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.
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?
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
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.
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.
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
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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
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.
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
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?
KMC Community Forums
Jul 7th, 2011 09:51 AM
