Dr. Stanislav Burzynski's cure for cancer has no negative side effects!

Discussion in 'Health Care' started by DennisTate, Apr 12, 2013.

  1. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,871
    Likes Received:
    73,626
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Look - you have a problem with conventional medicine which has a LOT of regulations and restrictions - there are no such on a lot of alternative medicines. The most classic is "Breatharianism"

    http://www.angelfire.com/stars3/breathe_light/breatharianism.html

    Bit of a joke eh?

    Only it has already caused at least three deaths....................
    http://whatstheharm.net/breatharianism.html
     
  2. Stagnant

    Stagnant Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2012
    Messages:
    5,214
    Likes Received:
    45
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Not the first time I've offered this link.

    Oh look, personal anecdotes! That's cute. It's a shame that in terms of evidence, they're worth less tha-wait, haven't we been over this? Oh! Look! We have! And nothing has changed since then.

    So how long will you reserve judgment on the guy who has supposedly been curing incurable cancer for 35 years but has never finished a clinical trial to demonstrate the value of his treatment over a placebo, using a cure that nobody other than him and his team can confirm to have any functionality, and with very little effort to actually pass it through the appropriate channels? I notice your conspiracy-mongering, and to that I say, prove it. And no, saying that they have a motive to push him down is not enough. I have a "motive" to cheat on my math test next Tuesday, but me passing does not mean I cheated. What's more, even their motives aren't clear - many people become doctors because they want to cure diseases, and the assertion that people would try to shut down functional cures for cancer for money basically paints them as the worst type of ridiculous, uncaring caricature (P.S. Pharma CEOs get cancer too ^^). As for the rest of what I have to say... Well, refer to my posts to DennisTate:
    I asked you, almost a week ago, what other angles I should consider the issue from. What that even meant in this context. I'm still waiting for an answer, because right now, it feels like the angle you're asking me to consider it from is that of someone who is gullible. Someone who doesn't demand hard, solid evidence, who doesn't understand the bulk of research necessary to establish an idea in science, and someone who is willing to overlook just how incredibly shady the operations of the Burzynski clinic are. What angle are you looking at it from?
     
  3. Stagnant

    Stagnant Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2012
    Messages:
    5,214
    Likes Received:
    45
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Just for reference, let's talk for a moment about why such personal anecdotes are seen as "non-evidence" in medical science - at best a jumping-off point to grant actual research; usually a distraction, at worst an intentional misdirection.

    Burzynski loves to tout these "success stories" instead of clinical trials (again - if he had more than bizarre individual cases, he could easily publish the clinical trials and become one of the greatest doctors in history). What happened to them? Well, they don't hold up well. Many of Burzynski's "success stories" had recursions, went through standard treatment as well, were misdisagnosed, or had other confounding factors. Not to mention that all of these stories share the distinction of being cherry-picked survivors, while offering no window into what may be the far more interesting figure - the rate of failure when compared to the mainstream alternative.

    This is why we have higher standards. This is why, in medicine, we don't take individual patient stories, especially not as told from the perspective of the caregiver, as strong evidence. We see it as flimsy, or a waste of time, and expect more, because they are utterly free of any rigor. That's why the concept of "double-blind large-scale clinical trial" is seen as the gold standard - because there is rigor, because you can control for variables, and because bias is very hard to insert.
     
  4. Stagnant

    Stagnant Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2012
    Messages:
    5,214
    Likes Received:
    45
    Trophy Points:
    0
    And let's be clear. If Burzynski's PR department threatening legal action against critical bloggers isn't enough to make you wonder whether the man has any interest in truth, you don't understand what that means.
     
  5. DennisTate

    DennisTate Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2012
    Messages:
    31,489
    Likes Received:
    2,601
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I had a hernia operation back on June 17.

    Two weeks later I had a rather nasty reaction to the pain killer even though I was only taking two per day of the six per day that I was allowed.

