Avoiceinthecrowd Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 "As it's actually a criminal act to cure cancer under the 1939 Cancer Act which criminalizes medical practitioners from even advising patients on such cures, wouldn't that in fact make it a fraudulent act for cancer charities to accept money under the presumption they will search for a cure but in fact it's a criminal act for them to even publicize such cures! Check it for yourselves people, Google Cancer Act 1939 that's still active to this day and medical practitioners are being prosecuted, in America were jailed for curing cancer." - Brett Trout (August 6, 2010) Do they tell medical school applicants of this fact before they become buried in student loans? This is the reason cancer is never considered cured but rather always in remission. That criminal statute needs to be struck down and an investigation into the deliberations that led to the creation of the 1939 Cancer Act. What were the arguments presented and who became rich after that law was enacted. I can see why they don't squawk about that too much. Without the medical certification board cartels, such laws would be unpopular and unenforceable. What a pathetic law showing big money prefers you endure chemo and living hell then death. Simply amazing!! 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lobster Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 (edited) 29 minutes ago, Avoiceinthecrowd said: "As it's actually a criminal act to cure cancer under the 1939 Cancer Act which criminalizes medical practitioners from even advising patients on such cures, wouldn't that in fact make it a fraudulent act for cancer charities to accept money under the presumption they will search for a cure but in fact it's a criminal act for them to even publicize such cures! Check it for yourselves people, Google Cancer Act 1939 that's still active to this day and medical practitioners are being prosecuted, in America were jailed for curing cancer." - Brett Trout (August 6, 2010) Do they tell medical school applicants of this fact before they become buried in student loans? This is the reason cancer is never considered cured but rather always in remission. That criminal statute needs to be struck down and an investigation into the deliberations that led to the creation of the 1939 Cancer Act. What were the arguments presented and who became rich after that law was enacted. I can see why they don't squawk about that too much. Without the medical certification board cartels, such laws would be unpopular and unenforceable. What a pathetic law showing big money prefers you endure chemo and living hell then death. Simply amazing!! I'd didn't need to google it, I've discussed it before, it replaced the witch craft act, which dispite its name didnt ban witch craft, it banned people claiming to have magical power to make money, such as faith healing or take this potion and it will cure your cancer, which was one of the uses it was put to before the cancer act came into being. The cancer act is much the same only specific to cancer. You cant go around peddling cures or potions that have no scientific backing , specifically it banned advertising these cures All of the provisions of the cancer act have now been scrapped, apart from it's still illegal to advertise you have a cure, unless of course you do have a cure, then you get a Nobel prize Edited January 3 by lobster 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avoiceinthecrowd Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 (edited) 16 minutes ago, lobster said: I'd didn't need to google it, I've discussed it before, it replaced the witch craft act, which dispite its name didnt ban witch craft, it banned people claiming to have magical power to make money, such as faith healing or take this potion and it will cure your cancer, which was one of the uses it was put to before the cancer act came into being. The cancer act is much the same only specific to cancer. You cant go around peddling cures or potions that have no scientific backing , specifically it banned advertising these cures All of the provisions of the cancer act have now been scrapped, apart from it's still illegal to advertise you have a cure, unless of course you do have a cure, then you get a Nobel prize Still basically adds up to laws sanctioning and encouraging disease and illness profiteering/racketeering. That the act existed, even for 5 minutes, is disturbing and invites scrutiny. Santa should have brought more likes for the holidays...the content has been amazing! Edited January 3 by Avoiceinthecrowd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lobster Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 (edited) 10 minutes ago, Avoiceinthecrowd said: Still basically adds up to laws sanctioning and encouraging disease and illness profiteering/racketeering. That the act existed, even for 5 minutes, is disturbing and invites scrutiny. It was very specifically aimed at charlatans exploiting the Ill and desperate in order to make money, in that regard it should be commended for its intent, even if you dont like the implementation. The rest of the act was all about, saying cancer patients should be care for and looked after, and thars good as well It didnt stop you treating your aunt Mabel, it did however stop you putting an add in the local psper, saying you had a treatment Edited January 3 by lobster Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avoiceinthecrowd Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 (edited) 10 minutes ago, lobster said: It was very specifically aimed at charlatans exploiting the Ill and desperate in order to make money, in that regard it should be commended for its intent, even if you dont like the implementation. A It didnt stop you treating your aunt Mabel, it did however stop you putting an add in the local psper, saying you had treatment Stopping the spread of news concerning cures is a criminal act. It results in injury and death. The public should be free to see both sides and decide for themselves, the very foundation of the concept of informed consent that this insane act destroyed The charlatans dispensing dangerous potions in the guise of cure were often agents of pharma investing to discredit legitimate findings. Agents injuring and killing to polish pharma's image and crush alternatives. Yep, I always greet the removal of personal choice with disdain. If my aunt Mabel cured her cancer safely, suppressing this knowledge is premeditated murder. The world needs to know how she did it and decide for themselves without vested interests putting up barricades. Edited January 3 by Avoiceinthecrowd 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avoiceinthecrowd Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 (edited) 15 minutes ago, lobster said: It was very specifically aimed at charlatans exploiting the Ill and desperate in order to make money, Royal Rife was no charlatan and they burned down his lab and notes and equipment. Pharma was not going to let their cash cow be undermined by safe alternatives. It's the ideology they have embraced since Pasteur game them the fraudulent endorcements to monetize disease and cultivate and milk it for every red penny. Edited January 3 by Avoiceinthecrowd 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lobster Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 3 minutes ago, Avoiceinthecrowd said: Stopping the spread of news concerning cures is a criminal act. It results in injury and death. The public should be free to see both sides and decide for themselves, the very foundation of the concept of informed consent that this insane act destroyed The charlatans dispensing dangerous potions in the guise of cure were often agents of pharma investing to discredit legitimate findings. Yep, I always greet the removal of personal choice with disdain. If my aunt Mabel cured her cancer safely, suppressing this knowledge is premeditated murder. The world needs to know how she did it and decide for themselves without vested interests putting up barricades. Its illegal for much the same reason as advertising magic beans for sale is illegal , personal choice is great as long as your not selling a car you dont actually own or buying a holiday let in a non existent villa, then you have laws to restrict the conman and protect the individual from themselves Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avoiceinthecrowd Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 (edited) 8 minutes ago, lobster said: Its illegal for much the same reason as advertising magic beans for sale is illegal , Safe alternative cures proven effective against cancer have nothing to do with magic. Ask yourself why magic beans can't be advertised while Pet Rocks sold millions? All these bans betray the authority's desire to make us believe they know better. How many bans were bought into existance to crush competition? Cancer is a prime example. I despise censorship in all it's forms and pretexes. The markets filter out bad stuff naturally if bad stuff is not kept alive artificially. The best cure for cancer has to be a proven one that the public choses as the best. This cannot happen while one argument is muted by law and informed consent cannot be reached. Edited January 3 by Avoiceinthecrowd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lobster Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 2 minutes ago, Avoiceinthecrowd said: Safe alternative cures proven effective against cancer have nothing to do with magic. Ask yourself why magic beans can't be advertised while Pet Rocks sold millions? All these bans betray the authority's desire to make us believe they know better. How many bans were bought into existance to crush competition. Cancer is a prime example. I despise censorship in all it's forms and pretexes. The markets filter out bad stuff naturally if bad stuff is not kept alive artificially. The best cure for cancer has to be a proven one. This cannot happen while one argument is muted by law. Alternative cancer cures that work would indeed be magic , so I think the comparison works, pet rocks do work under consumer law, they are rocks and you can pet them. The market filtering out bad cures will only result in charlatans getting rich and more desperate people throwing the family inheritance their way Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avoiceinthecrowd Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 12 minutes ago, lobster said: ..then you have laws to restrict the conman and protect the individual from themselves We saw how well that worked during covid. The circus was and still is a conman's paradise. Screw all censorship. People learn by trial and error. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avoiceinthecrowd Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 Just now, lobster said: The market filtering out bad cures will only result in charlatans getting rich and more desperate people throwing the family inheritance their way The markets were on their way to burying vaccines under mountains of lawsuits. Had the government not intervened, this would have crippled pharma, brought her down off that high horse for a lesson in humility. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lobster Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 1 minute ago, Avoiceinthecrowd said: The markets were on their way to burying vaccines under mountains of lawsuits. Had the government not intervened, this would have crippled pharma, brought her down off that high horse for a lesson in humility. So actions of international drug companies with vaccines means that local charlatans should be able to get rich off desperate people ? I'm struggling to grasp the logic here? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankieboy Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avoiceinthecrowd Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 (edited) 12 minutes ago, lobster said: So actions of international drug companies with vaccines means that local charlatans should be able to get rich off desperate people ? I'm struggling to grasp the logic here? Isn't that what pharma and her vax are? Local charlatans getting rich off desperate people? I have no such struggles. Seems pretty clear to me who the bans are protecting. And thank goodness we had laws in place to prevent conmen from poisoning hand sanitizers..oh, wait a minute..they did blind and maim us with poisoned hand sanitizers. Why didn't the law work, right? Edited January 3 by Avoiceinthecrowd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lobster Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Avoiceinthecrowd said: Isn't that what pharma and her vax are? Local charlatans getting rich off desperate people? I have no such struggles. Seems pretty clear to me who the bans are protecting. No they are international charlatans, at least as far as the vaccine goes, their cancer treatment however work, subject to conditions. I have two sisters currently alive because they work, they are terribly unpleasant ( the drugs not the sisters)and have side effects, but they are currently living their best life. I'm not sure if I had dosed them with pond weed it would have turned out the same? Edited January 3 by lobster Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avoiceinthecrowd Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 52 minutes ago, Frankieboy said: Very interesting perspectives. Thanks! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avoiceinthecrowd Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 43 minutes ago, lobster said: I have two sisters currently alive because they work, they are terribly unpleasant ( the drugs not the sisters)and have side effects, but they are currently living their best life. I'm not sure if I had dosed them with pond weed it would have turned out the same? First off, dietary reform and nature's pharmacy are not pond weed. Surely you were under the impression this is the comedy thread. Also, where is your evidence that your sisters might not have regained health with milder natural dietary reforms? No more than a vaxxed person can say they would have got sick without it. Totally impossible to prove. Funny the idea that someone in a thread condemning vax and seeing it as deliberate poisoning will also believe these same charlatans want to make cancer patients recover and feel better. If cancer treatments of pharma worked it would put them out of business. You see, thanks to censorship you are never confronted with the insanity of poisoning people to heal them. You only see the charlatan's point of view. Further, the medical community considers your sisters as in remission. Meaning a subscription to further treatments and milking and potential relapse because the causation remains unresolved, the things that made them sick to start with. May I suggest reading up on Antoine Beschamp's Terrain Theory to see exactly what that chemo crap really does. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lobster Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 (edited) 39 minutes ago, Avoiceinthecrowd said: First off, dietary reform and nature's pharmacy are not pond weed. Surely you were under the impression this is the comedy thread. Also, where is your evidence that your sisters might not have regained health with milder natural dietary reforms? No more than a vaxxed person can say they would have got sick without it. Totally impossible to prove. Funny the idea that someone in a thread condemning vax and seeing it as deliberate poisoning will also believe these same charlatans want to make cancer patients recover and feel better. If cancer treatments of pharma worked it would put them out of business. You see, thanks to censorship you are never confronted with the insanity of poisoning people to heal them. You only see the charlatan's point of view. Further, the medical community considers your sisters as in remission. Meaning a subscription to further treatments and milking and potential relapse because the causation remains unresolved, the things that made them sick to start with. May I suggest reading up on Antoine Beschamp's Terrain Theory to see exactly what that chemo crap really does. Are you saying pond weed is not part of nature's pharmacy? I'd suggest dosing them on roof moss until it's to late to get treatment is a very risky strategy, one I'd be quite happy for you to try out on a