Cancer Is Top Killer Of Thais Among All Diseases

[SundayAfternoon]

Vegetariansm / veganism is a GREAT moral choice. It is not necessarily a great HEALTH choice.

(As many ex vegans are now coming to realise, given how much eveidence is coming to light that avoiding meat and veganism is NOT as healthy as many think).

Would you like to back that with some facts or at least some creditable research / reading / reports.

No Artisi. Not because there isn't any... a simple internet search will bring up all manner of research and findings, if you're interested in finding out more I'm sure you'll be able to find it. (And studies that directly contradict them too, if you're so inclined).

But, rather because my belief is that even 'credible' research and findings can be manipulated, faked, and misrepresented, and quite often are, when there's a slice of big pie to be had.

To get back on track with the originoal post, and to see just how corrupt big pharma and the FDA really are, plus anyone who has a real interest in cancer and cancer cure, this is a fascinating, must-watch documentry.

A non-toxic, highly successful protocol that can cure some of the most deadly and aggressive forms of cancer, surpressed by big pharma... surely that couldn't happen... could it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRua3NLg-Z8

Edited February 7, 2013 by SundayAfternoon

[GentlemanJim]

Vegetariansm / veganism is a GREAT moral choice. It is not necessarily a great HEALTH choice.

(As many ex vegans are now coming to realise, given how much eveidence is coming to light that avoiding meat and veganism is NOT as healthy as many think).

Would you like to back that with some facts or at least some creditable research / reading / reports.

No Artisi. Not because there isn't any... a simple internet search will bring up all manner of research and findings, if you're interested in finding out more I'm sure you'll be able to find it. (And studies that directly contradict them too, if you're so inclined).

But, rather because my belief is that even 'credible' research and findings can be manipulated, faked, and misrepresented, and quite often are, when there's a slice of big pie to be had.

To get back on track with the originoal post, and to see just how corrupt big pharma and the FDA really are, plus anyone who has a real interest in cancer and cancer cure, this is a fascinating, must-watch documentry.

A non-toxic, highly successful protocol that can cure some of the most deadly and aggressive forms of cancer, surpressed by big pharma... surely that couldn't happen... could it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRua3NLg-Z8

Sunday Afternoon

I cannot thank you enough for posting the video, I am halfway through, will finish later.

Unsurprisingly, re Big Pharma, going on to quackwatch and putting in Dr Burzynski's name gets all this

http://www.quackwatch.org/search/webglimpse.cgi?ID=1&query=Burzynski

I often wonder what the motive is for Stephen Barrett and Quackwatch, and I wonder how many people have died listening to his 'paid for' rants about any kind of alternative treatment.

[laislica]

There are hundreds of paths up the mountain, all leading to the same place, so it doesn't matter which path you take. The only person wasting time is the one who runs around the mountain, telling everyone that his or her path is wrong.

Hindu proverb

[JetsetBkk]

No Artisi. Not because there isn't any... a simple internet search will bring up all manner of research and findings, if you're interested in finding out more I'm sure you'll be able to find it. (And studies that directly contradict them too, if you're so inclined).

But, rather because my belief is that even 'credible' research and findings can be manipulated, faked, and misrepresented, and quite often are, when there's a slice of big pie to be had.

To get back on track with the originoal post, and to see just how corrupt big pharma and the FDA really are, plus anyone who has a real interest in cancer and cancer cure, this is a fascinating, must-watch documentry.

A non-toxic, highly successful protocol that can cure some of the most deadly and aggressive forms of cancer, surpressed by big pharma... surely that couldn't happen... could it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRua3NLg-Z8

Sunday Afternoon

I cannot thank you enough for posting the video, I am halfway through, will finish later.

Unsurprisingly, re Big Pharma, going on to quackwatch and putting in Dr Burzynski's name gets all this

http://www.quackwatc...query=Burzynski

I often wonder what the motive is for Stephen Barrett and Quackwatch, and I wonder how many people have died listening to his 'paid for' rants about any kind of alternative treatment.

I watched that movie a couple of years ago and was shocked at the lengths that the US FDA went to stop the man. They even took out patents on his work - that they had said was worthless - for themselves! The patents were eventually reassigned to him after many years. (I may have got the names wrong - it was a long time ago that I watched it).

Unfortunately, he is not a very personable man and even sounds like a quack, but what the authorities did to him speaks volumes. I recommend everyone to at least watch the first 4 minutes.

[xylophone]

Watched the Burzynski movie and was just about convinced of its veracity, so did some further research on it/his methods. It would be fair to say that there is a great deal of scepticism out there, with very little support of the man and his methods apart from the occasional voice.

However even with my limited medical knowledge I was able to home in on something which I found very interesting, as follows: –

Quote. "The Texas Medical Board’s description of what B was dosing is deeply disturbing. “Respondent prescribed a combination of five immunotherapy agents – phenylbutyrate, erlotinib, dasatinib, vorinostat, and sorafenib-which are not approved by the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) for the treatment of breast cancer, and which do not meet the FDA’s regulations for the use of off-label drugs in breast cancer therapy.

"Any lay person with a passing knowledge of Dr. Google would have to question FIVE agents given at one time.

Erlotinib, dasatinib and sorafenib are all tyrosine kinase inhibitors. They all have different specificities and work best on different cancers, but they all share an effect on tyrosine kinases. Vorinostat and phenylbutyrate are both histone deacetylase inhibitors.

What Dr. Burzynski is doing is akin to the “shotgun” antibiotic therapy once widely used in primary care (especially emergency room / urgent care settings). By “nailing” three families of tyrosine kinases and using two histone deacetylase inhibitors, he hopes to get sufficient “spread” that he’ll hit just about any cancer in the room.

The ironic part of this is that Dr. Burzynski claims to be doing “personalised cancer care” when, in fact, he is using a “one size fits all” therapy. Not surprising, since just about every time I read about some practitioner who touts their “personalised” approach, it turns out that they have a favorite “tool” and use it on everyone who comes through the door.

To a man with only a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.”

From what I understand, the treatment consists of a cocktail of drugs as well as whatever he prescribes, and administered at a huge markup to what would normally be paid.

Having said that, for now I will follow his progress to see what transpires. However I am not getting my hopes up because I remember the "apricot kernel cure" back in the 60s and 70s, along with other alternative therapies which included holding onto two electrodes whilst some sort of current was passed through the body; light pulsing and so on.

There may be a little truth in the effect his compounds could have on some cancers (notwithstanding many of them are already in use) but until full research is done and openly published, we are never going to know.

Again, I trust my doctor and medical research.

[laislica]

Watched the Burzynski movie and was just about convinced of its veracity, so did some further research on it/his methods. It would be fair to say that there is a great deal of scepticism out there, with very little support of the man and his methods apart from the occasional voice.

However even with my limited medical knowledge I was able to home in on something which I found very interesting, as follows: –

Quote. "The Texas Medical Board’s description of what B was dosing is deeply disturbing. “Respondent prescribed a combination of five immunotherapy agents – phenylbutyrate, erlotinib, dasatinib, vorinostat, and sorafenib-which are not approved by the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) for the treatment of breast cancer, and which do not meet the FDA’s regulations for the use of off-label drugs in breast cancer therapy.

"Any lay person with a passing knowledge of Dr. Google would have to question FIVE agents given at one time.

Erlotinib, dasatinib and sorafenib are all tyrosine kinase inhibitors. They all have different specificities and work best on different cancers, but they all share an effect on tyrosine kinases. Vorinostat and phenylbutyrate are both histone deacetylase inhibitors.

What Dr. Burzynski is doing is akin to the “shotgun” antibiotic therapy once widely used in primary care (especially emergency room / urgent care settings). By “nailing” three families of tyrosine kinases and using two histone deacetylase inhibitors, he hopes to get sufficient “spread” that he’ll hit just about any cancer in the room.

The ironic part of this is that Dr. Burzynski claims to be doing “personalised cancer care” when, in fact, he is using a “one size fits all” therapy. Not surprising, since just about every time I read about some practitioner who touts their “personalised” approach, it turns out that they have a favorite “tool” and use it on everyone who comes through the door.

To a man with only a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.”

From what I understand, the treatment consists of a cocktail of drugs as well as whatever he prescribes, and administered at a huge markup to what would normally be paid.

Having said that, for now I will follow his progress to see what transpires. However I am not getting my hopes up because I remember the "apricot kernel cure" back in the 60s and 70s, along with other alternative therapies which included holding onto two electrodes whilst some sort of current was passed through the body; light pulsing and so on.

There may be a little truth in the effect his compounds could have on some cancers (notwithstanding many of them are already in use) but until full research is done and openly published, we are never going to know.

Again, I trust my doctor and medical research.

Thank you for sharing your observations on this.

I find it amazing that the "Cure Cancer Industry" has not dropped what it was doing and thrown it's self into following research along the lines of B. In his documentary he showed the FDA approved therapy cured 0.9% but they lived less than 5 years and were severely damaged by that therapy and that in fact they tended to die because of the therapy and not of a cancer.

B's cure rate was more than 25% and no side effects, lived way beyond 5 years with a full quality of life.

Dr B choose the really difficult cancers so that it would show that his methods work "once and for all".

B points out that he gets zero funding. The costs of a single trial is about $25 M and he finds the funds so can't do anything like as many trials as he would like.

Sure I have only looked at one of the topics discussed in the documentary (I was not taking notes and only watched the first half hour so far), but it seems rather obvious that he is at least "on to something" so why is he not being supported?

[laislica]

QUACKWATCH says: snip>

Is There a Conspiracy to Suppress Cancer Cures?

Steven Novella, M.D.

Stephen Barrett, M.D.

Quacks typically charge that the medical profession, drug companies, the food industry, government agencies, and/or other "vested interests" are conspiring against "natural" cancer cures. No such conspiracy has ever been exposed. Yet many patients—especially those whom standard medicine cannot cure—embrace the notion that a small but dedicated band of rebels is defying the medical establishment by making natural cures available. And desperate patients may find it more comfortable to believe that cures are being suppressed than to feel that their situation is hopeless.

The conspiracy charge has two common scenarios. In one, opposition is based on fear of competition. In the other, a cure discovered within the establishment is suppressed. Neither of these situations makes sense. <snip

http://www.quackwatc...conspiracy.html

OK OK I'm really convinced that QUACKWATCH is a reliable source of BS.

Edited February 8, 2013 by laislica

[partington]

Wow I've only just read the posts about this Buryzinski guy , and while I have to admit I haven't watched the movie, (though he looks trustworthy from the still ) or even looked him up on Quackwatch, my quacksense is tingling like mad.

The compounds he is giving people (if any of this is true) are really scary: if you put phenylbutyrate on cells in culture it can switch on genes that are turned off - a potentially disastrous outcome.

But in any case ask yourself: where is the evidence for the 25% cure rate that he claims? Is it independently verified? Could he just be simply lying? I am serious about this. If he has a vested interest, (even if it is just egotism and not financial) and the information only comes from him, BEWARE.

I was on a thread like this before, where someone was talking about another doctor, Brian Peskin, who claimed to be able to cure all cancer with methods established 70 years ago, but they'd been "suppressed". This complete cure was different to any that have been discussed here, so strangely enough there seem to be countless cures for cancer out there, all suppressed by the medical establlshment in every country, who I suppose want you to die, for reasons I don't myself understand.

[Could it be that saying something is suppressed is a bit like those TV shopping channels who say there's a special offer, but you have to act now or it will "run out"? That making something seem unavailable makes you want it more? ]

In any case, Brian Peskin, emeritus professor of medicine at a major US university whose research group discovered these nutritional supplements, and still sells many books on Amazon, turned out to have no medical qualifications at all, (unless you count a degree in electrical engineering as a medical qualification), never to have been a professor of anything anywhere, and never to have had a research group. He had also been convicted of fraud in a trial in Texas for making false claims about his supplements, and been fined $100, 000.

Shall I tell you the two things that amazed me most about this? The poster on the thread who had followed this guy's advice all his life and ascribed his good health to Peskin had never once gone to any external source to verify what Peskin was saying, or found out anything about him. He was completely unaware that he was a fraud.

So he read what Peskin said, and verified it by reading what Peskin said!

The most amazing thing has yet to come. When informed of all this, the poster said he would trust Peskin's advice despite all that. His position was that he would ignore trained physicians with accumulated lifetimes of experience in researching and treating disease, in favour of a man with a degree in electronics who pretended to be a medical doctor to get money!

That taught me a lot.

[partington]

QUACKWATCH says: snip>

Is There a Conspiracy to Suppress Cancer Cures?

Steven Novella, M.D.

Stephen Barrett, M.D.

Quacks typically charge that the medical profession, drug companies, the food industry, government agencies, and/or other "vested interests" are conspiring against "natural" cancer cures. No such conspiracy has ever been exposed. Yet many patients—especially those whom standard medicine cannot cure—embrace the notion that a small but dedicated band of rebels is defying the medical establishment by making natural cures available. And desperate patients may find it more comfortable to believe that cures are being suppressed than to feel that their situation is hopeless.

The conspiracy charge has two common scenarios. In one, opposition is based on fear of competition. In the other, a cure discovered within the establishment is suppressed. Neither of these situations makes sense. <snip

http://www.quackwatc...conspiracy.html

OK OK I'm really convinced that QUACKWATCH is a reliable source of BS.

Wait, what? This seems to be the most sensible and concise expression of what is actually the truth. How could you call this BS? I'm really really at a loss to see how anyone could read this and not recognise it as completely true.

I'm baffled. I'm always going to be baffled and I guess will have to live with it.

[GentlemanJim]

QUACKWATCH says: snip>

Is There a Conspiracy to Suppress Cancer Cures?

Steven Novella, M.D.

Stephen Barrett, M.D.

Quacks typically charge that the medical profession, drug companies, the food industry, government agencies, and/or other "vested interests" are conspiring against "natural" cancer cures. No such conspiracy has ever been exposed. Yet many patients—especially those whom standard medicine cannot cure—embrace the notion that a small but dedicated band of rebels is defying the medical establishment by making natural cures available. And desperate patients may find it more comfortable to believe that cures are being suppressed than to feel that their situation is hopeless.

The conspiracy charge has two common scenarios. In one, opposition is based on fear of competition. In the other, a cure discovered within the establishment is suppressed. Neither of these situations makes sense. <snip

http://www.quackwatc...conspiracy.html

OK OK I'm really convinced that QUACKWATCH is a reliable source of BS.

Wait, what? This seems to be the most sensible and concise expression of what is actually the truth. How could you call this BS? I'm really really at a loss to see how anyone could read this and not recognise it as completely true.

I'm baffled. I'm always going to be baffled and I guess will have to live with it.

Watch the video, it will answer the questions you pose, then pop back.

[laislica]

Wow I've only just read the posts about this Buryzinski guy , and while I have to admit I haven't watched the movie, (though he looks trustworthy from the still ) or even looked him up on Quackwatch, my quacksense is tingling like mad.

The compounds he is giving people (if any of this is true) are really scary: if you put phenylbutyrate on cells in culture it can switch on genes that are turned off - a potentially disastrous outcome.

But in any case ask yourself: where is the evidence for the 25% cure rate that he claims? Is it independently verified? Could he just be simply lying? I am serious about this. If he has a vested interest, (even if it is just egotism and not financial) and the information only comes from him, BEWARE.

I was on a thread like this before, where someone was talking about another doctor, Brian Peskin, who claimed to be able to cure all cancer with methods established 70 years ago, but they'd been "suppressed". This complete cure was different to any that have been discussed here, so strangely enough there seem to be countless cures for cancer out there, all suppressed by the medical establlshment in every country, who I suppose want you to die, for reasons I don't myself understand.

[Could it be that saying something is suppressed is a bit like those TV shopping channels who say there's a special offer, but you have to act now or it will "run out"? That making something seem unavailable makes you want it more? ]

In any case, Brian Peskin, emeritus professor of medicine at a major US university whose research group discovered these nutritional supplements, and still sells many books on Amazon, turned out to have no medical qualifications at all, (unless you count a degree in electrical engineering as a medical qualification), never to have been a professor of anything anywhere, and never to have had a research group. He had also been convicted of fraud in a trial in Texas for making false claims about his supplements, and been fined $100, 000.

Shall I tell you the two things that amazed me most about this? The poster on the thread who had followed this guy's advice all his life and ascribed his good health to Peskin had never once gone to any external source to verify what Peskin was saying, or found out anything about him. He was completely unaware that he was a fraud.

So he read what Peskin said, and verified it by reading what Peskin said!

The most amazing thing has yet to come. When informed of all this, the poster said he would trust Peskin's advice despite all that. His position was that he would ignore trained physicians with accumulated lifetimes of experience in researching and treating disease, in favour of a man with a degree in electronics who pretended to be a medical doctor to get money!

That taught me a lot.

Unfortunately dear PARTINGTON, you just lost any credibility that you might have had.

You are able to make comments about what the compounds can do without having watched the documentary. You speculate about "it can switch on genes that are turned off - a potentially disastrous outcome."

The documentary gives detail about which genes are to be switched on and which to be switched off and why.

You told the world about your scientific qualifications, your objectiveness etc. BS

You only seem to want to blow your own trumpet and tell the world you are better than the rest!

[JetsetBkk]

Wow I've only just read the posts about this Buryzinski guy , and while I have to admit I haven't watched the movie, (though he looks trustworthy from the still ) or even looked him up on Quackwatch, my quacksense is tingling like mad.

The compounds he is giving people (if any of this is true) are really scary: if you put phenylbutyrate on cells in culture it can switch on genes that are turned off - a potentially disastrous outcome.

But in any case ask yourself: where is the evidence for the 25% cure rate that he claims? Is it independently verified? Could he just be simply lying? I am serious about this. If he has a vested interest, (even if it is just egotism and not financial) and the information only comes from him, BEWARE.

<snip>

Snipped because we are not talking about someone called Peskin.

Watch the first 4 minutes at least. Or are you afraid to?

