Cure a chronic illness, you have a customer only once. Treat a chronic illness, you have a customer for life. Yes?
Cold Fusion. It was denounced and ridiculed by the scientific community as pathological science with no real data to back it up. The two scientists were denied patents and were basically laughed out of the scientific community.
Fast forward 20 years
and it is discovered that data used to discredit this discovery had been falsified. Experiments were being conducted all around the world although they were calling it 'low energy nuclear reactions' rather than 'cold fusion'.
Fleischmann and Pons
were vindicated, however they lost legal control of their discovery to the powers that be.
This is why I'm skeptical of any big organization that has billions to lose by doing the one thing they were sanctioned to do.
Scientists looking for cancer PREVENTION (not cure, not treatment: PREVENTION) in odd places: www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=simple-molecule-surrounding-cells-in-mole-rates-prevents-them-from-getting-cancer
They've known for a long time that naked mole rats don't get cancer. Nobody knew why, but more than a few scientists have been looking at this phenomenon... because they want to HELP. Now they think they know why the mole rats don't get cancer.
I think there is more potential profit in a long term treatment than there might be in a cure. I doubt anyone would suppress a cure in the interest of profit, but I could see the focus of research funding being on the more profitable avenue.
jewelster - Would you like to ask this question of more people? I'd be happy to re-post it to my followers, in your name. That usually gets a person a few more followers, too. I'll stay out of the discussion after I introduce you. Let me know.
Sure, by all means, go right ahead.
Done. I'm assuming you'll be taking part in the discussion, but if not, it will help people follow you if you drop by & leave a comment so they can just tap on your name.
Lost my wife to cancer, the doctor cured her cancer with the worst chemo there is, a month later they found it on her liver, 6 months later she was gone.. All because the were looking at her X-ray and the spot they found was actually two, one behind
The other.. So I guess it's my wife's fault for not being cured, the doctor couldn't have taken a side view... Yep they treated he alright..
There would not be a WHO
Some comments insinuate that a conspiracy exists, that people choose chronic treatment over cures. This is nonsense.
We try and find the best way to treat the condition. It's just that it is so complicated and we are relatively new to this game.
These are the requirements for any and all sanctioned medical treatments. You either properly demonstrate both or you do not receive approval. Period. People do not get to make up their own rules because they feel like it.
The only reason why any treatment is considered "alternative" is because it has not demonstrated safety and efficacy in properly designed studies.
I'm a pretty skeptical guy in general, but I can't believe that there is a widespread effort to keep people sick where there really cures available. Way too many people would have to be evil, and in a coordinated way.
We have a doctor here who the FDA has attempted to indict 6 times, unsuccessfully, for his antineoplastic treatment of cancer, saying his methods are unconventional and "not proven" as treatment... even though he has supporters who've been cured.
That have testified before congress on his behalf.
Just another sumthin, sumthin to make you go... hmmmmmm?
Yeah I do agree that the FDA uses gestapo-like tactics to control drugs and approved treatments. The costs of new drug approval is ludicrous. I don't think it's profit motivated though - just an example of a bloated, inefficient bureaucracy.
That man has never shown through any scientific study that he actually cures anything. Yes, I know there are testimonials. That is not scientific evidence. People also die under his "care."
They were diagnosed as "terminal", the cancer was eradicated under his treatment, and they testified through congress on his behalf.
The FDA confiscated his treatment, patented it so it couldn't be touched or used.
That's because he has never conducted a legitimate scientific study. You can't just let anybody use any treatment they want on people (charging them massive amounts of money, too) without an unbiased study. Some people termed "terminal" do get...
..better, without treatment.
If the man would just follow standard protocol he would have the opportunity to demonstrate that his treatment works. But he hasn't, over several decades. Testimonials are simply not sufficient. Where did you see that the FDA patented his treatments?
From what I know, he's highly renown for his work, and for some "crazy" reason has acronyms behind his name to confirm his credibility.
Here's a document from the American Cancer Institute about his treatment, in which it appears that the man has held the patents for the treatment since 1985 (not just a statement, but references to the patent records- #6 & #25).
It's the unsanctioned work that proved a cure. When the FDA stole his neoplastin research, they also placed a limit on what he was allowed to do. Created a road block.
There are videos of his patients testimonies before a congressional hearing.
If the medical community has deemed you terminal, what do THEY care which treatments YOU choose?
Susan - is there any number of people that would need to be cured through a non-FDA approved, unconventional treatment before you would consider it legitimate?
