Doctor discovers cure for cancer?

Recovering fund...
atheistSuperfan
Recovering fundamentalist's picture
Posts: 196
Joined: 2011-03-14
User is offlineOffline
Doctor discovers cure for cancer?

https://www.burzynskimovie.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=110

---

Any opinions on this? Right now the movie (which explains his research) is free, but he's going to start selling it later. I hope he's for real and not just a scam artist.

Optimism is reality, pessimism is the fantasy that you know enough to be cynical


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
When did movies become part

When did movies become part of the peer review process?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Recovering fund...
atheistSuperfan
Recovering fundamentalist's picture
Posts: 196
Joined: 2011-03-14
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:When did

jcgadfly wrote:

When did movies become part of the peer review process?

I was just asking for opinions on the research shown in the film - I'm a skeptic myself.

Optimism is reality, pessimism is the fantasy that you know enough to be cynical


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Recovering fundamentalist

Recovering fundamentalist wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

When did movies become part of the peer review process?

I was just asking for opinions on the research shown in the film - I'm a skeptic myself.

I figured as much - I just typed my first thought.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
 The doctor on the video

 The doctor on the video talks about peptides, found in cancer-free people, which people with cancer lack. He's thinking of isolating the peptides and injecting them to patients with cancer. 

This reminds me of an claim I had read somewhere on the internet. Will you guys help me to verify or debunk it? 

1) Cancer breaks out in the body several times per day, but our immunity system can destroy it in time, before something happens.
2) The brain produces various neuropeptides as a response to various ways of thinking and emotions.
3) Cells of the immunity system are highly influenced by the neuropeptides, for good and bad.
4) Certain ways of 'toxic' emotions or stress produce neuropeptides, which block the immunity system in some aspects or in some specific areas of the body, or alternatively, block production of neuropeptides which positively uphold the immunity system in these aspects. 
5) Then it is only a question of time until in some cell somewhere the DNA-tape crumples and deviates into cancerous growth, because the immunity system is unable to destroy it when it should
6) A tumor occurs, or even metastases.
7) Even if the tumor is destroyed by chemo or radiation, it will appear again there or somewhere else, as long as the brain is focused on the unhealthy emotions, fears or thoughts.

This is a just a claim, but it seems there are pieces of truth.
Firstly, I know about several people, who got cancer during or shortly after strong emotional distress. For example, we had a lady at school who gave a lecture on breast cancer. I asked her personally and she confirmed the emotional factor, specifically she had a fear of losing her job, before she was diagnosed with breast cancer.

Secondly, as you know, allergy is a problem of an irritable immunity system. I am an allergic, (hay fever) but the allergy is pretty much dependent on the mood and emotional attitude I have. If I feel OK, then I can happily walk in the fields without even sneezing once. If I'm not OK, I can sneeze a dozen times when the hay is near. 
But for example, if I'm focused on doing something (like mowing down the grass), I don't sneeze either. Only when I finish the work and go home, I start sneezing and itching, to get rid of the accumulated allergens. 

Thirdly, by logical deduction I say, that thinking and emotions do have an impact on our immune system. The immune system probably has a chance of destroying a cell before it becomes a source of cancer.

Fourthly, that doctor has a good idea with transfer of peptides from one person to another, but if I'm right, it won't be a permanent solution. At most it may give the patient time to identify and get rid of his emotional problem. 

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


peto verum
atheist
Posts: 46
Joined: 2011-03-09
User is offlineOffline
I agree that our emotions

I agree that our emotions could be a gauge to our well being but which one comes first?  Do I emotionally feel well because I'm in a state of good health or is my feeling emotionally well mirrored in my general health?  I can supply personal anecdotal  cases where an individual makes claim to one state or the other but I have nor offer any proof.

I was just inferring from  a paper I was reading whereby they make a thought provoking discussion that cancers (very generally used here by me here) are "genetically evolved" within our own bodies.  An normally asexual reproducing cell within our body has a mutation and that mutation may actually survive to replicate.  This is all paraphrased by me as I understand it.  (The focus of the paper was not what I inferred from it here). 

 As for the O.P.  I like the video and what it implies but considering that the point of view may be biased I would need to find other sources for validity.  It would most definitely be something to research and not totally dismiss.  I.M.H.O

KORAN, n.
A book which the Mohammedans foolishly believe to have been written by divine inspiration, but which Christians know to be a wicked imposture, contradictory to the Holy Scriptures. ~ The Devil's Dictionary


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3132
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
I stopped watching after the

After his self-promotion about how brave he was, I stopped watching after the guy mentioned the word "miraculous". You can pretty much know at that point you're either listening to a delusional person or a scammer.

BTW, I'm doing research on 'magnetized stem cells', in case anyone is interested in science rather than miracles, it might make a worthwhile discussion.

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:After his

EXC wrote:

After his self-promotion about how brave he was, I stopped watching after the guy mentioned the word "miraculous". You can pretty much know at that point you're either listening to a delusional person or a scammer.

BTW, I'm doing research on 'magnetized stem cells', in case anyone is interested in science rather than miracles, it might make a worthwhile discussion.

