BigCancer Industry Throws Women Under The Bus

[Silhouette]

I used to work at a vaccine lab in the early 1980s. One that became rather famous actually in recent years. The vaccine protocol simply uses cancer protein signatures to teach your body to fight the disease. The "technology" for making vaccines is many decades old. They've known about it for a long time but I guess someone decided that if you can teach the public to think of cancer as a mysterious incurable, painful and deadly disease, they give you more money for "research".

So what we have going on now in clinical trials is a bunch of half-efforts in all different directions to look at anything but the simplest and most reliable way to cure a foreign invader in the human body. Though cancer does carry a flag of belonging, the DNA says otherwise. That means a vaccine properly done would notice it....

On that note, the prostate vaccine itself is another half-effort. They've made the protein sampling too narrow so that you only get a partial response. Partial responses that can have doubt cast upon "their effectiveness vs their cost" (meanwhile constantly-prescribed/similarly ineffective, dangerous radiation and chemo cost over $100,000 a year). The gold standard of the cancer vaccine is to use individuals' tumor biopsies to sample as much of a broad blanket of signatures so that your trained T-cells really go deep after the tumors. But this is all elementary stuff. Long known. Inexplicably not practiced while people suffer and die. So it's not a tin-foil "theory" that BigCancer is suppressing research, tooling it to appear as if it's being done, to keep the carrot cash-flow coming in. (see post #3 Mr. Trump, Why Is Your Administration Helping Kill Women? )

If one of those guys comes down with cancer, they'll skip their own "research" and "protocol" they dupe the general public into. Instead, they'll get their tumors biopsied and a vaccine made for themselves. They're not dumb. A big hooplah was tagged onto Keytruda because famously President Jimmy Carter took it to get over a bout with tumors. However, i guarantee you they got him a vaccine as well. After all, they've known about how to do this for some time. They're just not letting the general public get ahold of something that in lab research showed a 96%+ full remission of cancer in lab rats.

It's kind of like the auto industry monopoly in the US. If you can crush new innovations, intimidate or buy out patents that threaten the livelihood of you and your BigOil gas-hog buddies for decades, then you keep the cash coming and your corner on the market. Meanwhile you put out ads on TV saying how you're auto company is "innovating for the future!", while you crush or postpone for as long as possible, the release or production of any new innovation that really sips the fuel or, god forbid!, uses an alternative fuel that your industry can't cash in on no matter how it rigs the rules of commerce at the Congressional level.

That is exactly the business model that BigCancer is using. And it's time the public knew.

Glad to see this is still in "Current Events", because it is current and its an event that touches every single life of every poster on this board in one way or another. And it is completely sinister.

Who says the vaccine is a 'half effort?

I do. I say it because I've been intimately involved in researching the researchers for several years now. Know that your cancer donations are going to fraud. Insist on transparency. Ask why there's a vaccine for prostate cancer and not one for its corollary in women: uterine. Ask why they know how to sample tumors and make tailored vaccines for each patient, a thing they are doing in clinical trials right now to test with other drugs for synergistic efficiency, and why they refuse to make this process available to all like they did Keytruda in 2016. Ask them. Insist on knowing why your aunt, daughter, niece, mother all have to die because BigPharma is keeping the research funds tied up and away from fast-tracking the release of the cancer-tumor individualized vaccine.

Ask them. Ask BEFORE you donate any more money to cancer "research"... Cancer, Fraud, and Bad Biotech! It's someone's blog but the articles in it represent a LOT of work in sleuthing. Let me guess... he doesn't know what he's talking about either...as a cancer patient deep in the trenches for years in "the latest treatments!" (suppressed since the 1980s as recently as 2009). And more. Have a read friend. Then break out your pocket book to donate to cancer "research".

 

[Skylar]

Who says the vaccine is a 'half effort?

I do.

Yeah, but you're nobody. You routlinely exaggerate to the point of silliness and cite your imagination as fact. And you've demonstrated no particular aptitude nor insight into this particular issue. And 'working in a vaccine lab in the 80s' when there were no cancer vacccines makes your assessment essentially worthless.

Take you claims regarding the Skene's gland. You insisted that the Skene's gland was anaologous to the prostate and close to the uterus. And that many uterine cancers were caused by cancers that began the Skene's gland.

But that didn't hold up. The Skene's gland is at the opening of the urethra, almost on the outside of the body. Its no where near the uterus. But instead, the urethra, labia and bladder. All of which would have the extremely high rates of cancers before the uterus in your imagined scenario. But don't.

