My book has been published! http://www.amazon.com/Fiction-Science-Rixta-Francis/dp/1519135912/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1451626030&sr=8-1 The hard copy is for sale at Amazon.com, Amazon.co.uk, Amazon.es, Amazon.it, Amazon.fr and Amazon.de. The Kindle version is for sale at all Amazon websites.
(If you search at the Amazon websites you can best use my name and not the title, as a title search gives many thousands of hits.)
It’s been a while since I wrote anything on my blog and this is not going to be about the fiction of science. But those who have been following me, and maybe even bought my books, know that I’m a very strong proponent of applying common sense. We need that a lot, but not a lot of people use it on a daily basis in everyday situations.
There are those who consider themselves critical thinkers, but don’t use common sense, and mainly just accept anything that goes against the mainstream narrative. A good example of this is all those crowds who blindly accept that COVID was a man made virus and came from Wuhan. But it has been very well established that pathogenic viruses don’t exist. Viruses were never discovered, they were invented. You cannot gain function for someone that doesn’t exist. And imagine that COVID was a man made virus: It would have been an extremely bad job, for nobody died from it and it needed a 24/7 marketing campaign to make people believe it existed. And in spite of all this many people accept this narrative blindly, because it goes against the government message. That’s the opposite of critical thinking.
Then there are three wild theories that are very widely accepted, spread and sometimes agressively pushed by people who call themselves “truthers”: Chemtrails, fake moon landing and flat earth. I find it highly suspicious that it’s only three theories are so popular. There don’t seem to be any others, that are accepted by some, but not by most. I won’t call them “conspiracy theories”, as I know that that term was invented by the CIA to discredit those who questioned the assassination of JFK. But is it really such a stretch to think that the CIA also invented these three wild theories and then pushed them on the gullible not-so-critical thinkers?
You see, there is a big problem with spreading these nutty theories. If a “Truther” tells an Ordinary Person that contrails are chemtrails and that the earth is flat, then you can be 99.9% sure that OP will put T immediately in the category of nutters. T has lost all credibility. So when T tries to tell OP about the government corruption, human trafficking and pedophile networks, OP will not listen. It’s even quite likely that OP will assume that none of this is true, because it’s said by a nutter. Which of course is exactly what all those bad people want to achieve. This would be entirely the kind of trick that the CIA c.s. could pull off pretty easily.
So what about these wild theories? Let’s start with the one that is the most widespread and the most agressively defended: Chemtrails. I heard about this some five years ago and it never made any sense to me. Why would anyone spray highly toxic chemicals at very high altitude, at random times and locations without any specific purpose? So far nobody has been able to give me a compelling argument for this.
So is there any evidence that this is happening? Well, I have been asking about that for five years and nobody has been able to give it. The chemtrails believers, desperate for that evidence, lately have started to conflate chemtrails with cloud seeding and sun dimming, even though they are entirely different things. You only see trails in the sky when the sky is blue, for else clouds would hide them from view. To seed a cloud you need a cloud and a cloud would hide the trails. So the two are mutally exclusive. And still the chemtrails believers insist that they are the same thing, at which moment they have descended into what George Orwell called “doublethink”: Accepting two contrary things as both true at the same moment.
As far as sun dimming goes: You need to go into the stratosphere to do that and planes can’t go that high. The air is too thin to give a plane lift. But when I point that out it’s also often denied.
And these doublethinkers often consider themselves critical thinkers. Which by now has become the victim of word inflation. If blind believers are critical thinkers the latter term has lost all meaning.
Then there is the story of the fake moon landing. Which is chockful of problems. The whole Appollo program was very well documented in newspapers, magazines, radio and television. Reports, documentaries, interviews, the whole lot. This should all have been faked. Ten years of fakes, involving thousands of people, who never ever talked about this “secret”. The problem is that humans are generally very bad at keeping secrets. If all this had been faked it would have been leaked within a couple of months and the whole Appollo program would have ended before it really started. And that’s where this theory debunks itself.
