Where is Kate Middleton, Princess of Wales?

Alejo said:
That was kind of my thinking as well, a bit much. And they tried to make it all touching and stuff.. but it would've been more effective if she had just stood in front of a camera and said the same thing, instead of reading the script.. but, it's a matter of taste I suppose.
Click to expand...

jacygirl said:
Well there are wigs, body doubles, (clones?). Then there is the C's affirming that her illness is COVID shot related. Laura suggested Bell's Palsy or something visible and that was confirmed.
So who/what will be paraded around as Kate if her 'cancer' treatment is finished now?
Sounds like a distraction (or bait to get the public interested in the story again?). Clown world, eh?
Click to expand...
I am no expert, but the small amount of research I have done tells me that -
radiation treatment makes your hair fall out and they don't use radiation therapy much anymore on cancer, and

chemotherapy is mostly very strong antibiotics, nothing fancy but like all antibiotics, it kills both the good and the bad tissue.

My mother's 'ovarian cancer treatment' was 9 monthly needle shots of antibiotics where she sat in a recliner for an hour then went home. At first, she was fine but after the 3rd shot, she started to feel sick after the injections. After her 9th treatment, they told her they couldn't control her numbers but they would be happy to euthanize her - we live in Canada.

She agreed because she was tired of being so sick from the treatments. She died in 1995 aged 70.

They didn't offer her radiation probably would have been ineffective for her cancer.

Needs more research but that's what i have learned incidentally over the years. I hope that helps.

Stella
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Stella Jones said:
I am no expert, but the small amount of research I have done tells me that -
radiation treatment makes your hair fall out and they don't use radiation therapy much anymore on cancer, and

chemotherapy is mostly very strong antibiotics, nothing fancy but like all antibiotics, it kills both the good and the bad tissue.

My mother's 'ovarian cancer treatment' was 9 monthly needle shots of antibiotics where she sat in a recliner for an hour then went home. At first, she was fine but after the 3rd shot, she started to feel sick after the injections. After her 9th treatment, they told her they couldn't control her numbers but they would be happy to euthanize her - we live in Canada.

She agreed because she was tired of being so sick from the treatments. She died in 1995 aged 70.

They didn't offer her radiation probably would have been ineffective for her cancer.

Needs more research but that's what i have learned incidentally over the years. I hope that helps.

Stella
Click to expand...
Just for the sake of accuracy although antibiotics are technically also chemo therapy they mostly target bacteria while cancer chemo treatment targets rapidly growing body cells, this includes hair follicles or oral mucosa cells and that’s why common side effect is hair loss or ulcers in the mouth.
The same is with radiation but only radiation of the head and neck will cause hair loss.
 
I have watched the video -again- and the final sensation that the video gives me is that of having seen an advertisement for a vegan product, very Bio.
This emotional aesthetic of wanting to make us see an intimate “romantic” and external experience of the future queen is quite ominous in all its forms, because it uses traditional concepts that have been conditioned by the effect of the objects, the environmental settings, the costumes, the wig (or extensions I think she has always had) , the video, the filters, the AI, the editing, making us feel the construction of a fiction, sublime if you will, a script made of romantic sensibility but modern or better fashionable... nothing that happens there is spontaneous or real is fiction, everything in sum acquires a haunting and quite disturbing feeling. The superficial becomes deep and the other way around.
I think in this way they imply that they can continue showing continuity chapters with similar montages.
 
She made a public appearance today, her first "public engagement" since undergoing chemo. She looks healthy if a bit thin and a bit of aging in the face, both probably from chemo. Good to see her out and able to chat with the public.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Prince William and Kate meet families of Southport knife attack

In her most significant public engagement to date this year, Catherine, 42, joined Prince William to meet with the families of Bebe King, six, Elsie Dot Stancombe, seven, and Alice Dasilva Aguiar, nine.
www.dailymail.co.uk www.dailymail.co.uk
 
They never said that she didn't have cancer.

Q: (L) What's happening with Kate Middleton?

A: Vaccine injury.

Q: (L) Is it something that is really horrible and visible?

A: Yes

Q: (Andromeda) Like a stroke where she's partially paralyzed?

A: No.

Q: (L) Is it something on her skin or, or something like Bell's palsy or...?

A: Close. She may not recover.
Click to expand...

Doesn't mean that she actually did have it, or does have it, either. The strange part is the apparent weight loss that we saw when she first reappeared in public. That might suggest (vaccine induced) cancer. But then there's the whole "horrible and visible" thing.

I don't know. Maybe some inaccuracy from the C's on this one.
 
Beau said:
She made a public appearance today, her first "public engagement" since undergoing chemo. She looks healthy if a bit thin and a bit of aging in the face, both probably from chemo. Good to see her out and able to chat with the public.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Prince William and Kate meet families of Southport knife attack

In her most significant public engagement to date this year, Catherine, 42, joined Prince William to meet with the families of Bebe King, six, Elsie Dot Stancombe, seven, and Alice Dasilva Aguiar, nine.
www.dailymail.co.uk www.dailymail.co.uk
Click to expand...
She is filmed too far away and we do not hear what she is saying.
 
All they said was that she "may" not recover. Perhaps she did, or perhaps she hasn't and things may get worse down the line. Even if she had some disfiguring symptoms or effects - keeping her out of sight seems to go along with that - but perhaps she recovered from these symptoms (regardless of overall recovery); or even she may have had some corrective plastic surgery to disguise anything like that, which would also require out of sight healing time.

We do know that collective consciousness can have an effect on the outcome of events - perhaps the public awareness of her absence, or concern, or well wishes assisted in her recovery despite the odds. Maybe this outcome will even encourage her to out the truth one day - if she's even aware of it.
 
T.C. said:
They never said that she didn't have cancer.



Doesn't mean that she actually did have it, or does have it, either. The strange part is the apparent weight loss that we saw when she first reappeared in public. That might suggest (vaccine induced) cancer. But then there's the whole "horrible and visible" thing.

I don't know. Maybe some inaccuracy from the C's on this one.
Click to expand...
My sense was that they did say “close” to the mention of a Palsy (or something on her skin; they didn’t specify which). My wife once had Bell’s Palsy due to a shingles outbreak, and half of her face was paralyzed, and her eye was completely droopy. But after a week or so it cleared up and you’d never know it had happened. Still, her appearance certainly qualified as “horrible and visible”, at least to me. It was scary AF. Knowing how the British public feel about “their Kate”, it would have stopped Big Ben. I’m just saying that it’s relative. The Cs weren’t asked nor did they specify to whom it would be “horrible”.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Trending content

Back
Top Bottom