RE: The Great Cancer Hoax: (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


Fellow -> RE: The Great Cancer Hoax: (6/11/2011 7:37:27 PM)

quote:

3) The cancer researchers has found a genetic link to some cancers, so unless you can treat the cancer at a genetic level, you cant really cure it.

4) With all these facts, anyone that claims to have found a single cure all for cancer, that cannot be duplicated is a fraud.


There seems to be some validity in Dr. Burzynski's claims. He is treating cancers at a genetic level.  Epigenetics is today fast developing area of research. He does not claim universal success. Strong opposition by academic science to a method that includes conceptual change is rather common. 




Musicmystery -> RE: The Great Cancer Hoax: (6/11/2011 7:52:47 PM)

quote:

You status quo defenders are all the same. You defend the monetary economic system that requires us to feed of each other, but the moment someone outside-the-box threatens the profits of the status-quo establishment, then you have a problem with profit.


Damn, but you've got quite the chip on your shoulder.




IceDemeter -> RE: The Great Cancer Hoax: (6/11/2011 8:01:00 PM)

I first researched this almost a decade ago, and no longer have the medical and university accesses that I did then, so I'm sorry that I won't be able to pull up the papers detailing the attempts in Canada to duplicate his results. However, checking in the public domain a quick search came up with a couple of items:

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/antineoplastons/healthprofessional/page7
http://www.mskcc.org/mskcc/html/69121.cfm#ClinicalFindings

You may also note the post that states:
quote:

Well, reading the link provided by hunky, I see that at least one reputable cancer institute could not duplicate the results and the japanese had limited success.


If you check out http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?term=antineoplastons you will see that out of 61 registered trials, that 15 of them are active, only 1 is complete, and the balance have had no status reported in over two years. The 1 that is complete has not had any results posted. These are trials done to standard protocols (which removes the excuses of not following the same protocols to get the same results).

Quite honestly, I'd be thrilled to death if he's got something there, and I truly hope that at least some of the trials currently registered come up with something positive. What first made me skeptical when I first looked at this claim, and which still leaves me incredibly skeptical, is that he supposedly starting testing on this over 30 years ago and it's only in the past few years that he's been willing to start subjecting it to the same rigorous testing standards that all drugs must face.

As was stated above:
quote:

It is also an inescapable fact that tests can be skewed to produced desired results.

Which is why it is so important to use the same testing protocol each time in order to not skew those results.

And no, I didn't watch all the way through the infomercial - I've got about a 10 minute limit on those. I'll depend on published papers in peer-reviewed journals, or publicly available trial results that conform to standard protocols.




MrRodgers -> RE: The Great Cancer Hoax: (6/11/2011 8:10:00 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: pahunkboy

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

Of course that is exactly what all of the 'system' is supposed to say. The dead give-away is that principals don't just tell us it doesn't do any good and they have seen none of the effects claimed. They actually recommend that we do not buy it...do not even try it. Why ? Because it might work, that's why.

Brief form:
Facts: Dated a woman, daughter 16 had cancer, mother read of dr., dr. had boy 9 when discovered brain tumor, pronoumced terminal in mos. by the Mayo clinic, down from the size of an egg and almost complete sedation, to less than a pea, boy alive now 9 years. Mother took daughter to Dr., was patient.

Within months, the FDA for the 3rd time came and took his records. (and daughters) Dr has sued 2X, courts ruled twice in his favor, govt. refuses to return medical records. Practice closed.




subfever -> RE: The Great Cancer Hoax: (6/11/2011 8:12:15 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

You status quo defenders are all the same. You defend the monetary economic system that requires us to feed of each other, but the moment someone outside-the-box threatens the profits of the status-quo establishment, then you have a problem with profit.


Damn, but you've got quite the chip on your shoulder.


LOL... nah... just emotion rearing its ugly head in a momentary rise, following a similiar exchange on another site. Wish I hadn't generalized like that in my first sentence, but do stand by the rest of my message.




subfever -> RE: The Great Cancer Hoax: (6/11/2011 8:20:49 PM)

quote:

And no, I didn't watch all the way through the infomercial - I've got about a 10 minute limit on those.


That's too bad. You missed Supreme Court testimony from survivors that conventional medicine gave up on.




DomKen -> RE: The Great Cancer Hoax: (6/11/2011 8:21:47 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/burzynski1.html

You're a scream. Quackwatch? Get a hobby. Quackwatch is operated by quackpot Stephen Barrett, M.D.

Barrett is also on the Board of the NCAHF, the (self-proclaimed) "National" Council Against Health Fraud, along with fellow quackpots William T. Jarvis, Ph.D., John Renner, M.D., and Victor Herbert, M.D., as well as being the owner and Webmaster of the NCAHF.org website. In addition, Quackwatch is "affiliated" with about 22 other look-alike "watch" sites, all of which proudly "accept donations" and run Google ads for profit.

A Modern Day Witch Hunt.

K.



You're believing Tim Bolen, a PR flack hired by scammers to discredit reality based commentary on their frauds.
http://defamation-libel.blogspot.com/2005/07/tim-bolen-sued-by-aetna.html
http://americanloons.blogspot.com/2010/06/31-tim-bolen.html
http://www.examiner.com/special-education-in-mesa/publicist-tim-bolen-sought-to-undermine-stephen-barrett-s-defense-with-false-claim
http://quackfiles.blogspot.com/2005/01/hulda-clark-tim-bolen-birds-of-feather.html

I assume you actually read the page you posted and did the minal research to discover that Bolen lied about Barret?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Barrett
Should establish that Bolen simply made stuff up about Dr. Barret. Do follow the references as it will establish the facts.




DomKen -> RE: The Great Cancer Hoax: (6/11/2011 8:25:00 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: subfever

quote:

And no, I didn't watch all the way through the infomercial - I've got about a 10 minute limit on those.


That's too bad. You missed Supreme Court testimony from survivors that conventional medicine gave up on.

Do you understand why anecdotes are useless in science?




MrRodgers -> RE: The Great Cancer Hoax: (6/11/2011 8:28:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

If I may be so bold as to point out a few facts.

1) Cancer is a group of diseases, each on different and treated in different ways. There is no "cure all" treatment.

2) Many cancers can now be cured, with good results. Medicine has made steady progress, and many people with cancer can now be cured – but no one has discovered the one cure for all cancer.

3) The cancer researchers has found a genetic link to some cancers, so unless you can treat the cancer at a genetic level, you cant really cure it.

4) With all these facts, anyone that claims to have found a single cure all for cancer, that cannot be duplicated is a fraud.

You are quite correct for some cancers and on a limited but highly advertised scale. The problem is as much that most become bankrupt because it is a disease we treat in the hopes of having found it early enough to take to full remission. Most cancer experimental therapies are not insured.

Outside this country there are many 1000's of cases of cancer being cured with Laetril therapy yet is actually banned here. Banned ? Why ? Same for therapy, research into and even manufacturing of ozone equip....banned. Why ? I am highly suspicious of the the govt. and [its] stewardship of our medical research and development regime.




Kirata -> RE: The Great Cancer Hoax: (6/11/2011 8:30:55 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: IceDemeter

Quite honestly, I'd be thrilled to death if he's got something there, and I truly hope that at least some of the trials currently registered come up with something positive.

I admit I'm dubious too. No results being posted from completed trials is concerning. But (and this isn't directed at you) there's a difference between open-minded doubt and pronouncements of fraud and fakery from offended priests.

K.




DomKen -> RE: The Great Cancer Hoax: (6/11/2011 8:36:49 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
Outside this country there are many 1000's of cases of cancer being cured with Laetril therapy yet is actually banned here. Banned ? Why ? Same for therapy, research into and even manufacturing of ozone equip....banned. Why ? I am highly suspicious of the the govt. and [its] stewardship of our medical research and development regime.


You're believing lies, cyanide, what Laetril actually is, has been tested very extensively and it does not treat any cancer.




subfever -> RE: The Great Cancer Hoax: (6/11/2011 9:16:56 PM)

quote:

Do you understand why anecdotes are useless in science?


I'm all for the scientific method. However, within a greedy and corrupt system of profit, it's really hard to trust anyone, isn't it? Under our aberrated system, the truth is nearly impossible to find, as there are at least two sides to almost everything. This leaves us to our own devices.

You can go on the internet and find information that supports your beliefs, whether you're a righty or lefty; a conspiracy theorist or status quo defender; whether you believe in conventional medicine or alternative medicine, whether you're a theist or atheist; a vegan or a meat eater; whether the FDA and NCI are looking out for your best interests or the interests of corporate institutions; or whatever, you can find supporting information. And so can I.

In the end, we need to start questioning why the truth is so hard to find. Who benefits from this absurdity?

I hope we are collectively smart enough to evolve beyond this absurd system. But if we're not, and if you ever have the misfortune of having cancer under our current monetary system, at least you can choose the conventional treatment you believe in. If I get cancer, I should also have the option to choose an alternative treatment I believe in. But if the established corporate interests have their way, they'll take that choice away from me.




willbeurdaddy -> RE: The Great Cancer Hoax: (6/11/2011 9:57:07 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: subfever

quote:

advocating use of products with no proven results, no testing, no trials, and nothing other than anecdotes to back their claims.


I see you haven't watched the documentary either.


Since when did the accepted definitiono of "documentary" change to "self serving puff piece"?
Oh...when Michael Moore won an Oscar in the category. nm.




subfever -> RE: The Great Cancer Hoax: (6/11/2011 10:11:31 PM)

quote:

Since when did the accepted definitiono of "documentary" change to "self serving puff piece"?
Oh...when Michael Moore won an Oscar in the category. nm.


So... does this mean you did watch it or didn't watch it?




Real0ne -> RE: The Great Cancer Hoax: (6/11/2011 10:43:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: subfever


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Burzynski is a fraud artist. He fakes his data. Otherwise other doctors could replicate his treatments and get similiar results (they have never been able to).

but but but kenny they did get the same results!



It would behoove you to at least watch the documentary first, as it clearly dispels your false notions with very convincing evidence.

I've read the actual papers. I've also followed the fact that serious cancer researchers tried to follow his protocol and had nothing like his claimed success rates. One basic inescapable fact is that science is not valid if it cannot be reproduced.
but but but kenny they did get the same results!

Have you considered hiring someone to read and explain it to you for substance?





if he were such a fraud why did they try to undermine his patents?


Oncol Rep. 2005 Aug;14(2):489-94.
Antineoplaston induces G(1) arrest by PKCalpha and MAPK pathway in SKBR-3 breast cancer cells.
Fujii T, Nakamura AM, Yokoyama G, Yamaguchi M, Tayama K, Miwa K, Toh U, Kawamura D, Shirouzu K, Yamana H, Kuwano M, Tsuda H.

Our findings indicate that the antineoplaston A10 antitumor effect could be utilized as an effective therapy for breast cancer patients.

Seems to work here?  Maybe they were not serious enough think?

--------------


Long-term survival following treatment with antineoplastons for colon cancer with unresectable multiple liver metastases: report of a case.
Ogata Y, Tsuda H, Matono K, Kumabe T, Saitsu H, Hara H, Akagi Y, Araki Y, Sata M, Shirouzu K.
Source

Department of Surgery, Kurume University School of Medicine, 67 Asahi-machi, Kurume, Fukuoka 830-0011, Japan.

has survived for nearly 8 years without suffering any serious adverse effects. He is currently free from cancer. This case report demonstrates the potential effectiveness of the nontoxic antitumor agent, the antineoplastons, for controlling liver metastases from colon cancer.


Seems to work here?  Maybe they were not serious enough think?

------------------


A novel strategy for remission induction and maintenance in cancer therapy.
Tsuda H, Sata M, Ijuuin H, Kumabe T, Uchida M, Ogou Y, Akagi Y, Shirouzu K, Hara H, Nakashima Y.
Source

Department of Anesthesiology, Kurume University, School of Medicine, Fukuoka-ken 830-0011, Japan. [email protected]


This strategy would be most efficient for remission induction and maintenance in cancer therapy. Antineoplastons are naturally occurring peptides and amino acid derivatives that control neoplastic growth. Antineoplaston A10 and AS2-1 are chemically identified and synthesized antineoplastons proven to inhibit cancer cell growth by arresting the cell cycle in the G1 phase and inhibiting tumor growth by reducing mitosis. These agents are thought to be good candidates for clinically easily applicable non-toxic p53 gene activators.


Seems to work here?  Maybe they were not serious enough think?

-----------------


Potential utility of antineoplaston A-10 levels in breast cancer.
Badria F, Mabed M, Khafagy W, Abou-Zeid L.
Source

Department of Pharmacognosy, Faculty of Pharmacy, Mansoura University, Mansoura, Egypt.


Significantly lower antineoplaston A-10 levels were detected among patients with breast cancer with a P value <0.001. These data suggest a strong inverse association of urinary antineoplaston A-10 level with breast cancer.

Gee Ken just like Bursynski said huh!


Seems to work here?  Now we know those Egyptians were not serious at all!!

------------------


Quick response of advanced cancer to chemoradiation therapy with antineoplastons.
Tsuda H, Sata M, Kumabe T, Hara H, Eriguchi N, Sugita Y, Nagamatsu H.
Source

Department of Anesthesiology, Kurume University, School of Medicine, 67 Asahimachi, Kurumeshi, Fukuokaken, 830, Japan.
Abstract

Antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 exhibit growth inhibition of cancer cells by diverse modes of action. We observed antitumor responses within 2-3 weeks of a combination treatment of chemoradiation therapy and antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 in phase I clinical study being conducted in Kurume University Hospital. We reviewed 3 clinical cases of advanced cancer (multiple metastatic lung cancer, thalamic glioma and primary lung cancer) in which we believed antineoplaston A10 and AS2-1 may be contributing to the rapid antitumor response. The possible use of this combination for induction therapy in advanced cancer is discussed.


Seems to work here?  Maybe they were not serious enough think?

------------------


inhibitory effect of antineoplaston A10 and AS2-1 on human hepatocellular carcinoma.
Tsuda H, Iemura A, Sata M, Uchida M, Yamana K, Hara H.
Source

Department of Anesthesiology, Kurume University School of Medicine, Japan.
Abstract

Antineoplastons, first described by Burzynski, are naturally occurring peptides and amino acid derivatives which control neoplastic growth. Antineoplaston A10 (3-pehnylacetylamino-2,6-piperidinedion) is the first chemically identified antineoplastons and when it is administered orally it is hydrolysed in pancreatic juice to phenylactylglutamine and phenylacetylisoglutamine in the ration of 4 to 1. These metabolites are water soluble and have antitumor effect, they are further degraded to pehnylacetic acid. The mixture of phenylacetylglutamine and phenylacetylisoglutamine in the ratio of 4 to 1 was formulated as Antineoplaston A10 injectable formulation. The mixture of phenylacetylglutamine and phenylacetic acid in the ratio of 1 to 4 was also shown to have antitumor effect in tissue culture study, then formulated as Antineoplaston AS2-1. The reported cytostatic inhibitory effect of A10 on human hepatocellular carcinoma cells and differentiation inducing effect of AS2-1 on various tumor cells suggest potential benefit for the treatment of human hepatocellular carcinoma since this tumor recurs frequently despite initial successful treatment. We report here the effects of Antineoplaston A10 and AS2-1 on cell proliferation, cell morphology, cell cycle, and DNA in human hepatocellular carcinoma cell lines. Both agents inhibited cell proliferation and increased the number of cells in G0 and G1 phases and Antineoplaston AS2-1 induced apoptosis, we also describe our clinical experience of a hepatocellula carcinoma (HCC) patient whose tumor, after incomplete trancathere arterial embolization (TAE) for a 7cm 7cm HCC, has been stable for more than 15 months during which time he has been taking Antineoplaston AS2-1 continuously without any serious adverse effects.





Oh BTW; You are welcome!










subfever -> RE: The Great Cancer Hoax: (6/11/2011 11:18:17 PM)

quote:

Oh BTW; You are welcome!


Hey RO, where have you been lately?

BTW... nice job... [:D]





ExquisiteStings -> RE: The Great Cancer Hoax: (6/11/2011 11:19:23 PM)

I do not study all of the scientific facts; my studies lie in quite another direction, but I do remember reading about Rasputin fearing being poisoned and consuming just a little bit of said poison (cyanide, I believe it was, aka Prussic Acid) and then acquiring an immunity to it. And if he can do that, then why cannot something that is normally used as a poison have possible medicinal qualities when used in much smaller amounts. Look at the medication Coumadin (warfarin is the generic name)..That stuff started out as rat poison and taken in much larger quantities  would have been human poison. Yet they were able to make a medication out of it that benefits millions of people with blood clotting disorders. I could be wrong about the amount of people. It could be billions.
Also take a look at  Belladonna. Which is a poison by itself but used in the medication Donnatal, which is a mixture of belladonna and phenobarbital, which aids in disorders of the intestines. And need I mention the foxglove plant which is responsible for the manufacture of Digitalis which is given to heart patients?
Certain poisons, when dosed the right way, can be beneficial to human health and improve or save lives. It just has to be in the hands of someone very conscientious of what he/she  is doing.
Oh, and also take a look at bee stings helping those who suffer from arthritis.
Just a few ruminations there.




Hippiekinkster -> RE: The Great Cancer Hoax: (6/11/2011 11:24:39 PM)

What a hoot! Very cool! A testimonial from Mercola, who is flakier than Charlie Sheen on a bad day.

I wouldn't even know where to start.

If that is a "Science Documentary", then "Lord of the Rings" is a History student's Ph.D dissertation.

I suggest googling "laetrile" for a REAL cancer cure. [sm=couch.gif]

Post Scriptum: the comments at the bottom of the link are even trippier. I sense a Venn Diagram with the overlap between Burzinski chumps and Tea-baggers coming on...

[sm=abducted.gif] [sm=rofl.gif] [sm=ubanana.gif] [sm=yeahright.gif] [sm=jerry.gif]




Kirata -> RE: The Great Cancer Hoax: (6/11/2011 11:33:53 PM)


If you would bother to do a little research instead of just reading blogs run by other priests like yourself, you'd learn a thing or two about intellectual dishonesty instead of making a career out of practicing it. I'll take your links one by one.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

http://americanloons.blogspot.com/2010/06/31-tim-bolen.html

AmericanLoons characterizes Bolen as "a publicist for Hulda Clark," and links to Quackwatch (twice) and to another blog called Quackfiles. Heh.

Bolen's "About" page reads...

In North America, innovation in health care is discouraged, and outright attacked, by the status quo. Bolen feels that this is a bad thing, and does something about it.

What a looney thing to do or say, eh?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

http://defamation-libel.blogspot.com/2005/07/tim-bolen-sued-by-aetna.html

This is a good one!

Aetna has filed suit against a device manufacturer who made the mistake of filing a lawsuit accusing Aetna of improperly classifying the Cavitat device as "investigational and experimental."

Not quite. Actually, Cavitat sued Aetna for publishing and disseminating information that falsely represented their product and technology. Aetna had made the mistake of relying on information provided by NCAHF and Quackwatch. You know, kinda like relying on information from you.

Here's a copy of Cavitat's complaint.

What Aetna filed was a countersuit. Or at least it tried to. Cavitat filed a motion to dismiss.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS

Aetna, starting to get a whiff of what they'd bought into by trusting NCAHF, settled out of court.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

http://www.examiner.com/special-education-in-mesa/publicist-tim-bolen-sought-to-undermine-stephen-barrett-s-defense-with-false-claim

This is hilarious, not that I have a clue how it slipped past an editor into the Mesa/Education & Schools/Special Learning Needs section. You may notice in reading the piece that the alleged "false claim" regards "$112,000 plus interest Court Judgment against the NCAHF who owes six homeopathic manufacturers for attorneys fees."

Yep, that's right. NCAHF has no compunction about harrassing perfectly legal businesses with frivolous lawsuits in an effort to bankrupt them. If they lose, they appeal. Here's a couple of their losing appeals:

NCAHF v. KingBio
NCAHF v. Botanical Laboratories

This was the court's conclusion from NCAHF v. Botanical Laboratories:

Appellant believes that no one should be allowed to market homeopathic remedies. Congress has decided otherwise, and officially recognizes the Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia. Appellant's broad-brush approach of sweeping all homeopathic remedies into a single bag marked "undesirable" simply does not work in the courts, where each claimed instance of unfair advertising and unfair business practice must be closely scrutinized. Appellant failed to present any admissible evidence in this case that respondents are guilty of false advertising and unfair business practices with respect to any of their products.

Now, I know that any mention of homeopathy pushes your "heresy" button and makes you reach for your flail to scourge the heathen, but the FDA allows the marketing of the drugs listed in the Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia of the United States. These lawsuits are pure harrassment, kinda like what you deliver upon the head of anyone who dares raise the subject in the forums here. But fortunately for us, CM is free.

Am I done with your links yet? Nevermind, I'm not even going to look. It's late and I'm tired. I remember there was a Wiki link for Stephen Barrett. Wholly objective I'm sure. Just like the entry for the NCAHF. In fact, they must equally objective, because both entries have the same warning:

[image]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/34/Ambox_warning_blue.svg/40px-Ambox_warning_blue.svg.png[/image]

A Wikipedia contributor, Sbinfo (talk · contribs), may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of the article. Relevant guidelines covering this situation include Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, Wikipedia:Autobiography and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

I wish you had something like that. [:D]

K.




subfever -> RE: The Great Cancer Hoax: (6/11/2011 11:37:16 PM)

If your mind was made up before even considering watching the film, you may also want to ignore RealOne's post on your way out too. After all, why risk encountering evidence that may conflict with your preconceived notions?




Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
8.984375E-02