According to those who believe this story the moon landing was faked so well that nobody (including the Soviets) had any idea that it was fake. Nobody realised anything till recently. Even though the fake was so bad that any social media user can see the problems in a few seconds. And here we have another example of doublethink. If you believe that this event was an extremely good fake and a really bad fake at the same time, you are extremely gullible and the opposite of a critical thinker. And considering how bizarre this story is, and how recent its origins, is it really such a stretch to think that the CIA might have invented and spread it?
Then there is flat earth, which is definitely the most bizarre of the three theories. Though I suppose flat earth societies have been around for quite a long time, this theory has also become widespread in the last few years. Again, highly suspicious and considering the absurdity I find it very hard to believe that this has spread organically. That just doesn’t make any sense.
The thing is that people have always known that the earth was a ball. Sure, before the invention of the telescope there were some misunderstandings about the sun and the planets, but those who believed that the earth was a disk resting on the back of a giant turtle were a very small group. Humans in the past were much smarter than humans are now and technology is probably to blame for that. When radio and television made it so much easier to let someone else do the thinking humans started to dumb down. Poor education systems didn’t help either.
Anyone who uses a little bit of common sense understand that the earth can’t be flat. Just one reason: On a flat earth it would never get dark. You would never see a sunrise. At night the sun would be hanging around in the distance. Like sitting in the back of cinema: It’s quite dark, but you can still see the screen.
There is also a problem with the different lengths of twilight between the equator and the higher latitudes, a pretty obvious thing for every sailor. And those same sailors would also notice that the constellations are different once they crossed the equator.
All these things very clearly say that the earth is a globe, not a disk. But the believers in the flat earth consider themselves highly superior and they know things so much better than all generations before them. Because they know that NASA lies and so if NASA says that the earth is a globe it must be flat. And yes, these people call themselves critical thinkers.
I try to get some common sense into people, but it’s a tough task, with a very low success rate. It’s weird that such large groups of people believe these wild theories and are so determined to stick with it no matter what. But well, half the world believed that COVID was a really dangerous disease, a lie that the CIA was definitely involved in. These government agencies are highly skilled in deception and propaganda and they are good with it. I can’t prove that CIA & friends invented these stories, but I consider it highly likely. Because that’s the only theory that makes sense.
So far I have not written anything about the “novel corona virus” or “COVID-19”. There are people who do that a lot better (like Jon Rappoport at https://nomorefakenews.com/). And I’m just so extremely annoyed by the whole hoax, that I didn’t feel for writing about it.
Hoax? Yes, hoax. Here is a bit of history about this bug.
China has had bad air pollution for a long time. That’s why lung cancer and pneumonia are endemic there. Wuhan is the city with the worst air pollution in the world. Pneumonia is nothing special there and every doctor knows what it is.
But then at once some doctors decided that three (yes, only three) of those pneumonia patients must have a new virus. They took swabs and some scientists started to look for a virus. And if you are determined to find one that’s really not so hard.
And so not much later the world was told that the pneumonia in Wuhan was now at once caused by a new virus. Nobody tests patients for this virus. They just do a CT scan and if you have pneumonia you are diagnosed with the new bug. Why? Because the government says so. We talk about China, remember?
Nevertheless the WHO and CDC blindly accepted this totally ridiculous story and started spreading fear about a new virus that is causing pneumonia. Nobody did any more research.
If you don’t smell the rat colony here you should see a doctor to get your nose checked.
NB. For those who will point out that in North Italy there are also a lot of people with pneumonia: this area is nicknamed European China because of the high air pollution. Combined with a very ageing population lung diseases are nothing special there either.
It keeps surprising me how much medical information is entirely based on assumptions and never proven theories. Like the theory about Alzheimer’s disease. It appears to be really difficult to cure Alzheimer’s disease with drugs, and new drugs keep failing. That’s not so strange, for the theory of Alzheimer’s disease is that the main problem is the amyloid plaques in the brain. And that theory is incorrect.
The article I linked mentions the “amyloid hypothesis” and that’s a correct description. It’s a hypothesis. And nothing more than that. You would assume that by now this hypothesis would have been proven, but medical science doesn’t need that. They only need a hypothesis, which is simply turned into a fact. And if you repeat that lie a number of times everyone believes that it is a fact.
