Breakthrough: Israel Develops Cancer Vaccine

[SUP3RNOVA]

Why does Wickefire (an AFFILIATE MARKETING (aka bullshit people) forum) have so many conspiracy theorists? I don't really get it. If anything, AM has finely tuned my bullshit monitor.

If somebody cures cancer, it will not be suppressed by "big pharma companies that control the world". If somebody finds an actual cure for cancer, why the fuck wouldn't a billionaire philanthropist (Bill Gates) invest millions into it? Is Bill Gates controlled by any pharma company that he could buy if he wanted?

Jesus people. Cancer hasn't been cured. When it has, everyone will know.

 

[lukep]

Why does Wickefire (an AFFILIATE MARKETING (aka bullshit people) forum) have so many conspiracy theorists? I don't really get it. If anything, AM has finely tuned my bullshit monitor.

I've oft pondered this quandry myself.

Here's how I see it: When you're not yet smart/informed/worldly enough to see the conspiracies for what they are yet, they are too numerous and difficult to get your head around yet so it's easiest just to write them all off together as "that conspiracy theory crap."

It's like group denial. Society shows us (and the media confirms, of course) that group denial is "healthy" herd mentality.

The fact that most people are so logically-challenged that they believe in gods illustrates that the masses just aren't up for the logic processing it takes to see the truth. You gotta get smarter than that and learn to shun the herd.

Only when you take the time to dig deeper per issue and use Occham's Razor or better yet the scientific method on such issues will you start to believe in these 'conspiracy theories.'

If somebody cures cancer, it will not be suppressed by "big pharma companies that control the world".

Who did you say you worked for again? P&G? Merck? GTFO.

They obviously can't control the whole world of course, but you're a fool and a sheep if you don't think they control enough of the worlds' government through bribes to make the climate better to sell their drugs in.

If somebody finds an actual cure for cancer, why the fuck wouldn't a billionaire philanthropist (Bill Gates) invest millions into it? Is Bill Gates controlled by any pharma company that he could buy if he wanted?

There are so many good reasons for this I don't know where to start... How about one of these, off the top of my head:

*Gates' interests lie elsewhere
*The real cure never crosses Gates' path
*Too many fakes in the past have burnt gates' opinion of the whole feild
*Gates is a patient himself of a genuine cure and is told he can't reveal it.

...I really could go on, both for reasons that include and have nothing to do with conspiracies.

Jesus people. Cancer hasn't been cured. When it has, everyone will know.

Like everyone knew about GM's electric car back in the 1980s?
Like everyone knew that Only Lee Harvey Oswald shot JFK?
Like everyone knows everything the media tells them that happens to turn out wrong later on?

Just the proposed cancer cures that have been mentioned in STS here alone should be enough evidence to anyone with a good noggin on their shoulders to cast serious light on big pharma's control of the landscape. Don't even get me started on Documentaries. There must be over a thousand good, solid cure-for-cancer docs out there that can't possibly all be wrong.

Just use Occham's razor on the situation:

Is it more likely that hundreds or even thousands of cures that have made it through testing with positive results were all totally bogus and couldn't even be improved on to eventually make work after many decades now?

Or is it more likely that the organization that has their people in Washington have found a way to affect the laws just enough to ensure that the FDA won't approve any of those "cures" so their FAR-more-profitable treatments can be sold to this huge, profitable market instead?

Keep in mind that it's a well-known fact that most US FDA heads were former Big Pharma execs, and big pharma is perennially a top-10 campaign supporter for legislators, especially on the health committees!

C'Mon now, which is more likely?

 

[SUP3RNOVA]

Just the proposed cancer cures that have been mentioned in STS here alone should be enough evidence to anyone with a good noggin on their shoulders to cast serious light on big pharma's control of the landscape. Don't even get me started on Documentaries.

The proposed cures posted here have been among the most mainstream ones, and on many of them there has been ample evidence to explain why they are NOT the end-all cure for cancer.

There must be over a thousand good, solid cure-for-cancer docs out there that can't possibly all be wrong.

