Scientists Cure Cancer, But No One Takes Notice

[terhynes]

You still aren't answering the question. I am not disproving any evidence. I am asking WHY the Federal Government would sue a doctor trying to find a cure for cancer. Even if his treatment did not work, even if the people he treated had recurring cancer and died some time later, (just like cancer patients who receive FDA approved chemotherapy) why WOULDN'T they allow him to continue his research? Why would they go as far as to sue him 4 times and stop his practice?

If you watched the film Contagion you would get it. Jude Law's character claims to "cure" the disease with some Chinese herbal medicine thats name I cant spell. Because of his justice for the little people presentation of his cure a massive following of people take it, and because all these people turn down the vaccine because they think his cure works people die.

Point, they sue him because with out presenting your facts so other people can review them people get the wrong idea and they can die

[Janaa]

You still aren't answering the question. I am not disproving any evidence. I am asking WHY the Federal Government would sue a doctor trying to find a cure for cancer. Even if his treatment did not work, even if the people he treated had recurring cancer and died some time later, (just like cancer patients who receive FDA approved chemotherapy) why WOULDN'T they allow him to continue his research? Why would they go as far as to sue him 4 times and stop his practice?

Jannaa: Burzynski doesn't claim to be able to cure cancer. He claims to have found a treatment which can prevent the growth and subdue certain types of cancer, and his treatment has no side effects, unlike chemotherapy. He never said once, that he had a cure for all cancer.

I've seen him on TV saying his treatment can "cure cancer". The small-print on his website saying otherwise isn't the issue. It's when parents come in with their 4 year old daughter and he gives them positive hope that if they remortgage their house and give him a downpayment on another condo, he'll have a good chance of curing her. When in actual fact there's no reproducable evidence his treatment does anything. And he knows this. And he'll sue anyone who points it out. I can't post on here what I think of people like this guy.

[iceberg265]

Of course not. We are too busy trying to rape women with ultrasounds after they were raped and too busy trying to prove Obama is not American.

[fishtacos]

If you watched the film Contagion you would get it. Jude Law's character claims to "cure" the disease with some Chinese herbal medicine thats name I cant spell. Because of his justice for the little people presentation of his cure a massive following of people take it, and because all these people turn down the vaccine because they think his cure works people die.

Point, they sue him because with out presenting your facts so other people can review them people get the wrong idea and they can die

His practice was actually raided and the Feds confiscated something around 300,000 medical documents during his trial. They could not find any evidence to convict him and disprove his claims. Unless you are proposing that they lied about that in the documentary.

[casuallyhardcore]

Although you do hear someone say I have cured cancer or found bigfoot every other month the most recent case does have a bit more credit. First off it was a study done by a reputable university and a fairly respected researcher. The team said the problem is that is is an already existing treatment for metabolism disorder and thus cannot be patented which is why no one wants it. Big money on researching through human trials with no payoff means no incentive to take the next step. It may turn out to be crap but if other researches have looked it over and found it looks plausible than why is further study not being done? If this was my other example of bigfoot someone would be spending money real quick to prove that wrong sadly.

[Janaa]

His practice was actually raided and the Feds confiscated something around 300,000 medical documents during his trial. They could not find any evidence to convict him and disprove his claims. Unless you are proposing that they lied about that in the documentary.

BTW, did you follow those links? Here's the side-effects of his therapy. http://cancerhelp.cancerresearchuk.o...laston-therapy

In case you missed the point I've been trying to hammer home about no reproducable evidence -
"Although Dr Burzynski’s own clinic have reported positive results for these trials, no other researchers have been able to show that this type of treatment helps to treat cancer. Other researchers have criticised the way the Burzynski Clinic trials have been carried out. Despite researching this type of treatment for over 35 years, no phase 3 trials have been carried out or reported. A randomised clinical trial is the only way to properly test whether any new drug or therapy works."

In other words, there's no benefits to the treatment, and it has negative side-effects. These are generally the marks of a con-man.

[fishtacos]

I've seen him on TV saying his treatment can "cure cancer". The small-print on his website saying otherwise isn't the issue. It's when parents come in with their 4 year old daughter and he gives them positive hope that if they remortgage their house and give him a downpayment on another condo, he'll have a good chance of curing her. When in actual fact there's no reproducable evidence his treatment does anything. And he knows this. And he'll sue anyone who points it out. I can't post on here what I think of people like this guy.

So what else does that family with the 4 year old daughter have to turn to? FDA approved Chemotherapy is very, very expensive and has a very high mortality rate. You don't believe having the option of cancer therapy without chemotherapy's side effects is beneficial? If his claims are false, why couldn't they convict him during the 4 trials? If his claims have some sort of positive effect, why won't the Feds allow him to work together with their organization?

Janaa: Now I know you have not watched the Burzynski documentary. Burzynski claims that at one point the FDA began clinical trials on his treatment. They purposely misdiagnosed patients and did not follow Burzynski's exact treatment procedure. This can also be seen in legal documentation. The patients continued to have cancer and the FDA concluded that his treatment is non conclusive.

[Kasierith]

Although you do hear someone say I have cured cancer or found bigfoot every other month the most recent case does have a bit more credit. First off it was a study done by a reputable university and a fairly respected researcher. The team said the problem is that is is an already existing treatment for metabolism disorder and thus cannot be patented which is why no one wants it. Big money on researching through human trials with no payoff means no incentive to take the next step. It may turn out to be crap but if other researches have looked it over and found it looks plausible than why is further study not being done? If this was my other example of bigfoot someone would be spending money real quick to prove that wrong sadly.

Except that finding the cure for cancer would be a massive publicity boost for the university that, for that institution, might even outweigh the financial profit

[Ghul]

im sure as hell happy that my average lifespan only revolves around 70-80 years, i couldnt take it if i had to live forever on this dump :>

[Janaa]

So what else does that family with the 4 year old daughter have to turn to? FDA approved Chemotherapy is very, very expensive and has a very high mortality rate. You don't believe having the option of cancer therapy without chemotherapy's side effects is beneficial? If his claims are false, why couldn't they convict him during the 4 trials? If his claims have some sort of positive effect, why won't the Feds allow him to work together with their organization?

They only can't convict because they can't find guarantees that the cancer will be cured, in writing. Thats what they need. Really, you're willing to take one side of this story, on face value, from the guy trying to promote his own treatment - and can't be bothered doing any of the research on the other side to discount it? There's a wealth of material out there. I've given you more than enough to go on. The fact you were moved by his documentary is troubling, because it's one-sided. Completely. Just like every other one-sided social-action documentary ever produced. Actually do some research yourself. Just look at his claim of no side effects when there are WELL DOCUMENTED SIDE EFFECTS. Sheesh!

*exasperation face*

[eriseis]

So what else does that family with the 4 year old daughter have to turn to? FDA approved Chemotherapy is very, very expensive and has a very high mortality rate. You don't believe having the option of cancer therapy without chemotherapy's side effects is beneficial? If his claims are false, why couldn't they convict him during the 4 trials? If his claims have some sort of positive effect, why won't the Feds allow him to work together with their organization?

You're obfuscating the invalidity and unethical practices of his research with an end you think is benevolent. You can't just do stuff and claim it's right because some people think it contributes to a greater good.

---------- Post added 2012-03-13 at 06:27 PM ----------

Oh please. Some venture capitalist somewhere would grab this, produce it, market it, make billions and retire.

There is no tin foil hat theory here. In addition to the story having been proven false, a company would grab this and sell it because it would make money. There is no vast conspiracy to keep humanity sick.

Exactly, thank you! People think medicine is controlled by a couple of huge corporations when in reality new medical research is a hot venture market.

---------- Post added 2012-03-13 at 06:28 PM ----------

I'm no conspiracy theorist by a long shot, however the cure vs. ongoing treatment situation is one that might actually have some meat to it.

Capitalism.

What incentive would a private company have to sell an inexpensive cure for cancer, when they can continue to provide extremely expensive ongoing treatments? I'm not saying that's happening, and this article surely doesn't prove anything, but think about the ramifications for the pharma industry if cancer were cured.

Except when you've got a brand new company that can take away all the market from the big ones. You people need to stop thinking about the Fortune 500.

---------- Post added 2012-03-13 at 06:30 PM ----------

The vast majority of drug costs come from research, not the raw products. The company would be able to define their own price until such a time as the patent wears off and allowing competition. It's just how drug research works. Research and develop it, put your investment in the hopes of success, put it on the market, and hope that by the time the drug goes generic you made a substantial profit off of it. The company wouldn't set the price low enough to hurt profit, especially on such a highly desired product. Demand determines market price more than supply

Glad there's some informed people in out there.

[Deleted]

you have the x companys that benefit from cancer by maiking medisine etc the same goes for every other disease that humanity safers from
then i come with the medisine that will cure cancer or the x disease then you will have the x companys that will lose billions of dollars / euros and you ask why they dont give enough atension ?
sorry for my bad english

[Mormolyce]

Go to the front page of that link. Enough said.

[fishtacos]

Thanks for all the responses.

One last thing. I did plenty of research on this subject. If you did too, you will learn the the FDA has recently approved of Burzynski's cancer treatment, as long as the patient undergoes chemotheraphy after receiving antineoplaston treatment.

[gneugen]

The average pills and treatment a cancer patient receives over time, are far pricer than this "cure". The pharmaceutical companies know this.

You act as if big pharma are the only people with money and the ability to detect a good idea from a bad one. You act as though venture capitalists, banks, and loans don't exist. You act as if a pharmaceutical company has the power to block an idea which is not even able to be patented (as stated in the article) from coming into the public knowledge. You act, like you have a piece of tin foil on your head.

[casuallyhardcore]

Except that finding the cure for cancer would be a massive publicity boost for the university that, for that institution, might even outweigh the financial profit

No, I am not saying their is no incentive other than financial to doctor the evidence, finding a cure for cancer would put its lead as man of the year and garner a noble prize and give many laurels to the institution that did the research. I'm just saying it should be looked at and not just discounted. Why spend millions, if not billions of dollars on cancer research each year for a cure if you are just going to say bullcrap to each presented cure? Eventually a real cure may be found and be totally discounted because of this track record. Maybe it already has?

[Skandulous]

You act as if big pharma are the only people with money and the ability to detect a good idea from a bad one. You act as though venture capitalists, banks, and loans don't exist. You act as if a pharmaceutical company has the power to block an idea which is not even able to be patented (as stated in the article) from coming into the public knowledge. You act, like you have a piece of tin foil on your head.

and you think everyone in the world is made of sugar and spice and everything nice and all politicians and people in power have your best interest in heart lmao

[Janaa]

Thanks for all the responses.

One last thing. I did plenty of research on this subject. If you did too, you will learn the the FDA has recently approved of Burzynski's cancer treatment, as long as the patient undergoes chemotheraphy after receiving antineoplaston treatment.

This is not true. The FDA has approved his application for phase III trials, which he should have done 20 years ago. In other words, the status quo is still that his treatment DOES ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. Except give people bad side effects. http://www.ministryoftruth.me.uk/wp-...sburzynski.pdf

This approval was only granted in November and there have been no scientifically published results. I don't even believe they've started. Please, don't spread mistruths without actually doing the research you claim to be doing.

[goki]

The average pills and treatment a cancer patient receives over time, are far pricer than this "cure". The pharmaceutical companies know this.

A cure would have market monopoly. Monopoly. Again, monopoly. They can charge any price they want (more likely the government will regulate this while still awarding monopoly to the company).



No conspiracy.

[fishtacos]

This is not true. The FDA has approved his application phase III trials, which he should have done 20 years ago. In other words, the status quo is still that his treatment DOES ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. Except give people bad side effects. http://www.ministryoftruth.me.uk/wp-...sburzynski.pdf

This approval was only granted in November and there have been no published results. I don't even believe they've started. Please, don't spread mistruths without actually doing the research you claim to be doing.

Sorry I had to come back just for you Janaa . So after years of backlash, smear campaigns, trials and tribulations, the FDA finally admits that there could be SOME truth to Burzynski's research. Why are you so dead set in putting the man down? When those clinical trials publish results, we can then make a reasonable conclusion. But why are you so steadfast in your disapproval? The first 2 clinical trials were successful and FDA approved, which is why phase III is in process.