A revolution in thought

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are one who is trying to be a big shot by focusing on nothing at all. I will not engage with you if this is what you are complaining about. I hope you change your mo, srsly (in your own words).

You think telling untrue stories is "nothing", then go on to post an unverified anecdote, that may be bullshit like yours, in support of a quack and think I should believe it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is not true that parent's always have the consent. Hopefully it's changing but as far as I know, children must take chemotherapy if the doctor prescribes it. I'm sure you'll weasel out of this too.

Weasel out of what? You are completely wrong. Parental consent is required for medical treatment of a minor. To get a court order for treatment, someone has to sue the parent on behalf of the child...usually these court cases involve divorced parents. Additionally, one can simply stop seeing a doctor they disagree with and go to another doctor. Just don't make any more appointments. Lastly, if a family cannot pay for treatment, no doctor will force it...most won't even do it all. This is one of the problems with our health care system. A poster here at lost her beloved son to brain cancer, it is a highly fatal type of cancer even with aggressive treatment, sadly.

Also, chemotherapy is toxic. That is how it works against cancer, which is human cells. Patients are told this up front.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I defended this doctor because he saved a child from dying, and what do you say in response? That you pity me because I believe in unethical physicians. What a joke. Of course, you don't say anything about the doctors that almost killed this child with impunity.

What child was saved by whom? The quote you provided said the child died after 3 months on chemo (which, it could have been the cancer that killed him, we don't know the facts). It was in the first two sentences in fact. Did you even read the passage yourself?

And look, right from Burzynski's site

After understanding that these chemotherapeutic drugs would not likely save Sophia, combined with the side effects this chemotherapy regimen could cause to their daughter, Sophia's parents declined all chemotherapy treatment offered by their oncologists and decided to explore other methods of treatment. Upon this search for another option they found the Burzynski Clinic.

No way, I thought they were forced (at gunpoint maybe?) by doctors to accept treatment????!!!

[LadyShea]

Since you like personal stories so much more than scientific studies

Home | Burzynski Scam

I’ll spare the gory details, but when all was said and done:

We were out almost $20,000 to the clinic
We were out money for accommodations since the Burzynski Clinic is an outpatient facility
We were out money for travel expenses
AND, after we got home and started figuring up all the medications they had put him on and how much it would cost us to keep him on them, we nearly choked on our tongues when it added up to almost $30,000.00 per month!

You would think that is as bad as it could get…but NO!!! After we decided there was no possible way we could afford to do this we called the clinic to see how we might start weaning him off the medicine prescribed by Burzynski Clinic. WE WERE NOT TRANSFERRED TO A NURSE OR DOCTOR, BUT TO THE INSURANCE COORDINATOR!!! We never received any information from them with instructions on how to come off the meds. We ended up calling our local pharmacist and he was able to help us out.

Along with the long list of other meds that were supposed to work in conjunction with each other, the Burzynski Clinic gave my husband standard chemotherapy medications. We were never told that two of the medications were conventional chemo medications. We discovered from our local pharmacy that one medication the Burzynski Clinic had charged us over $2300.00 for could have been purchased from the pharmacy for around $170.00.
After we stopped with their treatment, we were told that he WOULD NOT BE able to take part in any first round clinical trials because he had taken chemo medications – no matter how small the dose, or how short the duration. WE WERE NOT TOLD THIS UP FRONT.
We contacted several facilities, including The University of Texas and MD Anderson Cancer Clinic, none of which will see him because of the treatment he received at the Burzynski Clinic.
His only option now is conventional chemo treatment, which is what we were trying so hard to avoid in the first place!

PLEASE, IF YOU ARE CONSIDERING GOING TO OR TAKING A LOVED ONE TO BURZYNSKI CLINIC, BE CAREFUL! DO YOUR HOMEWORK! THEY WILL TRY TO DRAG YOU IN A BIT HERE AND A BIT THERE AND BEFORE YOU KNOW IT, YOU MAY BE LIKE US…LEFT WITH NO PLACE TO TURN AND $20,000 POORER!

AND we only received treatment for less than a month!

As for the people they had helped with pancreatic/liver cancer; they gave us a list of contacts. The sheet contained 4 names of pancreatic patients. 1 would not allow you to contact them and, out of the other 3, the earliest diagnosis was in March of 2009! Where are the people that have survived for 3 years, 4 years, 5 years!!!!???? Heck, even 1 year would have been nice!

In our opinion, the Burzynski Clinic is selling false hope at a price no common person can afford!

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Taking drugs for every ailment is the norm because we are entrenched with the idea that drugs are curative. But in most cases they do not cure if the underlying cause isn't addressed through nutrition and a healthy lifestyle.

