Mrna cure for cancer
(media.kotakuinaction2.win)
Comments (78)
sorted by:
Doubt
If the host dies, so does the cancer.
That's a draw.
I'm sad now. You made me sad today.
Ah, the ol' "no person, no problem" approach. Now, where did I last hear that one...? 🤔
[Stalin]
Now Chyna
In principle it makes sense and could work great. In principle it's also a catastrophically bad idea that could cause generational harm.
Which principle the eventual reality matches depends entirely on the competency, rigor and dedication to safety over renown of the people they're throwing money at. And, well, looking around at their track record... 😬
This right here. It can never be overstated that human error, greedy and laziness will win out in the end of any long term project. Do we really want to attempt to directly alter our gene pool, when there are other non evasive ways we can be treating cancer?
My X button is gone. There's just a hole there now.
No. It exists. In fact, that was the original intent of the technology.
About 15 years ago, I worked a summer job at an air traffic control center as a software analyst. At some point, there was a golf tournament organized as a fundraiser for cancer treatment research, followed by a supper. I did not attend the tournament that happened during the day, but I did attend the supper, which was right after my work day. Of course, some of the scientists were also in attendance. Normally, I would not have been invited to their table, but I had mentioned to one of them before we sat down that I'd survived cancer twice, so they were interested in speaking with me. I asked questions about their research, and they went in great detail about it.
Their method involved creating "viruses" that were specifically designed to target specific cancer cells. (It's possible that they only called them as such because they wanted to vulgarize their explanation for my benefit.) They would take a sample of the cancer cells in the specific patient, and then design the "virus" to specifically target and consume solely that one type of cell. When I asked about what was preventing the virus from mutating and targeting different parts of the body, their reply was that it was extremely unlikely, because the lifetime of the "virus" they injected was so short that they were more likely to die out as soon as their target was eliminated, before they were able to develop the ability to target different cells. They followed it up with specifying that they were still in the experimental phase, that it was not something doctors were allowed to recommend right off the bat as a possible cancer treatment, but that it was an option that was being floated around for patients for whom every other cancer treatment method failed. After all, not every part of the body can be targeted by radiotherapy, and chemotherapy only works for so long and to a certain extent. They mentioned a few cases where patients were only given a few months to live before their method was recommended to them, who were seemingly able to make full recoveries using it, and were still under observation for any side effects, which so far had not manifested in any way.
My impression after the discussion was that it sounded extremely promising, but limited. It was something that had to be customized for every patient, and for every cancer, which would clearly greatly increase the cost. It was not a method that could be used off-the-shelf, with a generic solution for everyone. It had to be very specifically tailored for the individual, else it wouldn't work and may target other cells, similarly to what chemotherapy does.
This method is absolutely not appropriate for creating vaccines. It seemingly could be called a "cure for cancer", but it is not universal or free, by any means. I fully support research and fundraising for mRNA treatments to cancer. I strongly oppose it for any intent it is not suited for.
Vaccines literally never cure anything. That's not how they work.
Vaccines would have to prevent cancer, which is damn near impossible.
Moreover, cancer isn't a fucking virus. You can't inoculate someone against cancer because it's a defect in the cell's genetic code.
I'm willing to bet this man literally doesn't know anything about what that mRNA injection is or does.
My guess is that the mRNA injection is a GENE THEREAPY which tries to combat the malformed genes of the cancer cells.
Again, giving them the benefit of the doubt, it's still not a vaccine.
All MRNA is gene therapy. it modifies you to combat thing in your body.
This is why I was able to successfully point out to my employer that I will not have them modify ME to combat the coof, and instead opt for a 'traditional' vaccine.
The fact that one conveniently never has become available is just a nice icing on my decision.
Yes it was, it's called "NovaVax" and it's a protien-based vaccine.
It was developed by a much smaller & independent pharmaceutical company. They didn't get emergency use authorization until 2023, and didn't get emergency funding from operation warp speed.
ah, I was not aware! I appreciate the info.
I will be conveniently forgetting to inform my employer as they have seemingly forgotten to enforce shit since the hysteria mostly ended.
I simply don't trust human engineering to be better than millions of years of real world testing that is evolution. Hell, I don't trust human engineering in this realm to even be non-harmful.
Fun fact this is why actual vaccines work. They take dead shit (minced up portions of real viruses) and give it to your body in a controlled way, so it does what it normally does as if you were going to get infected.