Ahhhhh, a docu from the... Cancer Institute.
Sorry, forgot the URL: www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/antineoplastons/healthprofessional/page2
Looking at another list of his patents, he's also patented antineoplastons for AIDS, Parkinson's, neurofibromatosis & "viral infections.
What, the whole National Cancer Institute is in on the conspiracy, too? If you look at the document instead of just dismissing it, you'll see that it is a very detailed accounting of the treatment, not just a smear paper.
Of course they placed a limit on what he is allowed to do. He's had 30-some years to conduct a proper clinical trial & publish a peer-reviewed study showing that his treatment works. He has not done that. The FDA is not subjecting him to ANY...
special treatment or a witch hunt - they're just applying the principles of good medicine that are applied to ANYONE treating patients in the US.
Except, it appears, for those with an actual cure...
Tony, it's not a specific number; it's how a study is conducted. The man has simply not done a decent study in 30 years.
What about those he's cured? Dont they account for anything here??
He has TONS of supporters.
We have one of the largest cancer research centers, and it grows exponentially each year.
Still no cure, despite the trillions they receive through funding/donations...
As it stands, our research center is now 4 city blocks large.
And the best they can do is, burn you, cut you... pretty outdated methods in this day and age.
Susan, as I stated, I don't believe there is a conspiracy. However, I do believe that there is too much scientific community dismissal, borderline bullying, of non-conformists. The greatest minds in the history of science have been non-conformists.
They are not completely dismissed, unless they conduct their business by unethical & unscientific standards (google "hulda regehr clark" for a good example).
The NIH has included an institute or the study of alternative medicine since 1991...
It's the "unscientific" label that can lead to a mob mentality and bullying of people who take an alternative approach. It's not just in science - it's anywhere where those who make the rules use their authority to discredit those who don't comply
It doesn't have a big budget, but it does exist. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Center_for_Complementary_and_Alternative_Medicine
Far-out treatments aren't necessarily dismissed out of hand by conventional medicine...
...& Burzynski has been encouraged to conduct legitimate trials.
During my graduate & postdoctoral work, I was very interested in alternative medicine & cancer-preventive methods in particular. There was a LOT of research looking at simple...
..dietary measures to reduce incidence of cancer in the first place. There were a number of well funded human studies plus a ton of animal research - my own research was 2 years into a nutritional cancer study when it was derailed, but it was...
..funded by government grants.
These are studies that, if they prove dietary methods are effective, would result in fewer people with cancer in the first place - not patients to be milked for money or treatments.
There was a LOT of support for this kind of work in my professional society (the Environmental Mutagen Society), which includes scientists from academia, government & industry.
Burzynski's methods have proven successful.
Real live living breathing, cancer free testaments.
Why all the shade towards a colleague with the same goals to eradicate cancer?
I don't get it...
As you said Jewel, billions and billions of dollars for cancer research. Just imagine all that money channeled to one man? Or not needed at all because a cure is found? That is motivation enough for an organization to discredit, dismiss and demonize
anyone even coming close to finding a cure.
I agree. I believe there are probably cures for a small portion of the great many chronic illnesses which plague the human population. The healthcare industry is the largest employer, and one of the most stable, profitable industries in the US.
As a researcher in one of those fields, I can't begin to tell you how hard people are working to find treatments & cures, how much they would give to find them, how little they are motivated by profit (many are in academic fields, not just...
..commercial), and how frustrating and demoralizing it is to have people believe things like this about them.
I should say I am a *former* researcher. I'm retired, so I have no financial stake on this.
I am speaking nothing of the individuals, but of the corporations and other entities which they work under. If you have a contract which prevents you from speaking of your work, which is most likely the case, you're probably not going to be very
motivated to pursue getting much attention. Although I'd like to believe that no one would do such things, I do believe that it's at least POSSIBLE for there to be some types of cures, or at least alleviation a of symptoms - that aren't currently
in use. Am I saying there's a conspiracy to keep it off of the market? No. But I do believe that there is potential for the industry to cover up new developments.
Workers don't really make a profit, for themselves.
The left hand rarely knows what the right hand is doing.
MrL, I am not speaking of researchers in corporations, but academic researchers. Different world in some ways.
I agree. It is quite different. That being said, though, I still believe the issue could be presented. Who knows? Certainly not I.
Well, RJ works in industry. My experience is government (during grad school) & academia (at a medical school). I certainly can't speak for everyone, especially industry, but I know what the atmosphere was like.