This is an extremely important film. The trailer is viewable here. You can view the full film through June 13, June 20 2011...
Full film:
wow
Incredible story.
I have so far watched half of the film, and I am very amazed...!
quick google search picked up some info.
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/burzynski1.html
Probably should read it with the documentary.
John Ess: quick google search picked up some info. http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/burzynski1.html Probably should read it with the documentary.
And Ron Paul doesn't have a Ph.D. in economics so he is not credible.
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
That doesn't seem to be the complaint.
The $300m question: what is the point of this video?
Caley McKibbin: The $300m question: what is the point of this video?
well, for one, to show how the State hates competition. This guy spent time and money trying to defend his work simply because his treatment was far better than the State supported treatment.... This guy should have been praised for creating a treatment that was more effective than the rest... yet, the State wanted to put him in prison
My Blog: http://www.anarchico.net/
Production is 'anarchistic' - Ludwig von Mises
looks like propaganda film... :D
(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)
This only confirms what I have suspected for a long time. That the FDA and the Cancer industry are not interested in a cure, they are only interested in selling their services and making money.
I have lost an aunt to cancer and it makes me sick to find out that he discovered this in the 70s and it has taken 30-40 years for people to find out about it.
there is no grand conspiracy, pal. Just self-interest and money money money. And also control freaks, trying to "fix the economy".
I never suspected that there was a grand conspiracy, only individuals and organisations that seek to profit off of the suffering and misery of other individuals.
You know what this means ?
I can start smoking cigarettes again...
Yeah after reading that link provided by John Ess, I'm a bit more skeptical. There seems to be a lot of questions about the statistical validity of the clinical trials presented in the documentary, it's not just the vauge claims about whether he actually had a PhD or not. Not proof that the treatment doesn't work, but it's difficult to say whether it's actually his treatment that's causing the cancers to go into remission, and not some other factor. I'm no medical expert though so who knows.
If I'm not mistaken, Mises.org is described as a "right wing hate group" by the SPLC.
Could it possibly be that the the first half baked criticism from a known shill for the establishment one picks up on google, may indeed, mean absolutely nothing?
Anyways, great documentary.
Caley McKibbin: The $300m question: what is the point of this video? well, for one, to show how the State hates competition. This guy spent time and money trying to defend his work simply because his treatment was far better than the State supported treatment.... This guy should have been
well, for one, to show how the State hates competition. This guy spent time and money trying to defend his work simply because his treatment was far better than the State supported treatment.... This guy should have been
It was a joke question. This whole bag of hoopla is about one thing. Drumming up support to bump him ahead of the many other monkeys waiting in the banana grant line. Not to mention his patent grinding. Of course, the relevance of this to our interest in a cancer cure is dependent on the validity of his claims, which is to no extent established by this tiresome collection of stories marketed to Joe Dolt. (I dragged the time bar along to find something of technical value and didn't find it.)
From the Quack Watch link the pertinent point is honesty, not whether he is qualified.
Quacks usually don't fight (and persistently) win court battles with an infinitely more powerful govrenment for 30 years non-stop. Amazing documentary. Also, a super-natural persistence and stamina on the part of the doctor -- a trait of a true believer in his work. Seems to me he's not looking for anything more than to be left to do his work and help his patients in peace.
Great point Z !!!
Fact 1 - Every 57 seconds, one person dies from cancer. Fact 2 - Every day 1,500 people die from cancer. Fact 3 - In any given year, one in four deaths is cancer-related. Fact 4 - In a lifetime, one in two males will get cancer and one in three females will get cancer. Fact 5 - Approximately 10.5 million people living in the U.S. today have a history of cancer. Fact 6 - The relative 5-year survival rate for all cancer is 66%. Fact 7 - The overall costs for cancer is $206.3 billion - $78.2 billion direct medical costs and128.1 billion indirect costs (mortality and morbidity). Fact 8 - Estimated cancer cases and deaths in your area. To estimate the number of people who will eventually develop cancer – Take your area population times a factor of .4156. To estimate the number of people who will eventually die from cancer – Take your area population times a factor of .2110 The cancer soceity have no interest in curing the cancer,there is no money in that. You do not kill the goose that lays the golden egg.
