>> ^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

>> ^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:
Ugh, this reminds me of Wakefield and the whole anti-vax shtick. Well-intentioned quacks are still quacks,Ugh, we get it. Burzynski's a quack. The thousands of people he has cured are quacks. Wakefield's a quack. And the thousands of parents whose children had a adverse reaction to being vaccinated are quacks too. They're all self-deluded and well-intentioned quacks. Why? Because the authorities told you so. Your blatant arrogance is sickening.
>> ^hpqp:
and making such a biased, *conspiracy-theory based "documentary" filled with anecdotal evidence, confirmation bias and the usual quack argument of "Big Pharma's out to get you and your cash" won't make things any better. Sounds like you haven't watched the film. Maybe you should be more specific on what the "conspiracy-theory" the film is based on? And irony at it's best, your "research" is filled with nothing but "anecdotal evidence" and "confirmation bias"... trying to "debunk" with bunk. Nice job. And I need a citation for "Big Pharma's out to get you and your cash". I don't know where that came from. Of course I'm pretty sure by this point that you're just full of shit.
>> ^hpqp:
Burzynski is a bit harder to debunk than others, because there may be a shred of truth in his claims, but up until now there has been no scientific evidence to support his claims.
Gotta love the double-talk going on here.
>> ^hpqp:
As for raking in the cash, Burzynski definitely has that down pat, demanding 30-60K for his treatments (example: at 963 patients in 1996, @30K/pers.=almost 29mio$... heck, almost enough to make a propagandish film to the glory of one's self!).And you do it again. First you got a problem with the argument you allege the film is making "Big Pharma's out to get you and your cash", and then you turn around and make the same argument against Burzynski. Only the film didn't make the "quack argument" and you did. So who's the real quack here?
>> ^hpqp:
The American and Japanese NCIs, as well as a pharmaceutical company (Sigma-Tau) showed interest in his claims, but were unable to duplicate his results, and not a single phase III randomised clinical study has been done with antineoplastons. The only "evidence" that supports Burzynski's claims come from his own publications, which have been criticised for not respecting basic research protocol (e.g. no control groups, omission of mentioning previous treatments, counting patients who did not even have malignant cancer, etc). Moreover, his claims do not seem to hold on a biochemical level. His credentials are shady as well.Maybe you should watch the film instead of copy-pasting false information from fallacious articles of 10+ years ago.
>> ^hpqp:
I'm all for researching new and out-of-the-box treatments,Clearly. That's why you've had such an open mind here.
>> ^hpqp:
but cannot stand when quacks fill their pockets out of the despair of sick and dying people.
But you can stand when the US government criminally suppresses a discovery that could have helped save millions of lives over the last two decades. Bravo!

Ugh, this reminds me of Wakefield and the whole anti-vax shtick.

Well-intentioned quacks are still quacks, and making such a biased, *conspiracy-theory based "documentary" filled with anecdotal evidence, confirmation bias and the usual quack argument of "Big Pharma's out to get you and your cash" won't make things any better. Burzynski is a bit harder to debunk than others, because there may be a shred of truth in his claims, but up until now there has been no scientific evidence to support his claims. As for raking in the cash, Burzynski definitely has that down pat, demanding 30-60K for his treatments (example: at 963 patients in 1996, @30K/pers.=almost 29mio$... heck, almost enough to make a propagandish film to the glory of one's self!). It's easy to say you have great results when you're the only one giving the evidence.

The American and Japanese NCIs, as well as a pharmaceutical company (Sigma-Tau) showed interest in his claims, but were unable to duplicate his results, and not a single phase III randomised clinical study has been done with antineoplastons. The only "evidence" that supports Burzynski's claims come from his own publications, which have been criticised for not respecting basic research protocol (e.g. no control groups, omission of mentioning previous treatments, counting patients who did not even have malignant cancer, etc). Moreover, his claims do not seem to hold on a biochemical level. His credentials are shady as well.

I'm all for researching new and out-of-the-box treatments, but cannot stand when quacks fill their pockets out of the despair of sick and dying people.

links on the research:
The chemical breakdown of his claims:
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/burzynski1.html

Long in-depth report on his claims, history, etc.
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/OTA/ota05.html

Unscientific methods:
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/burzynski2.html

relying on people's vulnerability to sell woo:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/05/harnessing_peoples_good_to_pay_for_woo.php

edit: nice publicity stunt, btw, shutting down the "documentary" shortly after posting it, then sending people to your website.