While I'm not inclined to jump to any conclusions regarding the efficacy of his treatments..... the more salient points are about the relentless lawsuits and attempts by the FDA, to indict him of crimes, and the attempt to 're'patent his treatments.

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3686
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
I watched the first couple

I watched the first couple of minutes of the movie, which is a goofy looking guy being emotional and anecdotal. That's not promising. I don't want to watch a long movie that contains so little content. Two minutes of online research is much better. 

Antineoplastons 

Clinical trials

Regardless of whether this treatment works, they appear, at a glance, to be conducting some actual research. Or....doing a lot of something.

http://www.whale.to/cancer/burzynski.html 

Some proponents appear to be blaming lack of evidence on a conspiracy. Supposedly, the government and mainstream medicine are persecuting him because his treatment will make things like chemotherapy obsolete. That doesn't sound right to me.  

Quackwatch

I'm not sure. But if I had to guess, I would guess that this treatment does not work. 

Edit: I am curious as to how many of the claims about Burzynski being persecuted are true.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
peto verum wrote:I agree

peto verum wrote:

I agree that our emotions could be a gauge to our well being but which one comes first?  Do I emotionally feel well because I'm in a state of good health or is my feeling emotionally well mirrored in my general health?  I can supply personal anecdotal  cases where an individual makes claim to one state or the other but I have nor offer any proof. 

Emotions come first, definitely. Once we have a good health, we become used to it and we generate emotions from other things, like material goods, friends, self-realization or lack of thereof. Just look at Maslow's pyramid of needs. If people are not allowed to rise upwards on the pyramid, or at least reach their comfortable level, they become frustrated.

peto verum wrote:
 I was just inferring from  a paper I was reading whereby they make a thought provoking discussion that cancers (very generally used here by me here) are "genetically evolved" within our own bodies.  An normally asexual reproducing cell within our body has a mutation and that mutation may actually survive to replicate.  This is all paraphrased by me as I understand it.  (The focus of the paper was not what I inferred from it here). 

 As for the O.P.  I like the video and what it implies but considering that the point of view may be biased I would need to find other sources for validity.  It would most definitely be something to research and not totally dismiss.  I.M.H.O

Cancer is quite an old thing, I think people found tumors even on dinosaur bones. Genetical accident is improbable, but due to the law of large numbers, improbable things will keep happening all the time. The real mystery to me is, how the immune system may distinguish a tumor to destroy it. Because it can't, can it? At first sign of trouble the cell will autodestruct, but by itself.

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


peto verum
atheist
Posts: 46
Joined: 2011-03-09
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote:Emotions come

Luminon wrote:

Emotions come first, definitely. Once we have a good health, we become used to it and we generate emotions from other things, like material goods, friends, self-realization or lack of thereof. Just look at Maslow's pyramid of needs. If people are not allowed to rise upwards on the pyramid, or at least reach their comfortable level, they become frustrated.

You suggest that we acclimatize to our current state of health.  I agree.  A person that has a persistent and chronic condition will "normalize" that condition and  then be able to experience an emotional sense of wellbeing.  Which has brought me back to wondering if my sense of wellbeing is physiological derived or if my physiological wellness is caused by my emotional wellbeing?  Maslow's pyramid would seem to be limited by the individual or group that it is tailored to represent.  Physiological needs must be met to sustain life and seems out of place to be grouped in a flow chart/pyramid  with emotional needs.  How, then, does one prioritize emotional needs/desires as that could vary across cultures, sexes,  etc. etc?  The hierarchy would most definitely be subjected to re-ordering according to application in the very least. 

Luminon wrote:
Cancer is quite an old thing, I think people found tumors even on dinosaur bones. Genetical accident is improbable, but due to the law of large numbers, improbable things will keep happening all the time. The real mystery to me is, how the immune system may distinguish a tumor to destroy it. Because it can't, can it? At first sign of trouble the cell will autodestruct, but by itself.

I don't think I conveyed what I hoped to in my earlier post.  Our bodies do have mechanism to deal with abberant growths, oncogenes and all that stuff(Someone posted earlier that is definitely is more qualified than I to speak on this subject.)   What the paper implied is that individuals have varying efficiencies within the mechanisms that deal with tumor suppressing, etc. etc.  and due to the asexual nature of the cells associated as being suseptible to cancer that a mutation may overwhelm/fool some individual's mechanisms more easily than others.  What causes an otherwise normally functioning cell to become cancerous?  The improbable chance of a successful genetic mutation remains high but think of the number of generations of epithelial cells your own body will have.  If you had a mechanism that wasn't as efficient/foolproof as mine then your probabily increases accordingly, or vice versa. 

KORAN, n.
A book which the Mohammedans foolishly believe to have been written by divine inspiration, but which Christians know to be a wicked imposture, contradictory to the Holy Scriptures. ~ The Devil's Dictionary


Recovering fund...
atheistSuperfan
Recovering fundamentalist's picture
Posts: 196
Joined: 2011-03-14
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:I watched

butterbattle wrote:

I watched the first couple of minutes of the movie, which is a goofy looking guy being emotional and anecdotal. That's not promising. I don't want to watch a long movie that contains so little content. Two minutes of online research is much better. 

