Fascinating documentary exposes cancer industry's death agenda: Cut Poison Burn

[baja]

Fascinating documentary exposes cancer industry's death agenda: Cut Poison Burn

Monday, May 21, 2012 by: Ethan A. Huff, staff writer



(NaturalNews) As free as many Americans might think they are, there are certain glaring aspects of American life for which individuals are not free to make their own choices, and cancer treatment is one of them. In the sobering documentary Cut Poison Burn, filmmaker Wayne Chesler brings to light the sinister nature of the multi-billion dollar cancer industry, its suppression of any real pursuit of a cure, and its stranglehold on medicine that restricts individuals from choosing their own personalized, alternative forms of treatment.

The documentary follows the journey of the Navarro family, whose young son Thomas, then four years old, was diagnosed with medulloblastoma, a highly-malignant form of brain cancer that typically afflicts children. Rather than undergo conventional chemotherapy and radiation, the Navarros instead wanted to pursue an alternative route, which in their case was Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski's non-toxic antineoplaston treatment, which has been shown to be particularly effective at treating brain cancers.

But unless a child is of a proper age to make his own medical treatment decisions, which Thomas clearly was not, then he is required by the medical mafia to undergo the prescribed treatment regimen, which in Thomas' case was chemotherapy and radiation. Even though these forms of treatment are virtually useless at treating medulloblastoma, the state threatened Thomas' parents that if they did not subject him to these barbaric poisons, they would remove him from their custody.

After a long, drawn-out legal battle with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the ringleader of the phony cancer industry, and thousands of dollars in legal expenses, the Navarros were finally permitted to have their son see Dr. Burzynski. But by this point, Thomas had already had his life destroyed by many months of chemotherapy and radiation, which led to his death at the young age of six.

Cancer is big business for drug companies and the federal government

Thomas is not the only victim of the cancer industry, of course -- millions of Americans, including many children, have died on the altar of Big Pharma's cancer machine, and many more will follow unless the People wake up and take their freedoms back. And in order to wake people up to the truth, they need to hear and see the truth as it is plainly laid out in films like Cut Poison Burn.

Be sure to watch the official trailer for Cut Poison Burn at the following link, where you can also purchase a DVD or downloadable copy of the film:
http://cutpoisonburn.com/

Also, be sure to check out the related documentaries Burzynski The Movie and Dying to Have Known, both of which can be viewed for FREE:
http://www.burzynskimovie.com
http://www.snagfilms.com/films/title/dying_to_have_known


Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/035926_cancer_industry_poison_documentary.html#ixz z1vcwvS4pb

[snowspot66]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antineoplaston

Antineoplaston (ANP), a word derived from neoplasm,[1] is a name coined by Stanislaw Burzynski for a group of peptides, derivatives, and mixtures that he uses as an alternative cancer treatment.[2] These compounds are not licensed as drugs but are instead sold and administered by Burzynski as part of clinical trials that he runs at his own establishments, the Burzynski Clinic and the Burzynski Research Institute in Houston, Texas.[3][4][5] Although Burzynski and his associates claim success in the use of antineoplaston combinations for the treatment of various diseases, there is no evidence of clinical efficacy of these methods. Oncologists have described these studies as flawed, with one doctor stating that they are "scientific nonsense".[6] In particular, independent scientists have been unable to reproduce the positive results reported in Burzynski's studies.[7]

There is no convincing evidence from any randomized controlled trial that antineoplastons are useful treatments of cancer. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not approved antineoplastons for the treatment of any disease.[3] The American Cancer Society has found no evidence that antineoplastons have any beneficial effects in cancer, and it has recommended that people do not spend money on antineoplaston treatments.[8] A 2004 medical review described this treatment as a "disproven therapy".[9]

[baja]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antineoplaston

I just can't for the life of me figure out why they wouldn't just come out as say, "Ya, we're scamming ya all".



Looks like a, are you ready for it, Wikipedia article was enough to prove it to Yellow spot in the snow.


Ya I read it on Wikipedia and that's all the proof I need.....

[barryr]

Cancer treatments generate more revenue than cancer cures, so not hard to see how that would be put ahead of people's lives. Only a silly fool would buy all the FDA peddles.

[Fedaykin]

I just can't for the life of me figure out why they wouldn't just come out as say, "Ya, we're scamming ya all".



Looks like a, are you ready for it, Wikipedia article was enough to prove it to Yellow spot in the snow.


Ya I read it on Wikipedia and that's all the proof I need.....

That's a pretty hilarious criticism coming from someone who cites "Natural News" and other crank websites.

[IHaveALight]

Antineoplaston (ANP), a word derived from neoplasm,[1] is a name coined by Stanislaw Burzynski for a group of peptides, derivatives, and mixtures that he uses as an alternative cancer treatment.[2] These compounds are not licensed as drugs but are instead sold and administered by Burzynski as part of clinical trials that he runs at his own establishments, the Burzynski Clinic and the Burzynski Research Institute in Houston, Texas.[3][4][5] Although Burzynski and his associates claim success in the use of antineoplaston combinations for the treatment of various diseases, there is no evidence of clinical efficacy of these methods. Oncologists have described these studies as flawed, with one doctor stating that they are "scientific nonsense".[6] In particular, independent scientists have been unable to reproduce the positive results reported in Burzynski's studies.[7]

There is no convincing evidence from any randomized controlled trial that antineoplastons are useful treatments of cancer. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not approved antineoplastons for the treatment of any disease.[3] The American Cancer Society has found no evidence that antineoplastons have any beneficial effects in cancer, and it has recommended that people do not spend money on antineoplaston treatments.[8] A 2004 medical review described this treatment as a "disproven therapy".[9]

Even if this were true. What's the problem with giving parents the choice to let their child die on chemo or let him die under supervision of Burzynski?

At the very least, do your self a favor and watch the first 3 and a half minutes of this.

<iframe src="http://player.vimeo.com/video/24821365" width="500" height="281" frameborder="0" webkitAllowFullScreen mozallowfullscreen allowFullScreen></iframe>

[snowspot66]

I just can't for the life of me figure out why they wouldn't just come out as say, "Ya, we're scamming ya all".



Looks like a, are you ready for it, Wikipedia article was enough to prove it to Yellow spot in the snow.


Ya I read it on Wikipedia and that's all the proof I need.....

If it was really that great then there would be doctors able to independently verify it. Contrary to what you might believe the vast majority of doctors want their patients to get better and don't like drug companies any more than the rest of us.

In 2009, the FDA issued a warning letter to the Burzynski Research Institute, stating that an investigation had determined the Burzynski Institutional Review Board (IRB) "did not adhere to the applicable statutory requirements and FDA regulations governing the protection of human subjects." It identified a number of specific findings, among them that the IRB had approved research without ensuring risk to patients was minimized, had failed to prepare required written procedures or retain required documentation, and had failed to conduct required continuing reviews for studies, among others. The Institute was given fifteen days to identify the steps it would take to prevent future violations.[20]

In December 2010, the Texas State Board of Medical Examiners filed a multi-count complaint against Burzynski for failure to meet state medical standards.[10]

In January 2012, Lola Quinlan, an elderly, stage IV cancer patient, sued Dr Burzynski for using false and misleading tactics to swindle her out of $100,000. She also sued his companies, The Burzynski Clinic, the Burzynski Research Institute and Southern Family Pharmacy, in Harris County Court. She sued for negligence, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, deceptive trade and conspiracy.