>> ^packo:

>> ^deathcow:
I think people should blindly trust pharmaceutical companies. All the modern products you see on TV every night are really improving the lives of insurance company executives. For profit health care systems are looking out for you.

and never would the government be in bed with them by creating a scare over an epidemic that can averted by regular washing of hands, just so the government is "forced" to buy a whole bunch of vaccinations... nope, never... i means there's other ways to finance campaigns to stay in office, so you can spend 30-70% of your time meeting with the lobbies who paid your way into power



Excellent points. Please join with me in voting for any republican or democrat in 2012.

>> ^Longswd:

British Doctor Faked Data Linking Vaccines to Autism, and Aimed to Profit From It
I only have one thing to say to people who directly trade the lives of children for profit - Bowels in or bowels out?


Documents emerge proving Dr Andrew Wakefield innocent; BMJ and Brian Deer caught misrepresenting the facts

Dr Wakefield demands retraction from BMJ after documents prove innocence from allegations of vaccine autism data fraud

Interview with Dr Andrew Wakefield about the British Medical Journal, science and vaccines (Part 1)

Interview with Dr Andrew Wakefield - the structure of scientific revolutions (Part 2)

Edit:
Dr Wakefield:
"Will the mainstream media now take this real story, the real facts, and actually do their job as journalists and report the facts? Will they report the truth? I doubt it. Why? Because they're owned. Their salaries are paid, albeit indirectly, in large part by pharmaceutical revenues. And the first thing that will happen when they try and do a story which deconstructs these arguments, the BMJ's arguments, and actually reconstructs them in light of the truth, [is that] there will be a call from their advertisers, saying [no]. So what will the mainstream media do? Will it live up to its job, its duty to the people to report the truth, or will it show complete disinterest? Anderson Cooper has been presented with the same nine questions. What was your story based upon? Show us the facts. Did you do your homework? Now are you going to pay similar attention to these documented historical facts? We shall see."

>> ^deathcow:

I think people should blindly trust pharmaceutical companies. All the modern products you see on TV every night are really improving the lives of insurance company executives. For profit health care systems are looking out for you.


and never would the government be in bed with them by creating a scare over an epidemic that can averted by regular washing of hands, just so the government is "forced" to buy a whole bunch of vaccinations... nope, never... i means there's other ways to finance campaigns to stay in office, so you can spend 30-70% of your time meeting with the lobbies who paid your way into power

@deathcow: There's many things that can be said about the pharmaceutical industry, but this video is not about that. The subject at hand is that children are suffering easy-to-prevent diseases, and sometimes dying horrible deaths because of misinformation spread by people who got their information from Google University. Do you have a comment about that?

It's entirely possible to utilize the extent of medical knowledge the human race has accumulated over the last 100 years without "blindly trusting pharmaceutical companies".

I think people should blindly trust pharmaceutical companies. All the modern products you see on TV every night are really improving the lives of insurance company executives. For profit health care systems are looking out for you.

>> ^BicycleRepairMan:

The same could be said, as Harris puts it, the best advice to a country with high infant and mother mortality, is not to burn down schools designed to teach small girls to read.

This is clearly not "just" a real world descision anymore than our basic concepts of health at an individual level


If the goal is to engineer happiness for people, then you may spend time and effort on R&D in pharmaceuticals, biochemistry, neurology (Harris' background), etc. If the goal is to achieve happiness by changing the world around us, then you may spend time finding ways to improve education in poorer countries.

There's a stark difference in which one of these you invest in; whether you find one is more achievable than the other or not.

Granted, a "perfect happiness pill" may not ever be achievable; but we already know there is some degree of success with existing medication for a range of disorders such as anxiety and depression.

In health we look at the effects of medication (anti depressant helps this; anti-biotic helps that); but we also look at the effects of behaviour (eating too much does this, not exercising enough does that). The practice of one does not exclude the other; and I can concede that you could apply the same to morality.

