>> ^heropsycho:

So much for civil discourse.
>> ^marbles:
>> ^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



??? care to point out where I was uncivil in my reply towards you? What a pathetic cop-out.

So much for civil discourse.

>> ^marbles:

>> ^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

>> ^hpqp:

oh @marbles darling, did I touch a nerve?
I already told you, I am a program run by the New World Order to scour the Sift for renegade truth-bearers such as yourself. Don't you think you should stop trying to attract your worst enemy's attention? Tin foil hats cannot stop predator drones you know.
>> ^marbles:
hpqp's arrogance (or more like the abundance thereof) up 'till now suggests that he 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





Oh, I get it. So you mimic government propaganda then. Maybe that explains why you're using Obama's tasteless predator drone joke.

Alex Pareene: "Hah! It's funny because predator drone strikes in Pakistan have killed literally hundreds of completely innocent civilians"

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

>> ^marinara:

http://www.khudipakistan.com/faq/
spreading democracy and western culture into pakistan.
this guy runs a crappy little political organization that purports to save globalism from islamists. Why the hell would you want to save globalism?

At Khudi, we tend to prefer the latter. That’s why we organize conferences and workshops around the country, inviting people from disparate backgrounds to foster a culture of healthy discussion and debate
....
Khudi also runs an inter-university campus magazine, distributed at universities across Pakistan, providing students with a chance to air their views without fear of reprisal.

what an idiot. I read this http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2459969.ece
about Maajid's polarizing youth, but apparently his big solution are free magazines and communications workshops.
this is an english man mucking about at politics in pakistan.
he'd do better to spend his time to learn arabic than to convince some rich pakistanis that they should love the west


Right, this 'idiot' clearly doesn't understand the situation as well as yourself.

This British Pakistani born man who spent years working with a major Islamic extremist organization obviously knows nothing about Islamic extremism in Pakistan.

You later deny this, but your snide(but poorly researched) remark about learning Arabic is CLEARLY because you didn't even know Pakistan's national language.

You haven't cared enough to study a thing about Pakistan, but while you snipe away here in ignorance, this man is honestly putting his own life at risk every day for his cause. Go find an online Pakistani paper and follow it's stories. You'll find moderate leaders and activists are regularly murdered. More over, not only are they murdered, but the nations lawyers refuse to prosecute the murderers and instead stand in solidarity with the murders 'bold' stand against blasphemy.

This guy even mentions the grossest such example in his talk, former Primer Minister Benazir Bhutto's assassination, but you again seem too ignorant of anything in Pakistan to grasp the significance.

Stop flooding the thread with unhelpful complaining and find something to support the horrific struggle faced by moderate Pakistani's against the extremists that are killing them every day.

She worked actively against the reunification of Germany: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6829735.ece

During the first international meeting after the wall fell, instead of congratulationg the east-german delegation, she tried to sell them british cars.

I don't know anything about this person other than what is in the video, but your critique doesn't seem to address anything he says. Ad hominem?

Personally I find what he says about democracy being presented as only one political choice quite interesting, especially when one looks at the two-party system in the US, which is veering dangerously towards "theocracy" vs. "democracy".

edit: the language of Pakistan is Urdu, not Arabic.

(p.s.: the second link you provide doesn't work)

>> ^marinara:

http://www.khudipakistan.com/faq/
spreading democracy and western culture into pakistan.
this guy runs a crappy little political organization that purports to save globalism from islamists. Why the hell would you want to save globalism?

At Khudi, we tend to prefer the latter. That’s why we organize conferences and workshops around the country, inviting people from disparate backgrounds to foster a culture of healthy discussion and debate
....
Khudi also runs an inter-university campus magazine, distributed at universities across Pakistan, providing students with a chance to air their views without fear of reprisal.

what an idiot. I read this http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2459969.ece
about Maajid's polarizing youth, but apparently his big solution are free magazines and communications workshops.
this is an english man mucking about at politics in pakistan.
he'd do better to spend his time to learn arabic than to convince some rich pakistanis that they should love the west

http://www.khudipakistan.com/faq/

spreading democracy and western culture into pakistan.

this guy runs a crappy little political organization that purports to save globalism from islamists. Why the hell would you want to save globalism?

At Khudi, we tend to prefer the latter. That’s why we organize conferences and workshops around the country, inviting people from disparate backgrounds to foster a culture of healthy discussion and debate
....
Khudi also runs an inter-university campus magazine, distributed at universities across Pakistan, providing students with a chance to air their views without fear of reprisal.

what an idiot. I read this http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2459969.ece
about Maajid's polarizing youth, but apparently his big solution are free magazines and communications workshops.

this is an english man mucking about at politics in pakistan.

he'd do better to spend his time to learn arabic than to convince some rich pakistanis that they should love the west

@NetRunner

To boil it all down,

Facts:
Serco provides education, military, transportation, and prison infrastructure, among other things. 85% of their employees come from the public sector, and the majority of their revenue comes from taxed income.

Your position:
1. You want the government to provide (fund) the same services Serco does, so no problem (with Serco) here.
2. You also do not mind that the source of funding is taxed income, as opposed to voluntary consumerism.
3. The only thing you seem to care about is that they are a "private" company instead of a "public" company. As far as I can tell, they are only private in name. If it looks like a duck (performs "government" functions), walks like a duck (is staffed by government employees), and sounds like a duck (is funded by the government)..it's a freaking duck. The change you are proposing is merely semantics.

With the amount of business ties and lobbying they probably do, I seriously doubt putting them under Obama is going to make a lick of difference. BP, Shell, and Exxon already seem to have control over our military and I doubt Serco is any different. I'm guessing they are the same guys who bribe federal judges to send innocent kids to jail to fill their prisons.

On the contrary, my position is that:
1. Multinational corporations like Serco are almost always evil, and should probably not exist.
2. Forcing people to fund multi-billion dollar corporations is not the right way to build a better world.
3. People should be able to vote with their dollar, and keep their money in their own communities.

You are arguing against privatization, but Serco is not really a private company. Private companies are not funded by tax revenue. The Mom and Pop diner in your neighborhood, that is a private company. This is just one more way in which people get divided into two camps and waste their time arguing about things which are in reality the same position. Private vs. Public is irrelevant, it makes no difference in this situation as far as I can tell.

The real question here is what is the proper role of government, aka, what should the government be funding with taxpayer money.