KillerMovies - Movies That Matter!

REGISTER HERE TO JOIN IN! - It's easy and it's free!
Home » Community » General Discussion Forum » CURE for CANCER

CURE for CANCER
Started by: lord xyz

Forum Jump:
Post New Thread    Post A Reply
Pages (3): [1] 2 3 »   Last Thread   Next Thread
Author
Thread
It's xyz!
Restricted

Gender: Male
Location: Made you look

Account Restricted

CURE for CANCER

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.



no expression


__________________

Bulbasaur, the original... Pepe.

Last edited by Raz on Jan 1st 2000 at 00:00AM

Old Post Jul 7th, 2011 09:51 AM
It's xyz! is currently offline Click here to Send It's xyz! a Private Message Find more posts by It's xyz! Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote Quick Quote
dadudemon
Senior Member

Gender: Male
Location: Bacta Tank.

Basically, Dr. Burzynski won a case against the government (FDA, I believe) and he's the single patent holder for a antineoplastons which are “gene therapy” peptides that trigger apoptosis (cell-suicide) in cancerous cells.

The legitimacy of antineoplastons is still in question but Dr. Burzynski, et al, have been given permission to move to Phase-II trials of testing. In the US, Phase II trials are the portion of medical study which allow for a larger human test group to be “tested” on for drug efficacy. It will also determine “proper” dosing.

The documentary, which I have no seen yet, focuses on all the trouble the Dr. experienced in reaching Phase-II trials. It probably spins the US government in a negative light, uses corporate profiteering as a tool of fear-mongering, and makes Dr. Burzynski look like a hero.


I do not know if Dr. Burzynski is right but the research is at best, potentially useful. Most shows it to be useless. It's not quite "quackery", but it's not quite "awesome breakthrough" science, either.



Do you guys want to see a REAL cure for SOME cancer that is quite effective?

http://media.caltech.edu/press_releases/13334

And that solution is already past Phase-I (I believe).

It's possible that the bias is against individuals as this is a major "corporation" pushing this breakthrough.




Back to the thread topic: I don't really think his cure is a cure. Marginally effective. If it saves one life (and is scientifically proven to do so), then it's worth the $100,000+). Agreed?


__________________

Last edited by dadudemon on Jul 7th, 2011 at 10:36 AM

Old Post Jul 7th, 2011 10:32 AM
dadudemon is currently offline Click here to Send dadudemon a Private Message Find more posts by dadudemon Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote Quick Quote
It's xyz!
Restricted

Gender: Male
Location: Made you look

Account Restricted

quote: (post)
Originally posted by dadudemon
Basically, Dr. Burzynski won a case against the government (FDA, I believe) and he's the single patent holder for a antineoplastons which are “gene therapy” peptides that trigger apoptosis (cell-suicide) in cancerous cells.

The legitimacy of antineoplastons is still in question but Dr. Burzynski, et al, have been given permission to move to Phase-II trials of testing. In the US, Phase II trials are the portion of medical study which allow for a larger human test group to be “tested” on for drug efficacy. It will also determine “proper” dosing.

The documentary, which I have no seen yet, focuses on all the trouble the Dr. experienced in reaching Phase-II trials. It probably spins the US government in a negative light, uses corporate profiteering as a tool of fear-mongering, and makes Dr. Burzynski look like a hero.


I do not know if Dr. Burzynski is right but the research is at best, potentially useful. Most shows it to be useless. It's not quite "quackery", but it's not quite "awesome breakthrough" science, either.



Do you guys want to see a REAL cure for SOME cancer that is quite effective?

http://media.caltech.edu/press_releases/13334

And that solution is already past Phase-I (I believe).

It's possible that the bias is against individuals as this is a major "corporation" pushing this breakthrough.




Back to the thread topic: I don't really think his cure is a cure. Marginally effective. If it saves one life (and is scientifically proven to do so), then it's worth the $100,000+). Agreed?
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, ****.


__________________

Bulbasaur, the original... Pepe.

Last edited by Raz on Jan 1st 2000 at 00:00AM

Old Post Jul 7th, 2011 01:04 PM
It's xyz! is currently offline Click here to Send It's xyz! a Private Message Find more posts by It's xyz! Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote Quick Quote
dadudemon
Senior Member

Gender: Male
Location: Bacta Tank.

quote: (post)
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.

quote: (post)
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.

quote: (post)
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.

quote: (post)
Originally posted by lord xyz
You've stained my thread already. Congrats, ****.


Reported.


__________________

Old Post Jul 7th, 2011 02:10 PM
dadudemon is currently offline Click here to Send dadudemon a Private Message Find more posts by dadudemon Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote Quick Quote
dadudemon
Senior Member

Gender: Male
Location: Bacta Tank.

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.


__________________

Last edited by dadudemon on Jul 7th, 2011 at 02:49 PM

Old Post Jul 7th, 2011 02:47 PM
dadudemon is currently offline Click here to Send dadudemon a Private Message Find more posts by dadudemon Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote Quick Quote
Peach
mordrem

Gender: Female
Location: verdant brink

Moderator

quote: (post)
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.