I'm just not confident that there is as good of a correlation between moral decisions and happiness as there is between practice and health. Therefore you can't use happiness to measure the success of moral decisions in the same way that you can use health to measure the success of medical practices.

Out of respect for bareboards2 and to indulge my surly, trollish, nature......

This site behaves like a mob-centered clique of tittering children most of the time. The same children who fancy themselves intelligent, erudite, progressive, etc. etc., blah blah blah....The majority and most vocal of those wielding power??-a gaggle of cheap-seat posers here sister, they can't help it-They were raised by the developmentally disabled on video games, too much Satanic television programming, and are victims of a socio-genetic program of disinformation, propaganda, and chemical brain alterations through municipal water, food additives. and pharmaceuticals. In short, those touting the most far-left liberal ideologies are the most full of absolute horse shit-their compasses having been damaged in a powerful magnetic storm of their own bullshit.

Sneaking in back doors through proxy servers with a handful of sock-puppets and an infamous former moniker, one man has forever stained the consciousness of the most stricken of these nit-wit fucks.....

False accusations fueled by passive-aggressive dicklessness was the "final straw" when some brown-nosing Assburger goaded-on another mental midget into a panty-knot whose skin happened to have more melanin than the person who addressed him as "monkey" AND "knuckle-dragger (as in, WE ALL CAME DOWN FROM TREES BUT SOME PEOPLE ARE A BIT THICKER AND SLOWER THAN OTHERS....HELLO!!?? YOU DUMB-ASSES!!) resulting in a fucking lynch-mob of inequity resulting in a permanent banjo.
Yeah, all you fuck-sticks who jumped on the bandwagon....The guy was black and falsely accused a white man of racism because he was a reactionary and ignorant of the engloish language, and IT SUITED HIS DYSFUNCTION TO DESTROY ANOTHER'S WORK...he never discussed SHIT with me....fucking asshole of a black man if ya ask me.....he's AWOL as well....thanks a lot ya fucking pussy, burdturgler.\

Suck my asshole white.

Fuck you all, trolls never die, especially those whose talent, creativity, and passion trump that of the no-life-hafvin' psychic vampires whose energy comes from sucking it from others more alive than themselves..... the Brits call 'em cunts, so I'm told.

I was going to wait until 10 published viddies until I came out to shove shit up the asses of those in need of a reverse colonic but when I see yet another female having to put up with sophomoric cocksuckers who couldn't get a date with male or female without paying and whose dicks are so misshapen from pulling their package they resemble some reptile in mid-peristalsis....

gwiz, yer a fucking cunt-wanking in your dormroom, playing shitty, soul-less guitar-You don't know it yet but you truly hate women....come out of the closet you do not know you are in, and find a nice hairy man.
BF, you haven't changed, as un-clever as ever. Get a fucking life. Take a bath you greasy little mole and Fuck your dead cat.
KP disappeared but he'll probably rear his cunt-head for another ban.
NetRuiner?? You cried and cried until your wife drew sympathy from her "hiatus" until the source of your pain was forever banished....boo fucking hoo...Notice how your fucking politics are getting shoved directly up your unconscious asses lately?? Fuck the both of you dick-less wonders. Met your type before...they grind the brain-shaped putties out of so-called institutions of higher learning with PhD's and masters degrees daily....most, retarded with no practical survival skills, spouting some party lines instead of snorting them. Try groupsex, perhaps your marriage will last.

DAG, fuck man, your site blows chunks anymore.....what ever happened to that guy choggie??
Oh. Yeah. You fucked him. Nah, it's worse. You sat back and let the rabble high-jack your site....Fuck You.


Hang in there bareboards2, or better yet, go out with a bang....leave your mark and show these children some serious girl-power....


