CURE for CANCER

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



lord xyz
Dr. Burzynski has discovered a cure for cancer, but the American health system has repeatedly hindered his progress in getting this treatment into the system.

rBUGVkmmwbk

no expression

dadudemon

lord xyz

dadudemon
Originally posted by lord xyz
First, the documentary shows it to have saved lives since 1977.

This is why I included "scientifically" as part of my explanation.

If he didn't control it, measure it by rigorous standards, document it, create proper theory model, peer review the completed work, and obtain results duplication from a peer project (not in that order):

IT'S NOT SCIENTIFICALLY SOUND.

This is the exact problems that they've had with his work: results duplication has been crap and his studies have been crap. Those have been his bane.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Second, I don't know where you're getting this "awesome breakthrough" quote from, but to me it looks like you're just replying to what you think you're reading.

How about none of the above? You're way off mark. It's the embodiment of the idea you tried to convey. I put it in quotes to distance myself from that idea because I neither fully agree nor fully disagree with it.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Third, watch the documentary and stop being an annoying pathetic human being. no expression

1. Reported.
2. I provided relevant information on the thread that you did NOT provide.
3. I brought up significant points that your obviously biased documentary is not going to bring up. You can't just present information to thinking adults and not try to be even a tiny bit objective about it. You just posted a video and lied about it being a cure for cancer.

Originally posted by lord xyz
You've stained my thread already. Congrats, ****.

Reported.

dadudemon
So, I got about 10 minutes into the video and I already find something horribly wrong with the logic he went about perusing the antineoplastons: he found them in the blood and urine of cancer free people but missing in cancer-present people. He theorized that if he could get them into the cancer-people, it might make them healthy.


That fails to even establish cause and effect. It could be a coincidence, depending on his sample pool. It could be a byproduct (the absence of antineoplastons being the byproduct) of the presence of malignant cancer, rather than a solution. He failed basic medical logic in his initial assessment.


Continuing on in the video: Jodi Fenton/Gold. Is this an example of confirmation bias? Because tens of thousands of people are diagnosed with cancer each year, the chances that one person magically "heals" from their own cancer is quite high in a given year. So how can we know for sure that they cancer from Jodi didn't just heal itself, as DOES happen? Is this a better example of confirmation bias than it is of antineoplastons' curative properties? These are questions you should be asking yourself when watching these obviously biased documentaries, Lord XYZ.

5 of 54 versus 5 of 20: I believe that this particular piece of information was part of what was in contention a few years back when I read about this. The numbers don't properly match up meaning, they are not fair comparisons. I don't know where the problem occurred but it "sounded" like Dr. Burzynski made careful selections and the other study was ...random? I want to know more about each study and the selection process. Obviously, if this was a point of contention, there's more information that is needed.

Brainstem Gliomas: pretty much all people die within 5 years of this. For me, this lends a bit more credibility to antineoplastons, however, it's still just a single example. It was the trials that made it more believable. I did not read (and I google searched) anything about this comparison being faulty. It's possible that, at least for Brainstem Gliomas, that this type of treatement is effective. One thing that SHOULD set off a redflag is the post 5 year mark. Why stop at 5 years? Did that particular type of cancer reappear? (It doesn't really metastasize (I don't think it does), so we should expect to see that same type of cancer show back up. Furthermore, do other types of cancer come up? How much of an improvement does this present, long term, beyond the sample group? The small size doesn't seem enough.)



And so forth. This is how you should review these types of films. Question the shit out of them. It also doesn't hurt to have prior knowledge about the subject matter being viewed. I made it only about 22 mintues in but, already, there is information that is is questionable or dubious. That's healthy, not bad. Even good ol' Dr. Burzynski would encourage this type of healthy criticism because it's literally necessary to improve our science.

Peach
Originally posted by lord xyz
First, the documentary shows it to have saved lives since 1977.
Second, I don't know where you're getting this "awesome breakthrough" quote from, but to me it looks like you're just replying to what you think you're reading.
Third, watch the documentary and stop being an annoying pathetic human being. no expression

You've stained my thread already. Congrats, ****.

Knock off the namecalling. If you can't handle people poking holes in something you've posted, then don't post it.

lord xyz
You're speculating and pulling straws because you think I'm an idiot, think the film is propganda by default, (judging it without watching it for no real reason) and haven't even cited any sources, which the film does.

I posted a no expression which to a normal person with fully operational brain functions would suggest the documentary speaks for itself, which I think it does.

I think you have a mental disease, but I could be wrong, although I believe this to be accurate.

Peach
Originally posted by lord xyz
You're speculating and pulling straws because you think I'm an idiot, think the film is propganda by default, (judging it without watching it for no real reason) and haven't even cited any sources, which the film does.

I posted a no expression which to a normal person with fully operational brain functions would suggest the documentary speaks for itself, which I think it does.

