Doctors who discovered cancer enzymes in vaccines all found murdered.

a reply to: Kashai

Officially the cause of MS is not specifically known.

I'm sorry about that but "officially" the cause of MS according to the big pharma is autoimmune disease.

Like you I'm the first to question this conclusion but the fact is who are we to question the big pharma conclusion.

I have my own theory about cause of MS, feel free to discuss it with me but probably in another thread.

a reply to: PeterMcFly


Seems a rather reductionist response as a opposed to a prior response you made earlier.

In context you are discussing in proverb the difference between "apples and oranges".

a reply to: Kashai

Seems a rather reductionist response as a opposed to a prior response you made earlier.

Quite frankly I do not understand why you attack me as saying it is a reductionist answer?

In context you are discussing in proverb the difference between "apples and oranges".

Again, what I'm saying you are referring about?

a reply to: PeterMcFly


MS in all likelihood results from a systemic issue related to genetics in the sense of a specific problem inherent to such; not an environmental factor that overpowers the immune system due to environmental conditions in humans with normal immune systems.

Hence the difference.

a reply to: Kashai

An interesting answer, but it does not anwer my questions on the previous message.

a reply to: PeterMcFly


About 2.3 million people suffer from MS throughout the world today. To suggest that as an auto-immune deficiency it can be applied as a systemic disorder, that could result in similar issues as related to cancer is in general irrelevant.

In contrast "each year 12.7 million people discover they have cancer and 7.6 million people die from the disease."

MS simply is not today a fatal disease in any regard and by comparison.

a reply to: Kashai

If it is the main point you wanted to make, then be it.

But now my trolling indicator is buzzing big time.

So be it....

a reply to: PeterMcFly


My trolling indicator went off the moment I read the OP but that could just be me

Have a goodnight friend and thanks for the conversation.

a reply to: crazyewok

The reason cancer is so common is because people are living longer.

How does that account for the increasing prevalence of childhood cancers?

a reply to: Kashai

OK have a good night then.

Sad your trolling indicator went off, I hope it was not me, not my intention.

originally posted by: MysterX
a reply to: crazyewok

The reason cancer is so common is because people are living longer.

How does that account for the increasing prevalence of childhood cancers?

More children are surving birth.

Again 100 years ago a lot of children would die before the age of 10. When smallpox and other diseases were makeing there rounds 1
In 5 would die.
If more kids are living your going to get a higher rate of cancer, especially with sick kids with genetic problems who likely would never have survived pass the first year.

a reply to: crazyewok

The vast majority of childhood cancer cases are Leukemia.

These cases are rising year on year...on average a rise of around 10% per year, even in areas, such as Europe, where birthrates are down.

The reasons you give for increased cancer rates in children is not accurate i'm afraid CE.

There is something else happening that is contributing to the rises in childhood cancers, whether or not that is environmental or genetic..or part of some insideous deliberate campaign (doubtful) remains to be ascertained.

Even cancer organisations honestly admit they have no clue why childhood cancer rates are so high, and is actually THE leading cause of death among children, and young adults.

originally posted by: projectvxn

originally posted by: bandersnatch
a reply to: DeathSlayer
www.naturalnews.com...

This is serious #.....Google is our friend....

Natural News doesn't run a single factual story on their site. They make money off of long discredited conspiracy theories.

I know that language is powerful so have to pick up on your statement.
It is simply not true that ALL articles on NN are false.

They are doing merely what other online news do and report anything that has been claimed or is being done somewhere.
Sometimes these things are not true [in the same way the Daily Fail reports everything and OFTEN gets it wrong] but there are articles you can double check yourself and find that this is exactly what happened.
So some of their articles ARE true.

It's like an online newspaper, they don't send their own journalists out there investigating, however that is not a good enough reason to say that ALL of their articles are fake.

The Sunday Sport was a UK newspaper that printed outrageous lies, like hairy aliens copulating with earth women etc, but even THEY had the odd article that was based on a true occurrence [if it was weird enough].

With that in mind I only ask you to not use fatalistic and manipulative language, or I can't take you seriously because you are plainly WRONG in your swiping statement.

I think we MUST read alternative sources and discuss claims because they may just be correct and if they are, we should take it seriously, if they are [beyond a doubt] wrong, we can breath a sigh of relief. If we only believe what is officially sanctioned, we will be just as much in the dark as people who believe everything without questioning.

I am not saying that this article is either right or wrong but I will do some research because I don't want this to be true and can't afford to ignore it if it were.

originally posted by: Lurker1
Yes, invoke the children for the sympathy factor.

Yawn.

Tired of saving children. Save some old people. They've already contributed to the food chain.

You are aware that cancer rates in children have been increasing since the 1940's??

Or maybe since your post is so ignorant perhaps you aren't.

originally posted by: MysterX
a reply to: crazyewok

The vast majority of childhood cancer cases are Leukemia.

These cases are rising year on year...on average a rise of around 10% per year, even in areas, such as Europe, where birthrates are down.

The reasons you give for increased cancer rates in children is not accurate i'm afraid CE.

There is something else happening that is contributing to the rises in childhood cancers, whether or not that is environmental or genetic..or part of some insideous deliberate campaign (doubtful) remains to be ascertained.

Even cancer organisations honestly admit they have no clue why childhood cancer rates are so high, and is actually THE leading cause of death among children, and young adults.

Well said. I find it amazing how so many people fail to understand cancer and how it's on the increase.

Even outside of childhood cancer an ageing population doesn't explain the increase in this disease we've witnesses since the end of the 2nd world war.

We live in an terrible world where the economy takes precedence over everything else so I find it absolutely believable that the pharmaceutical industry could be in collusion with our governments to be carrying out these practices behind the scenes.

a reply to: jamespond

I'm sitting here right now infront if a screen with the HPLC results of two diffrent drugs.

There is NOTHING in them that shouldn't be!

Pharma is not doing anything except overcharge you and even then it's debatable.

If there is a increase in cancer its diet and pollution.

Just feel lucky your not expected to die before age 45!

I love the derailers here.. "vaccines don't cause autism.. it's proven..science. ..stuff. . Fu".

Desperate much?

PEOPLE ARE MURDERED. NOT ANY PEOPLE, DOCTORS WHO AID IN SAVING LIVES, THEY ARE BEING MURDERED BECAUSE THEY KNOW SOMETHING THAT THE ESTABLISHMENT DOESN'T WANT THE PUBLIC KNOWING.

That's the obvious part, talk about that and stop dismissing things because mainstream media and science told you so.

And grow the f up. Seeing people who can't have a civil conversation on ATS without demeaning comments..

a reply to: Elementalist
Even IF (and I don't believe they do) they cause autism I would rather live in a world were 1 in 50 get autism but live to a ripe old age than in a world 1 in 5 children die before there 10th birthday and we are not expected to live past 45.

a reply to: DeathSlayer

I need to preface my comment by saying that no one is a bigger critic of Big Pharma than I am... I don't trust them any father than I can throw them... but having looked into this extensively, I'd bet dollars to donuts that there's something screwy going on, but it's not "this." I'm more inclined to think that in order to hide and obscure and confuse the truth, someone made "this" up simply in order for it to be quickly and easily debunked and make everyone look crazy/stupid/liars. And if I'm right about that, my best guess is that "this" is more about hiding/obscuring the almost miracuous healing properties of cannabis -- and the endocannabinoid receptors which are a vital and integral part of our bodies' immune system. In other words, cannabinoids can do naturally what Dr. Bradstreet's synthetic patented GcMAF reportedly did: Cure all kinds of diseases and conditions.

Nagalase is a naturally occuring protein in the human body. There is an identified "normal" level for humans, and one can be deficient as well, causing Schindler/Kanzaki disease. Nagalase levels do rise with cancer (and perhaps other diseases), so nagalase levels can be monitored for diagnostic and prognostic purposes. As such, it would seem to be more of a marker or a symptom than a cause. Much the same way our temperature rises when we're sick, or the way our white blood cells rise with an infection.

Nagalase may also be naturally occurring in viruses and cancer, but I was never able to pin that down. If that is the case, then there is no need to add nagalase to vaccines -- it's already in it!

Also, as I understand it, the nagalase does not prohibit the production of Vitamin D in the body; rather, nagalase prohibits another naturally occuring "good" protein from binding with the vitamin D. When this good protein is able to bind to the D, it activates endocannabinoid receptors in the immune system to produce macrophages, Greek for "big eaters," which can fight ("eat") the disease/virus. When the "good" protein cannot bind to the D, then it never produces the macrophages, which allows the disease to proliferate.

Remember, while Dr. Bradstreet is being hailed as a holistic hero, he was playing the Big Pharma game too. He was part of a group that developed a synthetic protein for patent and charged a very pretty penny to his patients for his "product." My very strong suspicion is that cannabinoids (in cannabis) can do exactly what GcMAF can do -- but better, and naturally, without adverse side effects. And we can treat ourselves -- we can grow it, prepare it, and ingest it all by our lonesome... No doctors needed. This is not to throw Dr. Bradstreet under the bus. Right before his death, he gave several lectures (with more scheduled) on the functions of the endocannabinoid receptors and cannabis, particularly cannabidiol (CBDs).

In the grand scheme of things, I'm sure cannabis is a much greater threat to the Big Pharma monopoly than Dr. Bradstreet's synthetic GcMAF will ever be. Hence the need to redirect the public's focus on nagalase and vaccines (a hot topic right now) to create this huge -- but quickly and easily debunked brouhaha about nagalase being added to vaccines in order to cause cancer just to make money for the medical establishment.... and discrediting everyone who questions Big Pharma or vaccines in any way.

a reply to: DeathSlayer

Stop listening to the media says the guy who accepts the most unreliable sources one could possibly find.