HAPPENING

THANKS GLYPHOSATE

>>133108451
>Fluoride in the water
>Chemtrails
>GMO food

Most of us will die

>>133108451
CHEMTRAILS

So everyone by 2050 will have cancer?

>>133108451
Obesity is one of the biggest causes of this, I bet.

>>133108451
70% of the population gets cancer?

File: 1499006267949.jpg (117KB, 900x968px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 900x968px

>the Culling is upon us, lads
the Culling is a legit happening
gen x is the canary in the coal mine

>>132223589

>>133108451
>People live longer
>system finally crashing at an age they wouldn't have reached 50 years ago
How is it not a good thing?

File: 1484620613731.jpg (94KB, 728x545px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 728x545px

>>133108773
>>133108599

the cause of the epidemic which will cull the majority of the population is intertwined with industrial toxins, pollutions, and modern western lifestyle promoted by corporations, politicians and social engineers.

it took 100 years for the authorities to acknowledge that smoking is harmful to health

it will take 1000 years for the authorities to allow minimally-invasive, effective, curative treatments with great safety profile

the epidemic is silenced. the cures are suppressed. they want you to not exist.

File: b7d.png (66KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 1000x1000px

>>133108451
Is susceptibility to cancer increasing? Or is death by other means decreasing, leaving a larger proportion of deaths to be a result of more complex and hard to prevent causes (e.g. cancer)?

Really takes that noggin joggin

File: 149900626794.jpg (131KB, 750x1164px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 750x1164px

>>133108877
>People live longer
except they are not

see >>133108790
>>132223589

>>133108451
blame refined sugar and chemicals in your food.

A sound theory explains: consumption of refined sugars causes a PH imbalance, organs get fungal infections. Fungus is encapsulated by macrophages, cancer develops.

>>133109096
or blame it on the massive amount of emf radiation hitting you 24/7 your entire life. Only takes one cell to develop improperly.

>>133109078
this

Because life expectancy is actually a backward looking stat. Real life expectancy for millennials will be in the 50s.

http://www.businessinsider.com/generation-x-least-prepared-for-retirement-charts-2013-5

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-10-28/americans-are-dying-faster-millennials-too

http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2015/11/killing-them-softly-whats-up-with-gen-x.html

>-middle-aged-american-whites-is-dying-at-a-startling-rate
https://archive.is/Urcrt

>>133108782

Most old people develop cancer at some point, yes. Almost all of it comes in the form of benign tumors or small skin cancers. Our detection rates are vastly improving.

... though there are a few categories of cancers that have been exploding. Like brain cancers in teens and young adults from constantly holding an RF transmitter beaming directly into the headbox for hours on end.

>>133109584
>the resident big pharma shill to quell the rebellion

what a surprise

>>133109275
The healthy immune system will kill these cells and tons of other infections, daily.

Change your PH, become a petri dish...immune system overwhelmed.
that is the theory

my entire family has been off any form of refined sugar for a decade and we never get the flu when everybody around us is sick like dogs

We had a friend and his family over for the holidays, their kid had mono..they all got it, none of us tested positive

>>133109066
Also our ability to detect cancers has improved

How is this overlooked by the public?
the cancer rate trend fits pretty well with the previous images from the journal of organic systems.

What's interesting is smoking is at an all time low yet cancer is steadily increasing, food is all I can imagine.

At this rate everybody will have one form of cancer during their lives.

>>133108790
are there any studies that count just the native us population?

i bet the fukushima did this

>>133108451
>cancer is becoming easier to diagnose

>>133109584
>radio waves cause cancer
shut the fuck up.

learn something about physics, chemistry, and biology before posting again.

if it was real then tehre would be at least some peer reviewed articles discussing it

>>133110095
>cancer diagnostics havent changed much since 1970

In 1971, when President Richard M. Nixon initiated the War on Cancer, the average person had a 1 in 10 risk of developing cancer in his or her lifetime. Today, that's changed – for the worse. The risk as of 2005 is 1 in 2.

this is the major cause of rapid decline in western populations


cancer is now as common as the flu, that is intentional. the existing cures for cancer are intentionally suppressed.

the great culling/poisoning orchestrated by CIA, CFR, etc has led to dramatic population declines.

>>133108451
I view cancer and treatment thereof the wealthy cutoff for poorfags and niggers.