I think you have a mental disease, but I could be wrong, although I believe this to be accurate.

And now you've got a warning for bashing. Good job.

Dave_97
why am i in this thread?

i need....




6 more of the sleeps.

lord xyz
Originally posted by Peach
And now you've got a warning for bashing. Good job. How is that even bashing?

Grate the Vraya
Is the cancer-gene, non-cancer gene really how it works? That seems weird to me. Maybe the documentary-maker just simplified for retards like me.

Lord Lucien
As soon as I saw the thread I thought "I Am Legend".

dadudemon
. (ignore...browser issues)

dadudemon
Originally posted by lord xyz
You're speculating and pulling straws because you think I'm an idiot, think the film is propganda by default, (judging it without watching it for no real reason) and haven't even cited any sources, which the film does.

"Bias" does not mean "propoganda."

You can still be right about something scientific...but still be biased in your presention. (in the common sense...not the extreme minute sense)

One thing about the video that was cleary bias, and annoying: they kept presenting that the FDA did not have a problem with whether or not the medicines worked, but rather...whether he was complying with the appropriate regulations/policies during his research.

They tried to spin that to mean that the FDA acknowledged he was right about how effective it was but was trying to pin him on technicalities.

That's not the case at all: if he followed the proper polcies/regulations...get this: the efficacy, dosing protocols, and durations for a theraputic delivery would be determined OR the drug could be thrown out as ineffective.

It's "two birds with one stone."


Now, I'm one of the last people that likes to take up for the FDA: I think we should almost scrap the entire organization and adopt a system like the EMA or Canada's system.

Originally posted by lord xyz
I posted a no expression which to a normal person with fully operational brain functions would suggest the documentary speaks for itself, which I think it does.

I watched the documentary as my previous post clearly indicated I was watching it.

My conclusion: there's a clear bias and it commits massive amounts of the same logical fallacy: Appeal to Emotion. In the end, the dubiousness of the "product" is as clear as ever.

Quite a common tactic by lawyers, btw, because that's sometimes all they have to do to "win" a jury.

You want a source, so I'll provide one:

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






Emphasis added. Why didn't the documentary mention the Canadian investigation?

A proper rebuttal would include something like: Dr. Burzynski had not worked out the proper protocols (dosing, ratios of the different antineoplastons used in those protocols, duration, etc.) But that's not the case because he was theraputically treating patients even before then. Notice that he, Dr. Burzynski selected those patients for review by the Canadian researchers. That should automatically throw up a red flag for anyone: even a layman.

immaturerainbow
I'de like my grandmother and mother cured, please. (:

lord xyz
From Dadumon's source:

"Some patients claim to have been helped by antineoplaston therapy, but these anecdotal reports are not considered evidence of effectiveness by the medical community, either for this or for any other type of therapy"

Complete bullshit, the medical records and the patients testimonies are evidence against that, which is in the documentary.

I'm taking 2 seconds in my replies... because I can't be bothered with arguments against a documentary refuting the sources being used.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by lord xyz
From Dadumon's link:

"Some patients claim to have been helped by antineoplaston therapy, but these anecdotal reports are not considered evidence of effectiveness by the medical community, either for this or for any other type of therapy"

Complete bullshit, the medical records and the patients testimonies are evidence against that, which is in the documentary.

I can't be bothered with evidence against a documentary refuting the sources being used.

What?

A person saying "I think this helped me." absolutely does not count as evidence by any reasonable standard (certainly not that used by medical researchers) and proof that he really recovered doesn't change that. People *do* sometimes just recover from cancer, treat enough people and it will happen with any treatment, even doing nothing at all.

To be successful you have to show that more people are helped than would be expected by chance. He hasn't done that.

In fact he loses 34 out of 36 patients, 94.4% of them, to caner. Not really the kind of thing you can announce as a CURE for CANCER.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos

In fact he loses 34 out of 36 patients, 94.4% of them

Prayer only lost 33 out of 36

lord xyz
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
What?

A person saying "I think this helped me." absolutely does not count as evidence by any reasonable standard (certainly not that used by medical researchers) and proof that he really recovered doesn't change that. People *do* sometimes just recover from cancer, treat enough people and it will happen with any treatment, even doing nothing at all.

To be successful you have to show that more people are helped than would be expected by chance. He hasn't done that.

In fact he loses 34 out of 36 patients, 94.4% of them, to caner. Not really the kind of thing you can announce as a CURE for CANCER. I don't know where you got that statistic from but in The Burzynski Breakthrough (Thomas Elias), Elias charts the clinical trial results of Burzynski's antineoplaston treatment against dozens of types of cancer. "All these figures derive from progress reports sent to the FDA, which are required of anyone who conducts clinical trials," says Elias. "But there is no other cancer treatment for which the manufacturer has ever made precise performance figures available.

