It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

FDA Repressing cancer treatment more effective than Chemo and a potential cure

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 06:53 PM
link   
Watch this video !!

youtu.be...



What is going on? Apparently they don't want to cure cancer unless the cure can be patented and profited from.. What has happened to the world!!?


edit on 18-11-2011 by mockrock because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-11-2011 by mockrock because: (no reason given)

edit on Mon Nov 28 2011 by DontTreadOnMe because: attempt to embed video




posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 07:14 PM
link   


Embed for you
I've already seen this movie though, a movie that needs to be seen by all people
Everywhere

And yes, the FDA is suppressing this, because their friends in the drug industry do not want a cure for cancer when they have treatements that cost people their homes, their lives, just to pay. There is too much money in cancer for there to be a cure.

Also: Its "Suppressing" the cure, not repressing, just thought i would mention it. Unless im wrong, i dunno. lol
edit on 18/11/11 by AzureSky because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 07:14 PM
link   
This has been posted before
But it never hurts to put it in front of people who may have never known!
edit on 18/11/11 by AzureSky because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 07:20 PM
link   
the cancer research paradigm is a boondoggle just like so many so called public causes

if cancer can be cured that stops all the" fund raising" and what would we all gather together on weekends to run for??

I guess what I'm saying is ,like the wars on poverty and drugs the fight against cancer is a lucrative cash cow for
hospitals ,pharmacutical companies and those lovely charities who give their causes 5 cents on the dollar for all the monies they collect.it's disgusting



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 07:27 PM
link   
If there is a cure, how could anyone hold it back.



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 07:37 PM
link   
JMO, but I don't think there can be any one cure for cancer but not all cancer is the same. They are biologically different, the causes are different. That is why you have doctors specializing in types of cancer.

Cancer conjours up one umbrella term for people, but that is like saying you have a virus. Is it H1N1 or aids? Just because they are viruses does not mean an anti viral will take care of all of them.



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 07:37 PM
link   
reply to post by MrsBlonde
 


I don't understand how this not the story of the century!

This makes me so angry, lost my best friend a few years ago to cancer and if we had known that there was something out there that offered just a slight bit of hope.. we would have stopped at nothing to try it.

It's all linked, stock prices, drug companies.. Greed !!

I know jobs are important but maybe this is even more important and worth protesting about, this is mass murder.
Hard to keep faith in the future sometimes.



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by nixie_nox
JMO, but I don't think there can be any one cure for cancer but not all cancer is the same. They are biologically different, the causes are different. That is why you have doctors specializing in types of cancer.

Cancer conjours up one umbrella term for people, but that is like saying you have a virus. Is it H1N1 or aids? Just because they are viruses does not mean an anti viral will take care of all of them.



But you have to ask if they were prepared to suppress a cure for one umbrella group of cancers.. what is to say they have not repressed cures for other types?



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by jondave
If there is a cure, how could anyone hold it back.


By refusing FDA approval.. It's astonishing but true.



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 07:45 PM
link   
reply to post by mockrock
 


The FDA works in very odd ways. Medicines are not just approved by the FDA based on "it won't kill you at the prescribed doses" - but by trial runs on a given condition. For example, stomach cramps and a chronic cough are two completely different medical conditions - and a drug approved for the treatment of one cannot be prescribed for the treatment of the other without going through a separate round of trials.

Cancer is no different - and the FDA's grouping of cancers doesn't make things any easier. Any chemotherapy (this would include orally prescribed medicines - they are chemicals, and being used in a therapy) must be approved for the cancer it is being prescribed to treat. When my mother was diagnosed terminal - there were still plenty of other drugs out there, and plenty of Hail-Mary hopefuls that were available with a doctor's prescription. She. Was. Going. To. Die. (And did). No doctor could prescribe other medications and monitor to see if it was doing any good/harm.... without risking a loss of their license.

