Manchester University: Cancer is purely man-made - What’s behind it?
Wise Up Journal
By Gabriel O’Hara
The extract below from a Daily Mail article highlights the important fact that cancer was extremely rare and publishes the fact that recently the rate in our society is 1 in 3 people will get cancer. That means 33% of your relatives will get cancer; although your cousins might keep it private that they lost a breast or testicle. It also gives the fact that cancer is man-made and is the number one killer: a modern plague. The scientists from Manchester University don’t name the poisons added to our food by affluent dominant-corporations but they do acknowledge that what is in our food/diet is causing this increase. They don’t mention what the BBC published in 2002; the fact that the live SV40 cancer causing virus was injected into millions of the population around the globe through the Polio vaccine. They don’t mention the medical studies on the oestrogen chemical BPA, which causes cancer, that leaches from solid plastic used in drinking bottles and canned food. It might be hard to get your head around a solid object leaking out poison without you noticing it, but just think of solid lead cups causing lead prisoning. “Diet” is a very safe and vague term for grant-funded scientist to use. The article also does not mention that modern records since the 1950’s show cancer rates going from 1 in thousands, to hundreds, to 4 in 1, to 3 in 1, and now it’s on the way to 1 in 2 (half of the population).
By Fiona Macrae
Cancer ‘is purely man-made’ say scientists after finding almost no trace of disease in Egyptian mummies
Tumours were rare until recent times […], the review of mummies, fossils and classical literature found.
Scientists found no signs of cancer in their extensive study of mummies apart from one isolated case
Michael Zimmerman, a visiting professor at Manchester University, said: ‘In an ancient society lacking surgical intervention, evidence of cancer should remain in all cases.
‘The virtual absence of malignancies in mummies must be interpreted as indicating their rarity in antiquity, indicating that cancer-causing factors are limited to societies affected by modern industrialisation.’
To trace cancer’s roots, Professor Zimmerman and colleague Rosalie David analysed possible references to the disease in classical literature and scrutinised signs in the fossil record and in mummified bodies.
Despite slivers of tissue from hundreds of Egyptian mummies being rehydrated and placed under the microscope, only one case of cancer has been confirmed.
This is despite experiments showing that tumours should be even better preserved by mummification than healthy tissues.
Dismissing the argument that the ancient Egyptians didn’t live long enough to develop cancer, the researchers pointed out that other age-related disease such as hardening of the arteries and brittle bones did occur.
Fossil evidence of cancer is also sparse, with scientific literature providing a few dozen, mostly disputed, examples in animal fossil, the journal Nature Reviews Cancer reports.
Evidence of cancer in ancient Egyptian texts is also ‘tenuous’ with cancer-like problems more likely to have been caused by leprosy or even varicose veins.
The ancient Greeks were probably the first to define cancer as a specific disease and to distinguish between benign and malignant tumours.
But Manchester professors said it was unclear if this signalled a real rise in the disease, or just a greater medical knowledge.
Professor David, who presented the findings to Professor Mike Richards, the UK’s cancer tsar and other oncologists at a conference earlier this year, said: ‘In industrialised societies, cancer is second only to cardiovascular disease as a cause of death. But in ancient times, it was extremely rare.
‘There is nothing in the natural environment that can cause cancer. So it has to be a man-made disease, down to pollution and changes to our diet and lifestyle.
‘The important thing about our study is that it gives a historical perspective to this disease. We can make very clear statements on the cancer rates in societies because we have a full overview. We have looked at millennia, not one hundred years, and have masses of data.
‘Yet again extensive ancient Egyptian data, along with other data from across the millennia, has given modern society a clear message – cancer is man-made and something that we can and should address.
Dr Rachel Thompson, of World Cancer Research Fund, said: ‘This research makes for very interesting reading.
‘About one in three people in the UK will get cancer so it is fairly commonplace in the modern world.
Since poor to middle to lower-upper classes’ diet/food is controlled by what affluent conglomerates choose to set as standard ingredients and by billion dollar commodity trading setting prices it would be worthwhile understanding the mindset of the 1% of people in this world who control these areas; the really high-minded type who behave and think differently to the bottom classes; the dominant minority as they refer to themselves.