The FDA has a lot of issues but the only scam here is this "doctor" stealing from seriously ill and desperate people.

By the way I left the notations in on purpose so you could read the original cited sources since you snub your nose at Wikipedia.

[snowspot66]

Even if this were true. What's the problem with giving parents the choice to let their child die on chemo or let him die under supervision of Burzynski?

At the very least, do your self a favor and watch the first 3 and a half minutes of this.

<iframe src="http://player.vimeo.com/video/24821365" width="500" height="281" frameborder="0" webkitAllowFullScreen mozallowfullscreen allowFullScreen></iframe>

If they try the conventional treatments and they fail then I'm all for any alternatives. The problem comes when people immediately go to the alternatives. In this case neither option would have likely saved the child but there are MANY parents so distrusting of modern medicine they will jump at any alternative even when there are scientifically proven and reliable treatments available to them and their children. The law has to step in and protect the patient first. Especially when they are unable to decide for themselves.

[Fedaykin]

If they try the conventional treatments and they fail then I'm all for any alternatives. The problem comes when people immediately go to the alternatives. In this case neither option would have likely saved the child but there are MANY parents so distrusting of modern medicine they will jump at any alternative even when there are scientifically proven and reliable treatments available to them and their children. The law has to step in and protect the patient first. Especially when they are unable to decide for themselves.

QFT

[IHaveALight]

If they try the conventional treatments and they fail then I'm all for any alternatives. The problem comes when people immediately go to the alternatives. In this case neither option would have likely saved the child but there are MANY parents so distrusting of modern medicine they will jump at any alternative even when there are scientifically proven and reliable treatments available to them and their children. The law has to step in and protect the patient first. Especially when they are unable to decide for themselves.
Sgt Schiff and his testimony under oath disagree's with you and says that Burzynski cured his child's cancer while the chemo radiation still killed her.

[Fedaykin]

Sgt Schiff and his testimony under oath disagree's with you and says that Burzynski cured his child's cancer while the chemo radiation still killed her.

Testimony? Whoop de ****ing do. Where's the scientific evidence?

[IHaveALight]

An investigation by the Department of Radiation Oncology, Northern Sydney Cancer Centre, Australia, into the contribution of chemotherapy to 5-year survival in 22 major adult malignancies, showed startling results: The overall contribution of curative and adjuvant cytotoxic chemotherapy to 5-year survival in adults was estimated to be 2.3% in Australia and 2.1% in the USA.

Alternative healing has much greater success rates. And even no treatment at all has better success rates than chemo.

[baja]

If it was really that great then there would be doctors able to independently verify it. Contrary to what you might believe the vast majority of doctors want their patients to get better and don't like drug companies any more than the rest of us.



The FDA has a lot of issues but the only scam here is this "doctor" stealing from seriously ill and desperate people.

By the way I left the notations in on purpose so you could read the original cited sources since you snub your nose at Wikipedia.

I understand most doctors are not bad people and I'm sure they want to be helpful. I am also sure they get ground down witnessing patient after patient wither away and die. They are good people being numbed by the effects of backing the wrong horse and thinking they have no way out.

Truth is there is always a way out.

[IHaveALight]

Testimony? Whoop de ****ing do. Where's the scientific evidence?

The scientific evidence only goes as far as money will take it. Their are many people telling there stories of curing their own cancer with alternative methods.

There is evidence all around us. Open your eyes. Look for people who have done it and ask them.

[snowspot66]

Sgt Schiff and his testimony under oath disagree's with you and says that Burzynski cured his child's cancer while the chemo radiation still killed her.

Doctors don't blindly shoot radiation into people. They would have run tests to see where the tumor was at and how large it was. If she was cured then there would have been no sign of the tumor and they never would have treated her for it.

A few minutes more reading lead me to this.

http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2011/11/the-burzynski-clinic-threatens-my-family.html

The Burzynski Clinic is at best described as ‘controversial’. There are many warning signs given out by the clinic that are typical of cancer quackery, and so great caution is required.

Let me list some of my concerns,

Burzynski is a ‘lone genius’. Great scientific medical cures rarely stem from single individuals. They are the result of collaboration and teams. Such breakthroughs need to be assessed by peers to ensure that the researcher is not mistaken or overstating their case.

Burzynski is claiming he has found the ‘cause of cancer’ and his antineoplaston therapy is its cure. Cancer is a name given to many different diseases. There is not a single cause and treatments need to be targeted as specific forms. It is a common quack claim that they have found the ‘single cause’ and they have a ‘unique cure’.

The ‘cure’ – Antineoplastons – which were extracted from urine (yes – its the piss treatment) – has no good independent peer-reviewed RCT evidence suggesting it is effective.

Consequently, the treatment is not approved by US regulators. However, it is approved if treatment is part of a trial.

The Burzynski clinic charges hundreds of thousands of dollars for people to enrol themselves in a trial.

These trials of this ‘new and pioneering treatment’ have been going on for decades – since 1977. No end appears to be in sight.

The website Quackwatch has raised concerns about the origin of Burzynski’s claimed PhD.

So, there are many reasons to question this treatment and to wonder if it is anything more than the misguided obsession of lone doctor who might best be describes as a maverick.

People hate to hear this but it's true. Modern medicine is not about curing disease. It's about treating disease and managing the patient's care as best as is possible. Curing a disease is damn near impossible. That's why we've only ever eradicated two in the history of modern medicine and one of those occurred in livestock not humans.

[Fedaykin]

An investigation by the Department of Radiation Oncology, Northern Sydney Cancer Centre, Australia, into the contribution of chemotherapy to 5-year survival in 22 major adult malignancies, showed startling results: The overall contribution of curative and adjuvant cytotoxic chemotherapy to 5-year survival in adults was estimated to be 2.3% in Australia and 2.1% in the USA.

Alternative healing has much greater success rates. And even no treatment at all has better success rates than chemo.

Bull**** ****ing lies:

"My favorite example of the use of the next study beloved of anti-chemotherapy cranks is by Andreas Moritz, who describes himself as “a medical intuitive; a practitioner of Ayurveda, iridology, shiatsu, and vibrational medicine; a writer; and an artist.” The article is entitled Can you trust chemotherapy to cure your cancer? and in it Moritz cites a study from Australia published in 2004:

An investigation by the Department of Radiation Oncology, Northern Sydney Cancer Centre, Australia, into the contribution of chemotherapy to 5-year survival in 22 major adult malignancies, showed startling results: The overall contribution of curative and adjuvant cytotoxic chemotherapy to 5-year survival in adults was estimated to be 2.3% in Australia and 2.1% in the USA.” [Royal North Shore Hospital Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 2005 Jun;17(4):294.]