"Overall, Burzynski's drug draws significant responses in about 65% of all cancers on which it has been used. This includes complete remissions, partial remissions (i.e., more than 50% reduction of tumor within six months of start of treatment), and stable disease (less than 50% tumor reduction, but no progression -- which can be a very significant result if you have a fast-growing brain tumor that's not responding to anything else).

"Burzynski's drug works via a chemical reaction that reactivates tumor suppresser genes -- specifically the p53 tumor suppresser gene -- which have been quieted, usually because they've been coated with methyl groups. About 60-65% of all cancers are associated with malfunction of the p53 gene, so Burzynski's numbers are apparently is no accident."

I may have repeated some of the info in the film, but I think that can clarify how successful his method is.

And I think people should stop criticising my thread title already, it was a means to grab attention, not so much an accurate statement, but I'm pretty sure if Dr. Whitaker (30 years in medicine) who is in the ****ing documentary wrote a story on Burzynski which is reprinted here: http://www.townsendletter.com/AugSept2008/thirtyyears0808.htm

His patients of course, can be found here: http://www.burzynskipatientgroup.org

And, as explained in patient testimonies and the documentary, many of his patients do get cancer again under his treatment, so he doubles the dose and it then works. His method is very effective. Shall I rename the title: Very effective method against cancer?

inimalist
links to any publications?

lord xyz
Sorry, thought I posted it.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Burzynski-Breakthrough-Promising-Treatment-Governments/dp/1575440180/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1310171732&sr=1-1

Bardock42
I think he meant peer-reviewed publications in a scientific journal.

lord xyz
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=burzynski%20SR a long list of peer reviewed publication here

https://www.novapublishers.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=5367
Here's Burzynski on the nova publishers website

Taken from his website: http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/resources-links.html
which I got from the documentary

http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/reviews/reviews_17_2_kauffman.pdf Here's another I found with a google search

I would also like to mention anti-neoplastons were being patented by Dr Dvorit Samid, despite Burzynski already patenting it. Why would they try to steal his research if it doesn't work? Hmmm.

inimalist
interesting, I'll look at it later, thanks

dadudemon
This type of "stealing" (it's not stealing because she found a hole in his patent and ran with it) occurs all the time in the pharmaceutical industry. If one "junior" researcher notices a hole, thinks he/she is on to something, they can quit, get sponsored, and possibly make someone money. It also occurs because sometimes...old "men" are stuck in their ways and refuse to explore "sister paths" to discovery so they quit out of frustration and look for a large company to sponsor them.

Problem: she had dismal results. That's also in your documentary. So, despite the fact that she thought she was on to something, she failed miserably.








And, looking over his studies, I still see the same issues: sample sizes are too small, he selected the patients (hand picked...meaning, we STILL have the randomized problem that I spoke of), and the results are still not actually cures because almost all die in less than 8 years. Keep in mind that you yourself titled the thread "cure", not me. Most died in less than 2 years. The studies suggest that this is still greater than the current treatment but we actually cannot be sure until we have a proper comparison.

Do you have any rebuttals? That's a rather healthy way to present your research for sponsorship. I'm not joking: if you can heartily rebuke the rebuttals, it legitimizes your work even better.

Also, I did not see any peer reviews or results duplication studies. I saw work from Dr. Burzynski's group. The one I DID read was from the Canadian researchers, which were strangely not mentioned in the documentary, that had very bad results. The Japanese researchers had poor results but they did see some statistically significant responses (meaning, accounting for randomized fluctuations up to 2 standard deviations, did not account for all of the positive results...but it was still rather low.)


But, like I said...if his drugs can be proven to cure even one person where all other current technologies would fail...let's have it. thumb up

lord xyz
Originally posted by dadudemon
This type of "stealing" (it's not stealing because she found a hole in his patent and ran with it) They lost the court case, and the people involved were the same people who claimed his were ineffective and a cancer institute member who's wife was treated by Burzynski effectively, IE she was cured.

I keep telling you, it's in the documentary.

dadudemon
Originally posted by lord xyz
They lost the court case, and the people involved were the same people who claimed his were ineffective and a cancer institute member who's wife was treated by Burzynski effectively, IE she was cured.

I keep telling you, it's in the documentary.

I saw the documentary.

Everything you said is quite irrelevant to what I said, IE I answered your question quite thoroughly but that's not acceptable so you're going to pretend there's some sort of secret conspiracy when it was just dirty business practices.

lord xyz
No, based on experience, and considering most of your posts come from the speculation of...you, I disregard most of what you say. The effort it takes to refute your long ass posts are not worth it as you never listen and the thread gets filled with more crap, take this one for example.