[partington]

No I watched about 10 minutes of it. Perhaps it would help to say the "documentary" was not an objective look, but was made by his supporters. This information in the Wiki on the clinic is enough for me: ^{http://en.wikipedia....urzynski_Clinic}

The 2010 film, Burzynski, Cancer is Serious Business, directed, written, edited, and narrated by Eric Merola, an art director of television commercials, describes Burzynski's use of antineoplastons and his legal clashes with government agencies and regulators.^[58] The Village Voice commented that the movie "violates every basic rule of ethical filmmaking" and that by interviewing only Burzynski's supporters, the film's producer "is either unusually credulous, or doesn't understand the difference between a documentary and an advertisement".^[59]

^{Burzynski is also a very dodgy character -- he was recently the subject of Medical Board Examiner proceedings in Texas for failing to meet Texas state medical standards at his clinic. He got off on a technicality - that he himself could not be held responsible for what doctors in his employ did, (even though he told them to do it).}

^{But the whole point of this is : of course a man who proposes that he has discovered a new treatment and charges people huge amounts to receive it (Buryzinski's interest is very financial, he charges a lot) is going to say it works. That is how he is able to make money. The question you must ask is: does it really work?}

^{Common sense tells you that if someone is trying to sell you something he has a vested interest in telling you it is fantastic. So to check you go to independent outside assessors. And here is the point - the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence is against him. This does not mean that one person says he is wrong, and one person says he is right, but that a vast majority of leading cancer research experts say he is wrong, and his science is rubbish. Clearly, there are two possible reasons for saying someone's research is rubbish:}

1. You have examined it and found it to be lacking in proof, scientific expertise and honesty, and therefore wish to warn people not to trust it.

2. You have examined it and found it is exemplary research, it works, and it has vast potential to cure patients, but you don't want this to get out.

It seems to me that 2. is almost unbelievable. If you were a drug company why wouldn't you employ him, fund his trials, develop the drug and make money? If you were an independent research physician and you had devoted your life to trying to help cancer patients, why would you not say his treatment worked, to facilitate making it available to more people. Again, it seems to me that to choose to believe one man, and a flawed and suspicious one at that, instead of the weight of expert opinion is perverse, and lacking in common sense.

On this one, the Wiki says it all. Read it there. Here's just an extract:

In 1998, three prominent oncologists were enlisted by the weekly Washington newsletter The Cancer Letter to conduct independent reviews of Burzynski's clinical trial research on antineoplastons. They concluded that the studies were poorly designed, not interpretable, and "so flawed that it cannot be determined whether it really works". One of them characterized the research as "scientific nonsense".^[32]In addition to questioning Burzynski's research methods, the oncologists found significant and possibly life-threatening toxicity in some patients treated with antineoplastons.^[33]

Independent scientists have been unable to reproduce the positive results reported in Burzynski's studies: the National Cancer Institute has observed that researchers other than Burzynski and his associates have not been successful in duplicating his results,^[19] and Cancer Research UK states that "available scientific evidence does not support claims that antineoplaston therapy is effective in treating or preventing cancer."^[29]

.

[JetsetBkk]

^ I think you should watch all of it.

[laislica]

No I watched about 10 minutes of it. Perhaps it would help to say the "documentary" was not an objective look, but was made by his supporters. This information in the Wiki on the clinic is enough for me: ^{http://en.wikipedia....urzynski_Clinic}

The 2010 film, Burzynski, Cancer is Serious Business, directed, written, edited, and narrated by Eric Merola, an art director of television commercials, describes Burzynski's use of antineoplastons and his legal clashes with government agencies and regulators.^[58] The Village Voice commented that the movie "violates every basic rule of ethical filmmaking" and that by interviewing only Burzynski's supporters, the film's producer "is either unusually credulous, or doesn't understand the difference between a documentary and an advertisement".^[59]

^{Burzynski is also a very dodgy character -- he was recently the subject of Medical Board Examiner proceedings in Texas for failing to meet Texas state medical standards at his clinic. He got off on a technicality - that he himself could not be held responsible for what doctors in his employ did, (even though he told them to do it).}

^{But the whole point of this is : of course a man who proposes that he has discovered a new treatment and charges people huge amounts to receive it (Buryzinski's interest is very financial, he charges a lot) is going to say it works. That is how he is able to make money. The question you must ask is: does it really work?}

^{Common sense tells you that if someone is trying to sell you something he has a vested interest in telling you it is fantastic. So to check you go to independent outside assessors. And here is the point - the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence is against him. This does not mean that one person says he is wrong, and one person says he is right, but that a vast majority of leading cancer research experts say he is wrong, and his science is rubbish. Clearly, there are two possible reasons for saying someone's research is rubbish:}

1. You have examined it and found it to be lacking in proof, scientific expertise and honesty, and therefore wish to warn people not to trust it.

2. You have examined it and found it is exemplary research, it works, and it has vast potential to cure patients, but you don't want this to get out.

It seems to me that 2. is almost unbelievable. If you were a drug company why wouldn't you employ him, fund his trials, develop the drug and make money? If you were an independent research physician and you had devoted your life to trying to help cancer patients, why would you not say his treatment worked, to facilitate making it available to more people. Again, it seems to me that to choose to believe one man, and a flawed and suspicious one at that, instead of the weight of expert opinion is perverse, and lacking in common sense.

On this one, the Wiki says it all. Read it there. Here's just an extract:

In 1998, three prominent oncologists were enlisted by the weekly Washington newsletter The Cancer Letter to conduct independent reviews of Burzynski's clinical trial research on antineoplastons. They concluded that the studies were poorly designed, not interpretable, and "so flawed that it cannot be determined whether it really works". One of them characterized the research as "scientific nonsense".^[32]In addition to questioning Burzynski's research methods, the oncologists found significant and possibly life-threatening toxicity in some patients treated with antineoplastons.^[33]

Independent scientists have been unable to reproduce the positive results reported in Burzynski's studies: the National Cancer Institute has observed that researchers other than Burzynski and his associates have not been successful in duplicating his results,^[19] and Cancer Research UK states that "available scientific evidence does not support claims that antineoplaston therapy is effective in treating or preventing cancer."^[29]

.