It's basically target practice for your immune system.
This is what was so stupid about the mrna jabs.
A normal vaccine is like a soldier being put through basic training with a live fire exercise.
The mrna jabs were like making an 18 year old play mw3 for 100 hours and then sending him to Fallujah with a gun that hasn't been cleaned in 6 years.
And also he's blind as a bat so the friendly fire was off the charts.
The coof was engineered to be a weapon. It escaped before it was ready, but the original version still was dangerous, which is why the elites were shitting themselves over it.
Correct, this treatment isn't a vaccine. It's a gene therapy immune stimulation to make your defense mechanism brutally turn against hopefully a narrow set of rogue (cancer) cells that about about to kill you within weeks / few months.
It's not a prevention. It's not supposed to have long term effects ( but it likely does, which matters less considering you were going to die shortly without it ).
The potential benefit over the risk is unambiguous there.
Contrast this with mass-injecting mRNA coctails into healthy people for no benefit against a cold virus they will catch anyway ( with increased risks of infection 20 weeks post injection over the ''purebloods'', and wiping natural immunity if the injection came after an infection ). Lasting consequences, for no net benefit.
The government-aprouved ''experts'' will tell you there is no difference and you must accept both. Depending on state and country, they might also tell you that you do not have the option to refuse the injections when they declare it so.
And, the alternative to the 'vaccine' was Remdisivir & Respirators which had a fatality rate of 85%
It's like we were exposed to the greatest peace-time crime against humanity since Mao's Great Famine.
I wonder if it would be possible to create a MRNA vaccine against my own genetic code and inject it into others, causing itching, hives, and lupus-like symptoms in others whenever I walk into the room. The ultimate restraining order.
Not a requirement for being a vaccine. All the toxoid vaccines are to build immune response against a toxin secreted by bacteria. Tetanus and diphtheria come to mind.
Fair enough. But cancer isn't a bacteria either.
The issue is that the concept of a vaccine doesn't really apply to cancers (with the exception of what someone else laid out with Grok in this thread), and we know that's not what the Leftist was saying. He was asserting that vaccines cure diseases, rather than inoculate people from them.
I'm no expert, but the key issue with cancers is that the body can't recognize them as a threat because the cells are its own. In theory, if there were some material that could train the immune system to recognize the existing cancer cells, it would fit the definition of a therapeutic vaccine.
I agree with you that an mRNA treatment isn't a vaccine, it's gene therapy. But on paper, a cancer "cure" using a traditional vaccine mechanism could exist. You'd need to come with some antigen that got it to go after the cancer.
Which is why they had to change the definition of what a vaccine was: to hide that the mRNA bullshit was a genetic therapy NOT a vaccine
And in so doing, now the definition of a vaccine makes no sense.
i ran out of gas, so I vaccinated my car.
I bought a glass of orange vaccination to go with breakfast today.
Precisely.
There are people who believe cancers are related to virii
Grok: The theory that cancer is caused by a viral infection suggests that certain viruses may trigger or contribute to the development of specific cancers by altering cellular processes. While not all cancers are viral, some viruses are known to play a role in oncogenesis. Here's a concise overview based on current knowledge:
Oncoviruses: Certain viruses, like Human Papillomavirus (HPV), Epstein-Barr Virus (EBV), Hepatitis B and C (HBV/HCV), and Human T-cell Lymphotropic Virus (HTLV-1), are linked to cancers. For example, HPV is strongly associated with cervical cancer, EBV with lymphomas, and HBV/HCV with liver cancer. These viruses can integrate into host DNA, disrupt tumor suppressor genes (e.g., p53 or Rb), or cause chronic inflammation, leading to uncontrolled cell growth.
Mechanism: Viruses may promote cancer by:
Evidence:
Limitations of the Theory: Not all cancers are linked to viruses. Most cancers arise from a combination of genetic, environmental, and lifestyle factors (e.g., smoking, UV exposure, or random mutations). Only about 10-15% of global cancer cases are estimated to be virus-associated.
Historical Context: The idea dates back to the early 20th century when researchers like Francis Peyton Rous discovered the Rous sarcoma virus, which causes tumors in chickens, earning a Nobel Prize in 1966. This sparked interest in viral oncogenesis, though the broader "cancer is a virus" theory oversimplifies the disease.
