Cancer has been cured. But will the economy allow it?

Post Reply New Topic

You forget that the SYSTEM might want cancer to remain (I do not even believe that, but grant you that assertion), but the individuals would gain greatly from it. This is why it eventually will be found: Because someone wants to become rich/famous or just save eomeone who has cancer...

Of course the system wants cancer to remain. Its too important for keeping currency circulation and hense to keep GDP up. An unhealthy society means more money going round and round due to the medications demanded and the procedures performed.

As you watch the Burzynski documentary, you will notice that gain, riches, fame are FAR from what Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski received when it became known that he was gaining FANTASTIC results from his non-toxic antineoplaston treatments and curing brain tumours. He was taken to the texas supreme court 6 times, his work was ridiculed, corrupted and they tried to throw him in prison. Juuuuust like they do to anyone who causes paradigm shifts. Sad really.

Actually, NO! Did that happen to ANYONE? Was Ernst Julius Öpik put on trial? Was Pasteur? Was Szilárd? Was Reis? Was Planck? Was Gödel? NO! This person was on trial for being a FRAUDSTER who put the lives of innocents at RISK!!

Also, you are like a communist thinking of everything as a big SYSTEM. THERE IS NO SYSTEM, there are just PEOPLE with their own motivations. And these own motivations are the reason why your vague rambling about a system runs empty. You might realize that certain drug companies face a crisis as their most valuable patents will expire and they do not have anything as profitable in the pipeline. don't you think they would RUSH to buy and patent it IF IT JUST, YOU KNOW, WORKED?

EDIT: Sorry, I have no nice left for today and my tank of courteous is also nearing empty.

Cancer was cured by an egomaniac who exaggerates his qualifications and the results of his trials.

In other news, I have a bridge for sale.

Also, I have $5,200,000 USD (United States Dollars) I inherited from my father in Papua New Guinea and I need your bank account details so I can transfer it out of the country.

Ok, I think you have taken what I stated too litterally. Obviously the supreme court has not existed throughout the course of human being challenging the status quo.

And actually, its strange that you brought up Louis Pasteur. He wasn't victimised for one main reason. Someone had already got their first and the sheeple intent on upholding the status quo had exacted their pound of flesh from him first instead. His name was Ignaz Semmelweiz. A doctor who lived in the early 1900s. He worked in part delivering babies during a time when the causes of puerperal fever (more commonly known as childbed fever) were not known. Semmelweiz observed this cause. Doctors would perform post-mortems in the lower levels of the hospitals, then go on to help deliver babies WITHOUT WASHING THEIR HANDS. Semmelweiz suggested that simply washing one's hands after handling a DEAD BODY might inhibit the spread of infections.

If you've ever been to a hospital within the last 10 years you will notice that you have to be blind not to notice an instruction to wash your hands in the interest of infection control. I have worked extensively in infection control, so I fully appreciate how important this is. But do you question it now? No, of course you don't.

So, how was Semmelweiz's suggestion received? He was laughed at, ridiculed, called a "quack", a "fraud" and "crazy". Other clinicians published papers "debunking" his theories and was eventually thrown in a mental institution where he died of septicemia. All coz he suggested that hand washing can hinder the spread of infections, REGARDLESS of the fact that where he introduced hand washing, incidents of pureperal fever plummeted to below 1%.

So you see, the attempted smearing and character assassination of Stanslaw Burzynkski isn't suprising at all is it? Do you possibly have this whole Burzynski thing in focus now? Or would you prefer to blindly follow the ignorant line of the status quo and defame and denounce ANYONE who even threatens to make life different, or GOD FORBID any better.



Actually no, Stanislaw Burzinski was never on "trial". Are you even aware of ANYTHING about him and his work? Refer to my previous statement concerning Ignaz Semmelweiz. HE TOO was called a "fraudster".



*Bangs head against the wall* Should I even need to address the ridiculous, immature, blinkered and group-think nature of this statement?



Really? Then how come it is called THE MONETARY SYSTEM? Hmmmm?



Considering you aren't even aware that we live in an economic system at all doesn't encourage me to take you seriously, and the fact that you're trying to imply cluenessness on MY part is laughable.



EXACTLY!! By jove, the lad has got it! Healthy, or dead patients equals NO PROFIT, no profit equals DEAD economy.



Have you even LOOKED at some of the crap that has patents on it these days? You can get a patent for virtually ANYTHING. I've even seen legitimate patents for time machines for goodness sake. Come on, wake up.



Quite evidently. Maybe it is wise that you stop talking since you have nothing positive to say. Don't worry, as a former cancer patient and former healthcare worker I'm FULLY aware of how the healthcare system works from BOTH sides of the drug chart.

Last edited by Adam-Anti-Um on 20 Aug 2011, 4:00 pm, edited 2 times in total.

cancer is good for people (as a whole)

How about you produce some numbers to back up the economy claims.

There are plenty of researchers waiting in line for money for stem cell research, diabetes, obesity, all the way through to male pattern baldness and studying sex in rare fungi. If cancer is 'solved' then there is a huge line queued up right behind it.

*bangs head against the wall again*

Are you not even aware that this is purely self-evident? Since when does one need proof that 1+1=2? You don't its simple arithmatic. Likewise with this situation. Are you not aware of how GDP works?



You are obviously not aware of how GDP works. I have already explained in explicit detail how an innovation such as what Burzynski has developed is DETRIMENTAL to economic perpetuation. Please, go back and read.

It has already been explained in explicit detail how Burzynski has not developed anything except a hot air blowing you tube video. Please, go back and read.

I suppose according to you developing a vaccine against smallpox would be DETRIMENTAL to economic perpetuation, because 1.5 million people dead per year and the cost of hospitalization and medication helps money change hands. Oh wait, the US and international agencies did develop a vaccine and eradicated smallpox 40 years ago. So much for that lame theory.

Ignaz Semmelweis was born in 1818 and died in 1865. Is it possible you meant the early 19th century?

I won't jump into this debate because I'm sure my opinion would be dismissed as underresearched, unenlightened and conventional, however, I am change my opinion in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence. I see a great lack of such evidence where antineoplastons are concerned. You say the facts are 'out there' and mock others for not being able to find these ourselves, but fail to produce them. Treat me as a first-grader and please, spoon-feed me the facts.

Also, I'm a firm believer in the fact that human nature needs certain diseases and disorders to prevent the species from overpopulation. Therefore, I couldn't care less whether science finds a cure for cancer or heart disease or Huntington's, because we need death. So please don't play the 'You want the system to continue hiding the cure for cancer from us' card with me. If it were up to me, people would be eliminated from the gene pool as nature sees fit.

Have you even SEEN the trial data for yourself? Please drop this weak attack mentality. Why do people like yourself feel the need or the right to insult and smear the names of people who make discoveries, shifts and changes? Is it THAT disruptive to your fragile bubble maintained by the hebatory status quo? Is the slightest idea that things can be different or god forbid BETTER so AWFUL that you must keep things the way they are by lashing out at those who want to improve things? Seriously, grow up. From your behaviour its becoming obvious that you were born in the wrong century. You would have fit RIGHT in during the dark ages.



Completely irrelevant, and considering how much the dollar is PLUMMETING, I wish you the best of luck with someone who is stupid enough to be lumbered with THAT amount of dying currency. lol



*Facepalm* Oh dear. The ignorance of your statements are becoming embarrasing. Are you aware that you only pay enough attention to frame your responses as counter arguments without actually taking in what you are being told? You DO know that the documentary was NOT made by Burzynski himself, right?. It was actually made by Eric Merola. And originally it was NOT a youtube Video. The video I posted up here was a reuploaded version because the documentary was on a limited online period. Oh yea, you wouldn't know anything about that, because you spend all your energy in trying to smear this than actually paying any objective attention. Your lack of research is becoming quite laughable now.



Actually no, wrong again my friend. Vaccines are WONDERFUL for the perpetual circulation of currency. ESPECIALLY since a hell of a lot of them contain Thimerasol which is a mercury-based preservative and hense can lead to more illness and neurological damage. Vaccinations cost money and the more vaccinations that are given, the more money circulates. Same goes for the HIV test as well. Dr Robert Gallow who developed the test back in the early 80s, holds the patent for it and hense receives royalties everytime anyone on the planet receives a HIV test. That's pretty self-explanatory for those who have common sense and a little economic knowledge. Why do you think it was MANDATORY for people in the US to get a H1N1 vaccination? It was PUSHED upon american people, and STRONGLY suggested for healthcare workers here in the UK. I myself worked in infection control during the whole "swine flu" psy-op. And it is extremely interesting how many people got taken in by it.

So please don't try to second-guess me on this matter. You are throwing out all these projections without ANY factual basis whatsoever and you're beginning to lok, extremely, silly. So please stop.



EXACTLY! Poor health keep money flowing, well done, you're getting it! There's no money in healthy people, especially in the states where you have to pay for EVERYTHING when it comes to healthcare.



Smallpox is nowhere near as big a money spinner as cancer is. Coz smallpox cannot be strung out on a long treatment course like cancer can. Imagine it like buying a car that is built to last. (non-existant in our current system and here's why) there's a one-off payment, and after that, no other industries are able to make money from design flaws and planned obsolescence, because there is none.

Instead of being derogatory and hostile to information outside of your frame of reference, you can instead be considerate to it. You will have a FAR more easier time of understanding things then. Give it a try, you never know, you could suprise yourself with what you would learn.



Yea, that's the one, my apologies.



Not necessarily. Try not to get the cart before the horse. Considering that opinions don't hold weight when compared to facts, opinions should be dismissed anyway. But I know what you mean here, and I never dissmiss anyone. I call people out for deliberately not evaluating the data and spending an exorbant amount of time and energy on trying to irrationally find ways to debunk what I put here. Such people do this by dismissing the facts themselves and trying to impose biased opinion and skewed belief into the conversation and force me to respect it in place of the facts that are already established.

I do not dismiss people off-hand without hearing them out, but depending how willing you are to be open and receptive to new information will dictate how much I call you out, or if you really are open to transforming information then you get my admiration.



I agree.



Ok, maybe I should reiterate what I have already put to someone else who wanted me to spoonfeed them and do all their thinking for them:

"By attatching me to the task of presenting this information in a format fit to "convince" you, you have charged me with the task of changing your perception with my conveyance of the data. In doing so, you have incorporated me into the data itself, seeing as you cannot be bothered to find it yourself, you are charging me with it. And considering your already existing bias of me, you have charged me with an impossible task. Because even if the most persuasive data were presented to you, it would not cause a single twinge of consideration in you. Because I would have presented it. This very act on your part is also a form of ad hominem. Shooting the messenger for not bringing them the message they want to hear.

You prefer to sit there and charge me with the task of convincing you, while doing no thinking of your own. Like a king sat impudently on his throne demanding his court jester to entertain him while making no effort to be accomodating for that entertainment. Such is the way of such a practise. The king is making it impossible to be entertained, because he is not making any effort himself to BE entertained. Thus it is ALL up to the court Jester, who also with the knowledge that his failure will result in his decapitation, is fighting a losing battle.

You are not a king, and I am not your court jester. If you want to understand this, do your own objective research, and your own thinking. You cannot hide behind the "evidence burden" fallacy. I call you out. The burden is OURS TO SHARE. However I have already done my part. I have presented this information in the hope that it would ENCOURAGE your mind to find out FOR ITSELF what is true and what is false. DO NOT charge me with the convincing of your own mind because Its not my job to make up your mind. It is YOURS.

So to sum up, beligerence, accusations and disguised demands will not get you far in this discussion. When demand cast-iron evidence from me while refusing to do ANY objective research is VERY telling. Not only that, but EVEN IF YOU WERE open to such information, then I can tell you all day. Until you actually look for yourself and ARRIVE at a decision FOR YOURSELF, then any information I give you, is MEANINGLESS. Truth cannot be told. It can only be realised. You think that an attitude so DEFENSIVE against a contrary view is gonna be easily swayed by someone that you have ALREADY denounced as wrong, REGARDLESS of the information they provide? *falls on the floor laughing*.

In a way THAT is a form of ad hominem, and intellectual laziness AND intellectual dishonesty. Because you are not considering the DATA SET and instead holding the messenger responsible for its conveyance. It is NOT my job to convince you. Hell, it is IMPOSSIBLE for me to convince you. You can ONLY be convinced by YOURSELF. Because it is your OWN thinking that will make this realisation.

No, this is why you need to do your OWN objective research and see for YOURSELF. "



Please, don't get me started on the "human nature" fallacy. I have already explained it in full on this very page.

For one thing, this is a case of human BIOLOGY. Not human nature. Now when it comes to overpopulation and you saying that certain diseases are needed, you ARE aware that human beings can eventually die of natural causes with no diseases needed. The issue of overpopulation problem is NOT one of not enough diseases being around to take us down and keep our numbers limited. Its a SOCIAL problem in education where we are taught to wantonly procreate. This is mainly down to centuries of religious indoctrination such as "be fruitful and multiply" without givin ANY consideration to how those wantonly produced kids will be taken care of. The assumption in this respect is generally that god will take care of everything.



That's your choice to take this particular stance, and I have no inclination to alter it. However you need to know that we don't need disease to die. Biological life is not a perpetual process.



I sense that your reasoning for making this assertion is because you think that I'm under the illusion that we can live forever if we get rid of all disease. Sorry, but that's just ridiculous.



Well it doesn't have to be up to you. It already happens. It's already an empirical law of nature.

Now perhaps I should have simply said 'nature as a whole' instead of 'human nature', my apologies. I don't think overpopulation is necessarily a social problem. Couples in the olden days often had many more children than modern-day couples do. However, in the olden days people succumbed to whole scores of diseases, so the population never exploded like it has in the last century and a half or so. As soon as modern medicine started discovering cures for pretty much everything under the sun, the huge families could stay huge. You can't deny that vaccines and medicine have prevented the death of millions of people who, lacking those means, would have died. In large groups of other animals, the sick, the weak and the old are eliminated by all sorts of diseases and predators. Now the sick, the weak and the old can be rather easily preserved in mankind, it seems to have become a game to keep everyone alive as long as possible. The increase in heart disease, cancer, obesity and lung disease strikes me as nature's way of attempting to control the human population and failing miserably because we humans have been successful in fending off the fatality of these diseases. But I digress, I feel, this is moving steadily away from your initial point.



No, I'm not under the impression that you think we should all live forever. I do feel that you are under the impression that the cure for cancer is deliberately being withheld from mankind by the government/FDA/a whole score of other bigshots, and that you feel that I, and many with me, would rather be living in oblivion to this 'fact' than be faced with 'the truth'.

You tell me I should do my own research into this matter. I tried for a solid hour to find evidence in favour of antineoplastons being a cure for cancer, but I haven't been able to. I've used all the databases I can still get into after graduating from uni, thus filtering out all the blogs and news sites, and still, nothing. This is why I ask for your help, if anything, in finding these documents. I am unable to, you obviously know where the information is to be found. Please don't feel like I am mocking you, or insisting you to become my court jester or whatever comparison you made to an earlier poster. I am genuinely interested, but I am unable to find the information you're basing your arguments on and I can't, won't change my mind until I have read what you claim is true.

Depending on which "olden days" period you're referring to, depends on the strength of the religious indoctrination that I have already referred to.



Again, it depends which period in history you're referring to, but I generally agree.



This was accepted and embraced after a LOOOOONG drawn out period of ostricisation and accusations of blasphemy, because ailments both physical and psychological were originally and erroneously believed to be the fault of demons. As such the first physicians had the hardest time getting people to accept medicine. You think doctors have it bad now, cripes, things were TERRIBLE.