If ever you bother to watch the whole thing, you will see that the other doctors, lawyers, scientists who were asked to appear refused.

But, hey, why bother with facts..... You seem to be satisfied with conjecture.

[laislica]

Well time for a little smoke, good for the lungs you know.

There is no evidence that there is a link to cancer.

Oh, let me select a few studies that support this hypothesis.....

[ravip]

How about MSG or Monosodium glutamate?

[partington]

Well time for a little smoke, good for the lungs you know.

There is no evidence that there is a link to cancer.

Oh, let me select a few studies that support this hypothesis.....

What do the vast majority of the studies on this relationship say? Not one or two selected ones, but the vast majority?

That's what I'm suggesting you take notice of, on this or any other topic. How many times do I have to say it? MOST studies suggest smoking and cancer are linked, therefore that is MOST LIKELY to be the truth.

[Tolley]

Interesting observations about alternative cures and orthodox western medicine.

I am a big believer in supplements, diets and exercise and the use of alternative medicine to help to stay healthy and avoid getting cancer or any other of the inumerable chronic condtions that plague the majority of people in todays society.

However once you have contracted cancer in many cases it is not possible to reverse it with any natural therapies as it is already too late. The trick is to try and avoid it in the first place.

The orthodox western medicine approach to treating cancer is of course very primitive and highly invasive but at the moment that is the only option that most people have. I feel sure that there must be better ways of treating cancer but unfortunately they may be many years away yet.

[GentlemanJim]

I dispair that someone claiming to have a PhD uses Wiki as a reference for material! That is as bad as it gets !

[GentlemanJim]

No I watched about 10 minutes of it. Perhaps it would help to say the "documentary" was not an objective look, but was made by his supporters. This information in the Wiki on the clinic is enough for me: ^{http://en.wikipedia....urzynski_Clinic}

The 2010 film, Burzynski, Cancer is Serious Business, directed, written, edited, and narrated by Eric Merola, an art director of television commercials, describes Burzynski's use of antineoplastons and his legal clashes with government agencies and regulators.^[58] The Village Voice commented that the movie "violates every basic rule of ethical filmmaking" and that by interviewing only Burzynski's supporters, the film's producer "is either unusually credulous, or doesn't understand the difference between a documentary and an advertisement".^[59]

<snip>

.

So you are quoting the village voice as the source of reason?

The Village Voice is a free weekly newspaper and news and features website in New York City that features investigative articles, analysis of current affairs and culture, arts and music coverage, and events listings for New York City. It is also distributed throughout the United States on a pay basis.

It was the first of the big-city tabloids that came to be known as alternative weeklies

you have to admit the irony that you call any alternative approach to medicine quackery yet you rely on 'alternative weeklies' for your info.

The Voice is also known for containing adult content, including sex-advice columns and many pages of advertising for "adult services." This content is located at the back of the newspaper.

Early in its history the newspaper had a reputation as having an anti-homosexual slant. When reporting on the Stonewall riots of 1969, the newspaper referred to the riots as "The Great Faggot Rebellion (you do recall Partington stating the Daily Mail supported Hitler in 1930 so it must be untrusted today!!)

The paper has experienced high turnover among its editorial leadership since 2005. Editor-in-chief Don Forst resigned in December 2005. Doug Simmons, his replacement, was fired in March 2006 after it was discovered that a reporter had fabricated portions of an article. Simmons' successor, Erik Wemple, resigned after two weeks. His replacement, David Blum, was fired in March 2007. As of April 2007, Tony Ortega, former editor of the Broward-Palm Beach New Times, is editor. In December 2008, The New York Times reported that the situation grew so strained that half of its entire staff was gone

Quality sourcing of info for trying to trash the provenance of the video Partington, and you had a go at Daily Mail readers...cor blimey !

[balo]

I would be interested in the statistics here, I do not belive that the cancer increase is among young people in Thailand. Maybe its just that people get older here now , if you¨re lucky to hit 80 then also there is great risk of cancer.

[laislica]

Well time for a little smoke, good for the lungs you know.

There is no evidence that there is a link to cancer.

Oh, let me select a few studies that support this hypothesis.....

What do the vast majority of the studies on this relationship say? Not one or two selected ones, but the vast majority?

That's what I'm suggesting you take notice of, on this or any other topic. How many times do I have to say it? MOST studies suggest smoking and cancer are linked, therefore that is MOST LIKELY to be the truth.

I beg your pardon - what are you saying?

[laislica]

To the moderators, a Sarcasm font has been requested

Please make one available

PARTINGTON still hasn't got it

[laislica]

No I watched about 10 minutes of it. Perhaps it would help to say the "documentary" was not an objective look, but was made by his supporters. This information in the Wiki on the clinic is enough for me: ^{http://en.wikipedia....urzynski_Clinic}

The 2010 film, Burzynski, Cancer is Serious Business, directed, written, edited, and narrated by Eric Merola, an art director of television commercials, describes Burzynski's use of antineoplastons and his legal clashes with government agencies and regulators.^[58] The Village Voice commented that the movie "violates every basic rule of ethical filmmaking" and that by interviewing only Burzynski's supporters, the film's producer "is either unusually credulous, or doesn't understand the difference between a documentary and an advertisement".^[59]

<snip>

.

So you are quoting the village voice as the source of reason?

The Village Voice is a free weekly newspaper and news and features website in New York City that features investigative articles, analysis of current affairs and culture, arts and music coverage, and events listings for New York City. It is also distributed throughout the United States on a pay basis.

It was the first of the big-city tabloids that came to be known as alternative weeklies

you have to admit the irony that you call any alternative approach to medicine quackery yet you rely on 'alternative weeklies' for your info.

The Voice is also known for containing adult content, including sex-advice columns and many pages of advertising for "adult services." This content is located at the back of the newspaper.

Early in its history the newspaper had a reputation as having an anti-homosexual slant. When reporting on the Stonewall riots of 1969, the newspaper referred to the riots as "The Great Faggot Rebellion (you do recall Partington stating the Daily Mail supported Hitler in 1930 so it must be untrusted today!!)

The paper has experienced high turnover among its editorial leadership since 2005. Editor-in-chief Don Forst resigned in December 2005. Doug Simmons, his replacement, was fired in March 2006 after it was discovered that a reporter had fabricated portions of an article. Simmons' successor, Erik Wemple, resigned after two weeks. His replacement, David Blum, was fired in March 2007. As of April 2007, Tony Ortega, former editor of the Broward-Palm Beach New Times, is editor. In December 2008, The New York Times reported that the situation grew so strained that half of its entire staff was gone

Quality sourcing of info for trying to trash the provenance of the video Partington, and you had a go at Daily Mail readers...cor blimey !

When I was a lad in the 50's we had a newspaper that cost a penny,

it was called Billy's Weekly Liar and was full of the most Amazing stories.

Perhaps Billy's Weekly Liar was taken over by the The Village Voice

[xylophone]

My word, some of the posts on here remind me that I should not get too involved with online forums because they can become very personal, which is a shame because there is much to be said for discussing things in a rational manner.

The suggestion that "partington still hasn't got it" and the fact that his knowledge on the subject and his qualifications are "held up to a certain amount of scepticism" are very poor examples of the posters understanding of what he is trying to say.

I'm not saying I can do it any better, however he is really saying that medical science/research today has in place a set of procedures, rules and regulations which are followed by companies in this field and they have served humanity well for decades. Sure there is the occasional slipup, however they are the exception rather than the rule.

All of the trials, tests and double-blind trials, in vitro and in vivo tests, comparisons, benchmarking, clinical trials in several phases are designed to ensure that there is some form of control around what drugs are available and which therefore make them safer for us to use.

That is the nub of the matter and this process has served us well and has been designed by some of the best minds in the world. This process stops or at least inhibits many of the wild claims that have become the norm for people seeking the "natural" cures. Remember the Amygdalin/Laetrile claims, including the patient's medical histories which showed they were cured, however which were later found to be "incorrect" and of course the fact that these treatments were extremely costly when in fact all that was being used was a apricot kernel extract. And there are many others out there which do not stand scrutiny.

And that is where I am leading, because if someone has discovered a cure/part cure for something as devastating as cancer then one way or another that cure would be pounced upon by the medical fraternity in an instant.

Behind all of the slurs and slants here, lies the fact that we have in place a set of standards and procedures which have to be followed by anyone wishing to bring a new drug to the market, and that is all partington is saying.

Finally, I watched the Burzynski movie through to the very end and was very taken with it and I have commented on the fact that there were some aspects which were not covered about his actual practice, i.e. the use of other powerful anti-cancer drugs in with his treatment, so that made me a little sceptical. Then I got to thinking about peer reviews, testing procedures and all of the standards that go with it and realised that everything was taking place in his establishment and that the movie really only did present one side of the argument, basically being one of self-promotion.

I don't suppose anyone's mind will be changed and there will always be people out there looking for the "alternative/natural" cure and that is probably a good thing because it keeps the industry on their toes, however always bear in mind that there are strict protocols, procedures, rules and regulations that stand behind drugs which are on the market and I would prefer to put my faith in them, because they have served humanity extremely well and they stand up to scientific research.

I was just about to end this when I thought of something else which seems to be prevalent in many arguments, and that is stating that big medicine does not want to find a cure for ailments where they cannot make much money from that cure. One example of this being wrong is the fact that aspirin which is so cheap to manufacture, been around for a century, and makes nobody almost any money whatsoever, is still being investigated and tested for a variety of ailments, and these tests cost money which will make nobody anything in the long run, however will benefit mankind. Nice to know that the medical fraternity is still finding ways that aspirin can help us – – helping to prevent colon cancer, decreasing the risk of Barrett's esophagus and so on.

Finally, healthy debate is great, questioning someone's experience or qualifications, in my view, is out of order and there is no need for any post to be personal and replied to "ad hominem". I once encountered this on another forum and stopped visiting that altogether, and I sincerely hope that partington doesn't adopt that viewpoint after what has been posted here.

[laislica]

My word, some of the posts on here remind me that I should not get too involved with online forums because they can become very personal, which is a shame because there is much to be said for discussing things in a rational manner.

The suggestion that "partington still hasn't got it" and the fact that his knowledge on the subject and his qualifications are "held up to a certain amount of scepticism" are very poor examples of the posters understanding of what he is trying to say.

I'm not saying I can do it any better, however he is really saying that medical science/research today has in place a set of procedures, rules and regulations which are followed by companies in this field and they have served humanity well for decades. Sure there is the occasional slipup, however they are the exception rather than the rule.

All of the trials, tests and double-blind trials, in vitro and in vivo tests, comparisons, benchmarking, clinical trials in several phases are designed to ensure that there is some form of control around what drugs are available and which therefore make them safer for us to use.

That is the nub of the matter and this process has served us well and has been designed by some of the best minds in the world. This process stops or at least inhibits many of the wild claims that have become the norm for people seeking the "natural" cures. Remember the Amygdalin/Laetrile claims, including the patient's medical histories which showed they were cured, however which were later found to be "incorrect" and of course the fact that these treatments were extremely costly when in fact all that was being used was a apricot kernel extract. And there are many others out there which do not stand scrutiny.

And that is where I am leading, because if someone has discovered a cure/part cure for something as devastating as cancer then one way or another that cure would be pounced upon by the medical fraternity in an instant.

Behind all of the slurs and slants here, lies the fact that we have in place a set of standards and procedures which have to be followed by anyone wishing to bring a new drug to the market, and that is all partington is saying.

Finally, I watched the Burzynski movie through to the very end and was very taken with it and I have commented on the fact that there were some aspects which were not covered about his actual practice, i.e. the use of other powerful anti-cancer drugs in with his treatment, so that made me a little sceptical. Then I got to thinking about peer reviews, testing procedures and all of the standards that go with it and realised that everything was taking place in his establishment and that the movie really only did present one side of the argument, basically being one of self-promotion.