“This theory emerged in 1906 when German doctor Alois Alzheimer examined the brain of a woman who died after experiencing memory loss and delusions. He found clumps of sticky plaques between her nerve cells, made up of a protein called beta amyloid.” Let’s dissect this. The doctor developed a theory. That’s where everyone should start. He then examined the brain, found plaques of beta amyloid and blindly concluded that these plaques must be the cause of the disease. No control group. No further study. Nothing. But ever since these plaques have become the “defining characteristic” of Alzheimer’s disease.
A longitudinal study about dementia was done in the 1990’s. It was called the “religious orders study”. A lot of older nuns were tested every year and after they died their brains were examined. It appeared that many of these women had amyloid plaques in their brains, but they hadn’t had any cognitive problems during life. On the other hand, plenty of people with all the symptoms of Alzheimer’s disease don’t have those plaques, in which case doctors make up an alternative diagnosis. But this shows that the two simply have nothing to do with each other. Likely a significant number of 70+ years old people have amyloid plaques in their brains, without showing any signs of dementia. Maybe younger people have them too. Nobody looks at that, so nobody knows.
So it’s not so strange that drugs that target those plaques don’t work (not that drugs cure anything, but that’s a different story). When your car doesn’t start it won’t help much to remove the backseat, as the two are unrelated.
So what is the cause of Alzheimer’s disease, or dementia in general? There are multiple causes. A big one is simply prescription medications. A lot of people completely reversed their dementia by quitting their drugs. Especially statin drugs are infamous for that, as the brain needs a lot of cholesterol to function properly. But as older people often take a large number of drugs it’s not so easy to point out just one. Very few drugs are needed, so the first step in case of dementia should be to throw out all the prescriptions.
Another reason is inflammation. 150 years ago dementia was very rare and people didn’t have factory produced, inflammatory junk foods. That should be a huge signal, but nobody will look at it, as the food industry wouldn’t be happy. But if you don’t eat anything that didn’t exist 150 years ago you have a good chance of never getting dementia. Also interesting: turmeric is highly anti-inflammatory. And in cultures that eat a lot of turmeric dementia is rare.
Dementia is entirely an environmental/lifestyle disease. It’s also largely age related (it more and more affects people under 60, which is very worrying). Simply because some diseases take a long time to develop. Your best chances of having a sharp mind at age 90 are to stay away from junk food and doctors (which includes not accepting aluminium containing vaccines). And have some turmeric every day. It’s good for you.
Viruses are causing disease and they can kill and we should all be scared of them. Because science knows what viruses are and how they cause disease. Right? You couldn’t be more wrong.
Let’s have a look at the going story of viruses. They are said to be so small that you can’t see them with a light microscope. You need an electron microscope to see them. But here is a problem: you can’t see anything alive with an electron microscope. The technology doesn’t allow for that. So if nobody can see a live virus, then how can anyone know that what they see is a virus? Reality is: they can’t. Scientists see something. Then they label this something a virus and then then they blame this imaginary virus for whatever disease they want to blame it for. In reality what they see is usually cellular debris or contamination of the sample (not unusual). Or it can be something else. There is no way of knowing.
So what about all the stories of how viruses multiply, how they feed themselves, how long they live and how they cause disease? That must be based on science, right? Well, decide yourself. If you can’t see a live virus, then how can you possibly know how the virus moves, multiplies or does anything for that matter? It’s entirely made up and it’s shocking that we have been fed all these lies as scientific facts.
But what about measles and chickenpox? If those diseases are not caused by a virus, then what are they? Now it gets interesting. Measles doesn’t exist any more than chickenpox. Children and adults get rashes, with or without a fever, with or without general malaise or other symptoms. There are a variety of labels for these rashes: measles, chickenpox, rubella, roseola, fifth disease, sixth disease, scarlet fever and more. What label is applied depends on the patient’s disease history, vaccination status, the doctor’s preference and the flavour of the moment.
And the test? That’s a total waste of time. Everyone and anyone can test positive for any disease at any time. To be honest, I have no idea what those tests are actually based on, considering viruses don’t even exist. A whole chain of fantasies, I assume.
I’m fully aware that this is all hard to accept, as we have grown up with the idea of disease causing viruses. So if a virus isn’t responsible for a disease, then what is? Well, it can be so many things. Skin diseases are generally an attempt of the body to get rid of toxins. But there can also be other causes. And all kinds of other diseases can be things like poisoning, nutrient deficiencies, psychological issues, something else, or everything at once.
And yes, sometimes it looks like a disease is contagious, but that doesn’t mean it is. At closer inspection it’s rare that everyone in a certain group gets the disease. And even if they do, they are generally all exposed to a lot of other things. I don’t know the causes of every case of chickenpox or gastroenteritis. Nobody does. But blaming a non-existent virus is definitely easy. It’s just incorrect.
We hear all the time that “the science is clear: vaccines save lives.” But where is that science? If it exists, then why can nobody show it?
The belief in vaccines comes in two parts: safety and efficacy. Let’s first look at the science that proves efficacy (spoiler alert: there is none). Vaccines are made by the pharmaceutical industry and this industry has a lot of tricks to make their products look better than they are. One cherished concept is the “surrogate endpoint”. They make up a theory, e.g. “cholesterol causes heart attacks”. Then they make a drug that lowers cholesterol and then that drug is promoted as preventing heart attacks, even when it does no such thing. It only lowers cholesterol. The same principle is used with vaccines, but then the surrogate endpoint is antibodies. If a vaccine produces enough antibodies (a totally random number) in enough people the vaccine is considered effective. But it has been known for some 100 years that antibodies do not equal immunity. Of course the people think that efficacy means that the vaccine prevents the disease, but that’s just not true. There is no scientific proof whatsoever that vaccines prevent disease.
But what about all the diseases that have disappeared? Some disappeared because of improved living circumstances. E.g. smallpox and cholera are strongly linked to dirt and bad food. But most of the infectious diseases were renamed as soon as there came a vaccine available. Sometimes (e.g. with polio) this was an official instruction to doctors, but in most cases doctors have such strong faith in vaccines that they simply won’t diagnose e.g. measles or whooping cough in a person who has been fully vaccinated. With every new vaccine multiple new diagnoses are invented to hide the fact that the vaccine doesn’t work. These are tricks that have nothing to do with science, but everything with beliefs.
Let’s have a look now at the safety of vaccines. The “gold standard” for drugs is the double blind, placebo controlled study. There is a lot wrong with this, but let’s accept for now that this is the standard. It’s very hard to get a drug approved without doing such studies. But for vaccines they are simply not done. A placebo is an inactive substance, so in case of vaccines that should be a saline injection. But vaccines are tested against other vaccines, or a number of other vaccines, or an injection of the vaccine minus the antigen. Which means that if both groups have a lot of health issues the new vaccine is considered safe and all problems are labelled coincidence. Of course this is extremely unethical, but the manufacturers get away with this because vaccines have been relabelled as “biologics”, instead of drugs. That’s also the reason why everywhere they can be marketed directly to the public, where this is usually not allowed for prescription drugs.
Many children (and adults) get very sick in the hours, days or weeks after vaccinations, but doctors generally label all these health issues coincidence and not related to the vaccinations. Considering how much this happens the only conclusion can be that doctors have an almost unlimited belief in coincidence. They have developed such a faith in coincidence to protect their faith in vaccines. It’s quite bizarre when you think about it, but it’s just how it is.
But “all doctors believe in vaccines”. Well, most of them do, but that is completely irrelevant. Beliefs don’t become scientific fact just because a large majority shares those beliefs. Billions of people believe in Jesus and similar numbers believe in Allah or Shiva. But nobody will say that Christianity, Islam or Hinduism are anything else than religions. If someone plays the numbers card they talk religion, not science.
Why is this so incredibly important? Many constitutions in the world have an article that in some way states that the government cannot establish a religion or force a religious practice on the people. Vaccines are a religion and vaccinations are a (barbaric) religious ritual. That means that any kind of mandatory vaccination law is unconstitutional.
Some people might still play semantics and say that a belief system is not the same as a religion. But let’s look at the vaccine religion.
– You are expected to go to preparation classes (prenatal check-ups)
– You are expected to give birth in the temple (=hospital).
