[M3Denver]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qG_ZWs04es&feature=youtube_gdata_player


Officially everyone should hate the government and the power hungry megalomaniac CEOs or corp owners,this is the kinda bs they pull ....

[ideliver]

is embedding too difficult for you? no wonder you fell for the snake oil

[Small Yellow]

Linked it. Any insight? My aunt just had breast cancer and they took them both off. Anyways its too long... I watched first few minutes.

[Crimson92]

Just watched the whole thing. Very interesting to say the least. Everyone should watch it.

[kevinbahnz]

WOW!

[GetSomeE92]

Didn't watch it, but "I Am Legend" started with a discovered cure for cancer, too....

[RonP187]

Didn't watch but let me guess.

Guy finds cure for cancer.

Government + Big Pharma won't let it go mainstream because they'll lose shitloads of money.

Result - we all suffer and die.

Moral of the story - Greed > all in government and business.

How close was I?

[schoy]

For a nice scientific analysis of the movie, see: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/...e-a-bad-movie/

I'll let the last 3 paragraphs of the analysis be the Cliffs:

"Repeat after me: Antineoplastons are chemotherapy. Worse, they’re chemotherapy that almost certainly doesn’t work against cancer. At best, looking at the evidence, I conclude that they might have very minimal anticancer activity, and even that’s doubtful."

"Writer/producer Eric Merola uses Burzynski The Movie as a forum to pound on what he perceives as the shortcomings of the current regulatory system overseeing drugs. If anything, he’s right that our drug regulatory system has severe shortcomings, but not because it’s trying to shut Burzynski down. To me, the huge flaw in our drug regulatory system is that, after over 30 years, it has failed to determine once and for all whether or not antineoplastons have any anticancer activity, despite allowing Dr. Burzynski to treat thousands of patients with them. Although every indication thus far is that antineoplastons do not, in fact, have any appreciable antitumor activity (certainly Burzynski has utterly failed to show convincingly that any of them do), there is just enough uncertainty to allow Burzynski to portray himself to believers in alt-med as a poor, persecuted, brave maverick doctor. More disturbing from an ethics standpoint, somehow, Burzynski is still able to enroll patients on clinical trials, despite having failed to show compelling preclinical evidence of efficacy; worse, he charges them huge sums of money for the “privilege” of being on one of his clinical trials, something I and many others view as highly unethical, to the point of wondering how any Institutional Review Board could possibly approve such studies, particularly given that the FDA has warned Burzynski about how his IRB fails to protect human research subjects. Unfortunately, the Texas Medical Board failed to shut him down in the 1990s. One can only hope that it’s more successful in its next attempt, for which hearings are to commence early next year."

"Dr. Burzynski is not a miracle worker. He is not a doctor who sees something that mainstream science has not and who therefore has a cure for many cancers that mainstream medicine scoffs at. He is not a bold visionary. Rather, he appears to be a man pursuing pseudoscience. The reason that mainstream scientific medicine has not accepted the existence of antineoplastons or their efficacy against cancer is not because it is “out to get” Dr. Burzynski or is trying to protect the hegemony of the FDA or the profits of big pharma. Rather, it’s because there is no credible scientific or clinical evidence to support this therapy. Perhaps that’s why Burzynski and his followers rely on testimonials and legal threats against critics far more than they rely on clinical trials and scientific studies."

[samchoi604]

^+1

This "doctor" is a fraud. Go Google him up. Lots of info out there, including patients who are suing him. Don't be so damn gullible, or you'll end up like one of his victims.

[Epacy2]

Originally Posted by schoy

For a nice scientific analysis of the movie, see: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/...e-a-bad-movie/

I'll let the last 3 paragraphs of the analysis be the Cliffs:

"Repeat after me: Antineoplastons are chemotherapy. Worse, they’re chemotherapy that almost certainly doesn’t work against cancer. At best, looking at the evidence, I conclude that they might have very minimal anticancer activity, and even that’s doubtful."

"Writer/producer Eric Merola uses Burzynski The Movie as a forum to pound on what he perceives as the shortcomings of the current regulatory system overseeing drugs. If anything, he’s right that our drug regulatory system has severe shortcomings, but not because it’s trying to shut Burzynski down. To me, the huge flaw in our drug regulatory system is that, after over 30 years, it has failed to determine once and for all whether or not antineoplastons have any anticancer activity, despite allowing Dr. Burzynski to treat thousands of patients with them. Although every indication thus far is that antineoplastons do not, in fact, have any appreciable antitumor activity (certainly Burzynski has utterly failed to show convincingly that any of them do), there is just enough uncertainty to allow Burzynski to portray himself to believers in alt-med as a poor, persecuted, brave maverick doctor. More disturbing from an ethics standpoint, somehow, Burzynski is still able to enroll patients on clinical trials, despite having failed to show compelling preclinical evidence of efficacy; worse, he charges them huge sums of money for the “privilege” of being on one of his clinical trials, something I and many others view as highly unethical, to the point of wondering how any Institutional Review Board could possibly approve such studies, particularly given that the FDA has warned Burzynski about how his IRB fails to protect human research subjects. Unfortunately, the Texas Medical Board failed to shut him down in the 1990s. One can only hope that it’s more successful in its next attempt, for which hearings are to commence early next year."

"Dr. Burzynski is not a miracle worker. He is not a doctor who sees something that mainstream science has not and who therefore has a cure for many cancers that mainstream medicine scoffs at. He is not a bold visionary. Rather, he appears to be a man pursuing pseudoscience. The reason that mainstream scientific medicine has not accepted the existence of antineoplastons or their efficacy against cancer is not because it is “out to get” Dr. Burzynski or is trying to protect the hegemony of the FDA or the profits of big pharma. Rather, it’s because there is no credible scientific or clinical evidence to support this therapy. Perhaps that’s why Burzynski and his followers rely on testimonials and legal threats against critics far more than they rely on clinical trials and scientific studies."

I wouldn't call this an unbiased review or a solely based scientific analysis.

Below is the disclosure of the Dr. who wrote the information provided in the previous post. The US Government and the NCI are the very agencies addressed in the video as acting unethically.

FINANCIAL AND CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURES: Dr. Gorski has been funded over the last decade by institutional funds, the Department of Defense, the National Cancer Institute, the ASCO Foundation, and the Breast Cancer Research Foundation.

[schoy]

Originally Posted by Epacy2

I wouldn't call this an unbiased review or a solely based scientific analysis.

Below is the disclosure of the Dr. who wrote the information provided in the previous post. The US Government and the NCI are the very agencies addressed in the video as acting unethically.

Never said it was unbiased. Plus, mere funding doesn't necessary presume bias. Also, the disclosure states that Dr. Gorski has been funded by the DOD, NCI, etc. Doesn't mean that the DOD or NCI funded the article. In fact, one could equally surmise that the BCRF funded the article.

The article does, however, provide more "scientific" analysis than the video.

[M3Denver]

Originally Posted by schoy

Never said it was unbiased. Plus, mere funding doesn't necessary presume bias. Also, the disclosure states that Dr. Gorski has been funded by the DOD, NCI, etc. Doesn't mean that the DOD or NCI funded the article. In fact, one could equally surmise that the BCRF funded the article.

The article does, however, provide more "scientific" analysis than the video.

can you find a scientific study against the video that is not funded by the same government / pharma groups that have tried to have this guy thrown in jail? if so, I would like to see those over the one you have listed due to potential bias. Also, burzynskis trials are FDA approved trials and his successes of curing cancer are documented, so I am not sure how the doctor you quote can ignore the FDA trial successes?? seems completely biased and mis-informed if ignoring that information.

[schoy]

Originally Posted by M3Denver

can you find a scientific study against the video that is not funded by the same government / pharma groups that have tried to have this guy thrown in jail? if so, I would like to see those over the one you have listed due to potential bias. Also, burzynskis trials are FDA approved trials and his successes of curing cancer are documented, so I am not sure how the doctor you quote can ignore the FDA trial successes?? seems completely biased and mis-informed if ignoring that information.

How about one from the CancerHelp UK? http://cancerhelp.cancerresearchuk.o...laston-therapy

"Some people promote antineoplaston therapy as a cancer treatment. But available scientific evidence does not support claims that antineoplaston therapy is effective in treating or preventing cancer."

Edit: Also, just because the Gorski article may be biased, doesn't mean it's inaccurate. The article is no more biased than the movie. In fact, the article does say that there hasn't been sufficient studies done on antineoplaston therapy. The point of the article is point out the shortcomings of the Burzynski movie. Which, one has to admit, is quite a bit, given the claims being made.

[UncleWede]

I'm definately modifying my portfolio to go heavy on tin-foil

[schnell325]

Ummmm.....why doesn't the American Cancer Society fund it if it's legit?

[Bobble]

I've discussed this notion with my onocologist and he politley stated that no conclusive evidence has been established to support either side. I've been treated for chronic monocytic leukemia for 6 years using convetional drug therapy with success so I tend to believe him. However if I progress to either the accelerated or eventually blast phase I'd probably try anything including Uncle's tin foil theory! Needless to say I believe there is a place for both camps in medicine.

[donovan]

1. What to say here.

2. Cell phone was built way before we think it was...so was the computer.

3. Cancer and many other "illness" just came out of no where, so it was cured right along when it was "found"

4. Watch thread close

5. Money over population

6. Money over bitches.