Worse for your claims, if the Skene's gland were the origin of uterine cancers, then there would be very high instances of cancer in the Skene's gland. But there isn't. Your 'source' of cancer doesn't have cancer.

So not only was your entire premise speculative nonsense, it didn't match up physiologically, oncologically, or even logically.

Making the rest of your speculative claims backed by nothing but you citing yourself even more questionable. Simply put, you citing yourself is an utterly insuffecient basis of 'evidence'. As you have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Skylar]

Says you, citing what you think you remember from working in vaccine offices when Reagan was president.

Remember, Sil.....you don't actually know what you're talking about.

I think you've invested quite a bit of energy stalking me around these boards asserting that I allegedly never know what I'm talking about. Just sheer math says at least one topic I discuss I have some insights on. This is one of them.

You'd think so. But your comments on the Skene's gland demonstrate elegantly that this is not that topic.

 

[Silhouette]

Says you, citing what you think you remember from working in vaccine offices when Reagan was president.

Remember, Sil.....you don't actually know what you're talking about.

I think you've invested quite a bit of energy stalking me around these boards asserting that I allegedly never know what I'm talking about. Just sheer math says at least one topic I discuss I have some insights on. This is one of them.

You'd think so. But your comments on the Skene's gland demonstrate elegantly that this is not that topic.

I’d love to chase that straw man, however the gist of citing general reproductive embryonic tissue shows the misogyny of BigCancer for making a general type prostate vaccine, but none for its cousins afflicting women.

More importantly, even that vaccine’s creation was carefully tooled to give poor results. They know about the wide variation of dna tumor signatures. Indeed the hallmark of most cancers is an erratic buffet of numerous mutations. So a preschool child could deduce that instead of sampling blood for traces of random cancer cells, sampling tumor biopsy is the gold standard. And they are doing that in clinical trials, perpetually locked away from the public (unlike Keytruda which the FDA fast tracked as a favor to Merk).

I read a German study where the no-brained whole tumor vaccine approach was used on mice. They had 96% complete remission of cancer. And of the remaining 4%, the mice were found to have immune issues. They gave those mice a couple more injections & even they got full remission, bringing the success rate for whole-tumor cancer vaccine in in vivo research to 100%.

Not bad. But I guess you would consider the relatively cheap, super low side-effect, super effective vaccine for cancer bad if you had invested billions in keeping the public in the dark & dependent on your lucrative tortures “as cures” for cancer.

 

[Skylar]

Says you, citing what you think you remember from working in vaccine offices when Reagan was president.

Remember, Sil.....you don't actually know what you're talking about.

I think you've invested quite a bit of energy stalking me around these boards asserting that I allegedly never know what I'm talking about. Just sheer math says at least one topic I discuss I have some insights on. This is one of them.

You'd think so. But your comments on the Skene's gland demonstrate elegantly that this is not that topic.

I’d love to chase that straw man, however the gist of citing general reproductive embryonic tissue shows the misogyny of BigCancer for making a general type prostate vaccine, but none for its cousins afflicting women.

And by 'strawman' you mean your profound misunderstanding of basic physiology and oncology? Where your imagined 'source' of cancer itself doesn't have cancer. But random organs elsewhere in the body do?

Again, Sil.....you're providing yourself as a source matter expert. And you're not. You have no idea what you're talking about. There's no evidence that the Skene's gland in particular is a 'source for cancer' more than any other part of the body. There's no evidence that the Skene's gland causes uterine cancers. Nor is the Skene's gland particularly close to the uterus.

Nothing about your narrative makes sense.

More importantly, even that vaccine’s creation was carefully tooled to give poor results.

Says you, citing your imagination.

Again, you 'working in a Vaccine Lab in the 1980s' is irrelevant to our conversation as none of the vaccine treatments for cancer existed in the 1980s. It would be like citing yourself as a source matter expert on the lithium batteries in electric cars because you changed your own oil once.

You simply lack the basis of knowledge to be credible.

So a preschool child could deduce that instead of sampling blood for traces of random cancer cells, sampling tumor biopsy is the gold standard.

'Preschool child' well describes your undestanding of the issue. Unless a cancer has metastasized, there's no more 'random cancer cells' floating around the blood than there are random heart, lung or brain cells floating around in the blood.

And in those instances where the tumor has metastasized, they already have what's called a 'circulated tumor cell' test to measure that. Its typically one of the last tests ordered as if you already have tumors spinning off tumor cells in your blood, the cancer has likely spread through out your entire body. These tests aren't often used in clinical settings.

Remember, and this point is fundamental: you have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Windparadox]

`

 

[Skylar]

`

Cancer hasn't been cured because its not one disease. But hundreds.

 

[Windparadox]

Cancer hasn't been cured because its not one disease. But hundreds.

`
Thank you Dr Semantics but that's not my point.

 

[Skylar]

Cancer hasn't been cured because its not one disease. But hundreds.

`
Thank you Dr Semantics but that's not my point.

Its not semantics. "Cancer' is a blanket term for hundreds of different diseases. The reason it hasn't been cured is because its extremely difficult to treat, being part of one's own body and cancers are very, very diverse. With each cancer type responsive to different treatments in different degrees.

Worse, the disease itself evolves. Meaning you can have a particular type of cancer in a patient's body change as the cancer cells continue to mutate. Worse still, cancer can move. You can remove a tumor in one part of the body only to find a tumor in another.

Its very difficult to treat. Which is why we haven't found a 'cure' for it. We have very effective treatments that can rid a person's body of various forms of cancer, with patients reaching full remission. But these treatments are far from 100% effective 100% of the time.

 

[Windparadox]

`
In colloquial speech, "cancer" is oftentimes referred to as a disease. A month ago, I went in for a biopsy which resulted in a recent procedure to remove suspected cancerous polyps. My oncologist called it a disease and for communication purposes, it's good enogh for me. Still, that's not what I'm getting at. I consider pharmas to be many times money grubbing entities who deal in human suffering for excessive profit. It's such a problem that hospital chains are starting their own pharmaceutical companies because of the exorbitantly high prices the mainstream pharmas charge.

 

[Skylar]

`
In colloquial speech, "cancer" is oftentimes referred to as a disease. A month ago, I went in for a biopsy which resulted in a recent procedure to remove suspected cancerous polyps. My oncologist called it a disease and for communication purposes, it's good enogh for me. Still, that's not what I'm getting at. I consider pharmas to be many times money grubbing entities who deal in human suffering for excessive profit. It's such a problem that hospital chains are starting their own pharmaceutical companies because of the exorbitantly high prices the mainstream pharmas charge.

I know what you're getting at. And there's very little evidence that 'Big Pharma' are holding back on some magic bullet regarding cancer treatments. But instead that cancer is very difficult to treat.

Take the treatment that Sil is referring to, where 'any preschool child' can look in the blood for cancer cells.

While you can look in the blood for cancer cells, that means that the cancer has already metastasized. That it has already moved throughout the entire body. A stage at which cancer becomes orders of magnitude more difficult to treat. The imagined 'magic bullets' aren't.

There's no evidence of a 'secret cure' that the 'Big Pharma' is holding out on. There's tremendous evidence that cancer is a very complex, evolving and difficult to treat gift basket of diseases.

 

[Skylar]

Uterine cancer is the most common form of cancer in the Western World.

No, it isn't.

The most common type of cancer is Breast Cancer. Followed by Lung Cancer. Followed by Prostate Cancer. Followed by Skin Cancer. Followed by Colo-rectal cancer. Followed by bladder cancer. Followed by Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma. Followed by Kidney Cancer.

Common Cancer Types

Uterine cancer barely makes the top 10. In terms of deaths, its even lower being one of the most treatable forms of cancer.

You simply don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Silhouette]

So not only was your entire premise speculative nonsense, it didn't match up physiologically, oncologically, or even logically.

So now you're a cancer expert? The concept behind using foreign DNA to the body and teaching antibodies to fight it is really old & proven science. You and most other readers here today probably wouldn't be alive without it's proven track record. So take the tissue from wherever you like, but the basic concept behind vaccines means that if it is foreign to the body, the body can be taught to develop immunity to it and it alone, leaving healthy cells intact. Side effects include tenderness at the injection site and a mild fever for a few days (as opposed to current approved "treatments" in infusion therapies which result often in total immune system collapse or immune system hyperactivity to the point of attacking any or all vital organs). Study with rats and solid tumors showed 96% complete remission of disease using the simple, cheap and effective proven route of teaching antibodies to fight foreign DNA.

