Topic by sonicpacker

Posted: 6/19/2011 6:30 AM

Post subject: Cure for Cancer? FDA only in the business for the money?

Quote

sonicpacker

Active player (420)

Joined: 9/21/2009
Posts: 1047
Location: California

I sincerely recommend watching the following documentary: http://vimeo.com/24821365 It is only available to watch for free for a limited amount of time. It is extremely worth the time it takes to watch, and I'd like to hear your thoughts because a majority of you are highly intelligent. I believe it could provide a good community discussion.

https://personalitygrowth.com/entp-myths-stereotypes-misconceptions-cliches-and-tropes-that-are-inaccurate/

Posted: 6/19/2011 7:24 AM

Quote

Kitsune

Joined: 4/29/2005
Posts: 1212

I don't need to watch the video to know the FDA is milking sick people for money. It's run by a bunch of heartless, money hungry assholes. There has been a cure for every type of cancer for well over 10 years now. There are pills out there you can buy online that have been proven to kill cancer cells and the cancer itself. The FDA just cares more about money than they do Human Life. This is the main reason currency should have never been created in the first place. The FDA will just never admit they have these cures.

Posted: 6/19/2011 7:46 AM

Quote

Warp

Banned User, Former player

Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland

I'm sorry but those things scream "conspiracy theory!" so loudly that it discourages me from watching that "documentary". Even without watching it, I can already tell why it's probably bullshit. Just the premise is so USA-centric that it gives me nausea, as if the USA was the only developed country in the world. How can the FDA be restricting access to cancer-curing medicine? Does the FDA control the entire world? Is the FDA a multinational evil corporation governing medical practice behind the scenes in all the world? News flash: The USA is not the only country in the world that is proficient in medicine. Most European countries, Japan and many other developed countries are at least as, if not even more, advanced than the USA. Does the FDA control all of them? What possible reason could there be for the entire world to be hiding a cure that could save millions of lives? Don't make me laugh. If there was indeed a cure for cancer, they would be handling nobel prizes left and right. (And yes, the "documentary" is probably pretty convincing. Most conspiracy theory "documentaries" are. That doesn't mean it's not bullshit.)

Posted: 6/19/2011 7:57 AM

Quote

sonicpacker

Active player (420)

Joined: 9/21/2009
Posts: 1047
Location: California

As I said, I would take the time to watch it...especially before making those statements. Mostly because what you said is irrelevant to what the movie is actually about. There is no conspiracy involved here to be honest. As Kitsune said, the FDA doesn't care about human lives. They make that blatantly obvious...which you would know if you watched the video. Maybe a good alternative would be to visit the official site first: http://burzynskimovie.com/ If you still don't want to watch, that is understandable from your perspective, but in my humble opinion, the mere less than 2 hour movie is really worth the time spent listening. =)

https://personalitygrowth.com/entp-myths-stereotypes-misconceptions-cliches-and-tropes-that-are-inaccurate/

Posted: 6/19/2011 8:05 AM

Quote

StripeyDope

Joined: 6/16/2011
Posts: 12
Location: U.S. of A.

I agree wholeheartedly with Kitsune up there. It's just one of those secrets that the government is keeping from the rest of the country that rightfully needs and deserves to know. The only reason those online pills aren't FDA-approved by now is because they want people to ride towards the more expensive fork in the road. Believe it or not, the FDA is seeing nearly every single penny you worked hard for to try and cure a relative of cancer, or even yourself. If they were not money-guzzling greedy S.O.B's, the United States would be in much better shape population-wise right now. According to the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention, 562,875 people died of all type of cancer combined in 2007^[1]. If the pace is the same from 1997 (around the time these cancer pills surfaced) to now, there should be a cancer death toll of OVER 7.5 MILLION from '97 - '11. Now, theoretically, since the FDA is a gov't-affiliated company, there would be about 100,000-200,000 employees working for it. Going by that statistic, each and every single greedy person out of said 100K to 200K who works there is responsible for the cancer-induced deaths of at least 39 people. Mind blowing, isn't it? ...and all this because of the apparently wonderful temptation of money. EDIT: Added citation to 2007 death toll.