You are really out of touch with reality, and probably baseing your statments on your fathers experience from the 40's and 50's. More recent treatment is to avoid medication as much as possible and many times the recomendation is about diet and exersize, (lifestyle). Suplements are recomended when there is a deficiency that is not supplied by diet. With Diverticulitis the usual treatment is antiboitics till the infection clears up and then recomendations for a change in diet. You really need to educate yourself out of the dark ages.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Ah - but there is a difference. Lessans states that the descriptive "people chose what they prefer" to mean the same same thing as the prescriptive" "people have to chose what they prefer".

It doesn't: that is a fallacy. You can call his entire book "descriptive", but that is not what David was talking about.

People having to choose what they prefer is a universal law, not anything prescriptive. You continue to be muddling through this thread due to your confused logic.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Taking drugs for every ailment is the norm because we are entrenched with the idea that drugs are curative. But in most cases they do not cure if the underlying cause isn't addressed through nutrition and a healthy lifestyle.

Originally Posted by thedoc

You are really out of touch with reality, and probably baseing your statments on your fathers experience from the 40's and 50's. More recent treatment is to avoid medication as much as possible and many times the recomendation is about diet and exersize, (lifestyle). Suplements are recomended when there is a deficiency that is not supplied by diet. With Diverticulitis the usual treatment is antiboitics till the infection clears up and then recomendations for a change in diet. You really need to educate yourself out of the dark ages.

I'm not out of touch with reality and you know it. You just want to condemn me because that's your mo. If you would agree with me that would give you cognitive/dissonance. You don't want to condone anything I say, so you have to make it appear that I'm out of touch with reality to satisfy this need of yours to make me and Lessans wrong at all costs.

If there is an infection, antibiotics are warranted. I never said all medicine is not appropriate at certain times.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Deflection away from the fact that you told a bullshit story. You were not prescribed a drug that was pulled from the market due to being cancer causing.

Just admit it.

You are one who is trying to be a big shot by focusing on nothing at all. I will not engage with you if this is what you are complaining about. I hope you change your mo, srsly (in your own words).

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You think telling untrue stories is "nothing", then go on to post an unverified anecdote, that may be bullshit like yours, in support of a quack and think I should believe it.

This is not an untrue story LadyShea. And there are many like it where the government or the medical profession has failed the public. Anyway, I wasn't referring to that story. I was referring to the other recent story where Burzynsky saved this child's life. The boy was making progress and his therapy was almost cut off (the doctor was going to lose his license) because he was not giving the "accepted" course of treatment which had already failed this child and the doctors said there was nothing more they could do.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is not true that parent's always have the consent. Hopefully it's changing but as far as I know, children must take chemotherapy if the doctor prescribes it. I'm sure you'll weasel out of this too.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Weasel out of what?

Weasel out of telling me that parents have always had the consent. Not back in the late 1990's which is not long ago.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You are completely wrong. Parental consent is required for medical treatment of a minor. To get a court order for treatment, someone has to sue the parent on behalf of the child...usually these court cases involve divorced parents. Additionally, one can simply stop seeing a doctor they disagree with and go to another doctor. Just don't make any more appointments. Lastly, if a family cannot pay for treatment, no doctor will force it...most won't even do it all. This is one of the problems with our health care system. A poster here at lost her beloved son to brain cancer, it is a highly fatal type of cancer even with aggressive treatment, sadly.

I'm sorry she didn't know about Burzynsky. Maybe he could have helped him. I'm saddened.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Also, chemotherapy is toxic. That is how it works against cancer, which is human cells. Patients are told this up front.

Yes, but in trying to kill off the cancer cells, it often kills the entire immune system so the body can't overcome the cancer in the long run. Why do so many cancers come back with a vengence? One day there might be less aggressive therapies that don't kill the good cells off, and this kind of therapy will be become obsolete like so many in the past.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Since you like personal stories so much more than scientific studies

Home | Burzynski Scam

If this doctor is ripping people off then I would take this woman's advice seriously and do my homework. Money does become an issue in most medical crises, whether conventional or alternative. The only difference is that insurance covers a lot of the conventional costs, but not the alternative. What they call experimental. I don't know what the cost was to the doctor, and how much profit he was actually making or what his cost was to get the medications. It's so easy to look at the down side without really understanding what's going on. It's a sad state of affairs that insurance won't help at all in these cases which are unusual or out of the box of typical treatment.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not out of touch with reality and you know it. You just want to condemn me because that's your mo. If you would agree with me that would give you cognitive/dissonance. You don't want to condone anything I say, so you have to make it appear that I'm out of touch with reality to satisfy this need of yours to make me and Lessans wrong at all costs.

If there is an infection, antibiotics are warranted. I never said all medicine is not appropriate at certain times.

Your post here and #19577 on 9-24-'12,

Originally Posted by peacegirl

"That's not true. The goal of pharmaceutical companies is to keep people on medicine long term. That's how they make their money. Why do you think doctors are given samples to hand out to their patients? The pharmaceutical reps know that once patients are put on these meds, they will need to continue on the same regimen after the samples run out"

Imply that the medical profession and the drug companies have the goal of prescribing drugs for every thing and keeping people on those drugs long term. The more recent trend is to avoid drugs when possible and to address lifestyles as a perminant solution. Your posts also imply that the drugs in question are addictive, or non curitive, so that people will continue to 'need' them. Some conditions can only be maintained at this point in medical science, but many can, and are, cured with current medical treatment.

I have no need to prove Lessans wrong, he has done that very nicely with his book. This current exchange is to show that you are wrong about medicine as it is practiced now, not 50 years ago.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not out of touch with reality and you know it. You just want to condemn me because that's your mo. If you would agree with me that would give you cognitive/dissonance. You don't want to condone anything I say, so you have to make it appear that I'm out of touch with reality to satisfy this need of yours to make me and Lessans wrong at all costs.

If there is an infection, antibiotics are warranted. I never said all medicine is not appropriate at certain times.

Originally Posted by thedoc

Your post here and #19577 on 9-24-'12,

Whatever I said, I am clarifying it now, ok? So stop trying to find flaws in my reasoning. That's what you're doing and I'm not going there because it's stupid. I know in my heart that I'm only giving out information which can do good. You cannot stop good thedoc, and that's what you are trying to do.

"That's not true. The goal of pharmaceutical companies is to keep people on medicine long term. That's how they make their money. Why do you think doctors are given samples to hand out to their patients? The pharmaceutical reps know that once patients are put on these meds, they will need to continue on the same regimen after the samples run out"

Originally Posted by thedoc

Imply that the medical profession and the drug companies have the goal of prescribing drugs for every thing and keeping people on those drugs long term. The more recent trend is to avoid drugs when possible and to address lifestyles as a perminant solution. Your posts also imply that the drugs in question are addictive, or non curitive, so that people will continue to 'need' them. Some conditions can only be maintained at this point in medical science, but many can, and are, cured with current medical treatment.

Yes, the trend is changing because of public pressure. People are realizing that doctors can be sleasy, and they have to take their health into their own hands.

Originally Posted by thedoc

I have no need to prove Lessans wrong, he has done that very nicely with his book. This current exchange is to show that you are wrong about medicine as it is practiced now, not 50 years ago.

These are relatively recent examples. If you want to hide behind the belief that doctors are right and the public is wrong, do so. But that is becoming, very quickly, an ancient belief.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I was referring to the other recent story where Burzynsky saved this child's life. The boy was making progress and his therapy was almost cut off (the doctor was going to lose his license) because he was not giving the "accepted" course of treatment which had already failed this child and the doctors said there was nothing more they could do.

Do you have a link? How can the story be verified by objective readers? How can it be verified that Burzynsky's treatment was the reason the child was saved (cancers go into spontaneous remission sometimes, this is often the basis of faith healing success stories and "miracle" stories and the success of quacks too).

Your story about being prescribed a cancer causing drug was false, what makes you think people don't make up and/or exaggerate and/or misinterpret such things all the time?

WTF are you talking about? My mother had to consent to all of my medical treatment in the 80's. Can you find me anything stating that medical consent laws allowed doctors to treat children, especially costly and risky treatment like chemo or surgery, without parental consent?

How did the doctors force treatment? It's not even possible to force treatment unless you can force bodily presence where the doctor could treat the child. Did they kidnap the children from their homes and hold them prisoner?

All a parent need do have done, had it actually been the case that doctors could treat children without parental consent, is not take the child to that doctors office.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm sorry she didn't know about Burzynsky. Maybe he could have helped him. I'm saddened.

She knew about him, she had researched every cancer treatment center in the country, and traveled to the one she chose. Sometimes cancer is simply not treatable.

Burzynski has nothing but personal anecdotes to back up his claims of success, despite conducting clinical trials for over 30 years now. He has not published any results for peer review. His treatment has also caused hypernatremia, and follow-ups on many of his so called "cured" patients show they died anyway.

There is a ton of info about Burzynski available. He's been in business for decades. Skeptical people have read it all, not just the positive outcomes put out by the practioner him/herself as you're doing, confirming your bias.

Harnessing the generosity of kind-hearted strangers to pay for woo – Respectful Insolence
The ones Burzynski doesn’t boast about » Short & Spiky
The False Hope of the Burzynski Clinic | The Quackometer Blog
What is antineoplaston therapy? : Cancer Research UK : CancerHelp UK

http://www.cancer.org/Treatment/Trea...laston-therapy

While many articles have been published and dozens of clinical trials against many types of cancer have been ongoing at Dr. Burzynski's clinic for several years, there have not been any randomized controlled trials—the type of study that is required for new anticancer drugs to be approved by the FDA and recommended by conventional oncologists.

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."

Yes, as I said chemotherapy is toxic to humans and causes all kinds of side effects and problem. This is known. That's how it works. Some patients choose the known risks and problems for the reward of hopefully beating the cancer.

Cancer is very, very difficult to overcome because that is the nature of cancer. Targeted radiation, surgery, and chemo remain the only tools we have against it. Cancer research is ongoing and yes, hopefully better treatments with fewer risks will become available.

BTW, as I mentioned before, Burzynski's patients haven't been shown to have better or longer survival rates or fewer recurrences of cancer. He carefully presents only those success stories, and not all of his patients records. Why do you think he hasn't published his results in 30 years?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Do you have a link? How can the story be verified by objective readers? How can it be verified that Burzynsky's treatment was the reason the child was saved (cancers go into spontaneous remission sometimes, this is often the basis of faith healing success stories and "miracle" stories and the success of quacks too).

As far as I know, this child was given up for dead by the medical doctors. So would rule out a "miracle" story based on faith healing? I don't know. Maybe it was faith or the belief that the body can heal itself. It's been proven that having faith helps the immune system because it leans on a higher power or something bigger than ourselves, even more than what the doctors could ever do. In the past doctors have put themselves on a pedestal equal to God himself. And I an using the term "God" very broadly.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Your story about being prescribed a cancer causing drug was false, what makes you think people don't make up and/or exaggerate and/or misinterpret such things all the time?

I said cancer and I meant liver. So what? Does this discredit me, which you are trying so hard to do? I have said before that you focus on the little trivialities in my writing that does not change the truth in what I'm conveying. Come on LadyShea, be honest for a change. You are grasping at straws because you don't want to be wrong. I am exposing the truth of a medical system that is corrupt. I'm sorry if you put all your faith in conventional medicine. I have to expose the lies. My will is not free to do otherwise.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is not true that parent's always have the consent. Hopefully it's changing but as far as I know, children must take chemotherapy if the doctor prescribes it. I'm sure you'll weasel out of this too.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Weasel out of what?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Weasel out of telling me that parents have always had the consent. Not back in the late 1990's which is not long ago.

[/QUOTE]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

WTF are you talking about? My mother had to consent to all of my medical treatment in the 80's. Can you find me anything stating that medical consent laws allowed doctors to treat children, especially costly and risky treatment like chemo or surgery, without parental consent?

I will search for more evidence, which is your holy grail. I believe this woman would have no reason to put online something that happened to her son without a good reason. If you want to be suspect, be suspect. You don't realize how narrow minded you really are in the name of science, and you will fight tooth and nail to defend your position which is crumbling before your very eyes.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

How did the doctors force treatment? It's not even possible to force treatment unless you can force bodily presence where the doctor could treat the child. Did they kidnap the children from their homes and hold them prisoner?[/qutoe]

Oh my goodness, there is such a denial here, I know what to say or where to even start.

Whatever happened, they were not given options. They were told that they had to give their son this treatment, or they would be liable for neglect.

I would never say that sometimes cancer is simply not treatable, and use this as a reason to not try alternative therapies because the conventional therapies have failed. You have so many tricks up your sleeve in order to be right, it astounds me.

[qutoe="LadyShea"]Burzynski has nothing but personal anecdotes to back up his claims of success, despite conducting clinical trials for over 30 years now. He has not published any results for peer review. His treatment has also caused hypernatremia, and follow-ups on many of his so called "cured" patients show they died anyway.

Regardless, he did save a child's life, so this means something. I am not saying that there not problems with this therapy, but you have to give people choices. You are assuming he was all about the money. Are you telling me that cancer doctors in conventional medicine are not about the money? Come on LadyShea. Remove your veil of denial. Stop protecting doctors because you believe they have all the medical answers at hand. They don't, and half of them don't even know what they're treating when they dish out prescriptions drugs, but they try to justify their treatment protocol so they can earn a living. I'm not blaming them, but you fail to take into consideration other factors that play a huge part in the medical industry.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

There is a ton of info about Burzynski available. He's been in business for decades. Skeptical people have read it all, not just the positive outcomes put out by the practioner him/herself as you're doing, confirming your bias.

I am not confirming any bias, but you obviously are, and are very threatened by it because you won't budge in your position, even when the truth is staring you right smack in the face.

[quote="LadyShea"]Harnessing the generosity of kind-hearted strangers to pay for woo – Respectful Insolence
The ones Burzynski doesn’t boast about » Short & Spiky
The False Hope of the Burzynski Clinic | The Quackometer Blog
What is antineoplaston therapy? : Cancer Research UK : CancerHelp UK

http://www.cancer.org/Treatment/Trea...laston-therapy

While many articles have been published and dozens of clinical trials against many types of cancer have been ongoing at Dr. Burzynski's clinic for several years, there have not been any randomized controlled trials—the type of study that is required for new anticancer drugs to be approved by the FDA and recommended by conventional oncologists.

I thought you told people not to depend on the internet for your answers. And what do you do? Just that. You are slanting your position in a way that makes you look squeaky clean. It's so obvious LadyShea. Approved by conventional oncologists is your response. Do you actually believe these empirical studies (which you would die for) are accurate? Would you give your child these drugs knowing the dangers that are not always exposed in the media? Or would you search out alternative possibilities that are not so intrusive before knowing that this is a necessary evil? Be honest LadyShea, or I will call you out on being no different than those people who are protected against fraud in the political arena by the people who surround them.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

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."

It's all about the evidence with you, but it may be too late for those who are dying. They have the right to make their own choices LadyShea, and the govenment is stopping it. You don't think this has anything to do with profiteering?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Yes, as I said chemotherapy is toxic to humans and causes all kinds of side effects and problem. This is known. That's how it works. Some patients choose the known risks and problems for the reward of hopefully beating the cancer.

And most of them have a recurring metasized cancer after a few years. There are very few rewards. Accept that the double blind studies that you so desperately cling to, may give a false impression on the curative power of these very powerful drugs.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Cancer is very, very difficult to overcome because that is the nature of cancer. Targeted radiation, surgery, and chemo remain the only tools we have against it. Cancer research is ongoing and yes, hopefully better treatments with fewer risks will become available.

But there are other options that don't show the terrible side effects of chemo, and the possibility of rebuilding the immune system. Why would you not even consider this unless you're trying to protect your worldview at all costs, which does not give the answers that you believe will one day be a cure all.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

BTW, as I mentioned before, Burzynski's patients haven't been shown to have better or longer survival rates or fewer recurrences of cancer. He carefully presents only those success stories, and not all of his patients records. Why do you think he hasn't published his results in 30 years?

And do you think the results are not skewed in the most prestigious medical journals available? You are so in denial, I don't think I can break through your stubborn resistance because that would mean you have to alter your thinking on this, and you don't want to admit that you could be wrong.

[LadyShea]

I have no love for the US health care system and medical care being so tied to ability to pay...I want universal public health care like other civilized countries and that's not at all what we have.

My criticisms of many alternative medicine practitioners are based on lack of evidence, lack of scientific rigor, or flat out fraud. Not all are frauds, in my opinion. I think chiropractic, hypnosis, and acupuncture, for some examples, all have some effectiveness for various issues...and that has been demonstrated clinically. Nor do I see any problem with addressing a multitude of health concerns naturally with nutrition, exercise, etc. I don't even have a problem with seeking out wildly alternative treatments for catastrophic illnesses where there is little hope...because what is left to lose? And no, the government is not stopping it at all. Alternative practitioners are free to practice as long as they don't make false, unsupported claims about cure rates or sell untested and possibly dangerous drugs. They can sell food grade supplements, prescribe diets, burn incense and wave crystals...nobody is stopping them.

Burzynski, however, is a fraud. His treatment has not been demonstrated to be effective even by him, after decades of treatment and trials he has no data to show for it! His treatment is very, very expensive as well. Why does he charge 2300 for a medication available at a pharmacy for under 200? Who does that? Frauds, that's who.

If you want to believe that all of medical science is wrong and all alternative practitioners are better, when there is no evidence to support that view, and you want to continue to support absolute quacks, that is of course your prerogative. Once again I prefer data and evidence to unverifiable anecdotes.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's been proven that having faith helps the immune system because it leans on a higher power or something bigger than ourselves, even more than what the doctors could ever do.

Wanna bet? Care to produce the peer-reviewed studies showing this?

There have been studies showing that a positive attitude improves a patient's prognosis. Not the same thing.

I said cancer and I meant liver. So what?

Those are hardly the same things. If you can't get even the most basic parts of your story correct, why should anyone believe that anything you say is correct?

Does this discredit me, which you are trying so hard to do?

Not by itself. It's just one of a million examples that does.

I have said before that you focus on the little trivialities in my writing that does not change the truth in what I'm conveying.

The difference between "cancer" and "liver" is hardly trivial.

Regardless, the very first thing you learn when taking critical-thinking and analysis classes is that when an author can't keep his/her facts straight, there's an extremely high probability that what (s)he's saying is bullshit.

And even more to the point, when the author repeatedly demonstrates that (s)he doesn't understand the subject, then no rational person should take the author's claims seriously. Indeed, to take such an author's claims seriously would be the height of irrationality.

Come on LadyShea, be honest for a change.

Coming from you -- someone who casually lies whenever it's convenient, and is a world-class hypocrite -- that's rich.

I am exposing the truth of a medical system that is corrupt.

One does not expose "the truth" with unverified and made-up examples.

I have to expose the lies. My will is not free to do otherwise.

A lot of us feel much that way when it comes to exposing your lies.

Why is it that you think it's bad when the "medical system" supposedly lies, but you don't regard it as bad when you say things that are patently untrue?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I will search for more evidence, which is your holy grail. I believe this woman would have no reason to put online something that happened to her son without a good reason.

Really? Do you suppose that -- just possibly -- she isn't a medical expert, and so doesn't know what actually happened? Sadly, there are an awful lot of examples of purveyors of so-called "alternative medicine" preying upon desperate and uneducated parents by telling them that the "medical establishment" is corrupt and only trying to sell medicines and so forth. In far too many cases, this has led to people dying because they didn't seek proper treatment for conditions that are perfectly treatable with standard procedures.

Also, look up the "sunk cost fallacy." You might just possibly find it to be illuminating reading. And if you truly can't understand why it applies to these people (and you too, for that matter), then you're incapable of understanding basic logic. Though it's not like this would be a surprise.

You don't realize how narrow minded you really are in the name of science, and you will fight tooth and nail to defend your position which is crumbling before your very eyes.

I've said it before, but it bears repeating: there are times when it is really, really hard not to suspect that in reality, you're an incredibly persistent performance-art comedian, kind of like Andy Kaufman.


I know: Let's go back to the game where you pretend that your ideas are rational and evidence-based. And then, in the very next post, after it's pointed out that all of the literally millions of relevant experiments that have been done flatly contradict Lessans' claims, you insist that you nonetheless have absolute faith that someday, somehow, somebody will perform experiments that somehow overturn the results of all the millions of previous experiments and somehow support Lessans' claims.

Because that one never stops being funny!

But there are other options that don't show the terrible side effects of chemo, and the possibility of rebuilding the immune system. Why would you not even consider this unless you're trying to protect your worldview at all costs, which does not give the answers that you believe will one day be a cure all.

Since there are no laws preventing people from seeking any treatment they want -- hell, they can have witch doctors shake beads at them if they want -- this is bs. On the other hand, not even you could possibly be so irrational as to expect the government to enact laws forcing insurance companies to pay for untested, unverified "treatments." Or am I being too optimistic?

And do you think the results are not skewed in the most prestigious medical journals available?

Would you please stop using words you don't understand? It's another form of dishonesty. That you don't have any understanding at all what the word "skew" actually means was explained to you in detail more than a year ago.

This is exactly the sort of thing that makes people say that your patent ignorance is quite obviously deliberate.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I have no love for the US health care system and medical care being so tied to ability to pay...I want universal public health care like other civilized countries and that's not at all what we have.

At least we're in agreement on this.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

My criticisms of many alternative medicine practitioners are based on lack of evidence, lack of scientific rigor, or flat out fraud. Not all are frauds, in my opinion. I think chiropractic, hypnosis, and acupuncture, for some examples, all have some effectiveness for various issues...and that has been demonstrated clinically. Nor do I see any problem with addressing a multitude of health concerns naturally with nutrition, exercise, etc. I don't even have a problem with seeking out wildly alternative treatments for catastrophic illnesses where there is little hope...because what is left to lose? And no, the government is not stopping it at all. Alternative practitioners are free to practice as long as they don't make false, unsupported claims about cure rates or sell untested and possibly dangerous drugs. They can sell food grade supplements, prescribe diets, burn incense and wave crystals...nobody is stopping them.

Don't you see that doctors today hide behind unsupported claims when they give out drugs like candy in the name of science? Yes, it's taken years and years for complementary medicine to have its day. But don't you see that the untested and dangerous drugs put on the market are FDA approved and trusted by the public because it was stamped as safe and effective by one of our most beloved and respected government agencies? Doesn't that bother you even a little bit? You won't allow yourself to see that these double blind studies that are lately done so quickly doesn't mean a drug is safe. Who cares if it is effective after a person is put in his grave due to a sudden catastrophe. People have died, lots and lots of people, on approved drugs that are banned, after the drug companies have made billions, enough to pay expenses for the deaths of all the people they have maimed or killed. Can't you, at the very least, agree that what I am saying is true and stop protecting the pharmaceutical industry and the medical professionals who are often getting kickbacks? Admit that there is corruption going on, or you will be not be taken seriously by me.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

[Burzynski, however, is a fraud. His treatment has not been demonstrated to be effective even by him after decades of treatment of trials he has no data to show for it! His treatment is very, very expensive as well. Why does he charge 2300 for a medication available at a pharmacy for under 200? Who does that? Frauds, that's who.

I admit I don't know why he is charging so much for treatment. I do believe that he is not doing this just for profit. That is what you making it appear, without knowing all the facts. If doctors didn't get reimbursed they would not treat their patients either. Many don't treat medicare or medicaid patients even with minimal insurance. Why? You tell me. I just know that expensive cancer drugs are covered by insurance, and none of Burzynsky's treatments were. How can you say he is a fraud with a straight face when he saved this child's life? I will say again: Tell that to the parents of this boy. You don't know what you would do if you were faced with the same situation, and were not getting help from conventional medicine. Here is their testimony on youtube:

burzynski 2.avi - YouTube

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If you want to believe that all of medical science is wrong and all alternative practitioners are better, when there is no evidence to support that view, and you want to continue to support absolute quacks, that is of course your prerogative. Once again I prefer data and evidence to unverifiable anecdotes.

Why are you putting words in my mouth and telling me that because I don't want to shove drugs down my throat as a first line of defense I believe in quacks? And just because I try to examine at all my avenues before committing to one, especially one that could have serious side effects, does not mean that I accept any and all therapies (regardless of where they come from) without a thorough understanding of what is being offered and the possible risks involved.

[LadyShea]

Evaluating Evidence and Medical Claims

testimonial - Anecdotal reports made by individuals about improvements in health associated with an intervention.

Testimonials are sometimes found on commercial sites as a marketing strategy. Reliance on testimonials is a red flag that controlled studies have not been done, else the study, and not the story, would be the basis for the promotion.

Limitations of testimonials - they cannot inform about (1) who is reporting the result; if they have biases or conflict of interest - or if it is truthful account; (2) the case details, such as prior or subsequent treatments, or how the reported benefits were measured, or how long the reported benefits lasted. (3) The background, such as the natural history of the disease. (4) There is no way to know if negative reports are excluded - those who die cannot provide a testimonial.

NOTES: Not every scientific paper that is published is of high quality.

Concentrate on the study methods (such as the number of participants and how they were selected, how long the follow up), not the conclusions of the study authors

Have the outcomes been reproduced by another research group?

An active drug stops or interrupt a disease process, such as cell division in cancer, but an active drug is not necessarily an effective drug, because the side effects of the drug might offset the positive effects.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Evaluating Evidence and Medical Claims

I believe that this boy would have died if he stayed on the same treatment. You can use this rebuttal all you want, just so you don't have to admit that he lived because his tumor shrunk after this treatment and never came back.

I do not believe this family put themselves out there in the public eye as a marketing strategy.

This does not apply in the case I presented as an example. Anyway, the same holds true for conventional medicine. There are reports of major conflicts of interest, so who are you fooling LadyShea by offering this report, which probably comes from doctors who would be prosecuted as willing accomplices in the deaths of thousands (perhaps millions) of unsuspecting patients, if people knew the truth.

You're singing to the choir! Too many drugs have not been given a long enough trial period. Money is the driving force and I don't trust our government to protect me. After the fact, they get off the hook by shifting their responsibility in these mishaps, but that doesn't change the fact that I'M DEAD.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I believe that this boy would have died if he stayed on the same treatment.

Which boy? You've not provided a link yet. Once I've read the testimonial I will probably ask you on what you base your belief that he would have died otherwise.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You can use this rebuttal all you want, just so you don't have to admit that he lived because his tumor shrunk after this treatment and never came back.

I have never read the story, who are you talking about? I have heard only your interpretation of something you've read but haven't shared.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I do not believe this family put themselves out there in the public eye as a marketing strategy.

What family?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This does not apply in the case I presented as an example. Anyway, the same holds true for conventional medicine. There are reports of major conflicts of interest, so who are you fooling LadyShea by offering this report, which probably comes from doctors who would be prosecuted as willing accomplices in the deaths of thousands (perhaps millions) of unsuspecting patients, if people knew the truth.

It's not a report by doctors, it's an essay on a site for lymphoma patients and their families that does not accept any health industry funding. I provided you a link. Here's another Evaluating Evidence and Medical Claims

[LadyShea]

This does not apply in the case I presented as an example.

The only case you provided involved a child who died after chemo and did not even mention Burzynski. What case are you talking about?

[LadyShea]

Burzynski's website indicates he has published specific papers in the Journal Neuro-Oncology. So, I looked up his publication record and found a blogger that had done the same research as I had, trying to verify his publications A look at the Burzynski clinic’s publications | Blag Hag. It seems his site is very misleading...he had published anything at all, he had merely presented abstracts at a conference, which are not peer reviewed publications at all.

Originally Posted by Blag Hag

Burzynski has not published a single paper in this journal. Every single citation is an abstract from a presentation made at a conference. For those of you not in academia, we like to hold conferences where people can present their research and network. However, you’re allowed to present preliminary results that haven’t been published yet. Any scientist can submit abstracts in order to speak at conferences, and if that single paragraph sounds interesting, you get to give a talk. It’s pretty much impossible to judge how legitimate research is from an abstract (or presentation) alone

Also found this. Burzynski's therapies have been investigated, most doctors do want to help patients you know.