Antineoplastons 

Clinical trials

Regardless of whether this treatment works, they appear, at a glance, to be conducting some actual research. Or....doing a lot of something.

http://www.whale.to/cancer/burzynski.html 

Some proponents appear to be blaming lack of evidence on a conspiracy. Supposedly, the government and mainstream medicine are persecuting him because his treatment will make things like chemotherapy obsolete. That doesn't sound right to me.  

Quackwatch

I'm not sure. But if I had to guess, I would guess that this treatment does not work. 

Edit: I am curious as to how many of the claims about Burzynski being persecuted are true.

Good point - whenever someone claims to be a persecuted minority who's being censored by some huge mainstream conspiracy, that raises a red flag for me. Sounds too much like Fox News.

Optimism is reality, pessimism is the fantasy that you know enough to be cynical


NoMoreCrazyPeople
atheistSuperfan
NoMoreCrazyPeople's picture
Posts: 969
Joined: 2009-10-14
User is offlineOffline
***Layman Alert!!!***Don't

***Layman Alert!!!***

Don't have enough time now to look into this now but I read somewhere I believe it was a national geographic book that someone was using "nanobots" that killed cancer cells only, and so they could be released in the body and would cause no harm to anything but the cancer, they "burned" the cancer cells or something along those lines.  Does that make any sense to anyone?


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
Medical industry may find a

Medical industry may find a cure for cancer, but much more likely it will find a partial remedy for some types of cancer, characterized by high-tech, high price and high risk to the life and health of a patient. There is probably no conspiracy that would hide a cure for cancer. But a cure for cancer as medical industry imagines it is a product meant to be sold to already occuring cases of cancer. It will probably not eliminate occurence of cancer, in the first place. It will not make it practically  disappear in the past, like black plague.

Sometimes if we take a wrong turn on a path, not even progress will not take us anywhere. I believe that the true cure for cancer is prevention. It means a rational re-structuring of society to be human-friendly. Currently, our world is almost as much hostile, (specially to low social classes) as a harsh nature would be. Most cases of cancer today are basically a "civilization disease," caused by unhealthy life style, both physical and mental. Diseases occur in nature to take down the weak and old. Our life style and primitive toxic technologies make us weak. Hence, diseases occur more than necessary. 

As long as we are wrecked by the corrupting influence of our "civilization," trying to cure cancer (or trying to kill the tumor faster than the patient) is just a profitable job and a big lie. A market that will never be satisfied. First we must eliminate stress, pollution, consumerism, speculation and so on. What remains then, will be a true cancer itself, not just one of symptoma of our "civilization." Until then, all the scientists are basically trying to counter the omnipresent effects of our civilization, which is something they can not win.

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


inspectormustard
atheist
inspectormustard's picture
Posts: 537
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
 I agree with the "toxic

 I agree with the "toxic technology" part, but we ought to be able to survive in the ways we like. That's a matter of personal liberty.

For example, if I really like food I shouldn't have to worry about heart disease. If I enjoy smoking then I shouldn't have to worry about lung cancer. I ought to be able to live for as long as I like and choose the time and manner of my death. However, a lot of businesses have interests which conflict with those ideas.

It's the kind of thing I wish were true. The documentary is even set up the way I would expect if it were true and people within the medical industry were trying to prevent the peer review process from taking place.

I honestly cannot say whether it has an effect from the available evidence. The guy claims to want to undergo the peer review process and presents an interesting case. It's possible that there is a conflict of interest and it's possible that government institutions could subvert peer review. For example, he alleges that the NCIA carried out and published a clinical trial without using the experimental conditions he outlined - he recommended three times the dose used in the experimental group. If true, that would be a serious error. On the other hand, why did he go through so much trouble to avoid clinical trials and peer review in the first place?

There is a hypothesis out there that we are "cancer-ing all the time," and there is a process which keeps it in check. It's possible that the proteins mentioned are part of that process, but without phase 3 clinical tests there's no way to be sure. Until then I would have to say that it's highly unlikely.


Philosophicus
Philosophicus's picture
Posts: 362
Joined: 2009-12-16
User is offlineOffline
...

EXC wrote:

I'm doing research on 'magnetized stem cells' 

  

Magnetized stem cells?  That's cool.  I read some studies about how scientists figured out how to differentiate stem cells into dopaminergic and serotonergic neurons.  The study was done several years ago.  

 

 


inspectormustard
atheist
inspectormustard's picture
Posts: 537
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
Philosophicus wrote:EXC

Philosophicus wrote:

EXC wrote:

I'm doing research on 'magnetized stem cells' 

Magnetized stem cells?  That's cool.  I read some studies about how scientists figured out how to differentiate stem cells into dopaminergic and serotonergic neurons.  The study was done several years ago.   

That does sound interesting. Since stem cells aren't known for their magnetic properties I'm assuming a magnetic material would be introduced to them somehow with the goal of targeting them to a specific location. Is that about right?