could there be a subtle culling going on??

I have for a long time considered the idea that humans are in fact being slowly killed off, I have always considered the pharma companies along with many farming companies the instigators of said culling, the other day a conversation with a doctor confirmed my suspicions, to say I was shocked would be an under statement....

I was debating this with another lady on another forum , she brought it up and it was everything that said GP was talking about .

Killed off deliberately? For what purpose - to save on State pension money?

How are the pharma companies doing this? Are they developing drugs which have such serious side effects that people die from them?

Raggamuffin wrote:Killed off deliberately? For what purpose - to save on State pension money?

I think it is yes..

Raggamuffin wrote:How are the pharma companies doing this? Are they developing drugs which have such serious side effects that people die from them?

For the first time researchers looked at the numbers of cancer patients who died within 30 days of starting chemotherapy, which indicates that the medication is the cause of death, rather than the cancer.

The study by Public Health England and Cancer Research UK found that across England around 8.4 per cent of patients with lung cancer, and 2.4 per cent of breast cancer patients died within a month.t Lancashire Teaching Hospitals the 30 day mortality rate was 28 per cent for palliative chemotherapy for lung cancer, which is given when a cure is not expected and treatment given to alleviate symptoms.

Deaths of lung cancer patients from chemotherapy were also far higher than the national average in Blackpool, Coventry, Derby, South Tyneside and Surrey and Sussex, according to the research.

Similarly, around one in five people who underwent palliative care for breast cancer at Cambridge University Hospitals died from their treatment.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/08/30/chemotherapy-warning-as-hundreds-die-from-cancer-fighting-drugs/

heavenlyfather wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Killed off deliberately? For what purpose - to save on State pension money?

I think it is yes..

There's big money in keeping the elderly and chronically sick alive beyond their time too. Big money.

HoratioTarr wrote:

heavenlyfather wrote:

I think it is yes..

There's big money in keeping the elderly and chronically sick alive beyond their time too.   Big money.  

yes there is, if you can make them ill you can earn from them, take all their money then discard them on end of life..

Raggamuffin wrote:How are the pharma companies doing this? Are they developing drugs which have such serious side effects that people die from them?

statins are proving very dangerous and some drugs will mimic other illnesses..

Seeing as the world population is surging, the cullers are doing one lousy job ...

*THE Ben Reilly* wrote:Seeing as the world population is surging, the cullers are doing one lousy job ...

are they, perhaps it depends on who the surge comes from...

HoratioTarr wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:How are the pharma companies doing this? Are they developing drugs which have such serious side effects that people die from them?

For the first time researchers looked at the numbers of cancer patients who died within 30 days of starting chemotherapy, which indicates that the medication is the cause of death, rather than the cancer.

The study by Public Health England and Cancer Research UK found that across England around 8.4 per cent of patients with lung cancer, and 2.4 per cent of breast cancer patients died within a month.t Lancashire Teaching Hospitals the 30 day mortality rate was 28 per cent for palliative chemotherapy for lung cancer, which is given when a cure is not expected and treatment given to alleviate symptoms.  

Deaths of lung cancer patients from chemotherapy were also far higher than the national average in Blackpool, Coventry, Derby, South Tyneside and Surrey and Sussex, according to the research.

Similarly, around one in five people who underwent palliative care for breast cancer at Cambridge University Hospitals died from their treatment.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/08/30/chemotherapy-warning-as-hundreds-die-from-cancer-fighting-drugs/

The death rate would be high for those who have chemo merely to alleviate symptoms though.

Chemo is a very aggressive treatment which can wreck the immune system, so I would think that death from infections is probably quite high?

heavenlyfather wrote:

*THE Ben Reilly* wrote:Seeing as the world population is surging, the cullers are doing one lousy job ...

are they, perhaps it depends on who the surge comes from...

Ah, there it is.

I think we should stick to the pharma companies rather than turn this into a thread about race.

I have no problem with interracial marriages...lol

remember racism only works one way ..lol

Raggamuffin wrote:I think we should stick to the pharma companies rather than turn this into a thread about race.

You don't get it. HF is saying that the population of white countries is being culled, while the population of Africa, the Middle East, etc. is being "allowed" to surge.

Raggamuffin wrote:I think we should stick to the pharma companies rather than turn this into a thread about race.

good point, let's not get derailed..

There's a good number of people still around due to chemo I would think.

*THE Ben Reilly* wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I think we should stick to the pharma companies rather than turn this into a thread about race.

You don't get it. HF is saying that the population of white countries is being culled, while the population of Africa, the Middle East, etc. is being "allowed" to surge.

He hasn't said that. It's more interesting to discuss the pharma companies and all these drugs these days anyway. Threads about race are far too abundant on here as it is.

Vintage wrote:There's a good number of people still around due to chemo I would think.

Yes there are. I think it probably depends on how much chemo they have, how strong they are to start with, and how far the cancer had gone prior to the treatment. Others are very much worn down by chemo, especially if it doesn't work.

Raggamuffin wrote:

*THE Ben Reilly* wrote:

You don't get it. HF is saying that the population of white countries is being culled, while the population of Africa, the Middle East, etc. is being "allowed" to surge.

He hasn't said that. It's more interesting to discuss the pharma companies and all these drugs these days anyway. Threads about race are far too abundant on here as it is.

thank you...
the phrma companies run the show, they are to powerful to go up against them.

heavenlyfather wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

He hasn't said that. It's more interesting to discuss the pharma companies and all these drugs these days anyway. Threads about race are far too abundant on here as it is.

thank you...
the phrma companies run the show, they are to powerful to go up against them.

What's in it for the pharma companies if people die of their drugs though? All drugs have risks attached to them - some more than others. There are conditions around which are now more treatable than before, but the treatments can be rather risky.

Raggamuffin wrote:

heavenlyfather wrote:

thank you...
the phrma companies run the show, they are to powerful to go up against them.

What's in it for the pharma companies if people die of their drugs though? All drugs have risks attached to them - some more than others. There are conditions around which are now more treatable than before, but the treatments can be rather risky.

it's just like drug dependency with street drugs, they start on one end up on loads, they do not cure them because then they lose a customer, it suits the countries that do not have to keep the elderly... it's terrifying to imagine but it makes sense.in a sick way..

heavenlyfather wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

What's in it for the pharma companies if people die of their drugs though? All drugs have risks attached to them - some more than others. There are conditions around which are now more treatable than before, but the treatments can be rather risky.

it's just like drug dependency with street drugs, they start on one end up on loads, they do not cure them because then they lose a customer, it suits the countries that do not have to keep the elderly... it's terrifying to imagine but it makes sense.in a sick way..

There are a lot of diseases around which are not curable though, they're only treatable. There is apparently a steady increase in autoimmune disease, for example, and they are generally only treatable, or they go into remission by themselves. There doesn't seem to be anything which will "cure" such diseases. Type 2 Diabetes is on the increase. It's my opinion that it's curable but only by lifestyle changes, not by drugs. I daresay a huge amount of money is spent on treating it.

Raggamuffin wrote:

heavenlyfather wrote:

it's just like drug dependency with street drugs, they start on one end up on loads, they do not cure them because then they lose a customer, it suits the countries that do not have to keep the elderly... it's terrifying to imagine but it makes sense.in a sick way..

There are a lot of diseases around which are not curable though, they're only treatable. There is apparently a steady increase in autoimmune disease, for example, and they are generally only treatable, or they go into remission by themselves. There doesn't seem to be anything which will "cure" such diseases. Type 2 Diabetes  is on the increase. It's my opinion that it's curable but only by lifestyle changes, not by drugs. I daresay a huge amount of money is spent on treating it.

the old adage we are what we eat still seems true, now you see companies like monsato being dragged through court for what they are putting on food products, it seems from the source all the way through to the treatment is being "doctored", diabetes was practically non existent until 1980, now it is an epidemic, why?? could it be connected to the fact practically ever food we eat now is packed with rubbish and sugar...

GP surgeries get extra funding if they diagnose so many patients with type 2 and high cholesterol.
I agree type 2 can be cured by lifestyle changes .

I also read that medications for type 2 will only make the disease progress faster . Statins are said to kill every cell one at a time starting with the brain . It is also my belief that statins mimic Parkinson's and dementia . I studied this a lot when my dad was dying because I firmly believe that the statins caused the Parkinson's symptoms and dementia symptoms. He had neither and i really believe this was just statins that caused his death .
I was at a meeting with medical professionals at the care home where my dad spent his last months and we were discussing the best way forward and statins were mentioned in his medicines and all of the medical professionals there said they wouldn't have them or allow family members to have them either.

heavenlyfather wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

There are a lot of diseases around which are not curable though, they're only treatable. There is apparently a steady increase in autoimmune disease, for example, and they are generally only treatable, or they go into remission by themselves. There doesn't seem to be anything which will "cure" such diseases. Type 2 Diabetes  is on the increase. It's my opinion that it's curable but only by lifestyle changes, not by drugs. I daresay a huge amount of money is spent on treating it.

the old adage we are what we eat still seems true, now you see companies like monsato being dragged through court for what they are putting on food products, it seems from the source all the way through to the treatment is being "doctored", diabetes was practically non existent until 1980, now it is an epidemic, why?? could it be connected to the fact practically ever food we eat now is packed with rubbish and sugar...

The jury is still out on that. It's known that there is a connection between obesity and Type 2 diabetes, but it's not really known how that works. They should do a study to find out how obese people with diabetes got fat - ie, by eating a lot of suger or a lot of fat. It could be sugar intake which is responsible. There are slim people around who eat an awful lot of sugar, so how does that affect them?

Vicar of Dibley (vod) wrote:GP surgeries get extra funding if they diagnose so many patients with type 2 and high cholesterol.
I agree type 2 can be cured by lifestyle changes .

I also read that medications for type 2 will only make the disease progress faster . Statins are said to kill every cell one at a time starting with the brain . It is also my belief that statins mimic Parkinson's and dementia . I studied this a lot when my dad was dying because I firmly believe that the statins caused the Parkinson's symptoms and dementia symptoms. He had neither and i really believe this was just statins that caused his death .
I was at a meeting with  medical professionals at the care home where my dad spent his last months and we were discussing the best way forward and statins were mentioned in his medicines and all of the medical professionals there said they wouldn't have them or allow family members to have them either.

I was there and heard it for myself .. makes you wonder why it is fine for the masses though..

Vicar of Dibley (vod) wrote:GP surgeries get extra funding if they diagnose so many patients with type 2 and high cholesterol.
I agree type 2 can be cured by lifestyle changes .

I also read that medications for type 2 will only make the disease progress faster . Statins are said to kill every cell one at a time starting with the brain . It is also my belief that statins mimic Parkinson's and dementia . I studied this a lot when my dad was dying because I firmly believe that the statins caused the Parkinson's symptoms and dementia symptoms. He had neither and i really believe this was just statins that caused his death .
I was at a meeting with  medical professionals at the care home where my dad spent his last months and we were discussing the best way forward and statins were mentioned in his medicines and all of the medical professionals there said they wouldn't have them or allow family members to have them either.

Yes. Statins were the in-thing not so long back, but there's been a re-think on that. I don't think it's a good idea to prescribe drugs "just in case" because they all have potential side effects. I take a medication which in my opinion has caused me some problems, but then again I do need it.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Vicar of Dibley (vod) wrote:GP surgeries get extra funding if they diagnose so many patients with type 2 and high cholesterol.
I agree type 2 can be cured by lifestyle changes .

I also read that medications for type 2 will only make the disease progress faster . Statins are said to kill every cell one at a time starting with the brain . It is also my belief that statins mimic Parkinson's and dementia . I studied this a lot when my dad was dying because I firmly believe that the statins caused the Parkinson's symptoms and dementia symptoms. He had neither and i really believe this was just statins that caused his death .
I was at a meeting with  medical professionals at the care home where my dad spent his last months and we were discussing the best way forward and statins were mentioned in his medicines and all of the medical professionals there said they wouldn't have them or allow family members to have them either.

Yes. Statins were the in-thing not so long back, but there's been a re-think on that. I don't think it's a good idea to prescribe drugs "just in case" because they all have potential side effects. I take a medication which in my opinion has caused me some problems, but then again I do need it.

when you hear, medical professionals talking about prediabetic and even famous people have a mastectomy because they have a history of breast cancer in the family,I think we live in dangerous times, I wonder what they prescribe for predeath as we are all in that one

My cholesterol is 7.2 I won't accept statins, there was a study last year about cholesterol actually protecting the brain as we get older that's why it gets higher .
I'll try and find it and post it .

Vicar of Dibley (vod) wrote:My cholesterol is 7.2 I won't accept statins, there was a study last year about cholesterol actually protecting the brain as we get older that's why it gets higher .
I'll try and find it and post it .

I was told years ago mine was a bit high, but I didn't do anything about it. I wonder how high it is now.

I don't think it matters because cholesterol is natural and i think it was all made up to get people on statins .
My mum is eighty five and won't take statins , she had blood work done two weeks ago and everything is fine the doctor said for a woman of her age she is very good health . She had mouth cancer 8 years ago had part of her top pallet removed and has been great ever since, apart from being in a wheelchair because of age related sciatica she is fab and her mind is very sharp too .

Not everyone with high cholestrol will need statins...there are two graphs, simply put good cholestrol and bad cholestrol.
If your good cholestrol is high you wont be prescribed statins....if your bad cholestrol is high you will be offered them.
I have just started taking them as my cholestrol  (bad) has been high for several years, and my diet  which is good, has had no effect.
Like every medicine it has side effects, and like every medicine you have to weigh up whether the good will outway the bad.

Syl wrote:Not everyone with high cholestrol will need statins...there are two graphs, simply put good cholestrol and bad cholestrol.
If your good cholestrol is high you wont be prescribed statins....if your bad cholestrol is high you will be offered them.
I have just started taking them as my cholestrol  (bad) has been high for several years, and my diet  which is good, has had no effect.
Like every medicine it has side effects, and like every medicine you have to weigh up whether the good will outway the bad.

you should try foods that are high in chromium and vanadium,they help with diabetes.

I often hope people research illness properly and don't just listen to the doctors...

heavenlyfather wrote:

Syl wrote:Not everyone with high cholestrol will need statins...there are two graphs, simply put good cholestrol and bad cholestrol.
If your good cholestrol is high you wont be prescribed statins....if your bad cholestrol is high you will be offered them.
I have just started taking them as my cholestrol  (bad) has been high for several years, and my diet  which is good, has had no effect.
Like every medicine it has side effects, and like every medicine you have to weigh up whether the good will outway the bad.

you should try foods that are high in chromium and vanadium,they help with diabetes.

I often hope people research illness properly and don't just listen to the doctors...

I dont have diabetes, just high cholestrol.
I will have blood tests in a few weeks, as long as I dont have any side effects (no noticable ones so far) and the tests come back OK, I will stay on them for a while .
Untreated high cholestrol can lead to strokes and heart disease....so if taking a daily tablet can prevent that, its worth it. Like you say though, every medicine can cause potential risk to health....its a balancing act.

Syl wrote:

heavenlyfather wrote:

you should try foods that are high in chromium and vanadium,they help with diabetes.

I often hope people research illness properly and don't just listen to the doctors...

I dont have diabetes, just high cholestrol.
I will have blood tests in a few weeks, as long as I dont have any side effects (no noticable ones so far) and the tests come back OK, I will stay on them for a while .
Untreated high cholestrol can lead to strokes and heart disease....so if taking a daily tablet can prevent that, its worth it. Like you say though, every medicine can cause potential risk to health....its a balancing act.

oops sorry, my mistake about the diabetes...

pains in extremities, legs especially, seems to be the main side effect complained of by people taking statins, i'm pleased they are helping you..

Thanks HT.
Well time will tell, the problem with high cholestrol is it doesnt really give any symptoms, so you dont know if you have it or not till you are tested.

I think when it comes to medicines, we all have to make our own minds up.

Syl wrote:Thanks HT.
Well time will tell, the problem with high cholestrol is it doesnt really give any symptoms, so you dont know if you have it or not till you are tested.

I think when it comes to medicines, we all have to make our own minds up.

I agree, I don't think they should force vaccines or any medicine on people but allow people to make their own informed decision...

I was put on statins as my level was 7.5. That was years ago.

Having read about stations I've stopped them. The last blood test had my level lower than 5.