– As soon as the baby is born you are confronted with the temple servants (doctors/nurses/midwives) who want to submit your baby to the standard ritual (two injections)
– If you decline they usually will try to convince or coerce you
– At set times after birth you need to bring your baby to another temple (doctor’s practice) for more rituals
– If you don’t want to submit your baby to the rituals you can expect extremely negative reactions, which can become aggression and end up with you not being welcome in the temple anymore
– If you lose the faith (or never join in the first place) you can expect social exclusion and often serious family trouble. Some grandparents even consider “saving their grandchildren” by bringing them to the temple themselves, without the parents permission.
Vaccinations have almost every characteristic of a religion, so the desperate argument that a belief system doesn’t equal a religion doesn’t hold up.
Politicians won’t like it, but if you go to court with this you will win and mandatory vaccinations will have to be abandoned, or at least you can stay free of them. The only thing you need to do is to state that vaccines are a religion and the government is constitutionally banned from mandating a religious practice. Then sit back and let the other party try to find reasons why vaccines are based on science and not on beliefs. It’s obvious that they won’t find any. And as long as they can’t come up with scientific arguments you win, for then it’s obvious that they only have beliefs.
So why hasn’t this argument been in court yet? I don’t know. But as far as I know nobody has tried it. Nowhere in the world. If you can explain that, please let me know.
Since the very beginning of vaccinations we have been told that they are based on science. But that couldn’t be further away from the truth. Reality is that vaccines are based on folklore, myths, assumptions, wishful thinking and a lot of lies.
Let’s start with the concept of natural immunity. We all know that if you have had e.g. measles or smallpox once you are protected for life and will never get it again. Right? Wrong. This kind of immunity has never been proven to exist. It’s folklore. Many people get these diseases only once and so this idea developed. And once everyone believed it this idea became fact. But if you ask around you will be surprised how many people have had e.g. measles, chickenpox or whooping cough multiple times. It’s not even rare. And of course most people won’t know that they had it multiple times, for “you already had the measles ten years ago, so it can’t be measles”. This kind of thinking is not limited to doctors’ offices. Most people will believe this.
Folklore 1 – Science 0
But viruses cause disease, so the body needs to defend itself against them. Right? Wrong. When you look into the background of virology you will be in for a shock. From the very beginning it was all assumptions. A sick plant was assumed to be affected by a germ. When something new was found this was assumed to be a germ. Then it was assumed that this new germ was the cause of the disease. And that was the start of virology. (It appeared later that plant disease was caused by a nutrient deficiency, caused by monoculture. That made it the first nutrient deficiency disease that was blamed on a virus. Many others would follow.)
Assumptions 1 – Science 0
But scientists can see how viruses enter cells and that’s how they learned how they cause disease. Right? Wrong. Viruses are way too small to be seen under a light microscope and an electron microscope kills them immediately. All a person can see is fragments of DNA, which are assumed to be viruses. All the stories about how viruses spread, how they cause disease and how the body defends itself against them are fantasies. They cannot be based on anything else, for nobody can know what a fragment of DNA can do.
Fantasy 1 – Science 0
But germs spread easily and when we have a disease we can infect others. Right? Wrong. The idea of infectious diseases is folklore. It’s true that often multiple people in the same group get a disease and it’s not so hard to see how people came to the conclusion that this means one person gives it to another. But just like with immunity this incorrect idea became fact and nobody ever questioned the fact again. In reality many people in the same group don’t get the disease. And those who do get sick have a lot of other things in common. Infectious diseases have never been proven to exist.
But this myth has led to other made up explanations, like the story of the incubation period. Why would a germ wait a week or longer before making someone sick? And why doesn’t the immune system attack the germ immediatly? It doesn’t make sense. It’s a theory that was developed out of necessity. If someone gets e.g. measles who hasn’t been anywhere near someone with measles for a week, then a week must be the incubation time. As many people tend to get the flu at the same time the flu must has a very short incubation time (and as so many people get the flu it must be highly contagious). This is all “must be” science, which of course is no science at all.