Current Run: U.N. Squadron (SNES, U); minimum kills. WIP Segments: [1] [2]

Posted: 6/19/2011 8:09 AM
(Edited: 6/19/2011 8:14 AM)

Quote

Warp

Banned User, Former player

Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland

sonicpacker wrote:

As Kitsune said, the FDA doesn't care about human lives.

The question was not "does the FDA care about human lives?" It was "cure for cancer?" I know the answer to that question: The FDA cannot control whether there is a known cure for cancer or not, no matter how big they might be in the US. I know that the healthcare system in the US is (still) messed up. That's not my problem. (I am pretty sure that Moore's film Sicko was probably right on many counts.) My problem was the implied conspiracy theory that the FDA is suppressing a cure for cancer.

StripeyDope wrote:

Believe it or not, the FDA is seeing nearly every single penny you worked hard for to try and cure a relative of cancer, or even yourself. If they were not money-guzzling greedy S.O.B's, the United States would be in much better shape population-wise right now.

Yeah, and somehow the FDA is keeping those pills out of Europe, Japan and many other countries by sheer force of greed, I suppose.

Posted: 6/19/2011 8:14 AM

Quote

sonicpacker

Active player (420)

Joined: 9/21/2009
Posts: 1047
Location: California

Warp wrote:

My problem was the implied conspiracy theory that the FDA is suppressing a cure for cancer.

As I said, there is no conspiracy theory. Really, you should watch it. I don't think you understand what it is about. It is about them trying to suppress this specific method (versus a specific doctor) and failing. Obviously they cannot contain information free to the public.

https://personalitygrowth.com/entp-myths-stereotypes-misconceptions-cliches-and-tropes-that-are-inaccurate/

Posted: 6/19/2011 9:43 AM
(Edited: 6/19/2011 11:09 AM)

Quote

Kuwaga

Joined: 10/20/2006
Posts: 1248

It's true that chemo therapy is more profitable than an easy cure would be. Frauds based on mystical cures for HIV and cancer are pretty profitable too though. Most frauds are centered around a supposedly genious doctor whose work is for some reason hardly acknowledged. For an alternative alleged cure for cancer watch [URL=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zYWtzq4XBk]this[/URL]. (may not be the best video, i just picked a random one) There are many others though, just search the web. Edit: Also check out [URL=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkCHrV6cCfw]this guy[/URL], who had already found a cure for cancer and HIV in 1996! My advice: Don't be gullible. Don't believe in videos like that, but don't completely trust the mainstream media either. To be able to do that you have to have the power to admit to yourself how little you really know about this world in absolute terms.

Posted: 6/19/2011 10:37 AM

Quote

Warp

Banned User, Former player

Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland

I tried to watch the film, but I got bored at about the 40-minute mark, with still well over an hour to go, that I stopped. I am probably being a bit biased here, but it was just being too long. I am not saying that this isn't a completely legitimate factual documentary, but I have seen so many superbly-crafted conspiracy theory "documentaries" that I can see the warning signs of cherry-picking and biased information. As said, I'm not claiming this film is cherry-picking, but from the 40 minutes I saw there were a few things that raised some suspicion. Firstly, the length of the documentary can sometimes be a warning flag. Not that there aren't plenty of completely legit and factual 2-hour documentaries out there, even on controversial subjects, but I have noticed that many conspiracy theory documentaries are really lengthy, possibly as a form of shotgun argumentation ("the more evidence there is, the more plausible the theory"). Just look at the running times of such films as Loose Change, Zeitgeist, the various Moon landing hoax conspiracy "documentaries" out there, and so on. They tend to pack as much material in there as they can, probably trying to be as convincing as possible by the sheer amount of it. Secondly, I suspected this film to be very US-centric, and the first 40 minutes seemed to confirm this. I find this a bit suspicious because if this were indeed a revolutionary cure for all kinds of cancer, I'm pretty sure that countries around the world would be interested, there would be plenty of research and publications being done, and most people would have heard of it. Yet this seems to be restricted to basically one doctor and his personal team in Texas. Thirdly, I just couldn't get rid of the nagging feeling of "are all these examples being cherry-picked? Are they all legit? Is there something that the film is not telling me?" It could perfectly well be all legit and sound, but I just have seen so many conspiracy theory films that I know that when you carefully cherry-pick information and package with bells and whistles, you can make almost anything sound convincing even though the real truth is not as simple as that. A cursory research on this treatment seems to show that basically the only people who have seen positive results is this doctor and his team, and that the results could not be replicated by independent parties. Also most of the published papers showing positive results were published by this doctor himself, with no peer reviewing. I'm not saying the treatment does not work. I'm just suspicious about why it seems to be restricted to this one doctor and positive results are not being reported all over the world. There are many cases presented in the film, but without knowing the exact circumstances (rather than the narrow details the film presents) it's impossible to say if they are legitimate and caused by the efficacy of this treatment and not because of something else. Is the FDA in the US being overly zealous of this doctor and his research? Could be. I don't know. I haven't heard their side (although it could be given in the rest of the film, which I didn't watch). Does the FDA resort to dirty tactics in some cases because of greed and money. Could be, I don't know. But it could also be that this film is exaggerating the issue, using all the tricks in the book to make it convincing. Perhaps if this film would have concentrated more on the FDA and less on Burzynski's research, in other words, more of a "the FDA furiously attacks a lone medical doctor" and less of a "miracle cancer cure being shut down by greedy farmaceuticals", and its length cut to 1 hour, it could have been a more interesting documentary, more akin to Moore's Sicko.

Posted: 6/19/2011 3:13 PM

Quote

DarkKobold

Skilled player (1637)

Joined: 11/15/2004
Posts: 2202
Location: Killjoy

I could go on a rant here, but I'm going to keep this short, as this entire video is a waste of time. #1: This uses appeals to emotion from the get go, dramatic music and the death of a child. If you want to get me to believe something, don't use dirty tactics. #2: These Drugs are currently in Phase II clinical trials. This is the way the FDA works. It takes A TON of work to get through the FDA, and for good reason - Americans throw a shit fit if even one drug comes out with possible side effects. See the history of Vioxx for what happens when a drug gets through to the market, with possible complications. #3: There is something in America called "Standard of Care", which keeps doctors in the dark ages for medicine. Basically, you have to perform the standard protocol of treatment, or face medical malpractice.. For example, the neurosurgeon mentioned by Jodi Fenton, had to undergo 16 years of post-high school education (4 years premed, 4 years med school, 8 year residency) to gain his position. Is he going to risk all that time he spent on an unknown drug? Hell no. Blame sue-happy Americans, not the doctors. #4: http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/burzynski1.html #5: As Warp said, if this drug were truly this Amazing Cure All Cancer, there are 100s of other countries in the world that would pick it up. Yeah, bah, this movie angers me.

Sage advice from a friend of Jim: So put your tinfoil hat back in the closet, open your eyes to the truth, and realize that the government is in fact causing austismal cancer with it's 9/11 fluoride vaccinations of your water supply.

Posted: 6/19/2011 4:26 PM

Quote

sonicpacker

Active player (420)

Joined: 9/21/2009
Posts: 1047
Location: California

Warp wrote:

Perhaps if this film would have concentrated more on the FDA and less on Burzynski's research, in other words, more of a "the FDA furiously attacks a lone medical doctor" and less of a "miracle cancer cure being shut down by greedy farmaceuticals", and its length cut to 1 hour, it could have been a more interesting documentary, more akin to Moore's Sicko.

20 seconds into the movie on the opening title card: "This is the story of a medical doctor and PhD biochemist who has discovered the genetic mechanism that can cure most human cancers. The opening 30 minutes of this film is designed to thoroughly establish this fact—so the viewer can fully appreciate the events that follow it."

Warp wrote:

I tried to watch the film, but I got bored at about the 40-minute mark

https://personalitygrowth.com/entp-myths-stereotypes-misconceptions-cliches-and-tropes-that-are-inaccurate/

Posted: 6/19/2011 4:58 PM

Quote

Kuwaga

Joined: 10/20/2006
Posts: 1248

People who stopped watching the video did so because they could already tell it's a fraud. The logic of "you have to watch the entire thing (twice) first" makes as little sense as "you have to test it first, maybe it works after all". It's simply not reasonable to waste so much time on every alleged HIV/cancer cure. There's hundreds and thousands of them. After about 10 minutes I could tell that it looks just like every other fraud I've come across so far (except a lot more money than average seemed to have went into the production of your video). [URL=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNoZSduLMuo]Another[/URL] [URL=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bp8u3FWxh8Q]example[/URL]

Posted: 6/19/2011 5:12 PM

Quote

sonicpacker

Active player (420)

Joined: 9/21/2009
Posts: 1047
Location: California

Kuwaga wrote:

People who stopped watching the video did so because they could already tell it's a fraud.

The point of the video is not to prove his "cure" actually works. I don't know why you guys keep bringing up fraud. The real point is that the FDA is run by money grubbing whores that don't actually care about what's best for the people of the US.

https://personalitygrowth.com/entp-myths-stereotypes-misconceptions-cliches-and-tropes-that-are-inaccurate/

Posted: 6/19/2011 5:36 PM

Quote

Derakon

Joined: 7/2/2007
Posts: 3960

Relevant XKCD comic. Let's assume that there is a cure for cancer. This is a huge thing, possibly even bigger than a cure for AIDS. If you can cure cancer, then you can pretty much name your price and people will pay it -- what are they going to do otherwise, just give up and die? Oh no! The FDA won't let you provide your cancer cure in the USA! What are you going to do? Move to Canada. Or France. Or Finland. Or wherever. I guarantee you that some country out there would be very interested in playing host to the person who developed a cure for cancer. We're talking serious international prestige here, not to mention gigantic tax revenues. And those people suffering from cancer will just have to fly out to meet you before paying your price to get it cured. Again, what else are they going to do? This is why the "A major problem in our society has been solved but the solution's being kept under wraps" stories always fail. Solutions to big problems are worth big money; someone's going to find a way to profit off of them.

Pyrel - an open-source rewrite of the Angband roguelike game in Python.

Posted: 6/19/2011 5:39 PM

Quote

sonicpacker

Active player (420)

Joined: 9/21/2009
Posts: 1047
Location: California

Derakon wrote:

Solutions to big problems are worth big money; someone's going to find a way to profit off of them.

And that is exactly what the FDA attempted to do after finding out about this man's research.

https://personalitygrowth.com/entp-myths-stereotypes-misconceptions-cliches-and-tropes-that-are-inaccurate/

Posted: 6/19/2011 6:03 PM

Quote

Inzult

Active player (422)

Joined: 9/27/2004
Posts: 650
Location: Canada

The back half of that documentary was actually very interesting and gave me a lot to think about. And that's all I ask a documentary to do for me.

Posted: 6/19/2011 7:54 PM

Quote

Derakon

Joined: 7/2/2007
Posts: 3960

sonicpacker wrote:

Derakon wrote:
Solutions to big problems are worth big money; someone's going to find a way to profit off of them.
And that is exactly what the FDA attempted to do after finding out about this man's research.

Ah, no, you're not understanding what I meant by that. There is money to be made by providing a solution, and the FDA does not have the power to prevent that solution from being provided, because the provider can always go to a country where the FDA has no power.

Pyrel - an open-source rewrite of the Angband roguelike game in Python.

Posted: 6/19/2011 8:07 PM

Quote

Cardboard

Skilled player (1670)

Joined: 6/11/2006
Posts: 818
Location: Arboga, Sweden

My internet is busted so I can't stream any video, or download anything larger than 2 MB at the moment, so help me out here, is this Michael Moore-style? But yeah without watching the movie and reading through every document by and about FDA, I don't feel that I am allowed to speak my mind in the matter. If I don't know everything in the matter, even trying to be correct can be stupid.

Warp wrote:

omg lol this is so fake!!!1 the nes cant produce music like this!

Posted: 6/19/2011 8:41 PM

Quote

Truncated

Editor, Reviewer, Experienced player (968)

Joined: 4/17/2004
Posts: 3107
Location: Sweden

I sincerely recommend not wasting your time with this movie. Everything about it quacks Fraud. Government conspiracy coverup and cure for cancer that is being denied the masses! As has been pointed out, in countries where the state pays for most of medicine (and thus would profit from having as cheap medicine as possible), this would be great news. But it isn't, because it's fake. By the way "no side effects" is a sure sign that a drug also has "no actual effects".

Posted: 6/19/2011 9:28 PM

Quote

sonicpacker

Active player (420)

Joined: 9/21/2009
Posts: 1047
Location: California

Truncated wrote:

By the way "no side effects" is a sure sign that a drug also has "no actual effects".