The research covered data from the Cancer Registry in Australia and the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results in the USA for the year 1998. The current 5-year relative adult survival rate for cancer in Australia is over 60%, and no less than that in the USA. By comparison, a mere 2.3% contribution of chemotherapy to cancer survival does not justify the massive expense involved and the tremendous suffering patients experience because of severe, toxic side effects resulting from this treatment. With a meager success rate of 2.3%, selling chemotherapy as a medical treatment (instead of a scam), is one of the greatest fraudulent acts ever committed. The average chemotherapy earns the medical establishment a whopping $300,000 to $1,000,000 each year, and has so far earned those who promote this pseudo-medication (poison) over 1 trillion dollars. It’s no surprise that the medical establishment tries to keep this scam alive for as long as possible.

Here is the study to which Moritz refers and which is the origin of the claim that “chemotherapy only provides 2% benefit,” a favorite talking point used by cancer quacks. I’ve seen it on websites ranging from Moritz’s website to NaturalNews.com, to Mercola.com, to Whale.to (my favorite), to I forget how many others. Always it’s the same thing, a variant of a statement claiming that chemotherapy only contributes 2% to five year survival in adult malignancies, followed by conspiracy-mongering of the sort above in which chemotherapy is portrayed as a huge scam designed to enrich big pharma. Indeed, so common is this particular favorite that I proclaim it “The 2% Gambit.” It turns out that this is not such an impressive study. Indeed, it appears almost intentionally designed to have left out the very types of cancers for which chemotherapy provides the most benefit, and it uses 5 year survival exclusively, completely neglecting that in some common cancers (such as breast cancer) chemotherapy can prevent late relapses. There were also a lot of inconsistencies and omissions in that leukemias were not included, while leukemia is one type of cancer against which chemotherapy is most efficacious. Indeed, the very technique of lumping all newly diagnosed adult cancers together is guaranteed to obscure benefits of chemotherapy among subgroups by lumping in patients for whom chemotherapy is not even indicated. A letter to the editor listed these problems and several really egregious errors and omissions, too:

The authors omitted leukaemias, which they curiously justify in part by citing the fact that it is usually treated by clinical haematologists rather than medical oncologists. They also wrongly state that only intermediate and high-grade non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma of large-B cell type can be cured with chemotherapy, and ignore T-cell lymphomas and the highly curable Burkitt’s lymphoma. They neglect to mention the significant survival benefit achievable with high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem-cell transplantation to treat newly-diagnosed multiple myeloma [4]. In ovarian cancer, they quote a survival benefit from chemotherapy of 11% at 5 years, based on a single randomised-controlled trial (RCT), in which chemotherapy was given in both arms [5]; however, subsequent trials have reported higher 5-year survival rates. In cancers such as myeloma and ovarian cancer, in which chemotherapy has been used long before our current era of well-designed RCTs, the lack of RCT comparing chemotherapy to best supportive care should not be misconstrued to dismiss or minimise any survival benefit. In head and neck cancer, the authors erroneously claim the benefit from chemotherapy given concomitantly with radiotherapy in a meta-analysis to be 4%, when 8% was in fact reported [6].

The authors do not address the important benefits from chemotherapy to treat advanced cancer. Many patients with cancers such as lung and colon present or relapse with advanced incurable disease. For these conditions, chemotherapy significantly improves median survival rates, and may also improve quality of life by reducing symptoms and complications of cancer.

Of course, those using this particular gambit almost invariably never include the criticism of this particular article. Another aspect of this particular study that always bothered me is that it appeared to lump patients undergoing adjuvant chemotherapy in with those undergoing chemotherapy for cure or palliation. Adjuvant chemotherapy is given after surgery in order to decrease the rate of recurrence, but the truly curative modality is the surgery itself. In early stage cancer, the absolute benefit of chemotherapy in terms of prolonging survival tends to be modest, often single digit percentages. Lumping adjuvant therapy in with other uses of chemotherapy again appears custom-designed to minimize the survival benefit due to chemotherapy observed."

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/chemotherapy-doesnt-work/

[IHaveALight]

Testimony? Whoop de ****ing do. Where's the scientific evidence?

I'm also amused that you dismiss that fact that this mans child was the only case of which this particular cancer had been cured. And some how throw out that this can in fact be used as scientific evidence.

[Fedaykin]

The scientific evidence only goes as far as money will take it. Their are many people telling there stories of curing their own cancer with alternative methods.

There is evidence all around us. Open your eyes. Look for people who have done it and ask them.

Anecdotes are not evidence.

[baja]

Doctors don't blindly shoot radiation into people. They would have run tests to see where the tumor was at and how large it was. If she was cured then there would have been no sign of the tumor and they never would have treated her for it.

A few minutes more reading lead me to this.

http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2011/11/the-burzynski-clinic-threatens-my-family.html



People hate to hear this but it's true. Modern medicine is not about curing disease. It's about treating disease and managing the patient's care as best as is possible. Curing a disease is damn near impossible. That's why we've only ever eradicated two in the history of modern medicine and one of those occurred in livestock not humans.

You have solved your own riddle. Modern medicine treats symptoms.

The human body given the right ingredients cures it self.

Disease is just that "dis ease"

Cut your finger see what happens, the body heals it self.

Nutrition has cured more cancer than chimo

What's sad is the vast amount of success stories out there curing cancer using a myriad of alternative methods. Many having a better to much better success rate than many of the traditional treatments.

But what this thread is about is not cancer cures but about a parents right to seek the treatment they feel gives their child the best chance of survival.

"I have a Light" thought the way you did but he bothered to do the research and now sings another tune.

[IHaveALight]

"To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning"

Very easy to do this with what happened in that case. This case is very much scientific. You may call the story in itself an anecdote, but what actually transpired is scientific.
Also this child had cancer, they treated her with chemo, sent her home to die, then Burzynski cured her cancer and then she died from the chemo that was done to her before she was even cured.

[Fedaykin]

You have solved your own riddle. Modern medicine treats symptoms.

The human body given the right ingredients cures it self.

Disease is just that "dis ease"

Cut your finger see what happens, the body heals it self.

Nutrition has cured more cancer than chimo

What's sad is the vast amount of success stories out there curing cancer using a myriad of alternative methods. Many having a better to much better success rate than many of the traditional treatments.

But what this thread is about is not cancer cures but about a parents right to seek the treatment they feel gives their child the best chance of survival.

"I have a Light" thought the way you did but he bothered to do the research and now sings another tune.

As usual, a plethora of grandiose claims, and exactly zero support.

[Fedaykin]

"To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning"

Very easy to do this with what happened in that case. This case is very much scientific. You may call the story in itself an anecdote, but what actually transpired is scientific.
Also this child had cancer, they treated her with chemo, sent her home to die and then Burzynski cured her cancer, and then she died from the chemo that was done to her before she was even cured.