It's God's way of saying "son, you should have worked harder in your youth and lived a better lifestyle instead of indulging on KFC drank and watermelon for 40 years"

>>133110324
did any peer review occur during the genocide of the irish?

it is 1 in 2 people. meaning 50% of the population
http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/risk/lifetime-risk


http://ottawa.ctvnews.ca/study-says-nearly-1-in-2-canadians-to-develop-cancer-in-their-lifetime-1.3468455
http://www.cancer.ca/en/cancer-information/cancer-101/canadian-cancer-statistics-publication/?region=bc


Half of Kurdistan population could face risk of cancer in 3 years
half of the Iraqi population will face the risk of cancer in 2020,” he added.
http://www.rudaw.net/english/kurdistan/230620173

>>133110332
people are living longer you fucking retard.

>>133110047
Won't hear much about that, they are not even talking about the hundreds of thousands of heavy water they are dumping in the ocean daily

A lot of factors affect the prevelance rate of a certain disease, not just increase in incidence. Such as, improved diagnosis, increased survival, inmigration of people at risk and so on.

>>133110474
Generally. If you take away Mexicans and American negroes the average lifespan will be even longer.

>>133110474
>>133110544
Seriously, why don't you try to read the thread? Are you stoned or just plain dumb?
>yes it has already been discussed ITT
>no it is not the question

File: 1494798413095.jpg (11KB, 720x540px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 720x540px

>>133108451
>technology constantly bombards people with radiation
>cancer rate increases

>>133108451
1. Cancer is always present. Your immune system kills it off.
2. Detection methods have improved
3. With smallpox and measles under control, you'll live long enough to die of cancer. Gotta die from something

>>133110230

Microwaves in the cold war: the Moscow embassy study and its interpretation. Review of a retrospective cohort study

From 1953 to 1976, beams of microwaves of 2.5 to 4.0 GHz were aimed at the US embassy building in Moscow.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3509929/

http://archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/126461122/#126472947
From 1953 the Russians were using microwaves to attack the US embassy staff in Moscow, Russia. One third of the staff eventually died of cancer from this microwave irradiation. Imagine how advanced and sophisticated assassination technology has become today.

http://www.guardian.co.tt/lifestyle/2012-02-27/cancer-secret-weapon

File: eyyy-left-to-right.jpg (15KB, 259x194px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 259x194px

>>133108451
>Cancer now more common than getting married or having a first baby or the flu

...especially on /pol/

>>133108451

Heh Good luck cancer, I'm behind Seven water filters.

>>133108451
>Cancer now more common than getting married or having a first baby or the flu
You have to take into account that we have gotten a lot better at detecting it and diagnosing it, so part of that increase is simply that we more often know what people are dying from than we did in 1980, for example.

There has also been an increase in skin cancer because many people are literally too stupid to put on some fucking sun screen before they spend all day on the beach.

>>133108451
Cancer lifetime rates are 1/3.

This is made by design. It's not an a accident.

>>133112234
Cancer lifetime rates are 1/2

1 in 2

>>133110466

>>133109985
This. A chart on actual cancer deaths would be much more telling than instances.

>>133112566
It's 1/3 for the current population.

1/2 is an estimate for people born after 1960, and is a projection without any backing data yet.

1/3 is the current rate.

>>133112806
In a land mark article, John Bailar published in the “New England Journal of Medicine” “Are we losing the war on cancer?”

We recently confirmed that this is, still the case. We obtained from the WHO mortality time-series data of 20 countries over 45 years (1960–2015). During these 50 years the age standardised cancer death rate has varied little (−4%).

These data confirm the preliminary results from Bailar and contradict the notion of a breakthrough in cancer prevention, early detection, and cancer treatment (Summa 2012). Today, as before, cancer to the notable exception of some childhood malignancies and of lymphoma remains almost universally fatal.

Today cancer is thought as an invasion by malignant cells which deserves to be killed either by the same stubbornly archaic, primitive treatments: surgery, radiation therapy, or chemotherapy.

The release of drugs is done by assessing their efficacy in killing cancer cells. Modern drugs target one specific pathway in order to kill the malignant cell.

But the logic is still the same: killing the cancer cell. None of these new drugs can be credited with having changed significantly the survival pattern. For example the overall response rate to Herceptin (a so called magic bullet) when administered alone is less than 5%.In the meantime the cost of cancer drugs has increased exponentially. It is highly probable that we are witnessing a “bubble” based more on greed than results.There is an obvious need for change of paradigm.

>>133113067
If the cancer cells can be identified and singled out, they can find a way to eliminate them without destroying the rest of your body in the process.

Every other miracle treatment in the history of science doesn't react as heinously as a clearly archaic method for eliminating cancer. They literally hook an IV of poison to your veins like the medieval era doctors would attach leeches to your skin for blood. Equally as barbaric.

Given the advances in science, in general, are you trying to tell me that over the course of 40-50 years, receiving hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars, and they still haven't found a cure?