I don't trust all the pills prescribed and I always question things. I too think we're being bumped off. People are living too long now, they won't oblige dying young. Makes me sick what they hide tbh.

you don't trust the pills and medicines that have made you live too long

doesn't one side of your statement contradict the other


While profiteering from medicine/treatment is definitely a thing, by in large medicine does actually work (to the extent that it is said to clinically, which is never 100%)

veya_victaous wrote:you don't trust the pills and medicines that have made you live too long

doesn't one side of your statement contradict the other


While profiteering from medicine/treatment is definitely a thing, by in large medicine does actually work (to the extent that it is said to clinically, which is never 100%)

+1

veya_victaous wrote:you don't trust the pills and medicines that have made you live too long

doesn't one side of your statement contradict the other


While profiteering from medicine/treatment is definitely a thing, by in large medicine does actually work (to the extent that it is said to clinically, which is never 100%)

Yeah the whole statement in the OP is bizarre considering the massive upward trend of life expectancy across the board

Raggamuffin wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

For the first time researchers looked at the numbers of cancer patients who died within 30 days of starting chemotherapy, which indicates that the medication is the cause of death, rather than the cancer.

The study by Public Health England and Cancer Research UK found that across England around 8.4 per cent of patients with lung cancer, and 2.4 per cent of breast cancer patients died within a month.t Lancashire Teaching Hospitals the 30 day mortality rate was 28 per cent for palliative chemotherapy for lung cancer, which is given when a cure is not expected and treatment given to alleviate symptoms.  

Deaths of lung cancer patients from chemotherapy were also far higher than the national average in Blackpool, Coventry, Derby, South Tyneside and Surrey and Sussex, according to the research.

Similarly, around one in five people who underwent palliative care for breast cancer at Cambridge University Hospitals died from their treatment.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/08/30/chemotherapy-warning-as-hundreds-die-from-cancer-fighting-drugs/

The death rate would be high for those who have chemo merely to alleviate symptoms though.

Chemo is a very aggressive treatment which can wreck the immune system, so I would think that death from infections is probably quite high?

One of my clients, a lovely lady with Stage 4 Ovarian cancer, was being so positive and determined to either beat the cancer (highly unlikely at stage 4) or live for as long as possible with it. She took Chemo and was dead within the week. Chemo wiped her out. I was giving her free sessions because she was poor as a church mouse and was a carer for her 44 year daughter and each time she got off the couch, she swore she felt more positive. I must admit, I cried over that one. I just find it hard that in this day and age we haven't tapped more into the body's ability to fight disease. It makes me angry. But...there are steps now towards immunotherapy, which is good.

Raggamuffin wrote:

heavenlyfather wrote:

the old adage we are what we eat still seems true, now you see companies like monsato being dragged through court for what they are putting on food products, it seems from the source all the way through to the treatment is being "doctored", diabetes was practically non existent until 1980, now it is an epidemic, why?? could it be connected to the fact practically ever food we eat now is packed with rubbish and sugar...

The jury is still out on that. It's known that there is a connection between obesity and Type 2 diabetes, but it's not really known how that works. They should do a study to find out how obese people with diabetes got fat - ie, by eating a lot of suger or a lot of fat. It could be sugar intake which is responsible. There are slim people around who eat an awful lot of sugar, so how does that affect them?

Exercise? I think that plays a huge part in staving off diabetes and reversing it. Too many people drive everywhere and don't walk more than a few steps a day.

heavenlyfather wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

There are a lot of diseases around which are not curable though, they're only treatable. There is apparently a steady increase in autoimmune disease, for example, and they are generally only treatable, or they go into remission by themselves. There doesn't seem to be anything which will "cure" such diseases. Type 2 Diabetes  is on the increase. It's my opinion that it's curable but only by lifestyle changes, not by drugs. I daresay a huge amount of money is spent on treating it.

the old adage we are what we eat still seems true, now you see companies like monsato being dragged through court for what they are putting on food products, it seems from the source all the way through to the treatment is being "doctored", diabetes was practically non existent until 1980, now it is an epidemic, why?? could it be connected to the fact practically ever food we eat now is packed with rubbish and sugar...

Absolutely true. Some of us are old enough to remember how food was, and the nation's eating habits, forty odd years ago. Take away's were unheard of. Sweets and crisps were a treat, not an everyday food. We walked everywhere. There were hardly any low fat prepared meals that were packed with sugar. Most people cooked from scratch.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

The death rate would be high for those who have chemo merely to alleviate symptoms though.

Chemo is a very aggressive treatment which can wreck the immune system, so I would think that death from infections is probably quite high?

