Zzz Will Cancer Ever be Conquered?

Discussion in 'Health and medical' started by Dave, Dec 16, 2003.

  1. Dave

    Dave Guest

    DEVELOP A NATURAL CANCER TREATMENT...GO TO JAIL By Mary Starrett;

    There are two major reasons we don't have a cure for cancer. Why despite a 40 year old "war" on the
    disease survival rates haven't increased one bit. The governmental meddling of the National
    Institutes of Health and The National Cancer Institute along with the FDA have made it difficult, if
    not impossible, for doctors with breakthrough cancer therapies to bring their healing discoveries to
    those who need them. The orthodox medical establishment is hell-bent on destroying anyone who dares
    to challenge the status quo on cancer treatment. Even though we have lost the war on cancer, we
    continue to use and promote the very methods that don't work while banishing those who try non-
    pharmaceutical modalities to the scrap heap of healing.

    The New England Journal of Medicine reported that women who had their entire breast removed (radical
    mastectomy) didn't live longer than those who opted for the less-invasive lumpectomy.[1]

    Men who had their prostate gland removed after a diagnosis of cancer lived just as long as those who
    didn't. Either way the men lived about 14 years after diagnosis. [2]

    Chemotherapy helped only 2% of cancer patients [3]

    Infection is the most frequent cause of death in cancer patients; and those infections are likely to
    have been picked up in a hospital. [4]

    These grim stats are out there but they're not being shared with patients. In fact, those with a
    cancer diagnosis continue to be encouraged to do the very things that will sicken, maim and
    eventually kill them. All the while, naturally-derived compounds and extremely effective treatments
    exist. Patients won't find out about these treatments from their doctors, however. And with
    heartbreaking regularity some very effective treatments are being kept from desperate patients
    because of politics. Former New York State Assemblyman Daniel Haley wrote a book about it. In
    "Politics In Healing", Haley outlines ten cases of brilliant medical researchers who risked their
    freedom and their fortunes to share their discoveries with terminal patients.

    One such story involves Stanislaw Burzynski. With a medical degree and a Ph.D. in biochemistry,
    Burzynski left Poland and came to America with a phenomenal therapy for treating cancer. He helped
    countless patients through a treatment that inhibits cancer cell growth called antineoplastons. Long
    explanation short, these cells reprogram cancer cells and inhibit their growth. For his pioneering
    and enormously successful work the FDA tried to put him in jail. He's been put on probation, been
    messed-with by the NCI (National Cancer Institute, a governmental agency) despite the fact that he
    has a verified track record when it comes to difficult brain tumor cases. Parents of children with
    conditions like medullablastoma (brain tumor) have had to petition the FDA requesting "compassionate
    exemption" for children who would otherwise die without the treatment Dr. Burzynski offers.

    Little Thomas Novarro suffered from this type of brain tumor and the prognosis wasn't good. What the
    FDA recommended- chemo- would have most likely left Thomas brain damaged, retarded and deaf. He
    would have lived, maybe another five years. The boy's parents battled for something better. They
    struggled to point out that the chemo the FDA pushed for Thomas was "carcinogenic, toxic, unproven
    and ineffective" according to the parents of another little boy named Alex Horwin who was similarly
    not allowed by the FDA Gestapo to seek other treatment.

    Alex died in his parents' arms.

    It must tear at these parent's hearts to know that the vilified Dr. Burzynski has successfully
    treated seven children with the same tumors. Of those, six are still alive, with tumors either
    completely gone or stabilized. The children brought to him who had chemo or radiation have all died.

    Antineoplastons work when the FDA stays out of it and doesn't require people taking the treatment to
    have chemo or radiation first.

    The medical doctor who came here from Poland must have wondered why in America people aren't free to
    choose what type of medical care they want. Or why he was made to face the inquisition of
    governmental agencies trying for years to jail him. Isn't that why he left Poland?

    Shontelle Hiron was chosen to carry the Olympic torch during the games in Sydney in 2000. Seven
    years before that she was given three months to live after the discovery of a brain tumor.
    Shontelle's Australian town raised money to send her to Dr. Stan Burzynski's clinic in Houston. As
    soon as the antineoplastons were started the tumor shrank and disappeared. Running alongside
    Shontelle that day was Stan Burzynski- the man who'd saved her life.

    The man America's FDA tried to put in jail.

    Footnotes:
    [1] The Collapse Of Conventional Medicine/ Sardi/Here And Now Books (askbillsardi.com)

    [2] ibid

    [3] Scientific American/ Nov '85

    [4] Take This Book To The Hospital With You/ Inlander/ Pantheon Press

    Resources:
    Dr. Kelley's Counterperspectives on Health [http://www.drkelley.info] Politics In Healing/ Haley,
    Potomac Valley Press (800- 898-0639)

    Alternative Medicine, The Definitive Guide/ Goldberg Group/ Future Medicine Pub.

    The Burzynski Breakthrough/ Elias/Lexikos Burzynski Clinic: (281) 597- 0111

    Foundation For Advancement In Cancer Therapy (212) 741- 2790
     
    Tags:


  2. Orac

    Orac Guest

    In article <%[email protected]>,
    "Dave" <[email protected]> wrote:

    > DEVELOP A NATURAL CANCER TREATMENT...GO TO JAIL By Mary Starrett;
    >
    >
    >
    > There are two major reasons we don't have a cure for cancer. Why despite a 40 year old "war" on
    > the disease survival rates haven't increased one bit.

    An article that starts with a whopping lie like this is off to a bad start, you know. (The author
    can't even figure out that the "war on cancer" is only around 30 years old, not 40 years old, dating
    back to the National Cancer Act, passed in 1971.) We've been through this issue before, particularly
    with pediatric cancers, whose survival rates are much better than they were 40 years ago. The
    survival rates for adult leukemias and lymphomas, among many other tumors, are also better now than
    they were 40 years ago. Of course, that it goes on to push "anti-neoplastons" and doesn't cite a
    single scientific study. Heck, even when referring to a NEJM article, it doesn't actually cite the
    actual article. (I think the article being referred to was a 20 year update on the original NSABP
    study comparing lumpectomy and mastectomy--basically a confirmation of old news.

    [Snip]
    --
    Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
    |
    |"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you inconvenience me with questions?"
     
  3. Dave

    Dave Guest

    "Orac" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:eek:[email protected]...
    > In article <%[email protected]>, "Dave" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > > DEVELOP A NATURAL CANCER TREATMENT...GO TO JAIL By Mary Starrett;
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > There are two major reasons we don't have a cure for cancer. Why despite
    a
    > > 40 year old "war" on the disease survival rates haven't increased one
    bit.
    >
    > An article that starts with a whopping lie like this is off to a bad start, you know. (The
    > author can't even figure out that the "war on cancer" is only around 30 years old, not 40 years
    > old, dating back to the National Cancer Act, passed in 1971.) We've been through this issue
    > before, particularly with pediatric cancers, whose survival rates are much better than they were
    > 40 years ago. The survival rates for adult leukemias and lymphomas, among many other tumors, are
    > also better now than they were 40 years ago. Of course, that it goes on to push "anti-
    > neoplastons" and doesn't cite a single scientific study. Heck, even when referring to a NEJM
    > article, it doesn't actually cite the actual article. (I think the article being referred to was
    > a 20 year update on the original NSABP study comparing lumpectomy and mastectomy--basically a
    > confirmation of old news.

    Then this will be new news for you........

    How the American Cancer Society Fights Cancer

    Research

    To date, the Society has invested more than $2.4 billion in cancer research and has provided grant
    support to 32 Nobel Prize winners early in their careers. The Society's overall annual expenditure
    in research has grown steadily from $1 million in 1946 to more than $130 million in fiscal year
    2001. The research program focuses primarily on peer-reviewed projects initiated by beginning
    investigators working in leading medical and scientific institutions across the country. The
    research program consists of three components: extramural grants, intramural epidemiology and
    surveillance research, and the intramural behavioral research center.

    1946 - 2003 is actually 57 years.


    > [Snip]
    > --
    > Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
    > |
    > |"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you inconvenience me with questions?"
     
  4. Orac

    Orac Guest

    In article <[email protected]>,
    "Dave" <[email protected]> wrote:

    > "Orac" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:eek:[email protected]...
    > > In article <%[email protected]>, "Dave" <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >
    > > > DEVELOP A NATURAL CANCER TREATMENT...GO TO JAIL By Mary Starrett;
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > There are two major reasons we don't have a cure for cancer. Why despite
    > a
    > > > 40 year old "war" on the disease survival rates haven't increased one
    > bit.
    > >
    > > An article that starts with a whopping lie like this is off to a bad start, you know. (The
    > > author can't even figure out that the "war on cancer" is only around 30 years old, not 40 years
    > > old, dating back to the National Cancer Act, passed in 1971.) We've been through this issue
    > > before, particularly with pediatric cancers, whose survival rates are much better than they were
    > > 40 years ago. The survival rates for adult leukemias and lymphomas, among many other tumors, are
    > > also better now than they were 40 years ago. Of course, that it goes on to push "anti-
    > > neoplastons" and doesn't cite a single scientific study. Heck, even when referring to a NEJM
    > > article, it doesn't actually cite the actual article. (I think the article being referred to was
    > > a 20 year update on the original NSABP study comparing lumpectomy and mastectomy--basically a
    > > confirmation of old news.
    >
    > Then this will be new news for you........
    >
    > How the American Cancer Society Fights Cancer
    >
    > Research
    >
    > To date, the Society has invested more than $2.4 billion in cancer research and has provided grant
    > support to 32 Nobel Prize winners early in their careers. The Society's overall annual expenditure
    > in research has grown steadily from $1 million in 1946 to more than $130 million in fiscal year
    > 2001. The research program focuses primarily on peer-reviewed projects initiated by beginning
    > investigators working in leading medical and scientific institutions across the country. The
    > research program consists of three components: extramural grants, intramural epidemiology and
    > surveillance research, and the intramural behavioral research center.
    >
    > 1946 - 2003 is actually 57 years.

    Don't be obtuse. If you want to go that way, then we've been "fighting cancer" for hundreds, if not
    thousands, of years. For instance, the National Cancer Institute was founded in 1937.

    The actual declared "War on Cancer," as commonly referred to by most scientists and journalists,
    dates back to 1971, when Nixon signed into law the National Cancer Act, for the first time
    dedicating large amounts of federal money to the cause, establishing standards for cancer
    centers, etc.

    And, of course, one notes that you neglected to respond to the real whopper told at the beginning of
    the article you posted, namely the lie about survival and cure rates for cancer not having improved
    in 40 years.
    --
    Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
    |
    |"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you inconvenience me with questions?"
     
Loading...