All it is is a story. Nothing to back up the claims. Effectiveness of a treatment is impossible to determine with one data point.

If his treatment is effective, why have his results never been demonstrated by independent researchers, or even through his own work?

[baja]

As usual, a plethora of grandiose claims, and exactly zero support.

Please point out one grandiose claim.

[Fedaykin]

Please point out one grandiose claim.

"What's sad is the vast amount of success stories out there curing cancer using a myriad of alternative methods."

[baja]

As usual, a plethora of grandiose claims, and exactly zero support.

It's not so much that you are closed minded it's that you think you have a complete answer.

Where is your curiosity?

[Fedaykin]

It's not so much that you are closed minded it's that you think you have a complete answer.

Where is your curiosity?

Nice ad-hominem attack. Care to try again with some integrity?

[baja]

"What's sad is the vast amount of success stories out there curing cancer using a myriad of alternative methods."

Spend 60 minutes researching cured cancers and you will see my claim is accurate. Just one hour.

[IHaveALight]

As usual, a plethora of grandiose claims, and exactly zero support.

There is exactly zero support, when you're coming from a tunnel vision perspective that automatically dismisses anything to the contrary. (Such as you my friend)

However time and time again their have been many individuals who have quit poising their body's and allowed their body's to heal them selves. Not just with cancer but many other diseases as well. But that's not possible, because we don't have the science to prove it!! haha you crack me up man.

[Fedaykin]

If you want to learn about Burzynski from a real doctor:

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/stanislaw-burzynski-bad-medicine-a-bad-movie/

[baja]

Nice ad-hominem attack. Care to try again with some integrity?

How can we talk about this when you already know all the answers?

I know every statement I made in the post that is supposedly grandiose is easily provable with a minimal search effort that you refuse to make. I have provided thousands of links over the years (granted some better than others), enough to prove my statements in that one post you question.

[Fedaykin]

Spend 60 minutes researching cured cancers and you will see my claim is accurate. Just one hour.

I'm lazy. Point me to a high quality study that demonstrates the efficacy of these "treatments". Not a collection of anecdotes.

I've read a lot about cancer "cures". For example, I read up on "Vitamin C" (something you claim is a miracle cure) a while back. Total bunk.

[Fedaykin]

How can we talk about this when you already know all the answers?

I know every statement I made in the post that is supposedly grandiose is easily provable with a minimal search effort that you refuse to make. I have provided thousands of links over the years (granted some better than others), enough to prove my statements in that one post you question.

I've never seen you post a link to legitimate information. It's always from crank sites. Where's the peer reviewed research?

[Fedaykin]

There is exactly zero support, when you're coming from a tunnel vision perspective that automatically dismisses anything to the contrary. (Such as you my friend)

However time and time again their have been many individuals who have quit poising their body's and allowed their body's to heal them selves. Not just with cancer but many other diseases as well. But that's not possible, because we don't have the science to prove it!! haha you crack me up man.

If something is effective, the evidence should be easy to demonstrate.

Dismissing something that is unable to produce any evidence is the correct action to take.

(that does not imply you should stop people from trying to find evidence)

[baja]

I've never seen you post a link to legitimate information. It's always from crank sites. Where's the peer reviewed research?

How about reviewing the people that were cured. They are out there by the 10,000s of thousands.

[Fedaykin]

How can we talk about this when you already know all the answers?

I know every statement I made in the post that is supposedly grandiose is easily provable with a minimal search effort that you refuse to make. I have provided thousands of links over the years (granted some better than others), enough to prove my statements in that one post you question.

I'm deadly curious. What do you think qualifies as legitimate "research" into this.

Rifling through the interwebs (except of course, that terrible Wikipedia which cannot possibly match the quality of naturalnews.com)?

[baja]

You are looking for a review from and source that would incriminate it self if they investigated and reported accurately these alternative therapies. They can not afford to legitimize them it's that simple.

[Fedaykin]

How about reviewing the people that were cured. They are out there by the 10,000s of thousands.

Surely there's been a nice study put together. There are literally thousands of researchers looking for a cure.

[Fedaykin]

You are looking for a review from and source that would incriminate it self if they investigated and reported accurately these alternative therapies. They can not afford to legitimize them it's that simple.

Nope. I'm looking for a legitimate study. I don't care about the source as long as their results are clearly documented and repeatable -- like good scientific work always is.

[baja]

If something is effective, the evidence should be easy to demonstrate.

Dismissing something that is unable to produce any evidence is the correct action to take.

(that does not imply you should stop people from trying to find evidence)

Watch this documentary might be a good place to start;

http://www.gabrielcousens.com/STORE/tabid/1934/language/en-US/Default.aspx

[Fedaykin]

Watch this documentary might be a good place to start;

http://www.gabrielcousens.com/STORE/tabid/1934/language/en-US/Default.aspx

I'm not interested in a documentary that's full of a bunch of entirely unverifiable information. Where's the research?

[baja]

I'm not interested in a documentary. Where's the research?

OK nite nite

[snowspot66]

If you want to learn about Burzynski from a real doctor:

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/stanislaw-burzynski-bad-medicine-a-bad-movie/

Now that was worth the time to read.

For those who didn't read it one particularly interesting tidbit is this:

The paranoid conspiracy aura that surrounds Burzynski The Movie is palpable and becomes quite oppressive by the end of the movie. Pharma, the NCI, the FDA, the Texas Medical Board, and every medical authority are all against Burzynski, the lone heroic doctor battling against all odds to bring his cure for cancer to all. Yes, it’s just that nauseatingly blatant. At every point, antineoplastons are presented as nontoxic, effective, and downright miraculous when they are none of these.

Worse, despite Burzynski’s representation of his therapy as being “nontoxic,” in contrast to chemotherapy, some of his antineoplaston preparations are quite toxic. The reason is two-fold: (1) high doses of antineoplastons are required; and (2) some antineoplaston preparations are very sodium-rich. Dr. Burzynski’s therapy requires the adminstration of so much antineoplaston as sodium salts that several of his patients developed hypernatremia, in one case as high as 180 mEq/L. (A normal serum sodium level ranges between 135 and 145 mEq/L.) Personally, I’ve never seen a sodium level that high in a living patient. When sodium levels get into the 155 mEq/L and up range, clinicians start to get very worried and usually start aggressive treatment to bring the sodium levels down. Worse, these are patients with brain cancer. One danger is that, in correcting the hypernatremia, sometimes cerebral edema (brain swelling) will result. In a patient with a brain tumor, cerebral edema could be even more dangerous than in a patient without such a tumor. Despite reviewers being alarmed at the hypernatremia some of Burzynski’s patients developed, astoundingly he still claimed that he had no “significant toxicity.”

Apparently the drug this guy charges outrageous sums of money for is just a different form of chemotherapy that doesn't work but still gives you a bunch of dangerous side effects. That's some good irony right there.

[Fedaykin]

Now that was worth the time to read.

For those who didn't read it one particularly interesting tidbit is this:





Apparently the drug this guy charges outrageous sums of money for is just a different form of chemotherapy that doesn't work but still gives you a bunch of dangerous side effects. That's some good irony right there.

Also a fun irony re: the preceding exchange between Baja, Light and me:

"In the meantime, testimonials and no firm clinical trial data to support Burzynski’s methods have been par for the course ever since, for over three decades now."

[Rohirrim]

I think science is one of the great achievements of mankind. We should try it. ;D

[alkemical]

has anyone looked into rick smith's work/cure/claim?

www.phoenixtears.ca

[baja]

That's a pretty hilarious criticism coming from someone who cites "Natural News" and other crank websites.

If you are genuine please watch this and comment;

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/1qG_ZWs04es" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[That One Guy]

Why do we continue to open threads by baja when we know the ignorance to be found on the other side? We must truly love facepalming...

[DenverBrit]

If you are genuine please watch this and comment;

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/1qG_ZWs04es" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

The opening statement by the SF cop got my attention.

I will watch the rest later. Thanks for posting.....and how's the fishing? ;D

[baja]

Why do we continue to open threads by baja when we know the ignorance to be found on the other side? We must truly love facepalming...

Watch it you fool and than tell me what you think.

You clowns that dismiss without investigation display for all to see your systemic ignorance.

BTW Your use of 'we' is quite presumptuous. Many posters have thanked me via the rep feature for many of my threads.

I hope you someday find your way out of your shroud of ignorance that in-prisons you.

[baja]

The opening statement by the SF cop got my attention.

I will watch the rest later. Thanks for posting.....and how's the fishing? ;D

G20 is here no fishing allowed. You would not believe the level of security.

The documentary is very powerful. I highly recommend it.

[baja]

I think science is one of the great achievements of mankind. We should try it. ;D

Politics and power does not allow it;


<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/1qG_ZWs04es" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[Fedaykin]

If you are genuine please watch this and comment;

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/1qG_ZWs04es" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Burzynski's work has been studied in great detail, and has never proven effective. His drug is just a non-effective form of chemotherapy (you do realize "chemotherapy" is not a specific treatment, right)? It may be non-toxic, but also non-effective. It may yet prove effective, but it has not done so yet.

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/stanislaw-burzynski-antineoplastons-and-the-orphan-drug-sodium-phenyl-butyrate/

No amount of emotionally charged testimonials changes that fact. I feel for the guy and his daughter at the beginning, but that doesn't change the facts of the situation.

[baja]

didn't watch all of it did ya

[Fedaykin]

didn't watch all of it did ya

No desire to waste 2 hours of my life watching a wookumentary. Are there particular points you would like to bring up and/or deliver in a more readily consumable format?

[Fedaykin]

Baja:

1.) How many patients has Burzynski treated?
2.) How many of those total patients died?
3.) How many of those total patients went in to remission, and for how long?
4.) How many of those total patients were cured of cancer?

EDIT {
5.) How does this compare to a.) no treatment and b.) standard treatment?
}

You can't answer any of those questions, you know why? Burzynski doesn't provide these data.

EDIT: He only makes public a "select" set of data, and even in that data the results are, at best, very poor. To be blunt, even of the cherry picked cases he shares, almost every patient still dies.

[baja]

No desire to waste 2 hours of my life watching a wookumentary. Are there particular points you would like to bring up and/or deliver in a more readily consumable format?

You asked for proof than deny to review it when presented.

You are an arrogant fool and a waste of my time.

[Fedaykin]

You asked for proof than deny to review it when presented.

You are an arrogant fool and a waste of my time.

Give me a minute marker of anything you think is "proof".

[Fedaykin]

Clicking through, it's typical conspiracy theory crap mixed with an unhealthy dose of woo. Where's the evidence that his treatment is as advertized. Nothing else matters.

[Fedaykin]

It's funny Baja. In another thread you rail about how "perception" is wrong. To see you double down and put forward this wookumentary as "proof" is hilarious. Skipping around a bit, it's clear this video (like many others I've watched on this and other topics) it relies entirely on manipulating perception rather than conveying evidence.

Appeals to emotion, assuming causation through mere correlation (post hoc ergo propter hoc), red herring distractions from the heart of the matter (the only thing that matters is does the treatment actually work as advertized and SOLD), etc. and so on.

I don't give a flying fig about your conspiracy theories or anecdotal testimonials . All that matters are the facts of the efficacy of the treatment. In other words, show me the data.

[baja]

That's why big pharma with the help of the FDA and the cancer foundation illegally patented his discovery with 12 different patents.

But don't bother to watch the well documented documentary because you "already know"

You're a joke dude.

[Fedaykin]

That's why big pharma with the help of the FDA and the cancer foundation illegally patented his discovery with 12 different patents.


And I'm sure you have definitive evidence for this, just waiting! Tell me where. What minute marker?


But don't bother to watch the well documented documentary because you "already know"


Once you've seen one wookumentary, you've seen them all. Like I said before. Like I said before, no evidence is conveyed, just various attempts to manipulate perception. That said, I'll gladly address any particular topic which you point out specifically for me to look at.


You're a joke dude.

Only joke is the guy who can't provide simple clinical evidence for a drug that claims to be a "cure" for cancer. It's pretty easy to show it that's true. There would be a huge number of scientifically documented success cases (not just testimonials) and a very large percentage of his patients would be cured or in long term remission.

In fact, it would be almost impossible to HIDE if he'd found a cure to cancer. It'd be perhaps the greatest discovery in medicine since the invention of the modern vaccine or the discovery of penicillin.

Of course, instead of data, your only ammo is manipulating perception with a wookumentary. Truly a joke.

[baja]

And I'm sure you have definitive evidence for this, just waiting! Tell me where. What minute marker?



Once you've seen one wookumentary, you've seen them all. Like I said before. Like I said before, no evidence is conveyed, just various attempts to manipulate perception. That said, I'll gladly address any particular topic which you point out specifically for me to look at.



Only joke is the guy who can't provide simple clinical evidence for a drug that claims to be a "cure" for cancer. It's pretty easy to show it that's true. There would be a huge number of scientifically documented success cases (not just testimonials) and a very large percentage of his patients would be cured or in long term remission.

In fact, it would be almost impossible to HIDE if he'd found a cure to cancer. It'd be perhaps the greatest discovery in medicine since the invention of the modern vaccine or the discovery of penicillin.

Of course, instead of data, your only ammo is manipulating perception with a wookumentary. Truly a joke.

The proof you are whining for is in the documentary.

Watch it / don't watch it, your choice.

[Fedaykin]

The proof you are whining for is in the documentary.

Watch it / don't watch it, your choice.

Not even possible in video format. Do you not understand what scientific documentation and clinical trials are?

[baja]

It's called testimony by qualified scientists .

Your proof is a click away choose to remain ignorant if you like.

[Fedaykin]

It's called testimony by qualified scientists .

Your proof is a click away choose to remain ignorant if you like.

Oooh. Now appeals to (likely false) authority. You're moving up in the fallacy world.