Results don't lie. Not only that, but other "important" figures like Oprah have backed this specific scientist up. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Oprah is some superpower that decides what is true and what is false, but she is someone with a very high status in the country. I'm fairly certain she wouldn't back up someone labeled as a fraud.

https://personalitygrowth.com/entp-myths-stereotypes-misconceptions-cliches-and-tropes-that-are-inaccurate/

Posted: 6/19/2011 9:30 PM

Quote

DarkKobold

Skilled player (1637)

Joined: 11/15/2004
Posts: 2202
Location: Killjoy

sonicpacker wrote:

Truncated wrote:
By the way "no side effects" is a sure sign that a drug also has "no actual effects".
Results don't lie. Not only that, but other "important" figures like Oprah have backed this specific scientist up. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Oprah is some superpower that decides what is true and what is false, but she is someone with a very high status in the country. I'm fairly certain she wouldn't back up someone labeled as a fraud.

Riiiiiight..... Also, Oprah is the best scientist ever!

Sage advice from a friend of Jim: So put your tinfoil hat back in the closet, open your eyes to the truth, and realize that the government is in fact causing austismal cancer with it's 9/11 fluoride vaccinations of your water supply.

Posted: 6/19/2011 9:35 PM

Quote

sonicpacker

Active player (420)

Joined: 9/21/2009
Posts: 1047
Location: California

Did I say she was a scientist? I don't think there's a need to be rude Mr. Mod. Want another supporter? Dr. Oz. If you say he's not credible, I don't know if I'll continue replying.

https://personalitygrowth.com/entp-myths-stereotypes-misconceptions-cliches-and-tropes-that-are-inaccurate/

Posted: 6/19/2011 9:40 PM

Quote

DarkKobold

Skilled player (1637)

Joined: 11/15/2004
Posts: 2202
Location: Killjoy

sonicpacker wrote:

Dr. Oz. If you say he's not credible, I don't know if I'll continue replying.

Appearing in surgical scrubs on the show's set in Chicago, Oz has promoted self-described energy based practices and acupuncture on the show.

He's not credible. Now, I hope you drop replying to this silly thread. I noticed you never replied to my post that, ya know, demonstrates how the FDA works, and why they aren't shitting themselves for this drug. Or, this one: http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/burzynski1.html Or, the wikipedia article that details where Burzynski has broken the law. Yeah.

Sage advice from a friend of Jim: So put your tinfoil hat back in the closet, open your eyes to the truth, and realize that the government is in fact causing austismal cancer with it's 9/11 fluoride vaccinations of your water supply.

Posted: 6/19/2011 9:51 PM

Quote

sonicpacker

Active player (420)

Joined: 9/21/2009
Posts: 1047
Location: California

DarkKobold wrote:

I noticed you never replied to my post that, ya know, demonstrates how the FDA works, and why they aren't shitting themselves for this drug. Or, this one: http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/burzynski1.html Or, the wikipedia article that details where Burzynski has broken the law. Yeah.

Lol, alright. First of all, the FDA attempted to steal a compound Burzynski was using, by filing multiple patents (11 I think?). Secondly, just as you guys call the documentary I posted fraud or whatever, why should I believe any of the links you are posting? Anyone can basically say anything they want on the internet. Thirdly, lol one of your links is Wikipedia. And you say my sources aren't credible? Lastly, I already know he broke the law. However, he did it with good intentions. That's usually how positive things throughout history happen. Rosa Parks as an example, anyone?

https://personalitygrowth.com/entp-myths-stereotypes-misconceptions-cliches-and-tropes-that-are-inaccurate/

Posted: 6/19/2011 9:58 PM

Quote

DarkKobold

Skilled player (1637)

Joined: 11/15/2004
Posts: 2202
Location: Killjoy

sonicpacker wrote:

Thirdly, lol one of your links is Wikipedia. And you say my sources aren't credible?

HERE COMES THE SCIENCE! http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.com/content/74/2/137.full.pdf+html http://caonline.amcancersoc.org/cgi/content/full/54/2/110 Yay for peer reviewed scientific journals. Phase II isn't going so hot.

Sage advice from a friend of Jim: So put your tinfoil hat back in the closet, open your eyes to the truth, and realize that the government is in fact causing austismal cancer with it's 9/11 fluoride vaccinations of your water supply.