>> ^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!

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

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.

Here's some more articles from naturalnews.com covering the potential dangers of vaccines. The articles are sourced. I used Naturalnews because it's a website I personally trust and one that I read on a regular basis.

Re: infants
The hepatitis B vaccine is linked to infant death, multiple sclerosis and autoimmune disorders
New study: Nations requiring the most vaccines tend to have the worst infant mortality rates
More than 2,000 vaccinated babies died: The cost of doing business
Abortion stillbirth events from Gardasil far exceed all other vaccines
Are MMR vaccines dangerous for children? Dr Suzanne Humphries urges parents to get informed
Flu vaccine causing infant seizures; FDA to investigate
Babies given pneumococcal vaccination risk infection with serious drug resistant respiratory disease

Re: fraud
CDC vaccine scientist who downplayed links to autism indicted by DOJ in alleged fraud scheme
Dr. Jonas Salk, inventor of polio vaccine, exposed as criminal-minded scientist who conducted illicit medical experiments on mental patients
Medical 'experts' pushing HPV vaccines told what not to say about them, including their death toll
The FDA is a clearing house for Food and Drug Corruption
Hidden government papers expose lies about measles vaccines for infants
WHO list reveals flu advisors with financial ties to pharma, vaccine manufacturers
Flu Vaccines, pharma fraud, quack science, the CDC and WHO -- all exposed by Richard Gale and Gary Null
WHO scandal exposed: Advisors received kickbacks from H1N1 vaccine manufacturers
Central Figure in CDC Vaccine Safety Studies Investigated for Fraud
Vaccination Quackery Appears in Plain Sight

Re: autism
Sixth study in recent months links mercury in flu shots to brain damage, autism
Multiple studies link autism to mercury, which is still present in most flu vaccines
Government vaccine compensation payouts prove autism link
Latest research links autism to vaccines
Thimerosal-free childhood vaccines still suspect in autism

Re: other
Vaccines lower immunity
Swine flu vaccine linked to 900 percent increased risk of developing narcolepsy
Government Admits Link between H1N1 Vaccine and Deadly Nerve Disease
Japan halts vaccines from Pfizer, Sanofi after deaths of four children
Influenza vaccine sends children into convulsions
Australia bans flu vaccines in children after vomiting, fevers, seizures
Finland suspends H1N1 vaccines after children suffer narcolepsy from vaccinations
Flu vaccine push already underway; first batch causes seizures in children
Pig virus contaminates rotavirus vaccines, but FDA says no problem
India halts HPV vaccine trial after six girls die, US does nothing in response to 67 deaths and counting
Seasonal flu vaccines increase risk of pandemic H1N1 flu, stunned scientists discover

>> ^shinyblurry:

The fallacy is itself a fallacy, as it presupposes there is no objective basis for Chrisianity. There are minimum requirements for being a Christian, first of all, which completely negates it. You can tell if someone is a Christian or not by what they believe. However, just because they meet the requirements doesn't make them Christian..this is why Jesus said you can tell a tree by its fruits, and the fruit of this tree is rotten.
>> ^FlowersInHisHair:
An
d it's very interesting that when a video comes along that makes Christianity look bad, you say it's not real Christianity. "No true Scotsman" logical fallacy much?
>> ^shinyblurry:
it's very interesting that the sift will upvote anything that makes Christianity look bad, even though most of you clearly hated this video. Yet, when something is posted with agrees with Christianity, the sift can't wait to get rid of it. Biased much?



Well, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

I was going to attempt to respond to as many items as I can but I decided to instead try something different.

There are two books that I think you should read and that I think you'd greatly enjoy. One is called "The Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of Cancer" by Siddhartha Mukherjee and that other is called "Bad Science: Quacks, Hacks and Big Pharma Flacks" by Ben Goldacre.

Look into them a bit, read the descriptions. I recommend The Emperor of All Maladies because it is contains an extremely good account of the progress of the medical industry and it uses cancer research as a cornerstone. Though, I think you'll particularly like Bad Science, especially the section where the author goes into a scathing critique of where mainstream medicine has it's problems. It's actually a really funny book too.

Hell, I'll even buy Bad Science for you and have it shipped where ever you want.