Now this statement is particularly absurd. First off, there are not 1,000 cures for cancer. I'm sure 1,000 people have thought they had the cure, but it's not realistic that every single one get millions in funding. Secondly, "There are over a billion good, solid Christians out there that can't possibly all be wrong." Evaluate your logic.

Just use Occham's razor on the situation:

Is it more likely that hundreds or even thousands of cures that have made it through testing with positive results were all totally bogus and couldn't even be improved on to eventually make work after many decades now?

Or is it more likely that the organization that has their people in Washington have found a way to affect the laws just enough to ensure that the FDA won't approve any of those "cures" so their FAR-more-profitable treatments can be sold to this huge, profitable market instead?

I'm not sure you understand what Occam's Razor is.

We have two statements with our respective positions:

1) There has been no cure for cancer because cancer hasn't been cured yet.
2) There has been no cure for cancer because of government conspiracies that suppress and prohibit cancer research and funding.

Which statement makes the fewest assumptions?

Asking "which is more likely?" is not using Occam's Razor, because you're just asking an opinionated question.

You either have proof, or you don't. This is why conspiracies are almost always theories, much like 9/11, religion, UFOs, etc.

 

[justo_tx]

Just use Occham's razor on the situation:

Is it more likely that hundreds or even thousands of cures that have made it through testing with positive results were all totally bogus and couldn't even be improved on to eventually make work after many decades now?

Or is it more likely that the organization that has their people in Washington have found a way to affect the laws just enough to ensure that the FDA won't approve any of those "cures" so their FAR-more-profitable treatments can be sold to this huge, profitable market instead?

Keep in mind that it's a well-known fact that most US FDA heads were former Big Pharma execs, and big pharma is perennially a top-10 campaign supporter for legislators, especially on the health committees!

C'Mon now, which is more likely?

How would you explain Tuberculosis vaccinations? Children getting vaccinated for TB is far cheaper (one time shot costs < $20) than treating a patient that has developed TB (6-24 months of antibiotics). If big pharma operates as you believe, scuttling cures and cheap alternatives for expensive high margin prolonged treatments, that vaccine never would have made it past the FDA. Edit: big pharma still sells antibiotics for TB control in 3rd world countries but the vaccine precludes a FAR more lucrative market in 1st world countries.

 

[holyrobot]

The reasons lot of AM people are conspiracy theorists is cause they have a background in marketing and have seen the bullshit firsthand. I didn't start out cynical but after working at different ad agencies and for a political campaigning firm, I've seen enough lies get swept under the rug and money exchange hands to not have larger conspiracies involving the same exact circumstances seem unreasonable.

 

[lukep]

The proposed cures posted here have been among the most mainstream ones, and on many of them there has been ample evidence to explain why they are NOT the end-all cure for cancer.

But on some of them there is no evidence or even a hint of why it wouldn't work... Nor in the media, nor anywhere on the planet. The sources where just shut up.

First off, there are not 1,000 cures for cancer. I'm sure 1,000 people have thought they had the cure, but it's not realistic that every single one get millions in funding.

99% of them do not get funding! That's the problem. Interestingly, those that DO get the funding all turn out exactly the same way... The kind of long, drawn-out type of barely-successful-if-at-all treatments that deals a stunning blow to the hopes of cancer victims worldwide. Seems almost... Conspiratorial... that they'd all wind up such great weapons against the cure, doesn't it?

Secondly, "There are over a billion good, solid Christians out there that can't possibly all be wrong." Evaluate your logic.

LULZ. Funny but unrelated. All it takes is ONE cure to slip through the cracks for my example to be right. Clearly ALL Christians would be correct if Christ was really the son of god.

I'm not sure you understand what Occam's Razor is.

Watch yourself now... You're crossing over into MY religion on this statement.

We have two statements with our respective positions:

1) There has been no cure for cancer because cancer hasn't been cured yet.
2) There has been no cure for cancer because of government conspiracies that suppress and prohibit cancer research and funding.

Which statement makes the fewest assumptions?

If that was all the information we had on those two situations, you'd be right. But you're not, because we have far more information now.

Such as:

A. The head of the FDA is constantly an ex-big-pharma-exec. (Opportunity)
B. Doing simple math demonstrates exactly how much more profitable treatments are than cures. (A Very solid Motive)
C. Vast amounts of very promising research quietly made silent. (Many Examples)

True, this evidence is not enough to proove anything, (just like big pharma wants it) but that's why we have Occham's Razor... Now take all of this and plug it into your logic and ask which is more likely.

You either have proof, or you don't. This is why conspiracies are almost always theories, much like 9/11, religion, UFOs, etc.

Don't forget the theories of Evolution and Gravity! Can't proove those either. :thumbsup:

Do you have proof that:

A. GM created a roadworthy electric car in the 1980's?
B. That more bullets entered JFK than Lee Harvey Oswald could have fired?
C. That Building 12 wasn't hit with enough debris on 9/11 to sustain such injuries at to make it crash to the ground all of the sudden?

I seriously doubt you have anything but EVIDENCE of these happenings... Yet you believe they happened, don't you?

Why? Occhams' Razor, dude.

You plug in the evidence you have and the most likely outcome is clearly the result of Occhams razor. In each of these three examples you'd have to be a dumbass not to see that the more Conspiratorial-sounding explanation is the most likely one to happen. Same with a cure for cancer.

How would you explain Tuberculosis vaccinations?

Very simple... The TB vaccines came along at a time (1905?) when the market wasn't already under such control by big pharma.

The avenues to divert this disease into a profit were simply not set up yet. Clearly that all changed sometime after WWII, I'd guess in the early 1950s but I don't know when exactly.

 

[BluuueJammm]

So much bullshit in this thread it's mind boggling.

 

[-joe-]

I'm still waiting for someone to come up with a respectable source reporting this, rather than some site that's clearly biased towards Israel.

 

[cardine]

I'm all for conspiracy theories and shit, but all of this 'there will be no cancer because of big corporations' is stupid. Most of the people who have 'discovered' cures are nothing more than charlatans out to make a quick buck. They have some bullshit cure that (very obviously) doesn't get past FDA approval and then pander to conspiracy theorists about how they are getting silenced to get people to pay for fake medicine.

Some of you guys need to put your tinfoil hats away. If there was a legit cure for cancer, big pharma would be fighting to be the first person to bring it to market, not fighting to prevent it from getting to market.

 

[justo_tx]

Very simple... The TB vaccines came along at a time (1905?) when the market wasn't already under such control by big pharma.

The avenues to divert this disease into a profit were simply not set up yet. Clearly that all changed sometime after WWII, I'd guess in the early 1950s but I don't know when exactly.

What about polio? That vaccine evolved during the 50's and early 60's and with no cure after infection resulting in life long management and mitigation which would be extremely lucrative, so there would be a strong profit motive to squash the vaccine.

Pharmaceutical companies don't need to conspire amongst each other or dispatch corporate hit squads when a university researcher makes a break through. Nature provides a never ending supply of new market opportunities. TB eradication leads to funding for polio vaccines and when that market dries up money is diverted malaria, typhoid, measles, etc... Then people start living longer so money is spent on high blood pressure medication, cancer research, drugs to enable the body to adapt to organ donation, diabetes, etc. As people start routinely living into their late seventies and eighties already large markets get larger to address Alzheimer's, dimensia, Parkinson's, and so on.

And patents make conspiratorial collusion even more illogical. Sure, maybe it sounds logical for Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline to stymie an independent researcher but really the smart money is in funding the research so they can lock down the patents and royalties. The reason some eastern European with an electro magnet and a butt wand is treated like a crack pot for saying he cured cancer is because he is a crackpot with an electro magnet and a butt wand. If he wasn't he wouldn't be worried about somebody cutting his break lines on his car, he'd be worried about whether Pfizer or GSK offers the better royalty split in exchange for trial money and a distribution channel. With an endless market of maladies and disease and competitors working to solve the same problems Pfizer is working on right now the gamble to squash legit research isn't as profitable as exploiting it and and pushing innovation (adapt or die in multiple senses of the phrase as it were).

 

[SUP3RNOVA]

True, this evidence is not enough to proove anything,

Very true.

(just like big pharma wants it) but that's why we have Occham's Razor... Now take all of this and plug it into your logic and ask which is more likely.

Okay first off it's Occam's razor. At least learn how to spell your religion.

Don't forget the theories of Evolution and Gravity! Can't proove those either. :thumbsup:

Do you understand that there are two ways of defining a theory? Gravity is a fact and also a theory, as is evolution. Aliens are not a fact.

I've seen someone else write this before, but your posts are incredibly nonsensical and long-winded. It's literally not worth responding to you because you'll respond back with an essay full of more complete nonsense. So this will be my last attempt at trying to show you that your sense of logic is...fucked up to put it plainly.

You are not properly using Occam's Razor. The "Treatment is more profitable than a cure" argument is fucking retarded, as mentioned why didn't we do this with polio and other diseases? This absolutely does not factor into the razor here, and neither does the fact that ex-pharma execs run the FDA (which makes sense to me...they have an intimate understanding of drug policies). Your third point about research made silent is easily debunked by your own facts, that there have been thousands of documentaries documenting this promising research. Ya, sounds like suppression to me.

I think you need to spend less time at your computer, it appears to be making you insane.

 

[SUP3RNOVA]

What you could do, is provide some proofs of the government/big pharma doing this in the past to major diseases (intentionally suppressing the prevention of them to profit). The proof can't be another conspiracy though, that's the only rule.

That would be more compelling evidence than simply stating "they have possible motive". Ya and so does GWB for causing 9/11...

 

[lukep]

You really are Goober Gay, you know that?

GWB has a possible motive for causing 9/11...

Big Pharma makes BILLIONS of dollars selling cancer treatments every year.

A cure to cancer would put an end to that... Immediately. A total death sentence for their companies, period.

Sure, they'd be able to sell the cure but not for much... They'd be villified like nothing else on earth if the cure costs $100,000 for a pill with some flowers ground up in it or some shit. Meanwhile the $100k per cancer patient wouldn't even allow them to break even.

You're a moron of the most sheep-like kind if you can't see this. No, I can't prove it but it's plain as day, just like Gravity and Evolution.

RE: Ockhams' Razor; You caught me on that one, but I was trying to spell William Ockham's name properly, giving the man full credit... Unlike your version. I remembered the H but somehow forgot the K... Oops.

 

[ly2 from WF]

TEH JUICE!!!
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡

 

[jeanpaul1979]

@SUP3RNOVA Have you watched the Burzynski doc? That doc is not just theories, it talkes about events that have actually taken place. After watching that doc it's very likely that you draw the conclusion (based on actual evens - not theories), tham pharma was indeed trying to supress this medicine. Just watch it, you'll know what I mean. Pharma wouldn't go trough all this trouble, and trust me, they went trough a lot! Just to shut a bogus cure down... I mean he wasn't even doing anything illegal... But they sued him like 6 times and lost every time - they kept coming back trying to fuck him up from another angle.

 

[SeoReborn]

Regarding polio vaccine as mentioned above.

The polio death rate was decreasing on its own before the vaccine was introduced, and there is no credible scientific evidence that the vaccine caused polio to disappear. Cases of polio increased after mass inoculations.


The United States Centre for Disease Control (CDC) admitted that the vaccine has become the dominant cause of polio in the US today, with 87% of cases between 1973 and 1983 caused by the vaccine. More recently, 1980-1989, every case of polio in the US was caused by the vaccine. Doctors and scientists on the staff of the National Institute of Health during the 1950's were well aware that the Salk vaccine was ineffective and deadly. Some frankly stated that it was "worthless as a preventative and dangerous to take". The Salk "inactivated" or "killed-virus" was actually regulated to permit 5,000 live viruses per million doses.


A large vaccine trial in 1955 showed a total failure of the Salk vaccine to protect against poliomyelitis. During a 1959 epidemic in Massachusetts, 77.5% of the paralytic cases had received three or more doses of the inactivated vaccine.
In 1956 with the infamous Francis Field Trials they discovered large numbers of children contracted polio after receiving the vaccine. Instead of removing the vaccine from the market, they decided to exclude from the statistics all cases of polio that occurred within 30 days after vaccination on the pretext that such cases were "pre-existing".
In 1958 mass vaccination triggered a disastrous increase in polio, the highest being 700% in Ottawa, Canada. The highest incidence in the USA occurred in those states which had been induced to adopt compulsory polio shots(1).
Four of the five Salk vaccine companies ceased producing this vaccine due to its failure, and because of the lawsuits against them.
"Use of either Salk or Sabin vaccine will increase the possibility that your child will contact the disease. It appears that the most effective way to protect your child from polio is to make sure that he doesn't get the vaccine "---Dr Mendelsohn M.D.(1984).


Where polio vaccination programs have been instituted worldwide, reported polio infections show a 700% increase as a result of compulsory vaccination.

POLIO

 

[Moxie]

there is no credible scientific evidence that the vaccine caused polio to disappear.

bullshite

The United States Centre for Disease Control (CDC) admitted that the vaccine has become the dominant cause of polio in the US today,

1 in 750,000 or so who get the vaccine do end up getting polio from it. If nobody in the US got the vaccine though, way more than 1 in 750,000 would come down with polio.

The overall benefits to society far exceed the risks, but the anti-vaccine people only focus on the risks.

Polio vaccine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

5 Cases of Polio in Amish Group Raise New Fears - New York Times

 

[SeoReborn]

bullshite

How so

1 in 750,000 or so who get the vaccine do end up getting polio from it. If nobody in the US got the vaccine though, way more than 1 in 750,000 would come down with polio.

Where did that came from. At leasts its admitting that the vaccine causes polio. Where is it deduced that way more than 1 in 750k would come down with polio without the vaccine as opposed to with the vaccine (in short more get polio without vaccine than with vaccine).

When national immunization campaigns were initiated in the 1950s, the number of reported cases of polio following mass in- oculations with the killed-virus vaccine was significantly greater than before mass inoculations, and may have more than doubled in the U.S. as a whole. For example, Vermont reported 15 cases of polio during the one-year report period ending August 30, 1954 (before mass inoculations), compared to 55 cases of polio during the one-year period ending August 30, 1955 (after mass inocula- tions)Ca 266% increase. Rhode Island reported 22 cases during the before inoculations period as compared to 122 cases during the after inoculations periodCa 454% increase. In New Hampshire the figures increased from 38 to 129; in Connecticut they rose from 144 to 276; and in Massachusetts they swelled from 273 to 2027 - whopping 642% increase (Figure 2) [26:140;29:146;42].

Doctors and scientists on the staff of the National Institutes of Health during the 1950s were well aware that the Salk vaccine was causing polio. Some frankly stated that it was “worthless as a pre- ventive and dangerous to take [26:142].” They refused to vacci- nate their own children [26:142]. Health departments banned the inoculations [26:140]. The Idaho State Health Director angrily declared: “I hold the Salk vaccine and its manufacturers responsi- ble” for a polio outbreak that killed several Idahoans and hospital- ized dozens more [26:140]. Even Salk himself was quoted as say- ing: “When you inoculate children with a polio vaccine you don’t sleep well for two or three weeks [26:144;43].” But the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis, and drug companies with large investments in the vaccine coerced the U.S. Public Health Service into falsely proclaiming the vaccine was safe and effective [26:142-5].
In 1976, Dr. Jonas Salk, creator of the killed-virus vaccine used in the 1950s, testified that the live-virus vaccine (used almost ex-clusively in the U.S. from the early 1960s to 2000) was the “prin- cipal if not sole cause” of all reported polio cases in the U.S. since 1961 [44]. (The virus remains in the throat for one to two weeks and in the feces for up to two months. Thus, vaccine recipients are at risk, and can potentially spread the disease, as long as fecal ex- cretion of the virus continues [45].) In 1992, the Federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) published an admission that the live-virus vaccine had become the dominant cause of polio in the United States [36]. In fact, according to CDC figures, every case of polio in the U.S. since 1979 was caused by the oral polio vaccine [36]. Authorities claim the vaccine was responsible for about eight cases of polio every year [46]. However, an independ- ent study that analyzed the government’s own vaccine database during a recent period of less than five years uncovered 13,641 reports of adverse events following use of the oral polio vaccine. These reports included 6,364 emergency room visits and 540 deaths (Figure 3) [47,48]

http://www.thinktwice.com/Polio.pdf

The overall benefits to society far exceed the risks, but the anti-vaccine people only focus on the risks.

Polio vaccine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

5 Cases of Polio in Amish Group Raise New Fears - New York Times

It can be said that pro-vaccine people downplay the risks and hype up the benefits of the vaccines (mainly non intentional due to believing in conflict of interest opinion such as FDA, pharma distributed information etc)

 

[SeoReborn]

The standards for defining polio were changed when the polio vaccine was introduced. The new definition of a polio epidemic required more cases to be reported. Paralytic polio was redefined as well, making it more difficult to confirm, and therefore tally, cases. Prior to the introduction of the vaccine the patient only had to exhibit paralytic symptoms for 24 hours. Laboratory confirmation and tests to determine residual paralysis were not required. The new definition required the patient to exhibit paralytic symptoms for at least 60 days, and residual paralysis had to be confirmed twice during the course of the disease. Also, after the vaccine was introduced cases of aseptic meningitis (an infectious disease often difficult to distinguish from polio) and coxsackie virus infections were more often reported as separate diseases from polio. But such cases were counted as polio before the vaccine was introduced. The vaccine’s reported effectiveness was therefore skewed (Table 1 and Figure 5) [52,53].

TABLE 1
Polio or aseptic meningitis?

July 1955
(Before the new polio definition was introduced.)
Reported Cases of Polio 273
Reported Cases of Aseptic Meningitis 50

July 1961
(After the new polio definition was introduced.)
Reported Cases of Polio 65
Reported Cases of Aseptic Meningitis 161

September 1966
(After the new polio definition was introduced)
Reported Cases of Polio 5
Reported Cases of Aseptic Meningitis 256

Cases of polio were more often reported as aseptic meningitis after the vaccine was introduced, skewing efficacy rates. Source: The Los Angeles County Health Index: Morbidity and Mortality, Reportable Diseases.

 

[Moxie]

How so

The scientific evidence is there, but I guess the debate would be if it is "credible" or not.

Where did that came from. At leasts its admitting that the vaccine causes polio. Where is it deduced that way more than 1 in 750k would come down with polio without the vaccine as opposed to with the vaccine (in short more get polio without vaccine than with vaccine).

That was in the wikipedia entry, but also according to cdc.gov vaccine related polio in the US was 154 out of 162 cases from 1980-1999. There was 35,000 cases a year before the vaccine. Viruses spread exponentially and everyone not immune can potentially get them.

Polio or aseptic meningitis?

July 1955
July 1961
September 1966

Source: The Los Angeles County Health

This is cherry picking. Instead of looking at a wide body of data, they are focusing in on specific months, and also possibly just at LA County or maybe California.

Only 1-5% of polio cases cause aseptic meningitis. Polio isn't the only thing that can cause aseptic meningitis, 15 or more other things can cause it, such as syphilis for example. Maybe there was a large outbreak of syphilis around those time periods?


Lowell Hubbs : Vaccine Conspiracy Theorist: ThinkTwice and Polio: An Idiot's Guide to Critical Thinking

According to that, the site you were quoting from (or one of the people they quote from) believes polio symptoms were caused by eating too much sugar. Well, people eat more sugar now than ever. Are Amish cases of polio because of too much sugar, or maybe not being vaccinated has something to do with it?