Cancer cure... it's real, it's NOW, and it's in Texas.

73 replies
  • OFF TOPIC
  • |
The first 5 minutes will blow you away...

http://vimeo.com/24821365
  • Profile picture of the author Kay King
    What is surprising is that anyone is surprised. This type of manipulation has been going on for a long time in several areas that concern health and safety. Big profits talk louder than anything else - and pharma is big profit.
    Signature
    Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
    ***
    One secret to happiness is to let every situation be
    what it is instead of what you think it should be.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4067354].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ThomM
      I lost my last wife to cancer so this was of particular interest to me.
      I suspected then that there where cures, but there isn't the recurring profit in curing as there is in treating.
      I was in tears by the end, especially knowing my wife could of been saved.
      I'm currently doing battle with the health care system after my visit to the hospital last month. This film has just convinced me that I am doing the right thing. Thank you.
      Signature

      Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
      Getting old ain't for sissy's
      As you are I was, as I am you will be
      You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4067622].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author HeySal
      Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

      What is surprising is that anyone is surprised. This type of manipulation has been going on for a long time in several areas that concern health and safety. Big profits talk louder than anything else - and pharma is big profit.
      What surprises me is he finally got it out. This guy has spent a couple of decades in court with everyone and his brother trying to suppress him. Pharma went after him and so did the FDA, which is supposed to protect us. They even tried to imprison him and take his Medical licenses. This guy had some sharp lawyers - but we can actually thank judges for this one. One of the more recent judges in the case told the suing entities that he wasn't going to prosecute someone solely so they can make money.

      So after two decades of major onslaughts and a lot of help with funding from his patients, and every medical/industrial complex leader in the world trying to shut him up -- we get some results.
      Signature

      Sal
      When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
      Beyond the Path

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4068410].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    I don't think I've talked about the "side effects" of my cancer treatment before and I am not going to now, but if I had known about this treatment I would not have agreed to the treatment I had.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4068192].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ScottyM2
    I pray that the doctor with the cure stays protected, safe, and is able to continue to offer his cure and make it available to the whole planet.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4068229].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Sunfyre7896
    I've been suspecting this for awhile. Why would you cure something, anything, when you can just create a "treatment" that lasts a lifetime. Take for instance Herpes. I bet there's a cure, but when you can sell someone Valtrex coming out of college, you have a lifetime customer. An area that I've read a lot about and is also the largest area of big pharma today are the statin drugs that are supposed to help your health by lowering cholesterol. They lower your cholesterol, in turn leading to less negative health effects such as heart attacks, etc. What I have been researching is that lowering your cholesterol is actually a bad thing since it is the most abundant chemical process in the body for many of your natural functions and by lowering it, it actually makes you more sick than by not taking the medication. What causes the most problems are saturated and trans fats, not the cholesterol. It's a con posed by big pharma to sell more prescriptions. It's the number one money making prescriptions to date for big pharma. The FDA of course, okayed the drugs as per the Prescription Drug User Fee Act that allowed them to make a butt-load of money. Doctors don't know any better because they trust the FDA and a couple of journals written by "top" doctors that are also getting paid. Oh well. I refuse to take prescription drugs. I've found better ways to stay healthy without taking all of the medications they say you need for every little symptom and illness you ever get.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4068686].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    "I refuse to take prescription drugs. I've found better ways to stay healthy without taking all of the medications they say you need for every little symptom and illness you ever get."


    Sounds good but some of us have no choice.
    I questioned the need for some meds once and I was basically told that if I didn't take any and everything I get prescribed my chances of getting a transplant would be zero.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4068732].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Sunfyre7896
    Another way it seems that they force your hand. What happened to oath of ethics they're supposed to uphold?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4068799].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ThomM
      Originally Posted by Sunfyre7896 View Post

      Another way it seems that they force your hand. What happened to oath of ethics they're supposed to uphold?
      What they do is hold your health hostage.
      Oh well. I refuse to take prescription drugs. I've found better ways to stay healthy without taking all of the medications they say you need for every little symptom and illness you ever get.
      Back in the late 90's I was taking medications for G.E.R.D., Arthritis, and Depression. I was told I would be on those three different medications for the rest of my life. Jump forward to the present. I cured the arthritis with apple cider vinegar a couple of years ago. I don't really know what happened with the g.e.r.d but I haven't had a problem with it since I stopped taking the medication about 10 years ago. On occasion I still get heartburn, but only a couple of times a year. The depression is kept under control by raking St. John's Wort at the regular dose for 2 weeks every 2 to 3 months. The main thing that keeps it under control is knowing what triggers it, something the doctors never bothered to find out.
      Somethings you need a doctor for and there are good doctors out there who truly care about your health. The problem is in finding them.
      Same with the pharmaceuticals, some are very good. Most are not.
      Signature

      Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
      Getting old ain't for sissy's
      As you are I was, as I am you will be
      You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4069254].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author homerunhitter
    there is a lot of money in keeping people sick. which is scary. If you can profit off of someones sickness, then there are people trying to keep people sick.

    If a mass cure for cancer came about it would threaten a billion dollar industry.

    Same with petrochemical fuels etc.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4069596].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author DancingHamster
    D: And to think there could be more we don't know...
    Signature

    Ask me about making screencast tutorials for your software/service.

    Follow me on Twitter @SomewhatJustin

    Check out my startup, Audio Press

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4069679].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Patrician
    Some of us have always intuitively known about this criminal fascist conspiracy in general -- and of course we are called paranoid nuts.

    I am practically in tears when I see the proof in something, particularly right now because I have been praying so hard for an answer for a dear friend who is considering radiation that may leave him messed up (prostrate) -

    I really feel like you posting this video is the answer to my prayers for him. Not just IF he gets antineoplastons, but at least that he DOESN'T get conventional treatment without knowing there are still alternatives.

    God bless you for sharing this.
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4070302].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author KimW
      Originally Posted by Patrician View Post

      Some of us have always intuitively known about this criminal fascist conspiracy in general -- and of course we are called paranoid nuts.

      I am practically in tears when I see the proof in something, particularly right now because I have been praying so hard for an answer for a dear friend who is considering radiation that may leave him messed up (prostrate) -

      I really feel like you posting this video is the answer to my prayers for him. Not just IF he gets antineoplastons, but at least that he DOESN'T get conventional treatment without knowing there are still alternatives.