Folklore 1 – Fantasy 1 – Science 0
So if immunity doesn’t exist, germs don’t cause disease and infectious diseases are folklore, then what about vaccinations? They are based on all these incorrect beliefs. Yes, exactly. That’s why they don’t work. None of them. Not a bit, not for a short time, not for some people. Just not. They cannot work. But most people who are vaccinated against measles don’t get it. Right? Wrong. They don’t get the measles diagnosis, but that’s something entirely different. Doctors are trained and instructed not to diagnose these kind of diseases in vaccinated individuals. There are many stories of doctors who diagnosed disease X and then changed that diagnosis as soon as they heard that the patient was vaccinated. “If it looks like measles, it feels like measles and it sounds like measles, but the patient is vaccinated against measles, then it’s anything but measles”. It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy. Besides doctors are very bad in diagnosing anyway. Which is not so strange, as many diseases are not so easy to diagnose as we are led to believe. All these rashy diseases children have look a lot like each other. They can come with a lot of spots, or just a few. They can come with a fever, or without. The kid might feel sick, or not. So generally these diseases are diagnosed based on disease history and vaccination status. The same goes for coughs, fevers and other problems. For adults it’s not much different. We have been trained to believe that disease diagnoses are based on facts and science, but in reality the diagnoses are all over the place and largely depend on the personal interests or knowledge of the doctor.
Beliefs 1 – Science 0
So do vaccinated individuals get all the diseases they are vaccinated for? Generally they do. Or they don’t, but that has nothing to do with the vaccine. If you would vaccinate children against broken bones there is a good chance that it would “work” for most, as most children don’t break bones. That’s hardly science.
So what does science really say about vaccinations? It says that they are based on a lot of myths, folklore, fantasies and assumptions and that no scientific facts are involved. Science also says that injecting babies, children, teenagers and adult with large amounts of toxic substances inevitably will lead to health problems. (But actually we don’t really need science for that. A good dose of common sense will lead to the same conclusion.) And that’s also exactly what we see in society. Sick is the new healthy and there aren’t a lot of healthy children left. Doctors and scientists have no idea why we are all so sick. So they keep researching and researching, trying to find answers that are staring them in the face. But they rather blame genes than vaccines. Because genetics has a lot of prestige and you can make a good career studying that. But if you are a scientist or doctor who points out everything I have written here then your career is generally over.
Vaccines are not about science, they are about beliefs. And those who turn against the religious establishment they once belonged to are treated like heretics.
Religion 1 – Science 0
(This is a blog, not a book. So I need to keep it short. If you want to know more about all this, you can easily look it up yourself. The information if plentiful and can be found everywhere, on line and off line. You can also read my books “The Fiction of Science” and “Medical Mythology”, both for sale at Amazon.)
Let’s do a bit of medical calculating. About polio, also known as infantile paralysis (because it rarely happened in adults). Before there was a vaccine everyone over 10 years old was supposed to be immune. They were assumed to have had the infection and developed life-long immunity against it. That’s about 85% of the population. Most children would also have been exposed, without getting sick. Considering the quite low rate of paralysis we can set the percentage of immune children at 90%. That means that only 1.5% of the population did not have immunity, which equals a herd immunity percentage of 98.5%. That’s more than a vaccine could ever cover. Nevertheless this didn’t stop some children from getting polio.
In spite of this simple scientific fact the polio vaccine is still pushed in most countries in name of herd immunity. For “there must be at least 95% vaccine coverage to protect everyone”. If 98.5% natural immunity didn’t work, the 95% of vaccine immunity most definitely won’t work.
Science: 0
Common sense: 10
My second book has been published! Medical Mythology, for sale at all Amazon websites, as hard copy or Kindle e-Book.
New research has found that some therapies could stop melanoma from spreading or returning. Well, that’s what they hope. But is that hope based on anything?
“One Australian dies every five hours from advanced melanoma,” That’s about 1500 a year. And the number is probably increasing, just like with all cancers. And melanoma therapies have not been particularly effective, just like with all cancer therapies. “Melanoma Institute Australia (MIA) said the findings could change the way the cancer is treated in the future.” Could, but not will. But I suppose that’s because they are still trials. The problem is that all those medical trials rarely lead to anything useful and therefore there is no news value in publishing this kind of stuff. But I suppose that without publishing “promising research” the medical journals couldn’t exist anymore.