Back as fast as you can say "Bhagwan kare tu aadhi raat gaadi chalate hue uski petrol khatm ho jaaye aur teri jeb mein phooti kaudi na ho."

hard drugs really arent "actively prohibited" in the netherlands as you keep suggesting. My brother recently spent a month there and based on his experiences, i'll remain entirely skeptical of your insistence of "actively prohibited". Additionally, i recently watched a documentary called The American Drug War and one of the segments was on amsterdam where they filmed this complete junkie smoking crack...........about 20 feet from a cop. Again, i'll remain skeptical.

you really should read up on prohibition in the states because alcohol certainly was criminalized. it wasnt just the sale and distribution that was outlawed, you so much as had a beer in your hand, here comes the law.

now the alcohol trafficking i was talking about was just any old joe, which i thought wouldve been obvious given the nature of the converstaion. Of course you can manufacture, distribute, and sell alcohol......if you have the proper licenses, convenient how you left that out. If i were to brew my own beer (and get caught) and/or distribute it or sell it, then i can be fined or worse because i do not have a liquor license or a license to manufacture or distribute. I had hoped that this was understood but guess i'll put in play doh terms so as to not confuse you.

as far as a heroin model is concerned, i dunno because im not a doctor. But i'd say a start is an age limit, say 21, purchasable through pharmaceuticals, probably require a prescription (what would warrant a prescription i dunno cuz im not a doctor), maybe have a background check as part of the prescription (ie no sale to violent offenders, same as guns, something like that) and have the same laws attached to it that everything else does. by which i mean buying alcohol for minors, public intox, etc

so, i have 4 jobs and 2 kids and grad school. i have been a recreational smoker for years, just smoking maybe once every few months when i had a babysitter and was hanging out with my friends... but now i use it to treat the stress and anxiety that goes along with trying to do 9 things at once all the fucking time. i was a huge ball of irritable stress, a few weeks ago when i was getting pissed because my curtains weren't laying right and i couldn't stop my brain from running through the list of things i had to do all night, i decided it was time to do something about all this stress. i now smoke pot daily, taking a few hits off a joint i keep hidden in my car in between clients. at 29 i know how to regulate myself, i know how many hits i need to take to just calm down and get focused vs. how many hits i have to take to get stoned. i never get stoned, i just chill the fuck out and am able to focus. i'm not lazy, my kids are not in danger, my work is not impaired, my clients dont even know i just smoked a joint when i show up.

the alternative was going to do the doctor and getting prescription anxiety medication. which i'm waaay more likely to abuse and either has horrible side effects or leaves me impaired for most of the day. and costs me a ton of money, as i'm uninsured.

i don't think the continued prohibition of pot has its roots in racism anymore as much as it is about maintaining profits for the pharmaceutical industry. i suspect amex is in bed with some pharmaceutical giants somehow, im not going to do the research to prove it, because i have to go to work now, but i'm going to speculate thats whats up.

also, the people who live on my couch right now have started a guerilla grow movement around my small, right wing, texas town. and i for one, think its wonderful.

For RedSky:-"If this was purely a GOP deal, then to revert on it this far into a Democratic presidency seems entirely arbitrary."

Your statement infers that there is some fundamental difference in either party (a wholly critical and objective look at their workings reveals a common bond and lineage merging at the inception of The U.S.) All I have seen from studying the past 100 years of world affairs and living in almost half of those is one war after another as empires are shaped, with the arms to affect these being produced by the same families or now, corporations. This is a form of genocide if you will or perhaps eugenics would be better terminology to use to describe it.

for YOGI:-I'd venture to guess that if you were to suddenly know those who were working behind the scenes to affect sudden and sweeping population control measures or who have been slowly eliminating the mental capacities and health of billions of people through chemical and pharmaceutical manipulation, you just might need to purchase some explosives to carry out the task of killing, quite a few Wealthy Deranged People. (WDP's)

We are all being duped.
Try to wrap your heads around the idea that what you think you know, is all wrong.

Here's the good news-Everything is unfolding as it is and the universe has a long time to go before it collapses in on itself or falls into some black hole or whatever it's supposed to do. Smoke a bowl.

"Ding dong, Bin Laudanums' dead, ding dong, the fascist bitch is deeeeeeead!
Bring a piton for his head, ding dong, the Muslim witch is deeeeeeeeead!"

It happened on Obama's watch, "OOOOOOOOOhhh! Now those who will have to vote for the guy who killed Osamas' numbers will grow! NEWSFLASH!!!! SOME of them will be so-called republicans, other so-called democrats. ALLLLLL OF THEM WILL BE BEING SOLD A BILL OF GOODS to ensure a relatively tidy corporate takeover of the whole damn globe.

Keep watching your televisions- sorry, telescreens.