If the treatment worked the way claimed, the data would be there to support it -- trivially. You wouldn't have to rely on appeals to authority, appeals to emotion, etc. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

[baja]

Oooh. Now appeals to (likely false) authority. You're moving up in the fallacy world.

If the treatment worked the way claimed, the data would be there to support it -- trivially. You wouldn't have to rely on appeals to authority, appeals to emotion, etc. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

You are a cartoon character - watch it, can that be so hard.

It's your chance to shoot me down. Don't miss it kid.

[Fedaykin]

You are a cartoon character - watch it, can that be so hard.

It's your chance to shoot me down. Don't miss it kid.

You're already riddled with bullet holes bub.

I told you the (100% reasonable) information that I want. Any legit organization would be tripping over themselves to provide it. You refuse and instead hide behind various dishonest attempts to manipulate perception and poorly constructed arguments.

It's pretty sad.

[baja]

The Texas board of medicine admits in court that the protocol works, it's in the film.

[Fedaykin]

The Texas board of medicine admits in court that the protocol works, it's in the film.

time index?

[baja]

time index?

Many spots throughout the film. If you can't spare an hour and forty seven minutes than remain ignorant.

[Fedaykin]

Many spots throughout the film. If you can't spare an hour and forty seven minutes than remain ignorant.

Link? Anything? A date? A case name?

What's the context. Who is on the board? What exactly did they say? Which treatments (he does many, some valid) These questions can't be answered by your video.

[baja]

Link? Anything? A date? A case name?

What's the context. Who is on the board? What exactly did they say? Which treatments (he does many, some valid) These questions can't be answered by your video.


...and you know that


BY NOT WATCHING IT.

Get lost.

[Fedaykin]

...and you know that


BY NOT WATCHING IT.

Get lost.

LMAO Can't even give a time index eh or other reference eh? If I asked you for a page number of a citation, would you similarly freak out?

[Fedaykin]

The Texas board of medicine admits in court that the protocol works, it's in the film.

... and of course, nothing more than another appeal to authority.

Where's the data?

[baja]

If you stop typing you could'a watched it by now

[Fedaykin]

If you stop typing you could'a watched it by now

I've spent about 10 minutes typing. I type very fast.

[Fedaykin]

If you stop typing you could'a watched it by now

.. and more to the point. I'm not interested in filtered and manipulated information. It's entirely a waste of time. Like I've said a dozen times. If what this guy says is true, the data would be readily available to support it.

There'd be no way anyone could hide a demonstrable cure for cancer.

[baja]

You first post was made at 9:48PM

Your above post was made at 11:51 Pm.

Do the math.

[Fedaykin]

You first post was made at 9:48PM

Your above post was made at 11:51 Pm.

Do the math.

LMAO do you think I'm just sitting here doing nothing else?

[baja]

LMAO do you think I'm just sitting here doing nothing else?

well as smart as you profess to be you could have had it on in the background while cooking dinner and mowing the lawn and still have time to shoot a game of nine ball.

[Fedaykin]

well as smart as you profess to be you could have had it on in the background while cooking dinner and mowing the lawn and still have time to shoot a game of nine ball.

see #77

[Requiem]

Hang up the cleats, children.

[sisterhellfyre]

Oooohhh, slapfight! Slapfight!

[cutthemdown]

I watched the Cancer experts at City Of Hope save my brothers life with a bone marrow transplant and prior to that, months of radiation and chemo. If you think the doctors and scientists trying to cure us would take part in a plan to milk us of life and money you are crazier then i thought.

[baja]

I watched the Cancer experts at City Of Hope save my brothers life with a bone marrow transplant and prior to that, months of radiation and chemo. If you think the doctors and scientists trying to cure us would take part in a plan to milk us of life and money you are crazier then i thought.

No I don't think that, not willfully.

Did you watch the film?

[Fedaykin]

I watched the Cancer experts at City Of Hope save my brothers life with a bone marrow transplant and prior to that, months of radiation and chemo. If you think the doctors and scientists trying to cure us would take part in a plan to milk us of life and money you are crazier then i thought.

Still waiting on Baja's response to #55. It's the only important question. The rest is noise.

[IHaveALight]

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Zv3fiCbPrhc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[Rohirrim]

"With these three studies we can say that in fact three different kinds of tumors adhere to the cancer stem cell hypothesis," Parada said.

Even though the studies were done in mice, Weinberg, Parada and others say there's no reason to think the findings don't apply to people. And if that's the case, the research could lead to new ways to fight cancer.

"It means that we've identified the enemy, finally," he said.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2012/08/01/157706171/lab-findings-support-provocative-theory-on-cancer-enemy-within?ft=1&f=1001

[mosca]

Anyone read 'Grace and Grit' by Ken Wilber? I've mentioned it here before, it's the story of Wilber's wife Treya and her battle with cancer. Wilber is a world-reknowned author and has written some great stuff on mysticism, philosophy, esoteric religion, and developmental philosophy, usually tying them all together. His work has traditionally been very accepted by many who I dare term as 'progressive'. The guy is very, very smart and is right up your alley, Baja.

In the book, when Treya is diagnosed with breast cancer, Wilber and his wife explore not only the traditional options of what he calls the "white man's medicine" that our Western doctors offer, but they also research and try a myriad of the unconventional "alternative" treatment options. Thing is, at least at the time that book was written, none of their in-depth research of any alternative cancer treatments showed them to be statistically better at preventing death than Western medicine's. And even with Treya fully embracing a bevy of these alternatives, alongside traditional medicine, none were able to prevent her eventual death by cancer.

It's a great book and I highly recommend anyone check it out.

http://www.amazon.com/Grace-Grit-Spirituality-Healing-Killam/dp/0877736987

[baja]

Anyone read 'Grace and Grit' by Ken Wilber? I've mentioned it here before, it's the story of Wilber's wife Treya and her battle with cancer. Wilber is a world-reknowned author and has written some great stuff on mysticism, philosophy, esoteric religion, and developmental philosophy, usually tying them all together. His work has traditionally been very accepted by many who I dare term as 'progressive'. The guy is very, very smart and is right up your alley, Baja.

In the book, when Treya is diagnosed with breast cancer, Wilber and his wife explore not only the traditional options of what he calls the "white man's medicine" that our Western doctors offer, but they also research and try a myriad of the unconventional "alternative" treatment options. Thing is, at least at the time that book was written, none of their in-depth research of any alternative cancer treatments showed them to be statistically better at preventing death than Western medicine's. And even with Treya fully embracing a bevy of these alternatives, alongside traditional medicine, none were able to prevent her eventual death by cancer.

It's a great book and I highly recommend anyone check it out.

http://www.amazon.com/Grace-Grit-Spirituality-Healing-Killam/dp/0877736987

The interesting thing about dis ease is so much of it is manifested in one's brief system. Some people have a deep seated desire to not be here so no matter the treatment they pass on while others want to be well, so much so in some cases that a placebo will be enough to "cure" them. Cure is so very dependent on attitude and one needs to really look deep within to see what that true belief is.