      God bless you for sharing this.
      Patrician,
      My "cure" for my prostate cancer was far worse than the disease,imo.
      Here is just one example.
      I never had any heartburn or gastrointestinol(sp?) problems in the 52 years before my diagnosis . Immediately,and I do mean immediately after the surgery I started having problems. As it is now, I have to take two Prilosec ( I take the generic though) every day.If I don't I literally throw up. This is a drug that has warnings not to take for more than two weeks at a time.
      Signature

      Read A Post.
      Subscribe to a Newsletter
      KimWinfrey.Com

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4070714].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
        Yes, big pharma makes tons of money and is corrupt, but this guy isn't doing these treatments for free. It costs about $100,000 for the first year and then $30,000 to $60,000 per year after wards. Seems to be an ongoing treatment from what I can tell. He apparently has treated something like 10,000 patients so he has made probably in the hundreds of millions depending on how long the average treatment lasts.

        Dr. Andrew Weil, known more as being a strong supporter of integrative medicine including alternative treatments says:

        ...his success rates are unknown. His Web site states only that he has helped "many" people. If antineoplaston therapy works, we should have scientific studies showing what percentage of patients treated have survived and for how long, as well as evidence showing how Dr. Burzynski's method stacks up against conventional cancer treatment. The only study I know that documents how Dr. Burzynski's patients have fared was done in Canada in 1985. It found that of 36 patients treated, 32 died without showing signs of improvements. One patient died after slight improvement, another died after being stable for a year and, at the time of the study, the other two had widespread cancer.

        The cost of antineoplaston therapy at Dr. Burzynski's clinic reportedly ranges from $30,000 to $60,000 per year. After initial treatment there, patients may be able to continue therapy at home with follow up clinic visits every two months.

        Until we have credible scientific evidence showing what antineoplastons are, how they act in the body, and what realistic expectations of treatment with them might be, I see no reason for any cancer patient to take this route.
        Signature
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4071075].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author MerlynSanchez
          Thank you for sharing this. I was looking for more information on this doctor and his treatment and gave up after several pages of "pro" websites that offered no objective opinions on this treatment.




          Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

          Yes, big pharma makes tons of money and is corrupt, but this guy isn't doing these treatments for free. It costs about $100,000 for the first year and then $30,000 to $60,000 per year after wards. Seems to be an ongoing treatment from what I can tell. He apparently has treated something like 10,000 patients so he has made probably in the hundreds of millions depending on how long the average treatment lasts.

          Dr. Andrew Weil, known more as being a strong supporter of integrative medicine including alternative treatments says:
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4071123].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author ThomM
          Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

          Yes, big pharma makes tons of money and is corrupt, but this guy isn't doing these treatments for free. It costs about $100,000 for the first year and then $30,000 to $60,000 per year after wards. Seems to be an ongoing treatment from what I can tell. He apparently has treated something like 10,000 patients so he has made probably in the hundreds of millions depending on how long the average treatment lasts.

          Dr. Andrew Weil, known more as being a strong supporter of integrative medicine including alternative treatments says:
          Tim practically ever case shown in the video showed the progress of the remission and when the patient was declared cured and treatments stopped.
          The video also showed what happened when he turned it over to the cancer society and what they attempted to do. If you watch the whole video you will get the whole story.
          Signature

          Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
          Getting old ain't for sissy's
          As you are I was, as I am you will be
          You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4071158].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Kurt
          Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

          Yes, big pharma makes tons of money and is corrupt, but this guy isn't doing these treatments for free. It costs about $100,000 for the first year and then $30,000 to $60,000 per year after wards. Seems to be an ongoing treatment from what I can tell. He apparently has treated something like 10,000 patients so he has made probably in the hundreds of millions depending on how long the average treatment lasts.

          Dr. Andrew Weil, known more as being a strong supporter of integrative medicine including alternative treatments says:

          Hey Tim,

          Did you watch the entire movie? During a number of the legal issues, the Feds never claimed it didn't work, and actually said that the treatment working or not was "irrelevant".

          It actually appears to me more like an attempt to hijack his patent than anything else, including any supression of a cure.


          Your Dr. that was quoted said:
          Until we have credible scientific evidence showing what antineoplastons are, how they act in the body, and what realistic expectations of treatment with them might be, I see no reason for any cancer patient to take this route.
          How does this work exactly? How do you get evidence of expectations without patients "taking this route"?

          A big problem of Dr. Burzynski's was getting institutions like the National Cancer Institute to:

          1. Actually administer tests in the first place.

          2. When they did, to follow his protocol.

          In the movie he has documented cases using the most incurable of cancers, such as brain cancer in kids.

          According to his data, based on about 40 cases, he had a success rate of about 25%, which was 11 people living past 5 years.

          A similar study done with chemo/radiation claimed a success rate of .9%. It was like one person out of 70 lived past 5 years, if my memory is correct.

          Overall, he claimed a "cure rate" of between 30-50%, depending on the type of cancer.

          I am concerned that the movie is heavily one-sided. However, Dr. Burzynski went through 20 years of legal hassles with the Gov at various levels and not once did anyone prove that his methods didn't work...Quite the contrary.

          The charges were based on things like transporting the drug across state lines, etc, and not if the drugs actually worked or not.

          In one case, the jurors from a previous court case actually showed up and joined the protest of a following court case, basically saying they believe he was being rail-roaded. If Dr. Burzynski's methods don't work, he's one of the best con men of all time, as he even converted a jury.

          And let's be honest, chemo and radiation are both carcinogens themselves. I think I'd rather die than go through that crap.
          Signature
          Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
          Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4071301].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Kurt
            Originally Posted by Patrician View Post

            Yes - I was going to say - it showed several percentages as well as results from his patients - I don't think he ever claimed 100% success.

            Pharma - 9%

            Dr. B - 25-30%
            Originally Posted by Kurt View Post


            In the movie he has documented cases using the most incurable of cancers, such as brain cancer in kids.

            According to his data, based on about 40 cases, he had a success rate of about 25%, which was 11 people living past 5 years.

            A similar study done with chemo/radiation claimed a success rate of .9%. It was like one person out of 70 lived past 5 years, if my memory is correct.
            I want to clarify that Patricia's info and my info are not contradictions, they were two different samples of results given in the movie.
            Signature
            Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
            Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4071341].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
            Yes, I watched all of it. The reason I pointed out the price the doctor makes from this was because I wanted to show that what this Dr is doing is an expensive treatment that either works or doesn't. If it works then treatment eventually stops apparently and if it doesn't work treatment also eventually stops when the patient dies. In that regard it is the same as chemo or radiation treatment: they either work or they don't. It's not a vaccine which would end cancer for good. So I don't see a supression of a cure either.

            The movie was well made and did present a strong case but as you say Kurt, it is one sided. I have read some negative things about him and his treatment as well. I do hope the clinical trials that are supposed to end soon turn out well.

            Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

            Did you watch the entire movie?

            It actually appears to me more like an attempt to hijack his patent than anything else, including any supression of a cure.

            Signature
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4073035].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Kurt
              Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

              Yes, I watched all of it. The reason I pointed out the price the doctor makes from this was because I wanted to show that what this Dr is doing is an expensive treatment that either works or doesn't. If it works then treatment eventually stops apparently and if it doesn't work treatment also eventually stops when the patient dies. In that regard it is the same as chemo or radiation treatment: they either work or they don't. It's not a vaccine which would end cancer for good. So I don't see a supression of a cure either.

              The movie was well made and did present a strong case but as you say Kurt, it is one sided. I have read some negative things about him and his treatment as well. I do hope the clinical trials that are supposed to end soon turn out well.
              It is one sided and I'm still a bit skeptical.

              However, based on the facts in the move, I do believe without any doubt that Dr. Burzynski deserves a chance to fairly be proven right or wrong.

              In that regard it is the same as chemo or radiation treatment: they either work or they don't.
              IMO, what matters is if it works EQUALLY well or better than chemo/radiation. If it's just as good (equal), it's far less destructive than chemo/radiation and puts the patient through far less BS, both during treatment and after.

              So IMO, tie goes to the runner, and in this case the runner is Dr. Burzynski.
              Signature
              Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
              Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4074749].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                IMO, what matters is if it works EQUALLY well or better than chemo/radiation. If it's just as good (equal), it's far less destructive than chemo/radiation and puts the patient through far less BS, both during treatment and after.

                So IMO, tie goes to the runner, and in this case the runner is Dr. Burzynski.
                My thoughts also Kurt.
                I'm amazed that chemo and radiation therapy are so widely excepted.
                Especially radiation therapy. Both have very low success rates.
                I remember talking to a lady once who had cancer (I forget which one or where she had it). She told me she tried chemo and radiation and the cancer was easier to deal with then either of them.

                Tim sure his treatments may be expensive, but do you think regular cancer treatments are cheap?
                Also with most cancer treatments they tell you up front that it probably won't cure the cancer but it may prolong your life. Then they tell you about the side effects you can expect. Have you ever had to care for someone who is going through chemo? I won't even get into the radiation therapy, I thought the first gentlemen in the beginning of the film talking about what radiation did to his son covers that very well.
                Given a choice and considering the odds of survival and side effects of both standard treatments and Dr. Burzynski's treatment. I'd take the doctors treatment every time.
                Even if it didn't cure the cancer at least you don't have the added torment of dealing with the side effects of chemo or radiation.
                Signature

                Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                Getting old ain't for sissy's
                As you are I was, as I am you will be
                You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4074937].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author derekwong28
                  You know, I have worked in oncology for 3 months. As directed by my superiors, I used to go around writing the following order in patient's notes.

                  DO NOT RESUSCITATE

                  This is an order to the nursing staff not to call the resuscitation team and just let the patient die. So basically, I was ordering some sort of death sentence and many did die under my care. Of course, I didn't like it at all but this is general policy and normal practice around the world.

                  So the truth if you get to the stage of requiring radiological treatment or chemotherapy, the outlook is usually very grim.
                  Signature

                  Do not get between a wombat and a chocolate biscuit; you will regret it dearly!

                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4075219].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author BlueIndigo
                    Originally Posted by derekwong28 View Post

                    You know, I have worked in oncology for 3 months. As directed by my superiors, I used to go around writing the following order in patient's notes.

                    DO NOT RESUSCITATE

                    This is an order to the nursing staff not to call the resuscitation team and just let the patient die. So basically, I was ordering some sort of death sentence and many did die under my care. Of course, I didn't like it at all but this is general policy and normal practice around the world.

                    So the truth if you get to the stage of requiring radiological treatment or chemotherapy, the outlook is usually very grim.
                    Sad... are these decisions based on patient's wishes? Insurance? Doctor's discretion?
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4075755].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author derekwong28
                      Originally Posted by BlueIndigo View Post

                      Sad... are these decisions based on patient's wishes? Insurance? Doctor's discretion?
                      This is usually based completely on doctor's decision without consulting the patient. The head doctor in charge of the patient is usually involved. Insurance will be completely out of it. Also, I suppose the hospital itself could have a general policy. I suppose if the patient expresses his wishes one way or another, then it is likely to be followed.

                      This was in the UK and I don't know what is the general policy in the US. I think hospitals in the US may be reluctant to do this without the patient's or the patient's family agreement.

                      The chances of resuscitating a cancer patient in the end stage of illness is almost negligible. Even if successful, the patient will end suffering worse than before.
                      Signature

                      Do not get between a wombat and a chocolate biscuit; you will regret it dearly!

                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4078100].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                        Originally Posted by derekwong28 View Post

                        This is usually based completely on doctor's decision without consulting the patient. The head doctor in charge of the patient is usually involved. Insurance will be completely out of it. Also, I suppose the hospital itself could have a general policy. I suppose if the patient expresses his wishes one way or another, then it is likely to be followed.

                        This was in the UK and I don't know what is the general policy in the US. I think hospitals in the US may be reluctant to do this without the patient's or the patient's family agreement.

                        The chances of resuscitating a cancer patient in the end stage of illness is almost negligible. Even if successful, the patient will end suffering worse than before.
                        Derek I believe here either the patient or their health care proxy have to sign a D.N.R. order. If they are in hospice then that is part of the arrangement. I don't know about else where, but hospice here is only for the terminally ill. They don't step until after nothing more can be done to save or prolong the patient's life. As much as I dislike our healthcare system I have nothing but praise for the people who work in hospice.
                        I don't know how they do what they do, but I'm eternally grateful they do.
                        Signature

                        Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                        Getting old ain't for sissy's
                        As you are I was, as I am you will be
                        You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4078212].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author Kurt
                        Originally Posted by derekwong28 View Post

                        This is usually based completely on doctor's decision without consulting the patient. The head doctor in charge of the patient is usually involved. Insurance will be completely out of it. Also, I suppose the hospital itself could have a general policy. I suppose if the patient expresses his wishes one way or another, then it is likely to be followed.

                        This was in the UK and I don't know what is the general policy in the US. I think hospitals in the US may be reluctant to do this without the patient's or the patient's family agreement.

                        The chances of resuscitating a cancer patient in the end stage of illness is almost negligible. Even if successful, the patient will end suffering worse than before.
                        IMO, this is a major reason (of many) for the high health care costs in the US. We spend a ton of money on keeping people alive for an extra month or two, often where the patient has a horrible standard of "living".

                        Then some politicians label them "death squads" if we decide that this money should be spent on other things, such as more preventative methods that not only add to the person's longevity, but standard of living as well.
                        Signature
                        Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
                        Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4079341].message }}
                        • Profile picture of the author MerlynSanchez
                          Well, some people prefer to have an extra month or two regardless of their standard of living while others don't.

                          It should be up to each individual to decide how they wish to live or die.





                          Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

                          IMO, this is a major reason (of many) for the high health care costs in the US. We spend a ton of money on keeping people alive for an extra month or two, often where the patient has a horrible standard of "living".

                          Then some politicians label them "death squads" if we decide that this money should be spent on other things, such as more preventative methods that not only add to the person's longevity, but standard of living as well.
                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4079463].message }}
                          • Profile picture of the author Kurt
                            Originally Posted by MerlynSanchez View Post

                            Well, some people prefer to have an extra month or two regardless of their standard of living while others don't.

                            It should be up to each individual to decide how they wish to live or die.
                            If it's their own money/insurance, or we have unlimited funds, I agree.

                            If it's gov money with a limited budget, then I say spend it on kid health, where we'll get more value.
                            Signature
                            Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
                            Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4079480].message }}
                            • Profile picture of the author MerlynSanchez
                              "Well, Mr. Jones, you have terminal cancer but with treatment, you could live another 3-6 months. Unfortunately, Medicaid won't pay for it so you'll have to go home and die now".

                              That is horrifying.



                              Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

                              If it's their own money/insurance, or we have unlimited funds, I agree.

                              If it's gov money with a limited budget, then I say spend it on kid health, where we'll get more value.
                              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4079680].message }}
                              • Profile picture of the author James Sides
                                This is disgusting. For years I've watched my family struggle with cancer.

                                The whole time I've been saying that the profit is in treatment not cures...and here it is in my face.

                                The folks withholding this info should all burn for their crimes.

                                -James
                                Signature

                                "People will remain the same until the pain of staying the same is greater than the pain of change."

                                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4079696].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                    Originally Posted by derekwong28 View Post

                    You know, I have worked in oncology for 3 months. As directed by my superiors, I used to go around writing the following order in patient's notes.

                    DO NOT RESUSCITATE

                    This is an order to the nursing staff not to call the resuscitation team and just let the patient die. So basically, I was ordering some sort of death sentence and many did die under my care. Of course, I didn't like it at all but this is general policy and normal practice around the world.

                    So the truth if you get to the stage of requiring radiological treatment or chemotherapy, the outlook is usually very grim.
                    Derek, one of my best friends wife worked for hospice. Her job was to evaluate new hospice patients and then tell their loved ones that they where going to die and there was nothing more to do then make them comfortable.
                    I was and still am in awe of people like you and her who can make those decisions. It must take a lot of compassion and courage to make those calls.
                    Signature

                    Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                    Getting old ain't for sissy's
                    As you are I was, as I am you will be
                    You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4077377].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author rstanley
                      *Bump

                      I recently lost a family member to cancer. And many others in years prior.

                      I don't know if this doctor is real or if his cure works but I do know that corporations make it a habit to "crush the competition" and do so without prejudice.

                      I recently had a client (offline) that runs an oncology clinic that provides chemo treatments. Make no mistake, this is big business for drug companies and doctors.

                      This all makes me think that this Dr. has something real.... Why else would the FDA / drug Companies spend so much time and money trying to shut him down?

                      At a minimum, his medicine should be brought to market via normal channels and tested. But it does not look like "the man" wants that to happen.
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4077570].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                  If the odds Burnzynski shows in the movie are really facts then yes I would choose his therapy over radiation or chemotherapy. That is still in question though from what I can tell. I hope it is all true but there is reason to be skeptical also. He sure does have some very convincing patients and supporters, although the first doctor in the movie was not one of them for me.

                  By the way, I think they could have used subtitles for when Burzynski talked because of his heavy accent.
                  Signature
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4075225].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                    Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                    If the odds Burnzynski shows in the movie are really facts then yes I would choose his therapy over radiation or chemotherapy. That is still in question though from what I can tell. I hope it is all true but there is reason to be skeptical also. He sure does have some very convincing patients and supporters, although the first doctor in the movie was not one of them for me.

                    By the way, I think they could have used subtitles for when Burzynski talked because of his heavy accent.
                    I agree almost with all that Tim
                    I don't see a reason to be skeptical, because I didn't think anything he said was outlandish.
                    But if I was in a situation where I had to decide on a treatment for cancer.
                    I would do as complete an investigation into his treatment as well as other 'unorthodox' treatments as I could before I would decide on a course of action.
                    Signature

                    Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                    Getting old ain't for sissy's
                    As you are I was, as I am you will be
                    You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4076105].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author MikeAmbrosio
          Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

          Yes, big pharma makes tons of money and is corrupt, but this guy isn't doing these treatments for free. It costs about $100,000 for the first year and then $30,000 to $60,000 per year after wards. Seems to be an ongoing treatment from what I can tell. He apparently has treated something like 10,000 patients so he has made probably in the hundreds of millions depending on how long the average treatment lasts.

          Dr. Andrew Weil, known more as being a strong supporter of integrative medicine including alternative treatments says:
          You should watch the movie. You will understand more. I just finished it and I can say this...

          After watching my niece die of colon cancer - horribly, I might add - I wish I would have heard of this doctor.

          At the end of the film, there is a stated "cure rate" of 30% to 50% of patients treated for a particular type of brain cancer.

          Of course, these treatments are not 100% effective in 100% of the people treated, but by accounts in this film, the success rates are staggering as compared to traditional treatments - and the kicker is, his treatment shows NO side effects. We all know how bad the side effects are with radiation and chemo (I saw it first hand with both my niece and my mother who had lung cancer).

          And yes, it costs money. Of course it does. It is expensive to make, etc.

          As for on-going treatment, in the examples shown in this movie, they take it until all signs of cancer are gone. Then they stop. In one example, back in the 90's an eight year old was treated for a form of "inoperable and terminal" brain cancer. He was treated for about a year or more. He is now 24 and still cancer free with no further treatment.

          Whether this film is skewed, slanted or otherwise, I of course could not know. But I found it very interesting indeed.

          Well, off to bed.
          Signature

          Are you protecting your on line business? If you have a website, blog, ecommerce store you NEED to back it up regularly. Your webhost will only protect you so much. Check out Quirkel. Protect yourself.

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4078882].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
            I did watch all of it after I posted that. You should read the whole thread.

            The cure rates are the doctors so that's why I am still a bit skeptical. Would be great to see other trials get the same results but as the doctor said they should use the same protocal.

            Originally Posted by MikeAmbrosio View Post

            You should watch the movie.
            Signature
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4079280].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author MikeAmbrosio
              Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

              I did watch all of it after I posted that. You should read the whole thread.

              The cure rates are the doctors so that's why I am still a bit skeptical. Would be great to see other trials get the same results but as the doctor said they should use the same protocal.
              Sorry - it was 1:40 AM and I was tired.

              It's right and healthy to be skeptical. But I am probably way more skeptical of things stated by FDA, NCI, etc.