This highly respected aristocrat, the Lord Bertrand Russell, 3rd Earl Russell, was a non-fiction author. His published works were so valued by his peers (the wealthy establishment) that he was awarded a Nobel Prize and the United Nations presented him with the Educational, Scientific and Cultural (Kalinga) Prize. He also worked on education with young children. Towards the end of his book written in 1952 (The Impact of Science on Society) Russell coolly with reason minus all emotion (the pure scientific mind) recommended the following about us (about the amount of us):
“War, as I remarked a moment ago, has hitherto been disappointing in this respect, but perhaps bacteriological war may prove more effective. If a Black Death could be spread throughout the world once in every generation survivors could procreate freely without making the world too full. There would be nothing in this to offend the consciences of the devout or to restrain the ambitions of nationalists. The state of affairs might be somewhat unpleasant, but what of that? Really high-minded people are indifferent to happiness, especially other people’s.”
If you are part of the 1% who control food production and commodity trading among other things, you tend to be in on “the know”. On page 61 the Lord Russell mentioned our diet:
“Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine, from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible. “
A few years after that statement the big global vaccination program started with the SV40 contaminated Polio vaccine. And since then the cancer that plagues us has sky-rocketed along with other afflictions such a varying degrees of autism: sperm rates have dropped, IQ rates have dropped…
Russell did not believe in predicting the future with crystal balls, he had a scientific mind, he was part of the dominant minority, he was in “the know” and his wealthy peers where not shocked by what he had to say they awarded him. Diet and mechanisms of modern society is run by business and the 1% run it at the very top, like the UN they set 50 year, or more, business plans.
Some time constrained researchers who quickly scan through Russell’s book (The Impact of Science on Society) might get the impression from a few paragraphs that Russell was talking about a scientific dictatorship that he must disagree with (in the researchers mind), but if you read his conclusion on the last page you’ll see anyone whole holds that impression is clearly in a state of ignorant-hopefulness. Russell said, “My conclusion is that a scientific society can be stable given certain conditions. The first of these is a single government of the whole world, possessing a monopoly of armed force and therefore able to enforce peace.” He then goes on to say the wealth of western workers should be diffused and we should have a low fertility rate. For a dominant global minority peace for them means no chance of being overthrown by an angry rebelling public or by war of another nation where somehow they lost control centres. When what they often refer to as the “ultimate revolution” is complete they will have the freedom to openly do what we would ordinarily object to. The Lord Russell ends with this sentence: “The Road, I fear, is long, but that is no reason for losing sight of the ultimate hope.” Russell like others of his mind-set believe the world would be a lot nicer run this way. And they believe the fittest gets to decide the survival of the species; the fittest in the man-designed civilised system being those at the top: those with the most money or in a cashless CO2 based civilised system (which is being promoted by the UN) those who wield power.
As John F. Kennedy said in his April 1961 “The President and the Press” speech:
[Source: JFK Library]
“Today no war has been declared–and however fierce the struggle may be, it may never be declared in the traditional fashion. Our way of life is under attack. Those who make themselves our enemy are advancing around the globe. The survival of our friends is in danger. And yet no war has been declared, no borders have been crossed by marching troops, no missiles have been fired.
“For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence–on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.
“Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed.”
Carroll Quigley, eminent professor who worked for the government, wrote about this power in his history book entitled “Tragedy and Hope”. He was not some conspiracy theorist, professor Quigley was so establishment that Bill Clinton thanked Quigley in his 1992 presidential democrat acceptance speech. On page 950 the professor wrote:
“There does exist and has existed for a generation, an international Anglophile network which operates to some extent in the way the Radical Right believes the Communists act. In fact, this network, which we may identify as the Round Table Groups, has no aversion to cooperating with the Communists, or any other groups, and frequently does so. I know of the operations of this network because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years, in the early 1960s, to examine its papers and secret records. I have no aversion to it or to most of its aims and have, for much of my life, been close to it and to many of its instruments. I have objected, both in the past and recently, to a few of its policies (notably to its belief that England was an Atlantic, rather than a European power, and must be allied, or even federated with the United States and must remain isolated from Europe) but in general my chief difference of opinion is that it wishes to remain unknown, and I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known.”
Institutions perceived by the public to protect us do not. The European Food Standards Agency recently reassured the public that BPA in our diet is safe based on the plastic/chemical industry’s neuro-behavioural study. As Alan Watt, in-depth researcher and radio host, pointed out: basing safety tests on BPA’s neuro-behavioural effects is a trick because if they were honest they would be looking at the scientific studies showing BPA’s infertility and carcinogenic effects. Bureaucratic institutions like these, infested with former and current industry employees, do not have what’s best for the public as their goal, they are a danger because they are designed to put people’s minds at ease, letting the public continue consuming ingredients the top decided should be in the public’s diet.
Now that you know a third or more of your family will get cancer and cancer causing agents are put into our food; what are you going to do about it?