It's nothing new. It's what happens when you have a nanny state that likes to have a say in everything you do. Or, more to the point - it's what happens when you let the ideology that each individual has a right to weigh in on your personal decisions (or those made between you and another adult) in the form of legislation and regulation infect a society and govern it.



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 07:50 PM
link   
Wow, thanks! Can't believe I've not seen this! I trawl the internet everyday! lol... Anyway I can't say I'm surprised, it is not in the interest of the powers that be for anything to get cured! Especially cancer! The governments are complete mafia organisations!

I saw a documentary about 10 years ago where a german doctor had a cure for asthma! He basically trained them to breath properly! Of course I've heard nothing about it since! Regardless of the resounding success shown on the documentary!

Diabetes can be cured too! Reduce calories! That's all you need to do!

The food hospital on channel 4 is pretty good too btw! I was shocked to see something like it on mainstream!



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 07:54 PM
link   
Sounds like "big pharma" would be interested in something like this.

Antineoplastons are given orally or by injection into a vein. The duration of treatment usually ranges from eight to twelve months. A year of treatment can cost from $30,000 to $60,000, depending on the type of treatment, number of consultations, and the need for surgery to implant a catheter for drug delivery.



Maybe if the results of the "clinical trials" could be reproduced they would be.

Although some proponents of antineoplaston therapy have suggested that the reviews of this treatment by conventional cancer specialists are biased by mistrust of alternative therapies, even some prominent figures in the field of alternative medicine have reservations about antineoplastons. According to Dr. Andrew Weil, "Over the years, Dr. Burzynski claims to have treated more than 8,000 patients, but 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…. 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."

Source

Dr. Weil is a harsh critic of many conventional cancer treatments.
edit on 11/18/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)

edit on 11/18/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 08:06 PM
link   
What gives the FDA the right to decide what kind of treatment a person can try if they have terminal cancer? When we allow government agencies to decide what we can do to our bodies, than we have lost a basic human right. Families are desperate for alternative cures to radiation and chemotherapy. If these potential cures have no side effects what's the problem?

They have enough over the counter drugs that don't relieve or cure what it says on the package! Cough medicine is one that comes to mind. Anyone that has a terminally ill form of cancer should have the basic human right to select the type of treatment they wish.

This BS that the FDA is protecting the public from bad drugs is a complete conspiracy. How many times have the FDA allowed drugs on the market that eventually turned out to have a deadly side effects?

I think anyone who wants to try any kind of new cancer treatment should be allowed to, as long as they sign a form relinquishing any liability to the person administering or providing the treatment.

This country was founded on the idea of having freedom of government interference in our personal lives. The FDA is becoming a judge and jury on what we can do to save our own lives or those of our loved ones lives. They are diminishing any kind of hope for cancer patients across this country.

If you ever had a close family member die because of this hideous disease, you know what I'm talking about.



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by jondave
If there is a cure, how could anyone hold it back.


MONEY!
It's that simple.



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 08:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
Sounds like "big pharma" would be interested in something like this.

Antineoplastons are given orally or by injection into a vein. The duration of treatment usually ranges from eight to twelve months. A year of treatment can cost from $30,000 to $60,000, depending on the type of treatment, number of consultations, and the need for surgery to implant a catheter for drug delivery.



Maybe if the results of the "clinical trials" could be reproduced they would be.

Although some proponents of antineoplaston therapy have suggested that the reviews of this treatment by conventional cancer specialists are biased by mistrust of alternative therapies, even some prominent figures in the field of alternative medicine have reservations about antineoplastons. According to Dr. Andrew Weil, "Over the years, Dr. Burzynski claims to have treated more than 8,000 patients, but 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…. 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."

Source

Dr. Weil is a harsh critic of many conventional cancer treatments.
edit on 11/18/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)

edit on 11/18/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



Here come the ATS stooges, this will be the FDA defense department..

Phage seriously search your conscience..



