hpqp's arrogance (or more like the abundance thereof) up 'till now suggests that he/she is a tool. An ignorant one at best, a state owned one at worst.

>> ^hpqp:

Burzynski's evidence (or more like lack thereof) up 'till now suggests that he is a quack. A well-intentioned one at best, a fraudulent one at worst.
>> ^marbles:
Preface: It's great if this really is a breakthrough.
I'm a bit skeptical though.
1. Genetic engineering/manipulation "therapy" has had little success. 5 years ago they claimed gene therapy could cure melanoma in the American Journal of Science. It's addressed in this article here: Don't be deluded that this is the cancer breakthrough.
2. The Powers-that-be don't really want a cure to cancer. Antineoplastons show great promise as a cure. They're non-toxic and replicate natural occurring chemicals in the body that inhibit the abnormal enzymes that cause cancer. Antineoplastons are responsible for curing some of the most incurable forms of terminal cancer. Why have you never heard of it? Good question. This is the answer: http://videosift.com/video/Burzynski-Cancer-Is-Serious-Business

>> ^heropsycho:

It takes an extremely cynical leap of faith to believe companies aren't curing cancer because it's profitable not to.
I can believe companies chase what is profitable, often times losing focus on what's important, but deliberately not curing cancer, considering how profitable it would be to develop a cancer cure, is preposterous.
>> ^marbles:
Preface: It's great if this really is a breakthrough.
I'm a bit skeptical though.
1. Genetic engineering/manipulation "therapy" has had little success. 5 years ago they claimed gene therapy could cure melanoma in the American Journal of Science. It's addressed in this article here: Don't be deluded that this is the cancer breakthrough.
2. The Powers-that-be don't really want a cure to cancer. Antineoplastons show great promise as a cure. They're non-toxic and replicate natural occurring chemicals in the body that inhibit the abnormal enzymes that cause cancer. Antineoplastons are responsible for curing some of the most incurable forms of terminal cancer. Why have you never heard of it? Good question. This is the answer: http://videosift.com/video/Burzynski-Cancer-Is-Serious-Business



It takes an extremely ignorant leap of faith to believe big business or the government has your interests at heart. If the powers-that-be really wanted a cure then they wouldn't have been criminally suppressing Burzynski's discovery for 20+ years.

You seem to have a (re-occuring) reading comprehension problem. Where did I say it wasn't profitable to cure cancer? Where did I get into motives at all?

But to address your point:
Dr. Julian Whitaker:
"The problem that we face however, is that a huge financial house has been built on the paradigm of purging the body of cancer cells. Burzynski’s discovery means that the foundation, the walls, and the roof of that house, need to be replaced. Think about it, we’ve got thousands of doctors in oncology, and in oncology residency programs, we’ve got the pharmaceutical industry pumping out chemotherapeutic agents every month. There are all kinds of machines that deliver radiation, we’ve got all this stuff in the war on cancer, and it’s trillions of dollars.

I find it very interesting that we have all these walks for the cure of cancer. We’ve got all the wristbands, we’ve got all the donations—”we’re going to find a cure in this decade.” All this money keeps pouring in—and it all goes to the same guys."

Any cure to cancer undermines a trillion dollar industry.

"Everyone should know that most cancer research is largely a fraud, and that the major cancer research organizations are derelict in their duties to the people who support them." - Linus Pauling - 2-Time Nobel Prize Winner

>> ^heropsycho:
It takes an extremely cynical leap of faith to believe companies aren't curing cancer because it's profitable not to.
I can believe companies chase what is profitable, often times losing focus on what's important, but deliberately not curing cancer, considering how profitable it would be to develop a cancer cure, is preposterous.
>> ^marbles:
Preface: It's great if this really is a breakthrough.
I'm a bit skeptical though.
1. Genetic engineering/manipulation "therapy" has had little success. 5 years ago they claimed gene therapy could cure melanoma in the American Journal of Science. It's addressed in this article here: Don't be deluded that this is the cancer breakthrough.
2. The Powers-that-be don't really want a cure to cancer. Antineoplastons show great promise as a cure. They're non-toxic and replicate natural occurring chemicals in the body that inhibit the abnormal enzymes that cause cancer. Antineoplastons are responsible for curing some of the most incurable forms of terminal cancer. Why have you never heard of it? Good question. This is the answer: http://videosift.com/video/Burzynski-Cancer-Is-Serious-Business



If you had cancer and all your doctor needs to do is prescribe some medication to you and you'll be fine, what happens to the entire oncology industry? From oncologists to companies that make expensive chemotherapy treatments, entire industries would cease to exist practically overnight.

Since corporations in the USA are required by law to maximise profits, isn't it fair to be a bit cynical and consider that those businesses that could be affected would want to protect their highly profitable corner of the market?

Burzynski's evidence (or more like lack thereof) up 'till now suggests that he is a quack. A well-intentioned one at best, a fraudulent one at worst.

>> ^marbles:

Preface: It's great if this really is a breakthrough.
I'm a bit skeptical though.
1. Genetic engineering/manipulation "therapy" has had little success. 5 years ago they claimed gene therapy could cure melanoma in the American Journal of Science. It's addressed in this article here: Don't be deluded that this is the cancer breakthrough.
2. The Powers-that-be don't really want a cure to cancer. Antineoplastons show great promise as a cure. They're non-toxic and replicate natural occurring chemicals in the body that inhibit the abnormal enzymes that cause cancer. Antineoplastons are responsible for curing some of the most incurable forms of terminal cancer. Why have you never heard of it? Good question. This is the answer: http://videosift.com/video/Burzynski-Cancer-Is-Serious-Business

It takes an extremely cynical leap of faith to believe companies aren't curing cancer because it's profitable not to.

I can believe companies chase what is profitable, often times losing focus on what's important, but deliberately not curing cancer, considering how profitable it would be to develop a cancer cure, is preposterous.

>> ^marbles:

Preface: It's great if this really is a breakthrough.
I'm a bit skeptical though.
1. Genetic engineering/manipulation "therapy" has had little success. 5 years ago they claimed gene therapy could cure melanoma in the American Journal of Science. It's addressed in this article here: Don't be deluded that this is the cancer breakthrough.
2. The Powers-that-be don't really want a cure to cancer. Antineoplastons show great promise as a cure. They're non-toxic and replicate natural occurring chemicals in the body that inhibit the abnormal enzymes that cause cancer. Antineoplastons are responsible for curing some of the most incurable forms of terminal cancer. Why have you never heard of it? Good question. This is the answer: http://videosift.com/video/Burzynski-Cancer-Is-Serious-Business

Preface: It's great if this really is a breakthrough.

I'm a bit skeptical though.

1. Genetic engineering/manipulation "therapy" has had little success. 5 years ago they claimed gene therapy could cure melanoma in the American Journal of Science. It's addressed in this article here: Don't be deluded that this is the cancer breakthrough.

2. The Powers-that-be don't really want a cure to cancer. Antineoplastons show great promise as a cure. They're non-toxic and replicate natural occurring chemicals in the body that inhibit the abnormal enzymes that cause cancer. Antineoplastons are responsible for curing some of the most incurable forms of terminal cancer. Why have you never heard of it? Good question. This is the answer: http://videosift.com/video/Burzynski-Cancer-Is-Serious-Business

Its not rare for poison to be the cure. Often the difference is the dose. I mean, we've been fighting Cancer cells with ionising radiation, if that doesn't seem counterproductive to you then neither should using a virus.

Still, I am skeptical. Hopefully this really is a breakthrough, but with a sample size of only 3 its much much too early to say anything for sure.

Research is an important part of education. It helps us understand and know things better and find possible solutions to any problem that may arouse along our way of life. Unifying the scientific hypotheses of formation is an undertaking that science and religion have been incapable of achieving thus far. But every little thing may change, due to a breakthrough by Fermilab in Illinois of what could really be the “God particle”. Within two days of one another, both labs say they have found significant tips at the existence of the sought-after Higgs boson, previously a theoretic gem in the crown of particle science. Here is the proof: Higgs boson breakthrough hailed as window unto creation.

>> ^Enzoblue:

The bad: the scaling I think, the hands tourney was no bigger than a Ren faire sideshow as was the Dothraki wedding. In the book they were epic. Also that wedding was done during the day and so was the birth of the dragons, which was off-putting. I didn't feel Drago's army was anywhere near 30k.
All in all I was hoping for a breakthrough in cinematic skill, (like the Rings), but got the budget restrained version.


It's television, and you should compare it to other television shows, not movies. They don't have $300 million to spend on 10 hours of footage like LOTR. Scenes like Tyrion getting knocked out and missing the fight are there so that the producers don't blow half of the season's budget on a battle that wasn't even important.

My two bits:


Characters: All perfect with the exception of Catelyn(not pretty enough), Littlefinger(just a bit off), Hodor(was young in book, not 50+), and Danerys(too doe eyed, but growing on me), Ilyn Payne. The others, especially the Stark boys, Tyrion, Viserys, Cersei and Varys were exceptionally casted. Gems like Aemon, Florel, Bron and Septa Mordane blew me away.

Adaptation: Expected mostly, story offs are reasonable for the most part, (the Others are now called White Walkers, etc).

The bad: the scaling I think, the hands tourney was no bigger than a Ren faire sideshow as was the Dothraki wedding. In the book they were epic. Also that wedding was done during the day and so was the birth of the dragons, which was off-putting. I didn't feel Drago's army was anywhere near 30k.

The downgrading of the dire wolves is disappointing, (they were such a huge spiritual role in the book), but they require CG and that's costly I guess. I hope they're saving that money for the dragons.


The petty: Having Tyrion apparently knocked out during his first battle, in book he fought bravely. Having Danerys immune to fire.

The Unforgivable: Having the knight of the Flowers gay for Renly, including a scene of him sucking him off, even dubbing in the slurping sounds. Pathetic. In book Loras might have been gay, but Renly was a playboy and even married.

All in all I was hoping for a breakthrough in cinematic skill, (like the Rings), but got the budget restrained version. I'll take it though.

The idea is not stupid, it is merely impractical, given today's technology. At worst, I would consider the girl to be underinformed, which is a far cry from stupid.

Shame on people who label others as 'stupid' because they refuse to consider a proposal due to its impracticality. Every great technological breakthrough was once considered impractical.

This video has been seconded as a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof seconded with isdupe by ant.

>> ^chicchorea:

Very sorry...but this is a dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Transcrainial-Magnetic-Stimulation-a-medical-breakthrough?fromdupe=How-magnets-affect-the-human-brain.


*isdupe

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by chicchorea. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.