Big Pharma

[BigTree]

People don't like taking secrets to the grave???

Alot of people are just here to be sheep and don't want to rustle any feathers because it could make their life more difficult, whether it be financially or socially etc. If you are making 6 or 7 figures it's going to take a lot of something to get you to throw all that away for other people. Its so easy to say "I would live on the street if thats what it took to let the world know these secrets" But in reality, it's a whole other thing.

If the chemo/big pharma thing is true and it is a huge money making greedy bastard organization, they are not going to tell all of their employees what is really happening. I'd be surprised if more than 5 percent of the people knew this "truth". Most would be going to work hoping to find this cure for cancer and keep on fighting for what they believe it. It would be very easy for a few high ups to employ people and give them jobs to do thinking it is going towards this cure, while it may not have anything to do with it really. They would not be told the entire plan just that one group was working on another part and they have to make cell A neutralize cell B or whichever.

If this was something everyone that was employed, and everyone that sold the drugs, the knowledge would be out. In my opinion, of course.

 

[beard]

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

brother,

did u watch the video? if u did i cant believe all u could come up with is a wikipedia definition....what is your explanation from your heart ? i have a son 8 yrs old who is battling leaukemia....let's hear your thoughts... please.. question everything and anything....only way to get some real answers....respectably..

 

[skidoorulz]

Like Polaris said, all this on a video? You really want to risk your 8 year olds life on a video? Do a more thorough search on the great Dr. Quack. There is no clinical proof that what he did works. I said did because he is no longer doing it. There are ex patients of his that are calling him a quack. There is no evidence that he has "cured" anything. I lost my mom 2 years ago to cancer but it wasn't the cancer that killed her it was the surgery. So I have been there. If I were you I would dump this mythical "cure" and I would be contacting St Judes children's hospital. They have made huge strides in the treatment of childhood cancers. I darn sure would not be risking my child's life on something that could not even be substantiated by anything but what the Doctor says. Maybe if I was 70 I would volunteer to be a Guinea pig for some whack jobs testing, but not a child.
If I remember right St. Judes charges their patients nothing. Dr. Quack required 30k upfront just to be accepted into his care.

So to some it up. From the heart. I would never risk the life of my 8 year old on something that I saw on a video.

 

[Idcatman3]

All other doctors are evil and just out for your money, but this one doctor has all the answers and is a good person?

Anyway, I agree that Wikipedia shouldn't be a stopping point for research.

so:
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/stanislaw-burzynskis-personalized-gene-targeted-cancer-therapy/

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/antineoplastons/patient/page2

I know, biased "science" and evil "government"

If he was getting the results claimed, he'd be able to publish in reputable journals.

I'm perfectly fine with more studies being done on the efficacy of his treatments, but until they are, I'd be cautious.

 

[beard]

Like Polaris said, all this on a video? You really want to risk your 8 year olds life on a video? Do a more thorough search on the great Dr. Quack. There is no clinical proof that what he did works. I said did because he is no longer doing it. There are ex patients of his that are calling him a quack. There is no evidence that he has "cured" anything. I lost my mom 2 years ago to cancer but it wasn't the cancer that killed her it was the surgery. So I have been there. If I were you I would dump this mythical "cure" and I would be contacting St Judes children's hospital. They have made huge strides in the treatment of childhood cancers. I darn sure would not be risking my child's life on something that could not even be substantiated by anything but what the Doctor says. Maybe if I was 70 I would volunteer to be a Guinea pig for some whack jobs testing, but not a child.
If I remember right St. Judes charges their patients nothing. Dr. Quack required 30k upfront just to be accepted into his care.

So to some it up. From the heart. I would never risk the life of my 8 year old on something that I saw on a video.

i don't recall saying i was going to risk the life on my son on a video, only that i'd take any and all info to find the best course of action possible. dr.b battled the fda for years with the help of fundraising from people he cured. they raised more than 20 million dollars for him...something tells me this man is on the up and up....something tells me his patients feel the same way,

trust me when you get cancer you are going to be a guinea pig, and your age will have nothing to do with it.

 

[polaris dude]

Sorry, I'd trust a hospital to care for me before I shell out 250k for this guy whose got nothing to back up his claims. Is it possible to get a list of his cured patients or even hear from a couple?

 

[beard]

Sorry, I'd trust a hospital to care for me before I shell out 250k for this guy whose got nothing to back up his claims. Is it possible to get a list of his cured patients or even hear from a couple?

If u watch the video there is a police officer who specializes in fraud he investigated dr. B before he cured his daughter of a brain Tumour... I'm usually leary of police but in this instance he seems credible.... Although u might argue that the police officer in the video is indeed an actor, if u are a Tim foil hat type, lol.

 

[polaris dude]

If u watch the video there is a police officer who specializes in fraud he investigated dr. B before he cured his daughter of a brain Tumour... I'm usually leary of police but in this instance he seems credible.... Although u might argue that the police officer in the video is indeed an actor, if u are a Tim foil hat type, lol.

If she had a brain tumor why not just get surgery? There are a plethora of reasons why that could be a falsified account. Why is there no record of any of these good things he does besides in that one particular video? What about the one person who died possibly from the use of his chemo he gave him/her? I am a firm believer in doing things of this nature by the book when no one else can get the results he does using his techniques. It would appear he has been fudging the numbers at least slightly.

 

[beard]

If she had a brain tumor why not just get surgery? There are a plethora of reasons why that could be a falsified account. Why is there no record of any of these good things he does besides in that one particular video? What about the one person who died possibly from the use of his chemo he gave him/her? I am a firm believer in doing things of this nature by the book when no one else can get the results he does using his techniques. It would appear he has been fudging the numbers at least slightly.

