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

 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. 

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.

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.

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. 

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. 

***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?

 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.

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?