              Also, all through the years of court, it was stated by the FDA itself that they were not discounting the results he was getting, so although it may be the doctors stating the results, in essence, the FDA didn't try to say they were wrong - which says a LOT to me. The FDA is an organization that waged a campaign against buying medicine from Canada, calling them "unsafe", when the reality is Canada's FDA equivalent is as - or more - stringent than our own FDA. Canada is not some "third-world" country who doesn't know how to make drugs - it's simply that if the FDA can't stop people from buying from them it takes profit away from pharma companies here.

              Finally, the fact that they were given approval for Phase 3 trials also says a lot to me - again, having dealt with the FDA for 20 some years, this says a lot considering he is not big pharma.
              Signature

              Are you protecting your on line business? If you have a website, blog, ecommerce store you NEED to back it up regularly. Your webhost will only protect you so much. Check out Quirkel. Protect yourself.

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4080147].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Charlotte Jay
    This makes me angry and sad. I am fortunate to be healthy and not take any prescription medications. My best friend's mother just passed away in March of a 2 year fight with breast cancer. This really hits home for me.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4070477].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Patrician
    Yes - I was going to say - it showed several percentages as well as results from his patients - I don't think he ever claimed 100% success.

    Pharma - 9%

    Dr. B - 25-30%

    You never know what the factors are - if they have already been compromised by conventional treatments - how far progressed the cancer was - what kind of general health.

    But disappointing to know how expensive it is if that is true.

    Looks like this article quoted is somebody from the other camp that has tried so hard to discredit him.

    I watched the entire hour and a half video - maybe you should try it before you join the smear.

    Just the fact the National Cancer Institute tried to steal it from him says something, let alone the extensive trials they spent over $20 million on and could not get him -

    ... and not to mention the FDA and the fact that it supports the trials now. To me speaks volumes.

    Of course all the little children on death watch who grew up normal also said alot...

    Or did you miss that part?
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4071191].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author MerlynSanchez
      Dr. Weill, who is quoted in Tim's article, is certainly not pro-pharma. He is a Harvard trained medical doctor who has been an advocate of alternative healing for over 40 years.

      He is highly respected by both traditional and alternative medical practitioners.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4071203].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author MerlynSanchez
        BTW, I did watch the entire video.

        Interesting.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4071213].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author mikemcghee
    Just sickening to think this is the world we are living in. People are can be cured but others are too worried about their money to care.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4071521].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author linksponsor
    except bone and blood cancer.thanks!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4071593].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Ken Durham
    This is a subject that hits deep at home, in more ways than one.
    Not only the fact that many of us have lost loved ones or had the terrible disease themselves, of which a non toxic treatment could have been administered; but there is the very arrogance of government in and of itself. These "people" that we pay to "serve" the populace, have lost all concept of life, liberty, justice, and freedom, but run in fear of the corporate giants for their own namesake. And if they have not yet been assimilated, just give it some time. WE all know, resistance is futile.

    The world needs to know of such things as this: Burzynski Clinic | Advanced Alternative Cancer Treatment | Houston, Texas

    And they certainly need to know just how important "We, The People" are to our masters at large. As mentioned in a previous post, the phrase was: " the treatment, working or not, is irrelevant".

    You can just hear the truth ring out in that phrase. Never before have I heard such an honest truth coming from the feds.

    Us, here, the people that decided not to follow expectations to be a normal guy with a normal job, know the ways of talking to the masses, better than most others. We have the ability to reach out to the world through what we do on a daily basis. With some of the Warriors here being exceedingly good at it.
    Could you imagine the reach if everyone here pooled their talents and resources towards one goal, for just one day? I believe the results would be phenomenal.

    an interesting letter on the subject:
    Suzanne's Blog | Dateline KNOCKOUT - Dr. Burzynski Response
    Signature

    yes, I am....

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4071943].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    It's the truth that it's not a cure that will save everyone. It is also not as effective if given AFTER someone does normal chemo, go figure. And it's still the medical community - so it's still a cure that costs up the ying.

    I'll stick with my own formula. It's cheap and it works. Nature isn't pointless.
    Signature

    Sal
    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
    Beyond the Path

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4072395].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author dagaul101
    It's great there is some progress finding a cure for the big C, the sooner it hits the shelves the better for all of us
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4072465].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author derekwong28
    The sad truth is that for most cancers, once you get to the stage of using chemotherapy, you are not really looking for a cure. The main aim of chemotherapy is to prolong life as much as possible. It is not to get rid of the cancer itself. To date, there are only a few cancers that can be cured by chemotherapy. Therefore, one may as well look at alternative therapy or decide not to take chemotherapy at all.

    The FDA is one of the most respected organizations in the world. Health authorities in every other other country look to the FDA for guidance. I really cannot believe it is as corrupt an organization as some make it out to be. If it is, then much of the advances in health care around the world last century would not have happened.

    The problem with Dr. Burzynski's treatment is that there is no credible mechanism put forward that can be verified independently. But this is the case with many other alternative treatments as well. The fact that a number of Phase II trials are being conducted at least implies that it is not being dismissed completely out of hand. But even if it works better than most conventional treatments, it is still far from a complete cure.
    Signature

    Do not get between a wombat and a chocolate biscuit; you will regret it dearly!

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4073373].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author xhpdx
    I knew it, there had to be a cure for cancer. Now waiting for AIDS.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4073423].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author BlueIndigo
    Until there's a "one pill cures all", (or ultimately, discover how to eradicate the cause) I'm glad that alternative treatments/cures are continually being tested and introduced, and that the effort is still being made to find safer ways to treat these diseases in the first place.

    Bless the pioneers, researchers, and open-minded physicians who will dare say that there is a chance, and those who will continue create and manifest these cures.

    It's difficult to read the posts by those who seem so negative in the manner in which this Dr operates, or those who focus only on or find fault in how the material is being presented.

    It's also hard to fathom how this treatment could get such criticism, when the tail end of most prescription drug commercials advertised on TV have a list of deadly side-effects that are ludicrous, almost humerous, yet "accepted" as allowable.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4074918].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author mologic
    whoa! i saw this before. i wonder if it really works
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4077816].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author derekwong28
    Thom, I don't think a hospice would even have the equipment available for resuscitation. The success rate for resuscitation is very low for other patients anyway. I have only ever seen two patients successfully resuscitated. With one of these patients, I pounded on her chest so hard that I cracked her ribs. But still, I suppose she is very grateful.
    Signature

    Do not get between a wombat and a chocolate biscuit; you will regret it dearly!