And are you also saying that the Trump Administration's FDA is not acting negligently towards women for inheriting approval for a prostate vaccine (inefficient still since its derived from narrow general protein signatures when it could reach 96% using solid tumor samples) as this new FDA sits on its hands with regards to vaccines for gynecological cancers? You're saying Trump is doing well by women in this regard? Just trying to clarify your stance for the record. I want your fellows to know if you are a supporter of Trump's policy in this regard.

 

[Skylar]

So not only was your entire premise speculative nonsense, it didn't match up physiologically, oncologically, or even logically.

So now you're a cancer expert?

In comparison to who? Remember, you're offering us yourself as your sole source.

I'm measuring your source's claims against what can be objectively verified. And your source doesn't measure up. Your claims about the Skene's gland were utter rubbish and demonstrated a profound misunderstanding of basic phsiology and the way that cancer works. Making your source (yourself) questionable as a reliable provider of information.

And you citing yourself is all you've offered us. Your source is insuffecient to carry your claims.

The concept behind using foreign DNA to the body and teaching antibodies to fight it is really old & proven science. You and most other readers here today probably wouldn't be alive without it's proven track record. So take the tissue from wherever you like, but the basic concept behind vaccines means that if it is foreign to the body, the body can be taught to develop immunity to it and it alone, leaving healthy cells intact. Side effects include tenderness at the injection site and a mild fever for a few days (as opposed to current approved "treatments" in infusion therapies which result often in total immune system collapse or immune system hyperactivity to the point of attacking any or all vital organs). Study with rats and solid tumors showed 96% complete remission of disease using the simple, cheap and effective proven route of teaching antibodies to fight foreign DNA.

First, you'll need to show us the studies. As you're famous on this board for making things up or being wildly inaccurate. And concluding that what you imagine must be fact. You're making objective claims with only subjective statements to back them.

Show us the studies you claim to be citing.

Second, you'll need to demonstrate that duplicating the results in different cancers and in humans is 'simple', or that the results would be safe and effective.

You've done no such thing.

And are you also saying that the Trump Administration's FDA is not acting negligently towards women for inheriting approval for a prostate vaccine (inefficient still since its derived from narrow general protein signatures when it could reach 96% using solid tumor samples) as this new FDA sits on its hands with regards to vaccines for gynecological cancers? You're saying Trump is doing well by women in this regard? Just trying to clarify your stance for the record. I want your fellows to know if you are a supporter of Trump's policy in this regard.

I'm saying that you've shown us nothing to back your claims about the FDA acting neglegently.

Provide the evidence to make your case. You citing yourself is not evidence.

 

[Skylar]

Oh, I almost forgot your wildly inaccurate claim about uterine cancer being the most common cancer in the world.

Its barely in the top 10. You're simply not a reliable source of information, Sil as you keep offering us your imagination as evidence.

You'll need external sources. As you citing you is insuffecient to carry your argument.

 

[Silhouette]

Oh, I almost forgot your wildly inaccurate claim about uterine cancer being the most common cancer in the world.

Its barely in the top 10. You're simply not a reliable source of information, Sil as you keep offering us your imagination as evidence.

You'll need external sources. As you citing you is insuffecient to carry your argument.

So you think Trump’s FDA is doing right by women cancer patients denying them a vaccine while vaccine technology works the same mechanical way for their gyn cancers?

Never thought I’d see you pro Trump on the question of women.

 

[Skylar]

Oh, I almost forgot your wildly inaccurate claim about uterine cancer being the most common cancer in the world.

Its barely in the top 10. You're simply not a reliable source of information, Sil as you keep offering us your imagination as evidence.

You'll need external sources. As you citing you is insuffecient to carry your argument.

So you think Trump’s FDA is doing right by women cancer patients denying them a vaccine while vaccine technology works the same mechanical way for their gyn cancers?

I think you haven't factually established your claims. And that you've demonstrated numerous significant misunderstandings of basic issues related to physiology (you blundered regarding the Skene's gland) and oncology (you laughably claimed that uterine cancer was the number one cancer in the world).

As for the 'studies' you claim to be citing, show us. Don't tell us. As you've demonstrated in this thread repeatedly, you're simply an unreliable narrator.

 

[initforme]

Corporate America can never be trusted to do the right thing....but cancer is above them.

 

[sparky]

Corporate America can never be trusted to do the right thing....but cancer is above them.

 

[Skylar]

Corporate America can never be trusted to do the right thing....but cancer is above them.

What if I told you that you're citing an imaginary character regarding a 'cure' that there is no evidence even exists?

What's next, citing Optimus Prime about the Rothchilds or Captian America regarding the Federal Reserve?