St. Martyr of Middleton and the Colossal Cancer Con

Written by: Miri
March 27, 2024
 | No Comments

Here's a question I have been pondering increasingly frequently recently:

If it's the case that, were we to go to the doctors with a cough, and they informed us, "you have Covid", we wouldn't believe them, why is it we believe them when they tell us we have cancer?

As strange synchronous fate would have it, I watched a film a few days ago that addressed this very issue, where one of the characters declared a terminal cancer diagnosis to be "a curse". Western medicine, he said, is a form of voodoo. When doctors inform patients they have a terminal illness or untreatable disease, they are not "diagnosing" them, but rather, placing an occult spell upon them, which - all too often - the patient goes on to unwittingly fulfil (and obviously, toxic "treatments" such as chemotherapy and radiation expedite this process exponentially).

Of course, this character was portrayed as a crazy, woo-woo conspiracist (he was German and overtly compared to a Nazi), but I was struck by the likely veracity of what he said - knowing that the overlords always have to reveal the truth to us somehow, and star-studded movies are one of their favourite ways to do this (the film was called 'The Party', and featured such high-profile stars as Timothy Spall, Kristin Scott Thomas, and Cillian Murphy).

The language of spells and curses might not sit well with some people, but there are more sanitised and scientific ways of referring to the same thing: the placebo effect, self-fulfilling prophecies; essentially, the idea that the mind is exceptionally powerful, and once it holds a strong core belief (such as, "I have terminal cancer and I'm going to die"), has the tendency to manifest that belief into reality.

We all are trained from our earliest years to live in fear and dread of the words, "I'm afraid it's cancer" - so we must ask why. Why is this disease seen as so uniquely frightening and why do many of us - who wouldn't believe a word "the experts" say about Covid, monkeypox, measles or any other such benign (or non-existent) disease - believe what they say about cancer?

Well, I don't believe it, and now we shall take a deep dive into why, starting with hero saint martyr of the moment, Kate Middleton.

Do I believe Kate has cancer? No, of course not - all the sentiments I expressed in my article 'King Charles Does Not Have Cancer' apply equally to Kate, and can be roughly encapsulated as: if any senior, high-profile Royals were genuinely experiencing a health crisis, the last thing the Royal PR machine would do is inform the world's media and general public, because of the implications for the Royal institution.

For the monarchy to remain valid, public confidence in them as must remain high, and the senior Royals - especially the Monarch - must be seen as robust, resilient and capable. They must never publicly show weakness or frailty, much less be publicly perceived as having the scariest disease in the world.

So why are Charles and Kate cosplaying cancer?

Multiple reasons, further explored in my article on Charles, but the key one we will be focusing on in this article is the normalisation of a new cancer "epidemic", which can hit multiple members of the same family at the same time, even when those families have access to excellent medical care, are known to live particularly healthy lifestyles, and are relatively young (two of those three conditions being true for Charles, and all three for Kate).

We are to believe (as the press has been explicitly saying in many of its articles on the subject) that "cancer doesn't discriminate", when of course a quick glance at the epidemiology of the condition shows that it very much does.

Cancer is far more likely to affect older age-groups than younger ones (90% of cancers are diagnosed in the over-50s); to afflict the obese rather than the slim; to hit smokers and heavy drinkers, and so on.

The Kate cancer psy-op is deftly designed to turn this long-established paradigm on its head, by communicating to us, even if you have no risk factors for cancer (under 50, slim, don't smoke), it's still perfectly normal for you to get it, "because it can happen to anyone, even someone as privileged, young, and healthy as Kate Middleton".

Of course, it "can" happen to anyone; the point is that it's not very likely to, and as such, someone with no risk factors suddenly getting cancer might previously have been tempted to ask questions and dig deeper. But now it's been normalised by Martyr Middleton, such a person is far more likely to just accept it and do as "the experts" say.

My suspicion at this time is that they are going to kill the Kate character off - which is distinct from believing the actress portraying that role will die. Kate, Charles, William and all the other high-profile Royals are really just glorified actors, playing roles on the world stage. They read from scripts and act out preconceived storylines (it's not a coincidence Prince Harry married an actual, literal Hollywood actress).

Kate has played the role of the dutiful wife and doting mother to a sufficient degree, ensuring that William is seen as an honourable family man and not a playboy, and may now, as such, have fulfilled the terms of her contract and so is imminently to exit stage left. If her character is killed off (whilst the actress who plays her is given a new role / identity), the national implications will be enormous.

First of all, it will put the absolute fear of God into people about cancer - that healthy young people like Kate not only get it, but die from it - therefore providing a huge market for any incipient mRNA cancer vaccines.