1 in 2 men Will Get Cancer (50%) in their lifetimes. 1 in 3 women.!!!
If you do not believe it is a grand conspiracy than you are ignorant.
I would put my all money on surgery and radiation which are proven to work, while alternative treatments... kinda suck.
But if I was desperate, sure, I would try everything, but then if I was cured, where to put the credit for? Alternative treatment or modern medicine? Just because you got "cured" after trying 100 treatments (including SURGERY and RADIATION) and only after applying homepathic sugar you got magically cured, that doesn't mean that it's homeopathic remedy's "fault".
And that's where most anecdotal evidence come from. From people, who tried everything and only in the end cancer got into remission by accident after applying some alternative treatment.
Sorry my engrish once again.
Quacks usually don't fight (and persistently) win court battles with an infinitely more powerful govrenment for 30 years non-stop.
Being wrong is not a crime in the criminal code. Neither is failing to comply with the FDA. The only real power they have is scaring people with scary letters and making the public believe that what they certify is good. The only real threat he ever faced was losing his medical license. You could sell Quacksalve(TM) and defeat the FDA in a court case.
The strongest case that I've seen against his legitimacy is his own video. They go and on about how he did everything he could to stop NCI from repeating his experiments. Last I checked repeating an experiment using the original method is what you do to review someone's claims. He then somehow tries to warp this into an argument that NCI and Michael Green are evil and out to get him because they used a smaller dosage than he tried to bully them into using. People here just lap up his side of the story and 100% meaningless anecdotes and self-citations at face value.
No one is lapping up anyone's side. It's the nature of the "sides" that matters. To me, the documentary clearly exposes the perversions reached in a system of monopoly parasitic "reviewers", "accusers", and "approvers" in collusion with corporations arranging reality to their benefit at the point of a gun. Quack or no quack, the doctor should be left to be judged by the market alone, especially since there hasn't existed even a hint of tort against anyone over the 30 years he's been in practice.
z1235: No one is lapping up anyone's side. It's the nature of the "sides" that matters. To me, the documentary clearly exposes the perversions reached in a system of monopoly parasitic "reviewers", "accusers", and "approvers" in collusion with corporations arranging reality to their benefit at the point of a gun. Quack or no quack, the doctor should be left to be judged by the market alone, especially since there hasn't existed even a hint of tort against anyone over the 30 years he's been in practice.
Exactly. It should be up to the customer to decide where to shop, and this documentary details clearly what kind of anti-competitive environment we are actually living in. Not liking this particular competitor is quite irrelevant to that.
That's a nice idea. But, it does not pertain to the video in any way. I'm sure that he has continuously applied for grants over the years. He didn't wake up yesterday and suddenly decide that he needs $300m. If you knew how the medical profession worked you would understand. As a rule it takes years for anything new to gain acceptance. If you try to circumvent yours peers and go straight to public and politicians for support, you will become very unpopular very fast Mostly, he's just crying about the government trying to "steal" his idea. Yet, he has no qualms about really stealing everyone's elses money for himself. He's trying to have his cake and eat it. Ask yourself this question. If someone patented something that you think is extremely valuable to many people, what would you do: (a) leave him to his little monopoly, (b) try to rip his monopoly from his cold dead hands? Food for thought.
Caley McKibbin:I dragged the time bar along...
You make that more than obvious.
MaikU: I would put my all money on surgery and radiation which are proven to work, while alternative treatments... kinda suck. But if I was desperate, sure, I would try everything, but then if I was cured, where to put the credit for? Alternative treatment or modern medicine? Just because you got "cured" after trying 100 treatments (including SURGERY and RADIATION) and only after applying homepathic sugar you got magically cured, that doesn't mean that it's homeopathic remedy's "fault". And that's where most anecdotal evidence come from. From people, who tried everything and only in the end cancer got into remission by accident after applying some alternative treatment. Sorry my engrish once again.