HE WAS REFUSED THE RIGHT TO CARRY OUT THE STUDIES !!!! DESPITE COUNTLESS ATTEMPTS TO GET THE FDA ON BOARD!!
edit on 18-11-2011 by mockrock because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 08:31 PM
link   
reply to post by WeRpeons
 



What gives the FDA the right to decide what kind of treatment a person can try if they have terminal cancer? When we allow government agencies to decide what we can do to our bodies, than we have lost a basic human right. Families are desperate for alternative cures to radiation and chemotherapy. If these potential cures have no side effects what's the problem?


This is something of a technicality....

The FDA isn't telling -you- what you can and cannot do. They are telling -doctors- what they can and cannot do (because they are the professionals and you are the trusting lamb to the sacrifice). They don't tell -you- what you can and cannot buy at the store... they merely tell the stores what they can and cannot sell to you.

We wouldn't want to be mislead by the packaging and commercials designed to market the items, now would we?

(note - I'm being somewhat facetious).


They have enough over the counter drugs that don't relieve or cure what it says on the package! Cough medicine is one that comes to mind. Anyone that has a terminally ill form of cancer should have the basic human right to select the type of treatment they wish.


Barring restricted substances, you do. You just can't get a licensed medical professional to monitor your health. If he/she knows you are taking a substance for medicinal purposes that is inconsistent with its use - they risk losing their license if they continue to provide service to you.

Obviously, it's a negligent doctor who allows someone to take a substance in a manner that is inconsistent with its prescribed uses.


This BS that the FDA is protecting the public from bad drugs is a complete conspiracy. How many times have the FDA allowed drugs on the market that eventually turned out to have a deadly side effects?


That is, really, not the purpose of the FDA. The FDA is there to ensure that manufacturers, doctors, and retailers are abiding by established 'codes of conduct' and standards of labeling, and that medications undergo standard trials before being approved for medicinal purposes. They aren't supposed to be the end-all authority on what is safe and what is not - merely that your cold medicine won't score an insta-kill on you and that certain meats are being handled in a way to reduce the likelihood of foodborne diseases.


I think anyone who wants to try any kind of new cancer treatment should be allowed to, as long as they sign a form relinquishing any liability to the person administering or providing the treatment.


I agree - but there will always be issues with family members who will want to try and make the claim that their loved one was somehow mislead and didn't understand the waiver they signed and had endorsed.

Insurance companies also get involved... they may not be too keen on funding the expensive Hail-Mary treatments for terminal patients... and rightfully so - with some treatments being way-out-there expensive (and amounting to a horse and pony show) and having no real industry standard to base from - Insurance companies could be very hesitant.

Which would have the "buying life is wrong" crowd up in arms... and they'd want the government to force insurance companies to fund "Hail Mary" treatments... and they'd want to create an agency to figure out what is a justifiable $60,000 Hail Mary, and what isn't.... and we're back at square one.

I give up. I will just build myself a space ship, fling myself into orbit, and talk to myself for the rest of my days.... watching myself go insane would be far more interesting than watching a world I know to be insane.



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 08:40 PM
link   
reply to post by mockrock
 



HE WAS REFUSED THE RIGHT TO CARRY OUT THE STUDIES !!!! DESPITE COUNTLESS ATTEMPTS TO GET THE FDA ON BOARD!!




This chap has been treating people, no?

Claims to have treated 8,000 people. What happened to them? Were they cured? Where are his documents or some form of substantiating records?

The FDA does not really have much authority over what studies are or are not done. Companies conduct the trials and submit their results and supporting documents with the FDA serving as an auditor. Most of it is done at the expense of the company going for FDA authorization to sell a drug for a prescribed use.

It would, therefor, only be logical to presume that these companies have done extensive testing on the drug - prior to it ever being put up for FDA approval, so they know what to seek approval for (Robitussin is probably not going to be a very effective aphrodisiac - probably not worth getting FDA approval to sell it as such).