Secondly, it will create a groundswell of support for Prince William that we haven't seen since the death of Diana.

"Oh My God, that poor man, first he loses his mother as a child, and now he's lost his wife, leaving him alone with three motherless children! Tragic, hideous, life is so cruel!"

William could emerge as a canonised hero, the "struggling single father", fighting to maintain a semblance of normality for his children in the face of such tragedy, the whole nation pulling behind him.

Why would the narrative wish to cast Willian this way?

Well, although I think the Royal Family is to be imminently dismantled (more on that in this article), that doesn't necessarily mean individual members of the dynasty don't have important roles to play in whatever comes next, and William has long since been posited as having a central role in any future "one world government".

Public support for him would be so huge if his wife "tragically dies from cancer", this could easily give him the mandate he needs to rise to a very powerful position (perhaps one much more powerful than the largely ceremonial King of England position).

However, before that potential scenario, first we appear to have to pass through this normalisation of cancer phase, including - in the wake of endless headlines about Kate and Charlies - a lot of spooked people rushing to their doctors to "get tested".

Remember, a key aspect of this sinister psy-op is that Kate and Charles had no symptoms that indicated cancer, it was only when they went into hospital for unrelated procedures, that the cancer was supposedly detected.

This is very intentional scripting and perception reframing, because until now, it's been generally accepted wisdom that cancer shows itself with some sort of obvious symptom - a lump, a seizure, bleeding. Meaning, if you have no such symptoms, you can relax and enjoy life, safe in the knowledge that you are cancer-free.

But this sudden new spread of symptomless cancer in outwardly healthy people is meant to strike utter terror into the hearts of everyone - feel totally healthy, no symptoms of any disease? Doesn't matter. Better get checked anyway, just look at what happened to King Charles and St. Middleton!

The fact is, if we were all tested every day, we would all be found to "have cancer" multiple times, because the body creates cancer cells quite frequently, and then a well-functioning immune system quickly gets rid of them (hence so-called "pre-cancerous" cells. Being "pre-cancerous" is a lot like being "pre-pregnant", e.g., technically, all women of child-bearing age are "pre-pregnant" for two weeks every month, but that doesn't suggest they're just going to spontaneously become pregnant and therefore need to have their wombs removed to avoid it).

So, this once again begs the question I volunteered at the beginning of this article: if a doctor tells us we have cancer, why do we believe them? Why are we scared?

Consider the case of Rosie Gamp, who lived with a "terminal breast cancer" diagnosis for 21 years, and eventually died aged 90 - from something else.

Rosie never knew about her terminal diagnosis. Her husband elected to keep it secret from her, because he wanted her to enjoy whatever time she had left without knowing she was "dying of cancer". As she didn't know, she didn't (she eventually died of kidney disease).

This is actually far more common than one might think, and it's very common for elderly people who died from something else to be found, upon autopsy, to have breast or prostate cancer - but they had no knowledge they had this cancer as they'd never been tested, it wasn't causing them health problems, and it wasn't involved in their death.

So I pose the question again: why are we so scared of cancer, and what would happen if we had it, but it was never diagnosed or conventionally treated?

Would we (as "common sense" would have it) quickly waste away without the "wonders" of modern medicine to prolong our lives... or would we, like Rosie Gamp, live happy long lives, unaware we had a "terminal illness", before eventually dying of something else?

For months now, I have been trying to find an example of someone who died from an undiagnosed cancer at home, rather than from a diagnosed one in a medical setting, and I have been unable to find a single example. Plenty of examples of people who died WITH (but not of) cancer: plenty of people who died after a diagnosis, even if they eschewed conventional treatment... but no examples thus far of anyone who died undiagnosed, outside of medical settings.

Note that the medical cartel bangs on and on about the importance of "early detection" where it comes to cancer... but is that because if people didn't come in with their symptoms early, but simply stayed at home and waited for them to resolve, they would, and the extraordinarily lucrative cancer industry, would collapse?

Please consider the deeply sinister and Orwellian 'Cancer Act 1939'. This despicable act of depopulation makes it illegal to advertise any alternative treatments or cures for cancer - even if they work.

Why on earth would alternative and complimentary cancer therapies be banned from advertising themselves? Surely it's up to adults to use discernment and make their own choices about how to treat their health - why this absurd and unprecedented ban?

To protect the profits of the Colossal Cancer Con, perhaps, and its invaluable services to both depopulation and enriching the coffers of the medical and pharmaceutical cartels?