One of my clients, a lovely lady with Stage 4 Ovarian cancer, was being so positive and determined to either beat the cancer (highly unlikely at stage 4) or live for as long as possible with it.   She took Chemo and was dead within the week.  Chemo wiped her out.   I was giving her free sessions because she was poor as a church mouse and was a carer for her 44 year daughter and each time she got off the couch, she swore she felt more positive.   I must admit, I cried over that one.   I just find it hard that in this day and age we haven't tapped more into the body's ability to fight disease.  It makes me angry.   But...there are steps now towards immunotherapy, which is good.

And how long would she have lived without chemo?

How many others would not be here today, including my niece without chemo?

Its all well and good going off how, what we already know. That chemo vastly weakens the immune system and in reality people end up having other complications, but and here is the big butt. The survival rate without chemo would be what exactly?

That is what you have got to think about. Now there are new tecnmics through genetics, that are showing great results in combating cancer, but at present the best chances people have is with chemo therapy.

So people are striving to learn how to help are immune system switch on to tumours, through genetics, but it takes time

Didge wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

One of my clients, a lovely lady with Stage 4 Ovarian cancer, was being so positive and determined to either beat the cancer (highly unlikely at stage 4) or live for as long as possible with it.   She took Chemo and was dead within the week.  Chemo wiped her out.   I was giving her free sessions because she was poor as a church mouse and was a carer for her 44 year daughter and each time she got off the couch, she swore she felt more positive.   I must admit, I cried over that one.   I just find it hard that in this day and age we haven't tapped more into the body's ability to fight disease.  It makes me angry.   But...there are steps now towards immunotherapy, which is good.

And how long would she have lived without chemo?

How many others would not be here today, including my niece without chemo?

Its all well and good going off how, what we already know. That chemo vastly weakens the immune system and in reality people end up having other complications, but and here is the big butt. The survival rate without chemo would be what exactly?

That is what you have got to think about. Now there are new tecnmics through genetics, that are showing great results in combating cancer, but at present the best chances people have is with chemo therapy.

So people are striving to learn how to help are immune system switch on to tumours, through genetics, but it takes time

I personally think she was a dead woman walking. But....she was trying her best to be positive, was not in pain, and was very perky. The chemo came and made her so ill, she died probably sooner than she might have, and definitely with horrible side effects. It really upset me and still does.

I personally feel, and this has recently been discussed in the media, that certain people don't benefit from chemo, and should be allowed to die with the best palliative care, with dignity intact and pain free. Chemo doesn't always allow that. It strips you of your dignity.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Didge wrote:

And how long would she have lived without chemo?

How many others would not be here today, including my niece without chemo?

Its all well and good going off how, what we already know. That chemo vastly weakens the immune system and in reality people end up having other complications, but and here is the big butt. The survival rate without chemo would be what exactly?

That is what you have got to think about. Now there are new tecnmics through genetics, that are showing great results in combating cancer, but at present the best chances people have is with chemo therapy.

So people are striving to learn how to help are immune system switch on to tumours, through genetics, but it takes time

I personally think she was a dead woman walking.   But....she was trying her best to be positive, was not in pain, and was very perky.   The chemo came and made her so ill, she died probably sooner than she might have, and definitely with horrible side effects.  It really upset me and still does.  

I personally feel, and this has recently been discussed in the media, that certain people don't benefit from chemo, and should be allowed to die with the best palliative care, with dignity intact and pain free.   Chemo doesn't always allow that.  It strips you of your dignity.  

I understand that Horatio, but what are the choices?

I agree that some people do not benefit from chemo, but its understanding who does and who does not.

What should be the case, is that Chemo therapy, should be seperate NHS buildings away from general hospitals. To reduce the risk of infections to people under going cancer treatment. Being again they will have vastly reduced immune systems. This to me should increase the chances of people under going treatment. By removing a number of people that bring illnesses into hospitals that could possble effect them. Have them seperated buildings close to each other.

This is happening in the treatment of breast cancer, samples are taken and a test is done to see if the patient will benefit from it. Generally, its a lot better than it used to be for most people in terms of side effects, the problem is as has been said your immune system and how desperately weak you get over the treatment. The best outcome comes from finding it early/surgery/chemo/radiology, hopefully teaching your immune system to recognise the rogue cells and destroy them will be a huge boost in treating cancers.