I'm with Santiago on this (though I wouldn't have called it cancer). He expressed some very common frustrations of how many orgs do Scrum+ in practice. I call it "Scrum+" because it is Scrum plus all the usual baggage that almost everyone drags into it, like story points, and the whole BS about story points being "complexity" and not time. It may not be part of the SG proper, but the vast majority of people doing Scrum consider it necessary and part of the furniture. If story points really are that bad of an anti-pattern that reflect badly on Scrum, then the SG should say so.

And I could say the same about "ceremonies". Up until a couple of versions ago, the SG still used the terminology "ceremonies". It's widespread to still call it that in practice. Changing the name doesn't change its inherent problems.

In any case, the bigger picture here is that instead of trying to understand the OP's frustrations and see where he's coming from, you've just ridiculed him. The goal of developers isn't to learn how to Scrum harder, it's to ship software with less pain. He's made it abundantly clear how Scrum+ inflicts pain. I think you would do better to listen with an open mind and consider his point of view than to rubbish it. I find this to consistently be a fault of Scrum dogmatists.