What if it is the case that cancer can be treated cheaply, safely, and effectively with no biopsies, chemotherapy, or radiation required? What if such simple things as fasting, the ketogenic diet, vitamin C therapy and oxygen chambers can entirely restore health in the cases where cancer is causing unpleasant symptoms?

If that were true, you can imagine what extraordinary lengths the devious mobsters who control medicine and pharmakeia would go to to cover it up and how ruthlessly they would penalise anyone who promoted the truth.

We have been intensively indoctrinated to so fear the word 'cancer', that as soon as it is heard, many people go deeply into fear programming and submit to whatever "the experts" tell them to do, taking poison toxic therapies that even most experts themselves admit they wouldn't touch, which are ultimately what kill them - not the cancer.

So what if this is just the same con as "Covid" - a disease the media has made people terrified of, which is diagnosed using a fake test, and then the diagnosed person is submitted to a battery of vicious and dangerous "treatments" that go on to kill them, and subsequently the disease - rather than the poisoning regimen - is put down as the cause of death.

This is looking more and more likely to me, and ties in with eerie precision to the mRNA cancer vaccine.

How did the statisticians prove the Covid vaccine "worked"? They simply started testing less people, or dialling down the number of cycles tests went through (positive test results on a PCR are wholly dependent on how many times the result is cycled), enabling them to say "our vaccine works because less people are testing positive for Covid".

Equally, all they would have to do to prove their cancer vaccine "works" is to stop testing so many people, or change the nature of the test, resulting in far less cancer diagnoses - which would, as we have explored in this article, undoubtedly result in far fewer cancer deaths.

"But how does this fit in with the depopulation agenda?" You may ask. "Don't they want to kill people off, not save them?"

Yes - but what have the mRNA vaccines become most renowned for? Not causing cancer: causing heart attacks.

Further, what is the leading cause of death in England and Wales, a condition already strongly linked to vaccines? Dementia.

So the mRNA cancer vaccines could be heralded a success if cancer diagnoses dramatically decline after they have been rolled out... but meanwhile, heart disease and dementia and subsequent deaths shoot up ("experts are baffled", etc etc).

Bear in mind that killing people off with cancer treatments is time-consuming and labour intensive for the "elites", and requires a lot of highly-trained "experts" to do.

Much more expedient for them to use a simple injection, which takes two minutes to administer and can be given by practically anyone, to meet their depopulation goals.

Also consider that, the more the cancer vaccine is seen to "work" - e.g., the rarer and rarer cancer diagnoses become after its administration - the more trust will be built in the vaccination process.

The soaring rates of consequent heart disease, dementia, and other diseases will be blamed on "lifestyle factors", and there will be a general sense of, "well, it's sad that heart attacks have gone up, but people have to die of something, and at least it isn't cancer".

So before we get sucked into that sinister black hole, I think it's really important to fully address our feelings on, and responses to, cancer. Why are we so afraid of it? Is it really the terrifying death sentence it's been painted as? Why don't people die of undiagnosed cancers, or cancers they don't know about? Why don't "experts" take the same "treatments" they recommend to patients? Why does the Cancer Act 1939 exist? And finally, where does the word 'cancer' originate? (I'll answer the final one: the word 'cancer' comes from the Greek 'karkinos' - crab. The crab is a symbol for resilience; for being able to see beyond any hurdle and overcome it.)

I think if we're able to fully and honestly answer those questions, we will discover that we have been epically lied to about cancer, just as we have been so egregiously deceived about pretty much everything else.

I've started to think that the opposite of "truth" isn't lies: it's fear. Fear consumes our minds and paralyses us and therefore has the consequent effect of making the truth very difficult to discern and accept. If we can remove our fear of "cancer" then - just like with Covid - I think the liberating truth will be as clear and obvious as all those anomalies on the fake Kate photograph...

Thanks for reading! This site is entirely reader-powered, with no paywalls, adverts, or wealthy corporate backers, making it truly independent. Your support is therefore crucial to ensuring this site's continued existence. If you'd like to make a contribution to help this site keep going, please consider...

1. Subscribing monthly via Patreon or Substack

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

Your support is what allows this site to continue to exist and is enormously appreciated. Thank you. 

Find Miri AF on social media via the links below...

SubstackFacebookInstagramYouTube and Twitter (posting there as my other resource, Informed Consent Matters)

If you enjoyed reading this, please consider supporting the site via donation:
[wpedon id=278]




[wpedon id=278]
©2024 Miri A Finch. All Rights Reserved.
linkedin facebook pinterest youtube rss twitter instagram facebook-blank rss-blank linkedin-blank pinterest youtube twitter instagram