Two friends in their late 50's had their prostates removed recently, both reported that their 'numbers' had gone up and hence followed doctors orders. Both are sickly humans, fully jabbed up and now also 1 internal organ short. I can never understand the idiotic blind faith in doctors.
I'm not a gambling person, but I'd be willing to bet that their knowledge of what those 'numbers' are, and what they mean, would fit on the back of a matchbox. Most people do more research on what fridge or lawnmower to buy, than which medical tests and treatments they should accept.
Yes, the Richard Ablin book is splendid. I reviewed it (here) back when I had a left book review blog and also wrote for Green Left Weekly before that paper’s fake progressivism was rent asunder by the fake ‘Covid’ non-pandemic. Back then, it was second nature to the Left to take on the medical-industrial complex before it, the Left, signed up to the authoritarian pseudo-science of ‘Covid’.
The parallels between the prostate and Covid scams are striking, especially the use of a dodgy test to panic a lot of people into pointless and potentially dangerous 'treatment'. Even just riding a bike (and I pedal every day, including to GPs and path sites) can cause elevated PSA readings in a useless test, for goodness sake. My prior aversion to the great prostate hoax certainly immunised me against Covid hysteria.
I now have Covid testing, prostate testing and the FOBT test (which has a 95% 'false positive' rate) as tests to avoid or results to query with raised eyebrows. And I’m still here, all in one piece! Individuals have the right to make their own choices about their own health and not be cannon-fodder for wealthy capitalist industries in the health field.
Whatever happened to the Left's anti-corporatist stance, especially their well-desrved suspicion of Big Pharma???? Watching Elizabeth Warren demand that RFK Jr not sue any pharma companies, during his Senate confirmation hearings, was a whiplash moment.
"But we have to answer the question, which is the question of our time. And that question is, how in the world did communism get into the corporations? And so that's really my big picture structure. The short answer to that is that it's all designed as a religion to seize the means of the production of man.
It's not the means of production of steel. It's a means of production of man, our souls, so that they can take control of and direct literally the future evolution of man. And I mean that word very literally, back to, so we're gonna evolve back to what we really are, which is our true socialist or communistic state, which will enable us to live in a utopia. In other words, the goal of communism is allow us to build and enter Eden on our own terms in outright defiance of God. And that's, I think, extremely consistent with the way that Marx laid things out."
I would have thought this was a pretty far-out notion, until the scamdemic. We've now got government-subsidised corporations producing so-called therapeutic agents which they themselves describe as 'software to hack the human operating system', and self-identified leftists clamouring for these agents to be forced on every man, woman and child on the planet, for the collective good. Obviously I'm not talking about the average, grass-roots leftist who is simply advocating for protection of ordinary working people against exploitation. But at the leadership level of the leftist apparatus - for example, at the top level of the truly iniquitous Fabian Society - it's actually quite plausible to me that these people really do view mRNA technology as a tool for achieving their socialist utopia. Marx said that the proletariat would rise up in bloody revolution, but they were actually quite happy with just getting a better standard of living and had no interest in revolution. So if you're a Fabian, maybe you think that humans can only be turned into Socialist Man by literally engineering them.
The number of people who still visit their doctor regularly (in the absence of any evidence that doing so has improved their health) continues to baffle me. Older people, in particular, spend waaaaaay too much time in doctors' offices. And that definitely includes older men. My husband is frequently approached by older blokes, when he's sitting in a shopping centre sipping a coffee or such like, who strike up a conversation (this happens in the country, to a degree that's utterly shocking to urbanites!!!) that almost invariably turns to the subject of all the health problems that the poor old bugger is suffering, the drugs he's taking, and the number of doctors he's 'under'. And this 'poor old bugger' is almost invariably younger than my husband, who takes no drugs and hasn't seen a doctor since gawd knows when.
When I was doing my public health degree, my profs lamented that men did not seek medical care as often as women, and that this was something that needed to be addressed. There might be some benefit to men of seeking care, if it actually involved something useful - such as diet, exercise and sleep prescriptions, or referrals to group activities like men's sheds or community gardens or tennis clubs or dance classes - rather than screening tests and bloody pills!
An old school mate of mine has had the fear of god throw at him. Has been diagnosed now with a very aggressive cancer.
This what he has told me:
"Hi Sunface, just to update you. The oncologist has diagnosed me with very aggressive cancer of the prostrate after my PET scan. I start hormone therapy as soon as approval is received from Discovery Medical Aid. Then radiation treatment for 35 days excluding weekends and public holidays and then some other treatment for three years. So I have a long road ahead. He says my cancer started 5 months ago and has completely taken over the prostate and it is necessary to treat the prostate and all surrounding organs.
I'm so sorry to learn of your friend's situation. Sadly, there's bugger-all evidence that any current medical treatments for prostate cancer actually extend life to any meaningful degree. It's important for him to understand that treatment, in cases like his, is NOT generally intended to cure the disease; it's intended to slow the growth of the existing tumours (and metastases, if he already has them; I'm not clear from your description of his case, as to whether he has invasive cancer or metastatic cancer) and prevent new metastases from occurring. And it's intended to reduce pain, which is a significant problem with bony metastases. If it manages to achieve any of these aims (which is debatable) it does so at massive cost. If he understands the limitations and risks of treatment and still wants to proceed with it, that is his right. But if hasn't had all of this explained to him, then he hasn't received informed consent.
In any case, I think it's highly advisable for him to look into approaches to treating cancer that are outside the currently-accepted paradigm. Good places to start would be Dr Valter Longo's work on the use of fasting-mimicking diets to enhance the efficacy of cancer treatments; metabolic approaches including the use of off-patent drugs that interfere with cancer cells' energy production; and Dr Myfanwy Webb's suppression-centric anticancer strategy, which uses nutriceuticals that target the tumour's biochemical pathways.
Two friends in their late 50's had their prostates removed recently, both reported that their 'numbers' had gone up and hence followed doctors orders. Both are sickly humans, fully jabbed up and now also 1 internal organ short. I can never understand the idiotic blind faith in doctors.
I'm not a gambling person, but I'd be willing to bet that their knowledge of what those 'numbers' are, and what they mean, would fit on the back of a matchbox. Most people do more research on what fridge or lawnmower to buy, than which medical tests and treatments they should accept.
They out-sourced personal responsibility, kissed the ring of the white-coat priests and lay prost(r)ate before them. Amen
Yes, the Richard Ablin book is splendid. I reviewed it (here) back when I had a left book review blog and also wrote for Green Left Weekly before that paper’s fake progressivism was rent asunder by the fake ‘Covid’ non-pandemic. Back then, it was second nature to the Left to take on the medical-industrial complex before it, the Left, signed up to the authoritarian pseudo-science of ‘Covid’.
The parallels between the prostate and Covid scams are striking, especially the use of a dodgy test to panic a lot of people into pointless and potentially dangerous 'treatment'. Even just riding a bike (and I pedal every day, including to GPs and path sites) can cause elevated PSA readings in a useless test, for goodness sake. My prior aversion to the great prostate hoax certainly immunised me against Covid hysteria.
I now have Covid testing, prostate testing and the FOBT test (which has a 95% 'false positive' rate) as tests to avoid or results to query with raised eyebrows. And I’m still here, all in one piece! Individuals have the right to make their own choices about their own health and not be cannon-fodder for wealthy capitalist industries in the health field.
Whatever happened to the Left's anti-corporatist stance, especially their well-desrved suspicion of Big Pharma???? Watching Elizabeth Warren demand that RFK Jr not sue any pharma companies, during his Senate confirmation hearings, was a whiplash moment.
By sheer chance, I just watched this short James Lindsay clip (https://newdiscourses.substack.com/p/how-did-communism-get-into-the-corporations) right after I posted my previous reply to your comment, and I'm interested in your take on it as a 'person of the Left'. This is the transcript:
"But we have to answer the question, which is the question of our time. And that question is, how in the world did communism get into the corporations? And so that's really my big picture structure. The short answer to that is that it's all designed as a religion to seize the means of the production of man.