    My goal is to get the hell out of Canada before I have to go to a nursing home because I would rather just about anything than to be stuck on some big Pharma product when I could retire in Israel and be taking lots of hemp oil or something along that line?????!!!


    http://www.truthonpot.com/2013/07/12/medical-marijuana-helps-elderly-at-israels-nursing-homes/

     
  6. DennisTate

    DennisTate Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2012
    Messages:
    31,489
    Likes Received:
    2,601
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    AceFrehley...........from your research so far do you think that Rick Simpson is going too far to use phrases like "fountain of youth" or "cure all" for hemp oil?


    http://phoenixtears.ca/what-it-does-and-how-it-works/

     
  7. Stagnant

    Stagnant Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2012
    Messages:
    5,214
    Likes Received:
    45
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well, what were the known side effects? This is part of the reason why so many people have trouble with "Allopathic" mainstream medicine - they don't understand that most medicine has side effects. They don't get that the exact materials that make chemotherapy and radiation therapy work against cancer will cause fairly serious reactions within the body - they don't want to face that, and instead turn to other, less "invasive" treatment, which has the side-effect of not working. Yes, it's entirely possible that a strong painkiller could cause a severe reaction. The body is like a very complex machine - you can't expect to tweak one cog and get exactly the result you want all the time. Drugs will have side-effects. Maybe someday we'll find solutions that don't involve side-effects (and before you pipe up: I mean ones proven to work), but it's doubtful, because sometimes we need to alter how a piece of the body works, and more often than not, that same bit covers different parts of the body.

    Cannabis has many positive health effects. This is nothing new. The case is, however, vastly overstated by many aiming to legalize it. Look, I toke too, and I support the end of prohibition, but by claiming things like "Cannabis is the ultimate anti-cancer medicine", all you're doing is making the entire movement look scientifically illiterate and generally too high to function effectively in society. Well, at least you don't some total jackass going around claiming that cannabis oil is "the fountain of youth", or that it'll heal all your ills...

    GOD (*)(*)(*)(*)ING DAMMIT YOU CANNOT BE SERIOUS!

    ...You can't possibly be serious. There is literally no way in hell anyone could take that seriously. This is the most insane, poorly-backed horse(*)(*)(*)(*) since "Time Cube".

    ...Dear god, you're serious. Why the (*)(*)(*)(*) are you serious.

    For what it's worth, here's an actual scientist weighing in on it, but god damn. That is just... Wow. This guy is offering an extremely unbelievable claim (anything purported to cure multiple completely unrelated and dire illnesses needs some pretty damn good backing) and absolutely no scientific research to back it up. This is like me asserting that I can become invisible, and then following "but it only works when nobody is look or recording". It's an incredible claim which is completely unbacked, and evidence is not forthcoming. Do you have any idea about how rigor works? Seriously, listen to this moron:

    Boy, smell that scientific rigor cooking!

    ...Oh wait. That's not scientific rigor. That's a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing nothing-burger.

    Dennis, seriously. Is any of this getting through to you? Anything at all? Or am I completely wasting my time by trying to inform you about what scientific rigor and basic standards of evidence for medicine are? Seriously, inquiring minds wish to know.
     
  8. DennisTate

    DennisTate Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2012
    Messages:
    31,489
    Likes Received:
    2,601
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    So I'm guessing that you would be extremely skeptical as to the idea that a naturopath might have astonishing success against cancer tumors with a combination of pharmaceutical grade baking soda and blackstrap molasses????


    http://phkillscancer.com/protocol
     
  9. Colonel K

    Colonel K Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    9,770
    Likes Received:
    556
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Is it supposed to work better than pee extract?

    How does a naturopath differ from a psychopath?
     
  10. DennisTate

    DennisTate Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2012
    Messages:
    31,489
    Likes Received:
    2,601
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I just posted the entire text of both pages of this webpage to my Facebook Wall.......does that make me an idiot???????!!

    Don't forget to hit the second page to find out how the story turns out!!!???

    http://phkillscancer.com/
     
  11. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,871
    Likes Received:
    73,626
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    I reserve judgement

    Bottom line is that there is little to no evidence that Burzynski's so called "cures" are in fact anything more than placebo effect AT BEST

    And you post a link to someone who may or may not be telling a true story about how he "cured" cancer by drinking enough bicarb to change the body's PH.

    If you believe that FINE but when you wake up in ICU with an angry ICU staff glaring down at you and still active cancer just post a note here and tell us how it all turned out eh?
     
  12. Colonel K

    Colonel K Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    9,770
    Likes Received:
    556
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Big Pharma has legitimate questions to answer about their testing results and openness, but to equate that with treacle cures or pee extracts would be laughable were there not sufficient ill-informed people gullible enough to give it the time of day. Some might call that evolution in action, but these scam artists are raking in cash from suffering people.
    Testimonials from the anonymous "saved" aren't worth the pixels they're made of.
     
  13. fiddlerdave

    fiddlerdave Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2010
    Messages:
    19,083
    Likes Received:
    2,706
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Let's see, over SIXTY clinical trials started in 35 years, NONE finished and reported on!

    CONSTANT complaints of "oppression" and "suppression" from scientists and the medical institutions in the USA. (These guys usually won't go to other countries with these nostrums because too many of those countries JAIL and EXECUTE frauds!)

    If a "Doctor" acts like a duck, talks like a duck, swims like a duck,

    HE IS PROBABLY A QUACK!

    [​IMG]
     
  14. Stagnant

    Stagnant Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2012
    Messages:
    5,214
    Likes Received:
    45
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Let's just cut through all the bull(*)(*)(*)(*), and let me explain my (basic) standards of evidence for medicine. For any medicine (particularly, but not limited to, medicine which asserts to cure cancer, H1N1, HIV/AIDS, or any other major disease or condition that mainstream, evidence-based medicine doesn't have perfectly cured), I expect a few things:

    1. An explanation of how and why it works, backed up by scientific evidence, published in the peer-reviewed journals.
    This is pretty straightforward - it does a part to eliminate any chance of correlation-causation fallacies, and goes a long way as to explaining why we should care about the drug in the first place. If you have a miracle cure but can't explain how it works, you need absolutely obscene amounts of concordant evidence showing that it works. If you have a miracle cure and your explanation of how it works involves concepts that cannot be demonstrated, you probably don't have a miracle cure. If you have a miracle cure and your explanation of how it works involves a scientific concept that has either been debunked, or that your are misrepresenting, you definitely don't have a miracle cure. The requirement that it be published in peer-reviewed journals is basically a "first step" in determining that you're not completely full of (*)(*)(*)(*), and if you actually are on to something and have a scientific background (or even just are on to something and can show it to some people who do have a scientific background), it's really not hard to pull off.

    2. Clinical trials, preferably double-blind with as large a study group as possible, published in peer-reviewed journals.
    Again, this is really straightforward: how do you prove to anyone else that your drug works, and that it's not just a fluke? You test it. You test it, and test it, and keep testing it until it's clear - with enough data points to filter out the statistical noise (read: people like that blog you just linked) that occur during things like spontaneous remission - that it performs reasonably better than a placebo, and hopefully better than the current alternative.


    These are two steps that every current mainstream medical treatment for virtually anything have gone through.

    So. With that in mind, please, give me the best evidence you have that baking soda and molasses cures cancer. Please, don't just look at that website and go, "Oh, wow, that's cool! I'm just gonna believe all of this with no evidence". Try to actually look into the issue. See what evidence there is supporting the seriously dubious claim that you can use baking soda to cure any kind of cancer (the claim appears to originate from an Arm and Hammer ad pamphlet from before there was any regulatory body on those types of claims). Because right now, here's you:

    "Oh, la di da, ooh, look at this! Apparently you can cure cancer by embedding yourself in a bath of steaming cow dung! Ooh, here's a patient who claims that the 'medical establishment left her to die'. Ooh, apparently she credits what she thinks is a complete remission [usually isn't] to this wonderful cure! Let me go share this information with all of my other friends!"