You probably watched even less of the film than Caley McKibbin.
Burzynski is to the FDA as Schiff is to the IRS! Two patriots standing for the truth while exposing the evil of the state.
Something tells me that If Burznski wasn't in Texas, he'd probably be sharing a cell with Schiff.
We are the soldiers for righteousnessAnd we are not sent here by the politicians you drink with - L. Dube, rip
first:most, if not all, modern treatments in anything was an alternate to to something that was mainstream at the time. The best thing about the market is that there are always going to be new ways to do things as time goes on.
second: what determines what treatment work? is it the FDA or the consumers? Nevertheless, this guy should not be shut down by the government because he has a different way to cure his clients. Even if one does not believe in his data and treatment, this should be obvious,at least it should be obvious to every free marketeer..
third: The doctor in the documentary has several clients that did not do the radiation and surgery before they did his treatment, and still had successful results...
Isaac "Izzy" Marmolejo:The doctor in the documentary has several clients that did not do the radiation and surgery before they did his treatment, and still had successful results...
A lot more than "several"...and the fact that he based that entire post around this notion of "you don't really know which treatment was the one that worked" and called results and data from FDA-approved clinical trials "anecdotal evidence" proves he didn't watch the film.
cobracarg: MaikU: I would put my all money on surgery and radiation which are proven to work, while alternative treatments... kinda suck. But if I was desperate, sure, I would try everything, but then if I was cured, where to put the credit for? Alternative treatment or modern medicine? Just because you got "cured" after trying 100 treatments (including SURGERY and RADIATION) and only after applying homepathic sugar you got magically cured, that doesn't mean that it's homeopathic remedy's "fault". And that's where most anecdotal evidence come from. From people, who tried everything and only in the end cancer got into remission by accident after applying some alternative treatment. Sorry my engrish once again. first:most, if not all, modern treatments in anything was an alternate to to something that was mainstream at the time. The best thing about the market is that there are always going to be new ways to do things as time goes on. second: what determines what treatment work? is it the FDA or the consumers? Nevertheless, this guy should not be shut down by the government because he has a different way to cure his clients. Even if one does not believe in his data and treatment, this should be obvious,at least it should be obvious to every free marketeer.. third: The doctor in the documentary has several clients that did not do the radiation and surgery before they did his treatment, and still had successful results...
First: that's not what I am arguing about. I am interested only in thing that work, and I do not care they are mainstream or not. Take for example leeches. Almost nobody uses them nowdays, but treatment called Leech Therapy (http://www.leeches.biz/hirudotherapy.htm) is still valuable and still works even though it's no longer mainstream.
Second: I don't care much about FDA, it's not the best organization that could have evolved in a free market. It's just one of the state's monopolies. However, that doesn't mean that all trials or approvals by FDA are bogus and that we should ignore them. I am as much against FDA as I am against other state granted monopoly in an ethical/moral sense.
Third: yes, he may have those (trials you talkin about) too. But then again, does it prove that his treatment work? Without replication of his trials and peer reviewing it's hard to guess. And yes, I didn't watch the video, that's why I try to generalize my arguments and do not debate actual evidence. Maybe the guy is right, I don't know, I don't have time to research and I don't care to be honest. What I care for now is principles of doing good science. Good is a very important definition here and not just an arbitrary adjective. In short, you can read more about it here: http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/buzz/dinoscience.html (but there is more than that).
MaikU:...yes, I didn't watch the video, that's why I try to generalize my arguments and do not debate actual evidence.
Aaand I think you're done here.
In case anyone gets the wrong idea that I missed anything important, I scrolled through it watching the frames for something other than hicks telling useless stories.
How did you ever miss the well dressed and very well educated urbanites telling their compellingly useful stories about how the Dr.B 'stole' their dying (now dead) relatives life savings for a cure that was nothing more than powdered urine?
Caley McKibbin:In case anyone gets the wrong idea that I missed anything important, I scrolled through it watching the frames for something other than hicks telling useless stories.
