Dr. Stanislav Burzynski's cure for cancer has no negative side effects!

Stagnant...................on a scale of one to ten.............how dangerous would you say brain cancer is?

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/p...essional/page5

 

This looks like a rather nifty article............I don't think you will like it Stagnant!!!!


http://articles.mercola.com/sites/a.../jim-navarro-featured-in-cut-poison-burn.aspx

 

No, I didn't, because he hasn't published (*)(*)(*)(*).

Look, I'm sorry, if you don't understand the problem with "random sample of one"... I can't help you. You need a basic course in medical science, statistics, and the like.

Since you're citing these, lemme ask you something - what does "complete tumor response" mean to you? Also, do you understand the difference between a Phase I and Phase II clinical trial?

I don't like it because you're still citing from Mercola. Which means you're still reading Mercola. Which means that all of my efforts here have gone to waste, because if you don't understand just how terrible a source Mercola is by now, you never will.

 

Yep, and wheat grass juice as well. I can tell you this- I've had a root canal that needs to be redone for a while. I've been putting it off. It started giving off a rotting smell. I've been drinking smoothies and the odor has now disappeared. Hopefully, I can put it off for another year or so. I mean, who in the hell wants to redo a root canal, anyway?

Oh and I got the idea from wheatgrass juice proponents who say it helps with bad breath. I figure if wheat grass juice would do it, so would a lot more juice from other vegetables. It works.

- - - Updated - - -

Sure, but in all fairness, these kinds of exaggerations are pretty commonplace now. It's up to us as consumers to check things out, apply the BS filter and figure out reality.

I know a lot of tanners love hemp oil. I'm sure there's a contingent that do so just because it's hemp, but I doubt that could account for the entirety of its popularity. As you know, hemp is a pretty useful plant.

 

Stagnant.....yes there are massive problems with a random sample of merely one......but there are also some advantages. Here is this person who has been diagnosed with agressive prostate cancer. They are obviously really scared. They are waiting to get ( I assume) a conventional treatment and decide to take a few days to balance their pH levels........what have they go to lose?????!!!

So this person documents the entire pH balancing process.....and guess what.......it just happens to work in his particular case.

The advantage of a random sample of one........where the theory happens to work........is that it was a one hundred percent rate of success for that given random sample?????!!!

 

I haven't researched wheat grass yet.......intriguing because my daughter and I found some growing naturally at the beach where we go a couple of times each week!!!

So you can take the green wheat grass and blast it through a blender??!!

 

No, I'm sorry, there is not a single advantage to a sample size of one over a sample size of two, over a sample size of three, and so on and so forth. The only point at which this is not true is the point where the sample size becomes too cumbersome to analyze, and that's a ridiculously high number. Every advantage present in analyzing one person is equally present in analyzing larger groups of people, while the larger grouping simultaneously accounts for things like statistical sampling errors that will happen in such cases - things like spontaneous remission, unintentional misdiagnosis (actually a common problem at the Burzynski clinic), unaddressed external factors that complicate the diagnosis (also a common problem at the Burzynski clinic), and the like.

You didn't actually list any advantages, by the way - what are they?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_remission

I'm sorry, but a sample size of one does not shut out spontaneous remission. What's more, the way that it's documented means that:
A) We cannot examine the medical records of the person in question
B) We cannot establish that they have the cancer they claim they have
C) We cannot establish what treatments they underwent beyond baking soda and molasses
D) We cannot perform any kinds of follow-up studies to ensure that the cancer actually did go away

We have, basically, nothing.

That's not an advantage!

Look, I'm going to try this one more time. Please... Just pay attention to what I have to say, this is really important, really basic stuff when it comes to analyzing claims not just in medicine, but also in science in general.

Let's say we have a new drug - say, a drug that is supposed to cure Tuberculosis. We test it on 500,000 people. Of the 500,000 who take it, only one gets the desired result. However, there's an approximate one in 100,000 chance of the tuberculosis going away entirely on its own (note: not the actual number, this is just a hypothetical).