Current View: Cancer is multifactorial, and while viruses are a significant cause in some cases, they are not a universal explanation. Research continues into other potential viral links (e.g., possible associations with breast or prostate cancer), but no definitive evidence supports a singular viral cause for all cancers
If we wanted a chat bot's "thoughts", we'd have asked it ourselves.
It's an effective way to consolidate multiple pages of information and put it into a quickly digestible form. It's nothing more than a search engine. I could have posted links but then troglodytes like you would complain about having to click links.
The statement I quoted is wrong. There is a viral element for some cancers. You can choose to ignore the grok.
If you were interested in proving the poster wrong, you could have just mentioned that HPV is linked to certain cancers. It's true and commonly known. If they doubted it, they can check for themselves.
Instead you posted AI spam that we're going to completely ignore.
The funny part is you and it are still completely wrong. Gizortnik said that cancers aren't viruses. You said "cancers are related to virii." You changed the claim to give an answer, that wasn't even your own, that didn't refute anything he said.
ALSO "virii" is not not the plural of virus. Even in Latin, it wouldn't be virii.
Here, in case this helps you:
Copilot:
If you actually wanted to contradict him, you'd want to focus on prophalactic vs. therapeutic vaccines, because vaccines aren't specifically preventative and aren't specifically for viruses.
Whilst we're tightening grammar and spelling; it's prophylactic.
No shade on you or the rest of your points, just that typo slapped me in the face and I couldn't help myself.
Thanks for the tips
Take your hallucinations and fuck right off.
You sound vaccinated
Mudblood projection on your part I'm sure.
Yes, I've heard that argument, but let's be clear that that's not what this person is saying because he's an idiot.
Occurrences of cancers across the spectrum has quadrupled in developed countries since 2021. MRNA might be used to successfully treat a specific type of cancer, but I think it's pretty clear at this point that this amounts to curing a headache with a guillotine.
Vaccines contaminated with SV40 cause cancer.
We learned this with polio.
There was a 40 year spike in cancer rates as a result.
The mRNA platform is incorrect.
Even by their own story, if you take them at their word, it sounds like the NIH is doing this on their own? This is retarded, even for lefties.
Also, if true, goes beyond malicious compliance, since they're not complying with a specific directive, and instead just making shit up.
Lefties not acting in good faith? I'm absolutely shocked.
Hey, it happens
from time toall the time.Except it's not a fucking vaccine because vaccines don't cure illness they (supposedly) prevent it.
Penicillin isn't a VACCINE, it's an antibiotic injection.
These fucking retards just see a needle and call it a vaccine. Such is the Party of Science.
Fact Check: True.
The dead can't develop cancer.
Checkmate Drumpfchuds.
mRNA shots that make your body produce candy!
mRNA shots that print money!
mRNA shots that beam Disney+ directly into your brain, for free!
Think of all the Science™️ you're throwing away!
...i'd rather have 4chan circa 2005 injected into my brain.
they'd do less damage
And somehow still be less gay.
MRNA should be wholly outlawed, all research relating to it destroyed, and companies who peddled it in the past given the corporate death penalty.
And the individuals involved black listed from ever working in the medical field again.
We'd need to enforce this globally, which is a losing proposition. I agree that the technology should be purged and never resurrected but to abandon it entirely is to allow our enemies to gain a weapon about which we know nothing.
Not globally by any means. That's like saying you would have to enforce chocolate slave labor standards globally.
Just don't buy it from other countries.
It's not like it's nuclear proliferation, which failed anyway. It's a wicked, harmful technology that does more harm than good. Once it's banned here and the firehose of lies stops, it'll die out in any place that actually wants to look at the data. And the places that don't will die out from using it.
If they want to give their populations turbo cancer, I say let them.
Being behind in an arms race is not a position you want to find yourself in.
An arms race for giving yourself cancer?
An arms race for whatever unforeseen benefits can be derived from a technology that allows for altering a human's genetic information on the fly.
Let me go ahead and spoil it for you. There aren't any. Messenger RNA is broken at the conceptual level. It is the Ford Pinto of medicine.
It doesn't do what it claims to do, it just gives you cancer, makes men have heart problems and makes women sterile.
Sounds like 1000 times more harm than good. Humans are not software to be edited or commodities to be grown in a lab and sold. There are lines that shouldn't be crossed no matter how many people it would allegedly help. Much more loss than benefit and ends don't justify means anyway.
Yes but that's not going to stop China from tinkering because they have no moral compass and will create unspeakable horrors, so maybe we ought to have enough knowledge of the technology to develop countermeasures.
Christ, it's like I'm the only one in the room who can think more than one step ahead today.
Ivermectin is a potent anti-cancer drug, but drug companies can't make billions if they actually cure people.
I believe if Big Medical truly were fighting cancer, then we would see many less cases of it and the supermarket shelves would be stocked with food containing far less toxins. I wouldn't even be surprised if we do have a cure for cancer but it's only accessible if your net worth is north of $1B or you're a Rothschild or Soros.
Yes, I have 2nd hand experience. My mother had Stomach Cancer 15 years ago. In and out of the hospital, surgeries to excise it. Her stomach is only 1/3rd the size it used to be after they cut a huge chunk out. It also spread to her intestines. They excised bits of that too.
I don't remember where she learned of it (I was only 15) but she started taking Ivermectin daily (all I knew was that she was buying worm medicine for dogs LOL)
she's never had a recurrence. Ivermectin literally cured her cancer. She didn't do any kind of chemical therapies or radiation treatment. Well, beyond the excisions, but those weren't exactly helping since she kept having to get more.
These cases where the benefit vs risk is clearly in favor of ''please try anything because I'm dying anyway'' are no excuse to mass-inject the entire population for an overall negative impact on their lives.
Which is why it's funny they're trying to spin this when President Trump is the one who gave the people the right to try.
Reminds me of a month or so ago a memo from TSA telling staff not to take working dogs to the vet, provide medicine, or purchase food until the White House clarify what they can spend money on.
Nothing in the original order tells you to stave dogs to malicious comply you fucking TDS demons.
As if international multi-billion dollar pharmaceutical conglomerates would have to rely on grant applications, especially after how much they earned with those Wuhan 'vaccines'.
Your own personal vaccine,
Something to cause your ills,
Something that kills
We know that Ivermectin and Vitamin-D can help against cancers. And how certain diets can help against cancers.
See https://imahealth.org/research/cancer-care/
But those solutions are almost free..
If this narrative blows up as an anti-Trump gotcha, expect it to be treated like the sacrosanct covid-19 injection "research" where any kind of scrutiny -- actual scientific digging -- is labeled as pseudoscience.
Sweet! where are the details? this is a great breakthrough for humanity. Cmon, lets see the study!
I'm sure a cure for cancer is valuable enough that they can continue developing it without federal grants.
Look up Cole's Cancer Killing Concoction (if you can still find anything about it online.)
tl;dr, clear back in the 1800s a doctor studied a patient who made a miraculous recovery from facial cancer. What he found was that there are bacteria that cause infection in weakened cancer cells more easily than in healthy cells. So he devised a treatment where a patient with cancer would have a live bacteria culture injected directly into the tumor. The cancer cells would get infected quickly, and "lure" the body's immune system to those cells to destroy them. He cured lots of patients using this technique.
But guess what happened? It couldn't be patented. When Dr. Cole died the entire this was disappeared from the medical industry.
Right when covid began, the guy that invented the RMA technique Robert Malone (although it was a group effort, it was his breakthrough adding RNA droplets to fat so the human body would absorb it) said no one had yet done it right, and to wait and see if they did this time.
They did not.
If they couldn't do it right before, then I doubt it worked this time either.
I think most people don't realize that this is what the push for clot shots was for in the first place. mRNA is a generalized gene therapy that can in theory cure everything, and was invented way back in the 90s.
If you're rich enough, targeted mRNA can theoretically cure cancer, cure any disease, can practically cure death itself. Theoretically.
The problem is that all the tests were killing the lab animals. And even when the death rate dropped, it was still unpredictable and wouldn't always work. Animal testing wasn't even 100% successful, but it was still so promising, so they needed more data. They decided to roll it out across the entire population, so they could have a billion guinea pigs to perfect the ultimate medicine for the globalist ruling class.
Replace vaccine with treatment and then we can talk.
mRNA has potential. For someone with terminal cancer what's the harm in taking something that may give them a different kind of turbo cancer 4 years later? So long as this is only given to cancer patients and not pre-emptively like the covid jab I'm okay with keeping this highly experimental treatment.
cancer was already solved - it turns you can test a biopsy against every known chemotherapy in petri dishes and way more often than not you will find one or several that will for sure kill the cancer and save the patient. i've real-life second-hand knowledge of this from a time a relative of mine worked at a cancer institute.
the whole project and idea was rejected by the hospital that owned the institute because it'd cost too much.