None of the six assessable patients showed evidence on computed tomography (CT) scan or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of tumor regression associated with antineoplaston treatment; however, all nine patients showed evidence of tumor progression. Antineoplaston treatment was administered for 6 to 66 days, after which treatment was discontinued. Toxicity caused three patients to discontinue treatment and subsequent scans of these patients showed tumor progression. The mean time to treatment failure (progression or unacceptable toxicity) was 29 days.[10]

Burzynski has stated that the results of this study were inconclusive because (1) the duration of treatment was too short and (2) researchers used a dosing regimen known to be ineffective against brain tumors as large as those of the study participants.[11] However, in response, the study authors have stated that all patients in this study received treatment until either tumor progression or unacceptable toxic effects occurred.[11] The National Cancer Institute and the Burzynski Institute agreed to the dosage regimen and study plan before the study was initiated, and the tumor size in seven of the nine patients was within the specified limits.[11]

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/p...essional/page5

So he agreed to the study parameters, but when the hard evidence went against him, he suddenly started claiming problems with the agreed to parameters. Hmm, does that sound honest or like a huckster moving the goal posts?

Antineoplaston therapy has been studied as a complementary and alternative therapy for cancer. Case reports, phase I toxicity studies, and some phase II clinical studies examining the effectiveness of antineoplaston therapy have been published. For the most part, these publications have been authored by the developer of the therapy, Dr. Burzynski, in conjunction with his associates at the Burzynski Clinic. Although these studies often report remissions, other investigators have not been successful in duplicating these results. (Refer to the Human/Clinical Studies section of this summary for more information.) The evidence for use of antineoplaston therapy as a treatment for cancer is inconclusive. Controlled clinical trials are necessary to assess the value of this therapy.http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/p...essional/page7

There are currently several active clinical trials sponsored and administered by the developer of antineoplastons. Information on these trials can be accessed through the NCI Web site. None of these trials are randomized controlled trials.

Inconclusive after 30 years? NO CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIALS after 30 years? Why not?

HE IS A LIAR AND A FRAUD.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

you're an incredibly persistent performance-art comedian, kind of like Andy Kaufman.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

It doesn't rule out the ability to pick one alternative over another, but this does not mean will is free. This was explained on page 44. You aren't a good listener. Wonder why? You want Lessans to be wrong, but he isn't.

We are not interested in
opinions and theories regardless of where they originate, just in the
truth, so let’s proceed to the next step and prove conclusively, beyond
a shadow of doubt, that what we do of our own free will (of our own
desire because we want to) is done absolutely and positively not of our
own free will.

Not true. Determinism means that we don't have a choice, but the way it's defined is not accurate because there are no antecedent events that cause us to do certain things, which is why there is so much confusion surrounding this issue. That's why Lessans' definition is more accurate and leads to his discovery.

That is incorrect Spacemonkey. There are no shoulds in the new world, yet no one will desire to strike a first blow. They will only need to know what is and is not a hurt, and would never want to cross that boundary.

Because I knew what you were going to say, and I wanted to see if my prediction was right. Sure enough, it was right out of a script.

Don't be ridiculous. The one thing you've never done is answer my questions. You went for months straight flatly refusing to answer any of my questions. And you just posted this comment in response to another question you just now avoided answering!

I only refuse to answer your questions when you get nasty, which is happening more often.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is an empirical claim as far as being testable in real life. It is not unfalsifiable which I've said countless times.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

If it is a falsifiable empirical claim, then it cannot be a necessary truth, and it can only be established by evidence - of which you still have absolutely none whatsoever.

All in good time.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You cannot go by these forums. I stayed a limited time at each one, the longest being the one where I first met you.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Again, why do you imagine there to be lurkers with completely opposite views to every single person who actually posts to you? If there are people out there who think you are making sense, then why has not one of them spoken up at any of the forums you have visited?

I told you I have no idea. I'm not a mind reader. I'm not using my popularity in here to decide whether this knowledge is valuable. I know it is.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I told you why. I also believe there's a lot of fear to speak up because in order to get by in here you have to be fairly thick skinned. I also think there's a lot of group think. People tend to go with people who are on the winning side. I am David fighting Goliath. It's no surprise people aren't speaking up, but this doesn't necessarily mean they reject this discovery. They are probably taking everything in and coming to their own conclusions. I also believe that people don't want to be the first one to say that they are interested because it will make them a target.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

This is blatant wishful thinking. You have no rational grounds whatsoever for thinking that you have lurking supporters who are just too timid and intimidated to speak up.You haven't convinced a single person anywhere of the value of these ideas, after a decade of trying.

Think what you want.

[Vivisectus]

Actually the immune system does not play a large part in getting rid of cancer at all. That is in fact kind of the thing about cancer.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Much as it pains me to write anything that could even be remotely construed as lending even a dust mote's worth of sympathy to any of peacegirl's demented ravings, two points are worth making:

Hume, is/ought. There probably is no morality if we mean objective morality.

Problem of induction (see also Hume). Inductive reasoning probably cannot be justified.

This guy knows his stuff. He's up there with Dawkins and Hitchens. I hope to contact him. He is one of yours, so it might behoove you to listen to his account of how science can be reconciled with objective morality.

Sam Harris on Moral Objectivism - YouTube

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Actually the immune system does not play a large part in getting rid of cancer at all. That is in fact kind of the thing about cancer.

I'm not even going to address this. All this is is an assertion with no substance.