reply to post by VneZonyDostupa
First off, I am taking the the Burzynski’s film and film transcripts as EVIDENCE and that is where most of my information is sourced from. So please
watch it first. If you would like to claim this film is false, then please list your sources as to why. During the entire film there are documents and
sources provided to substantiate claims made in the film.
Source - Film Transcripts: www.burzynskimovie.com...
Debating on threads without reading or watching all the posted material is wasting the time of those who do.
Exactly how many such trials do you think this man was subjected to, out of curiosity?
Did I say trials? Either way, if you watch the video, it shows clear evidence that the State of Texas took his case all the way to the Texas Supreme
Court. He was acquitted. So was this a frivolous lawsuit? The verdict speak for itself.
It took 30+ years because Burzynski refused to submit them to clinical trials. The FDA doesn't perform the tests, nor do they beg researchers
to run trials. If someone has a new therapy they want to test, then all they have to do is apply to test it.
How do you know he refused to submit to clinical trials? Do you have first hand knowledge or evidence or just making personal assumptions? Maybe the
FDA refused his application for trials. When you provide a source of this evidence then I will respond to this comment.
The facts of the matter are that Burzynski never even applied for these trials until the 1990s. The charges he was brought up on were due to
his selling of a medical treatment, as a physician, with absoluiely zero verified evidence that the therapy worked. For safety reasons, this is 100%
illegal, as it should be.
the judge in the case basically said he can treat anybody he wants in Texas, but he can’t ship his medicine in interstate commerce.
Charges were brought up for the interstate commerce of medicine, not selling a treatment. Based on his acquittals, this interstate commerce crime was
very questionable. His treatments remained 100% legal. His treatment was never in question. He was never prosecuted for malpractice. There has not
been any evidence that he was operating illegally. If he was, he would have had his license revoked years ago.
0% verified evidence? It's obvious you have not research anything about Burzynski. He has documented evidence from the time he started his
treatments. His work resolves around proving his treatment is effective and legitimate. He has patient testimonies, MRIs, charts, etc. If this is not
proof enough then I don't know what is.
Again, how do you know he refused to submit to clinical trials before the 90's? He was approved for trials in the 90s that doesn't mean he didn't
apply before that.
Dr. Burzynski’s dealings with the FDA commenced in 1983.
You seem to have strong feeling about the safety of patients. So, is chemo safe? Is radiation safe? Do you want me to list all the FDA approved drugs
and treatments available to patients that are proven to be unsafe?
Wow, this could not be more incorrect. The foundation of Burzynski's research was federally funded to a great extent:
Actually you can't be more wrong... Again. I'm not referring to past-tense research. I'm referring to "Burzynski’" not "Baylor". Baylors funding
was Baylors funding not Burzynskis. Baylor was considerate enough to allow him to use THIER funding. Burzynski was lucky enough to have the support
of Baylor to test his chemicals and substances. I'm specifically referring to direct funding to Burzynski for his Antineoplaston cancer studies and
treatment of patients at his practice. And I am specifically referring to funding from CRI. Now debate me on what I was really saying.
Do you do ANY research before you post, or do you just make crap up and pretend that it's fact because you've posted it here? Seriously? It's
awfully hard for me to compare chemo to neoplastons when Burzynski won't make his data public. Odd...
I watched the video. Seems you are the one grasping at straws without relevant or accurate data. So where is this research you have done? Please post
it. My “made up crap” was actually facts obtained from the film transcripts. Did you even watch the video? If you did then this would be quite
obvious. Do you realize that he has been attempting to make his data available for decades? He is on his 3rd series of FDA trials. If Burzynski is
asked to participate in a honest peer-review, then maybe he would provide additional data. Blame the critical mainstream medical field for preventing
his data from becoming public, not him.
I've got a tiger-repelling rock to sell you. I don't see any tigers around, so it must work. Would you like to buy it? I mean, I don't have any
trials that PROVE it repels tigers, but....you don't see any tigers, do you?
Your analogy attempt does not even make any sense. I think you should stick to what you do best. Clever comments are clearly not one of them.
This is absolutely false. We cure things in the hospital every day. I've cured people of bacterial infections, viral infections, pneumothorax,
False? So you do have a 100% cure for cancer? I was emphasizing a 100% cure. Not a 100% cure 50% of the time. I meant 100% all the time, every time.
If you have a 100% cure for cancer that works 100% of the time then you should be published in the next issue of The New England Journal of Medicine.
To be more specific, you really don't cure anything - the medication and treatment does. You provide the diagnosis and recommend a treatment plan that
you learned in medical school and medical books. You prescribe drugs that someone else developed. Your combined actions may result in a “cure” yet
saying “I've cured” is far from accurate. More accurate is “My diagnosis and treatment plan resulted in the medical cure of my patient”.
My comment was on topic for CANCER not bacterial infections or viral infections. I don't remember discussing anything else other than cancer in this
thread. Either way, I ask this; is every case of influenza cured 100% of the time. No. If you would like to dispute this then show me that influenza
deaths have never occurred under treatment. To be clear, treatment does increase the odds of being cured, yet does not guarantee being cured. Next
time you you have a patient with pneumothorax try telling the patient “I WILL CURE YOU of your pneumothorax!”. This stipulates you will succeed
without a doubt. A doctor who speaks like this is not going to be in practice very long without getting hit with a malpractice lawsuit.
It's also interesting that the only source for this claim is a conspiracy theory board and a biased video.
Where in the world did I mention that my source was a conspiracy theory board? You link Wikipedia as your “source” and you try to invalidate my
source? Yes, my main source is a film that may be somewhat biased, yet factual. Being biased does not mean the presented data is false. Go to the
website and read the text transcripts and sources for all the claims and information presented in the film. How would a film that includes lies and
misinformation help the cause of Dr. Burzynski? If you do find and can confirm false information in the film, please bring it forward and I will
edit on 13-6-2011 by matito because: