Cancer cons and culls

Last October, I attended the funeral of a friend of mine. He wasn’t a very close friend, but I had got to know him reasonably well during the “Covid” debacle, about which we had similar beliefs, and we attended several of the same events, protests, and demos.

In 2023, my friend - who was unvaccinated - was diagnosed with an aggressive cancer. Although he had many friends in the natural health world who reached out to him and offered to support him with alternative treatments, he ultimately rejected them, and gave in to pressure to follow conventional protocols.

He began chemotherapy, and died less than a year later, the hospital having informed him that, after several rounds of chemo, there was nothing more they could do for him, and he should now go home to die.

He passed away in October 2024, and his funeral later that month was packed with his many friends, colleagues, and family members - including his young adult child, who described him as “their best friend” and broke down in tears whilst trying to deliver a speech.

I am sure it will not surprise you to know that my friend’s story received zero press attention.

There was no blanket coverage in the mainstream media of how conventional treatments had terribly failed him; there was no demonisation of the doctors who’d recommended this ultimately lethal protocol (a protocol the majority of doctors would avoid for themselves); there were certainly no BBC or Netflix specials about the horrors of conventional cancer treatments, and the ripped-apart families and trails of devastation they leave in their wake.

Odd then, isn’t it, that we DO have reams of such coverage when natural treatments for cancer supposedly fail.

We are all well aware that we are currently in a global cancer “boom”, with cancer rates - especially amongst the young - exploding.

We all know what the likely cause of this boom is, and many whistleblowers predicted it: that, within 3-5 years of the Covid “vaccine” rollout, we would see cancers worldwide skyrocket.

This is indeed what we are seeing, and this is not a surprising phenomenon, given that the ruling classes are open depopulationists who think there are far too many people around and are thus openly invested in thinning the herd.

So, of course, if they’ve engineered a global cancer epidemic (which they have) to assist with population reduction, the last thing they want people to be able to do is treat this cancer effectively and survive.

So, the ruling classes are now heavily invested in introducing a worldwide propaganda offensive to completely demonise effective cancer treatments (and those who promote them), in order to ensure as many people as possible are funnelled down the conventional “treatment” pathway instead, which is far more likely to kill them (chemotherapy reportedly failing 97% of the time).

This latest propaganda assault began in earnest with the (as Netflix calls is) “true-ish” story of Belle Gibson.

Gibson, so the story goes, launched a phenomenally successful healthy living app, off the back of her claims to have successfully treated a usually lethal cancer, entirely with natural methods.

She became a (very wealthy) media star in her home country of Australia, allegedly leading to cancer sufferers foregoing conventional treatments in favour of natural alternatives as promoted by Gibson.

However, smelling a rat in her story, investigative journalists began digging and ultimately discovered Gibson had never actually had cancer at all. That she was simply a conwoman who had invented the cancer story to flog her app and book, leaving a trail of destruction in her wake, as - it is suggested - cancer sufferers succumbed to their disease as a result of using her “quackery”, rather than the proper scientific treatments.

The Belle Gibson scandal first hit the Australian headlines a few years ago, but we now have an extremely (indeed, eerily) similar story saturating the UK press, in the shape of Paloma Shemirani, a 23-year-old who - according to the press and her brothers - died of cancer after refusing conventional treatment, and opting for natural cures instead.

This version of events is heavily disputed by Paloma’s parents, Kate and Faramarz Shemirani, who insist she was killed by medical negligence and an overdose of hospital drugs. Nevertheless, the “died from cancer after using natural treatments” story has taken route in the national consciousness, with its similarities to the Belle Gibson story noted by commentators.

This is - just like we saw in “Covid”, and as we see with other agenda items - classic lockstep strategy. We hear the same sort of stories presented in the same sort of ways all over the world, slightly culturally tweaked to optimally suit the target audience, but the underlying message will always be the same: in this case, that natural cancer treatments are nothing but quackery, peddled by snake oil salesmen (or women) looking to make a quick buck, and your only real hope of surviving this dreadful disease is taking conventional medical advice.

The problem with this messaging, when it comes from the ruling classes, is that the ruling classes want to reduce the population. They very openly admit this, and moreover, are pushing through assisted dying legislation in multiple countries in order to expedite this agenda.

So why on earth would anyone believe that the very same people calling for state-sponsored suicide to be widely available, are simultaneously invested in saving the lives of cancer sufferers? There is no doubt that a terminal cancer diagnosis would qualify someone for assisted dying, after all.

Obviously, for a ruling class openly committed to culling the population, curing cancer - or any disease that takes out millions of “useless eaters” annually - is the last thing they’d want to do.

And, in fact, they quite openly admit this, and have done so since 1939, when they introduced the Cancer Act.

This Act effectively makes it illegal to cure cancer.

The Act declares that it is legally prohibited to publish any materials that "offer to treat any person for cancer, or to prescribe any remedy therefor, or to give any advice in connection with the treatment thereof".

So, you are legally prohibited from advertising any treatment or cure for cancer, even if it works.

Why would such ominous legislation be passed?

There can only be one reason: because the ruling classes emphatically don’t want anyone to survive cancer, and want to expedite death as quickly as possible by funnelling cancer sufferers down the chemotherapy route, which, to repeat, fails 97% of the time (or succeeds 97% of the time, depending on what you believe its real goal is).

As such, we can now expect many stories like Belle Gibson’s and Paloma Shemirani’s to saturate the press, along with concomitant stories of young people who were diagnosed with cancer and strictly followed conventional protocols, who survived and thrived - like member of the Royal Family, Kate Middleton.

Middleton, we are told, developed cancer at a young age, took chemotherapy (miraculously not losing any of her marvellous mane of hair, despite reportedly not utilising a hair-loss-preventative cold cap), and is now fully recovered and thriving.

Of course, it is spectacularly unlikely that Middleton ever had cancer at all, and far more likely that this claim was yet another psyop to convince the population that 1. cancer in the young is normal, even for those from privileged and health-focused backgrounds, and 2. if you get cancer and follow the conventional treatment paths, you’ll survive (and keep your luscious locks).

If, however, you listen to crazy cranks and their conspiratorial quackery, you will die.

Therefore, to get to the truth, we simply reverse these claims…

Cancer in the young is not normal, and conventional treatments are not the pathway you should follow.

The indisputable veracity of this analysis can be underlined simply by reiterating that the same ruling classes who are aggressively pushing through assisted dying legislation, including offering it to physically healthy people in their twenties, are, quite obviously, not invested in preserving or extending anyone’s life.

After all, just consider this: if assisted dying becomes law in this country, it will become legal to offer death to patients as as an optional response to a terminal cancer diagnosis.

And yet, it will remain a legal offence to offer alternative treatments.

Thanks for reading! This article was originally published at miriaf.co.uk, which is entirely reader-supported, with no paywalls, adverts, or wealthy corporate backers, meaning your support is what powers this site to keep going. If you enjoyed this article, and would like to read more in the future, please consider…

1. Subscribing monthly at Substack or Patreon (where paid subscribers can comment on posts)

2. Making a one-off contribution via BuyMeACoffee

3. Contributing in either way via bank transfer to Nat West, account number 30835984, sort code 54-10-27, account name FINCH MA (please use your email address as a reference if you’d like me to acknowledge receipt).

Your support is what allows these articles to keep being created and is enormously appreciated. Thank you.