Not sure that I would consider you the best judge of what is or is not ignorant based on the crazy ass shit you accept as truth. Play to your strengths, whatever those may be. >> ^marbles:

>> ^MonkeySpank:
WTF?
As a doctor, you decide which procedures to perform and which to recommend to another physician. Where on earth do you get your information?

>> ^marbles:
>> ^Yogi:
>> ^quantumushroom:
Yeah, he did a poor job clarifying his personal beliefs, versus beliefs about what government should or shouldn't be allowed to do.
Of course, compared to the Kenyawaiian narcissist, Cain is a genius many times over, with actual business and life experience.

I don't understand what you mean by "what government should or shouldn't be allowed to do." Remember the government isn't forcing abortions onto people...it's saying that it cannot make them illegal. Isn't that what you want? Less government intervention into our personal lives?

Not true. There is a push by certain groups to force doctors to perform abortions even if they morally object to them on a personal level.


Don't bother trying to comprehend what you quote. Notice I said "a push by certain groups".
So are you just ignorant, or are you ignorant and inept at actually researching the issue I brought up?

>> ^marbles:

>> ^MonkeySpank:
WTF?
As a doctor, you decide which procedures to perform and which to recommend to another physician. Where on earth do you get your information?

>> ^marbles:
>> ^Yogi:
>> ^quantumushroom:
Yeah, he did a poor job clarifying his personal beliefs, versus beliefs about what government should or shouldn't be allowed to do.
Of course, compared to the Kenyawaiian narcissist, Cain is a genius many times over, with actual business and life experience.

I don't understand what you mean by "what government should or shouldn't be allowed to do." Remember the government isn't forcing abortions onto people...it's saying that it cannot make them illegal. Isn't that what you want? Less government intervention into our personal lives?

Not true. There is a push by certain groups to force doctors to perform abortions even if they morally object to them on a personal level.


Don't bother trying to comprehend what you quote. Notice I said "a push by certain groups".
So are you just ignorant, or are you ignorant and inept at actually researching the issue I brought up?


Presumably, these "certain groups" are the same people who blew up WTC7.

>> ^MonkeySpank:

WTF?
As a doctor, you decide which procedures to perform and which to recommend to another physician. Where on earth do you get your information?

>> ^marbles:
>> ^Yogi:
>> ^quantumushroom:
Yeah, he did a poor job clarifying his personal beliefs, versus beliefs about what government should or shouldn't be allowed to do.
Of course, compared to the Kenyawaiian narcissist, Cain is a genius many times over, with actual business and life experience.

I don't understand what you mean by "what government should or shouldn't be allowed to do." Remember the government isn't forcing abortions onto people...it's saying that it cannot make them illegal. Isn't that what you want? Less government intervention into our personal lives?

Not true. There is a push by certain groups to force doctors to perform abortions even if they morally object to them on a personal level.



Don't bother trying to comprehend what you quote. Notice I said "a push by certain groups".

So are you just ignorant, or are you ignorant and inept at actually researching the issue I brought up?

WTF?
As a doctor, you decide which procedures to perform and which to recommend to another physician. Where on earth do you get your information?


>> ^marbles:

>> ^Yogi:
>> ^quantumushroom:
Yeah, he did a poor job clarifying his personal beliefs, versus beliefs about what government should or shouldn't be allowed to do.
Of course, compared to the Kenyawaiian narcissist, Cain is a genius many times over, with actual business and life experience.

I don't understand what you mean by "what government should or shouldn't be allowed to do." Remember the government isn't forcing abortions onto people...it's saying that it cannot make them illegal. Isn't that what you want? Less government intervention into our personal lives?

Not true. There is a push by certain groups to force doctors to perform abortions even if they morally object to them on a personal level.

Replies within message:

>> ^quantumushroom:

I was 100% against the failouts, but not much you can do against a leviathan government made that way by worshipers of leviathan government as the solution to every problem. You don't create a Kong then act surprised when Kong does what he wants instead of what you want, do you?


