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.
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.