We have nano technology now that was science fiction in the fucking 80s, we have a rocket that can launch AND land upright, but the incompetency of the medical sector has lead to what developments again?

Nothing?

Either they are incapable of doing their job or they refuse to.

>>133112897
it was 1 in 10 in 1970 and even less before 1970

But our latest estimate, which uses the most accurate calculation method to date, now puts our chances of developing the disease at 1 in 2.

http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2015/02/04/why-are-cancer-rates-increasing/


but if you prefer 1 in 3, it doesnt save your ass from getting cancer

>public debt put on your back even before your birth
>land of your ancestors literally being given to monkeys
>be a workhorse that has to pay for retirement, debt interest, shitskin's welfare, shitskin countries
>work given to less qualified foreigners in the name of "diversity" and multiculturalism but actually due to compression of costs
>house market completely fucked up and having a house is somewhat an unreachable dream
>at your age I had a house, family and kids anon
>they even make us sick with fucking cancer now
We've been fucked over from the start. It's just disenhearting and after the great islamic darkness there won't be any history books to remind future generations of the great betrayal that happened to 80'sners and so on.

>>133108451

>the 60's caused cancer

I fucking knew it

>>133113868
gen x was the hitech future of the world, and yet they got genocided (>>133108790
) from there. A harbinger for the future gens.

every one should get blackpilled on the gen x genocide

>>133114491
Like it will be any better for us. It's not because we're used to arabs and all this shit that it's normal they're here in the first place.

File: futureb8.jpg (114KB, 500x998px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 500x998px

>>133114603
this is the future they sold us

Cancer is caused by being clean.

If your cells aren't allowed to die on the surface what do you think happens to all of the cells that have nowhere to go.

>>133113174
consider the fact that cancer rates increased from 10% in 1970 to >50% in 2005, all since nixon declared war on cancer

consider the fact that cancer treatments have remained the same for 100 years using archaic radiotherapy and chemo

consider the fact that immunotherapy, cryoimmunotherapy have been around for over 100 years, but suppressed and avoided by medical establishment

consider the fact Kanzius RF Therapy (employs a combination of either gold or carbon nanoparticles and radio waves) has been sidelined for over a decade

consider the fact that the FDA setup red-tape and expensive phased clinical trials to delay and discourage new treatments

also it has been proven that diseases like cancer can be treated with a combination/cocktail of old common, cheap, repurposed drugs

>>133113541

>major disease that killed people before they could get cancer are cured.
>OMG ITS A CANCER EPIDEMIC

learn to think critically.

>>133108451
If cancer is so rapidly occurring, what are the possible causes of this?
Assuming it is our western diets (everything laced with sugar such as corn syrup) what type of diet would be required to reduce the risk of getting cancer. No fad diets or any other crap pls.

>>133116447
Stop confusing your ill-conceived presumptions with thinking critically.

>>133116559

Cancer 'is purely man-made' say scientists after finding almost no trace of disease in Egyptian mummies

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1320507/Cancer-purely-man-say-scientists-finding-trace-disease-Egyptian-mummies.html


>>133115184

here is a good start to understand why this is all happening

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Engdahl_F_William/Rockefeller_Plan_SOD.html

http://jaffememo.com/full-list-of-population-control-measures-listed-on-the-jaffe-memo/62.htm

http://jaffememo.com/the-memo-in-context

>>133108953

>>133112405
this

The Genocide, Eugenics and Birth Control movements were forced to completely re-make themselves after the Holocaust.

ie: away from hard genocide, to soft genocide

Returning to the root Malthusian hysteria, they repackaged their agenda as based on ‘over-population.’ Many, if not most, of the measures entertained prior to the Holocaust remained on the table for consideration. Only the reasons for implementing those measures were changed. Thus, in the 1950s and 1960s, calls for ‘population control’ increased in frequency and volume. See Paul Ehrlich’s “The Population Bomb” as one example that made a dent in popular opinion.

But population control advocates understood that the scope of the problem they were presenting required government action at all levels. Thus, Richard Nixon was prompted to enact population control legislation (still in force today). In 1972, Nixon would call for a commission to ‘study’ the problem and present recommendations. This is known as the Rockefeller Commission Report.

The two names most prominently listed on the Jaffe Memo are Bernard Berelson and Frederick Jaffe, the one responsible for the memo itself. These two same individuals were members of the Rockefeller Commission. Berelson was a full commissioner, while Jaffe was listed as a ‘special consultant.

http://jaffememo.com/the-memo-in-context

>>133108451
had cancer, beat it

>>133108673
Will get cancer at some point during their lives.