If I recall, Bush pushed for the bailout. Here is the Fox News article.


Due to increasingly efficient software and other tech advances, over time a job that once required a thousand workers can be done with only 300. It's called "creative destruction" and yeah, it requires you to be on the ball.


I agree with you. This happened to the TV repairmen in the 80s when the Japanese firms starting making better TVs. It's a problem that we will have to deal with regularly. It happened, and it will happen again. If it wasn't for prescriptions, most General Physicians would be out of the job today as internet self-diagnostics have become extremely popular in the last 10 years. We still subsidize farmers, cotton growers, and steelworkers. I say let's drop them! The same rule should apply to all. If we are willing to support outsourcing, then we should be willing to cut all subsidies to farmers, oil companies, pharmaceuticals, etc. I'm all for that.

I've never been offered a job by a poor man, have you? Unless you're a vote-buying politician, you shouldn't overly concern yourself that someone else has more than you, nor blame them. Economics is not a zero-sum game.

I don't see your point at all here. People do not want to tax the rich more, they just want repeal the tax breaks that Bush implemented. Unless you know otherwise, over the ENTIRE lifespan of these tax breaks, the economy has been on a downhill. How can you justify them then? Remember this is tax breaks over income only, if the rich invest their money into their businesses, they are never taxed on that money anyways.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^ghark:
Enjoyed the vid, but I have to say I really stopped watching most of Maddow's stuff lately, she seems to try to perpetuate the myth that there is actually a divide between Republicans and Democrats.
I think there's a myth that it's a myth there's a divide between Democrats and Republicans.
Like, where's all the Democratic legislation that's trying to disenfranchise Republican voter demographics?
Are Democrats going out and saying that taxing the rich is "class warfare" and therefore a taboo topic for discussion?
Are Democrats trying to destroy Social Security and Medicare?
Are the Democrats saying national healthcare is a secret plot to commit genocide?
I'm all for trying to rearrange American politics so it doesn't have this huge right-wing corporatist tilt, but spreading this myth that there's no difference between the parties doesn't help.
Part of convincing more politicians to move to the left and stand up to corporations would be to reward the ones who take a stand with your support. Withdrawing it (and encouraging others to do the same) because you're disappointed with their ability to deliver doesn't help tilt things back to the left. On the contrary, it helps ensure that the tilt to the right continues.
As an aside, I haven't seen Cenk promote that bogus myth. He's a lot harder on Democrats than Maddow (or Olbermann), but I've never seen him promote the "voting is meaningless" lie. I hope what he's been saying is some form of "voting against Republicans isn't enough -- we need to pressure the Democrats to move left too!"


In terms of Democratic legislation that disenfranchises Republican voter demographics, I think that's really the point, it isn't there.

In terms of public remonstration that taxation is 'class warfare' I think they've made their public opinion clear, they think taxes on the rich should be raised (so they appear to be on the other side of the fence to the GOP), however what they say and what they do are two different things, I think this is a good example of them playing a pretty standard political game. There is plenty of public voice (even here! See QM) saying the 'taxocrats' are all about raising taxes - but in reality the complete opposite is true, the wealthy are enjoying some of the lowest tax rates in US history. So I would say no, they are not trying to stifle discussion on raising taxes, rather that their words become rather meaningless when looking at their results. Did the Dems not enjoy a filibuster-proof 60 seat senate majority after the elections, I would love to know if they achieved anything meaningful during that period, I really honestly would.

In terms of social security, I give you this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/in-debt-talks-obama-offers-social-security-cuts/2011/07/06/gIQA2sFO1H_story.html
In terms of Medicare, the debt ceiling negotiations results in the reduction of physicians medicare reimbursements, and further reductions may happen down the road once the super committee has finished their work. But in those 'negotiations' they ended the tax break on the wealthy right? Unfortunately not.

In terms of genocide plots etc, their role is to keep a voter base so that wouldn't be smart, however once again, what matters are results.

As far as convincing politicians to move left, I really wish that were possible, but in 2010 three and a half billion dollars was spent by lobbyists alone, there's just no way you can get your voice to make a difference when you're up against that - and lobbyist money is just the tip of the iceberg, many politicians receive far more money in contributions from other sources, take a look at Harry Reid for example:
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00009922
There's a video that's just been posted on the sift of Dick Durbin decrying BoA's new credit/debit card fee's, however this 'voice of reason' has taken over 9 million in contributions in the past 4 years from all manner of sources (including pro-israel). What does this mean? It means he votes yes for bills like H.R. 3080 and H.R. 3079 that will ship US jobs overseas and reduce working conditions in those countries affected (Korea, Panama and Columbia), in addition to supporting a government that is involved in the active killing of journalists that try to expose the brutality of the regime in place (in Columbia).

You just.... can't compete with the influence that that amount of money brings, I'm sorry.

Cenk changed on MSNBC, that was quite clear, and he even explained why that was in his interview after he left - he was being pressured to fall in line and not go too heavy on the Democrats. in fact I think the video you posted 7 months ago is the best demonstration of that, and ironically I commented on it back then too:
http://videosift.com/video/Cenk-to-Wisconsin-Progressives-No-Compromise

Some of his quotes from the clip:
"the war that the Republicans want to start"
"they are coming after you" (referring to the GOP)
"I have a bold proposal tonight, that we fight back" (the 'we' meaning we Democrats)
"Thank god so far the Democrats aren't going to give in to his threats"
"They always reject the word compromise" (GOP again)

and the Pièce de résistance comes at 4:10,
"I have this crazy new idea, how about two can play at that game, how about WE don't compromise either" (this is clearly setup to mean the Dem's)

Did he not just try to get people to buy into the idea that it's us (the Dem's!) vs the GOP (them!).

He had the balls to reject a nice offer from MSNBC and go back to his show where he can speak his mind rather than try to persuade people it's us vs them on the mainstream media.

If you listen to him since he's left, he's gone back to his old, relatively unbiased nature, for example in his recent interview with Al Gore, when Al says that he still has hope in Obama to make 'change' Cenk goes out of his way to say that he is quite clearly 'less hopeful' than Al that Obama will bring about change, i.e. he's pretty much back to his old pre-MSNBC self.

So I think it's safe to draw the conclusion that the mainstream media (MSNBC) used Cenk to try to perpetuate the myth that it's 'us vs. them', because since leaving he has been far more candid. This is the exact same type of thing I see In Rachel unfortunately, and that's why I wish I could see her with her own independent show, she would be awesome on the RNN for example.

Anyway, you already know all this, you're the one posting some of the video's that bought me to the conclusion I did, so I would be interested to hear why you disagree with my position.

Considering what is in demand changes every year, and it takes 2-4+ years to get a degree or 1-2 years to get licensing/training required....in which you have to pay for those via loans. While it's "possible" to predict what might be in demand when you get out of your training/schooling, it's not a sure thing. So to expect people working who want a pay boost/advancement to go into a different "in demand" career field that may or may not be in demand when they finish is an idea that's good for a laugh. Especially when it's so ungodly expensive to go for any degree in the first place. God forbid you pick an in demand one, that everyone else picked because hey.....it's in demand, and still can't get a job.

The burden is put entirely on the individual to research job demand (which is based on data businesses give), figure out how to get the training they need to be the best qualified for said job, take loans or pay out of pocket for said training, and when they get done investing years and have a good chunk of debt and a piece of paper to show for it... the economy drops out/businesses down-size/the data was wrong/economists were wrong/etc. And now you should have gotten a degree in XYZ and known that those reports we put out 4 years ago were complete bullshit. Oh and you bought a house because all the financial indicators 6-7 years ago said things were super awesome? Had a few kids because now you had the house to settle down in and begin a family? Didn't you know that all those professionals and politicians managing the reports and oversight were gaming the system to inflate the numbers? You didn't? Well I guess we get to blame you again, because hey you should have known better...everyone else pretends they did.

BTW jobs as undertakers should always be in demand, yet you're going to have a hard time finding positions for a thousand of them being trained year after year. Oh, and just two years ago everyone was saying "Go into healthcare! We need more nurses, etc!", and now looking at the job listings it's maybe an eighth of what they used to list just a year ago. So I can only imagine how many people are now physician's assistants and what not who can't find a job because even the doctor's offices are laying people off and downsizing.

@blankfist

Research that purporting that teaching is a difficult job based on 6 criteria. I suggest the whole document but here's the jest of it.
______________________________________________
---------->Societal Attitude:
The participants in this study believed that the attitude of society toward the teaching profession was unfair and detrimental to their overall functioning. They did not believe that they were valued, despite their advanced levels of education. In a recent nationwide survey of over 11,000 teachers and teacher candidates, Henke, Chen, Geis, and Knepper (2000) found that only 14.6% of the teachers surveyed were satisfied with the esteem in which society held the teaching profession.

--->Denise, a high school English teacher addressed the issue of respect:

"There is a lack of respect for teachers. It's not just the money, but also the attitude I get from administrators and politicians that teachers are trying to get away with something. We have taken these cushy jobs where all we have to do is stand up in front of a bunch of kids and BS for a few hours, and only work ten months of the year, at that teachers have it easy! Every time we ask for something (like, in my county, that the county pay our contribution to the state retirement system, for example), they make us out to look like whiners - give 'em an inch; they'll take a mile. The truth is, though, that teachers care so deeply and work SO much beyond our "contract hours." I can't tell you how many come in for weeks during the summer, as I do, and take on clubs after school (for which we are not compensated), and work during vacations. This lack of respect for teachers gets me down."
______________________________________________
---------->Financial Issues:
On top of the perception that they are not being valued by society, teachers are notoriously underpaid in our country. Four years after their graduation, Henke et al. (2000) surveyed a large sample of college graduates between 1992-1993. They found that the teachers were tied with clerical staff and service workers for the lowest salaries. A recent report from the American Federation of Teachers (AFT, 2000) found the following to be the case for the 2000-2001 school year:

For new teachers, the $28,986 average beginning salary lagged far behind starting salary offers in other fields for new college graduates. For example, accounting graduates were offered an average $37,143; sales/marketing, $40,033; math/statistics, $49,548; computer science, $49,749; and engineering, $50,033.
The $43,250 average teacher salary fell short of average wages of other white-collar occupations, the report found. For example, mid-level accountants earned an average $52,664, computer system analysts, $71,155; engineers, $74,920; and attorneys, $82,712.
The majority of the participants in this study related that they were simply not paid enough to live comfortably. They drove old cars and lived in inexpensive apartments. Others struggled to save enough money to buy a home.

--->Calvin, a high school science teacher, talked about his pay:

"I love teaching, but I don't know if I love it enough to deprive my family and myself of necessities. I have a baby and another on the way. I can't see how I can ever save enough to make a down payment on a house, even with a second job in the summer."
______________________________________________
---------->Time Scarcity:
Many new teachers were physically and emotionally fatigued to the point of exhaustion. They reported that they worked long days at school, and then took home lesson plans to create, papers to grade, and parents to call. They also worked nights and weekends on school-related work.

--->Jessica, a high school math teacher:

"I work 70 hours a week, and after 3 years it's not getting any better. When Friday night rolls around, all I want to do is fall asleep at 8 p.m.! Obviously that doesn't lead to a very exciting social life, or much of a "life" at all, if I can hardly stay awake long enough to go out to dinner with my friends and family. Even at holidays there are always papers to grade."