Ok, I will say one thing in response to what you've said. I don't like the idea of a humanistic take on this issue because these problems aren't limited to humans. There is a range of mental conditions that humans experience that have been observed in other animals as well. In the case of mental illness, as in most cases, humans aren't special; we just think we are because we have the perspective that we're looking on everything from the outside.

The reason why I tear apart videos like that is because it's based on flawed reasoning, logical fallacies, misrepresentations and misunderstandings of science and scientific facts, and generally irrational modes of thought. The solution that I'm providing is that the video's topic, and the presenter are full of nonsensical ideas and that real evidence based research should be valued to a higher degree than some guy with his untested and/or unsupported hypothesis.

I'm excited that with the last decade of almost total information exchange, we'll be able to sift through the crap a little more. Long before 9/11 conspiracy theories and "new age" philosophies abounded, but I think that the last decade might just be the beginning of a time when we really give credence to the "quacks" out there who just might be onto something, and call out the assholes and the bullshitters for what they really are. Of course, most people are assholes and bullshitters so I know there will never be an end. I just like the idea that it might be, just maybe a little bit harder to lie to everyone.

Why are we putting drug dealers in jail instead of these homeopathy quacks? At least the drugs the dealers sell has an effect!

Duckman, Duckman does whatever a duck can.
He can swim, he can fly, he can sleep with an open eye.
LOOKOUT!! There goes Duckman!!

Is he stealthy? Listen Gordon Gecko,
His ninja quacks don't even echo.
In the spring he migrates far,
In the fall, he shits on your car.

To him, life is just one big pleasure.
Should you notice a man with feathers,
You've found the Duckman!

Congrats you righteous Mallard!

I hope nobody quacked their head on the pavement.

quack quack quack quack

As a student of medicine, I'd just like to point out the blatant trolling @Yogi is performing here. ANYONE, and I mean ANYONE who has studied Immunology, Medical Statistics and Pharmacology wouldn't even make the arguments Yogi has because they would absolutely know better.

You call yourself a "doctor," I say you're an absolute quack.

Yes, it gets sifted not because he is a meat head. Because its a person smashing a bottle clear into their forehead, and then dramatically talking to the audience. What I posted and what you post are two totally different types of video.

I can somewhat understand the phrase " gets sifted " I have said that before when I had gold in my Que and something I felt was stupid got sifted. I have come to understand the politics and all other aspects that the sift is thick with.

From my end, the scenario I laid out was vary apparent, I wont go on debating the issue but thank you for the clarification.

In reply to this comment by xxovercastxx:
My original comment was in jest. People claim that MMA is 'barbaric spectacle' and yet a video of a meathead breaking a glass bottle on his own face gets sifted.

There was no spite in the downvote, I just didn't feel the video offered anything of value.

In reply to this comment by BoneRemake:
who voted against this video
xxovercastxx

Thats just lame. Boo hoo hoo, you watched a wrestling video from over 20 years ago, and equate it to your MMA videos. Your one lame duck. quack your self pity on your own videos.

who voted against this video
xxovercastxx

Thats just lame. Boo hoo hoo, you watched a wrestling video from over 20 years ago, and equate it to your MMA videos. Your one lame duck. quack your self pity on your own videos.

Dude, regardless of how you feel about Ron Paul, in two years from today he will be 76 years old, and 77 years old on Election Day, November of 2012. Ronald Reagan was 77 in his last year of his 8 yrs in office. If Ron Paul won, he would be 81 at the end of just his first term. Ronald Reagan was 83 when he was officially diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease.

Is it wise to elect someone who is that old? I don't think so. It's one of the most stressful jobs on earth. That can't be easy on an old man. And remember, age was one of the many reasons why McCain lost. One could argue that Ron Paul would select a good running mate to carry on his legacy if he died while in office. However, wouldn't it just be better to have the running mate run for president himself?

And his views on vaccination alone should disqualify him for office. I don't want someone like him in charge if a major pandemic broke out.

(And in case anyone is wondering, the editors of Effect Measure are well-respected public health scientists and health practitioners. They don't allow quacks and charlatans to have blogs on ScienceBlogs. You have to fill out an application, and then they'll let you know if you've been accepted or rejected. They've been around for 4.5 years, and they only have 80+ blogs total. It ain't no Blogger.com)