loved one and let me know how they went on Yes they havent been cured of cancer, that's because no one has ever been cure of cancer, not not by a wild flower medley or chemo, but one has a habit of living a bit longer. It is possible to prove by outcomes after treatment, but there seems to be a scarcity of data on success after the wild flowers Having grave concerns about RNA vaccines, doesnt mean I think all medicine should return to medieval standard of here is some chick weed and a leach, if you TB isn't cured in a fortnight pop back Edited January 3 by lobster Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avoiceinthecrowd Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 (edited) 15 minutes ago, lobster said: Yes they havent been cured of cancer, that's because no one has ever been cure of cancer, not not by a wild flower medley or chemo, but one has a habit of living a bit longer.. How can you prove that a person unknowing they have cancer because they don't frequent the medical services didn't heal it by reforming lifestyle and diet when they felt ill? Never knew they had cancer. You can't but you claim nobody cured it. Then you have software engineers that have been warning about lapses in security in medical diagnostics tools. Leaving the field wide open to prognostic fraud ie a shadow on a xray or mri that was planted or rather hacked into the machine or designed from scratch to produce false positives? How many suffered a hellish radiological bombardment and died based on prognostic fraud via diagnostic hack or built-in exploit. I would respectfully suggest you enlarge you periferal vision on these questions. There's a lot more there than meets the eye. These conmen in labcoats have refined the practice of creating and milking illness for over a century. Pharma has been sued for billions and paid out plenty for wrongful death and debilitating injuries. Edited January 3 by Avoiceinthecrowd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lobster Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 (edited) 48 minutes ago, Avoiceinthecrowd said: How can you prove that a person unknowing they have cancer because they don't frequent the medical services didn't heal it by reforming lifestyle and diet when they felt ill? Never knew they had cancer. You can't but you claim nobody cured it. Then you have software engineers that have been warning about lapses in security in medical diagnostics tools. Leaving the field wide open to prognostic fraud ie a shadow on a xray or mri that was planted or rather hacked into the machine or designed from scratch to produce false positives? How many suffered a hellish radiological bombardment and died based on prognostic fraud via diagnostic hack or built-in exploit. I would respectfully suggest you enlarge you periferal vision on these questions. There's a lot more there than meets the eye. These conmen in labcoats have refined the practice of creating and milking illness for over a century. Pharma has been sued for billions and paid out plenty for wrongful death and debilitating injuries. No I cant prove that's never happened but on the flip side you cant prove it ever has, and the burden if proof in such matters lies with the one who affirms, that's you. I cant prove you dont have fairies at the bottom of your garden, but I'm reasonably sure you dont, unless you produce a fairy in a bottle Nb you have internal mechanisms for fighting cancer, so cancer cells are routinely destroyed by you immune system, it's when the immune system fails you get" cancer" at a level that can be diagnosed , if what your saying is a healthy diet and a strong immune system can stop you getting cancer, il agree Edited January 3 by lobster Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete675 Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 3 hours ago, lobster said: specifically aimed at charlatans exploiting the Ill and desperate in order to make money Big P-Harm-a to a T! But legal sanctions only apply to small scale, unofficial and amateur con artistes. The main shysters are untouchable. Bit like all those warnings to OAPs about con men emptying their bank accounts. The real con men who do the major emptying of accounts are unnoticed by most as they hide under the disguise of respectability, with titles like 'the council' and 'utility companies'. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avoiceinthecrowd Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 (edited) 57 minutes ago, lobster said: No I cant prove that's never happened but on the flip side you cant prove it ever has, and the burden if proof in such matters lies with the one who affirms, that's you. I cant prove you dont have fairies at the bottom of your garden, but I'm reasonably sure you dont, unless you produce a fairy in a bottle Nb you have internal mechanisms for fighting cancer, so cancer cells are routinely destroyed by you immune system, it's when the immune system fails you get" cancer" at a level that can be diagnosed , if what your saying is a healthy diet and a strong immune system can stop you getting cancer, il agree What I can prove is that the formal western-style type of medicine and pharmaceuticals are populated by pathological liars, poisoners and cretins and only nearsighted fools would follow their health advice. I can prove that is possible to hack digital diagnostics equipment and I also have evidence that most cancers are parasites treatable with milder means. Combine this with a greedy murderous predisposition and you get mainstream medicine. So, you think cancer gets to the treatable stage because of a failing immune response and considering the long war pharma has been waging against our immune systems I have to agree. This considered, logic would dictate a treatment that boosts immune response not further destroy it with radiation. Besides, the bombardment is preventing the body from healing. Placing a deadly burden on what little defenses remain. When you elaborated the nasty side effects you neglected to include a miserable death as the usual outcome. Alternative cures have been shown to be effective in curing cancer and have no side effects but can't be patented and monetized. Treating cancer with radiation and injectable radioactive isotopes is sheer madness, those that survive, survive in spite of it not because of it. Consider also those cancer sufferers enduring those crazy radiotherapies and becoming so fed up they reformed their diets and lifestyles and saved their lives that way but chemo and the satanists take the credit. People at death's door will very often start listening to those they used to mock and save their lives in the process. But still, the stats list them as saved by pharma's madness. Edited January 4 by Avoiceinthecrowd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lobster Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 37 minutes ago, Avoiceinthecrowd said: What I can prove is that the formal western-style type of medicine and pharmaceuticals are populated by pathological liars, poisoners and cretins and only nearsighted fools would follow their health advice. I can prove that is possible to hack digital diagnostics equipment and I also have evidence that most cancers are parasites treatable with milder means. Combine this with a greedy murderous predisposition and you get mainstream medicine. So, you think cancer gets to the treatable stage because of a failing immune response and considering the long war pharma has been waging against our immune systems I have to agree. This considered, logic would dictate a treatment that boosts immune response not further destroy it with radiation. Besides, the bombardment is preventing the body from healing. Placing a deadly burden on what little defenses remain. When you elaborated the nasty side effects you neglected to include a miserable death as the usual outcome. Alternative cures have been shown to be effective in curing cancer and have no side effects but can't be patented and monetized. Treating cancer with radiation and injectable radioactive isotopes is sheer madness, those that survive, survive in spite of it not because of it. Consider also those cancer sufferers enduring those crazy radiotherapies and becoming so fed up they reformed their diets and lifestyles and saved their lives that way but chemo and the satanists take the credit. People at death's door will very often start listening to those they used to mock and save their lives in the process. But still, the stats list them as saved by pharma's madness. That's a bit wild if you dont mind me saying, I'm happy to have a spirited but friendly debate Cancer has been around since the beginning of time, it's not a post pharmacy 1950s disease, it went into over drive in the 1800s probably as a result of pollution and work practices and shit immune systems brought on by living conditions and near starvation If you want to blame the late 20th century cancers on something, personally I'd be looking at nuclear bomb testing, or the odd nuclear power plant failure Yes you have a point, the over prescription of antibiotics might be a causes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anti Facts Sir Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 MOD NOTE: Please take the cancer discussion to a separate thread. This is for all things related to COVID/CV-19. Thanks. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jack121 Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 On 1/2/2025 at 8:48 PM, Avoiceinthecrowd said: Speaking for myself, a man at an age where many of my sedentary peers have ceased walking unassisted, I find cutting down 30 year old trees deep in the dense forest, bucking them, splitting them and stacking and transporting, often down long stairways, keeps me in top physical shape. Lean and tough. I shun any mechanized transport to move the wood around, preferring the arduous aspect and physical conditioning. Just lifting and manipulating a 12 pound chainsaw or just swinging a 7 pound splitting axe is enough to keep trim in of itself. Historically, many owed their Spartan physical bodies to processing heating lumber and manually carrying water or swinging heavy swords. Modern life of luxury is producing shrivelled-up weak bodies, aging them far before their time. All this to say that perhaps the lady should have appreciated the health boost of handling weighty objects. Unless of course her diet can't support rigorous physical exertion. Sweating is part of the immune cleansing process as well. The strongest and fittest i have ever been is during the years i worked in furniture removals, hours everyday spent working, lifting. Better than going to the gym anyday, and you get paid for it as well, i would like to see any gym come up with a better offer than it 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.jpg.8081a54a3b74a5d1823dfac966666137.jpg)
.jpg.594f0ef23288ec5ab04539b2f8a8dbd4.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.