“block the BRAF gene — which causes melanoma to spread.” Ah, another genetic cancer, which was rare or non-existent 100 years ago. It’s amazing how quickly all these genetic diseases have spread. I have no idea how researchers find genes that they can blame for diseases, but it cannot possibly be based in science. Generally it’s a matter of “so many people with this gene have the disease”, so the gene must be the cause. But many people with the disease don’t have the gene and many people with the gene don’t get the disease. Which makes the correlation very weak at best. And BTW, a gene is nothing more than a complex molecule. I’m not sure how you can block a molecule.
“found the therapy prevented Stage III melanoma from recurring, and helped improve patients’ overall survival rate.” How long have these studies been going? To improve survival rates you would need to keep going for at least five years and to be sure that the cancer indeed doesn’t come back you would need to have at least 20 years. I don’t think that has happened. Cancer statistics are usually highly manipulated to make them look better than they are. If the patients that got the therapy developed another cancer and died from it, then the melanoma didn’t recur. But that didn’t really help the patient. Oncology is chockful of smokescreens and most cancer patients don’t know it.
“said the drugs reduced the rate at which the disease would return by 53 per cent.” Professor Scolyer, how do you know that? And how exactly did you measure this? “basically stop melanoma in its tracks,” Does it really? Or does it so in theory? And what does this mean for the life expectancy of the patients? For the latter is what matters, not all the theories about one disease. It’s remarkably that oncologists never talk about life expectancy, which is the only thing that is important. If you don’t get melanoma back, but you die from another cancer, or a heart attack, then this is hardly helpful. “also reduced the rate the disease would return by about 35 per cent. ” Same here. Why doesn’t it return? Is the patient healthier? That’s not very likely, considering the high toxicity of cancer treatments.
“worked to help boost the body’s own immune system to fight the cancer.” These are the most bizarre types of cancer treatment. Boosting the immune system should be done with good food, fresh air, sunshine, low stress, happiness and such things. The idea that you can improve the immune system with toxic drugs is weird, not to say laughable.
“But he said it was too soon to tell if those drugs improved overall survival rates.” Huh? Professor Scolyer, you have me confused now. The new drug stops melanoma and prevents it from recurring, but you don’t know if it actually works? What are you talking about? “They only work locally, but don’t prevent the disease if it’s already spread elsewhere,” So you say that you don’t know why people get melanoma and why they get cancer somewhere else, or what that means. You actually say that you don’t know much at all. I already got that impression. “there must be little seeded deposits of little cells that we can’t detect now ” This sounds a bit desperate, like you really don’t know what you are doing and make a wild guess. If the therapy would remove those deposits, then the patients should survive longer. But you just say that you don’t know about that.
Then we still get a story of a cancer patient who was part of the trial and has a really positive story. But at a closer look the story isn’t that positive at all, but full of mights and maybes. And how the other people in the trial do is unclear. Probably not so good, for else it would have been mentioned.
The reality is that in the war on cancer no battles have been won. A few have been undetermined, but most battles have been lost. And a lot of number manipulation, vague terminology and other smokescreens are necessary to hide this. The only ones that benefit from cancer treatments are the pharmaceutical businesses that make the drugs. Cancer drugs are the most profitable category and the manufacturers would like to keep the many billions of dollars coming.
It is a scientifically proven fact that in most cases not doing anything gives a much better life expectancy than getting conventional treatments. And it is also a scientifically proven fact that natural therapies cure cancer and they usually do that fast, cheap and without any dangerous side-effects. But there is not a lot of money in them and so patients aren’t told this life-saving information.
Professor Brendan Murphy, Australia’s chief medical officer, says that there is no truth in the anti-vaccine campaign. And he’s a professor, so he knows, right? Wrong. Very wrong. Just the idea that an “education campaign” will work where blackmail failed is so absurd, that you can’t take the person suggesting it seriously.
“suggested autism might be linked to vaccines was “completely false and has been debunked.” Professor, did you see the movie Vaxxed? Or are you saying that everyone is lying, including official CDC documents? You say that thoroughly proven CDC fraud is a figment of the imagination? Then you live in fantasy land yourself. I suppose you didn’t like the movie to be such a success and now you are showing your despair? Not smart to show it so clearly. It will just make more people wonder what your problem is.