Ah thanks for clearing that up. I'm sure everyone respects your assessment now.
1) then I do not get your critique because the method used by the doctor in this documentary is proven to work by him and the FDA has done studies on that similar method and came out with reasonable results. The FDA results were positive enough that since 1995, all of Burzynski's trails are all approved and supervised by the FDA.
2) I never said all trails and approvals by the FDA are bogus... the FDA data is clear in showing that radiation and surgery can only help an individual so much before they start to seriously harm the individual by excessive radiation or surgery.
3) again, i do not understand the critique here because the method used in this documentary has plenty of peer reviewed articles.
The point of this documentary was not to give out sympathy for a method that is still not FDA approved or, more importantly, that does not have scientific proof that it works... the point of this film was to show how great this man struggled in trying to convince people in the medical industry and the government that his data was legit and how the government tried several times to close down his business because he figured out a new way in curing cancer.
They better after my toil to match the respectability of the Byrzinski bandwagon contingent that understands medical research as much as a kid with an Operation boardgame and plastic stethoscope. If not, I'll try making tons of contentless one-liners.
Update: I did a google search and found that his PhD claim is for biochemistry.
That would be PhD = Piled Higher & Deeper. Years of MED indoctrination to teach the Doktors how to be better drug pushers.
Yes the results are in,The slash and burn is an amazing success,if the aim is to slowly kill people by inflicting suffering and milking the last pennies from the victims loved ones.
DDddDDoctors are not taught about health in medical school - only about disease. Most doctors do not receive even ONE HOUR of training in nutrition during their years of medical school. The pharmaceutical industry is a multi-billion dollar industry. It provides much of the funding for research in medical schools and nearly all of the advertising in medical journals. It's the old GOLDEN RULE: he who has the gold - rules! So doctors learn ONLY about drugs!
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article5138033.eceChemotherapy and radiation do not make the body well. They destroy, they do not heal. The supposed hope of the doctor is that the cancer will be destroyed without destroying the entire patient. These therapies do kill cancer cells, but they kill a lot of good cells too including the cells of the immune system, the very system that one NEEDS to get well. If a cancer patient survives the treatment with enough immune system left intact, the patient may appear to get well at least temporarily, but he will have sustained major damage to his body and his immune system. How much better it is to nourish the immune system directly by the use of natural therapies to assist it in getting you well instead of destroying it by the use of these therapies. Then the immune system itself can kill the cancer cells without any side effects and heal your body at the same time.The idea is to heal the cancered cells not kill your cells.
As for quackwatch,they have been proven to be illegitimite.
^
That post is a good proof of not knowing the educational process and not knowing what medicine is. It's good that you make that clear at the outset.
Caley McKibbin:If not, I'll try making tons of contentless one-liners.
Oh you mean like this? Yeah that would be preferable to your contentless twelve-liners.
Nice job. Prove you didn't even watch the first 5 minutes of the film...or the first 1 second of the trailer.
You just never get it and keep coming back for more. Your posts as a rule are poor. You're a lousy-post recidivist. The same thing over and over, day after day. I'm very critical and I will continue to criticize content. Feel free to at any point say anything about the topic for the first time, if you have something worth saying- any relevant knowledge. I doubt that will ever happen. You'll just keep posting one-liners day after day. The angry nerds will keep angry nerding. The trolls will keep trolling. Etc. I'll get bored of paying attention soon enough.
Caley McKibbin:I'm very critical and I will continue to criticize content.
No problem with that, it would just be nice if you actually watched even 5 minutes of a 2 hour film you attempt to criticize.
Caley McKibbin:Feel free to at any point say anything about the topic for the first time, if you have something worth saying- any relevant knowledge.
The irony is almost palpable.
John James: MaikU:...yes, I didn't watch the video, that's why I try to generalize my arguments and do not debate actual evidence. Aaand I think you're done here.
You are right. I am done criticizing actual video, but not the tactics of such people (who made the video). And tactics are no different than other charlatans, zeitgeisters etc..
I watched that documentary too. It's highly recommended.