[mosca]

The interesting thing about dis ease is so much of it is manifested in one's brief system. Some people have a deep seated desire to not be here so no matter the treatment they pass on while others want to be well, so much so in some cases that a placebo will be enough to "cure" them. Cure is so very dependent on attitude and one needs to really look deep within to see what that true belief is.
Thing is, in that book at least, both Treya and her husband had a very deep-seated desire for her TO be here and the book documents their very thorough search to find whatever treatment, attitude, lifestyle adjustment, diet, etc. would get her through it. Wilber also addresses the new-age tendency to blame the victim for the negative results of diseases, and well, he's spot on. Writing off someone who succumbs to disease as somehow "wanting" to be sick, or manifesting the disease themselves is a horrible way to look at it.

[baja]

Thing is, in that book at least, both Treya and her husband had a very deep-seated desire for her TO be here and the book documents their very thorough search to find whatever treatment, attitude, lifestyle adjustment, diet, etc. would get her through it. Wilber also addresses the new-age tendency to blame the victim for the negative results of diseases, and well, he's spot on. Writing off someone who succumbs to disease as somehow "wanting" to be sick, or manifesting the disease themselves is a horrible way to look at it.

I agree it is a horrible thought. If we believe we create our reality than we must also accept we (on some level) chose our time of death.

[baja]

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/XtMBGKiDDtU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[baja]

The single most important thing in healing dis ease is you have to believe in the cure.

"BELIEF IN BELIEF"

[IHaveALight]

http://www.examiner.com/article/dr-burzynski-free-to-continue-curing-cancer


Dead silence is all that remains, over a week since the Texas Medical Board was forced to drop their case against Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski. Other than a couple random small-town newspapers, a questionable blog and Saturday's opinion piece in a tiny Canadian regular, no one in the media has been willing to touch the news that, yet again, all charges were dismissed against a certain doctor that has literally and successfully cured cancer on many occasions.

The Texas Medical Board and the Western medical establishment had been targeting Dr. Burzynski for years and the media was fully willing to document the case against him and chastise his work, prior to the case being dismissed and despite his incredible success record. Strangely, as if the event never occurred, there's been nothing by the media since.


Burzynski Movie: Cancer is Serious Business
A multi-billion dollar a year gravy-train is on the line and the establishment's puppet-media cannot allow everyone to catch on to the fact that many other forms of disease treatment exist and have typically proven to be far more effective than what is (allowed to be) prescribed by Western-trained medical practitioners.

Nonetheless, Dr. Burzynski is now free, again, to continue practicing the cancer-curing techniques that have been the reason for the target on his back since many in the public became aware of the alternative-minded doctor and his successful techniques. Adding to the staggering mountain of evidence in support of alternative and effective cancer treatments and, unfortunately, the medical establishment, their puppets and the ignorant and witting media that continue trying to silence them.

Sandi Kavanagh, for instance, a 48 year old woman from Crystal Lake, IL., was diagnosed in January with an aggressive form of brain cancer, known as Glioblastoma multiforme (GBM). As with the vast majority of cancer patients, Kavanagh's cancer did not respond to the traditional radiation and chemotherapy that is largely recommended by almost all (Western) doctors as one of the few options they (are allowed to) give their patients, or risk losing their medical license.

Refusing to give up, Kavanagh and her family began to research for alternative ways to treat her condition, something people are doing more and more often these days. Realizing that “modern” science had nothing more to offer and unwilling to except that she only had “two to three months to live,” according to typical Western medicine, Kavanagh decided to undergo a treatment she found that treats cancer with Antineoplastons. Remarkably (if you are still new to the idea there are actually real "alternative" cancer cures), Kavanagh reports that an MRI scan revealed her tumor shrank by 33 percent after her first procedure, prompting her to continue with Dr. Burzynski's miraculous treatments. Mrs. Kavanagh, ecstatic she's finally found a doctor that is willing to kill cancer cells without killing the rest of her body at the same time, plans to do another scan on December 13, 2012 to continue monitoring her progress.

Perhaps not quite as pleasant to discuss, however, is the story of these miracle Antineoplastons and the very rocky road they've traveled in order to get where they are today. It begins with the man who first discovered their effectiveness in the treatment of cancer in 1967. Dr. Stanislaw R. Burzynski, M.D., Ph.D., was the physician and biochemist researcher responsible for identifying natural occurring peptides and amino acid derivatives, or “Antineoplastons,” as he later named them, in the human body.

He discovered they are the components of a biochemical defense system that controls cancer growth without destroying normal cells, largely deficient in cancer patients, in comparison to healthy individuals. In 1977, after authoring and co-authoring numerous publications, including five on the subject of his peptides research, Dr. Burzynski founded his clinic in Houston, TX where he began to treat patients using his remarkable discovery, with incredible success. Such success, in fact, that soon cancer patients from all over the United States began to travel to obtain this miracle treatment.

Surprisingly, neither the efficacy of Dr. Burzynski's treatment, as evidenced by the rapid recovery of his patients, nor the safety of Antineoplaston as a cancer treatment...with virtually no dangerous side-effects, was enough for the medical establishment to support this medical pioneer, or at the very least, leave him alone to continue his success. Instead, in 1984 the Texas Board of Medical Examiners, under pressure by the (medical establishment-controlled) FDA, began what would end up being a decade long persecution of Dr. Burzynski. There was no way an individual holding a private patent for certain medical devices or treatments, independent of the established order, was going to encroach on many decades of corporate medical monopoly.

After wasting precious resources and taxpayer millions, trying to revoke Dr. Burzynski's medical license, for well over a decade, the Board was completely unsuccessful at proving wrong-doing of any kind. Everything from launching extensive investigations to sending agents out-of-state to convince current and former patients to file unwarranted complaints was attempted. Amazingly, the powers that be, desperate and dedicated to maintaining control over how treatment is administered and keeping century-old chemical-based, assembly-line style medical practices in place, were unusually unable to find a way to silence the doctor.

Despite all this, after years of failure and even after admitting “the efficacy of Antineoplastons as the treatment of human cancers is not of issue in these proceedings”, proving that it really isn't about curing people of cancer, the board launched another investigation in 2008, again attempting to revoke Dr. Burzynski's medical license. This time, however, their attempt was to put Dr. Burzynski on trial for giving terminal cancer patients personalized gene-targeted cancer therapy, tailored to the individual patient's genetic markers and also more effective than the deadly, toxic and carcinogenic radiation or chemotherapy treatments forced on people. Ironically, this type of personalized gene-targeted therapy is considered, by many experts, as the future of modern medicine in cancer treatment. Just not with the help of Dr. Burzynski, if the medical establishment and its puppet FDA have anything to do with it, that is.

Fortunately for the many patients who rely on this medical breakthrough for their very lives, including the general freedom that allows for the creative talents and individualism to flourish within the people, the Texas Medical Board's most recent case against Dr. Burzynski was dismissed on November 19, 2012.

