that it seems primitive compared to what is now available, is that this is a case of corporate corruption.
Where I see conspiracy possibility is that every mix seems to contain a dose of what I call toxideathinol. Something that doesn't have a good reason to be there and that kills everything. The fracking fluid is a good example. There's no good reason for it to be there, except to poison the groundwater.
Here, the toxic substance is the immunosuppressant steroids, which serve a nominal function: they're anti-emetic, but there are lots of less deadly anti-emetics if that's really an issue.
But no, I don't think anyone is going to die of the chemo, I actually would like to see more chemo agents used.
While I'm at it, just a side note: skepticism is always good, but my apologies if I don't have time to debate whether or not there is an asteroid headed to the earth when I only have a few hours to stop it.
I don't remember what the last debate I cut out of, but it was something along these lines. I get the idea, which is "I could be seeing things" but i said at the top of this very thread that I was aware of this possibility and didn't really have time to debate it.
if I'm aware of the possibility, what do you gain by arguing it? Would you convince me to not prepare for the worst? if you could convince me, what would happen if you were wrong?
I'm not saying you're wrong, I said the thought occurred. This was really sort of a pirate news rant as I said, not really a well thought out argument, I'm just stabbing at possibilities.
Politically, I feel that eugenics is still probably the dominant policy decider on the planet, followed by economic domination, or slavery as we used to call it.
If forces for good were as powerful as the armies of hope seem to think they are, as ofte
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well, I do have some recent news on water quality, something I have been eyeballing for a very long time, in fact.
US water has large amounts of likely carcinogen: study
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/healthusenvironmentpollutionwater
That the EPA hasn't chosen to give a shit has a lot to do with many years of both parties shovelling political, rather than scientific people, into it.
-Frem
I do not serve the Blind God.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Byte
Sorry. I meant to say neurotoxins specifically.
Kirk
Thanks, yes, already did that, but I also have to do a lot of research myself, and then present him with my findings. This cancer actually has a frequency of about three per million, and the subtype of it is an unrecognized unique, one. So sure, he's a cancer specialist, even brain cancer, but he hasn't met this before, and he has hundreds of patients to look after, all of whom have poor prognosis. The more brains I have on this problem the better.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Frem
Also industry people, lots of industry people. The more political people also hang around in the advisory capacity, as do many industry people.
An agency has a lifespan of about 20 years on average before it becomes captured by the industry it is designed to regulate.
Groundwater toxicity is also a goal of the blue gold crowd, and the eugenics people also undoubtedly see not just the power to kill or occupy the time and energy to disable the inferiors, but also, by controlling the water supply, limit their population growth.
Industry of course has been pouring god knows what for a long time, but now things like the fracking industry create chemicals with no scientific merit to pour into the water in record astronomical quantities. Water contamination is clearly the goal. If you crunch the numbers on nat gas fracking, it's not even profitable. In fact, the world over, environmental destruction is not profitable, except if someone else is subsidizing it, so it's not net profitable, which means that the destruction is the goal..
If destruction is the goal, I'm willing to classify it as a form of warfare and feel no qualms about doing so, as I said earlier, terrorism is not too strong a term...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME