RE: The Great Cancer Hoax:

RE: The Great Cancer Hoax: (Full Version)

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

Message

LillyBoPeep -> RE: The Great Cancer Hoax: (6/12/2011 12:08:23 AM)
the most troubling is that the government then tried to patent his work out from under him... no matter what you think about whether or not he's a quack, that says something pretty loudly to me.

subfever -> RE: The Great Cancer Hoax: (6/12/2011 12:26:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LillyBoPeep the most troubling is that the government then tried to patent his work out from under him... no matter what you think about whether or not he's a quack, that says something pretty loudly to me. Yes, it says something loudly to me too. But please... do elaborate.

MasterSlaveLA -> RE: The Great Cancer Hoax: (6/12/2011 2:00:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: subfever FDA is absolutely a bunch of corrupt, self-interested, ass-hats. Example: Back in 1999, FDA and many "medical professionals" constantly commented about how Glucosamine & Chondroitin (a combination of natural dietary supplements) was INEFFECTIVE in treating Osteoarthritis/Joint Pain. Today, it's taken by MILLIONS of people daily and has been PROVEN to be effective in rebuilding joint cartilage. Oh, and they were, of course, completely silent about the pharaceutical drug, Celebrex, which at the time had KILLED at least 10 people. They didn't give a shit about improved quality of life, and that so many people were pain free for the first time in years. Because it was a "natural product", and not a "pharaceutical drug", there was simply no way it could work. They were very obviously as wrong as wrong can be. Fucking assholes!!!

lovmuffin -> RE: The Great Cancer Hoax: (6/12/2011 4:11:33 AM)
There is a good book on this subject and includes a chapter on Dr Bursynski and much of the discussion on this thread. It's a good read. "Knockout" Interviews With Doctors Who Are Curing Cancer And How To prevent Getting It In The First Place by Suzanne Somers

DomKen -> RE: The Great Cancer Hoax: (6/12/2011 6:23:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata 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. I do research. For instance I don't believe lies promulgated by faith healers (Humantic Foundation) or PR flacks for a woman who claimed her gizmo cured cancer who died from cancer (Tim Bolen). That you listen to the nonsense spouted by these scum is telling. I'll try another tack just to prove how much Burzynski is lying. His supposed cancer cure antineoplaston A10 is supposedly found in normal bodily fluids, that is simply impossible since it is insoluble in water. Furthermore the doctor prior to testing on humans never established that his chemicals actually worked in the way he hypothesized. As a matter of fact when legitimate scientists pointed out that different theories of action were impossible, or very unlikely, he simply came up with a new claim about how the chemical inhibited tumor growth. To this day he doses people with chemicals that he has never verified how they would interact with normal or cancerous cells. We can also examine the American Cancer Society, which is a nonprofit and is a very well respected organization. http://www.cancer.org/Treatment/TreatmentsandSideEffects/ComplementaryandAlternativeMedicine/PharmacologicalandBiologicalTreatment/antineoplaston-therapy And finally if his drugs work why does he refuse to perform randomized double blind studies which would prove it? Why does he keep running phase I trials instead?

Louve00 -> RE: The Great Cancer Hoax: (6/12/2011 6:37:12 AM)
The pharmaceutical companies have always padded the FDA's pockets. I've said this for a long time. The glucosamine and chondroitin supplements are just one example of FDA keeping that information from the general public at the request of pharmaceuticals who pay the FDA big money to use its power that way. Low dose aspirin was found to be beneficial to the heart long before the FDA released this information as true and valid to the American public. In fact, pharma paid FDA so well to keep the information about aspirin under the radar that the FDA actually made it illegal for a company who manufactured aspirin to even claim it could help the heart. I would sooner believe Suzanne Somers. I'm grateful for Dr's like Burzynski. He found this out in 1970 and never gave up his hope (or fight) to treat people with cancer. It's just a shame it took this long for this to surface. Could you imagine the grief and lost lives that could've been saved. Do we realize what this Dr was willing to lose in order to get this information to the public and treat them this way? Despite any skeptics, I applaud him! Thank you for posting this subfever!! [:)]

Musicmystery -> RE: The Great Cancer Hoax: (6/12/2011 6:41:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: subfever 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. This should be an exercise in a logic text. What a tap dance. After affirming scientific method, you then take off on a series of red herrings, raising the question "why the truth is so hard to find." It's because none of your examples have anything at all to do with scientific method. Are we "collectively smart enough to evolve beyond this absurd system"? Yes. It's called the scientific method. Your rant(s) in this thread merely repeat the problem you cite in your post as perpetuated by others. Your answer to the cloud is to kick dirt at it, wondering why it doesn't clear.

Kirata -> RE: The Great Cancer Hoax: (6/12/2011 7:32:12 AM)
I don't know what Burzynski's got, but it is obvious from the testimony in the film that he has produced some damn impressive results with brainstem gliomas and other childhood cancers, and has the support of his patients. Add to that the four study findings that RealOne posted, which you seem determined to ignore in favor of an Appeal to Authority fallacy accompanied by your usual complement of insults and name-calling. All in all, not a good showing. K.

Kirata -> RE: The Great Cancer Hoax: (6/12/2011 8:49:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen You're believing lies, cyanide, what Laetril actually is, has been tested very extensively and it does not treat any cancer. Laetrile (note correct spelling) is not "cyanide." The following heavily paraphrased text reflects only a few selected parts of a much longer and copiously referenced review: Laetrile - The Answer to Cancer Laetrile is laevo-mandelonitrile-glucoside. As a detail, amygdalin is often called "Laetrile," but it is actually d-mandelonitrile bi-glucoside, essentially an equivalent with one extra sugar molecule. Both of these are beta-cyanogenetic glucosides, also frequently called nitrilosides, a class of molelcules made of a sugar, hydrogen cyanide, and a benzene ring or an acetone, of which there are approximately 14 different varieties naturally occurring in plants found all around the world, including maize, lima bean, kidney bean, sweet potatoe, cassava, almond, lime, apricot, and many other familiar vegetables. The enzymes beta-glucosidase and beta-glucuronidase split these nitrilosides into hydrogen cyanide, benazldehyde, and glucose. Fishman discovered in the 1940s that malignant neoplasms contain significantly more (100 to 3600 percent more) beta-glucuronidase than uninvolved adjacent tissue. In addition, malignant lesions have been characterized by a profound deficiency (80%) of rhodanese, a cyanide-detoxifying enzyme. These high levels of beta-glocuronidase in malignant tissue cause nitrilosides to be preferentially split into cyanide, benzaldehyde, and sugar in cancer cells, which die because they lack the cyanide-detoxifying rhodanese that is widely distributed in the non-cancerous tissues of the body, and because of the benzaldehyde, which has separately known anti-cancer effects. A study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) in 1981 reported that, "intravenous amygdalin was found to be free of clinical toxicity and no cyanide could be detected in the blood... the administration of amygdalin according to the dosages and schedules we employed seems to be free of significant side-effects." And for movies fans, here's a link to A World Without Cancer - The Story of Vitamin B17. In all cases, the views expressed are those of the original authors and their sources. K.

subfever -> RE: The Great Cancer Hoax: (6/12/2011 9:19:04 AM)
quote: This should be an exercise in a logic text. What a tap dance. After affirming scientific method, you then take off on a series of red herrings, raising the question "why the truth is so hard to find." It's because none of your examples have anything at all to do with scientific method. Are we "collectively smart enough to evolve beyond this absurd system"? Yes. It's called the scientific method. Your rant(s) in this thread merely repeat the problem you cite in your post as perpetuated by others. Your answer to the cloud is to kick dirt at it, wondering why it doesn't clear. Yes, the way to eliminate the truth being so hard to find in so many areas, is to replace our monetary system with a resource-based economy, which would employ the scientific method to a degree far beyond what we do now. The monetary system itself, which you defend, is the underlying cause of most of the lies, half-truths, and noise that we have to sift through endlessly in search of the truth. Change the system, and the vast majority of this BS will vanish into thin air. Why? Because it would no longer be profitable and advantageous to lie and/or supress the truth. Look what happens in our current system. Burzynski has spent almost 20 years in legal battles with the medical and pharmaceutical powers-that-be who are orchestrating behind the government. This hasn't been about doing what's best for humanity, it's been about money and power. Within the monetary system, it's typically about money and power. The well-being of people and the environment is secondary. I'm curious, were there any specific points I made in my prior post that you disagree with, or were you just trying to discredit me in general?

DomKen -> RE: The Great Cancer Hoax: (6/12/2011 9:34:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen You're believing lies, cyanide, what Laetril actually is, has been tested very extensively and it does not treat any cancer. Laetrile (note correct spelling) is not "cyanide." The following heavily paraphrased text reflects only a few selected parts of a much longer and copiously referenced review: Laetrile - The Answer to Cancer Laetrile is laevo-mandelonitrile-glucoside. As a detail, amygdalin is often called "Laetrile," but it is actually d-mandelonitrile bi-glucoside, essentially an equivalent with one extra sugar molecule. Both of these are beta-cyanogenetic glucosides, also frequently called nitrilosides, a class of molelcules made of a sugar, hydrogen cyanide, and a benzene ring or an acetone, of which there are approximately 14 different varieties naturally occurring in plants found all around the world, including maize, lima bean, kidney bean, sweet potatoe, cassava, almond, lime, apricot, and many other familiar vegetables. The enzymes beta-glucosidase and beta-glucuronidase split these nitrilosides into hydrogen cyanide, benazldehyde, and glucose. Fishman discovered in the 1940s that malignant neoplasms contain significantly more (100 to 3600 percent more) beta-glucuronidase than uninvolved adjacent tissue. In addition, malignant lesions have been characterized by a profound deficiency (80%) of rhodanese, a cyanide-detoxifying enzyme. These high levels of beta-glocuronidase in malignant tissue cause nitrilosides to be preferentially split into cyanide, benzaldehyde, and sugar in cancer cells, which die because they lack the cyanide-detoxifying rhodanese that is widely distributed in the non-cancerous tissues of the body, and because of the benzaldehyde, which has separately known anti-cancer effects. A study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) in 1981 reported that, "intravenous amygdalin was found to be free of clinical toxicity and no cyanide could be detected in the blood... the administration of amygdalin according to the dosages and schedules we employed seems to be free of significant side-effects." And for movies fans, here's a link to A World Without Cancer - The Story of Vitamin B17. In all cases, the views expressed are those of the original authors and their sources. K. A simple question what does Laetril metabolize into? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6098693

DomKen -> RE: The Great Cancer Hoax: (6/12/2011 9:43:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata I don't know what Burzynski's got, but it is obvious from the testimony in the film that he has produced some damn impressive results with brainstem gliomas and other childhood cancers, and has the support of his patients. Add to that the four study findings that RealOne posted, which you seem determined to ignore in favor of an Appeal to Authority fallacy accompanied by your usual complement of insults and name-calling. All in all, not a good showing. K. You read the surrealone's posts? As to your other claims. The last time anybody, with actual credentials, looked into Burzynski, it was a group of Canadian researchers, they found the only instance of a cancer "cured" by Burzynski had actually been cured by a surgical procedure prior to going to Burzynski. Until someone can explain such basic things as why Burzynski does not cease phase I trials and move on to randomized double blind trials that could actually establish his claims I will continue to base my conclusions on the available facts.

subfever -> RE: The Great Cancer Hoax: (6/12/2011 10:12:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Louve00 The pharmaceutical companies have always padded the FDA's pockets. I've said this for a long time. The glucosamine and chondroitin supplements are just one example of FDA keeping that information from the general public at the request of pharmaceuticals who pay the FDA big money to use its power that way. Low dose aspirin was found to be beneficial to the heart long before the FDA released this information as true and valid to the American public. In fact, pharma paid FDA so well to keep the information about aspirin under the radar that the FDA actually made it illegal for a company who manufactured aspirin to even claim it could help the heart. I would sooner believe Suzanne Somers. I'm grateful for Dr's like Burzynski. He found this out in 1970 and never gave up his hope (or fight) to treat people with cancer. It's just a shame it took this long for this to surface. Could you imagine the grief and lost lives that could've been saved. Do we realize what this Dr was willing to lose in order to get this information to the public and treat them this way? Despite any skeptics, I applaud him! Thank you for posting this subfever!! [:)] Nice post, and I agree with you. Unfortunately, there are still many people who blindly trust that organizations like the FDA, NCI, and ACS are primarily focused upon the well-being of the masses. They're not. They have become tools for powerful corporate interests. I'm not saying that these organizations don't have any dedicated, honest, well-intentioned employees within their ranks. I'm sure they do.

Musicmystery -> RE: The Great Cancer Hoax: (6/12/2011 10:13:40 AM)
quote: The monetary system itself, which you defend, is the underlying cause of most of the lies, half-truths, and noise that we have to sift through endlessly in search of the truth Absolute bullshit. You've yet to make ANY causal case for this. It's not a "defense," but pointing out there's no argument. Your thinking on this is like "We live in an oxygen based system. This allows criminals to breath the oxygen, thus causing crime." It's. The. Resources. The rest is just numbers. And no, I'm not trying to discredit you at all, merely to keep you on the earth. You start with a decent case about introducing new ideas into orthodoxy, and because that's difficult, you jump to an evil conspiracy suppressing hope, and blame it on your favorite demon, the monetary system, which again, only reflects, vs. causes. The reason this is an issue for me? I work with people all the time who shut off all their options by exactly this type of thinking. It's what I did when consulting too--it's why I could help them succeed, despite all the forces they had decided were against them. It's what I do for college juniors and seniors, who get jobs and internships while still in the class. Push all that crap aside, and look at the real resources, the real underlying causes, and you can achieve all sorts of seemingly unimaginable results. But unwittingly, you are hindering exactly that you (and I) would like to see flourish. That's why. I hope you understand. (You are, generally, good at not taking things personally.)

