For a much more reality-based article on the cancer industry, or as I call it “Big Cancer,” read John Horgan’s article in the Scientific American, The Cancer Industry: Hype vs. Reality. And send the article to your doctor(s). Every doctor needs to read this, in my opinion.
I don’t want to be writing obituaries on this blog. But from time to time I write about the issues of the day or something in the news, and I’m sure that readers know that I am very anti-war, and with good reason, Well, one of my favorite antiwar writers, Justin Raimondo, has died, at age 67.
Justin Raimondo was an antiwar activist and also active in the libertarian movement and in the Libertarian Party. According to this very interesting obituary at Antiwar.com, which he co-founded, Raimondo was an early fan of Ayn Rand, the objectivist philosopher. He was also a gay activist, and a Pat Buchanan supporter.
In 2017, Raimondo had been diagnosed with “late-stage adenocarcinoma cancer,” a form of lung cancer. According to the Antiwar.com obituary, he was given 6 months to live, but had extended that by another year or more supposedly by taking the experimental drug Keytruda, which is made by Merck, combined with what he calls a “light” chemotherapy drug Alimta, which is made by Eli Lily. He made a lot of progress in the first 6 months of the therapy.
But he did express frustration with the side effects of the drugs. More recently, on May 9th he wrote on his Twitter, “I’m at St. Mary’s Hospital for my first immunological anticancer treatment in months.” But then I started to get worried when on May 13th he wrote, “Where is He?” (especially with that capital H).
But anyway, he did write in 2003 that he had had a heart attack around that time and mentioned “all those pills I have to remember to take every morning,” and that “yes, I had to give up smoking (nicotine products, that is) and, boy, do those herbal cigarettes taste bad!”
And I know I’m influenced by my own experiences with my doctors and situations involving my father’s health, regarding prescription drugs, but it wouldn’t surprise me if “all those pills” of Justin’s were some sort of terrible prescription drugs, like intended to treat people after a heart attack, and that their side effects could have contributed to his lung cancer. However, from what we know about smoking, it was probably the smoking which was the primary cause of the lung cancer.
I guess the moral of the story is, Don’t smoke. That is what Danny Thomas and John Wayne and Yul Brynner tried to warn us about, anyway.
I don’t want to overdo it on the vaccine issue, because that is definitely not a big issue with me. However, when governments try to impose mandatory this or that, then it’s an issue. I believe in freedom of choice, and so vaccines yes or no shouldn’t be an issue in a free society. But with some hysterical ignorant people it is an issue.
Anyway, there have been some more important articles just recently that I wanted to link to.
In my recent post on not trusting government doctors to control our health care, I linked to Sharyl Attkisson’s article, Measles: Facts and Misconceptions in a Near-Hysterical Media Environment, and I wanted to mention the article more specifically. She gives a point-by-point fact-check to several assertions made by the measles vaccine propagandists out there.
In addition to all the propaganda out there with misinformation about the measles and promoting possibly harmful vaccines at all cost, there is an article by Arjun Walia that discusses the censorship campaign under way to intentionally prevent people from learning the truth about these issues. I hope Arjun’s article can make it past the censors.
One of the actual reasons why some vaccines are harmful is because they contain certain adjuvants that are there supposedly to help the vaccine to have a stronger immune response. One of those adjuvants is aluminum. Sayer Ji of GreenMedInfo published a recent article on the cancer-causing effects of aluminum.
Unfortunately we don’t see these kinds of articles published by “mainstream media,” because I guess ignorance and hysteria sell more newspapers and magazines.
And that’s what I wanted to do here, just link to those important articles, because there isn’t anything more I need to add to their discussion.
I came across this article by Carl Watner of the “Voluntaryist,” on medical “quackery,” or alleged “quackery,” and it reminded me of my own medical ordeal during the 2000s with the bad doctors, their bad advice and prescription drugs and bad side effects and the basic dishonesty and outright corruption of at least one of the doctors (I wrote about that here). Even in the 21st Century, with my being totally reliant on my nutritional medicine for my condition and with no prescription drugs, I am the one who would be referred to as the “quack,” not the bad and corrupt and dishonest doctors. That seems to be the way things are now, sadly.
The Watner article talks about how alternatives to treating diseases such as cancer get suppressed by the government and by establishment medical elites such as the AMA. He looks at the “collusion between governments (at various levels) in the United States and the medical associations that began forming around the mid-1800s, and eventually became de facto monopolies,” the “great diversity of heterodox medical traditions that once existed, some of which are still with us…their punishments at the hands of Official Medicine” and the “ethical and legal parameters, which might serve to guide health seekers and practitioners in a voluntaryist world.”