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4078288].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ThomM
      Originally Posted by derekwong28 View Post

      Thom, I don't think a hospice would even have the equipment available for resuscitation. The success rate for resuscitation is very low for other patients anyway. I have only ever seen two patients successfully resuscitated. With one of these patients, I pounded on her chest so hard that I cracked her ribs. But still, I suppose she is very grateful.
      No hospice doesn't. They are all about preparing the patient and their family for death.
      For example my wife Chris had home hospice for 3 months before going into a hospice room in the hospital where she spent almost a month before she died.
      At home a hospice nurse would visit every day. She would check on Chris and make sure she was comfortable and answer any questions she had. The nurse would also spend time talking to me about caring for Chris and if I needed help or anything. The nurse would also stay with Chris while I would go to the house I live in now to help my mother who was also seriously ill, and died 3 months after Chris. There was also a psychiatrist (I know I have his title wrong) who would visit me weekly to help me deal mentally with caring for her and in preparing for her death.
      What they do is incredible in my mind. I don't believe I would of made it through that whole experience and still been able to care for my then 13 year old step daughter without them.
      Signature

      Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
      Getting old ain't for sissy's
      As you are I was, as I am you will be
      You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4080822].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author MerlynSanchez
        My mother moved in with me when she was dying of cancer and home hospice was incredible.

        They are truly very special people because I know that I couldn't be surrounded by death, day in and day out.



        Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

        No hospice doesn't. They are all about preparing the patient and their family for death.
        For example my wife Chris had home hospice for 3 months before going into a hospice room in the hospital where she spent almost a month before she died.
        At home a hospice nurse would visit every day. She would check on Chris and make sure she was comfortable and answer any questions she had. The nurse would also spend time talking to me about caring for Chris and if I needed help or anything. The nurse would also stay with Chris while I would go to the house I live in now to help my mother who was also seriously ill, and died 3 months after Chris. There was also a psychiatrist (I know I have his title wrong) who would visit me weekly to help me deal mentally with caring for her and in preparing for her death.
        What they do is incredible in my mind. I don't believe I would of made it through that whole experience and still been able to care for my then 13 year old step daughter without them.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4081789].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author garyv
    In my opinion, he should completely bypass any Government intervention at all, and go for private funding. There are enough people in this world that have suffered, or are suffering from cancer, that a "pay it forward" program would more than keep him funded.

    And if he really has a better working treatment, then eventually someone w/ some real power will be treated by it. (At least we can hope so).

    Thank God that we live in a time where Social media can have such a huge effect on justice.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4081781].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author garyv
    I'm listening to the video now for the 2nd time. But I noticed a short blip about getting this film into netflix.

    **** >>> If you have a netflix account, put this DVD ("Cancer Is Serious Business") Into your DVD Queue - and give it a Star rating. If a lot of people do that, then it will help to make it available to netflix instant viewing
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4081924].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Patrician
    I have watched this type of thing first hand myself - as far as how life and your rights are determined by money.

    A friend died a few years ago of colon cancer. She had the surgery first and the chemo after - the chemo nearly killed her the first time and they DUH realized she should have a smaller dose.

    They would pay for $10,000 each for chemo treatments in the hospital - they were a few times a month. She kept getting worse and more and more obstructions were showing up. Then it started to spread. They told her go to hospice (goodbye).

    Instead she flew to California and found a treatment at UCSF that was pills and they were working - but the problem was they were like $1000 a month.

    Medicare would not pay for these (but they would pay for the $10,000 chemo treatments
    @ 80%)

    She was living in Arkansas at the time. Because her social security was from California where the income level is higher, they did not consider her at poverty level even though it was her only income. So this left her out of many of the services she would have otherwise qualified for.

    So what were her choices? Die now pay later?

    Too broke to keep herself alive, at least she is out of her pain (and I might add considerable justifiable anger).

    RIP Jill
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4082188].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author KimW
      Originally Posted by Patrician View Post

      I have watched this type of thing first hand myself - as far as how life and your rights are determined by money.

      A friend died a few years ago of colon cancer. She had the surgery first and the chemo after - the chemo nearly killed her the first time and they DUH realized she should have a smaller dose.

      They would pay for $10,000 each for chemo treatments in the hospital - they were a few times a month. She kept getting worse and more and more obstructions were showing up. Then it started to spread. They told her go to hospice (goodbye).

      Instead she flew to California and found a treatment at UCSF that was pills and they were working - but the problem was they were like $1000 a month.

      Medicare would not pay for these (but they would pay for the $10,000 chemo treatments
      @ 80%)

      She was living in Arkansas at the time. Because her social security was from California where the income level is higher, they did not consider her at poverty level even though it was her only income. So this left her out of many of the services she would have otherwise qualified for.

      So what were her choices? Die now pay later?

      Too broke to keep herself alive, at least she is out of her pain (and I might add considerable justifiable anger).

      RIP Jill
      Patrician, I hate to hijack your post but this is a serious situation that people with kidney failure face too. Medicare will pay for Dialisys@ 80% of $2200 a day, but they wont pay for the anti-rejection drugs a transplant recipient needs after getting a transplant,which is about $1200 a month. (This isn't completely true from what I understand. They will cover it for about 1-1.5 years,then it stops).
      There are people and organizations trying to get our legislature to fix this.
      Signature

      Read A Post.
      Subscribe to a Newsletter
      KimWinfrey.Com

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4089809].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ScottyM2
    This video is about 2 years old -- but remarkable as well, adding to the alternatives...

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4084171].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author kbnor
      The two time Nobel Prize Winner Linus Pauling, PhD, said that everyone should know that the 'war on cancer' is largely a fraud.
      I did not believe it at first, however, having looked into things for quite some time, it's pretty clear to me that Linus Pauling was right.

      Ulrich Abel, a German biostatistician and epidemiologist, got data from over 300 medical centers around the world: He had requested information regarding anything these centers had published about cancer.
      His findings were published in 1990. He basically described chemotherapy as a "scientific wasteland" - there was no scientific evidence that it worked. (One interesting thing is that if a patient dies during a study on chemo, that person is taken away from the statistics. Why? He/she did not complete the study... Just one example of manipulation of statistics that is going on. There is much more, but that is another story.)

      It seems to me that surgery sometimes is necessary, but that both chemo and radiation should absolutely be avoided.

      I believe it's possible that almost any type of cancer can be healed or treated successfully. Our immune system can do it. We basically will need to focus on ways to supercharge the immune system, and it can take care of almost anything - even stage 4 cancers.