“with evidence-based information that parents could easily access.” Evidence-based information? I would like to see that. My guess is that it will be just the same unscientific propaganda as usual. 
Professor, you cannot convince anyone with repeating the same old stuff again and again. You would have to come with something new. Maybe you can make a documentary about a pro-vax whistleblower who exposes all the anti-vax lies? Somehow I feel like it wouldn’t quite work, because you couldn’t find the evidence.
“Nationally the immunisation rate is 93 per cent” I would love to see proof of that. Parents stop vaccinating in large numbers. Many others never even start. And nobody changes their mind once they stop (though some can be blackmailed). But the government keeps telling us that the vaccination rates remain stable, or even go up. Something is seriously wrong with the statistics.
“our job here to say that message is false, untrue, incorrect.” Now it gets funny. Your job is to say this? Wouldn’t it be your job to prove this? You know, many parents have found truckloads of proof to know that vaccinations and unsafe and ineffective. You telling them that they are wrong won’t make a difference. Don’t treat the citizens of Australia like they are just as dumb as their government. It will backfire big time, you know.
“in relation to a [measles] breakout at a local school,” Mr. Hunt, you speak like a politician who has no idea about reality. Oh wait, you are. Two cases of measles is not an outbreak. It’s not worth media hysteria. It’s not news. It’s just two cases of measles. Just like there are cases of measles everywhere. But in vaccinated children the disease is not diagnosed as such.
“Our baby Dana died from whooping cough.” Every baby who dies is a tragedy. But many babies get whooping cough and survive. With the right treatment it’s nothing but a very unpleasant experience. On the other hand at least one baby a week dies from the whooping cough vaccine. Why doesn’t that get any attention from the government? An education campaign should show both sides of the story. Else it’s a propaganda campaign. The government has used the help of this family multiple times before. It didn’t work then, it won’t work now. Come with something new, Mr. Hunt.
“Doctors said diseases like measles could be wiped out through immunisation.”Doctors say a lot, but that doesn’t mean they are correct. Doctors are trained and actively encouraged not to diagnose vaccine diseases in vaccinated individuals. It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy, but the only thing that gets wiped out is the diagnosis, not the disease. Families who stop vaccinating usually know this. You can’t fool them anymore repeating the same old stuff.
“But Professor Murphy said nearly eradicated diseases like polio could also spread again” Also polio has been nominally eradicated by renaming it. There are now more people with paralytic diseases and more people using ventilators than there ever were before 1950. Renaming a disease doesn’t make the vaccine effective. It just shows how ineffective the vaccine is. After all, if it would work the renaming trick wouldn’t be necessary.
“seeing the horrible complications from measles,” Professor Murphy, you are now intentionally telling lies. Or you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. And again, the parents who have stopped vaccinating know that you are lying. So repeating your lies might make them laugh or shake their heads, but that’s about it.
“Parents need facts and that is what this campaign does. Get the facts.” Your campaign will present facts? That I would like to see. So far it sounds like it will be nothing more than a repetition of the old propaganda. And if you would know anything about psychology you would know that this campaign will just make more people curious why you think you need to repeat the old stuff. And why you can’t come with something new and convincing. Just like all the negative talk about the movie Vaxxed made people go to the screenings in large crowds. I would like to know how many people have Googled Vaxxed after the avalanche of warnings. Your new campaign will likely do the same.
“Immunisation is incredibly safe, and it does save lives.” Why don’t the manufacturers accept liability for a product that is so incredibly safe? Can you explain that, professor? And if vaccines are such a fantastic product, then why exactly do you feel that you need to spend 5.5 million dollars for an advertising campaign? A good product sells itself. You don’t need to blackmail people to buy it. And BTW, I can imagine that many people are not happy that so much tax money is spent for an advertising campaign. It gives them the feeling that you have other interests than the health of the people.
Vaccinations are not based on science. From the very beginning they were based on myths, lies and greed. And luckily the people start to see that. A government campaign won’t change that. And that is really not rocket science.
The fiction of science 