FYI, this other page on the “Voluntaryist” website states:
Voluntaryism is the doctrine that relations among people should be by mutual consent, or not at all. It represents a means, an end, and an insight. Voluntaryism does not argue for the specific form that voluntary arrangements will take; only that force be abandoned so that individuals in society may flourish. As it is the means which determine the end, the goal of an all voluntary society must be sought voluntarily.
People cannot be coerced into freedom. Hence, the use of the free market, education, persuasion, and non-violent resistance as the primary ways to change people’s ideas about the State. The voluntaryist insight, that all tyranny and government are grounded upon popular acceptance, explains why voluntary means are sufficient to attain that end.
Hmmm. I like that and agree with those principles. Everything should be voluntary, and not coerced or forced.
While Watner doesn’t mention vaccines in the article linked at the top here, I see how such a philosophy can apply to the vaccine issue that’s been in the news recently. People should have the freedom of informed consent and the freedom to refuse vaccines or any kind of physically intrusive “treatment” or medication. No one should have anything forced on them, especially when there are many documented cases of vaccine injuries and vaccine-related deaths (and even if there aren’t any documented cases, quite frankly).
Another article on GreenMedInfo details how a 3-year-old is being forced to continue chemo even though the child is now cancer free. Johns Hopkins All Children’s Hospital is the organization whose bureaucrats believe in coercion and oppose informed consent, and obviously believe that the State owns the children. (Is that hospital yet another one to force a child to have further treatments, unnecessarily, even though that is going to further compromise the child’s health and immune system, because making money and making more money for the pharmaceutical companies is the real priority?)
In more recent years I have become aware of “Big Cancer” and how the whole cancer industry can go overboard in its zeal to over-screen people, exposing healthy people to needless radiation and/or with harmful drugs unnecessarily and because of false positives or otherwise being unwilling to try less harmful treatments. (In other words, the Big Cancer industry makes the drug companies and hospitals a lot of moolah.)
Sayer Ji of GreenMedInfo has a new article discussing these important issues, the “hidden dangers” of mammograms that people need to know. He discusses the psychosocial consequences of false positives in screening and false diagnoses, and the risks of low-energy X-rays.
My aunt Louise (not her real name) died in 2008 of breast cancer. She had that previously maybe in the early 2000s and she had the usual conventional establishment-medicine treatments, and got rid of it. Then the cancer returned in 2008 and she died, in her late 60s. I don’t know for sure, but I wouldn’t be surprised if she had had regular mammograms leading up to getting the cancer in the early 2000s, because she didn’t drink or smoke or do drugs, and I believe she was even a healthy eater.
UPDATE: Now, this is not to say that one ought not get a screening for breast cancer, especially if one notices an abnormality. I just wanted to clarify this. Perhaps there are alternative kinds of tests to have (such as thermography or ultrasound, for instance)? But, if one has had a screening such as a mammogram screening and has been given the all clear, then it probably isn’t necessary to have a subsequent test after that, especially if you take care of yourself. The problem is the cumulative radiological effects of yearly mammograms or even every 10 years.
I’m not a medical expert, but I liked this thought-provoking article by Paul Fassa at Health Impact News on “German New Medicine” challenging the germ theory of disease that has been used to justify medical tyranny. The article links to a previous article on the alleged measles virus, and it addresses the theory of HIV being the cause of AIDS. Very controversial stuff. And it is really for those who are open-minded and don’t have too much of an emotional reaction to articles that question the establishment medicine status quo.
There is an article on Natural Blaze which discusses the cancer industry being very profitable for investors. And the article also notes that some studies have shown that in many cases while chemotherapy can shrink tumors in the short term it can nevertheless effect in cancer actually becoming more aggressive and tumors to spread. So the treatments can actually kill the patient before the cancer might have done.
The Natural Blaze article also points out how the FDA and AMA goes after doctors and other practitioners who have treated patients with alternative and nutritional therapies. But, do they ever go after doctors who give bad advice or bad prescription drugs that cause the patient more or worse problems? Nope.
Every time I read one of these things I am reminded of the medical ordeal I went through in which “doctors” were obsessed with their prescription drugs and cared not in the least to hear about nutrition and alternative treatments. I will be writing about that soon. And of course there’s my father, who, I believe, would not have had the arterial blockage, two strokes, and Alzheimer’s had he not been given the statin drugs, which were unnecessary in any event.