The Story of Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski

So your premise here is that all the doctors around the country are greedy and uninterested in the best care for their patients - even the ones that don't deal with cancer? And they know that there is a cure available but refuse to spread that knowledge because they might lose money (apparently a dead patient is worth more than a living one that doesn't have cancer)?

And all the people who have committed their entire lives to finding a cure for cancer are knowingly throwing away their lives by ignoring a cure because ... well, for some inexplicable reason?

 

as someone who does research in radiation oncology, this is ridiculous.

 

HELL YES!

 

Quit reading and started laughing after the two percent comment.


Kaiser, curious to know what kind of research you do, if you don't mind sharing.


Signed,
Looking for a radiation therapy job...

 

The 2% success rate is absolutely bogus, and that is a fact.

As far as the 27%, is there a way to get an accurate study on that? I mean, I would think something early stage could end up "healing itself", but if that's the case, it'd usually be before it is discovered. On the other hand, if you're talking 27% of people with known cancers heal themselves on their own, that's probably not accurate, either, as I'm assuming somewhere in the high 80's to 90 percent-range of people with cancers seek treatment...

 

Depends largely on what kind you're talking about. Some cancers have great prognosis with traditional treatment. Things like breast cancer, prostate cancer, skin cancers, colon cancers, etc. Others still have a very poor prognosis. Things like pancreatic cancer and primary brain cancers, such as GBMs, don't have that great a prognosis, although they are improving.


We are talking about multi-modality treatments, here too, such as surgery and radiation or chemo and radiation done together, as well as single treatment methods, such as surgery only for things like skin cancer, by the way. It is only fair, as these are the traditional methods.

Anyone who thinks it's a two percent cure rate with traditional treatments is smoking something...

 

http://www.thehealthyarchive.info/2013/07/cancer-is-finally-cured-in-canada-but.html

 

What's the story behind ToycenV2.0's title?

 

If you think that physicians would let people die to make money, then you're the one who's being fooled. It's idiotic to think that professionals who have dedicated so many years to save lives would be willing to let people die to make a quick buck.

Even if I buy your ridiculous premise that physicians are in it to make money and are threatened by cures, you really think that 100% of them are on board with this? That there's not a group of them who are willing to risk everything in order to find that cure? If so, why haven't they spoken up and vouched for this? That's a pretty strong accusation, and clearly you don't know any physicians if that's what you think.

People love the idea of conspiracy theories and that there's "more to the story than we're being told," but reality is staring you in the face. Cancer sucks. It really does. There isn't some magical ingredient that will cure the sick, there is a genuine pathophysiology that treatment follows. The advances that have been made so far were made on the backs of thousands who have dedicated their lives to research and fighting a battle that is so often lost. If you think this is true, then you're just mocking everyone who has had to deal with cancer firsthand.

 

doctors will try and make money where possible, which includes prescribing lots of stuff.. recommending procedures knowing full well the individual can do without it..

but I don't think they "let people die" thats just extreme

 

Thank you for being the voice of reason in this thread. My roommate made me watch this documentary and also read articles relating to "sungazing." The FDA has been completely soft on this man probably due to a lack of resources. Who knows how many deaths he has been responsible for by persuading people to halt their chemotherapy sessions? I am particularly angered by this man after having lost multiple family members to cancer.

 

As a biochemistry major, I get to see alot of the actual research being done on cancer.

There are countless things being worked on, such receptor determination, gene sequencing of oncogene/ TS genes, and genotypic manipulation (i.e knock-downs, knock-outs in rats). Things in the horizon that yield potential are immunotherapy and targeted drug therapy.

While cancer research IS moving in the right direction, the fact remains that all we have to combat most types of cancer today are the blunt tools like chemotherapy and radiation therapy. Cancer is perhaps the most resilient life form out there. Radiation/chemo often just makes the tumor shrink, but doesn't kill the cancer stem cells, which 100% will proliferate and cause relapse. Heck, even extremely targeted drugs like Gleevec have gone to the wayside due to cancer adaptation, which makes the individual cells impossible to kill without a combination of drugs.

From a relatively informed position, I really can't say whether one should pursue the traditional western chemo/radation approach, or simply start eating tomatoes and baking powder in hopes of alkalising the body. It's all a game of percentages, depending on prior stats derived from factors like cancer type, stage, location, etc. Imo, chemotherapy is really hell, so don't be so quick to judge people who pursue alternative means given the low probability of survival even with chemo.

 

Cancer is nature's way to tell us that we'll grow old and die and that we're living beyond our previously derived expiration dates.

Having had family who passed away from it, it should hammer home that life is too short.

But the mind is greedy and lazy from science and technology. The idea that we can hack our cells and immune system when its ultimate causes of failure generally stem from our parents and/or our collectively poor decisions is always too tempting.

 

In America, Cancer is business.