      I recently came across a DVD called "Cancer is Curable NOW!" by Marcus Freudenmann. (Google it. And no, I'm not a "distributor".) He has made a documentary compiled from interviews with 31 cancer healing experts from around the world. One of them is Dr. Burzynski. I'm impressed by Dr. Burzynski, even though some of the other experts are into healing modalities that most often are much less expensive. Yet, most of them have amazing results.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4085940].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author derekwong28
        Originally Posted by kbnor View Post

        It seems to me that surgery sometimes is necessary, but that both chemo and radiation should absolutely be avoided.
        Surgery is responsible for the vast majority of "complete cures" provided that the cancer is detected early and has not spread. Radiotherapy and chemotherapy are successful only in a few type of cancers, notably leukaemias and lymphomas. Most of the time, they are only palliative i.e. just to prolong life, often with little regard to the quality of life. Therefore, it is completely reasonable for a patient to refuse treatment or seek alternative therapy if they reach this stage.

        Certain cancers, such as those associaed with AIDS, are caused by defects in the immune system. The cancers are cured once immune function is restored. But cancer has many different causes and each type of cancer is different. There are cancers associated with particular viruses such as hepatitis B and the rate will go down with the infection rate. As it stands, there will never be a single general cure but each type of cancer will have to be tackled individually.
        Signature

        Do not get between a wombat and a chocolate biscuit; you will regret it dearly!

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4086141].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author kbnor
          Originally Posted by derekwong28 View Post

          Certain cancers, such as those associaed with AIDS, are caused by defects in the immune system. The cancers are cured once immune function is restored. But cancer has many different causes and each type of cancer is different. There are cancers associated with particular viruses such as hepatitis B and the rate will go down with the infection rate. As it stands, there will never be a single general cure but each type of cancer will have to be tackled individually.
          Well, there are different opinions about that among holistic practitioners. Some of these follow something that is close to what the doctors of Chinese medicine did a long time ago. The Chinese doctors of old found that the only cause of health problems is interference with the energy flow in the body. They found that if there was no interference, then sickness would be close to impossible. So, the doctor's main job was to diagnose what was interfering with the energy flow in his patient's body. Then he would remove the interference before the patient had any symptoms indicating that something was wrong. The doctor was only paid when the patient was well! If the patient was ill, he would not get paid... (Imagine if we had that system in the west nowadays...) Anyway, if the doctor could successfully get rid of the interference with the energy flow, the doctor would get paid his usual fee.

          I have known a holistic practitioner in my town for over a decade that has been following a modern version of this old Chinese medicine system. He only focuses on fixing his patients energy flow, with modern, holistic means. I have personally seen many, many success stories, and there are several videos testimonials about that also. And no, he does not state that he "heals" cancer. Regardless, it has often been an _effect_ of his treatment system of strengthening the immune system by taking care of the energy flow of the patient's body. This has happened for very different kinds of cancer.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4086364].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author derekwong28
            Originally Posted by kbnor View Post

            Well, there are different opinions about that among holistic practitioners. Some of these follow something that is close to what the doctors of Chinese medicine did a long time ago. The Chinese doctors of old found that the only cause of health problems is interference with the energy flow in the body. They found that if there was no interference, then sickness would be close to impossible. So, the doctor's main job was to diagnose what was interfering with the energy flow in his patient's body. Then he would remove the interference before the patient had any symptoms indicating that something was wrong. The doctor was only paid when the patient was well! If the patient was ill, he would not get paid... (Imagine if we had that system in the west nowadays...) Anyway, if the doctor could successfully get rid of the interference with the energy flow, the doctor would get paid his usual fee.

            I have known a holistic practitioner in my town for over a decade that has been following a modern version of this old Chinese medicine system. He only focuses on fixing his patients energy flow, with modern, holistic means. I have personally seen many, many success stories, and there are several videos testimonials about that also. And no, he does not state that he "heals" cancer. Regardless, it has often been an _effect_ of his treatment system of strengthening the immune system by taking care of the energy flow of the patient's body. This has happened for very different kinds of cancer.
            A lot of cancer patients here is Hong Kong take Chinese medicine at the same time. This is not discouraged by Western doctors. Chinese medicine is recognized over here and practitioners are licensed and able to issue sick leave. They also have some basic training in Western medicine, and most Western doctors will take Chinese medicine themselves. But again, Chinese medicine does not provide anything near the whole answer. Deaths caused by cancers among the Chinese are among the highest in the world. There is correspondingly fewer deaths caused by heart diseases but that is probably related to dietary factors.
            Signature

            Do not get between a wombat and a chocolate biscuit; you will regret it dearly!

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4087505].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author ThomM
              Originally Posted by derekwong28 View Post

              A lot of cancer patients here is Hong Kong take Chinese medicine at the same time. This is not discouraged by Western doctors. Chinese medicine is recognized over here and practitioners are licensed and able to issue sick leave. They also have some basic training in Western medicine, and most Western doctors will take Chinese medicine themselves. But again, Chinese medicine does not provide anything near the whole answer. Deaths caused by cancers among the Chinese are among the highest in the world. There is correspondingly fewer deaths caused by heart diseases but that is probably related to dietary factors.
              Almost in a nut shell that describes why I have an issue with our health care system.
              If I go to a doctor for a serious problem, I want to be able to explore all possible treatments. But the majority of the doctors and I'd say 99% of the hospitals only use 'conventional' medicine. If a doctor explores and uses other types of treatments they are either not in a doctors group or associated with any hospitals. But most doctors belong to groups for insurance purposes. Also most of the courses they take while in college are written by the pharmaceutical companies and are designed to teach what drugs to give for the symptoms or what drugs to give for the cure.
              Now doctors that I have said that to have either given me a dirty look and won't talk about it or have admitted that it's the truth.
              So the majority of our doctors here are either limited in their knowledge because of the training they received or aren't allowed to discuss alternatives because of insurance purposes.
              (another little story about my wife)
              When Chris first found out she had cancer and not ulcers like her first doctor diagnosed, we went out and bought all sorts of books on nutrition and cancer. We found certain foods would help her feel better and things like Spinach actually gave her energy and improved her spirits.
              On one of her stays in the hospital I commented to one of her doctors that the food they where feeding her was not very good for her, the doctors reply? "Once you have cancer, nutrition doesn't matter any more." That was coming from an Oncologist.
              Healthcare here is controlled by the insurance companies, and the pharmaceutical companies. It needs to be put in control of the doctors and the patients.
              Another example is when I had arthritis. The only thing the doctors did for me was put me on Feldene for the pain. Naturally when I lost my health insurance I lost the means to pay for the drug. I was in agony for a few years until I heard about Apple Cider Vinegar. I drank 2 16oz. glasses of a mixture of vinegar, water, and honey(for taste) every day. A month into that and the pain had decreased by over 50%. 3 months later I was pain free and have been now for close to two years and I haven't drank the vinegar in a little over a year.
              Vinegar is a remedy for numerous(sp) ailments and has been used since and by Hippocrates. Yet if you mention it to a doctor here, they look at you like you have 8 eyes.
              Signature

              Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
              Getting old ain't for sissy's
              As you are I was, as I am you will be
              You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4087897].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author kbnor
              Originally Posted by derekwong28 View Post

              A lot of cancer patients here is Hong Kong take Chinese medicine at the same time. This is not discouraged by Western doctors. Chinese medicine is recognized over here and practitioners are licensed and able to issue sick leave. They also have some basic training in Western medicine, and most Western doctors will take Chinese medicine themselves. But again, Chinese medicine does not provide anything near the whole answer. Deaths caused by cancers among the Chinese are among the highest in the world. There is correspondingly fewer deaths caused by heart diseases but that is probably related to dietary factors.

              derekwong28, it was interesting to know how cancer treatments are being done in Hong Kong these days. At least, the patients there do not have to be stuck into one system if they follow what is considered the mainstream route.