    No, seriously, that's you. You will buy into any crap with a cutesy little story behind it. Do you understand what kind of evidence there is backing Chemotherapy as a functional treatment for most types of cancer? We're talking decades of research, with clinical trials performed on hundreds of thousands of people. How about the typical "triple drug" anti-AIDS medications? Again, decades of research, hundreds of thousands of test cases, the vast majority of which were published.

    I feel like I'm repeating myself here. Dennis, seriously. Is any of this getting through to you? Anything at all? Or am I completely wasting my time by trying to inform you about what scientific rigor and basic standards of evidence for medicine are? Seriously, inquiring minds wish to know. Try applying my standard (which is the basic scientific standard for any treatment) to this new miracle cure you picked up. Are there peer-reviewed papers? No. Is there a clear medical reason, backed by evidence, why it would work? No. Is there any sort of clinical trials on the books? No. There is no evidence for this crap. Nothing with any scientific value.




    Let's try this.

    http://miraclemineral.org/

    That is the website for Miracle Mineral Supplement. Take 5-10 minutes and browse through it, then tell me - do you think that it makes a convincing case? Do you find the evidence there something that makes it worth taking into account when considering cures for diseases?

    - - - Updated - - -

    It makes you scientifically illiterate and incredibly gullible. Let me make this simple. Provide the best evidence you have that that treatment works.
     
  15. Stagnant

    Stagnant Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2012
    Messages:
    5,214
    Likes Received:
    45
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I did a little digging. Essentially the idea that Baking Soda can cure cancer comes down to the idea that Cancer is caused by incorrect body pH-levels. So basically, the entire reason why the cure would supposedly work is based on a complete lack of understanding of what cancer is, where it comes from, how it's caused/propagated, and how to cure it. That's... kind of a big deal.
     
  16. AceFrehley

    AceFrehley New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2012
    Messages:
    8,582
    Likes Received:
    153
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Greetings: marketing phrases like "fountain of youth", "miracle" and "breakthrough" are usually exaggerations at the very least. However, I did spend several years designing packaging for the indoor tanning industry. Hemp oil appears to be a worthy product for skin care. This isn't surprising, as the plant has a lot of different uses.
     
  17. DennisTate

    DennisTate Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2012
    Messages:
    31,489
    Likes Received:
    2,601
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I am certainly hearing some good things about honey and various honey or pollen products as well.
     
  18. Stagnant

    Stagnant Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2012
    Messages:
    5,214
    Likes Received:
    45
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Please don't encourage him, or anyone else. There's a difference between exaggerations and saying "this drug cures cancer and is a literal fountain of youth" when the actual evidence for said claims range from incredibly sketch and situation to flat-out non-existent.
     
  19. DennisTate

    DennisTate Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2012
    Messages:
    31,489
    Likes Received:
    2,601
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yes..........and there are two groups of people guilty of ignorance and misunderstanding........One possibility is that the people who believe in pH levels being a problem may be wrong.........The other possibility is that the skeptics of pH being an issue are ignorant???????!!!!!

    Humn.....I wonder which group is the most ignorant........My off the top of the head guess would tend to be the group who sounds the most dogmatic and has the most to gain in terms of money!!!!!!!!!??????

    Now how many millionaires got that way off baking soda and blackstrap molasses???????????????!!!!

    Which by the way should only be used for a few days or they tend to cause not only certain heavy minerals to leave the body........but they keep going and take out all kinds of necessary minerals........the pH cleanse remedy can be dangerous apparently if it is continued for too long!!!!!!!!!
     