I don't suppose anyone's mind will be changed and there will always be people out there looking for the "alternative/natural" cure and that is probably a good thing because it keeps the industry on their toes, however always bear in mind that there are strict protocols, procedures, rules and regulations that stand behind drugs which are on the market and I would prefer to put my faith in them, because they have served humanity extremely well and they stand up to scientific research.

I was just about to end this when I thought of something else which seems to be prevalent in many arguments, and that is stating that big medicine does not want to find a cure for ailments where they cannot make much money from that cure. One example of this being wrong is the fact that aspirin which is so cheap to manufacture, been around for a century, and makes nobody almost any money whatsoever, is still being investigated and tested for a variety of ailments, and these tests cost money which will make nobody anything in the long run, however will benefit mankind. Nice to know that the medical fraternity is still finding ways that aspirin can help us – – helping to prevent colon cancer, decreasing the risk of Barrett's esophagus and so on.

Finally, healthy debate is great, questioning someone's experience or qualifications, in my view, is out of order and there is no need for any post to be personal and replied to "ad hominem". I once encountered this on another forum and stopped visiting that altogether, and I sincerely hope that partington doesn't adopt that viewpoint after what has been posted here.

I take my hat off to you XYLOPHONE, what a well balanced post.

Thank you, you make many valid points and I have no defence, I was responding to PARTINGTON with childish behaviour, sarcasm and personal slurs.

Your post makes it sound so nice and easy and that all professionals always act in a professional manner, well except for the odd accident, and you are welcome to that belief and I will support your belief.

However, I do not agree with you, my belief says that the big boys are not interested in our health, they are interested in making money, they just happen to be in the health industry.

What I will not do is to try to rubbish your ideas and tell you how wrong you may be and do my best to insist that my view is the only correct and valid one.

I will not tell you my qualifications or experience in order to force you to submit to my obvious greater knowledge. PARTINGTON is entitled to his view and I would have supported it until he asserted all the above. It would be at about this time that I would try to take things down to the playground level - i.e. not serious and just a joke......

I have posted about the Nobo/Placebo effect amongst other serious points I offered but it is up to the reader to make their own judgement to do further research etc. I have posted that I have learned something from PARTINGTON's posts because it makes me check further into the topic.

I accept that what may work for one person may not work for another.

However, belief in something is, in my opinion, a very powerful force.

If you were to believe that What?

Say drinking a gallon of green tea every day for 6 weeks whilst facing north and meditating with a mantra "The cancer is gone", if this was your belief, then I suspect that your cancer would be gone and good for you.

If you subsequently tell the world about this experience great, it may inspire and or help someone else and good for all concerned.

What I would not like to see would be "an expert" telling the world how wrong this idea is.

Why would someone want to do that?

I had a sister who was diagnosed with cancer, she asked how long would she have before she died if she had no treatment and was told - about two years. She said "that's good enough for me", and two years later died.

Hers is a long story which I will not tell here, but I believe that she wanted to die before the cancer and that the cancer only came along to fulfil her desires.

The mind is very powerful and probably the best tool we have to avoid cancer etc..

Thank you again for your post.

[GentlemanJim]

My word, some of the posts on here remind me that I should not get too involved with online forums because they can become very personal, which is a shame because there is much to be said for discussing things in a rational manner.

The suggestion that "partington still hasn't got it" and the fact that his knowledge on the subject and his qualifications are "held up to a certain amount of scepticism" are very poor examples of the posters understanding of what he is trying to say.

I'm not saying I can do it any better, however he is really saying that medical science/research today has in place a set of procedures, rules and regulations which are followed by companies in this field and they have served humanity well for decades. Sure there is the occasional slipup, however they are the exception rather than the rule.

All of the trials, tests and double-blind trials, in vitro and in vivo tests, comparisons, benchmarking, clinical trials in several phases are designed to ensure that there is some form of control around what drugs are available and which therefore make them safer for us to use.

That is the nub of the matter and this process has served us well and has been designed by some of the best minds in the world. This process stops or at least inhibits many of the wild claims that have become the norm for people seeking the "natural" cures. Remember the Amygdalin/Laetrile claims, including the patient's medical histories which showed they were cured, however which were later found to be "incorrect" and of course the fact that these treatments were extremely costly when in fact all that was being used was a apricot kernel extract. And there are many others out there which do not stand scrutiny.

And that is where I am leading, because if someone has discovered a cure/part cure for something as devastating as cancer then one way or another that cure would be pounced upon by the medical fraternity in an instant.

Behind all of the slurs and slants here, lies the fact that we have in place a set of standards and procedures which have to be followed by anyone wishing to bring a new drug to the market, and that is all partington is saying.

Finally, I watched the Burzynski movie through to the very end and was very taken with it and I have commented on the fact that there were some aspects which were not covered about his actual practice, i.e. the use of other powerful anti-cancer drugs in with his treatment, so that made me a little sceptical. Then I got to thinking about peer reviews, testing procedures and all of the standards that go with it and realised that everything was taking place in his establishment and that the movie really only did present one side of the argument, basically being one of self-promotion.

I don't suppose anyone's mind will be changed and there will always be people out there looking for the "alternative/natural" cure and that is probably a good thing because it keeps the industry on their toes, however always bear in mind that there are strict protocols, procedures, rules and regulations that stand behind drugs which are on the market and I would prefer to put my faith in them, because they have served humanity extremely well and they stand up to scientific research.

I was just about to end this when I thought of something else which seems to be prevalent in many arguments, and that is stating that big medicine does not want to find a cure for ailments where they cannot make much money from that cure. One example of this being wrong is the fact that aspirin which is so cheap to manufacture, been around for a century, and makes nobody almost any money whatsoever, is still being investigated and tested for a variety of ailments, and these tests cost money which will make nobody anything in the long run, however will benefit mankind. Nice to know that the medical fraternity is still finding ways that aspirin can help us – – helping to prevent colon cancer, decreasing the risk of Barrett's esophagus and so on.

Finally, healthy debate is great, questioning someone's experience or qualifications, in my view, is out of order and there is no need for any post to be personal and replied to "ad hominem". I once encountered this on another forum and stopped visiting that altogether, and I sincerely hope that partington doesn't adopt that viewpoint after what has been posted here.

I think if you will review the posts and the Threads, there was indeed a great deal of healthy debate until Partington waded in with a rude, ill constructed post which was indeed full of personal attacks. HE laid his own standard of communication in this respect.

The suggestion that "partington still hasn't got it" and the fact that his knowledge on the subject and his qualifications are "held up to a certain amount of scepticism" are very poor examples of the posters understanding of what he is trying to say.

Or more an example that when you join public forums then you may also need to consider an element of humour brought in as a result of various comments....re-read the thread.

You give an eloquent summary of what YOU believe Partington is trying to say, but I see it slightly differently. Partington has taken an unnecessarily rude and aggressive stance towards those wishing to discuss any form of alternative for of treatment for cancer. The forum members engaged in that part of the debate in no way said that any alternative 'cure' should substitute for the avoidance or cancellation of a normal regime of treatment from mainline medicine - lets be clear on that! So just who is trying to stifle debate? The people raising those issues or the one entering on his first post on the thread with aggression and rudeness? His approach has simply been to belittle and antagonize well meaning people, and he does this in EXACTLY the same way the the well know Big Pharma lobbyist Stephen Barrett has been doing for years and years, and frankly the way that Partington shrugs off the opinion of some medical professionals who are expert in their own field, in favour of the opinion of a retired Psychiatrist is simply wrong! Quackwatch is nothing short of a bullying, nasty, website with a clear agenda and it never presents its opinion or its defamatory remarks in line with the high standard of research that you so rightly believe to be the way ahead. Added to the fact that a PhD is quoting wiki and further supports the ridiculing of the video, WITHOUT watching it, because a cheap rag mag full of sex adverts and adult toy adverts said it to be so is mind boggling.

Thank YOU for your opinion, but in terms of who is making inappropriate remarks on here, you missed the mark by a long shot with the balancing.

[xylophone]

Thank you laislica and GentlemanJim for your posts and for your support in one form or another, and I think this will be my last post on this thread anyway.

In order to refresh my memory I have gone back over all of the posts and did find some anomalies in what has been supposedly written about who has been the most "aggressive", for want of better terminology, I may add. For example, way before partington became involved in the thread GentlemanJim waded into two other posters with the following comments: –

1). "Giving you the benefit of the doubt for your normal jocular and witty nature, if you are uninterested or think its crap then try commenting on the biology and the science instead of saying you are speechless. I did not spend 10 mins wasting my time trying to feed you crap (scuse the pun), take it or leave it, I have first hand experience as do others. Your choice, as are the things you do that effect your health both positively or negatively".

2). "Read your sentence again, you have given 3 reasons for cancer and concluded them with a summation. You do this with your political arguments, despite being blatantly wrong or mistaken, instead of having the kuhoona's to put your hand up and say 'oop's sorry guy's, mistake there', you try and pass the buck on to everyone else, despite the mistake being in writing under your nose! Unbelievable".

If you read those again you will see who has set the scene for the "unnecessary and aggressive stance.......". So the scene has already been set before partington entered it, and to be fair and offer a balanced approach, I believe his approach was also on the same level, however it did not set a new low benchmark, that was already in place from the posts above.

And partington was actually challenged about his understanding/qualifications in the following post by GentlemanJim: –

"I wonder where PARTINGTON gets his funding from or is he such a misguided person that he blindly believes and follows the BS that is fed to him without using his own brain?

It could be that because one of the primary functions of Fluoride in a human body is to change the configuration of the synapses in a way that dumb the person down and makes them more compliant....."

So I think there is an onus of responsibility on all of us to put our hands up and say that some of the challenges have been unnecessary and aggressive.

I suppose that if I was a medical professional, then I would quite probably take exception to wild and wonderful new "cures" quoting science that is marginal at best, when they don't pass any sort of tests, research, trials etc etc. On the other hand I like the approach of my current doctor in New Zealand who is also a surgeon, and if I approach him with the suggestion of a natural cure for whatever ails me, then he will look at it, do some research on it and provided it does not interfere with any of my other medications, encourages me to have a go. One superb example was D-Limonene to assist with my gastric reflux and he encouraged me to try it, and when it worked fantastically well he took a note of it and suggested that he might try it on himself to see how it worked.

To balance that, he is still part of the medical profession and follows their ethics and codes of practice and whenever I suggest that one thing might be better than another, he goes back to the tried and tested, with comments such as, "well this is the gold standard for that particular problem, and that has been established over many years and many trials and it is still proven to be the best out there, so I suggest you follow that".

In conclusion, I like his approach and I still think there is room for that in his profession, however quite where one draws the line at miracle cures etc is hard to define, and one other posting here hit the nail on the head by saying that there are people dying because they are trying natural cures, when they would have probably had a better chance sticking by the "gold standard".

If in the end it comes down to a choice of tried and tested methods, researched thoroughly, proven in clinical trials and also to rate as a "gold standard" then count me in. I would have this any time over other unresearched, dodgy science, unproven, untested other cures, grape juice and apricot kernels et al.

I have been a bit wordy, however too much time on my hands I'm afraid. In my opinion, I think several of the posters have been guilty of an aggressive stance, probably more aggressive than I like to see on forums. So I don't believe I missed the mark by a long shot as regards the making of appropriate remarks, more to the point I think I am spot on.

Edited February 9, 2013 by xylophone

[GentlemanJim]

And partington was actually challenged about his understanding/qualifications in the following post by GentlemanJim: –

"I wonder where PARTINGTON gets his funding from or is he such a misguided person that he blindly believes and follows the BS that is fed to him without using his own brain?

It could be that because one of the primary functions of Fluoride in a human body is to change the configuration of the synapses in a way that dumb the person down and makes them more compliant....."

So I think there is an onus of responsibility on all of us to put our hands up and say that some of the challenges have been unnecessary and aggressive.

And that post was mine Xylophone? Are you really sure about that?? If so please kindly direct me to the post number. It seems once a perceived prejudice is embedded then it can alter all things. Not quite spot on now are we! Thank you.

Edited February 9, 2013 by GentlemanJim