Louve00 -> RE: The Great Cancer Hoax: (6/12/2011 10:16:49 AM)
You obviously haven't watched either video link posted. In subfever's link, not only was Burzynski's work patented, but the patent was stolen, changed and used in different doses, rendering not only an ineffective but dangerous outcome to the patient. His patients that did believe in him donated their own money to help him out with his legal fees, since the FDA repeatedly tried prosecuting him and he kept getting acquitted. And since I am not very good at defending or explaining scientific things, I am capable of understanding what I am being told. So if you watch the film Kirata posted ("A World Without Cancer - The Story of Vitamin B17") 23:30 minutes into the video to 25:30 minutes will tell you how a molecule of B17 breaks down in the body, along with what and where the cyanide is dangerous. And if you would want to go on to around the 40 minute mark of the link, it addresses the so called "quacks" that use Laetrile along with their credentials. Kirata, thanks for the link, too. I enjoyed watching it. I don't really like movies [8D], but I do like to learn and I did. Thanks again!! [:)]

Real0ne -> RE: The Great Cancer Hoax: (6/12/2011 10:29:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen A simple question what does Laetril metabolize into? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6098693 The sulfur mustards, or sulphur mustards, commonly known as mustard gas It was noted by the U.S. Army's medical workers that the white cell counts of exposed soldiers were reduced, and mustard gas was investigated as a therapy for Hodgkin's lymphoma, a form of cancer. Study of the use of similar chemicals as agents for the treatment of cancers led to the discovery of mustine, and the birth of anticancer chemotherapy. Chemo Therapy: Killer cancer treatment: How toxic chemotherapy kills both cancer cells and cancer patients "If cancer specialists were to admit publicly that chemotherapy is of limited usefulness and is often dangerous, the public might demand a radical change in direction—possibly toward unorthodox and nontoxic methods, and toward cancer prevention. ...The use of chemotherapy is even advocated by those members of the establishment who realize how ineffective and dangerous it can be." - Ralph W. Moss, author, The Cancer Industry Imagine that you own a house that is absolutely perfect and beautiful with all the necessities, except that it has some rodents inside. When you call the exterminators, they tell you that they won't be able to target just the rodents, as these rodents are of an especially stealthy breed. They tell you they're just going to set off a series of explosions in your house that may kill the rodents. They warn you, "Oh yeah, it may destroy some of your house in the process, but, hey, you want those rodents out of your house, right?" There's probably no way you would allow that; instead, you would do some research and find other, more specific and less generally destructive ways of getting rid of the rodents. The allegorical exterminators' logic makes no sense; yet, it's the same logic that doctors who prescribe chemotherapy follow. Like the exterminators' explosions, chemotherapy doesn't exclusively target cancer cells; it also harms your good cells, destroying some of your body – your "house" – in the process. As a result, many chemotherapy patients lose their hair, develop immune deficiencies, lose weight and vomit. Chemotherapy poisons your body as a whole in an attempt to kill the cancer cells before the "treatment" brings your body to an unrecoverable state. As Gary Null and James Feast write, "(After chemotherapy,) the hope is the cancer is going to be totally dead and you are only half dead and recover." Unfortunately, some people are more than "half dead" after chemotherapy and remain damaged for the rest of their lives, no matter how long or how short that life may be. They never realize that according to many alternative health practitioners, there are safer ways of combating many types of cancer. Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/012727.html#ixzz1P58Ks5lK Exactly like the testimony from the police officer! We feel your pain.

mnottertail -> RE: The Great Cancer Hoax: (6/12/2011 10:32:15 AM)
"If cancer specialists were to admit publicly that chemotherapy is of limited usefulness and is often dangerous............... How fucking dumb is that? Why read any further? There is no more common knowledge..

Real0ne -> RE: The Great Cancer Hoax: (6/12/2011 10:38:29 AM)
quote: le alo quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: The monetary system itself, which you defend, is the underlying cause of most of the lies, half-truths, and noise that we have to sift through endlessly in search of the truth Absolute bullshit. You've yet to make ANY causal case for this. It's not a "defense," but pointing out there's no argument. yeh I started to do just that until you successfully narrowed the "on topic" subject matter to a point forcing substantive opposing data out of your thread. Hell anyone can kick Jordans ass any time when he is forced to sit at the side lines with his hands tied behind his back.

mnottertail -> RE: The Great Cancer Hoax: (6/12/2011 10:41:55 AM)
That may be true of Jordan.

Musicmystery -> RE: The Great Cancer Hoax: (6/12/2011 10:49:47 AM)
quote: yeh I started to do just that until you successfully narrowed the "on topic" subject matter to a point forcing substantive opposing data out of your thread. No. I held the discussion to plans that could be put into action with demonstrable results. Outside of demonstrable is speculation, not "substantive opposing data."

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875