American Capitalism at its Best – Is Cancer Treatable Or Isn’t It?

Keeping people alive will mean that they will have opportunities to get sick with other diseases, or be in accidents that require treatments.
A claim that cancer cure exists and is suppressed in order to make money on treating cancer patients loses its grounds when one realizes that a dead patient can’t make you money, while a live one will keep getting sick or hurt throughout their lives giving you the opportunity to profit further in the future.

The whole idea is completely illogical and utterly absurd!

 

Excellent point, especially since surviving one form of cancer increases the chances they will live long enough to develop additional kinds of cancer. And notice everyone seems to be ignoring the fact that this guy has managed to run a profitable business.

 

That is exactly what this film is all about.

You've already seen this film, haven't you.

 

No actual credentials of course!

 

Golly! Too bad you haven't seen the film or you would know more about that point. But don't let me entice you into watching it, that's OK.

 

If something about the film contradicts my point, then you can point out how. I've addressed your claim and shown how it is faulty. You have failed to respond. "I'm not going to respond, just watch the video" isn't an honest answer and I'm pretty sure it is in violation of the rules of the forum.

 

Precisely, but if the compny werer to purchase or steal the cure

You are a lucky guy! Most people have friends and relatives (in the lower income and less famous bracket) who have contracted cancer and died. It's good that you don't have that worry.

 

There is no reason to get upset. Did I try to force you into watching that film? I don't think that I did but if so I apologize. Let's make it official: Do not watch that film! I just thought that despite your refusal to watch it that you might want some confirmation (or otherwise) on your comment ...

... but I guess the subject doesn't interest you after all. It's all in the film and as has been pointed out - it's a long one - so if it's too long to watch imagine how difficult it would be for me to narrate the whole thing. Anyway, I don't know what parts interest you and what parts do not.

Ps. I'm pretty sure "the rules of the forum" won't expect me to write down every word from the film. Isn't that the purpose of film, video, and YouTube? You know, to make it easier and quicker to view a subject?

FURTHER: You have grossly misquoted me. I did not say,

I am almost certain "the rules of the forum" have something to say about that.

 

If anything about the film addresses my claim about game theory, feel free to bring it up. Nash equilibrium would be to produce the cure. I'm not asking you to narrate the whole film. I'm asking you to engage in discussion and debate on a discussion and debate forum. No, this film does not make it "easier and quicker to view a subject" when you avoid discussing the actual subject and direct people to watching a nearly 2 hour film instead.

So, the observation was that even a selfish capitalist would want to produce the cure, so your claims in the OP don't stand. If you would like to address that claim, please do so. If not, then we can continue with the realization that the claims of your OP have been challenged and that challenge has not been addressed.

 

You haven't shown any interest in the film so it would be impossible to know what comments you might make.

But I don't want you to watch the film. It's all on a voluntary basis and I understand that "nearly 2 hours" is more than you can invest.

It's all in the film but 2 hours is too much for you to endure.

The explanation is lengthy and I don't have the inclination to quote pages upon pages of courtroom litigation. I don't even know if you have the judicial vocabulary to understand it. Watching the film would be the best thing to do but ...... again ..... sigh.

 

well, no, and I didn't watch it. But I saw a (apparently) similar presentation by G. Edward Griffen on the subject of laetrile/amygdalin.

 

I don't even want to watch a second of it. There is no cure for cancer and never will be. As has already been pointed out, cancer isn't one disease. My youngest sister is an oncologist. She has cured quite a few people of cancer with various treatments. But, there is no magic bullet.

 

To say that there is one cure for the myriad of cancers out there is bonkers.

 

Truly, antineoplastons demonstrate the importance of science-based medicine. If Burzynski had “played by the rules” and methodically taken ANPs through the
clinical trial process, he (and we) would have known decades ago whether ANPs have significant anticancer activity in humans. In 2014, we still don’t know
for sure, although what we do know strongly suggests that ANPs have little or no anticancer activity. Finally, Burzynski’s story is a cautionary tale of
just how ineffectual the medical and government agencies that are supposed to protect the public, such as state medical boards and the FDA, can be. These
organizations are supposed to protect the public from practitioners like Burzynski, but all too often they fail at their charges, in this case
spectacularly.

https://skepticalinquirer.org/2014/...ynski_four_decades_of_an_unproven_cancer_cure

 

He tried but was blocked by the FDA. It's all in the video.

Not according to the findings of this study which suggests very strongly that it has great benefits.

Note that the last part of this video talks about the millions of dollars spent on discredited Dr. Burzynski, even going so far as to use social media (such as this one) to mislead the public, initiating the "everybody knows he's a charlatan" tactic so discouraging anyone from looking into it ...... or watching the film. But again, it's all in the video.

 

Is it really necessary for you two to make such comments based upon absurd conclusions? It's like saying that dogs do not make good companions based on certain breeds that are overly aggressive.

 

It is necessary when you state there is one cure for all cancers.

Idiocy.

 

It's two hours long, can you summarize?

More importantly can you answer the questions about why the people with the miraculous cure don't just undercut all the people with the horrible treatments and make a fortune

 

And what form(s) of cancer does the film claim Dr. Burzynski is successful in curing?

And while we are at it maybe you can help me > > >

> >> where did I "state" this? A clean quote (you know, with quotation marks), a page number, or the post number will be very helpful. I must caution you, however, that misquoting is forbidden by PF Forum rules .... and I will definitely report it.

 

That obviously is not a cure. I know about 15 years ago they believed they were very near the point where secondary breast cancer would become not a curable disease but also not a death sentence - more a chronic treatable disease.

 

Cancer cure concealed and suppressed by the FDA.

Cannot be "summarized".

 

Briefly what is the cure?

 

Oh?

Then how would you know what "the film is all about"?

 

You told me

 

Dr. Burzynski's discovery that cancer patients are missing certain components .... and his work in introducing those very components needed to attack cancer cells.