--->Fred, a high school English teacher also had difficulty with the amount of time required to do his job, pointing to the effect the time constraints had on family relationships:

The time commitment is the worst. During my first two years of teaching I worked 70-80 hour weeks, including time worked during the school day, in the evenings and over the weekend. Time commitment varies with the subject taught and with experience, but this aspect of the job nearly ran me out of teaching on several occasions and I witnessed one great new teacher leave teaching for this very reason. "It's my job or my marriage," she explained. "I never see my husband, and we're living under the same roof."

______________________________________________
---------->Workload:
The data reveal that it is nearly impossible for a conscientious teacher to complete all that is expected of them in one school day. At the high school level, teachers were teaching five or more classes in a traditional school, and three in a block schedule school. For each class this meant that the teacher's task was to design a complete lesson lasting at least one hour. This lesson had to follow the state curriculum, be engaging and interesting to students, and include various components as required by the school district, such as a warm-up, class activities, and homework. The teachers wanted to use outside resources such as the Internet to connect the material to real world applications. Additionally, they reported that there were often several special needs students in the class, and each of them needed some special accommodation. They found that planning was not a trivial task; it took several hours to design one effective instructional plan.

According to the teachers in this study, class sizes were another difficult feature of the teacher's day. In public high schools, most class sizes ranged from 25 to 35 students for a total of 125-175 students in a traditional school, and 75-105 in a four period block school. Henke et al. (2000) reported that the average number of students taught by secondary teachers each day is 115.8.

--->Abby, a high school history teacher explained the effect of large class sizes:

"Imagine any other professional trying to deal with the needs of this many "customers" at one time. If a physician were seeing patients, and grouped this many together, it is readily apparent how ridiculous it would be to expect her or him to address the needs of each person. The same is true for teachers.
Each student is an individual, with needs and issues that must be addressed. In a class period, the teachers expressed frustration because they could not address the needs of 25 or more students. "

--->Gina, a former high school science teacher described the variety in her workload as well as in her students' abilities:

"What I least expected was the amount of paperwork I had to do. Grading papers, progress reports, parent conferences, English-as-a-Second Language, exceptional students, ADD paperwork, and even work for absent students seem to take more time than "teaching."

To compound the issue, teachers also related many learning issues, where students had questions or misunderstandings that could easily have been cleared up with a few minutes of one-on-one time. They also reported discipline issues that got more serious when they were not addressed. Some students were bored. Some lacked basic skills and could not perform without help. In general, the teachers expressed being frustrated because they are educated professionals who could address these issues, if there were time to get to everyone. There was simply not enough time to address the variety of issues that simultaneously too place. Farkas et al. (2000) reported that 86% of new teachers report that the change most likely to improve teaching is reducing class size.

--->Eva, a high school English teacher summed up her frustration with large class sizes.

"This was not a matter of poor time management; it was a matter of too many students with too many needs and one harried teacher trying to be superhuman. There were times that I had a great lesson plan, only to have it totally derailed because of one or two students who needed individual attention and could not get it."

The total number of students that this professional was expected to evaluate, plan, and care for each day was as many as 150.
______________________________________________
---------->Working Conditions:
School administrators varied in their support of young teachers, and many teachers reported that this support was inadequate. The new teachers felt that they were evaluated and judged, but they would have preferred real feedback and suggestions for improvement of their teaching. They felt that they were often not supported in discipline issues or in conflicts with parents.

--->Carol, a former high school math teacher:

"I was very frustrated with the lack of support from my principal/administration in that after three observations I never got any feedback either in written or verbal form. I never really knew how I was doing. I felt I was doing a good job, but did not think the administration cared one way or the other."

--->Fran, a high school mathematics teacher expressed a need for more funds:

"Teachers should be given all the supplies that they need - $25 is not enough! At all other jobs that I have worked at, whatever you need to do your job is provided."
______________________________________________
---------->Relationships with Students and Parents:
A common problem reported by beginning teachers was student apathy. Many of the novice teachers reported that students had no interest in learning. In addition to attendance problems, a number of students often came to class without pencil, paper, and textbook. It was difficult to force or entice them to participate in classwork, and virtually impossible to get them to do homework.

