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

Post Reply New Topic

Please, if you, or anyone you know has had their life affected by cancer, watch this documentary about Dr. Stanslaw Burzynski and his non-toxic and EFFECTIVE cancer cure "antineoplaston therapy" and dicuss with me how we can work to bring down the barriers in between us and this wonderful treatment.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0ibsoqjPac[/youtube]

This cancer cure is based on some peptides, it is not endorsed by mainstream medical doctors.

I am a chemist who knows something about anticancer drugs, if I got cancer I would go for surgery, radiation and or chemo rather than the peptide based treatment of Dr Burzynski.

Your reasons being? I take it you're not a former cancer patient, Coz of course, chemo ALONE is hell. And given the non-toxic treatments that can be used now VERSUS chemo radio and surgery, I'm suprised by your response.

If you know you're stuff as you say you do then you'll know that antineoplastons are peptides that occur NATURALLY in the body in abundance by those who do not have cancer, and also are either completely lacking or severely limited in cancer sufferers.

The FDA's gripe with Burzynski, as you will see if you actually watch this documentary and do relevant research, was NOT in the effectiveness of antineoplastons, but in the administrative and political rigmarole.

As you will notice, denouncing a treatment purely because it has been denounced by the mainstream is not only a form of group-think, and also a lack of examination of exactly WHY the mainstream has denounced it. You see the healthcare industry is a MONEY MAKING business. Just like any other business. And as you shall find out, Cancer, is SERIOUS business. It is EXTREMELY profittable to TREAT cancer, but not profittable WHATSOEVER to CURE it. Curing cancer would cause DEVASTATING global unemployment for those employed in the field of cancer's TREATMENT, hense a devastating plummet in human purchasing power, because there doesn't exist a sector to absorb those hundreds of millions of job losses, resulting in a nose dive for GDP, and this of course would mean the current "economy" would collapse around our ears.

You see it is GOOD for the "economy" for people to get sick and develop cancer. It is not good however for the "economy" for us to implement permanent solutions for any problems.

I work in cancer research and immediately strongly suspected this was nonsense, but I watched the first 30+ minutes so I could give a more specific critique.

I concluded that Stanislaw Burzynski md phd (he doesn't actually have a phd), CEO of Burzynski Research Institute Inc., at Burzynski Clinic, is a whackjob with an oversized ego.

It spends 30 min trying to prove beyond all doubt the importance of antineoplastons, but presents only 3 cases (Jodi Fenton, Jessica Ressel, and Kelsey Hill) with great variation in treatment time (e.g. supposedly one month to go from 2.2cm^3 tumor to 0 in Jodi Fenton, though I suspect the initial MRI was misinterpreted), through to 3 years for Kelsey Hill).

I searched PubMed and seen he didn't publish anything since 2006. Hardly a sign that his work is regarded as credible by the wider scientific community.

Finally I found this, http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRel ... nski1.html . Game over.

Game over. Final commentary...

Antineoplaston Therapy

Antineoplaston (ANP) is a name coined by Stanislaw Burzynski for a group of peptides, derivatives, and mixtures that he uses as an alternative cancer treatment. These compounds are not licensed as drugs but are instead sold and administered by Burzynski as part of clinical trials that he runs at his own establishments, the Burzynski Clinic and the Burzynski Research Institute in Houston, Texas. The clinical efficacy of antineoplastons combinations for various diseases have been the subject of many such trials by Burzynski and his associates, but these have not produced any clear evidence of efficacy. Oncologists have described these studies as flawed, with one doctor stating that they are "scientific nonsense". In particular, independent scientists have been unable to reproduce the positive results reported in Burzynski's studies. There is no convincing evidence from randomized controlled trials in the scientific literature that antineoplastons are useful treatments of cancer and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not approved these products for the treatment of any disease. The American Cancer Society has stated that there is no evidence that these products have any beneficial effects in cancer and have recommended that people do not buy these products. A 2004 medical review described this treatment as a "disproven therapy".

... back to you in the studio ...

You think you've debinked this by copying and pasting from an encyclopedia article? *falls on the floor laughing*

You SERIOUSLY think that you're making a point by not providing anything of your own? Please, try some substance of your own.



And of course, the blind repetition of rhetoric from the anti-burzynski camp is off, hitting the ground running. If you're wishing to be taken seriously, then please do some OBJECTIVE research. Any monkey can make a debunking website. And considering that the very implication of the curing of a disease such has cancer is DEVASTATING for the "economy" surely you see the nature of the hate campaign. For further proof of such a practise, please look up the persecution of Dr. Ignaz Semmelweiz.

Please, my advice to you is take a step back and have a think. You work in cancer research right? Don't you think that by denouncing the curing of cancer is PROTECTING your job? That makes 2 EXTREMELY lucritive industries that have a VERY embedded vested interest in the perpetuation of cancer.

I also find it extremely interesting that not a single word has been said in the attempt to debunk what I have said about the "economy" favouring the presence of cancer in society, given its facility as one of the world's biggest money spinners. Very interesting considering that this doesn't seem to be a discussion forum anymore. Instead all people seem to do is try perpetually to debunk each other. So very sad.

"Absence of evidence, while not evidence of absence, is sufficient cause for reasonable doubt."

There is no valid material evidence to support any claim that Antineoplaston Therapy is effective. None of the alleged results have been independently verified, despite numerous independent tests and trials. The Food & Drug Administration has denied clearance for the use of Antineoplaston Therapy in the treatment of any disease.

In short, Stanislaw Burzynski is risking the lives of his patients by providing bogus treatments that simply do not work.

However, in the interest of Science - REAL Science - please provide evidence of efficacy through documented double-blind clinical trials from two or more independent sources. Otherwise, please refrain from the further use of Ad Hominem attacks, false data, and fallacious reasoning in your replies to this post.

Thank you.

Again, you are overlooking the fact that the mainstream WANTS you to see him as a fraud. Please don't think that the mainstream actually WANTS a cure for cancer. The FDA even acknowledged that they work. Their gripe was that they weren't certified. If you had done some objective research, you'll see that.

Ad hominem? *falls on the floor laughing again* oh wow, interesting that you'd pull that card out. Please, entertain me, EXACTLY what have I said that constitutes a concrete ad hominem attack?

I also find it interesting that you're asking me for ironclad evidence, when all you're bringing to the table is copy and pastes from an encyclopedia. Bravo.

"Absence of evidence, while not evidence of absence, is sufficient cause for reasonable doubt."

Evidence, please?

Why not? Evidence, please?

Please provide the link. Here's one of mine, from the National Cancer Institute at the National Institutes of Health:

Questions and Answers About Antineoplastons


No, the "gripe" is that clinical trials have been approved, but not completed. Certification can not occur until the trials are completed. Here's another link:

FDA Reaches Agreement About Phase III Trial of Antineoplaston Therapy.


I leave that up to the professionals at the FDA and the National Cancer Institute.

How about...

These statements imply that the person you are attacking is too stupid to understand, or isn't thinking.

These statements smack of conspiracy theory paranoia. Citing conspiracy theories will not remove our skepticism. That one referring to Semmelweiz is a non-sequitur.

This last one is an example of Poisoning the Well, another fallacious debate tactic.

Sorry, kid; but the burden is upon you to provide valid material evidence that supports your claims, which include:

1. That Antineoplaston Therapy cures cancer.
2. That curing cancer would cause devastating global unemployment for those employed in the field of cancer's treatment.
3. That it is good for the economy for people to get sick and develop cancer.
4. That it is not good for the economy for us to implement permanent solutions for any problems.

You have also implied that asking for evidence to support your claims indicates that "the anti-burzynski camp is off, hitting the ground running", when all that we really want is evidence to support your claims. THIS is another Ad Hominem attack, directed at anyone who asks you for the aforementioned (and heretofore not provided) evidence.

"Absence of evidence, while not evidence of absence, is sufficient cause for reasonable doubt."

I found the official description of a Clinical Support Worker at the UK's National Health Services Careers website. One part of it reads:

Isn't that interesting, Adam?

Ok let me point out one big way this video is just outright lying. It claims that whereas there are 25 FDA approved drugs that target single genes, antineoplastons can target hundreds; it goes on to make the outrageous claim that antineoplastons specifically upregulate multiple tumor suppressor genes and downregulate multiple oncogenes. I can tell you right now that developing drugs which can upregulate a specific tumor repressor or downregulate a specific oncogene involves a lot of expensive research, so claiming that there is some miracle chemical in urine (or a derivative) that does all this with one molecule is simply fantasy and vain imagination. Also the only way to prove this claim is to perform a cDNA microarray, and I can not find a single microarray study on these chemicals, much less one to support the outlandish claims made by this company.

The burden of proof is on Adam, and he doesn't seem to be forthcoming with his "evidence" any time soon. Maybe he had to go and do an inventory or order some paper towels or something...

How exactly does the lost productivity of the sick and their caregivers that have cancer equal good for the economy? Seems that they woulod be a bigger boost to the economy if they were working....

Having no more cancer patients to care for would be a boon to victims of other diseases!

At the very least, try to imagine how lonely an AIDS patient or an Alzheimer's patient must be when there are not enough care-givers to go around. Also, if cancer is ever eradicated (which there is no proof that it has), imagine all of that lab space that would be freed up for more research into AIDS, Alzheimers, and the Common Cold!

But we're still waiting for evidence of claim that Antineoplaston Therapy cures cancer in the first place...

Regarding what oceandrop wrote

The great problem I see with cancer that it is not a single disease. Cancer is a term which groups together a series of diseases; each one is different to the next.

What will cure one cancer will normally not work for all others, for example cisplatin and carboplatin are good for treating some forms of lung cancer and testicular cancer but these platinum drugs are worthless for female breast cancer. Also an oral dose of I-131 will exterminate thyroid cancer but it will have no curative effect on other forms of cancer.

What is needed in cancer treatment is a selective smart bomb which will seek and destroy only cancer cells, if a enzyme or gene is identified which only appears in the cancer then a very selective drug which inhibits it could do some good but a drug which inhibits a vast number of biochemical pathways and genes is likely to cause too much collateral damage to the body.

You can think of cancer cells like rats in the drains of a town, they go around breeding and messing up the whole town.

It is better to send for a rat catcher who will battle the rats with a gun, a ferret and a terrier dog rather than drop an atom bomb on the town. While the A-bomb might kill the rats it will also lay waste the whole town, a drug which inhibits 100s of genes is likely to be like a biochemical A-bomb while a drug which targets a single receptor such as a tamoxifen molecule bearing a cytotoxic side group would be like a very clever rat catcher which only attacks the rats.

I think that an exciting idea is to use antibodies tagged with shortlived alpha emitters, these will deliver a very large radiation dose (and high LET) to the cancer without giving the rest of the body a large dose. I am sure that non radioactive toxins could be used in the same way.

Regarding what Adam wrote in reply to me

Some years ago I had dealings with an industrial psychologist who told me that the excuse that “you know nothing about XXX as you have not experienced XXX” is commonly used as a lame excuse by a range of people. I hold the view that being run over and crushed under the wheels of a refuse collecting truck would be very bad for me, but as I have never been squashed under the wheels of a dustcart your logic would say that my view that being run over by the dustcart is not valid due to my lack of personal experience of being run over by said truck.