              I would like to mention that the holistic practitioner I mentioned in my last post is not that much into "taking" Chinese medicine - I think you refer to ingesting this or that kind of combination of herbs (or similar) for this or that imbalance.
              That is not where his focus is at all. Instead, he is basically using modern devices that were recently invented - in order to take care of a patient's particular imbalances.
              These include a) a type of hand-held low-level soft laser,
              b) a type of electro-medicine, and
              c) a new type of cleansing of the body from toxins and impurities.

              He also uses other, newer, methods. And, he states that proper nutrition/supplements and excercise are also very important.

              Several of his patients have actually written books about their experiences - where they include their long history with the mainstream medicine that did not work out at all. But supercharging their immune system, as mentioned, did.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4089801].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Patrician
    Write on Thom.

    Years ago I was considering Chriropractic college. When I looked at the curriculum along with comparison to a medical college - the only difference was that MDs have virtually no classes in nutrition (PREVENTION) -

    Chiropractors do not have training in pharmacology or surgery since they are opposed to both. That is the only difference in an MD and a DC (doctor of chiropractic) as far as education.

    Chiropractic uses the same theory as Chinese medicine just in the sense that if everything is in alignment everything is flowing through the system correctly and it will heal itself.

    Nutrition has EVERYTHING to do with cancer as do genes. We all have cancer cells and it is only when one goes awry that a disease will happen. There are just basic things that keep the immune system strong - nutrition, sleep, exercise, etc. but I do believe in genetic predisposition to cancer - it's not 100% but it is definitely proven to exist in some forms of cancer (for example prostrate).

    There ought to be so much more noise being made - we have people going out risking their safety in riots about crap like gay marriage and the right for transgender convicts to get free sex change operations etc.

    The right to have full coverage to keep yourself alive using whatever means you prefer (OR NOT) is a basic RIGHT TO LIFE.

    There is of course always the 'thin gray line' and the FDA etc focus on protecting us from scams and cons which is valid. There are true cases of people dying from believing some false claims and not seeking 'conventional' or even 'alternative' care that may have saved them. However in cases where there is empirical evidence even of a possibility for SOME situations, then we should be able to get the treatments we want AT OUR OWN RISK just like we are at our own risk using the 'accepted' treatments.

    The only difference as has been stated over and over is who gets the money - they will discredit, forbid by law and anything else they can do to keep the money - people's lives are only the pawns in the game on the big monopoly board.
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4088015].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ThomM
      You know what's funny Pat. Even though I took a nutrition course in 81 while in culinary school. It wasn't till I was studying plant science 9 years later that it hit me how important nutrition is to us.
      So many plant problems are caused by a lack of or to much of just just one nutrient or mineral. Also when plants have the proper balance of nutrients and minerals they can ward of insects, infections, virus's, etc.
      It didn't take much from there to figure out that would apply to anything living, including us.
      Signature

      Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
      Getting old ain't for sissy's
      As you are I was, as I am you will be
      You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4088904].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Michael Oksa
    If you know me at all, you know I'm the eternal skeptic.

    However, I have read the posts in this thread and wanted to say that I finally understand where some of you are coming from.

    While this isn't meant to be a post of agreement, it is a post of support. I'm not trying to stir things up. Just saying "I get it".

    All the best,
    Michael
    Signature

    "Ich bin en fuego!"
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4089053].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ThomM
      Originally Posted by Michael Oksa View Post

      If you know me at all, you know I'm the eternal skeptic.

      However, I have read the posts in this thread and wanted to say that I finally understand where some of you are coming from.

      While this isn't meant to be a post of agreement, it is a post of support. I'm not trying to stir things up. Just saying "I get it".

      All the best,
      Michael
      Thank you Mike.
      Believe it or not, that means a lot to me.
      Signature

      Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
      Getting old ain't for sissy's
      As you are I was, as I am you will be
      You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4089069].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
        By the way, reading this thread and also watching that movie reminded me of another possible cure being researched now that was thought of by someone completely outside the medical industry. The treatment is different from anything else, doesn't have side effects and shows a lot of promise. They had a segment on 60 minutes about it. Here's a link to the article which also has the video of the 60 minute segment:

        The Kanzius Machine: A Cancer Cure? - CBS News

        Here's five more very promising cancer treatments:

        Top 5 Viable New Cancer Treatments | Wired Science | Wired.com
        Signature
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4089164].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author ThomM
          Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

          By the way, reading this thread and also watching that movie reminded me of another possible cure being researched now that was thought of by someone completely outside the medical industry. The treatment is different from anything else, doesn't have side effects and shows a lot of promise. They had a segment on 60 minutes about it. Here's a link to the article which also has the video of the 60 minute segment:

          The Kanzius Machine: A Cancer Cure? - CBS News

          Here's five more very promising cancer treatments:

          Top 5 Viable New Cancer Treatments | Wired Science | Wired.com
          The first article was great.
          To half butted use the little dutch boy story.
          A dyke expert would see a hole in the dyke and decide that another dyke would need to be built to hold back the water so the first dyke could be replaced. Someone knowing nothing about dykes would plug the hole
          I hope his theory works out and if it doesn't I give him a bunch of credit for trying.
          My main thoughts with the second article was "what about the side effects?".
          Seems like every drug these companies come out with have side effects that require you to take another drug and so on and so on.
          Signature

          Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
          Getting old ain't for sissy's
          As you are I was, as I am you will be
          You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4089378].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Lee A Bracey
    That was an AWESOME video. I am surprised he was allowed to continue his research getting such good results. Many doctors are discredited when they start healing people on that scale. I have read many stories of doctors getting results with non-conventional treatments getting shut down, medical license stripped, etc. Big pharma is BIG BUSINESS...they don't want you to get well.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4095993].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author CNBCALLDAY
    BULLCRAP and more BULLCRAP
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4315821].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author nhenley12
    i agree with scotty, i hope the doctor continues to cure.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4474606].message }}

Trending Topics