Could CIA give Hugo Chavez cancer?

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by ludshed

 

Do you know what cancer is? If someone died from mad cow disease in your neighborhood do you think everybody would be talking about it? Every one here knows someone who has died of cancer. If you don't, give it a few years and after you're out of high school you will. And who said anything about repeated? You do know why your microwave has a fine mesh shield built into the glass and why they put a lead vest on you at the dentist right? While you're at it look into PTP communications. Ask any body you know who has served if they would walk in front of those dishes. The idea you can be so naive is funny, or sad depending on how you look at it.

The idea that you could give someone cancer undetected is so idiotic I can't believe anyone thinks it is in any way plausible. I was making fun of this nitwit idea by suggesting mad cow.

A microwave is not the same radiation as an x-ray. It is not an ionizing radiation. A single dose from an x-ray is extremely unlike to result in cancer. You simply don't understand what you are talking about when you discuss microwave radiation. You simply have no idea about risk factors.

Anyone that thinks that a single x-ray or microwave radiation induces cancer needs to go back to junior high.

I'll help you with your homework.
www.cancer.org...

Good job avoiding every single question.

reply to post by ludshed

Good job avoiding every single question.

I don't have to answer fallacies. I simply have to point out the fallacies you posted.

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by ludshed

 

Good job avoiding every single question.

I don't have to answer fallacies. I simply have to point out the fallacies you posted.

So you're denying the existence of that rectangular shaped thing in your kitchen?

reply to post by ludshed

So you're denying the existence of that rectangular shaped thing in your kitchen?

A really bad straw man argument.

Microwaves are not associated with cancer as I pointed out in the link. Maybe you don't understand that.

The problem is that you posted a fallacy. I will repeat again since you seem unable to grasp this concept. You posted a fallacy. I showed that your claim was wrong. I posted a ilnk tot he cancer society that states that you are wrong.

If the US wanted rid of Chavez, I am sure they could deploy a hundred and one easier ways to do it!

I think there is a serious misunderstanding as to what cancer is, it's causes and effects. No number of self proclaimed experts blabbering on via YouTube will change what cancer is. Although some viruses can acuse cancer, I don't think even Chavez could get cervical cancer.

Given that a significant proportion of people will get cancer of one form or another, and many will die if cancer directly, I would suggest Chavez would be just one of those people.

Regards

reply to post by stereologist


Prove it. Remove the shield from your microwave and next time you're at the dentist, before they clear the room tell them,"I don't want this stupid vest because I don't believe I need it, I read an internet link saying so". I dare you to do either, then talk to us about fallacy.

reply to post by celticdog


is there a possible connection with this thread? not sure about the credibility of it, however it could be plausible.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
regards fakedirt

reply to post by ludshed

Prove it. Remove the shield from your microwave and next time you're at the dentist, before they clear the room tell them,"I don't want this stupid vest because I don't believe I need it, I read an internet link saying so". I dare you to do either, then talk to us about fallacy.

First off removing the shield will make the microwave inefficient and dangerous. Although it will not cause cancer. It will damage the skin through burns.

Second I never said anything about x-rays. That is your false claim. Please read the post and understand what is written before making such a blatant error.

The site I listed was the cancer research group. You probably did not understand that either.

Please engage your thinking unit before replying.

reply to post by fakedirt


Not sure but Jack ruby mentioned to the sheriff that he got injected with cancer.It just a funny thing to say and he dies of cancer before he testifies.I know not everything is a conspiracy but it was just a thought.So they could get ride of him with the hassle and another invasion/war and put in their own guy.Just like that russian guy that got poisoned.

reply to post by celticdog

the jack ruby slant is interesting, never heard of that one before. with lee harvey oswalds' girlfriends' claims to being privy to research and development of cancer causing pathogens, it may well be the case that this could be part of the bag of tricks employed in more than one instance and more than one country.
i can understand why the OP has speculated on a possible link here whether corporate hitmen tactics or more personal silencing of patsies and informants or anyone who is deemed to be a major risk to national security.
342 hits for jack ruby inected with pathogen. celticdog, you just rubbed some more sleep from my eyeballs.


f

Using cancer to kill people is so laughable. The long time that the person dies makes the reason for killing them moot. Why not use poison? It's quicker.

reply to post by stereologist


to put distance and time after the act could be beneficial to the interested party. sudden spates of reported poisonings in a political/intelligence context would get people thinking.
f

hey let's sh!t and giggle about it I don't think they'd bother but maybe they killed an ATS owner with cancer. Watch how fast I get banned by the same people who incite paranoia.

Ban me, delete my post and admit you are full of it

reply to post by fakedirt


Not all poisons are immediate. Some are and are hard to detect. Some kill over several days time. There are a lot of choices and there are some that are difficult to pick up in a tox screen.

reply to post by stereologist


agreed. there are many ways to neutralise an individual. i think the cancer causing method is still plausible, perhaps looked into and funded way back in the fifties and sixties. about a sixty five on yer bulls&%t meter.
f

reply to post by fakedirt


Giving someone cancer is really nonsensical. Chavez has only revealed that he had a malignant tumor removed.

Here is the problem with this idea. The time from diagnosis to death is a long time.
seer.cancer.gov...
Check out the document to see that a 5 year survival rate occurs for over half of the people diagnosed with cancer.

reply to post by stereologist

hello stereologist
many thanks for the reply. i have saved a copy of the stats you gave a link for. i understand why you think it is implausible now. i also googled survival rates in the fifties and sixties. it was rather lower then than now obviously. the jack ruby claim got me thinking on this so i suppose currently it does seem pointless but maybe back then it was a feasible option.
regards fakedirt.

reply to post by fakedirt


An important point not to overlook is that there are many types of cancer. Although survival is much better now for most cancers there are still some forms that are little better off today than before. Chavez did not reveal the type of cancer but it seems that a malignant tumor was removed from the pelvic region. Nothing was said as to whether this was the original cancer or a tumor due to the cancer metastasizing. I doubt the latter due to the apparent prognosis. It is hard to tell with the limited information available.

I'm currently reading Me and Lee: How I came to know, love and lose Lee Harvey Oswald by Judyth Baker. She claims to have been personally involved in the plot to kill Fidel Castro with cancer causing viruses. In fact, she was under the impression that it was Oswald's mission to infect the Cuban leader.

One thing i have learned about the CIA from books, movies and internet is that the CIA can do anything they like.