I don't doubt that at all. Vaccinations have been one of the greatest breakthroughs in medicine. However it is more bastardised now by the pharmaceutical industry than anytime in history given its potential to make more money and cause more dependance.



Of course, you're right there, we do do preserve life above most else in modern times, and I guess its a whole other debate whether there is a certain morality in using modern medicine and technology to save life, or just allow nature to do its thing. Personally I would lean towards the former, coz if left to nature's own devices, none of us would even be here. That I can guarantee you.



I suppose that is a good point, if you don't factor in the implications and ramifications of all our methodologies and ways of life. In other words what we do and how we do it does have a profound effect on our personal and public health. I would personally take every factor into consideration. The conditions that you speak of, have most of their roots in the fact that they are largely bi-products of our current lifestyles and methods. For example, I dare say anorexia wasn't, and isn't a problem amongst "primitive" civilisations.



Discussions tend to do that.



Well one thing I find is interesting is that concrete facts are being demanded of me, irregardless of how I have explicitly explained the economic ramifications of such innovations, however the best I'm receiving from the critics of this is beligerent insults, ad hom bombs and pure conjecture. Can any of you prove to me that GDP is NOT the thing that determines economic health, and that perpetual circulation of currency is NOT needed to keep this "economy" going? Can any of you prove that a cancer cure will NOT affect global GDP in a devastating manner?

To be completely honest, I have completely illustrated what affect such an innovation would have for the "economy", if you don't wish to see that for yourself, fair enough, but please don't try to keep me explaining to convince you of something that is pure common sense.



Watching the documentary helps. It provides its sources as well.

Japan is the most advanced country so far with antineoplaston trials. Here's the data from their 2007 trials:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17695534

I'm seeing some Aspie traits in you (stubborn insistence on a particular viewpoint) that I know I have been prone to myself. All I'm saying is rethink this whole thing and at least have some faith in human nature. Cynicism can be valuable up to a point, but I think you've taken it to the most extreme level possible (i.e. doubting that people will want to help other people recover from a horrible disease due to money).

Dude, just drop it. Side-stepping the formality of actually addressing the topic at hand and instead insinuating a fault and/or error on my part is not helping your cause.



*Stares incredulously at the screen for a few moments, then silently gets up and bangs his head THROUGH the wall*

Are you SERIOUS? I'm actually speechless for once. Honestly, you MUST be having a laugh. Ok, I don't even know where I should START in pointing out the inhearnt flaws in the concepts in this statement. Faith? Human nature? You have just lumped two of the largest logical fallacies together in the same sentence. Did you not pay ANY attention to the LONG dispelling of human nature that I have provided on the previous page? I strongly suggest you go back a page and re-read what I have put in terms of human nature.

As for faith, *stifles a little laughter* Tim Minchin once said:

"Science adjusts its views, based on what's observed,
Faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved."

I don't think I need to say any more.



I'm not a cynic. I'm an optimist. Hell you HAVE to be in order to see a hope for humanity in the anti-economy that we live in.



Well for an individual such as yourself who refuses to look at information that doesn't support your view, its not suprising that you think this about me. You see the thing is, the facts of this scenario are soooooo simple, its astonishing that you aren't seeing it for yourself. Maybe I need to suggest another video for you to watch. This will CLEARLY and on NUMEROUS LEVELS explain how we are being held back by money and established institutions of power, influence, religion and politics.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owa32MvjBik[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8da1k97mLU[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vkeW-9cHCgw[/youtube]

oceandrop -
I'm rea-aaally not sure if I should be posting this, oceandrop, as I don't want to cause any offence. I've already stated the reasons why I'm just not taking part in this discussion (I would be, if there weren't so much rudeness surrounding this topic - which I realise I may be hypocritical by even saying this, oh dear...), but I've been lurking (it subscribed me after my earlier post).
But honestly, you just said it. When someone's so stubborn, there's no point. Perhaps it might be better to just leave it at this point? I've learnt that when one or both sides aren't willing to fully respect eachother's points there's not much either can get from the discussion.