It's not the means of production of steel. It's a means of production of man, our souls, so that they can take control of and direct literally the future evolution of man. And I mean that word very literally, back to, so we're gonna evolve back to what we really are, which is our true socialist or communistic state, which will enable us to live in a utopia. In other words, the goal of communism is allow us to build and enter Eden on our own terms in outright defiance of God. And that's, I think, extremely consistent with the way that Marx laid things out."
I would have thought this was a pretty far-out notion, until the scamdemic. We've now got government-subsidised corporations producing so-called therapeutic agents which they themselves describe as 'software to hack the human operating system', and self-identified leftists clamouring for these agents to be forced on every man, woman and child on the planet, for the collective good. Obviously I'm not talking about the average, grass-roots leftist who is simply advocating for protection of ordinary working people against exploitation. But at the leadership level of the leftist apparatus - for example, at the top level of the truly iniquitous Fabian Society - it's actually quite plausible to me that these people really do view mRNA technology as a tool for achieving their socialist utopia. Marx said that the proletariat would rise up in bloody revolution, but they were actually quite happy with just getting a better standard of living and had no interest in revolution. So if you're a Fabian, maybe you think that humans can only be turned into Socialist Man by literally engineering them.
I don't visit a Dr anymore. Do people still have a regular doctor ?
On those rare occaisions when I do visit, it's to a super clinic.
Whose care factor is close to zero IMHO.
I'm in the "they might find something" school. I'm sure they would otherwise.
Maybe why blokes die young too :)
The number of people who still visit their doctor regularly (in the absence of any evidence that doing so has improved their health) continues to baffle me. Older people, in particular, spend waaaaaay too much time in doctors' offices. And that definitely includes older men. My husband is frequently approached by older blokes, when he's sitting in a shopping centre sipping a coffee or such like, who strike up a conversation (this happens in the country, to a degree that's utterly shocking to urbanites!!!) that almost invariably turns to the subject of all the health problems that the poor old bugger is suffering, the drugs he's taking, and the number of doctors he's 'under'. And this 'poor old bugger' is almost invariably younger than my husband, who takes no drugs and hasn't seen a doctor since gawd knows when.
When I was doing my public health degree, my profs lamented that men did not seek medical care as often as women, and that this was something that needed to be addressed. There might be some benefit to men of seeking care, if it actually involved something useful - such as diet, exercise and sleep prescriptions, or referrals to group activities like men's sheds or community gardens or tennis clubs or dance classes - rather than screening tests and bloody pills!
Thanks Robyn,
An old school mate of mine has had the fear of god throw at him. Has been diagnosed now with a very aggressive cancer.
This what he has told me:
"Hi Sunface, just to update you. The oncologist has diagnosed me with very aggressive cancer of the prostrate after my PET scan. I start hormone therapy as soon as approval is received from Discovery Medical Aid. Then radiation treatment for 35 days excluding weekends and public holidays and then some other treatment for three years. So I have a long road ahead. He says my cancer started 5 months ago and has completely taken over the prostate and it is necessary to treat the prostate and all surrounding organs.
I'm so sorry to learn of your friend's situation. Sadly, there's bugger-all evidence that any current medical treatments for prostate cancer actually extend life to any meaningful degree. It's important for him to understand that treatment, in cases like his, is NOT generally intended to cure the disease; it's intended to slow the growth of the existing tumours (and metastases, if he already has them; I'm not clear from your description of his case, as to whether he has invasive cancer or metastatic cancer) and prevent new metastases from occurring. And it's intended to reduce pain, which is a significant problem with bony metastases. If it manages to achieve any of these aims (which is debatable) it does so at massive cost. If he understands the limitations and risks of treatment and still wants to proceed with it, that is his right. But if hasn't had all of this explained to him, then he hasn't received informed consent.
In any case, I think it's highly advisable for him to look into approaches to treating cancer that are outside the currently-accepted paradigm. Good places to start would be Dr Valter Longo's work on the use of fasting-mimicking diets to enhance the efficacy of cancer treatments; metabolic approaches including the use of off-patent drugs that interfere with cancer cells' energy production; and Dr Myfanwy Webb's suppression-centric anticancer strategy, which uses nutriceuticals that target the tumour's biochemical pathways.