But don't think the official shenanigans end there. Dr. Burzynski has also endured persecution by the Federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA). This, in and of itself, has been a $60 million witch hunt, tax-payer funded of course, beginning in 1983 when the FDA took action to close Dr. Burzynski's clinic. That same year, like all other times, a judge ruled Dr. Burzynski could continue treating patients in the state of Texas. But no matter how many times the public said no, however, the powers that be (the medical establishment, the corporations and those that own them… With almost total puppet media complicity) continue to fight for the end of any successful treatment for diseases, like cancer, so they can continue to control the flow of medicine and the money that follows.

Relentlessly, the FDA, who had previously warned the judge that making such a ruling would push the government to pursue other remedies, such as seizure, condemnation of the drugs or criminal prosecution, convened grand juries to indict Burzynski in 1985, 1990, 1994, and yet again in 1995. Accepting the word “no” from the sovereign people is something they are simply untrained and unwilling to do. Staggeringly, even as all previous attempts at a grand jury investigation resulted in no indictments, the FDA still conducted another investigation between 1991 and 1993.

Sadly, Dr. Burzynski was eventually indicted in 1995 and charged with 75 counts of violating federal law and fraud – facing a maximum of 290 years in federal prison and $18.5 million in fines. But not unlike every other instance where those that control the government attempted to put a halt to anything resembling a change in direction from the billions of dollars raked in by the cancer industry every year, on March 4th, 1997 the judge declared a mistrial and ordered that Dr. Burzynski be acquitted of nearly half the charges. Once again, the government “had not presented sufficient evidence” against him. The FDA eventually dropped 40 of the remaining 41 charges and a second jury finally acquitted him of the final charge. Even the jurors from the first trial showed up to protest in support of Dr. Burzynski.

If history is to repeat itself, as it almost always does, chances are slim this actually represents the end of the US government's attempt at controlling every aspect of the cancer industry. Especially the parts that actually would have a positive effect on skyrocketing cancer rates and would likely be saving the lives of hundreds of thousands per year, in the United States and many other parts of the world, if left to do their magic. But not only has Dr. Burzynski likely not seen the end of ruthless “government” medical oppression, he is nowhere near the first or only case where creative and caring humanitarian doctors, physicians and researchers have been silenced and their remedies memory-holed in support of a society where diseases are to be the reality and a select few making all the money off of their “treatments” are the cure.

Earlier in 2012, Dr. Antonella Carpenter, PhD, much like Dr. Burzynski, targeted for suppression for over a decade, was using a personally-patented, injectable, colored liquid technology to heat and destroy cancer cells, while leaving surrounding tissues almost entirely unharmed. The treatment, Light Induced Enhanced Selective Hyperthermia (LIESH), was using a laser-based technology Dr. Carpenter legally acquired while working for NASA during secret government projects. Almost identical to Dr. Burzynski's story, however, very coordinated and sophisticated efforts were made by professional government trolls to seek out current and former patients that would be fooled into testifying against her after being talked into going back to deadly chemotherapy treatment with falsehoods and fear tactics.

Also like Dr. Burzynski, her reputation was attacked, but her privately owned and patented technologies were silenced in her case, despite no evidence she had ever illegally practiced medicine or that her patients had been victimized in any way. Despite many successfully cured patients, including many that were willing to testify but were ironically never allowed, crooked prosecutors, judges and media in both Arkansas and Oklahoma were eventually successful at fraudulently forcing Dr. Carpenter to pay millions in fines and eventually had all of her equipment seized over the summer by a federal government that answers to the profit and eugenics-driven cancer industry and not to the people who deserve real cures that exist, like Dr. Carpenter's and many others. Her case is currently headed toward the District Court of Appeals.

Dr. Max Gerson, as one of many more examples, developed his world-famous dietary therapy, the “Gerson Diet,” which has proven to heal many illnesses, among them cancer on thousands of occasions. As a result of his proven success, a US Senate Committee moved to provide funding for research of nutritional cancer therapies. Once again, research was unable to go very far and Dr. Gerson struggled as a medical pioneer because he was persecuted by the medical establishment, due to the fact that his therapy went against conventional medicine and the wisdom passed down by those that wish to keep things going just the way they are. The American Medical Association even lobbied to defeat the passing of the funding measure that ended up being defeated by a mere four votes.

In another instance, Royal Ray Rife and Gaston Naessens both invented powerful microscopes that enabled researchers to observe live cancer microbes... A feature modern microscopes still cannot do to this day. This allowed them to develop effective treatments for destroying cancer cells, but both were persecuted for their discoveries and accused of healing the sick without a license.

It has also been known, since (at least) 1974, that around 60 of the 420 or more "cannabinoids" that exist in THC, attained by smoking and/or orally ingesting marijuana, have proven on many occasions, both privately and through professional research, to have numerous different health benefits. Including reducing the size of cancer tumors and killing most forms of cancer cells, almost every time it's been tested. Yet, if you ask your local oncologist or look to your local or national news media, it's as if no one in the government or the world of establishment-based medicine has ever heard of any of these treatments, situations or people, ironically and unfortunately enough.

The bottom line is this; if it's owned or patented by a private individual, or can't be patented at all, and can be used to cure cancer especially, you are not going to be allowed to practice your craft or use the technique or substance as a treatment and especially call it a “cure,” as long as the medical establishment and its puppet FDA can help it, thus far, at all costs and by any means necessary. The unfortunate truth for the establishment and, therefore, the people is and always will be, there's no money in the cure.

More examples include, but nowhere near limited to:

Psychiatrist Wilhem Reich, once regarded as the heir to Sigmund Freud's seat, perished in jail after working with orgone energy to kill cancer cells. The FDA made sure his equipment, books and writings were all destroyed.

Dr. Issels cured his patients of cancer using integrative immunotherapy and the same principals as the Gerson therapy. For it he received a suspended jail sentence and multiple attempts have been made to force the discontinuation of his work.

Biochemist Lawrence Burton was persecuted and defamed for his work to improve immune system function in cancer patients and his discovery of a serum to shrink tumors.

Dinshah Ghadiali was a pioneer in the field of color therapy and was sadly jailed and his equipment, books and writings were destroyed after he successfully treated cancer and other illnesses.

Harry Hoxsey was persecuted and arrested for practicing medicine without a license after curing thousands of patients of cancer by using herbal remedies.

Dr. Kristine Nolfi began helping her patients overcome cancer through nutrition, after curing her own cancer by consuming a vegetarian organic raw food diet. She was subsequently persecuted and stripped of her license.

William F. Koch immigrated to Brazil as a result of the severe persecution he endured for his success curing patients with the use of his homeopathic oxidation catalyst.

Researcher Dr. Johanna Budwig was prevented from publishing her discovery of fatty residues from margarine in soft tumors and also lost her job in the process.

Help spread the word. There really are many different and alternative cures for almost every disease that exists. Start by liking and sharing this article everywhere humanly possible.

[Fedaykin]

I couldn't care less about legal battles Light.

Where's the scientific evidence that his treatment is actually effective?

Do you understand what that request means?