No Cure For Cancer

[Hitman21]

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/08/06/why-we-dont-have-a-cure-for-cancer-yet-or-do-we.aspx

http://www.naturalnews.com/032998_Burzynski_cancer_cures.html

There was a doctor who had came up for a cure for cancer and had successfully tested it on patients but he was shut down by the FDA. The FDA even admitted his cure was successful.

The drug cancer industry makes a lot of money with the drug treatments and many fear a cure for cancer because they will lose a lot of money. So when they found out they used the FDA to shut down the doctor. The industry is built around providing many drugs but not cures because its more profitable for them. The FDA gets more money from the industry as bribes and the industry protects profits.

Do you believe there is a cure for cancer but its prevented by the drug cancer industry and the FDA.

[ishfish]

It would be of greater interest to me if the sources were reputable journals not Natural magazines...

Certainly there are businesses that make money off of cancer and many that hide the fact that they are selling cancer causing agents (sometimes even as healthy additions to our lives).

But I have a hard time taking nautral hyteria magazines seriously. They are the ones threatened by a cure.

[flashy_mcflash]

Yeah there's just a little too much crackpottery on Naturalnews for me to take any of it seriously. When it ends up in a major paper or a medical journal, I'll take another look.

Also, there will never be one catch-all cure for 'cancer'. There are so many different kinds of cancer with wildly disparate treatments and effects that anyone who says they found a cure for all cancers is probably a total fraud.

[Aznsilvrboy]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislaw_Burzynski


There is no convincing evidence from randomized controlled trials in the scientific literature that antineoplastons are useful treatments of cancer, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not approved these products for the treatment of any disease.[1] The American Cancer Society has stated since 1983 that there is no evidence that antineoplastons have any beneficial effects in cancer and recommended that people do not buy these products since there could be serious health consequences to patients who use this therapy.[2][3] A 2004 medical review described antioneoplaston treatment as a "disproven therapy".[4] Three prominent oncologists described Burzynski's research on antineoplastons as being “so flawed that it cannot be determined whether it really works". One of them characterized the research as "scientific nonsense"[5]. Furthermore, independent scientists have been unable to reproduce the positive results reported in Burzynski's studies.[6]

[Hitman21]

But is it really hard to believe that the drug cancer industry would do what it takes to prevent cures for cancer since they would lose a lot of money. They will bribe the FDA to shut down any threat.

[Aznsilvrboy]

But is it really hard to believe that the drug cancer industry would do what it takes to prevent cures for cancer since they would lose a lot of money. They will bribe the FDA to shut down any threat.

Stop turning this political.

[Tijuana]

If this is about that Burzincski character then he is a fraud. Not only does he manipulate people into paying thousands for his "cure", no one has been able to replicate his research AND.. it's just urine ;)

[laptop-tech]

tin foil alert...

[ishfish]

But is it really hard to believe that the drug cancer industry would do what it takes to prevent cures for cancer since they would lose a lot of money. They will bribe the FDA to shut down any threat.

What is "the drug cancer industry?" Some parts may loose $ if there is a cure...but not all. And do not forget the researchers, they are people too. Many of whom have been impacted by the pain cause by cancer. But what is this industry - spoken of as if it is one big bad thing? It is international and of many parts.

How does a genetics prof at the U of A publishing in professional journals get shut down by the FDA?

And who is doing all of this terrible bribing? Is there real evidence of this?

Or just those that make money selling natural products generating hysteria to drum up business for themselves?

[BornRuff]

But is it really hard to believe that the drug cancer industry would do what it takes to prevent cures for cancer since they would lose a lot of money. They will bribe the FDA to shut down any threat.

Fun thought game, but Cancer costs our government a hell of a lot more than any drug company could pay in a bribe. Maybe they can get a few people to be quiet about it, but obviously this information is easily accessible to anyone who wants to see it, so if there was any merit to it, it would have been picked up by others.

The fact is that the only thing that Burzynski has been able to consistently do is take 10's of thousands of dollars from desperate people and their families.

[ishfish]

Fun thought game, but Cancer costs our government a hell of a lot more than any drug company could pay in a bribe. Maybe they can get a few people to be quiet about it, but obviously this information is easily accessible to anyone who wants to see it, so if there was any merit to it, it would have been picked up by others.

The fact is that the only thing that Burzynski has been able to consistently do is take 10's of thousands of dollars from desperate people and their families.

I wish there was greater legal accountability with the "natural remedies."

Natural products should have proof of effectiveness and side effects. They should also have to prove consistency regarding quality and amount/ratio of ingredients. But that would cost them $$$. Natural promoters like to critique the drug industry but they sure do not like fingers pointed at them. What testing do they do? They rely on testimonials not testing.

Certainly there are natural products tested at universities - thank goodness. But the natural product industry itself is dreadful and irresponsible.

[Coz4k]

Its the illuminati imho

[Cytosol]

I’ve never understood these theories people have that the FDA and government are covering up cures for cancer. The FDA stopped research on this because there was absolutely no evidence to suggest it actually worked, and that this treatment could potentially be dangerous. Of course, the tinfoil-hatters misconstrue this to mean the FDA is shutting down research because of pressure from pharmaceutical companies, bribes and such.

The government and the FDA’s top concern would be to push out a cure for cancer if it were discovered. Sure, some companies would go under if their primary income is obtained treating cancer patients, but eliminating the massive burden cancer has on the health care system would be a top priority for the government. No amount of bribery money from all the pharmaceutical companies combined would equate to the amount of money they would save in the healthcare system.

Even from the viewpoint of pharmaceutical companies, sure they can make a lot of money from a patient in their final years or months on earth. However, if you cure this person of cancer and give them another 10 or 20 or 30 years, they have yet another person to sell other medications for other diseases. You can make $100,000 from them to treat their cancer, or $200,000 from the medication they need into their old age for other diseases. It’s almost unfathomable that a cure would consist of a single pill or injection, but would likely be a medication or injection that the person would have to take indefinitely; they could charge up the yin yang for that as well.

[brunes]

But is it really hard to believe that the drug cancer industry would do what it takes to prevent cures for cancer since they would lose a lot of money. They will bribe the FDA to shut down any threat.

You seem to forget that the pharmaceutical industry that sells current anti-cancer drugs is the same industry that would manufacture and sell the cure. They will make money either way. And cancer is so common that even if there is a cure, and even if it was some magical one-shut cure (unlikely), it will still be a widely sold drug for decades to come. I doubt Phizer and co. is quaking in their boots about someone finding a cure for cancer. They're a lot more worried about their patents on other existing money-making drugs expiring, like Lipitor.

[Cytosol]

Well said Brunes.

Even if the treatment is a single pill, I believe the pharmaceutical company could charge whatever they want for it. I believe there are around 10 million people with cancer at any given time. Even if they charged $10,000 for a single pill (I bet it would be way more) they have just immediately made 100 BILLION dollars in one day. Considering the amount of new cancer diagnoses each year, they would be making huge coin consistently. Hell, now that people know cancer is curable, people will be drinking and smoking their faces off. Hell, I would buy a suit made from asbesdos just because I can! Cancer rates might go up when people know it's curable.

Doctor: "I'm sorry sir, you have cancer..."
Me: "Awww crap.. I was going to buy a new car.. Oh well I can put it off for a year. Gimme the cure doc, I think you still have my VISA in your system?"

[hugh_da_man]

I don't believe that they're actively suppressing cures for cancer but I do believe that there will never be a cure for cancer because of the fact that the drug industry and most research isn't pursuing a cure as much as they are a treatment. I think cancer will become like aids where you'll just have a chronic condition that requires constant and expensive medication to keep it under control but you'll live a "normal" life beyond that.

Just reading about all the treatments Steve Jobs could afford has given me hope that they'll conquer cancer but in the end it'll only be a treatment and not a cure.

[king_george]

Not Burzynski's crap science again. This is the same scammer who has had his "therapy" in test for 20+ years and still no published journal results, except in places like Natural News that will publish almost anything.

Cancer costs the country a PILE of money every year and it would be in the gov't interest to find a cure. Sadly there are about 200 main types and 400+ subtypes. No magic bullet will be found since there are so many different types that work in many many different ways.

More big pharma lunacy I see. Ho hum the same tinfoil conspiracies as always. I wish they could come up with something better rather than regurgitating the same old spew every few years.

As a survivor I find this guy absolutely insulting and not quite a human being. He brings disdain to real hard-working people who really want to make life better for the victims of cancer without draining away all their money and resources. He plays to their last shreds of hope to gain financially for himself and his cohorts.

Despicable is all I can say.

[stuntman]

The FDA did not want to allow trials because
A) has not worked for 20+ years
B) Burzynski uses the FDA "trials" as a back door to sell his "cure"
C) both

20+ years and the other scientists in the world have not lauded his work? I don't think so.

It is true that that FDA is more of the drug industries lapdog than their counterparts in other countries but NO country has picked up on this.
On a bit of a side note there is no way Cuba would let something like this go.....they would be all over promoting Burzynski "cure" if there was truth in it. Awesome way to embarrass the US (please don't start the political thing....it is probably more personal, Castro loves to stick it to the US)

The guy is either a crackpot or a snake oil salesman.

[masterhapposai]

I’ve never understood

The FDA stopped research on this because there was absolutely no evidence.

Well, that's why you never understood, you never researched it yourself..., not even for 5 minutes. The second sentence there is false.



eliminating the massive burden cancer has on the health care system

What burden. And how is it massive? Why was the swine flu shot brought to Canada and forced upon this when no one needed it? You think there wasn't any money exchanged in that deal?

In the U.S its even worse and you pay for your health yourself. You think there's no kickbacks in the Obama designed Healthcare? That was widely covered. And up here in Canada, we rely mainly upon American drugs and they influence our methods of treatment.

To say there's a burden, is to create a conspiracy theory.

[masterhapposai]

The FDA did not want to allow trials because
A) has not worked for 20+ years
B) Burzynski uses the FDA "trials" as a back door to sell his "cure"
C) both

20+ years and the other scientists in the world have not lauded his work? I don't think so.

It is true that that FDA is more of the drug industries lapdog than their counterparts in other countries but NO country has picked up on this.
On a bit of a side note there is no way Cuba would let something like this go.....they would be all over promoting Burzynski "cure" if there was truth in it. Awesome way to embarrass the US (please don't start the political thing....it is probably more personal, Castro loves to stick it to the US)

The guy is either a crackpot or a snake oil salesman.

Take a look at the FDA's "attempts" to recreate his methods. They used completely different composition and amounts. They also hired an employee of his who knew how it works and then she suddenly turned against him and modified the composition .

[masterhapposai]

Not Burzynski's crap science again. This is the same scammer who has had his "therapy" in test for 20+ years and still no published journal results, except in places like Natural News that will publish almost anything.

Cancer costs the country a PILE of money every year and it would be in the gov't interest to find a cure. Sadly there are about 200 main types and 400+ subtypes. No magic bullet will be found since there are so many different types that work in many many different ways.

More big pharma lunacy I see. Ho hum the same tinfoil conspiracies as always. I wish they could come up with something better rather than regurgitating the same old spew every few years.

As a survivor I find this guy absolutely insulting and not quite a human being. He brings disdain to real hard-working people who really want to make life better for the victims of cancer without draining away all their money and resources. He plays to their last shreds of hope to gain financially for himself and his cohorts.

Despicable is all I can say.

Do some research.

Its exhausting to do it for you. So I suggest a quick trip to any leading cancer research facility, and try explaining to them how reducing inflammation doesn't reduce or cure cancer and watch as you get verbally beaten. After that...

Go look up the methods by which people have been cured of cancer, and are directly linked to reducing inflammation and targetting cancer cells specifically. You'll find numerous methods.

[stuntman]

Take a look at the FDA's "attempts" to recreate his methods. They used completely different composition and amounts. They also hired an employee of his who knew how it works and then she suddenly turned against him and modified the composition .

All this guy would have to do is put it out there and have others recreate the results. He could easily publish to the medical journals and have the community back him up. If he was right they would.

All that FDA mixing stuff up is smoke and mirrors. BS excuses so he can keep selling his snake oil.

Don't forget he has a treatment for cancer. Not a cure. Drug companies love treatments.

[Pavel]

IMO, prevention is the only cure for cancer.

[BornRuff]

Take a look at the FDA's "attempts" to recreate his methods. They used completely different composition and amounts. They also hired an employee of his who knew how it works and then she suddenly turned against him and modified the composition .

Or, the results simply didn't turn out as he had hoped but he knew that making up conspiracy theories like this would keep the only people who ever believed him in the first place(conspiracy theorists) believing him and forking over money to him.

[masterhapposai]

All this guy would have to do is put it out there and have others recreate the results. He could easily publish to the medical journals and have the community back him up. If he was right they would.

All that FDA mixing stuff up is smoke and mirrors. BS excuses so he can keep selling his snake oil.

Don't forget he has a treatment for cancer. Not a cure. Drug companies love treatments.

Here's the issue with that. He has the patent. They want it.

He doesn't have the best cure in the world. There are better ones. Again, they are patented or nearly impossible to patent. None of these methods are able to be used by a drug company without them paying him or the original creators.

In Europe they have proven treatments for Cancer, such as Avamar. Which are completely blocked out here. This Dr.bryznkenifkejizki, who knows if its really real or not, but the research papers indicate it has some effectiveness, but they won't touch it since he patented it and is holding it hostage. He refuses to give it to them as their terms are hostile.

[masterhapposai]

Or, the results simply didn't turn out as he had hoped but he knew that making up conspiracy theories like this would keep the only people who ever believed him in the first place(conspiracy theorists) believing him and forking over money to him.

I checked out the videos and papers, they appeared legit at the time.

Maybe he will be proven to be a fraud later. But, the FDA has provided no evidence or counter claim against him, and so far according to the history of the legal battle engaged in very shady and sometimes illegal practice.

[masterhapposai]

Why is this not used in North America, at all?

http://www.avemar.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermented_wheat_germ_extract



Human clinical trials
A non-blinded, non-randomized, open-label clinical trial investigated the effects of FWGE on colorectal cancer. The FWGE treatment group included 66 patients who were already under treatment with standard care (i.e., chemotherapy and/or radiation) and elected to receive FWGE for 6 months in addition. The control group consisted of 104 patients who elected to receive standard care alone without FWGE. The rate of progression-related events was significantly lower in the FWGE group versus the control group (3.0% vs 17.3%, respectively), as was the incidence of new metastases (7.6% vs 23.1%) and mortality (12.1% vs 31.7%). Significant improvements in progression-free and overall survival probability were also noted in the FWGE group. However, the authors reported that, because the subjects were not randomly allocated to treatment, there were significant differences in the characteristics of the two groups at baseline (prior to FWGE therapy); namely, the control group was significantly older (66.1 vs. 61.7 years), had a greater proportion of patients who were receiving radiotherapy (53.8% vs. 27.3%) and a much shorter time interval from diagnosis to study entry (1.1 months vs. 11.2 months).[3] In an open-label, non-randomized, non-blinded pilot trial in pediatric cancer patients with various solid cancers, the incidence of chemotherapy-related febrile neutropenia was lower in patients treated with FWGE (30 episodes, 24.8%) than in control patients (46 episodes, 43.4%).[4]


Its wheat. omg, so poisonous? No.

Why isn't it tested more often on humans? If Cancer was such a burden on the government (hint: its not, likely the reverse), they'd be investing billions into this.

[stuntman]

Here's the issue with that. He has the patent. They want it.

He doesn't have the best cure in the world. There are better ones. Again, they are patented or nearly impossible to patent. None of these methods are able to be used by a drug company without them paying him or the original creators.

In Europe they have proven treatments for Cancer, such as Avamar. Which are completely blocked out here. This Dr.bryznkenifkejizki, who knows if its really real or not, but the research papers indicate it has some effectiveness, but they won't touch it since he patented it and is holding it hostage. He refuses to give it to them as their terms are hostile.

Smoke and mirrors. The guy has to put up or shut up. Like I said if he wanted to get it out there he could AND he would be a rich man. He simple refuses to do so either because he is a total fraud or totally unreasonable. He only uses this decades long trial to allow him to sell the stuff. That is it. There is no plan to mass market his item by him.

There are other countries that would be all over this if it worked. Are all the countries in the world against him?

Simple. The guy has to put up and show he is not a fraud instead of whining about conspiracy theories. It has gone on too long.

[masterhapposai]

Why is this not used in North America, at all? Why is there no research spent into this?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19425170



These findings describe a mechanism by which THC (component of Marijuana) can promote the autophagic death of human and mouse cancer cells and provide evidence that cannabinoid administration may be an effective therapeutic strategy for targeting human cancers.

That stuff isn't a threat to humans. It can be used safely in large quantities.

Oh wait, Cancer is a threat to our government's money, surely they will study this to save $ because they lose $ dealing with Cancer! No.

[stuntman]

Why is this not used in North America, at all?

http://www.avemar.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermented_wheat_germ_extract


It is available according to the wikipedia article you liked to. Not under the same brand name though: "In 2009, Mate Hidvegi created a new product of FWGE, marketed as Oncomar and (in the United States) as AvéUltra"

[masterhapposai]

Smoke and mirrors. The guy has to put up or shut up. Like I said if he wanted to get it out there he could AND he would be a rich man. He simple refuses to do so either because he is a total fraud or totally unreasonable. He only uses this decades long trial to allow him to sell the stuff. That is it. There is no plan to mass market his item by him.

There are other countries that would be all over this if it worked. Are all the countries in the world against him?

Simple. The guy has to put up and show he is not a fraud instead of whining about conspiracy theories. It has gone on too long.

Guess what.

I can save you the google search. Surprise, he did put up and the FDA shut up.

He's called everyone's bluff and since no one wants to fund the research and they try to constantly block him, he's funding it himself out of his own pocket and donations. Even though he has very strong preliminary research.

You'd think the government, if they were so concerned about Cancer would've put $5.00 into this. No, they have wasted hundreds of thousands (I've read millions) of tax dollars trying to stop him.


As for other countries. Since he's constantly in legal proceedings with the U.S, and he has an American patent, they'd be crazy to try to deal with him at this point, as the U.S would go after him. They've been nailing people even in other countries (see the internet gambling attacks).

He should've started his research in Russia, sad to say, that's what we've come to.

[stuntman]

Why is this not used in North America, at all? Why is there no research spent into this?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19425170
That stuff isn't a threat to humans. It can be used safely in large quantities.

Oh wait, Cancer is a threat to our government's money, surely they will study this to save $ because they lose $ dealing with Cancer! No.

The reason it is not used it not because of $ it is because of the paranoia surrounding drug use in the US.
You should know that. Even non-THC hemp is a problem in the US.

[BornRuff]

I checked out the videos and papers, they appeared legit at the time.

Maybe he will be proven to be a fraud later. But, the FDA has provided no evidence or counter claim against him, and so far according to the history of the legal battle engaged in very shady and sometimes illegal practice.

Lol, why do you think that you believing that some video and stuff posted online is legit?

What sort of medical training do you have?

The FDA had lots of evidence against him. The trails were not about if the drug was effective. They don't decide that in court.

You don't toss something out there, claim it cures cancer, and then tell everyone else to prove you wrong.

[stuntman]

Guess what.
I can save you the google search. Surprise, he did put up and the FDA shut up.
He's called everyone's bluff and since no one wants to fund the research and they try to constantly block him, he's funding it himself out of his own pocket and donations. Even though he has very strong preliminary research.
You'd think the government, if they were so concerned about Cancer would've put $5.00 into this. No, they have wasted hundreds of thousands (I've read millions) of tax dollars trying to stop him.

You say: go do your own research, I don't have time to do it for you AND you will see I am right and true.

you were wrong about the cannabis deal (but should have known you were wrong)
you were wrong about the fermented wheat germ thing (but should have known because you were contradicted in the link you posted to wikipedia)


Guess what, I just did 30 seconds of research and found you were wrong on both these counts.....why would I continue to follow your smoke and mirrors crusade? You are talking out of your butt.

[masterhapposai]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1617062/



Even if further in vivo research are required to clarify cannabinoids action in cancer and especially to test their effectiveness in patients, the cannabinoid system represent a promising target for cancer treatment.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20925645



developments have highlighted a putative role for cannabinoids as anti-inflammatory agents. Chronic inflammation has been associated with neoplasia for sometime, and as a consequence, reducing inflammation as a way of impacting cancer presents a new role for these compounds




http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19887554



cannabinoid receptor agonists inhibit tumor growth and metastasis of breast cancer.

These results indicate that CB1 and CB2 receptors could be used to develop novel therapeutic strategies against breast cancer growth and metastasis.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14570037


Cannabinoids: potential anticancer agents.

these compounds have been shown to inhibit the growth of tumour cells in culture and animal models by modulating key cell-signalling pathways



So, I heard the other day, that Cancer apparently costs the government tons of $ and they'd love to go out of their way to figure out methods to stop it. Unfortunately, that's a conspiracy theory.

[stuntman]

Guess what.

......As for other countries. Since he's constantly in legal proceedings with the U.S, and he has an American patent, they'd be crazy to try to deal with him at this point, as the U.S would go after him. They've been nailing people even in other countries (see the internet gambling attacks)......

uh yeah....because having customers in the US where internet gambling is illegal and the gambling takes place in the US at the customers key board an on US infrastructure is the same as having a practice abroad.
BTW: the big case for Internet gambling happened when the defendant came back to challenge the US on it in court. the US did not go out and get him.

[masterhapposai]

You say: go do your own research, I don't have time to do it for you AND you will see I am right and true.

you were wrong about the cannabis deal (but should have known you were wrong)
you were wrong about the fermented wheat germ thing (but should have known because you were contradicted in the link you posted to wikipedia)


Guess what, I just did 30 seconds of research and found you were wrong on both these counts.....why would I continue to follow your smoke and mirrors crusade? You are talking out of your butt.

Well, no wonder you didn't understand in the first place, you're clearly not reading the exact links I pasted in the thread with 5 minutes of googling. All of which say the opposite of what you're saying right now.

This is clearly political, because you support the government blindly. Going to get the thread locked.

[masterhapposai]

uh yeah....because having customers in the US where internet gambling is illegal and the gambling takes place in the US at the customers key board an on US infrastructure is the same as having a practice abroad.
BTW: the big case for Internet gambling happened when the defendant came back to challenge the US on it in court. the US did not go out and get him.

Also incorrect.

Where are you getting your information, and why is it completely the opposite of what you're reading in the links and what happened in actual history (at least in this dimension/universe).

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/137665/20110425/antigua-lawyer-says-u-s-online-poker-shutdown-was-illegal.htm

The United States violated global trade law by shutting down Internet gambling sites based in Antigua and elsewhere and prosecuting their owners


This is boring, sleep time.



Lol, why do you think that you believing that some video and stuff posted online is legit?


Probably the only rational response I've seen yet. See, I agree that it could be a hoax, as I haven't met anyone or seen many people cured by it. What I do think, is that its possibly a cure. But, because of the way the FDA, the government, corporations and other agencies are all full of shenanigans and intertwined (this is a fact, not a speculation) I would think its in their best interests to get in his way. They would be stupid not to.

However, because they repeatedly prosecute him and waste tax payer money holding him in court, and refuse to help him with his study, we'll never find out whether its THE cure or not. The fact that they did modify his treatments, based on the scans I've seen is proof enough that shenanigans are occurring.

The videos btw, show LIVE interviews with the people who are against him and you can make a judgement for yourself on their behavior and what they're doing to him.

I think this is the movie? :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qG_ZWs04es

Read the comments under the video, they are interesting as well.



But, don't focus on this. That would be missing the point and is a strawman attack. Trying to go after 1 potential cure and kill it and say "omg no cures, the government is always right" would be ruining the research done on Marijuana (just the THC part), Fermented Wheat Germ extract and more. Research, which the government and other corporations/organizations are clearly ignoring in favour of more radiation therapy and expensive drug pills that do jack ***** .

[BornRuff]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1617062/



http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20925645





http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19887554



http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14570037





So, I heard the other day, that Cancer apparently costs the government tons of $ and they'd love to go out of their way to figure out methods to stop it. Unfortunately, that's a conspiracy theory.

Are you trying to suggest that the government is not looking into potential benefits of marijuana for cancer patients by quoting numerous government research studies that the government has done?

You might be kind of proving yourself wrong there.

[BornRuff]

Also incorrect.

Where are you getting your information, and why is it completely the opposite of what you're reading in the links and what happened in actual history (at least in this dimension/universe).

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/137665/20110425/antigua-lawyer-says-u-s-online-poker-shutdown-was-illegal.htm



This is boring, sleep time.




Probably the only rational response I've seen yet. See, I agree that it could be a hoax, as I haven't met anyone or seen many people cured by it. What I do think, is that its possibly a cure. But, because of the way the FDA, the government, corporations and other agencies are all full of shenanigans and intertwined (this is a fact, not a speculation) I would think its in their best interests to get in his way. They would be stupid not to.

However, because they repeatedly prosecute him and waste tax payer money holding him in court, and refuse to help him with his study, we'll never find out whether its THE cure or not. The fact that they did modify his treatments, based on the scans I've seen is proof enough that shenanigans are occurring.

The videos btw, show LIVE interviews with the people who are against him and you can make a judgement for yourself on their behavior and what they're doing to him.

I think this is the movie? :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qG_ZWs04es

Read the comments under the video, they are interesting as well.



But, don't focus on this. That would be missing the point and is a strawman attack. Trying to go after 1 potential cure and kill it and say "omg no cures, the government is always right" would be ruining the research done on Marijuana (just the THC part), Fermented Wheat Germ extract and more. Research, which the government and other corporations/organizations are clearly ignoring in favour of more radiation therapy and expensive drug pills that do jack ***** .

It's a damn youtube video. You can't seriously give this more weight than actual scientific research.

The FDA has done tests for him, but they did not show any reason to research it further. He claims they screwed with the test, it sounds a lot more like he simply can't admit that he is wrong.

If there was real promise in this, there would be tons of potential funders willing to help him get it approved. Many people would love to get in on the ground floor of the cure for cancer. He has simply chosen to not pursue these and keep bilking people out of their life savings for unproven treatments.

The government has gone after him for profiteering off the suffering of cancer patients. If this actually worked and he wanted to prove it, he has had decades to do so.

[Metagame]

Major facepalm at the schmucks in this thread acting as if they regularly read articles published in national medical journals.

There have been many more effective ways at fighting cancer than the outdated chemotherapy, one of the more popular methods proposed are cancer killing nano-particles. With the way things are going, of course there won't ever be an effective cure to the various forms of cancer. I wouldn't be surprised in 200 years and if we're still around, doctors will still be using chemotherapy to treat cancer.

[stuntman]

Also incorrect.

Where are you getting your information, and why is it completely the opposite of what you're reading in the links and what happened in actual history (at least in this dimension/universe).

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/137665/20110425/antigua-lawyer-says-u-s-online-poker-shutdown-was-illegal.htm
This is boring, sleep time.


Maybe I was not clear....the US did not go after jailing people overseas...they really could not because I am pretty sure they went to countries like Antigua.....the one big case the guy came back willingly.

Doesn't matter anyways it has nothing to do directly with this item.....you are trying to side track for your smoke and mirror argument. Running a gambling site in such a way is not the same as running a medical clinic. Your arguments are soooo lame and you are wrong on such a consistent basis. Trolling, talking out of your butt or trolling. It is hard to tell.


Major facepalm at the schmucks in this thread acting as if they regularly read articles published in national medical journals.

There have been many more effective ways at fighting cancer than the outdated chemotherapy, one of the more popular methods proposed are cancer killing nano-particles. With the way things are going, of course there won't ever be an effective cure to the various forms of cancer. I wouldn't be surprised in 200 years and if we're still around, doctors will still be using chemotherapy to treat cancer.

I checked the thread.....no one is claiming to regularly read articles published in national medical journals or even allude to that. Talk out of your butt much or can you point to the POSTERS that are claiming to read medical journals on a regular basis?

[king_george]

Do some research.

Its exhausting to do it for you. So I suggest a quick trip to any leading cancer research facility, and try explaining to them how reducing inflammation doesn't reduce or cure cancer and watch as you get verbally beaten. After that...

Go look up the methods by which people have been cured of cancer, and are directly linked to reducing inflammation and targetting cancer cells specifically. You'll find numerous methods.

I've done my research. I actually WENT through the entire process at a leading cancer care facility. I've spoken to many many doctors and therapists over the years and actually talked to other victims, some "cured" (like me) and others before they died. BTW there is no permanent cure. Remissions are always possible at any time for the rest of the persons life, me included. "Verbally beaten up" in your wet dreams...:lol:

What have you done Mr Smart Guy beside use your keyboard to read kooksites?

What I said was, and this is taking into account your inablility to read, is that there IS NO MAGIC BULLET. At no time did I ever say or imply that cures aren't possible. All cancers are unique and respond to treatments in different ways. Got it? Good.

If this scammer had something to offer, it would have been published by now in respected journals using real peer-reviewed publishing. He hasn't and has continually dodged the questions asked by other doctors and institutions.

It's people with your attitude that keeps people like him in business wiping out families on a premise of false hopes.

ETA:Argument ad YouTubium. Pathetic really. It's up to the doctor to prove himself right in the eyes of everyone else, not that anyone prove him wrong. Some scientist and researcher he is. :facepalm:

I guess it is easier posting self-promotion videos and disparaging any critics rather than actually proving himself. What a loser. It seems he's convinced the weaker intellectually that it does work, but only when he does it under his conditions. Typical garbage.

[flashy_mcflash]

It's people with your attitude that keeps people like him in business wiping out families on a premise of false hopes.

This is what is so repulsive to me about this type of crackpot as well as any homeopathic doctor and their ilk. These hucksters peddle snake oil to desperate people with a usually-terminal disease, giving them false hopes and often cause them to abandon traditional medicine for, let's face it, placebos, and this causes DEATH (http://whatstheharm.net/homeopathy.html). As someone who has also had cancer and been successfully treated, this galls me to no end.

[vero95]

This is what is so repulsive to me about this type of crackpot as well as any homeopathic doctor and their ilk. These hucksters peddle snake oil to desperate people with a usually-terminal disease, giving them false hopes and often cause them to abandon traditional medicine for, let's face it, placebos, and this causes DEATH (http://whatstheharm.net/homeopathy.html). As someone who has also had cancer and been successfully treated, this galls me to no end.

just watched part of the video. if that really were a hoax, wouldn't that mean there should be no survivors? if there are survivors, doesn't it mean the therapy is not perfect but offers some potential?

[stuntman]

just watched part of the video. if that really were a hoax, wouldn't that mean there should be no survivors? if there are survivors, doesn't it mean the therapy is not perfect but offers some potential?

A few things about that:

1) it may have limited success.....not as good as other treatments but limited success
2) fraud
3) they are already getting better or just got better without the "cure"
2) The guy is a rainmaker: Hey come over here I can cure your cancer...........Oh you lived! I cured you! VS Oh you died. If you only skipped those other treatments that made you weaker and came to me sooner you would have lived.

[Hitman21]

Guess what.

I can save you the google search. Surprise, he did put up and the FDA shut up.

He's called everyone's bluff and since no one wants to fund the research and they try to constantly block him, he's funding it himself out of his own pocket and donations. Even though he has very strong preliminary research.

You'd think the government, if they were so concerned about Cancer would've put $5.00 into this. No, they have wasted hundreds of thousands (I've read millions) of tax dollars trying to stop him.


As for other countries. Since he's constantly in legal proceedings with the U.S, and he has an American patent, they'd be crazy to try to deal with him at this point, as the U.S would go after him. They've been nailing people even in other countries (see the internet gambling attacks).

He should've started his research in Russia, sad to say, that's what we've come to.

+1. This thread isn't only about this guy but many other cures that are prevented.

[BornRuff]

just watched part of the video. if that really were a hoax, wouldn't that mean there should be no survivors? if there are survivors, doesn't it mean the therapy is not perfect but offers some potential?

Nope. Cancer doesn't kill everyone. Some people get better on their own.

[BornRuff]

+1. This thread isn't only about this guy but many other cures that are prevented.

Such as....

[stuntman]

^^^yes, such as......

-The fermented wheat rumour of it being banned has been quickly proven false
-That Burzynski garbage has pretty well been thrown to the curb until he comes up with something better

I am pretty sure that almost all the other "cures" with the exception of magiawana stuff (which as far as I know is not a cure it only eases symptoms) are going to play out like the Burzynski stuff (been around for years but never proven due to conspiracy!!!!!)

[vero95]

Nope. Cancer doesn't kill everyone. Some people get better on their own.

you are known to post bs. do you have any examples of survivors of the brain cancer without treatment?

[stuntman]

you are known to post bs. do you have any examples of survivors of the brain cancer without treatment?

I am pretty sure that anyone that got "better on their own" went through some kind of treatment BUT sometimes there is remission without medical explanation. I have heard about it for decades now...people saying the cancer went away and my doctor does not know why but I am glad that it did.

[BornRuff]

you are known to post bs. do you have any examples of survivors of the brain cancer without treatment?

You are the one who claimed that if there are any survivors, it must be because the treatment works.

Can you find any cancer with a 100% mortality rate?

[vero95]

You are the one who claimed that if there are any survivors, it must be because the treatment works.

Can you find any cancer with a 100% mortality rate?

typical answer from you when you are asked to provide any facts to back what you are saying :facepalm:
looking at the stats it has some impact but you must know more to deny it :facepalm:

[Hitman21]

you are known to post bs. do you have any examples of survivors of the brain cancer without treatment?

+1. Well said Vero, I would post more but I cant risk another infraction/ban :facepalm:

[stuntman]

I will step up. Google "Mysterious cancer remission" for many hits

Not that about.com is rock solid source for all things. IT says about 140 000 to 1 for lung cancer.
http://lungcancer.about.com/b/2010/12/05/spontaneous-remission-of-lung-cancer-a-rare-miracle.htm

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2009/0302/074_cancer_miracles.html (http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2009/0302/074_cancer_miracles.html)

[BornRuff]

typical answer from you when you are asked to provide any facts to back what you are saying :facepalm:
looking at the stats it has some impact but you must know more to deny it :facepalm:


+1. Well said Vero, I would post more but I cant risk another infraction/ban :facepalm:

Lol, so personal feelings about me trump basic logic?

If you think that having someone alive proves that his cure worked, you first need to establish that everyone does in fact die from cancer. That wouldn't even be all that strong though, since it doesn't determine if this particular treatment was what in fact made the difference.

Cancer does go into remission, that is not something that should be groundbreaking to anyone claiming to know enough about cancer to be suggesting possible cures.

[stuntman]

BTW: Brain cancer does not have a 100% mortality rate, untreated it may but I do know the mortality rate is not 100%. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_tumor

[Super strokey]

Im sure that if this was true that the "cure" would be used in a great many other places such as the communist countries... buts its not.

[vero95]

Lol, so personal feelings about me trump basic logic?

If you think that having someone alive proves that his cure worked, you first need to establish that everyone does in fact die from cancer. That wouldn't even be all that strong though, since it doesn't determine if this particular treatment was what in fact made the difference.

Cancer does go into remission, that is not something that should be groundbreaking to anyone claiming to know enough about cancer to be suggesting possible cures.

I am aware cancer goes into remission. it's just a matter of showing that the treatment has no effect which could be easily proved by a study. what's the survival rate with the treatment and without?
basic logic says that you just post bs but present yourself as an expert on many subjects. you were a public transit expert and now pretend you are a doctor :facepalm:

[GWK]

When I see the phrase "No Cure For Cancer", I think of the Dennis Leary album..but then I think of Bill Hicks because Dennis Leary ripped him off a lot...
That's all I have to say in this thread..

[vero95]

BTW: Brain cancer does not have a 100% mortality rate, untreated it may but I do know the mortality rate is not 100%. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_tumor

it would have the same mortality rate with or without treatment if the treatment was useless
therefore I am asking if there is such proof because the video says the survival rate is higher than after current standard procedures

[BornRuff]

I am aware cancer goes into remission. it's just a matter of showing that the treatment has no effect which could be easily proved by a study. what's the survival rate with the treatment and without?
basic logic says that you just post bs but present yourself as an expert on many subjects. you were a public transit expert and now pretend you are a doctor :facepalm:

Nothing I have said has much to do with medicine, it is basic research methods. Anyone who went to university should understand that.

As far as I can tell, none of the proper studies have shown any reason to believe that this is effective. The guy making money off it makes a claims, but they have never been replicated by independent researchers.

This guy has already been given way more attention than he deserves. He simply has not demonstrated that this stuff is effective.

[stuntman]

it would have the same mortality rate with or without treatment if the treatment was useless
therefore I am asking if there is such proof because the video says the survival rate is higher than after current standard procedures

If there was proof that met the standard ( a fairly loose standard) the product would be on the market.

[king_george]

This is what is so repulsive to me about this type of crackpot as well as any homeopathic doctor and their ilk. These hucksters peddle snake oil to desperate people with a usually-terminal disease, giving them false hopes and often cause them to abandon traditional medicine for, let's face it, placebos, and this causes DEATH (http://whatstheharm.net/homeopathy.html). As someone who has also had cancer and been successfully treated, this galls me to no end.

Successfully treated means you're still alive, like me. I had cancer of the big head area, your was the ltitle head area. :lol: I was bombarded by these a-holes during my treatment. The harassment continued for about two years until I moved. If I wasn't so weak and addled after surgery I might have gotten violent with them when they constantly called and sent materials for study. Even the chiropractors got into the act telling me that they could cure me by spinal manipulation and vitamin therapies.

In one aspect I was lucky in that the tumor was inside the dura so chemo would have been quite useless so I never went through that. All this at age 44 too so even the young have to watch their health.

To say that the people in the field are trying to suppress any therapies that help is to me the ultimate ignorant insult spewed by the mentally challenged keyboard warriors whi had have had no experience (thankfully) with a serious illness. I'd never wish it on anyone, but some experience would sure open a few eyes.


just watched part of the video. if that really were a hoax, wouldn't that mean there should be no survivors? if there are survivors, doesn't it mean the therapy is not perfect but offers some potential?

Cancer doesn't kill everyone. Some survive despite people like this guy. The question is does this help and of it does, how much and why does it help. He has never been able to answer to the real experts, only produce youtube videos and poorly-designed websites. Why hasn't he demonstrated any potential in the past 20+ years? Even the FDA doesn't keep therapies in test that long.

Until he can prove the value, it's just selling false hopes and an expensive death or debilitation. It's up to him to do all that and nobody else.

Dr B even went on a world-wide witch hunt threatening to sue anyone who critisized him online (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/nov/30/burzynski-clinic-cancer-libel-laws). What a loser.

[squall458]

I dont think anyone realizes how big of a task it is to cure cancer. We have no cure for HIV and its a virus we know of, we can identify it, track it, guess its origins, etc. and yet no cure. Cancer is simply put cells producing too many cells. These cells are just that, cells. They do not appear different at all. Hence, chemo attacks the entire body and patients end up suffering as they go through it. You cannot target chemo. Nano technology may help as it might be able to identify specific cells but this is all just theoretical stuff. I hope they find a cure but understanding what it is will help you understand how difficult of a task this is.

[king_george]

I dont think anyone realizes how big of a task it is to cure cancer. We have no cure for HIV and its a virus we know of, we can identify it, track it, guess its origins, etc. and yet no cure. Cancer is simply put cells producing too many cells. These cells are just that, cells. They do not appear different at all. Hence, chemo attacks the entire body and patients end up suffering as they go through it. You cannot target chemo. Nano technology may help as it might be able to identify specific cells but this is all just theoretical stuff. I hope they find a cure but understanding what it is will help you understand how difficult of a task this is.

Trust me, I do and probably Flashy also since I won't speak for him.

But there are people who are intellectually inferior who think that everything is curable and insist there is a conspiracy to suppress things that work.

It's much easier to take the stupid route rather than actually learning something about what's being discussed.

To pick a nit, chemo can be targeted the way artillery is targeted. You can use certain "blends" that will affect an area of the body more than others, but nothing specific. Chemo is also personalized so not everything works for everyone.

At the time of my diagnosis I was and active and healthy person, non-smoking and non-drinking who never had a really serious ilness before. Injuries yes bit nothing too serious. It was like a bolt of lightning.

Until the mechanics of the diseaes is understood, a cure is highly unlikely.

[nalababe]

If there was a "cure" for cancer, it would be marketed and sold at a tremendous profit. It would be worth 10's of billions annually. The company that had such a cure would have 5-10 years of making obscene amounts of money....

[longitude]

tin foil alert...

please go away

[vero95]

Trust me, I do and probably Flashy also since I won't speak for him.

But there are people who are intellectually inferior who think that everything is curable and insist there is a conspiracy to suppress things that work.

It's much easier to take the stupid route rather than actually learning something about what's being discussed.

To pick a nit, chemo can be targeted the way artillery is targeted. You can use certain "blends" that will affect an area of the body more than others, but nothing specific. Chemo is also personalized so not everything works for everyone.

At the time of my diagnosis I was and active and healthy person, non-smoking and non-drinking who never had a really serious ilness before. Injuries yes bit nothing too serious. It was like a bolt of lightning.

Until the mechanics of the diseaes is understood, a cure is highly unlikely.

it does not always work this way. a breakthrough in science is often achieved by poor coincidence, example: discovery of LSD.

[vero95]

Cancer doesn't kill everyone. Some survive despite people like this guy. The question is does this help and of it does, how much and why does it help. He has never been able to answer to the real experts, only produce youtube videos and poorly-designed websites. Why hasn't he demonstrated any potential in the past 20+ years? Even the FDA doesn't keep therapies in test that long.

Until he can prove the value, it's just selling false hopes and an expensive death or debilitation. It's up to him to do all that and nobody else.

Dr B even went on a world-wide witch hunt threatening to sue anyone who critisized him online (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/nov/30/burzynski-clinic-cancer-libel-laws). What a loser.

LOL as if you were not aware about the wars in pharma industry. the companies are known for stealing patents, fabricating study results, etc. remember vioxx from merck? :D
they wouldn't hesitate to take same steps they use to promote a drug to stop the competition
I am not saying that Burzynski's treatment is a cure for cancer but I do not see a definitely convincing proof that it does not help. also it's quite intriguing that there is so many attempts to stop it and yet he is allowed to run trials

[king_george]

it does not always work this way. a breakthrough in science is often achieved by poor coincidence, example: discovery of LSD.

When there is a breakthrough, it's replicated. This "therapy" hasn't. DR B has taken the scammers route where he won't share his procedures with anyone. This way he always has the non-science type of person who will continue to support him.

LSD has been replicated countless times and is a known factor. Dr B has nothing to support his crap.

LOL as if you were not aware about the wars in pharma industry. the companies are known for stealing patents, fabricating study results, etc. remember vioxx from merck? :D
they wouldn't hesitate to take same steps they use to promote a drug to stop the competition
I am not saying that Burzynski's treatment is a cure for cancer but I do not see a definitely convincing proof that it does not help. also it's quite intriguing that there is so many attempts to stop it and yet he is allowed to run trials

You need to prove a negative? Thanks for proving my point. I surely and sincerely hope you or none of your loved ones ever get into the situation where you might have to consider a Dr B like scammer. You would want something that's known to help, not something that is an unknown. He cahrges life savings worth of cash to offer hope and guarantees nothing. A scammer.
What proof would you need to see that it's not working since you probably know very little about the disease, processes,
procedures and therapy techniques?

ETA: I'm going to be very busy today getting ready for my golf vacation in Myrtle Beach next week so if I don't answer I'll be back after next week for sure if the thread is still open.

GOLFGOLFGOLFGOLFGOLFGOLFGOLF. My head is spinning here. :)

[stuntman]

LOL as if you were not aware about the wars in pharma industry. the companies are known for stealing patents, fabricating study results, etc. remember vioxx from merck? :D
they wouldn't hesitate to take same steps they use to promote a drug to stop the competition
I am not saying that Burzynski's treatment is a cure for cancer but I do not see a definitely convincing proof that it does not help. also it's quite intriguing that there is so many attempts to stop it and yet he is allowed to run trials

Never mind what the pharmas are doing and using that to start a smoke and mirrors conspiracy theory campaign.
You were already given evidence, perhaps proof :rolleyes:....see a few post ago.

When asking for FDA approval clinical studies proving the treatment works have to be submitted. The onus is on the submitter to provide proof and over the last few decades they have been unable to do so.

Did you go to your teacher and say "I did my homework but the dog ate it!" or "some other kid took my homework out of the homework box"....."YOU CAN"T PROVE OTHERWISE!" <--you are applying the same logic to this Dr. B Guy.

Every time someone does prove Dr. B wrong he says that they messed up the tests. You don't deserve to be on RFD if you don't have a high degree of doubt to the point of dismissal of Dr. B.
You don't seriously believe the BS of this guy do you?

[vero95]

When there is a breakthrough, it's replicated. This "therapy" hasn't. DR B has taken the scammers route where he won't share his procedures with anyone. This way he always has the non-science type of person who will continue to support him.

LSD has been replicated countless times and is a known factor. Dr B has nothing to support his crap.


You need to prove a negative? Thanks for proving my point. I surely and sincerely hope you or none of your loved ones ever get into the situation where you might have to consider a Dr B like scammer. You would want something that's known to help, not something that is an unknown. He cahrges life savings worth of cash to offer hope and guarantees nothing. A scammer.
What proof would you need to see that it's not working since you probably know very little about the disease, processes,
procedures and therapy techniques?

ETA: I'm going to be very busy today getting ready for my golf vacation in Myrtle Beach next week so if I don't answer I'll be back after next week for sure if the thread is still open.

GOLFGOLFGOLFGOLFGOLFGOLFGOLF. My head is spinning here. :)

read about the history of penicillin and you will see how long it took to make it commercially successful
so, yeah, you need to prove a negative otherwise there would be no progress. I guess therefore he is allowed to continue trials
why would you kill a new therapy (or taking advantage of a new discovery) without a proof that it does not offer any help? that's what I do not understand

[vero95]

Never mind what the pharmas are doing and using that to start a smoke and mirrors conspiracy theory campaign.
You were already given evidence, perhaps proof :rolleyes:....see a few post ago.

When asking for FDA approval clinical studies proving the treatment works have to be submitted. The onus is on the submitter to provide proof and over the last few decades they have been unable to do so.

Did you go to your teacher and say "I did my homework but the dog ate it!" or "some other kid took my homework out of the homework box"....."YOU CAN"T PROVE OTHERWISE!" <--you are applying the same logic to this Dr. B Guy.

Every time someone does prove Dr. B wrong he says that they messed up the tests. You don't deserve to be on RFD if you don't have a high degree of doubt to the point of dismissal of Dr. B.
You don't seriously believe the BS of this guy do you?

again, there would be no progress if new trends were not allowed because they do not provide immediate 100% success rate
why are you so sure that the continuation of the research will not eventually be successful?

[king_george]

read about the history of penicillin and you will see how long it took to make it commercially successful
so, yeah, you need to prove a negative otherwise there would be no progress. I guess therefore he is allowed to continue trials
why would you kill a new therapy (or taking advantage of a new discovery) without a proof that it does not offer any help? that's what I do not understand

You need to know how the process works.

1. Observation. Someone sees something that looks promising. That leads to the next step.
2. Design a trial that takes into account as many factors as possible. This probably involves mice or pigs or something that targts a known condition. Submit the protocol to others for critiqueing and further refining.
3. Perform the trial. If the results look promising, publish the results and allow others to review the data. Use those reviews to further refine the therapy.
4. Perform the refined process. Repeat until the results are positive every time according to your desired results.
5. Allow others to do the same thing on other test subjects according to your protocols. If others can replicate the same results, then you have something.
6. Publish publish publish.
7. Get filthy rich.

This of course is highly simplified, but it shows the general idea. People like Dr B skip the steps that might show them to be quacks, further ensuring his income. Until the results can be replicated by others, you will never get general acceptance by those that matter.

You're looking for proof that it DOES help, not proof that it doesn't. Can you prove that eating cornflakes in the morning doesn't prevent halitosis?

Proving a negative is not how research works. Penicillin was shown to be effective right away by anyone who tested it. The problem was not that it was never worked in testing. This constant trying to prove negatives is what keeps the scammers in business.

A question though, have you ever looked up any stories on Dr B or looked at the test results from the trials? If so, how can you even try to defend his methods with a clear conscience? How many trials does it take to show that his "therapy" is useless anyways?

[stuntman]

again, there would be no progress if new trends were not allowed because they do not provide immediate 100% success rate
why are you so sure that the continuation of the research will not eventually be successful?


You just keep jabbering non-sense.....

1) Please look up the meaning of DECADES <----does that word mean the same as immediate?

2) If this guy has a treatment that works then its results should be observable within the parameters of the test. Is death the guys cure for Cancer? If death is the cure then results should take several decades.

3) KG is doing a good job but you seem to be a hopeless case when it comes to sense.

[inntents]

If there was a "cure" for cancer, it would be marketed and sold at a tremendous profit. It would be worth 10's of billions annually. The company that had such a cure would have 5-10 years of making obscene amounts of money....


You need to know how the process works.

1. Observation. Someone sees something that looks promising. That leads to the next step.
2. Design a trial that takes into account as many factors as possible. This probably involves mice or pigs or something that targts a known condition. Submit the protocol to others for critiqueing and further refining.
3. Perform the trial. If the results look promising, publish the results and allow others to review the data. Use those reviews to further refine the therapy.
4. Perform the refined process. Repeat until the results are positive every time according to your desired results.
5. Allow others to do the same thing on other test subjects according to your protocols. If others can replicate the same results, then you have something.
6. Publish publish publish.
7. Get filthy rich.

This of course is highly simplified, but it shows the general idea. People like Dr B skip the steps that might show them to be quacks, further ensuring his income. Until the results can be replicated by others, you will never get general acceptance by those that matter.

You're looking for proof that it DOES help, not proof that it doesn't. Can you prove that eating cornflakes in the morning doesn't prevent halitosis?

Proving a negative is not how research works. Penicillin was shown to be effective right away by anyone who tested it. The problem was not that it was never worked in testing. This constant trying to prove negatives is what keeps the scammers in business.

A question though, have you ever looked up any stories on Dr B or looked at the test results from the trials? If so, how can you even try to defend his methods with a clear conscience? How many trials does it take to show that his "therapy" is useless anyways?

To the first quote, isn't it just the patent holder who gets rich? Doesn't that movie talk about how pharmas have patented bastardized versions of his patents, attempting to capitalize on his work? Why would they do that if they don't believe there's something promising there? And haven't they also had him in court for like 30 years now, trying to get him to stop what he is doing, always to eventually lose? Isn't it pretty common practice to try and stop something by tying it up in litigation for as long as possible, hoping the defendant runs out of money or resistance?

As to points#2, 3, 4, I get the impression that in this day and age, with the system as it exists and with the regulations set up by gov. and FDA, it literally takes hundreds of millions of dollars to accomplish this, funds provided by huge corps (pharmas) and/or gov'ts (FDA). Where might Dr. B. get that kind of money? From the very same people who have been trying to sue him out of business for 30 years?

I'm not saying he's legit - I'm not smart enough. But the circular logic of saying he's wrong because he can't fund better proof, when funding better proof is only possible with the funding cooperation of the same groups who have been tying up what funding he does have, seems crazy to me.

[vero95]

You need to know how the process works.

1. Observation. Someone sees something that looks promising. That leads to the next step.
2. Design a trial that takes into account as many factors as possible. This probably involves mice or pigs or something that targts a known condition. Submit the protocol to others for critiqueing and further refining.
3. Perform the trial. If the results look promising, publish the results and allow others to review the data. Use those reviews to further refine the therapy.
4. Perform the refined process. Repeat until the results are positive every time according to your desired results.
5. Allow others to do the same thing on other test subjects according to your protocols. If others can replicate the same results, then you have something.
6. Publish publish publish.
7. Get filthy rich.

This of course is highly simplified, but it shows the general idea. People like Dr B skip the steps that might show them to be quacks, further ensuring his income. Until the results can be replicated by others, you will never get general acceptance by those that matter.

You're looking for proof that it DOES help, not proof that it doesn't. Can you prove that eating cornflakes in the morning doesn't prevent halitosis?

Proving a negative is not how research works. Penicillin was shown to be effective right away by anyone who tested it. The problem was not that it was never worked in testing. This constant trying to prove negatives is what keeps the scammers in business.

A question though, have you ever looked up any stories on Dr B or looked at the test results from the trials? If so, how can you even try to defend his methods with a clear conscience? How many trials does it take to show that his "therapy" is useless anyways?

you need to prove that it does not work to kill the research. he might not have a cure yet but he may be going in th right direction
and you do not know that unitl you prove it

[vero95]

You just keep jabbering non-sense.....

1) Please look up the meaning of DECADES <----does that word mean the same as immediate?

2) If this guy has a treatment that works then its results should be observable within the parameters of the test. Is death the guys cure for Cancer? If death is the cure then results should take several decades.

3) KG is doing a good job but you seem to be a hopeless case when it comes to sense.

LOL you dude make no sense. thinking your way there would be no treatment at all for anything. you would kill any research :facepalm:
do you know how many discoveries were made as a side effect of some trials? research is not the same as production. he might not have a treatment but you have no clue if he or someone else who invests money into it will come up with something

[stuntman]

LOL you dude make no sense. thinking your way there would be no treatment at all for anything. you would kill any research :facepalm:

I guess you are easily amused. In a way I envy that.
No one is talking unexpected side effects but you Vero. Stop talking out of your butt.

You keep trying to put those oversized square pegs into the round holes Vero. Good luck with that. I hope know one is dumb enough to believe your BS (barring trolls pretending to be dumb). You lost the argument and have been reduced to idiocy.

[king_george]

To the first quote, isn't it just the patent holder who gets rich? Doesn't that movie talk about how pharmas have patented bastardized versions of his patents, attempting to capitalize on his work? Why would they do that if they don't believe there's something promising there? And haven't they also had him in court for like 30 years now, trying to get him to stop what he is doing, always to eventually lose? Isn't it pretty common practice to try and stop something by tying it up in litigation for as long as possible, hoping the defendant runs out of money or resistance?

As to points#2, 3, 4, I get the impression that in this day and age, with the system as it exists and with the regulations set up by gov. and FDA, it literally takes hundreds of millions of dollars to accomplish this, funds provided by huge corps (pharmas) and/or gov'ts (FDA). Where might Dr. B. get that kind of money? From the very same people who have been trying to sue him out of business for 30 years?

I'm not saying he's legit - I'm not smart enough. But the circular logic of saying he's wrong because he can't fund better proof, when funding better proof is only possible with the funding cooperation of the same groups who have been tying up what funding he does have, seems crazy to me.
It takes tons of money to get something approved according to FDA rules. But having said that, if something looks promising it's actually not all that diffcult to raise money especially in something like this that promises a HUGE profit. The guy would be fighting off the investors if he had come up with something in the prelims. He hasn't so he has to reply on being a scammer.

You need to forget about the patent fights because this hasn't shown any potential so who cares about the patents? I'm not a patent lawyer but I highly doubt anyone would steal a useless patent. Read the court caes if you must.

The court was mostly about his testing and the problem of his not reporting them properly. The FDA wanted him to stop doing what he was doing and conform to the standards. He never got stopped simply because he promised not to do it again but went on doing the same thing anyways. He was also taken to court about his non-FDA approved claims which didn't stop him from running his scam-clinic but forced him to add the non-FDA approved disclaimer. It was Dr B who prolonged all the court battles, not the FDA.

When his testing failed, he went to court to try and suppress that and failed. Again it never slowed him down but actually increased his business because of his lies about the results and his whining about how other people screwed it up.

Give yourself lots of time though, his history in court is entensive.


you need to prove that it does not work to kill the research. he might not have a cure yet but he may be going in th right direction
and you do not know that unitl you prove it

Hopeless. What you're proposing is a case of OCD. Trying the same thing over and over again looking for a different result.

Stop dodging the question: How many negative results does it take to show something is useless? Would it not be better to fund things that look promising or to continually fund something that has not been shown to work?

Let's all get together and fund an AIDS cure using cigarette butts , raspberry vinegraitte and clam juice. It may work one day you know.:lol:. You can't prove it won't work.

[vero95]

You need to know how the process works.

1. Observation. Someone sees something that looks promising. That leads to the next step.
2. Design a trial that takes into account as many factors as possible. This probably involves mice or pigs or something that targts a known condition. Submit the protocol to others for critiqueing and further refining.
3. Perform the trial. If the results look promising, publish the results and allow others to review the data. Use those reviews to further refine the therapy.
4. Perform the refined process. Repeat until the results are positive every time according to your desired results.
5. Allow others to do the same thing on other test subjects according to your protocols. If others can replicate the same results, then you have something.
6. Publish publish publish.
7. Get filthy rich.

This of course is highly simplified, but it shows the general idea. People like Dr B skip the steps that might show them to be quacks, further ensuring his income. Until the results can be replicated by others, you will never get general acceptance by those that matter.

You're looking for proof that it DOES help, not proof that it doesn't. Can you prove that eating cornflakes in the morning doesn't prevent halitosis?

Proving a negative is not how research works. Penicillin was shown to be effective right away by anyone who tested it. The problem was not that it was never worked in testing. This constant trying to prove negatives is what keeps the scammers in business.

A question though, have you ever looked up any stories on Dr B or looked at the test results from the trials? If so, how can you even try to defend his methods with a clear conscience? How many trials does it take to show that his "therapy" is useless anyways?

going back to LSD, it was discovered by coincidence while doing research. according to your principles it should have never been discovered because that research should not have been allowed in the first place
you can't make observations if you kill research unless you rely on day to day obs only.
that's why you are wrong

[vero95]

Hopeless. What you're proposing is a case of OCD. Trying the same thing over and over again looking for a different result.

Stop dodging the question: How many negative results does it take to show something is useless? Would it not be better to fund things that look promising or to continually fund something that has not been shown to work?

LOL you will not know if something looks promising until you do research. there is no study that says it's a completely wrong direction. show me that study
why are you so pissed off someone is doing research? that's what I do not get


Let's all get together and fund an AIDS cure using cigarette butts , raspberry vinegraitte and clam juice. It may work one day you know.:lol:. You can't prove it won't work.
so now you are saying his therapy had no scientific base? do you care to explain why you think so?

[vero95]

It takes tons of money to get something approved according to FDA rules. But having said that, if something looks promising it's actually not all that diffcult to raise money especially in something like this that promises a HUGE profit. The guy would be fighting off the investors if he had come up with something in the prelims. He hasn't so he has to reply on being a scammer.

You need to forget about the patent fights because this hasn't shown any potential so who cares about the patents? I'm not a patent lawyer but I highly doubt anyone would steal a useless patent. Read the court caes if you must.

The court was mostly about his testing and the problem of his not reporting them properly. The FDA wanted him to stop doing what he was doing and conform to the standards. He never got stopped simply because he promised not to do it again but went on doing the same thing anyways. He was also taken to court about his non-FDA approved claims which didn't stop him from running his scam-clinic but forced him to add the non-FDA approved disclaimer. It was Dr B who prolonged all the court battles, not the FDA.

When his testing failed, he went to court to try and suppress that and failed. Again it never slowed him down but actually increased his business because of his lies about the results and his whining about how other people screwed it up.

Give yourself lots of time though, his history in court is entensive.



but he surprisingly wins in courts so the judicial system thinks FDA is wrong, no?

[stuntman]

Stop dodging the question: How many negative results does it take to show something is useless?

KG....he wont stay on something or answer a question that shows his trolling hand. The guy is a hopeless case. I think he fits into the 1 in a million category if he is not trolling.
Anyways for the most part I think most people agree with you.

[vero95]

KG....he wont stay on something or answer a question that shows his trolling hand. The guy is a hopeless case. I think he fits into the 1 in a million category if he is not trolling.
Anyways for the most part I think most people agree with you.

LOL they are trying to find a cure for AIDS for decades. do you think it's time to abondon it?
you talk like an idiot :facepalm:

[stuntman]

Hey KG.....

If I take a small square peg and try to fit it perfectly into an immense circle so as to completely fill it I fail, right? <--failed experiment 1
If I take a slightly smaller square peg and try to accomplish the same thing it is a different experiment, not the same one. <-you cant stop stupid

[stuntman]

LOL they are trying to find a cure for AIDS for decades. do you think it's time to abondon it?
you talk like an idiot :facepalm:

Hey Vero. I am not saying abandon looking for a cure for cancer. I am saying don't listen to the snake oil sales man Dr. B. saying that he has an effective cure (if at all)

stop playing super stupid please. It is really annoying.

[stuntman]

but he surprisingly wins in courts so the judicial system thinks FDA is wrong, no?

Stop trolling. You don't even know the legal reason for the court ruling to force the FDA to allow a clinical trial. Do you? Yeah. that is what I thought.
You talk out of your butt.

[vero95]

Stop trolling. You don't even know the legal reason for the court ruling to force the FDA to allow a clinical trial. Do you? Yeah. that is what I thought.
You talk out of your butt.

so what's the legal reason? (came ouf of my butt)

[vero95]

Hey Vero. I am not saying abandon looking for a cure for cancer. I am saying don't listen to the snake oil sales man Dr. B. saying that he has an effective cure (if at all)

stop playing super stupid please. It is really annoying.

his web site does not say he has a cure with 100% success rate :facepalm:

[king_george]

going back to LSD, it was discovered by coincidence while doing research. according to your principles it should have never been discovered because that research should not have been allowed in the first place
you can't make observations if you kill research unless you rely on day to day obs only.
that's why you are wrong
And your point is? What has the discovery of LSD have to do with anything? It was discovered by accident whoopdy doo.

Anyone can do any research. It's when the research harms other people it shouldn't happen. Dr B case in point.

LOL you will not know if something looks promising until you do research. there is no study that says it's a completely wrong direction. show me that study
why are you so pissed off someone is doing research? that's what I do not get

Dr B does not do research, he does not share his results and (usually) does not follow rigourous testing protocols. What he does is sell snake oil.


so now you are saying his therapy had no scientific base? do you care to explain why you think so?
You missed the point scompletely. How many negative results does it take to stop trying to make it work? Easy question for everyone except you it seems. If it had a scientific basis, don't you think somrething might have been discovered after 20+ years? Anything? Bueller, Bueller?

Now answer some of the questions asked please since I've accomodated you (not that I expect that to happen anytime soon).

Read up on Dr B and his clinic. Did you know that he charged people to be included in his testing? That's the type of scammer he is. Stop defending him and his ilk.

KG....he wont stay on something or answer a question that shows his trolling hand. The guy is a hopeless case. I think he fits into the 1 in a million category if he is not trolling.
Anyways for the most part I think most people agree with you.

Oh I know. It's sad that he simply doesn't realize the depth of his lack of knowledge on the subject. He parrots the same lines, tries to put words in your mouth, tries to bring up irrelevancies and then jumps to strawman conclusions. Typical of the intellectually challenged, but fun to toy with to allow him to demonstrate his weaknesses.

[king_george]

his web site does not say he has a cure with 100% success rate :facepalm:

His web site doesn't say what the total pateint relief/failure rate is either. That's what determines the effectiveness of the therapy.How many he treated and how many were helped. He also doesn't say what the success criteria is either. I find his logo ironic though. >:(

Actually it doesn't say anything useful aside from patient testimonials and upcoming happenings.

[Hitman21]

Here's the issue with that. He has the patent. They want it.

He doesn't have the best cure in the world. There are better ones. Again, they are patented or nearly impossible to patent. None of these methods are able to be used by a drug company without them paying him or the original creators.

In Europe they have proven treatments for Cancer, such as Avamar. Which are completely blocked out here. This Dr.bryznkenifkejizki, who knows if its really real or not, but the research papers indicate it has some effectiveness, but they won't touch it since he patented it and is holding it hostage. He refuses to give it to them as their terms are hostile.

Finally commonsense prevails :) This doctor might have the cure or not but the thread is also about other cures that are prevented.

[stuntman]

Finally commonsense prevails :) This doctor might have the cure or not but the thread is also about other cures that are prevented.

Actually, other people did get it and were on that track before troll boy stepped in.
If you go back to page 3 Masterhappoasi was shown to be talking a bit o bunk there. Go back to page 3.

[virgilaug]

Doubt it. Science is reproducible, therefore it doesn't matter if the FDA suppresses it. A Canadian doctor could use his cure on patients here and it would become impossible to keep suppressing it then if it works. But thats the problem, it doesn't work.

[king_george]

Doubt it. Science is reproducible, therefore it doesn't matter if the FDA suppresses it. A Canadian doctor could use his cure on patients here and it would become impossible to keep suppressing it then if it works. But thats the problem, it doesn't work.

It's amazing that people forget there are lots of other places to perform testing besides the USA.

Hitman trying to claim common sense in the same post....another sign of woo-ism. :lol:

The problem there is Dr B doesn't have a cure. If he did he'd be one rich guy right now. All he has is snake oil. Expensive snake oil.

[vero95]

It's amazing that people forget there are lots of other places to perform testing besides the USA.

Hitman trying to claim common sense in the same post....another sign of woo-ism. :lol:

The problem there is Dr B doesn't have a cure. If he did he'd be one rich guy right now. All he has is snake oil. Expensive snake oil.

he does not claim he does have a cure. you claim so
if he was saying he has a cure for all cases of cancer, he would be be charged with fraud
relax, dude

[Hitman21]

It's amazing that people forget there are lots of other places to perform testing besides the USA.

Hitman trying to claim common sense in the same post....another sign of woo-ism. :lol:

The problem there is Dr B doesn't have a cure. If he did he'd be one rich guy right now. All he has is snake oil. Expensive snake oil.


There are cures for cancer but they are prevented :facepalm:

[king_george]

There are cures for cancer but they are prevented :facepalm:

Prove it.

Although I know you can't because there aren't any cures. There are ways to induce remission for a length of time, but once you've had it the disease can return at any time.

Another pullitouttamybutt knee jerk reponse for the Hitman.:lol:

[Hitman21]

Prove it.

Although I know you can't because there aren't any cures. There are ways to induce remission for a length of time, but once you've had it the disease can return at any time.

Another pullitouttamybutt knee jerk reponse for the Hitman.:lol:


I already explained this in the OP :facepalm:

[king_george]

he does not claim he does have a cure. you claim so
if he was saying he has a cure for all cases of cancer, he would be be charged with fraud
relax, dude

if you hadn't even bothered to even google why he doesn't say this, then you are more incompetent than I ever imagined.

He sells false hopes to terminal patients draining them of their resources and cash. He is a fraud but he knows how do it it without incurring legal wrath. Much like homeopaths and such.

Stop defending this scammer.

[vero95]

And your point is? What has the discovery of LSD have to do with anything? It was discovered by accident whoopdy doo.

Anyone can do any research. It's when the research harms other people it shouldn't happen. Dr B case in point.

no research that harms other people is legal. you talk out of your butt now



Dr B does not do research, he does not share his results and (usually) does not follow rigourous testing protocols. What he does is sell snake oil.

You missed the point scompletely. How many negative results does it take to stop trying to make it work? Easy question for everyone except you it seems. If it had a scientific basis, don't you think somrething might have been discovered after 20+ years? Anything? Bueller, Bueller?
if he did something illegal, he would be charged for that pretty severly. it never occurred to you
no company in drug industry shares research and procedures. you are too naive




Now answer some of the questions asked please since I've accomodated you (not that I expect that to happen anytime soon).
what question? if he is doing anything illegal? I doubt he would be allowed to run those trials if anything was illegal




Read up on Dr B and his clinic. Did you know that he charged people to be included in his testing? That's the type of scammer he is. Stop defending him and his ilk.


Oh I know. It's sad that he simply doesn't realize the depth of his lack of knowledge on the subject. He parrots the same lines, tries to put words in your mouth, tries to bring up irrelevancies and then jumps to strawman conclusions. Typical of the intellectually challenged, but fun to toy with to allow him to demonstrate his weaknesses.
so now you accuse him of not doing charity work :facepalm:
I am not defending him. I just point out the stupidity of your arguments. you do not have to pay and use his therapy. if it pisses you off that others do, fill out a complain form

[vero95]

if you hadn't even bothered to even google why he doesn't say this, then you are more incompetent than I ever imagined.

He sells false hopes to terminal patients draining them of their resources and cash. He is a fraud but he knows how do it it without incurring legal wrath. Much like homeopaths and such.

Stop defending this scammer.

if he is a scammer, he will die natural death
btw, I thought you went golfing

[king_george]

I already explained this in the OP :facepalm:

No you simply wrote a bunch of unsubstianted BS quoted from wackadoodle "news" sites that use uncited sources. Information that is third party at best, made up at worst and all has a slant that tries to imply the truth.

Show someone the papers, the research, the parties involved and the end results.

Besides, why would the FDA announce success where even Dr B said they screwed up the testing protocols?

You are really naive, moreso than I thought. Using pathetically biased sources to make a point. Unreal.

[Hitman21]

No you simply wrote a bunch of unsubstianted BS quoted from wackadoodle "news" sites that use uncited sources. Information that is third party at best, made up at worst and all has a slant that tries to imply the truth.

Show someone the papers, the research, the parties involved and the end results.

Besides, why would the FDA announce success where even Dr B said they screwed up the testing protocols?

You are really naive, moreso than I thought. Using pathetically biased sources to make a point. Unreal.

I could prove my point but I cant post the sources

[king_george]

no research that harms other people is legal. you talk out of your butt now

Physical harm, no. Mental, financial and family harm yes it can be.





if he did something illegal, he would be charged for that pretty severly. it never occurred to you
no company in drug industry shares research and procedures. you are too naive

What he's doing is not illegal. That's the problem.

Drug companies hire outside expertise all the time. Look up the meaning of NDA. There is never enough in-house expertise to perform all the testing. A lot of companies will fund unversities to perform testing.
I'm a lot of things, naive isn't one of them.


what question? if he is doing anything illegal? I doubt he would be allowed to run those trials if anything was illegal


How many tests that show no results are required before the therapy is declared useless? Simple and to the point type of question.
Why should anyone or any organization fund something that has not shown promise when there are many therapies that do show promise? Another easy one.

Again he isn't doing anything illegal.


so now you accuse him of not doing charity work :facepalm:
I am not defending him. I just point out the stupidity of your arguments. you do not have to pay and use his therapy. if it pisses you off that others do, fill out a complain form
Oh so giving away snake oil for free suddenly makes the therapy work? Yeah right. There you go again trying to put words in my mouth. How very typical and as usual, ineffective.
You think it's that easy to shut him down? Fill out a form? Talk about naive. :lol: He's been at this since 2007 and avoided everything thrown at him. Yep a complaint form will fix him right up.:lol:

if he is a scammer, he will die natural death
btw, I thought you went golfing

Tomorrow. Today will eventually be a getaway day.

I sure wish I could parse out what that last statement means.:confused:

[king_george]

I could prove my point but I cant post the sources

Translated meaning "I have nothing so you have to believe me. Allow me to pretend I have sensitive inside information that may be dangerous.".

Are the big bad pharma mafia gonna rub you out for revealing their secrets?

You're highly amusing today.:lol: Even more than usual. Keep it up.

[stuntman]

I could prove my point but I cant post the sources

I have the cure for cancer but people are stopping me from helping others.
It is the greedy pharmas and the illuminati.

prove me wrong.

[vero95]

Physical harm, no. Mental, financial and family harm yes it can be.



What he's doing is not illegal. That's the problem.

Drug companies hire outside expertise all the time. Look up the meaning of NDA. There is never enough in-house expertise to perform all the testing. A lot of companies will fund unversities to perform testing.
I'm a lot of things, naive isn't one of them.


How many tests that show no results are required before the therapy is declared useless? Simple and to the point type of question.
Why should anyone or any organization fund something that has not shown promise when there are many therapies that do show promise? Another easy one.

Again he isn't doing anything illegal.
Oh so giving away snake oil for free suddenly makes the therapy work? Yeah right. There you go again trying to put words in my mouth. How very typical and as usual, ineffective.
You think it's that easy to shut him down? Fill out a form? Talk about naive. :lol: He's been at this since 2007 and avoided everything thrown at him. Yep a complaint form will fix him right up.:lol:


Tomorrow. Today will eventually be a getaway day.

I sure wish I could parse out what that last statement means.:confused:

you have not shown any study that would prove the therapy is useless. no one forces anyone to fund his research. not sure what you are talking about. he does not do any harm contrary to some drugs
have a nice vacation and do not think too much about him

[BornRuff]

you have not shown any study that would prove the therapy is useless. no one forces anyone to fund his research. not sure what you are talking about. he does not do any harm contrary to some drugs
have a nice vacation and do not think too much about him

Why do you think anyone would do a study to disprove him? The better question is where are the independent and properly conducted studies that say it is effective? Studies are conducted to test if something is effective or not, and so far no independent studies have shown that it is effective.

He does do harm because he convinces people to hand over their life savings when they are in their most vulnerable times. Family members don't only lose their loved ones, but they are made significantly worse off financially.

[king_george]

you have not shown any study that would prove the therapy is useless. no one forces anyone to fund his research. not sure what you are talking about. he does not do any harm contrary to some drugs
have a nice vacation and do not think too much about him

Round and round we go in Veros fantasy world. Is it hard for you to answer even one simple question?

HOW MANY TEST MUST BE PERFORMED BEFORE THE THERAPY IS DECLARED USELESS? Each test returned negative results. According to your logic, such as proving a negative, the tests can apparently never end.

You claimed that the testing should continue until it's proven useless. If nothing promising is found, how many more tests would the researcher need? 1, 5, 465?

You fail to understand that tests are to find usefulness, not uselessness.

Try to keep up.


Why do you think anyone would do a study to disprove him? The better question is where are the independent and properly conducted studies that say it is effective? Studies are conducted to test if something is effective or not, and so far no independent studies have shown that it is effective.

He does do harm because he convinces people to hand over their life savings when they are in their most vulnerable times. Family members don't only lose their loved ones, but they are made significantly worse off financially.

Good luck penetrating the wall of ignorance. :lol:

[king_george]

I have the cure for cancer but people are stopping me from helping others.
It is the greedy pharmas and the illuminati.

prove me wrong.

I have the secret to anti-gravity but I don't like you so I'll never tell.

Prove ME wrong. :lol:

[vero95]

Why do you think anyone would do a study to disprove him? The better question is where are the independent and properly conducted studies that say it is effective? Studies are conducted to test if something is effective or not, and so far no independent studies have shown that it is effective.

He does do harm because he convinces people to hand over their life savings when they are in their most vulnerable times. Family members don't only lose their loved ones, but they are made significantly worse off financially.

in real life you need to prove that something is fraud
you may as well shut down many companies in the industry because they do not prove that their research is useful

[BornRuff]

in real life you need to prove that something is fraud
you may as well shut down many companies in the industry because they do not prove that their research is useful

In real life, you actually need to prove medical claims like this.

You are just showing that you do not have the slightest clue of how this stuff works. You can't claim to cure cancer and then tell others to prove you wrong.

[niroopg]

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/08/06/why-we-dont-have-a-cure-for-cancer-yet-or-do-we.aspx

http://www.naturalnews.com/032998_Burzynski_cancer_cures.html

There was a doctor who had came up for a cure for cancer and had successfully tested it on patients but he was shut down by the FDA. The FDA even admitted his cure was successful.

The drug cancer industry makes a lot of money with the drug treatments and many fear a cure for cancer because they will lose a lot of money. So when they found out they used the FDA to shut down the doctor. The industry is built around providing many drugs but not cures because its more profitable for them. The FDA gets more money from the industry as bribes and the industry protects profits.

Do you believe there is a cure for cancer but its prevented by the drug cancer industry and the FDA.


If you understand etiology and pathophysiology of malignancies, you would understand why there is no "cure". There are drugs that can lead to long term remission on a individual basis. But once again, if you understood tumour mechanism...

And LOL at "balances the levels of oncogenes and tumor suppressor genes".

[jerrysiz]

Kumquats can be effectively used to treat cancer. No one has yet posted a study to prove that kumquats are not an effective treatment for cancer, so who are you to call my theory junk science? It's an effective treatment until someone proves otherwise. So here's a bag of kumquats, that will be 30,000 dollars please. This is truly the cure (ahem, I mean "remarkably effective treatment") that "the establishment" doesn't want you to know about. I should keep quiet though, the illuminati are always listening. :lol:

[stuntman]

............

[niroopg]

in real life you need to prove that something is fraud
you may as well shut down many companies in the industry because they do not prove that their research is useful

LOL. In real life, medical treatment has to be proven effective utilizing methodology that largely eliminates bias before it can be used in practice. You are saying, companies should be able to use treatments until they are proven ineffective.

You are embarrassing. Give your head a shake...

[king_george]

Kumquats can be effectively used to treat cancer. No one has yet posted a study to prove that kumquats are not an effective treatment for cancer, so who are you to call my theory junk science? It's an effective treatment until someone proves otherwise. So here's a bag of kumquats, that will be 30,000 dollars please. This is truly the cure (ahem, I mean "remarkably effective treatment") that "the establishment" doesn't want you to know about. I should keep quiet though, the illuminati are always listening. :lol:

The black helicopters will be arriving shortly.

[king_george]

In real life, you actually need to prove medical claims like this.

You are just showing that you do not have the slightest clue of how this stuff works. You can't claim to cure cancer and then tell others to prove you wrong.

Warned you.

[niroopg]

no research that harms other people is legal. you talk out of your butt now


Are you really that dumb? There are various modes of research methodology that researches harm. You can't randomize and allocate harmful treatment, but there are prospective cohort, case control and cross sectional studies that can investigate harm in those that choose potentially harmful behaviours or who have already been exposed to the harm (Chernobyl radiation exposure).

Do not discuss things you do not understand.

[vero95]

LOL. In real life, medical treatment has to be proven effective utilizing methodology that largely eliminates bias before it can be used in practice. You are saying, companies should be able to use treatments until they are proven ineffective.

You are embarrassing. Give your head a shake...

he is allowed to run trials. he never was saying that he has a cure
you are trolling now

[stuntman]

Vero like a little child trying to get in on an adult discussion you are to be seen and not heard. You get responses out of politeness and a pity in educating you.

[vero95]

In real life, you actually need to prove medical claims like this.

You are just showing that you do not have the slightest clue of how this stuff works. You can't claim to cure cancer and then tell others to prove you wrong.

LOL you need to prove that you have a cure. you do not need to prove anything to do the research. he is allowed to do that. if you think he shouldn't, you need to explain why
and you are saying I have no clue how the stuff works :facepalm:

[Hitman21]

Translated meaning "I have nothing so you have to believe me. Allow me to pretend I have sensitive inside information that may be dangerous.".

Are the big bad pharma mafia gonna rub you out for revealing their secrets?

You're highly amusing today.:lol: Even more than usual. Keep it up.

I could post my evidence but its against rfd rules so I will have to abide by them no matter how draconian :(

[stuntman]

I could post my evidence but its against rfd rules so I will have to abide by them no matter how draconian :(

:lol:

PM them to me HM.....not problem there. I don't mind at all. I have not been temp banned 100 times. I will stick my neck out and post them.

[BornRuff]

LOL you need to prove that you have a cure. you do not need to prove anything to do the research. he is allowed to do that. if you think he shouldn't, you need to explain why
and you are saying I have no clue how the stuff works :facepalm:

Who is stopping anyone from doing research?

What that guy has been in trouble for is not doing research.

[king_george]

I could post my evidence but its against rfd rules so I will have to abide by them no matter how draconian :(

:lol:
Yeah ok. When did posting material to back up your claims against the rules?

More ducking dodging and weaving.

[king_george]

Who is stopping anyone from doing research?

What that guy has been in trouble for is not doing research.

Don't fall for the change the subject approach. He is getting spanked left right and centre so now he changes his claim. :D

Dr B is telling everyone he has an effective therapy. He doesn't according to testing but little things like facts always seem to bother Vero.

[vero95]

Who is stopping anyone from doing research?

What that guy has been in trouble for is not doing research.

he is allowed to run clinical trials. if you think he does more than that, you should report him
:facepalm:

[vero95]

Don't fall for the change the subject approach. He is getting spanked left right and centre so now he changes his claim. :D

Dr B is telling everyone he has an effective therapy. He doesn't according to testing but little things like facts always seem to bother Vero.

what claim? where does he say he has an effective therapy?
stop trolling and go golfing

[king_george]

what claim? where does he say he has an effective therapy?
stop trolling and go golfing

So he's running trials (supposedly) for ***** and giggles?

From his website:
What makes us different is that we find and treat the cause and stimulation of your cancer..[/I]
and
Innovative and cutting-edge Personalized Gene Targeted Cancer Therapy
and
Burzynski Clinic does not believe in a "one size fits all treatment" for cancer patients. Our care encompasses a personalized and customized approach based on the individual genetic "fingerprint" of each cancer. Meaning what causes and stimulates that particular patient's cancer.

Our goal is to be as sophisticated as possible when treating our cancer patients. This method reduces the use of potentially ineffective medication and leads to remarkable health improvement, saving time and money.

Looks like you need a lesson in reading comprehension too.

Denial coming up in 3 2 1......

[vero95]

So he's running trials (supposedly) for ***** and giggles?

From his website:
What makes us different is that we find and treat the cause and stimulation of your cancer..[/I]
and
Innovative and cutting-edge Personalized Gene Targeted Cancer Therapy
and
Burzynski Clinic does not believe in a "one size fits all treatment" for cancer patients. Our care encompasses a personalized and customized approach based on the individual genetic "fingerprint" of each cancer. Meaning what causes and stimulates that particular patient's cancer.

Our goal is to be as sophisticated as possible when treating our cancer patients. This method reduces the use of potentially ineffective medication and leads to remarkable health improvement, saving time and money.

Looks like you need a lesson in reading comprehension too.

Denial coming up in 3 2 1......


Dr. Burzynski currently has permission from the FDA to conduct clinical trials of antineoplaston therapy at his clinic. The NCI and researchers at several cancer centers are also conducting laboratory experiments on the peptides involved in antineoplaston therapy.
http://www.cancer.org/Treatment/TreatmentsandSideEffects/ComplementaryandAlternativeMedicine/PharmacologicalandBiologicalTreatment/antineoplaston-therapy

what you can do besides posting your comment here is the following: get up from the computer, move away 10ft from the wall, move your head down, run
it will have similar effect on other people but may help you

[king_george]

http://www.cancer.org/Treatment/TreatmentsandSideEffects/ComplementaryandAlternativeMedicine/PharmacologicalandBiologicalTreatment/antineoplaston-therapy

what you can do besides posting your comment here is the following: get up from the computer, move away 10ft from the wall, move your head down, run
it will have similar effect on other people but may help you

And as usual, a non-sequiter is used for a response.

Just what does that nonsensical piece of drivel have to do with Dr B's claims of an effective or non-effective therapy? Try reading the link, it doesn't support your opinion at all.

Dr. Burzynski currently has permission from the FDA to conduct clinical trials of antineoplaston therapy at his clinic. The NCI and researchers at several cancer centers are also conducting laboratory experiments on the peptides involved in antineoplaston therapy.

While many articles have been published and dozens of clinical trials against many types of cancer have been ongoing at Dr. Burzynski's clinic for several years, there have not been any randomized controlled trials—the type of study that is required for new anticancer drugs to be approved by the FDA and recommended by conventional oncologists.

Geez maybe you sould follow the same advice except run 10 feet, get a book and learn how to correspond in English intelligently. We'll wait.

[BornRuff]

he is allowed to run clinical trials. if you think he does more than that, you should report him
:facepalm:

If you are not even arguing that he has a cure for cancer anymore, then isn't this over?

[stuntman]

If you are not even arguing that he has a cure for cancer anymore, then isn't this over?

Like Friday the 13th

[masterhapposai]

no surprise everyone focused on the weakest link (dr.B) instead of looking at how, as a whole, valid treatments and cures are being purposefully ignored

[BornRuff]

no surprise everyone focused on the weakest link (dr.B) instead of looking at how, as a whole, valid treatments and cures are being purposefully ignored

Dr. B actually appears to be the "strongest" link. What other concrete examples have you provided?

[stuntman]

^^^ he hasn't. Actually, his items were even easier to dismiss than Dr. B. because he did not continue with a crazy conspiracy item and extra BS on the side:

He was wrong on the wheat germ thing.
He was wrong on the pot thing.

[vero95]

If you are not even arguing that he has a cure for cancer anymore, then isn't this over?

it's not over because you keep arguing that he has no cure while he says so himself. that's really dumb :facepalm:
btw, I've never said he has a cure for cancer. you are putting words in people's mouths and then keep complaining about it
it will never be over if you keep doing it

[vero95]

And as usual, a non-sequiter is used for a response.

Just what does that nonsensical piece of drivel have to do with Dr B's claims of an effective or non-effective therapy? Try reading the link, it doesn't support your opinion at all.


Geez maybe you sould follow the same advice except run 10 feet, get a book and learn how to correspond in English intelligently. We'll wait.

geez, dude. even the quote says he has no cure so why are you insisting he does?
I asked many times where does he say he has a cure for cancer but you refuse to answer and keep saying that he has a cure
that's really dumb

[stuntman]

can't cure stuipd

[fakishan]

Either way, what can you do about it? Nothing, so what does it matter? It's easier to assume the entire world is incompetent in running governments and finding cures than trying to understand it is done so by design.

[vero95]

can't cure stuipd

no but hitting a wall with your heads will give you and your friends a temporary relief

[BornRuff]

it's not over because you keep arguing that he has no cure while he says so himself. that's really dumb :facepalm:
btw, I've never said he has a cure for cancer. you are putting words in people's mouths and then keep complaining about it
it will never be over if you keep doing it

I have never been in an argument with Dr. B. I have been arguing with people in this thread who claim that Dr. B can cure cancer, but the FDA is keeping him down.

If you agree that he doesn't have a cure for cancer, than we are on the same page.

Case closed.

[vero95]

I have never been in an argument with Dr. B. I have been arguing with people in this thread who claim that Dr. B can cure cancer, but the FDA is keeping him down.

If you agree that he doesn't have a cure for cancer, than we are on the same page.

Case closed.

you should define what you mean by cure. he might have limited success but no cure. chemo also has limited success but is no cure
the question though was if FDA could shut down his research because he's spent decades and has not provided a cure. I was saying that you can't disallow anyone to do research and you and other trolls were saying that he has to prove he has a cure to continue. and that was really dumb ;)

[ishfish]

Research comes in stages.
Human trials and experiments would come after there is some significant preliminary evidence that it is worthy to advance to humans.

[BornRuff]

you should define what you mean by cure. he might have limited success but no cure. chemo also has limited success but is no cure
the question though was if FDA could shut down his research because he's spent decades and has not provided a cure. I was saying that you can't disallow anyone to do research and you and other trolls were saying that he has to prove he has a cure to continue. and that was really dumb ;)

The whole point of this thread is that there are cures for cancer that are being hidden. You have stopped even claiming that this is a cure, so again, this conversation is done.

Chemotherapy and this Dr B stuff are not in the same category. The Chemotherapy drugs that are used have been proven effective in treating cancer.

Nobody has prevented this guy from doing proper research on the drug.

He has to prove that his treatment is effective to claim that his treatment is effective. How is that hard to understand?

[alkaseltzer01]

I've heard there's no proof that drinking and driving is unsafe. It's a law that was created so the law enforcements can make $$$.

[sylpherware]

the question though was if FDA could shut down his research because he's spent decades and has not provided a cure. I was saying that you can't disallow anyone to do research and you and other trolls were saying that he has to prove he has a cure to continue. and that was really dumb ;)

Medical research requires human trials. When you apply for the approval of human trials, you have to provide sufficient proof that whatever you're doing is "safe". Otherwise the sh*tstorm that follows will fall onto the governing body's hands.

Also, yes, you can shut down someone's research for not producing any result. Unless you are self-funded or have some other private source of funding, you are hogging resources that could be used elsewhere instead of for a research that's going nowhere.

[vero95]

The whole point of this thread is that there are cures for cancer that are being hidden. You have stopped even claiming that this is a cure, so again, this conversation is done.

Chemotherapy and this Dr B stuff are not in the same category. The Chemotherapy drugs that are used have been proven effective in treating cancer.



LOL how dense are you?
show me where I was saying he has a cure and we'll start from there. you are known for trolling on this forum. I've asked you multiple times now to show me that :facepalm:
why do you keep trolling?




Nobody has prevented this guy from doing proper research on the drug.

I agree. FDA tried to shut him down and failed in courts. so right now he is allowed to run clinical trials



He has to prove that his treatment is effective to claim that his treatment is effective. How is that hard to understand?

I agree. everyone who claims he has a cure, needs to prove it. he does not claim that

[vero95]

I've heard there's no proof that drinking and driving is unsafe. It's a law that was created so the law enforcements can make $$$.

no, it's been proven that drinking and dirving is less safe
try something else

[vero95]

Medical research requires human trials. When you apply for the approval of human trials, you have to provide sufficient proof that whatever you're doing is "safe". Otherwise the sh*tstorm that follows will fall onto the governing body's hands.


what's your point? are you saying he is illegaly running a trial using humans? don;t you think he should be in prison by now if he did



Also, yes, you can shut down someone's research for not producing any result. Unless you are self-funded or have some other private source of funding, you are hogging resources that could be used elsewhere instead of for a research that's going nowhere.

which law are you citing?

[sylpherware]

which law are you citing?

It is obvious that you have not done any real research. There's no point for me to explain this any further.

[BornRuff]

LOL how dense are you?
show me where I was saying he has a cure and we'll start from there. you are known for trolling on this forum. I've asked you multiple times now to show me that :facepalm:
why do you keep trolling?




I agree. FDA tried to shut him down and failed in courts. so right now he is allowed to run clinical trials



I agree. everyone who claims he has a cure, needs to prove it. he does not claim that

This thread is about the apparent conspiracies to cover up cures for cancer. You don't seem to be anywhere near that topic anymore.

[stuntman]

no but hitting a wall with your heads will give you and your friends a temporary relief

wow Vero you are just spewing with intellect on that one. Couldn't come up with something that referenced the topic in anyway? No? Guess what. I know why you couldn't.

[vero95]

It is obvious that you have not done any real research. There's no point for me to explain this any further.

if you can't back your statments with facts, I agree that it's better to stop posting ;)

[vero95]

This thread is about the apparent conspiracies to cover up cures for cancer. You don't seem to be anywhere near that topic anymore.

if you put words in people's mouths and are unable to provide any facts to back what you are saying, for you this thread is about trolling :facepalm:

[sylpherware]

if you can't back your statments with facts, I agree that it's better to stop posting ;)

It's actually a conspiracy between the illuminati, underground gnomes, Chinese government, and Big Foot.

Oops, I already talked too much :confused:

[vistaliving]

This is sad. I did the Ride to Conquer Cancer two weekends ago. They had a speaker at camp claim the exact same thing the OP did. The problem with such information being passed on is that more and more people get caught up in the conspiracy theories than actually seeking the facts out for themselves. People want to believe in these theories because it's easier to accept.