--->Owen, a former high school mathematics teacher, was frustrated by his students' apathy:

"The vast majority of my students had no interest in learning math and I quickly tired of trying to force them (or entice them). They refused to bring paper or pencil to class, refused to do homework or classwork, and frequently came to class late or not at all. Most of them, to my great surprise, were not at all belligerent or confrontational about their refusal to do anything in class; they just had no intention of working at anything."

--->Mattie, a former high school history teacher, could not deal with the frustration:

"I just became very frustrated teaching to a class of 20 students and about 5 were interested or at least concerned with their grades. I decided not to return, because I was so exhausted and depressed at the end of the year. I just couldn't see "wasting" my time in a classroom where the kids don't care about themselves or what you're trying to accomplish."

--->Eugene, a former high school math teacher, also reported problems with apathy:

"I was frustrated with the apathy of the students. Many days I felt as though I was standing up there talking to myself. It was the longest year of my life. I was an emotional wreck because I felt as if the kids/parents didn't care enough to try or participate."

First, a man died for what he believed in. That omission doesn't really do him justice. He was uninsured, his choice, and good people came through for him. As though standing up for those beliefs is a tragedy.

His opinion is *deceptive. It suggests a tragedy. This is lying through deception. God bless Kent Snyder, who this guy takes a shit on.

*Omission. Like @aurens said, not putting the whole context was awfully convenient. "He (Kent Synder) would have died, to be fair, in a church." Excuse me? Did he watch the debate? Ron Paul said nothing of the sort. This is the equal of conservatives spouting off their rhetoric of Death Panels; in every way shape and form. Since you just watched my video, you should darn well know that this guy is lying through his teeth. RON PAUL NOTED THAT HE NEVER TURNED AWAY ANYONE AS A PHYSICIAN, AND HE EXPECTS SOCIETY TO DO THE SAME. (I capitalize that because I feel strongly about it. Not because I am yelling at you.) Hell, that is part of the oaths doctors must swear to.

"Pay your bills upfront," at 3:21?! Wtf does that have to do with anything? It's called debt, if you can't afford it right away. Or is that not an option? And, debt can always be negotiated by the hospitals anyways. *Deceptive

"I hope all that money was raised." Really? You mean you have no fucking clue? Honestly? You just pop off at the mouth like Rush Lim-fat?

You may feel these points invalid, but then that isn't really an option. Just because he tells *you the truth, doesn't mean he isn't spouting out shit the rest of us. There is a saying in the courts, "The truth (Meaning, don't lie,) the Whole Truth (Don't omit,) and nothing but the truth (Don't add details that have nothing to do with the case.)

I am not writing this to debate these points so please don't. I respect you the same way. Also, I would like to note when you were disingenuous with no "articulation" when you called my video a near dupe of another. One vid, which you liked, made it seem like Ron Paul was a bastard that wants people to die (Just like this guy.) My video explained his context further and put him in a much better light, which was the opposite of the other video.

I voted for this video only to point out what a liar this guy is--I don't wish to regret it.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^Lawdeedaw:
lies through omission, a lot of omission.

Took that channel off. You wanna slap lies on it, at least articulate what the lie is.
Was there a salient, knowable detail he left out that would have repudiated what he said? If so, what was it? And do you have a source to back it up?
Maybe what you're looking for is controversy?

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^blankfist:
>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^blankfist:
I wish there was a medical system in the US that took care of all of us. I really do. And I'd much rather my tax dollars go to that
We can make your dream of universal taxpayer-funded health care come true! I'll be counting on your support when the GOP tries to repeal Obamacare.
It'll be you, me, and Dennis Kucinich out there yelling for single payer, and getting shouted down by Ron Paul and all the rest of the libertarian and conservative movements who want to make sure we let people die if they can't pay for the treatment they need.

How are those cherries tasting you've been picking?

Wait, you didn't really mean it? My heart is broken.
Does this mean you'd let him die if he couldn't pay?
I'm just asking if failure to pay for a service means you shouldn't get that service, no matter how dire your need for it is. If we were talking about someone buying cherries, you wouldn't be dodging the question, you'd be pretty steadfast in saying "you don't pay, you don't get cherries", because that's what the law of property demands.
Well, substitute "life-saving medical treatment" for cherries. Do the laws change, or do they stay the same?
PS: How do you like them apples cherries!


I don't think we should have compulsory healthcare. I think in a post-industrialized free nation we should have something better. But that would require the government getting out of healthcare altogether and letting the free market care for people. I understand that scares most of you.

But he's right that churches and hospitals used to care for people. Then sometime in the '60s (pardon me for being too tired right now to research it and find links) government got involved and it all went to shit. They got involved and started telling people how healthcare should be run. How doctors and physicians could care for people. And who could and couldn't give treatment. Also it's government's fault we tend to get health insurance through our work, which drives up costs. Again, I apologize for not getting you links, but maybe some other time. Tired and it's dinner time.

Now we have big corporate health insurance companies that are more of the problem. They get away with murder. Pun intended. I'd like to see the entire thing reformed, but not your one-size-fits-all-steal-peoples-money-to-fund-it way.

From the film:
NARRATOR (reading along with title card of Dr. Nicholas Patronas):
During this trial, one of the National Cancer Institute’s leading experts, Dr. Nicholas Patronas, a board-certified radiologist since 1973, professor of radiology at Georgetown University, and founder of the neuroradiology section of the National Cancer Institute [SOURCE: NIH Staff Pages]—recognized the absurdity of the Texas Medical Board’s case against Burzynski, put his own career on the line and flew himself to Texas to testify on Dr. Burzynski’s behalf. Dr. Patronas testified under oath his role at the National Cancer Institute.

NARRATOR (reading along with the official court transcript from the May 24, 1993 hearing): [SOURCE: Original complete court transcript of the entire testimony 1993]

Q (Jaffe): Basically, just in layman’s terms, you do all of the imaging work and interpretation for the National Cancer Institute’s testing of drugs?

A (Dr. Patronas): Exactly. That’s my job, to assess the effectiveness of the drugs that are given there.

Q (Jaffe): Did there come a time when you became aware of Dr. Burzynski?

A (Dr. Patronas): Yes, the National Cancer Institute asked me to join a group of other physicians and scientists, and come to Houston on a site visit to Dr. Burzynski’s Institute. I was called as an expert in assessing the images to evaluate the effectiveness of his treatment. The basic conclusion, was that in five of the patients with brain tumors, that were fairly large, the tumor resolved, disappeared.

Q (Jaffe): And that’s part of what you do at the hospital, is to evaluate treatments on brain cancer patients? A: Well, since I am the neuroradiologist I see all brain tumors. And I see a large volume of them.

Q (Jaffe): You testified that five of the patients had their tumors resolved, they all...

A (Dr. Patronas): Disappeared.

Q (Jaffe): Disappeared? Can you give us some kind of context of that? How often does that happen? Just by spontaneous remission?

A (Dr. Patronas): I’m not aware that spontaneous remission occurs. The available treatments rarely produce results like that. The only medication, the only treatment, which I think is a last resort, is radiation therapy. Conventional chemotherapy is—provides very little, nothing, basically. So when this happens it is very rare. In these cases, all of the patients had already failed radiation.

Q (Jaffe): What happens with these patients, who failed radiation, with brain cancer?

A (Dr. Patronas): That’s it. They die.

Q (Jaffe): You are saying, that if someone has already failed radiation, there’s not much else?

A (Dr. Patronas): Nothing to offer, exactly.

Q (Jaffe): And there is nothing that you can do at the National Cancer Institute?

A (Dr. Patronas): Nothing we can do, not at this present time.

Q (Jaffe): What about these five patients? How come they lived?

A (Dr. Patronas): Well, it’s amazing, the fact that they are not handicapped from the side effects of any treatment, and the side effects of most aggressive treatments are worse than the tumor itself, so these particular individuals not only survived, but they didn’t have major side effects. So I think it’s impressive and unbelievable.