__________________

under the pale tree - my [email protected]

I can hear the call of the dragon...

Old Post Jul 7th, 2011 04:23 PM
Peach is currently offline Click here to Send Peach a Private Message Find more posts by Peach Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote Quick Quote
It's xyz!
Restricted

Gender: Male
Location: Made you look

Account Restricted

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.


__________________

Bulbasaur, the original... Pepe.

Last edited by Raz on Jan 1st 2000 at 00:00AM

Old Post Jul 7th, 2011 06:50 PM
It's xyz! is currently offline Click here to Send It's xyz! a Private Message Find more posts by It's xyz! Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote Quick Quote
Peach
mordrem

Gender: Female
Location: verdant brink

Moderator

quote: (post)
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.


__________________

under the pale tree - my [email protected]

I can hear the call of the dragon...

Old Post Jul 7th, 2011 06:51 PM
Peach is currently offline Click here to Send Peach a Private Message Find more posts by Peach Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote Quick Quote
Dave_97
Lasers.

Gender: Male
Location: piggle sigs

why am i in this thread?

i need....




6 more of the sleeps.


__________________


OH WELSHY.

Old Post Jul 7th, 2011 06:58 PM
Dave_97 is currently offline Click here to Send Dave_97 a Private Message Find more posts by Dave_97 Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote Quick Quote
It's xyz!
Restricted

Gender: Male
Location: Made you look

Account Restricted

quote: (post)
Originally posted by Peach
And now you've got a warning for bashing. Good job.
How is that even bashing?


__________________

Bulbasaur, the original... Pepe.

Last edited by Raz on Jan 1st 2000 at 00:00AM

Old Post Jul 7th, 2011 07:06 PM
It's xyz! is currently offline Click here to Send It's xyz! a Private Message Find more posts by It's xyz! Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote Quick Quote
Grate the Vraya
Disciple of Inglip

Gender: Male
Location: schiggity schwa?

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.


__________________
Hey papi, Hey ese, Hey whiteboy,
Tell me what you need!
What's good? Talk to me. Work with me, man!
I got everything!

Old Post Jul 7th, 2011 08:51 PM
Grate the Vraya is currently offline Click here to Send Grate the Vraya a Private Message Find more posts by Grate the Vraya Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote Quick Quote
Lord Lucien
Lets all love Lain

Gender: Male
Location:

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


__________________
Recently Produced and Distributed Young but High-Ranking Political Figure of Royal Ancestry within the Modern American Town Affectionately Referred To as Bel-Air.

Old Post Jul 8th, 2011 02:33 AM
Lord Lucien is currently offline Click here to Send Lord Lucien a Private Message Find more posts by Lord Lucien Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote Quick Quote
dadudemon
Senior Member

Gender: Male
Location: Bacta Tank.

. (ignore...browser issues)


__________________

Old Post Jul 8th, 2011 04:24 AM
dadudemon is currently offline Click here to Send dadudemon a Private Message Find more posts by dadudemon Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote Quick Quote
dadudemon
Senior Member

Gender: Male
Location: Bacta Tank.

quote: (post)
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.

quote: (post)
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/Tre...plaston-therapy

quote:
In 1977, Dr. Burzynski opened his own clinic, where he has used antineoplaston therapy to treat patients for a variety of cancers. He claims that the therapy has cured many patients of their illnesses. However, his methods for conducting and reporting clinical research have been criticized for not following appropriate scientific standards.

In the United States today, antineoplaston therapy can only be given to patients who go to Dr. Burzynski's clinic and enroll in his clinical trials approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

What is the evidence?
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. Some promising results for the use of antineoplaston therapy have been reported in small studies. Most of these studies were directed by Dr. Burzynski himself. Results from a few small studies conducted by one group of researchers in Japan have also been published. However, the available clinical evidence consists of early-phase clinical trials and best case series.

During the 1980s, the United States Congressional Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) reviewed medical journal articles describing cases of cancer patients whom Dr. Burzynski had treated with antineoplaston therapy. Its report, published in 1990, concludes that, "Despite a substantial number of preliminary clinical studies published by Burzynski and his associates describing outcomes among the patients he treated with Antineoplastons and an attempt at a 'best case' review, there is still a lack of valid information to judge whether this treatment is likely to be beneficial to cancer patients." The OTA report criticized Burzynski's research process and noted that his definitions of advanced cancer and of complete and partial cancer remission were not used in accordance with generally accepted definitions. One example they pointed to was a patient said to have had a complete remission after treatment with antineoplastons. The report concluded, however, that this claim was inappropriate because the cancer had been removed by surgery before the antineoplaston treatment was started.

In 1982, consultants to the Ontario (Canada) Ministry of Health visited Burzynski's clinic and reviewed records of twelve patients selected by Burzynski from among the thousands he had treated. According to the OTA report, the Canadian doctors "found no examples of objective response to Antineoplastons." In 1985, the Canadian Bureau of Prescription Drugs examined the records of Canadian doctors who had treated patients at Dr. Burzynski's clinic in Houston. Of 36 patients, 32 had died without showing signs of improvement. Of the remaining 4, one patient died after slight improvement, while one patient died after stabilizing for a year. The 2 remaining patients had widespread cancer.

In 1991, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) reviewed several 'best cases' (involving patients with brain tumors) chosen by Burzynski. According to a 1992 article in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, "two NCI extramural investigators independently reviewed the case histories of some patients treated with antineoplastons. At the investigators' recommendation, the NCI examined the case histories, pathology slides, and imaging studies from seven patients with primary brain tumors ….[T]he site visit team and, subsequently, the [NCI] Division of Cancer Treatment's Decision Network Committee believed that evidence of possible antitumor effect was demonstrated." NCI concluded that these results warranted further investigation through clinical trials at other medical centers. But because of disagreement between NCI researchers and Burzynski, the clinical trials were terminated in 1995. By 1999, the researchers concluded that only 6 of the 9 patients treated in that study could be evaluated according to the study's initial requirements. None of the 6 showed evidence of tumor shrinkage. The researchers noted, however, that the small number of patients participating limited their ability to say with confidence that antineoplaston treatment had no benefit. Side effects of antineoplaston treatment included temporary sleepiness and confusion, and worsening of epilepsy (seizures) in patients who already had that problem (as a result of the tumors).

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.

Although some proponents of antineoplaston therapy have suggested that the reviews of this treatment by conventional cancer specialists are biased by mistrust of alternative therapies, even some prominent figures in the field of alternative medicine have reservations about antineoplastons. According to Dr. Andrew Weil, "Over the years, Dr. Burzynski claims to have treated more than 8,000 patients, but his success rates are unknown. His Web site states only that he has helped 'many' people. If antineoplaston therapy works, we should have scientific studies showing what percentage of patients treated have survived and for how long, as well as evidence showing how Dr. Burzynski's method stacks up against conventional cancer treatment…. Until we have credible scientific evidence showing what antineoplastons are, how they act in the body, and what realistic expectations of treatment with them might be, I see no reason for any cancer patient to take this route."





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.


__________________

Old Post Jul 8th, 2011 04:25 AM
dadudemon is currently offline Click here to Send dadudemon a Private Message Find more posts by dadudemon Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote Quick Quote
immaturerainbow
d e a d

Gender: Female
Location:

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

Old Post Jul 8th, 2011 07:11 AM
immaturerainbow is currently offline Click here to Send immaturerainbow a Private Message Find more posts by immaturerainbow Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote Quick Quote
It's xyz!
Restricted

Gender: Male
Location: Made you look

Account Restricted

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.


__________________

Bulbasaur, the original... Pepe.

Last edited by Raz on Jan 1st 2000 at 00:00AM

Last edited by It's xyz! on Jul 8th, 2011 at 07:09 PM

Old Post Jul 8th, 2011 07:05 PM
It's xyz! is currently offline Click here to Send It's xyz! a Private Message Find more posts by It's xyz! Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote Quick Quote
Symmetric Chaos
Fractal King

Gender: Male
Location: Ko-ro-ba

quote: (post)
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.


__________________



Graffiti outside Latin class.
Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
A juvenal prank.

Old Post Jul 8th, 2011 07:14 PM
Symmetric Chaos is currently offline Click here to Send Symmetric Chaos a Private Message Find more posts by Symmetric Chaos Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote Quick Quote
Bardock42
Junior Member

Gender: Unspecified
Location: With Cinderella and the 9 Dwarves

quote: (post)
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


__________________

Old Post Jul 8th, 2011 07:16 PM
Bardock42 is currently offline Click here to Send Bardock42 a Private Message Find more posts by Bardock42 Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote Quick Quote
It's xyz!
Restricted

Gender: Male
Location: Made you look

Account Restricted

quote: (post)
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/AugSe...tyyears0808.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?


__________________

Bulbasaur, the original... Pepe.

Last edited by Raz on Jan 1st 2000 at 00:00AM

Old Post Jul 8th, 2011 11:54 PM
It's xyz! is currently offline Click here to Send It's xyz! a Private Message Find more posts by It's xyz! Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote Quick Quote
tsilamini
Junior Member

Gender: Unspecified
Location:

links to any publications?


__________________
yes, a million times yes

Old Post Jul 9th, 2011 12:08 AM
tsilamini is currently offline Click here to Send tsilamini a Private Message Find more posts by tsilamini Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote Quick Quote
All times are UTC. The time now is 05:25 AM.
Pages (3): [1] 2 3 »   Last Thread   Next Thread

Home » Community » General Discussion Forum » CURE for CANCER

Email this Page
Subscribe to this Thread
   Post New Thread  Post A Reply

Forum Jump:
Search by user:
 

Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is OFF
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON

Text-only version
 

< - KillerMovies.com - Forum Archive - Forum Rules >


© Copyright 2000-2006, KillerMovies.com. All Rights Reserved.
Powered by: vBulletin, copyright ©2000-2006, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.