Just a moment, before I move on, let's be perfectly clear here - do you understand why under these circumstances, it is clear that the drug does not work? That is, that it does not work for anyone involved - not for the one person who gets the desired result either? The reason why this is clear is because in a study that size, with a 1:100,000 chance of what the drug causes happening naturally, you'd expect about 5 false positives - that is, 5 cases where, had they not taken the drug at all, they'd still be free of the disease. Or, more to the point, around 5 cases where despite the drug not actually doing anything at all, the results seem to show the drug doing something. If the drug did actually work, we would see a significant change in the rate of success - say, 100 people being rid of the disease, rather than just around 5. But as this is not present, we can determine that the drug doesn't actually do anything, and that that one case who was cured was a false positive of the drug working.

Now what if the entire study was just that one guy? You would have a 100% success rate documented from a drug that does not work. He would completely skew the study. There was a 100% success rate for that one sample, but the drug still just doesn't work.

Do you understand this? Do you understand how what you're stating is the reason why a sample size of one is virtually meaningless?

 

When Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski began his testing of antineoplaston treatments, he was only given a relatively low number of patients to work with .....but the percentage of cases that sure seemed to be helped by his treatments would be encouraging to any medical professional who actually wanted to try to find a potential cure for cancer??????!!!!

 

Good explanation of statistics Stagnant..................but isn't there obviously a big difference between 1:500,000 vs 1/1????????????????!!!!!!

 

...That's exactly what I'm trying to explain to you. In a sample size of one, there's no telling whether your patient is one in 500,000 or one in two. There is nothing to determine whether or not it was a false positive. There's no data to compare it to; he could have stepped on a brand new treatment that is completely impossible according to our current medical knowledge, or he could be that one in a hundred thousand patient.

Of course, there's countless other problems - the fact that the person reporting this has no medical background, the lack of extensive data on his treatment and care, the fact that it's basically been proven that baking soda has the same effect on cancer as water or bleach does... And here's the kicker: it's self-reported. By acquiring statistics that way, you open yourself to massive confirmation bias - the people for whom the treatment didn't work are dead, and can't exactly open their mouths to talk about it. So in that Tuberculosis study earlier, you don't just have that one guy showing up in the 500,000, but rather you have that one guy from the study saying, "Hey, look at me, I took this pill and got better!" - he's explicitly drawing attention to himself because it worked for him. Never mind whether it actually worked for anyone else, or if it worked at all - the other people aren't speaking up.

Hell, for all I know, this guy could be a planted shill from "Big Baking Soda", out trying to make his corporate masters a quick buck off some gullible fool.

...Nah, that'd be ridiculous.

And that's a good first step. Unfortunately, the sample size is too small - it makes it far too easy for errors to creep in. That is why we are eagerly awaiting the results of his larger-scale tests - he's had far more patients by now, so the results will say a lot more about how well his therapies work. So... why hasn't he published any of them?

See, here's how this works: if you have a study with a small sample size and promising results, you repeat the study with a larger sample size, and then you keep repeating it, hopefully with increasing sample sizes, with the goal of providing a statistical result which is less prone to errors in analysis, methodology, or simply randomizing factors like spontaneous remission. Burzynski had a promising small-sample-size study, but out of the 60+ larger-scale studies, he hasn't published any of them. Why not? Maybe because they don't have the results he hoped for?

I think it's important to reiterate that what I'm asking for is nothing beyond what virtually every single drug or treatment approved for general consumption by the FDA has had to go through. None of this stuff is "above and beyond". It's really just the baseline of acceptable evidence for medical treatments. I don't know why anyone would expect less of a dug or treatment that is meant to save their life.

 

Humnnnnnnnn........it does seem that your research on these topics may well be ahead of my own..........if this article is correct........maybe boosting the immune system is what is really important!!!!!????

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/040741_a...ygen_therapy_alkaline_cure.html#ixzz2a0IEs9lo

 

Yeah, it is, and I can tell you why - but do you care enough to listen? Would you take my advice with regards to sources and standards of evidence? See, the reason I know more about these topics than you, and why I understand them better, and can provide better information, is twofold.

Firstly, I understand the scientific method and the tools it provides, and know how to analyze a situation accordingly.
Secondly, I understand the basic standards of medical evidence, and know how to analyze my sources accordingly.

You neither understand nor apply either. You don't seem to understand the scientific method (indicated by the fact that you think a sample size of one is a good thing), and you don't seem to understand why a handful of promising, tiny sample size clinical trials are enough to sell everyone on a major drug. I've tried my best to give everyone reading this a crash course in both, but you seem very hesitant to apply anything I offer. You'll latch on to any source you find instantly, regardless of how credible it may or may not be. What standard of evidence did you apply to the "molasses and baking soda" cure? Seriously, what in it made you say, "this seems credible"?

Here's a little acid test. If the standard of evidence you have for an article could be applied to Miracle Mineral Solvent and come out with "yep, that seems well-supported", then your standard of evidence is too low.

Just food for thought.

...Also, thirdly, I don't get my information from retarded quacks like Mercola or insane conspiracy-mongers like NaturalNews. I get it from reliable sources like Quackwatch, Respectful Insolence, and actual peer-reviewed journals. But that sort of directly follows out of 1 and 2.

(For what it's worth: Natural News is, for once, right on the money - kind of shocking, really.)

 

You've spent a lot of time and done an excellent job!

 

At least someone cares. :/

 

I really like Quackwatch's take on the whole alkaline story...

Of course, none of this is new. A basic understanding of how your body works demonstrates that the whole alkali fad is complete bunk. I learned about body pH in 10th-grade chemistry class. I dunno how you guys missed that lesson.

 

"Vitamin b17" (the name itself is a con) also known as laetrile can be toxic. More importantly, it does not work. People have been duped by laetrile since the 1950s.

http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/laetrile.html

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, but it saves hundreds of millions of people a year......

 

Maybe.....and maybe not????!!!!

http://humanbodyworks.com/kangen-water-doctors-scientists-nutritionists

 

(*)(*)(*)(*)ing hell, here we go again.

Look, first off, Colbert is wrong. I don't care about his qualifications, he's going against basically the entirety of research on the subject. Like, just for reference, if you could significantly alter your body's pH, acidosis/alkalosis (diseases caused by your blood pH dropping or rising outside of the narrow range it belongs in) would probably not exist... here's a short list of medical papers discussing the former. It clearly exists. It's like how if Richard Dawkins just suddenly up and declared with no scientific papers published on the subject that humans actually was more closely related to trout than to chimpanzees, I wouldn't care, because unless he can provide evidence, his degree is basically meaningless, and we already have conclusive proof that he is completely wrong.

Of course, Colbert isn't exactly the Richard Dawkins of alternative medicine. He got his degree from Oral Roberts, a since-defunct hardline Christian diploma mill, and went on to publish ]no scientific papers I could find. What he did publish, however, was the incredibly crazy "The New Bible Cure" series of books. And when I say crazy, I mean crazy.

But the fact is that you can throw purported "experts" at me all you want. Their personal opinions do not matter. What matters is, and always has been, the scientific research on the subject. And there is none. Not a single peer-reviewed paper would espouse the insane idea that you can significantly modify your body's pH, because not only are there numerous biological checks throughout your body to ensure that any significant deviation is hastily dealt with, but should such a deviation occur, many vital enzyme reactions that you need for your body to operate (if these stop for a significant period of time, you are going to die) would break down and stop working. This is common medical knowledge. And of course, the sites that talk about testing your body pH ask that you test your saliva, or your urine. The former can be easily modified, the latter is a waste product. Neither gives any insight into the pH levels of any other body part. For example, this study on people suffering from pH imbalance from diabetes showed no correlative link between urine pH and blood pH.

This (*)(*)(*)(*) ain't rocket surgery.

 

A religious degree from phony, Right Wing Christian "school", of course!

And they always have a good supply of entirely undocumented, unstudied, "miracle cure" stories for a reply.

How can people fall for these same con men over and over and over like this?

 

OK..........then what about the claims by Dr. Rayburn Goen.......regarding the nutritional sugars having a truly positive effect on twenty of his own twenty one health problems back when he was eighty five years of age???????!!!!

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Tate4CentralNova/message/3567


......"I was already well versed in that kind of hype! I had previously tried, on myself, enthusiastically at first, the highly touted Glucosamine, Chondroitin Sulfate, Cetyl Myristoleate, MSM, SAM-e, Blue Green Algae, Alfalfa Tea, Olive Leaf Extract, Colloidal Silver: -- each with lots of "ink" but not one helped me in any way. I proposed to try (surreptitiously-"don't tell anybody") Glyconutrients for a list of 21 ailments I could identify in myself, rated in severity from 1-10, attributable mostly to "old age" (I was 85 years old at the time). I was not neurotic-- just trying to be scientific. None of these completely disabled me, except Arthritis of knees, which required aspiration of fluid and instillation of a Cortisone, Depo Medrol, more and more frequently, eventually about every 3 months for one, then the other knee.Then I would again be functional; and I had a Peripheral Neuropathy which impaired my balance and walking, and sleep because of restless legs. Within 4 months, I became symptom-free of 20 of these 21 complaints: the two mentioned, and a right shoulder rotator cuff tear, low back pain, cervical disc with left C-5 radiculopathy, inflammatory osteoarthritis of hands (I could not shake hands without hurting the next 3 days), hypertension (190/105), hypercholesterolemia (320mg) since in my 30's, nocturia 4-6x per night, urinary urgency incontinence, prostate cancer, developing cataract left eye, etc. I was able to discontinue all the 6 prescribed drugs, and all over-the-counter, except 1 aspirin every other day (I had a Coronary in 1990, after which I began this). The drugs had been effective to a degree, but all had side effects that were either disagreeable or intolerable." (Dr. Rayburn Goen, New Nutrition Paradigm)

 

Well, I certainly agree w/you. Oral Roberts was just as bad as Swaggert, Bakers, etc........ I remember when he told his gullible congregation that if he didn't raise 11 or 13 million, 'God is going to take me back home'. The gullible, braindead congregation gave him the millions he asked for..... amazing.

Same thing w/Obama.... how can people fall for his same lying con games from him over and over and over? But the gullible do.......

 

Dr. Rayburn Goen:

(Dr. Rayburn Goen, New Nutrition Paradigm)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Tate4CentralNova/message/3567

 

On the other hand there might just be more wisdom in that book than we would tend to imagine at first.......After all how did Isaiah know about "the circle of the earth" back in 700 BCE?????

Isa 40:22 [It is] he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof [are] as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

Could it be that Isaiah's grandparents had vastly greater technological capability than we imagine at this time??????
http://moshiach.com/tribes/ns/6.html

 

What about the claims of this guy? Seriously, I don't care. You've given me yet another testimonial but neglected to provide actual hard evidence! I didn't find much on this Rayburn Goen dude - in fact, the first result was your yahoo page. When I searched through PubMed, I found exactly one article with his name - a retrospective on his life that I couldn't even find an abstract for. But from what you've given me...

Huh, I wonder why those "alternative medicine" standbys didn't help him in the slightest. Maybe because they don't work! The only thing I can say about this doctor at this point is that he has no idea how to determine what is a legitimate medical treatment and what is bull(*)(*)(*)(*) snake oil. "I had previously tried colloidal silver and blue green algae" should invoke trust in a doctor the same way "I had previously tried trepanning and prayer" does. Yes, he's tried a lot of things, but the fact that he tried certain things is a sign that he has no (*)(*)(*)(*)ing clue what is and isn't a real medical treatment. And then he took Glyconutrients and things got better. So we might have a flimsy correlation, but his testimony completely removes any and all attempts at actual rigor. For all I know, it could just be an improved placebo. The problem is still the lack of evidence.

So once again, we come back to the same issue: I don't care about testimony. I care about evidence. Peer-reviewed scientific papers, clinical trials, and real attempts to analyze whether or not the drug works! It's like, I keep asking you "prove X" and you keep giving me "person Y believes in X". I don't give a damn!

 

Dr Goen qualified as a doctor the year World War Two started. It appears his practice has not kept pace with medicine's evolution. His patent medicines are bunkum.