Also - I don't see anyone really defending the FDA in this thread. You just have to step back and see the issue for what it is.

I've no love for the FDA - but, in this case, I don't see there being any evidence that there is a cure for cancer... much less that it is being suppressed by the FDA. Not as proposed in this thread.



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 09:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by WeRpeons
This BS that the FDA is protecting the public from bad drugs is a complete conspiracy. How many times have the FDA allowed drugs on the market that eventually turned out to have a deadly side effects?


You mean like Thalidomide?


You really think that big Pharma should be able to make, market and sell medicines without any regulation?

BTW, the FDA has rejected plenty of medications for very good reason, beginning with Thalidomide, including those that increase the risk of cancer:


A federal advisory committee voted 9 to 6 on Tuesday that a first-of-its-kind diabetes drug should not be approved for use because of safety concerns, including a possible increased risk of breast and bladder cancers.


Dapagliflozin


The FDA said that if Orexigen wants approval for Contrave, it must conduct a study of "sufficient size and duration" to demonstrate the drug doesn't increase the risk of heart attack or stroke. The San Diego-based company said the FDA called for the study because patients taking Contrave showed a small but consistent increase in blood pressure and heart rate.


Really? A pharmaceutical company wants to sell a drug that reduces weight without significan studies?

diet drug rejected

BTW, the FDA has also approved cancer drug treatments.


FDA approved 8 life saving cancer drugs, Yervoy and Zelboraf for advanced melanoma and Xalkori for NSCLC. It approved 2 new groundbreaking drugs for Hepatitis C. The current year is trending to a recent record for new drug approvals in the 35-40 range. A live updated review of new NME drug approvals, rejections and market withdrawals by the FDA in the year 2011 is provided along with live RSS feeds.


There is no one size fits all for drug treatment. They are not all rejected, they are not all approved.

drug approvals 211



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 09:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


My buddy is in Mexico getting the Issel's treatment right now. We don't know how effective it has been on the cancer, but it has made him feel a million times better. For the first time in 3 years he is off his pain medications, and he feels good and has energy.

He'll be back here in Florida next week, he's going to wait for the holidays, and he'll be in Houston at the Burzynski Clinic just after the first of the year.

The main problem with alternative treatments is the cost. Insurance doesn't cover them. Even though insurance has spent over $2M on his chemo and radiation so far, they won't risk $30k on the Issel treatment, and they won't risk the $100k on the Burzynski Treatment, even though Burzynski has finally won all of his FDA cases, and is now completely legit.

My Buddy's Story. He is only 30 years old, he has an extremely rare form of cancer. It is fast-growing and aggressive, but highly curable if caught in the first stage. With the health system in the US, even though he went to the doctor right away, it took over 8 weeks after being bounced from family practitioner, to urologist, to oncologist, to biopsy clinic, and by the time they diagnosed him, the cancer had grown from stage 1 curable to stage 4 metastized! In 8 weeks while doctors and insurance companies played games, my buddy went from 80% survival rate to 20% survival rate.

So, now that 3 rounds of chemo have destroyed his chances of ever having kids, ruined much of his bone marrow, and almost killed him with blood infections and staph twice, they have failed to kill the cancer. It continues to recur over and over.

So, pray that Burzynski is correct!

By this time next year, we'll be able to tell you if the treatment is real or not. My buddy is a fighter, an ex-football player, and an all around winner at everything he does. The regular docs have just about thrown in the towel, so now it is up to the alternative docs. I'll let you know how he does.



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 09:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aim64C
reply to post by mockrock
 


This chap has been treating people, no?

Claims to have treated 8,000 people. What happened to them? Were they cured? Where are his documents or some form of substantiating records?


Burzynski Patient Stories

or the site run by his patients Here.

And Here are the actual records of some patients that have chosen to share. Complete with MRI's and Pathology reports.

Let me know what you think.
edit on 18-11-2011 by getreadyalready because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join