-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
Dr Burzynski
- Thread starter Gifter
- Start date
braineclipse
Willie Hall
Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislaw_Burzynski):
"The Village Voice commented that the movie "violates every basic rule of ethical filmmaking" and that by interviewing only Burzynski's supporters, the film’s producer "is either unusually credulous, or doesn't understand the difference between a documentary and an advertisement".[23] Variety described the film as having the qualities of a "paranoid conspiracy theory" and likened it to the National Enquirer, adding that the film’s explanatory diagrams are "simplistic to the point of idiocy". The review concluded that "despite its infotainment look, Burzynski ultimately proves convincing."[24] Prior to the debut of "Burzynski", Houston Press correspondent Cory Malisow mocked the film’s lack of objectivity, calling it "a puff-piece paean that cherrypicks facts and ignores any criticism", and criticized it for presenting only Burzynski's side of the story.[25]"
The part on the wiki page about the alleged treatment is quite definitive in it's rejection and seemingly well sourced.
This Burzynski person charges his patients tens of thousands of dollars, sometimes even hundreds of thousands of dollars. But that wouldn't be interesting for the pharmaceutical industry?
After years of "studies" this man has yet been able to write up a scientific paper describing his studies and results without there being massive holes in it. Other labs and researchers have tried to replicate what he is doing and they have failed. He tried to threaten bloggers to try to stop them writing about him.
A duck says what?
"The Village Voice commented that the movie "violates every basic rule of ethical filmmaking" and that by interviewing only Burzynski's supporters, the film’s producer "is either unusually credulous, or doesn't understand the difference between a documentary and an advertisement".[23] Variety described the film as having the qualities of a "paranoid conspiracy theory" and likened it to the National Enquirer, adding that the film’s explanatory diagrams are "simplistic to the point of idiocy". The review concluded that "despite its infotainment look, Burzynski ultimately proves convincing."[24] Prior to the debut of "Burzynski", Houston Press correspondent Cory Malisow mocked the film’s lack of objectivity, calling it "a puff-piece paean that cherrypicks facts and ignores any criticism", and criticized it for presenting only Burzynski's side of the story.[25]"
The part on the wiki page about the alleged treatment is quite definitive in it's rejection and seemingly well sourced.
This Burzynski person charges his patients tens of thousands of dollars, sometimes even hundreds of thousands of dollars. But that wouldn't be interesting for the pharmaceutical industry?
After years of "studies" this man has yet been able to write up a scientific paper describing his studies and results without there being massive holes in it. Other labs and researchers have tried to replicate what he is doing and they have failed. He tried to threaten bloggers to try to stop them writing about him.
A duck says what?
braineclipse
Willie Hall
Forgot one thing.
Looked up who the director of this documentary was.
According to Wikipedia: "...directed, written, edited, and narrated by Eric Merola, an art director of television commercials"
On IMDB (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1619378/) Eric Merola has credits for a couple of animation and visual effects jobs on a couple of films/documentaries.
His experience/record for writing, producing, directing and editing films/documentaries seems to be limited exclusively to this one documentary made for Burzynski.
This is who you are getting your information from. Burzynski, who is probably making millions, or at the very least hundreds of thousands of dollars per year on his unproven, ill-documented treatments of desperately sick people and a man most known for work on television commercials and some visual effects work. These are the people you seem to trust...
Looked up who the director of this documentary was.
According to Wikipedia: "...directed, written, edited, and narrated by Eric Merola, an art director of television commercials"
On IMDB (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1619378/) Eric Merola has credits for a couple of animation and visual effects jobs on a couple of films/documentaries.
His experience/record for writing, producing, directing and editing films/documentaries seems to be limited exclusively to this one documentary made for Burzynski.
This is who you are getting your information from. Burzynski, who is probably making millions, or at the very least hundreds of thousands of dollars per year on his unproven, ill-documented treatments of desperately sick people and a man most known for work on television commercials and some visual effects work. These are the people you seem to trust...
Sheikh Ma Nuggets
Tony Parks
Burzynski's claim that his ideas run against a trillion dollar industry are not exactly false.
Must be as popular as if you travelled back to the 1940s and introduced a room of typists to the iPad.
Must be as popular as if you travelled back to the 1940s and introduced a room of typists to the iPad.
braineclipse
Willie Hall
Again, he's charging patients tens and sometimes hundreds of thousands of dollars for treatment. Yet this trillion dollar industry just doesn't want to take part? Really?
Richie
Naybet
I haven't seen what this is actually about as i'm on my phone, but the reality is that if there is scientific evidence for whatever he is doing, a new industry will develop to replace an old industry if there is money to be made.
Sheikh Ma Nuggets
Tony Parks
I'd suggest you watch the video so you can make a more informed opinion.
Exactly, "if there is money to be made" - that's the key observation. It's incredibly hard for the current pharmaceutical industry to 'make money' if, as is the case, Burzynski holds all the patents for this treatment. To that end, it becomes an agenda of discreditation and even plagiarism.
This is covered;
"In an interview in January 1982, Dr. Richard J. Crout of the FDA, revealed the FDA's motive for targetting Dr. Burzynski for destruction: "I never have and never will approve a new drug to an individual, but only to a large pharmaceutical firm with unlimited finances," declared Dr. Crout"
What the fudge! Cancer foundations get $5.2Billion donations a year, what the hell has funding got to do with it?
braineclipse
Willie Hall
I don't care if he's operating within the letter of the law or not.
braineclipse
Willie Hall
If there is a "cure for cancer" there will be money to be made and Burzynski could make a lot more from licensing his patents to "big pharma" than he does treating a small number of patients on his own.
I don't know what is worse, him scamming desperate people out of their life savings, putting their relatives into massive debts by selling snake oil or him actually having the cure for cancer, but refusing to publish his studies and license his patents so it could help the masses cause he's too greedy and wants all the profits himself.
The question isn't "if there is money to be made", the question is "does it work". There is a way to figure out if it works or not... It's called double blind placebo controlled studies.
Richie
Naybet
Why does he care what the FDA thinks? If this treatment really works and he has clinical proof, bring it to the UK or any other country, I'm sure the NHS would love to have a cure for cancer.
If it works and he can prove it, he could set up his own company and sell it and become a billionaire. If it actually works in double blind placebo clinical trials, there isn't a whole lot 'big pharma' can do.
braineclipse
Willie Hall
That's the one.
Unfortunately the logic behind trusting double blind placebo controlled trials isn't self evident to all.
BedfordBen
Michael Brown
I know many people working in *real* cancer research and the hatred they feel for this charlatan is immeasurable. He preys on the weak and helpless who have no hope of a cure, and robs them of thousands upon thousands of dollars, only for them to die anyway. And he isn't in prison yet... Only in America!
BedfordBen
Michael Brown
His lawyer is a nasty piece of work too: http://rhysmorgan.co/threats-from-the-burzynski-clinic/
Schoolboy on twitter doubts your treatment because you have provided absolutely zero scientific evidence? Threaten to sue him. Nice.
Schoolboy on twitter doubts your treatment because you have provided absolutely zero scientific evidence? Threaten to sue him. Nice.
braineclipse
Willie Hall
You are right about just about everything in your post. Unfortunately the "only in America" part is wrong.
If folks can't be arsed to watch the video it is pointless debating the efficacy of Burzynski's work.
He is working with stage 4 cancer sufferers where there are no FDA accepted cures, ie the most difficult to treat, his rates with these are between 17-27.5% cure rate compared to something like 0.01% via conventional means, plus his treatments are non-toxic, so his patients, at worst, will suffer no significant loss of life quality before death if the treatment is unsuccessful.
To bring up that he charges alot of money of just absurd, as the reason he has to run his centre that way is because NONE of the $5.2Billion in yearly budgets for Cancer Research are being allocated to his work ( http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/NCI/research-funding );
"In an interview in January 1982, Dr. Richard J. Crout of the FDA, revealed the FDA's motive for targetting Dr. Burzynski for destruction: "I never have and never will approve a new drug to an individual, but only to a large pharmaceutical firm with unlimited finances," declared Dr. Crout. The next year, the FDA began its vendetta against Burzynski, an individual with limited finances. "
Really sorry stuff.
He is working with stage 4 cancer sufferers where there are no FDA accepted cures, ie the most difficult to treat, his rates with these are between 17-27.5% cure rate compared to something like 0.01% via conventional means, plus his treatments are non-toxic, so his patients, at worst, will suffer no significant loss of life quality before death if the treatment is unsuccessful.
To bring up that he charges alot of money of just absurd, as the reason he has to run his centre that way is because NONE of the $5.2Billion in yearly budgets for Cancer Research are being allocated to his work ( http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/NCI/research-funding );
"In an interview in January 1982, Dr. Richard J. Crout of the FDA, revealed the FDA's motive for targetting Dr. Burzynski for destruction: "I never have and never will approve a new drug to an individual, but only to a large pharmaceutical firm with unlimited finances," declared Dr. Crout. The next year, the FDA began its vendetta against Burzynski, an individual with limited finances. "
Really sorry stuff.
Thanks for taking the time to watch sheikh, sorry it is somewhat sad.