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..._to_have_known


Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/035926_ca...#ixzz1vcwvS4pb

[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]

Originally Posted by snowspot66

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]

Originally Posted by baja

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]

Originally Posted by snowspot66

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.

[snowspot66]

Originally Posted by baja

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]

Originally Posted by IHaveALight

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.

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]

Originally Posted by snowspot66

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]

Originally Posted by snowspot66

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]

Originally Posted by IHaveALight

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]

Originally Posted by snowspot66

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]

Originally Posted by Fedaykin

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]

Originally Posted by IHaveALight

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...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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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/...y-doesnt-work/

[IHaveALight]

Originally Posted by Fedaykin

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]

Originally Posted by IHaveALight

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]

Originally Posted by snowspot66

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...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]

Originally Posted by baja

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]

Originally Posted by 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 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]

Originally Posted by Fedaykin

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

Please point out one grandiose claim.

[Fedaykin]

Originally Posted by baja

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]

Originally Posted by Fedaykin

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?