You can report me again, if you like, but I haven't even insulted you this time, just explaining why I don't take you seriously.

dadudemon
Originally posted by lord xyz
No, based on experience, and considering most of your posts come from the speculation of...you, I disregard most of what you say. The effort it takes to refute your long ass posts are not worth the effort as you never listen and the thread gets filled with more crap, take this one for example.

You can report me again, if you like, but I haven't even insulted you this time, just explaining why I don't take you seriously.

That's a bit off topic. It's quite obvious that you don't think my posts have any value. Why would you? You toted his antineoplastons as a cure for cancer when not even your documentary made that claim (and the documentary is quite clearly biased towards Dr. Burzynski).

I can't listen, this is a text based message board.

You can't refuse my posts because they are the same concerns that medical community (including a non-profit organization dedicated to finding a cure for cancer...run by people affected by cancer) has brought up. Pretty much no idea I have put forth is my own. Not even the "dirty business" idea that occurs in the pharmaceutical industry.

Also, your post does not address the last post I replied with. You're bouncing from subject a to subject b to subject c without actually addressing anything.

theICONiac
Originally posted by inimalist
links to any publications?

Hi inimalist, please click on the following link to explain all:

http://www.quackwatch.com/search/webglimpse.cgi?ID=1&query=Burzynski

Mr Parker
Originally posted by dadudemon
This is why I included "scientifically" as part of my explanation.

If he didn't control it, measure it by rigorous standards, document it, create proper theory model, peer review the completed work, and obtain results duplication from a peer project (not in that order):

IT'S NOT SCIENTIFICALLY SOUND.

This is the exact problems that they've had with his work: results duplication has been crap and his studies have been crap. Those have been his bane.



How about none of the above? You're way off mark. It's the embodiment of the idea you tried to convey. I put it in quotes to distance myself from that idea because I neither fully agree nor fully disagree with it.



1. Reported.
2. I provided relevant information on the thread that you did NOT provide.
3. I brought up significant points that your obviously biased documentary is not going to bring up. You can't just present information to thinking adults and not try to be even a tiny bit objective about it. You just posted a video and lied about it being a cure for cancer.



Reported.

your finding out what everybody finds out eventually when they try and have a discussion with xyz.

Mr Parker
Originally posted by dadudemon
That's a bit off topic. It's quite obvious that you don't think my posts have any value. Why would you? You toted his antineoplastons as a cure for cancer when not even your documentary made that claim (and the documentary is quite clearly biased towards Dr. Burzynski).

I can't listen, this is a text based message board.

You can't refuse my posts because they are the same concerns that medical community (including a non-profit organization dedicated to finding a cure for cancer...run by people affected by cancer) has brought up. Pretty much no idea I have put forth is my own. Not even the "dirty business" idea that occurs in the pharmaceutical industry.

Also, your post does not address the last post I replied with. You're bouncing from subject a to subject b to subject c without actually addressing anything.

thats something else many people discover about him when his facts are proven wrong,Instead of admitting they are wrong,he dodges it and wont address it.

lord xyz
I think I have a stalker. ermm

inimalist
Originally posted by theICONiac
Hi inimalist, please click on the following link to explain all:

http://www.quackwatch.com/search/webglimpse.cgi?ID=1&query=Burzynski

thats a publication of his?

dadudemon
Reading back, XYZ, I apologize for how heated our conversation got. Though I remained within the rules, I still could have been nicer.

theICONiac
Originally posted by inimalist
thats a publication of his?

'Quackwatch' is a site similiar to Snopes, in that it debunks medical claims/stories, etc.

inimalist
Originally posted by theICONiac
'Quackwatch' is a site similiar to Snopes, in that it debunks medical claims/stories, etc.

you don't see why I would rather read the actual data published in peer review as opposed to sites dedicated to debunking?

lord xyz
Originally posted by dadudemon
Reading back, XYZ, I apologize for how heated our conversation got. Though I remained within the rules, I still could have been nicer. I feel I overreacted at first, but you basically said "derp, I know nothing about what you've just posted, but skepticism says to be a total ass and demand everything be proven infront of meez without me doing any effort of looking into the film you're talking aboutz" then followed with "herez all the shit that I know" when the thread was supposed to be more relevant to the film.

theICONiac
Originally posted by inimalist
you don't see why I would rather read the actual data published in peer review as opposed to sites dedicated to debunking?

No, as the data will be the same ie. nonsense.

lord xyz
Originally posted by theICONiac
No, as the data will be the same ie. nonsense. How much do you know about Burzynski or Antineoplastons or medical research?

Or are you just a lazier DDM?

theICONiac
Originally posted by lord xyz
How much do you know about Burzynski or Antineoplastons or medical research?

Or are you just a lazier DDM?

Do you believe in Bigfoot?

Quark_666
Originally posted by immaturerainbow
I'de like my grandmother and mother cured, please. (: On it.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.