Of course they removed the part of the tumor they could, unfortunately for her it was the most aggressive type of tumor u can have, they followed with intense doses of chemo and radiation... When this wasn't doing anything except killing her the FDA allowed dr b to do his thing. Within weeks her tumor was gone, sadly she succumbed to the radiation and chemo which eventually killed her. She was cancer free at the time of her death.

What dr b does is not chemo... There are zero side effects. Isn't it just as likely that the FDA who stole all his patients records is fudging numbers?

 

[polaris dude]

Fair enough. All valid points as far as I can see. But he does prescribe chemo to people as well. However, you are correct when saying antineoplaston therapy is not any form of chemo. Regardless, according to the cancer.org(source below) his therapy does seem to have the potential to really help people. BUT if it is so great why doesn't he do the clinical trials with a control group and all the other stuff so as to follow standard procedure and protocol? He knows how to properly run a scientific experiment, so why isn't he? It just seems fishy that he isn't doing it and has lied on a couple of different counts(according to the source below). It is an interesting read to say the least.

http://www.cancer.org/treatment/tre...andbiologicaltreatment/antineoplaston-therapy

 

[POLZIN]

Fair enough. All valid points as far as I can see. But he does prescribe chemo to people as well. However, you are correct when saying antineoplaston therapy is not any form of chemo. Regardless, according to the cancer.org(source below) his therapy does seem to have the potential to really help people. BUT if it is so great why doesn't he do the clinical trials with a control group and all the other stuff so as to follow standard procedure and protocol? He knows how to properly run a scientific experiment, so why isn't he? It just seems fishy that he isn't doing it and has lied on a couple of different counts(according to the source below). It is an interesting read to say the least.

http://www.cancer.org/treatment/tre...andbiologicaltreatment/antineoplaston-therapy

Marijuana is a schedule 1 narcotic therefore you cant legally perform clinical trials. The law treats its like heroin etc. its retarded but that is the federal law


the Chemo drugs the had out everyday are WAY WAY worse that any narcotic out there but they are legal . It makes no sense whatsoever !

 

[polaris dude]

I'm not sure what that has to do with my post but sure. The difference between narcotics and chemo drugs is that you do not get addicted to chemo drugs.

 

[POLZIN]

BUT if it is so great why doesn't he do the clinical trials with a control group and all the other stuff so as to follow standard procedure and protocol?


This is what it has to do with your post.

Also weed is NOT addicting.

 

[polaris dude]

BUT if it is so great why doesn't he do the clinical trials with a control group and all the other stuff so as to follow standard procedure and protocol?


This is what it has to do with your post.

Also weed is NOT addicting.

But he doesn't use marijuana or at least that is not the part he developed.

And I wasn't referring to marijuana when I said narcotics are addictive, since I don't agree with them being illegal. However, all others are definitely addictive.

 

[beard]

I'm not sure what that has to do with my post but sure. The difference between narcotics and chemo drugs is that you do not get addicted to chemo drugs.

The difference between weed/narcotics and chemo is that chemo kills u eventually and weed makes you hungry lol

 

[YAMA S]

Take a look at just what the top CEO's put in their pocket. Do you think they want the status quo to change at all!


http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/3236641

 

[jwhitee]

big pharma

Big Pharma, try as it might, cannot keep individuals on brand-name narcotics too well once they go off-patent, typically due to the substantial cost. However, numerous large prescription businesses are issuing narcotic coupons to get individuals to keep buying them.

 

[polaris dude]

Big Pharma, try as it might, cannot keep individuals on brand-name narcotics too well once they go off-patent, typically due to the substantial cost. However, numerous large prescription businesses are issuing narcotic coupons to get individuals to keep buying them.

All of this is true besides the part about narcotics.

To a point I do agree it is unfair the prices they charge, but at the same time if they did not make their money then there would be no reason to do the research to find and develop new drugs.

 

[Jeff C]

I'll put it to you this way. If I got diagnosed with cancer tomorrow I WOULDN'T be receiving chemo/radiation. I will however be taking something that's green & has zero bad side effects.

What if you were told that you had a 95% chance of beating the cancer that is in your body now, and a 90% chance that it would never come back again by doing chemo/radiation -vs- 50% chance of beating the cancer in your body now, and a 50% chance of it never coming back, by using some special green remedy?


I bet your bold declaration would evaporate, and it should, unless your mentally fubar'ed

 

[Jeff C]

All of this is true besides the part about narcotics.

To a point I do agree it is unfair the prices they charge, but at the same time if they did not make their money then there would be no reason to do the research to find and develop new drugs.

I have a brother that works for an International drug company that specializes in drugs that treat cancer and the effects of cancer.

He is in the FDA approval area. You cannot possibly believe how expensive it is to bring a new drug to market, all the years of trials, toxisity testing, interaction testing. Then you bring the drug to market and only have a specific time period to try and get your money back and make a profit before the time runs out on your patent. If the FDA does not clear your drug, guess what you lose tens of millions of dollars.

The treatments are becoming so specialized down to a DNA cellular level. The treatment that is right for you, is probably not right for another guy with the same cancer. They look genetically now and formulate a therapy cocktail based on what they find out about your specific gene make up.....

Dont think for a minute companies are not working on cures. If there is some sort of shot, it will not be a one sized fits all type of situation, as there are 100's of types of cancers.

Just trying to supply a small bit of perspective here...........