  20. DennisTate

    DennisTate Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2012
    Messages:
    31,489
    Likes Received:
    2,601
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    And Stagnant.........before Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski came along..........how many cases of brain cancer had responded to conventional treatments.......??????????
     
  21. dadoalex

    dadoalex Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2012
    Messages:
    10,619
    Likes Received:
    2,045
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Wasn't there a thread a couple of days ago about "crazy" medical stuff?

    Maybe this should be joined.
     
  22. Stagnant

    Stagnant Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2012
    Messages:
    5,214
    Likes Received:
    45
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yes. Now here's what you seem to be physically incapable of getting: literally every piece of evidence - our combined collective understanding of cancer and the human body, and the lack of actual case studies - points in one direction - it doesn't work. There are no clinical trials, no peer-reviewed papers, and the very route by which the cure is supposed to function according to its advocates (raising blood pH) was proven not to be a viable treatment for cancer decades ago, when the entire medical idea it was based around failed to hold up.

    No, this is bull(*)(*)(*)(*). The group which is more ignorant is the group with less convincing evidence. Who has to gain and lose has no impact on the truth. None. Nada. Zip. Look, I'm sorry, but "it's natural and the people advocating it aren't rich" is not evidence.

    Does not matter. What matters is, what evidence is there that it works? Seriously, what sound evidence can your provide to demonstrate that this cure actually works? I don't give a damn who's using it, I don't give a damn who's selling it, and I don't give a single (*)(*)(*)(*) about the fact that it's not from "big pharma". I care about the evidence. Is there actual evidence that it works, or not? So here's my question - do you care about the evidence? Because your entire post is an appeal to conspiracy. And that bothers me.

    Look, I hate to break it to you, but what you're doing? Well, more generally, what people like you are doing. It's getting people killed. There's a reason chemotherapy, modern cancer medications, and radation treatment are seen as the gold standards of treatment for cancer, and that's because out of all of what we've found, it is generally the things that work best. By recommending these "natural" treatments, treatments which have not been demonstrated to work and which often have been long shown not to work (as is the case here), you are giving bad medical advice. And not only that, but you are giving bad medical advice to people who desperately need the best medical advice available.

    I'm going to make this very clear.

    Whenever someone refuses the best care available in favor of snake oil that does not work (like your baking soda) and dies because of it, you share the blame.



    And this wouldn't matter to me so much if you weren't so damned bloody-minded about the whole thing. I've been trying to explain the basic standards of scientific evidence in medicine to you for weeks. I've gone over every single thing I could think of. I've asked you for evidence for your claims countless times, and you have never offered anything. If this (*)(*)(*)(*) works, where's the evidence?!

    Oh by the way. You want the ultimate irony? The claim that baking soda cures cancer comes from the information pamphlet advertisement for Arm and Hammer Baking Soda. Yeah. Big Pharma.
     
  23. Stagnant

    Stagnant Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2012
    Messages:
    5,214
    Likes Received:
    45
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I don't give a (*)(*)(*)(*); Burzynski still has to demonstrate that his cure works! Which he has not! The gold standard of treatment for aggressive brain tumors is bad. We don't have a good answer yet. But yet again, I feel it important to remind you that this is not evidence that Burzynski's treatments work.
     
  24. DennisTate

    DennisTate Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2012
    Messages:
    31,489
    Likes Received:
    2,601
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    His antineoplastons worked on a higher percentage.......and overall number of brain cancer cases.......than any of the conventional treatments did.

    Surely........you noticed that much from your research so far into this haven't you???????????????????????!!!!!
     
  25. DennisTate

    DennisTate Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2012
    Messages:
    31,489
    Likes Received:
    2,601
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    You didn't read page two of this blog......down to the end of it did you??????!!!

    http://phkillscancer.com/protocol

    The case of the person who wrote this blog is a random sample of one..........the implications of how his particular case worked out are intriguing indeed!!!!!!
     

Share This Page