Q (Jaffe): How many times have you seen this in your experience? How often does this happen?

A (Dr. Patronas): I don’t. I have not seen it at any time.

Q (Jaffe): Now, let me ask you your opinion or advice. Based on what you have seen, what would happen, let’s say, for some reason Dr Burzynski’s brain tumor patients can’t get his medicine anymore, and have to go off treatment. What’s going to happen to them?

MR. HELMCAMP (prosecutor): Objection, Your Honor, not relevant.

MR. JAFFE (defense): I think it is relevant. That’s really the issue we are advocating in this case.

JUDGE: Overruled.

A (Dr. Patronas): I think these patients will die.

http://www.burzynskimovie.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=101&Itemid=83

Dr. David S. Popkin, physician at the Quantum Wellness Center

May I kindly ask you to take your spam elsewhere?

Funny that you should tell KnivesOut to educate himself and refer him to a link to wikipedia when in a previous comment you said "quoting from the liberally biased wikipedia doesn't help your case.". So are you suggesting that a liberal bias only helps your case and not anybody else's? It's also funny that you should be telling people to educate themselves about NLP when in your comment on your video you call NLP " the mind control technique of NLP, which is nero logistical programming". Seriously, NERO LOGISTICAL???? I give up, for me that pretty much somes up your intellectual investment in this thread.

PS: To quote wikipedia "NLP has been largely ignored by conventional social science in part due to a lack of professional credibility and insufficient empirical evidence to substantiate its effectiveness,[14][15] and is characterized by its critics, mainly psychologists, as a fringe psychotherapy or as having pseudoscientific characteristics, disputing its title, concepts, and terminology".>> ^shinyblurry:

medicare is unconstitutional, humanists have conspired to replace creation with evolution (i have 100 quotes from secular humanists proving this), this world will end climate change or not, and all sin leads to death
in any case, NLP isnt something the AAPS came up with..why dont you read a little bit about it and educate yourself
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuro-linguistic_programming
a lot of famous "magicians" use it in their acts..for example, when they go up to someone and say a bunch of nonsense words and phrases in rapid succession and the subject collapses like a switch was flipped..thats NLP
>> ^KnivesOut:
Some of the other lies published by the Association of American Physicians:

• that the Food and Drug Administration and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services are unconstitutional


• that "humanists" have conspired to replace the "creation religion of Jehovah" with evolution


• that human activity has not contributed to climate change, and that global warming will be beneficial and thus not a cause for concern


• that HIV does not cause AIDS


• that the "gay male lifestyle" shortens life expectancy by 20 years.

medicare is unconstitutional, humanists have conspired to replace creation with evolution (i have 100 quotes from secular humanists proving this), this world will end climate change or not, and all sin leads to death

in any case, NLP isnt something the AAPS came up with..why dont you read a little bit about it and educate yourself

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuro-linguistic_programming

a lot of famous "magicians" use it in their acts..for example, when they go up to someone and say a bunch of nonsense words and phrases in rapid succession and the subject collapses like a switch was flipped..thats NLP
>> ^KnivesOut:
Some of the other lies published by the Association of American Physicians:

• that the Food and Drug Administration and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services are unconstitutional



• that "humanists" have conspired to replace the "creation religion of Jehovah" with evolution



• that human activity has not contributed to climate change, and that global warming will be beneficial and thus not a cause for concern



• that HIV does not cause AIDS



• that the "gay male lifestyle" shortens life expectancy by 20 years.

Some of the other *lies published by the Association of American Physicians:

• that the Food and Drug Administration and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services are unconstitutional


• that "humanists" have conspired to replace the "creation religion of Jehovah" with evolution


• that human activity has not contributed to climate change, and that global warming will be beneficial and thus not a cause for concern


• that HIV does not cause AIDS


• that the "gay male lifestyle" shortens life expectancy by 20 years.