Correlation does not equal causation. This is the red herring the medical establishment has been using for centuries to deceive us. Cancer isn't caused by anything "out there". Not carcinogens, toxins, family history, genes, diet, exercise, yada yada.
Cancer is a natural biological program your body runs to assist you with resolving an ongoing conflict such as loss, anger, separation, self-devaluation, threats, attacks, etc. that you have not yet come-to-terms with. The "type" of cancer one gets correlates to the conflict type.
If the middle east do in fact have lower levels of cancer it is because they know better how to forgive, forget and move on from life's unexpected difficulties.
When you resolve your conflict is when you get the "symptoms" and this is the period that is VITAL that you consume large amounts of protein to assist the bacteria breaking down the temporary excess "cancer" cells.
The man in your example simply resolved his psychological conflict during the period when he was fasting and using supplements. Had this not been the case, none of what he did would have done a thing. And this is why some people succeed and some people fail with every "cancer treatment", both conventional and alternative under the sun. If the "treatment" doesn't work for everybody, then it's no treatment at all. Instead, merely coincidental with conflict resolution when it happens work.
I don't mean to be rude, but that's quite a bit of pseudoscience. So, all those people in Hiroshima who got cancer from radiation exposure after the atomic weapon was used just needed to solve their internal conflicts?
Er… since nothing is off the table any more in terms of us all trying to better understand the true reality we live in and the actual true vectors for danger and loss of life that surround us, rethinking the false safety and underplayed dangers we have been indoctrinated to belief, turns out the atomic bomb thing is not immune from scrutiny either…
What morpheus is describing is German New Medicine, if I’m not mistaken, and it’s one of the cures presented briefly. I have to say from what I am learning, it is powerful. Gives new meaning to the importance of knowing thyself, forgiving, and not living in fear. There are a couple podcasts. Here’s some reading: https://learninggnm.com/i_i.html
It's not rude at all. After having been inundated by a lifetime of indoctrination and pseudoscience your entire life, the reality of the matter would indeed appear as pseudoscience in this realm of inversion.
Radiation poisoning is different from "cancer", is it not?
Are you sure? Do you believe the establishment history books? Do you believe doctors and scientists have been properly educated, or quite deliberately miseducated?
I've got a couple books that suggest there were no "nukes" dropped on Japan in 1945 as well. Now, could they have dumped a bunch of dirty radioactive waste with conventional bombs? That's certainly a distinct possibility.
Nonetheless, I maintain that cancer is a natural biological process that arises due to very specific types of psychological conflicts. It is a coping/protective mechanism initiated by your psyche/subconscious mind. Cancer is not an evil scourge that should be eradicated by barbaric and primitive methods like the standard burn, cut, poison offered by the establishment.
The problems arise when people refuse to resolve their psychological conflict by accepting, forgiving, forgetting, allowing, coming-to-terms with the life situation that did not work out as they had wanted.
As to people getting cancer after the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, wouldn't it make sense that these people would have any number of psychological conflicts after the loss of their loved-ones, homes, city, country, etc.? I can think of dozens of likely reactions that would account for a wide variety of different cancers.
It would make zero sense that some people got lung cancer, while others brain cancer, while others pancreatic, still others colon, others breast, others prostate, others stomach, etc. etc. Every single one should have gotten the exact same "dis-ease" if there was a single substance, radioactive elements, that they were exposed to.
Correlation does not equal causation. This is the red herring the medical establishment has been using for centuries to deceive us. Cancer isn't caused by anything "out there". Not carcinogens, toxins, family history, genes, diet, exercise, yada yada.
Cancer is a natural biological program your body runs to assist you with resolving an ongoing conflict such as loss, anger, separation, self-devaluation, threats, attacks, etc. that you have not yet come-to-terms with. The "type" of cancer one gets correlates to the conflict type.
If the middle east do in fact have lower levels of cancer it is because they know better how to forgive, forget and move on from life's unexpected difficulties.
When you resolve your conflict is when you get the "symptoms" and this is the period that is VITAL that you consume large amounts of protein to assist the bacteria breaking down the temporary excess "cancer" cells.
The man in your example simply resolved his psychological conflict during the period when he was fasting and using supplements. Had this not been the case, none of what he did would have done a thing. And this is why some people succeed and some people fail with every "cancer treatment", both conventional and alternative under the sun. If the "treatment" doesn't work for everybody, then it's no treatment at all. Instead, merely coincidental with conflict resolution when it happens work.
I don't mean to be rude, but that's quite a bit of pseudoscience. So, all those people in Hiroshima who got cancer from radiation exposure after the atomic weapon was used just needed to solve their internal conflicts?
Er… since nothing is off the table any more in terms of us all trying to better understand the true reality we live in and the actual true vectors for danger and loss of life that surround us, rethinking the false safety and underplayed dangers we have been indoctrinated to belief, turns out the atomic bomb thing is not immune from scrutiny either…
https://archive.org/details/Hiroshima_revisited
Here’s an interview with the author of that book…
https://jermwarfare.com/conversations/michael-palmer-atomic
What morpheus is describing is German New Medicine, if I’m not mistaken, and it’s one of the cures presented briefly. I have to say from what I am learning, it is powerful. Gives new meaning to the importance of knowing thyself, forgiving, and not living in fear. There are a couple podcasts. Here’s some reading: https://learninggnm.com/i_i.html
It's not rude at all. After having been inundated by a lifetime of indoctrination and pseudoscience your entire life, the reality of the matter would indeed appear as pseudoscience in this realm of inversion.
Radiation poisoning is different from "cancer", is it not?
They got cancer from the radiation poisoning. That's a fact.
Are you sure? Do you believe the establishment history books? Do you believe doctors and scientists have been properly educated, or quite deliberately miseducated?
I've got a couple books that suggest there were no "nukes" dropped on Japan in 1945 as well. Now, could they have dumped a bunch of dirty radioactive waste with conventional bombs? That's certainly a distinct possibility.
Nonetheless, I maintain that cancer is a natural biological process that arises due to very specific types of psychological conflicts. It is a coping/protective mechanism initiated by your psyche/subconscious mind. Cancer is not an evil scourge that should be eradicated by barbaric and primitive methods like the standard burn, cut, poison offered by the establishment.
The problems arise when people refuse to resolve their psychological conflict by accepting, forgiving, forgetting, allowing, coming-to-terms with the life situation that did not work out as they had wanted.
As to people getting cancer after the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, wouldn't it make sense that these people would have any number of psychological conflicts after the loss of their loved-ones, homes, city, country, etc.? I can think of dozens of likely reactions that would account for a wide variety of different cancers.
It would make zero sense that some people got lung cancer, while others brain cancer, while others pancreatic, still others colon, others breast, others prostate, others stomach, etc. etc. Every single one should have gotten the exact same "dis-ease" if there was a single substance, radioactive elements, that they were exposed to.